IHIGH I IHIGH I
4. PRESENTATION OF DATA
4.1 Introduction
Quantitative and qualitative data collection tools have been utilised. An employee questionnaire was administered to all permanent employees via the Engen Refinery's e- mail system. The company's intranet was used as the medium through which responses were recorded and collated. Qualitative techniques included interviews with
psychologists, a psychometrist and randomly selected employees. A focus group discussion was also held with a randomly selected cross-sectional group of employees.
Quantitative data will be presented in the form of tables and graphs. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), a software programme used for the collation and analysis of data, has been used to organise quantitative data in the form of employee responses to the questionnaire. In addition, SPSS outputs were further collated using an Excel spreadsheet, to develop more detailed relationships between variables.
Qualitative data includes the material obtained from interviews with experts in the field of psychology as well as employees, and a focus group discussion amongst employees.
Full transcripts of the interviews and focus group discussion are presented in Appendix A. In this chapter, qualitative data will be collated according to emerging themes.
General comments made by employees as part of the employee questionnaire will also be presented as qualitative data.
4.2 Quantitative Data
Quantitative data includes the responses to the employee questionnaire. The
questionnaire was administered via the e-mail and intranet system used by employees at Engen Refinery. The number of employees to whom the questionnaire was sent was 508. The number ofrespondents was 225, of which 200 were male and 25 female.
Hence, the sample size was 44.3% of the population size, and consisted of 88.9% males and 11.1 % females. The age distribution of employees has been summarised in Table 2.
Age Frequency Percentage
20-25 5 2.2
26-30 19 8.4
31-35 40 17.8
36-40 28 12.4
41-45 45 20.0
46-50 37 16.4
51-55 32 14.2
Over 55 19 8.4
Total 225 100.0
Table 2 Age Distribution of Respondents
The positions held by respondents have been collated in Table 3.
Position in Organisation Frequency Percent
Non response 6 2.7
Accounting 4 1.8
Admin/Clerical 11 4.9
Engineer 23 10.2
Middle Management 50 22.2
Operations 41 18.2
OperatorlTechnician 58 25.8
Optimisation/Process Control 12 5.3
Planning 19 8.4
Senior Management 1 0.4
Total 225 100.0
Table 3 Respondents' Position in the Organisation
Quantitative data may be broadly categorised as data related to Engen Refinery's tactics
employees and their direct supervisor. Overall results have been presented in each of these categories. In addition, some of the responses to the questionnaire have been grouped according to gender and age to determine if there are any trends related to these factors.
It should be noted that, were mean values have been used in the categories of tactics
and work performance, the lower the value, the more positive is the response. This is due to the use of the Lickert scale were the number one represents the most positive response and the number five represents the most negative response.
In Section A of the questionnaire, employees were asked to indicate their agreement with statements related to the successful implementation of tactics, trust, management commitment and the link between strategy and their work, as follows:
• Engen Refinery serves customers well
• Working at Engen is desirable and fun
• The 9-day fortnight makes life more balanced (Work hours balance)
• Engen is a good neighbour to the community
• STOP for Safety is helping us improve our standards
• There is an environment of trust and honesty amongst our team
• The GREAT DAYS initiative is working for us
• I take Engen's policy of Shared Values seriously in my daily work
• Reliability-centred production helps us improve operational performance
• I understand and apply the Service Level Agreements that apply to me
• Engen "lives" the Five Quality Principles as far as possible
• I understand how my work contributes to Engen's overall goals & strategy
• Managers visibly demonstrate their commitment to tactics
• I trust my supervisor to look after my best interests
• Engen Refinery can be trusted to keep its promises and commitments
Figure 5 shows the mean values of responses related to these tactics, indicators of trust, visibility of management commitment, and a parameter related to the link between company tactics and the respondent's own work. This gives an overall view of how
respondents view these elements. The closer the mean value is to 1, the more the respondents strongly agree with the statements in the questionnaire regarding the identification and successful execution of tactics, the level of trust in the organisation, the visibility of management commitment to tactics and the understanding of how their work is related to strategy. The higher the mean value, the less respondents agree with these statements.
3.00
2.50
2.00 -
1.50 -
1.00 ~
0.50 r----
0.00
Comparison of Tactic Identification & Commitment Relative to Employee Trust, Management Commitment and the Link betv.<een Strategy and Own Work
Based on Mean Values
b
1).5
- I - -
~
- I - - r- - - I-- - - I--
I-- t-- I-- I- - I-- I-- - I-- l -
r- - l - I- - I-- I-- ~ I-- t--
Figure 5 Summary of Mean Values Related to Tactics
t--
-
o
Tactic Identification• Employee Trust
o
Management Commitment• Link betv.<een Strategy and Work Note:
1 = Strongly agree (+ve) 5 = Strongly disagree (-ve)
In Figure 6 and Table 4, greater detail of responses to these statements is shown. The various degrees on the Lickert scale from "Strongly agree" to "Strongly disagree" are shown for each parameter. Hence, the distribution of responses across the Lickert scale can be seen in order to get a better understanding of how most employees feel regarding the tactics, management commitment, trust, and the link between strategy and their jobs.
Summary of Responses Related to Tactics
~
I ~-
~ iIi • ~ I
~~
/' 100%
80%
60%
Response (% )
40% V r-
20% V
J J
IA
. 1 • . .. .. ..
P-" " .
,..1 .
III -" 00%
Figure 6 Summary of Responses Related to Tactics (Percentages)
[Jstrongly disagree
• Disagree [JNeu1ra1 [JAgree
• strongly agree DOmitted
Omitted Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Total
agree disagree
Percent Basis
Tactic Serve Customers Well OA 26.1 43.1 26.7 3.1 0.0 100i
Tactic Work is desirable and fun 0.( 14.2 37.~ 29.3 15.€ 3.€ 100i
Tactic Work hours balance 46. 18.2 20.0 7.€ 7.6 100i
Tactic Good Neighbour O.~ 2U 52.C 21.3 3.€ 0.9 100.(
Tactic STOP for Safety OA 44 . .1 39.1 11.1 3.1 1.8 100.(
Environment of Trust and Honesty OA 9.~ 34.2 29.3 19.1 7.1 100i
Tactic Great Days 26.2 46.7 18.2 7J. 1.3 100.(
Tactic Shared Values 1.~ 36.C 40..4 17.3 3.1 1.8 100i
Tactic Reliability Centred Production 36.9 43.1 15.1 3.E 1.3 100.0 Tactic Service Level Agreements O.li 28.9 52.0 15.6 1.8 0.9 100.0
Tactic Rve Quality Principles 1. 12.0 41.8 27.6 13.8 3.6 100.0
Understand how work contributes to p 45.8 44.0 4.9 4.0 100.0
strategy
Managers visibily show commitment to
0.9 16.4 36.9 26.7 16.9 2.2 100.0
strategy
Trust supervisor to look after best
0.4 18.2 32.C 25.8 16.4 7.1 1OO.C
interests
Engen Refinery trusted to keep
0.4 16.4 37.3 33.3 8.9 3.6 100.0
promises
Table 4 Summary of Responses Related to Tactics (Percentages)
The data related to the tactics category was further disseminated according to age and gender. In this case, each parameter was taken in turn, and shown in Figures 7 to 21. For clarity, the results of this cross-tabulation have also been shown in Tables 5 to 9.
54
Missing values have been shown as a non-response. In order to easily compare the differences between responses from males and females, graphs for each of these categories, related to a particular parameter, have been placed alongside each other
20
• 18 : 16 1 14 : 12 0< 10 li 8
1: 6
E 4
:i 2
o
Age Dlstrtbution of Responsesfrom Males for Tactic
"Serve Customers Well"
--" . -- -
,)<....\ \
/ .---
1/ '\. / ~
.A. ....'l.L~ ~
~
. /
--
!!!" ...-. -=:::"
2G-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-00 51-55 ();er
Age 55
~ Non-response - -SIror9Y
"'lee -><-- -lOf-ilsa'lee - . .Slrongly
disa'lee
5 4
! .-li 3 a.
: 3
; 2 :0 2 .a E 1
• ~ 1
Age Distribution of Responses from Femalesfor Tactic
"Serve Customers Well"
/\ /\ - -
I \ .L.J.
I _\ J \ £--..
i \~
' '1.
/\ ~Xf- /
1/ "J V V \
21).25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 4&-50 51-55 0\Ier
-+-No!Hesponse _ _ Slrongly lI'Iee
"gree
Figure 7 (a) and (b): Age Distribution of Responses for Tactic "Serve Customers Well"
from (a) Males and (b) Females
Age Distribution of Responees from Malesfor Tactic 'Work is desirable and fun"
18r - - - -____________________ - ,
: 16+ - - - - -- -- - . - - - -____________ ~
! 14t---~---_1
~ 12+---__________ ~~~---
:. 10+-- --
li 8+---~~~~~~--~~--~
1:6E 4+--~~~~~
:i 2+-~~~~~~--~~~~~~_1
O~~~~~~._~~_+_r~~~
2G-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-00 51-55 ();er
Age 55
- . -Non-response - -SIror9Y
"'lee -><-- -lOf-1lsa'lee
- + -SIror9Y disa' l "
7 :: 6
II 5
0
:"
II:
li 3 : 2
~ 1 E
Age Dlstrtbutlon of Responeesfrom Femalesfor Tactic 'Work Is desirable and fun"
1\ -...-NorH-esponse
I \ _ _ Slrongly agr ••
I \ "'lee
I \
- -
-><-NouIniI
!
" /~ - -Dsagree
V~ Y.~~ X - -SIror9Y
20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 4&-50 51-65 0\Ier disa'lOO
Figure 8 (a) and (b): Age Distribution of Responses for Tactic ''Work is Desirable and Fun"
from (a) Males and (b) Females
Age Distribution of Responees from Malesfor Tactic 'Work hours balance"
20
• 18 : 16
~ 14 : 12
0< 10 li 8
j 6
~ ~
o
L :-..
~ ... / "-~
.L / \ .:::::::,
,"
/ \--
I I "- ~
/"- ~ -~
, . / / .L2--. ~
=--r-
-
-,2G-2526-30 31-35 ~ 41-45 46-00 51-55 ();er
Age 55
-+-Non-respcnse
- -SIror9Y "II
"'lee _ _ NeWai
-lIf-[Jsa'lOO - + -SIrongIy cisa'lee
5 4
! 4
li
3
II:
:3
'li 2 :0 2
~ 1
.
~ 1a
Age Distribution of Responses from Femalesfor Tactic 'Work hours balance'·
./"i .1.\
1\ j \
-+ \
/ "- ..1~ "-1 .l
/
"
L ' J "j ". / L""--, "-
21).25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 4&-50 51-65 Ova-
Age 55
--+-Non-respcnse _ _ Slrongly agree
"gree -><--
- . .Slrcngly cisll'lee
Figure 9 (a) and (b): Age Distribution of Responses for Tactic ''Work hours balance" from (a) Males and (b) Females
Gender Tactic Age Total Total Male Serve Customers Well 20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 ~ 51-65 Over 55 No %age
Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Strongly agree 1 0 15 6 12 10 6 6 56 28
Agree 2 7 12 10 19 13 16 7 86 43
Neutral 1 4 11 8 7 9 6 5 51 25.5
Disagree 0 0 0 2 3 2 0 0 7 3.5
Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total 4 11 38 26 41 34 28 18 200 100
°kage 2 5.5 19 13 20.5 17 14 9 100
Female Non-response 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 4
Strongly agree 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 C 4 16
Agree 1 4 0 1 1 1 3 0 11 44
Neutral 0 3 1 0 3 0 1 1 9 36
Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total 1 8 2 2 4 3 4 1 25 100
°kage 4 32 8 8 16 12 16 4 100
Gender Tactic Age Total Total
Male Work is desirable and fun 20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 ~ 51-65 Over 55 No %age
Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Strongly agree 0 0 5 3 9 4 6 3 30 15
Agree 1 4 16 9 13 13 12 7 75 37.5
Neutral 2 5 6 8 13 10 8 4 56 28
Disagree 1 2 7 6 5 5 2 4 32 16
Strongly disagree 0 0 4 0 1 2 0 0 7 3.5
Sub-total 4 11 38 26 41 34 28 18 200 100
%age 2 5.5 19 13 20.5 17 14 9 100
Female Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Strongly agree 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 C 2 8
Agree 1 0 2 2 C 1 3 0 9 36
Neutral 0 6 0 0 2 1 1 0 10 40
Disagree 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 12
Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
Sub-total 1 8 2 2 4 3 4 1 25 100
%age 4 32 8 8 16 12 16 4 100
Gender Tactic Age Total Total
Male Work hours balance 20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-60 51-65 Over 55 No %age
Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Strongly agree 2 4 15 13 18 17 12 10 91 45.5
Agree 0 5 5 5 4 5 9 4 37 18.5
Neutral 2 1 10 6 12 5 3 1 40 20
Disagree 0 1 2 1 4 5 2 1 16 8
Strongly disagree 0 0 6 1 3 2 2 2 16 8
Sub-total 4 11 38 26 41 34 28 18 200 100
°kage 2 5.5 19 13 20.5 17 14 9 100
Female Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Strongly agree 0 3 1 2 2 1 4 1 14 56
Agree 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 16
Neutral 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 5 20
Disagree 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 4
SUb-total 1 8 2 2 4 3 4 1 25 100
%age 4 32 8 8 16 12 16 4 100
Table 5 Summary of Responses for Parameters "Serve Customers Well" , "Work is desirable and fun" and "Work hours balance"
56
Age DIstribution of Responses from Males for Tactic "Good Neighbour"
25T---~
i
20 - - - ----j : 1 5 + - - - -'"
'0
.
10 t - - - : - --:-::::;It':::::::-: - - - ---l.., 5 5+----~~~~~-~~~~~~
z
2G-2526-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 O;er
Age 55
--+--Non-r_e __ SrooIh agr
Age Dlslrlbutlon of Responses from Femalesfor Tactic
"Good Neighbour"
6 r---,
: 5
; 4 + - - - ' - - - -_l
=
it 3 +---~---_l'0 Ii 2 +--+- "'----,;O<c-- - - -
..
~ 1 +---t'---~:..---=:;.;:__----"""':::_-2Q-25 2&-30 31-35 3&-40 41-45 4&-60 51-55 OIee
Ago 55
- . -t-bn-t"espms __ SlrOll!h "II"
Agree
----
--II--[Jsa~ee- - -SlrOll!h disagree
Figure 10 (a) and (b): Age Distribution of Responses for Tactic "Good Neighbour" from (a) Males and (b) Females
.
Age Distribution of Responses from Males for Tactic
"STOP for Safety"
~~---~
~ 2O+---~ __ ---~
~ .. 15 +----~"""__==---" --~:__--__l
'"
'0 10 - l - - - - . + - - - -
j 5 5+----~----~~~~---~
z
2G-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 O;er
Age 55
Age Dlslrlbutlon of Responses from Females for Tactic
"STOP for Safety""
4r---~
: 3 +---•. ~---_l
~ 3 t - - -f- - - ---l :- 2 t - --ht-°
'"
'0 2 + - -+l----'.- - - -....,4- - - - l , - - --l j 1
.il E 1 +--If----\,...-+ -....,4--'I,---+---l
2Q-25 2&-30 31-35 3&-40 41-45 46-50 5~ OIor
Ago 55
- -SlrOll!h "II'"
Agree
Figure 11 (a) and (b): Age Distribution of Responses for Tactic "STOP for Safety" from (a) Males and (b) Females
. ..
~ 20! 0
.
.....
15 '"'0 10
j
§ 5 z
0
Age Dislribution of Responses from Malesfor
"Environment of Trust and Honesty"
2G-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 O;er
Age 55
- . -Non-response
- -SrooIh"ll
A~ee
----
--II--[Jsa~
---SrooIh diAs.-ee
Age Distribution of Responses from Females for
"environment of Trust and Honesty"
3 r---_.
: 2 t - - -1t-- - - - -->t-- -- - - - + - ---1 c o
:2t---~~4r---~-~---+_~-~
'"
'0
.
1 +---+--k--\--4r:..
~ 1+--+~-~r_~-~--~-~---~OR
2Q-25 26-30 31-35 3&-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 OIee
Ago 55
Figure 12 (a) and (b): Age Distribution of Responses for "Environment of Trust and Honesty" from (a) Males and (b) Females
Gender Tactic Aee Total Total Male Good Neighbour 20-25 ~ 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-60 51-65 Over 55 No %age
Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1
Strongly agree 1 2 8 4 10 8 7 5 45 22.5
Agree 2 6 21 14 21 16 13 11 104 52
Neutral 1 3 6 8 9 5 7 1 4(J 20
Disagree 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 1 7 3.5
Strongly disagree 0 0 2 ·0 0 0 0 ~ 2 1
Sub-total 4 11 38 26 41 34 28 18 200 100
%age 2 5.5 19 13 20.5 17 14 9 100
Female Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0
Strongly agree 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 12
Agree 1 1 0 1 2 2 1 13 52
Neutral 0 3 1 2 1 0 1 0 8 32
Disagree 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total 1 8 2 2 4 3 4 1 25 100
%age 4 32 8 8 16 12 16 4 100
Gender Tactic Age Total Total
Male STOP for Safety 20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-60 51-65 Over 56 No %age
Non-response 0 0 0 C 1 ~ 0 0 1 0.5
Strongly agree 2 2 16 14 16 20 12 9 91 45.5
Agree 2 6 16 8 17 7 12 7 75 37.5
Neutral 0 3 3 3 4 6 3 1 23 11.5
Disagree 0 0 2 1 2 1 1 0 7 3.5
Strongly disagree 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 3 1.5
Sub-total 4 11 38 26 41 34 28 18 200 100
%age 2 5.5 19 13 20.5 17 14 9 100
Female Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Strongly agree 0 3 1 0 1 2 2 0 9 36
Agree 1 3 1 2 2 1 2 1 13 52
Neutral 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8
Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
Sub-total 1 8 2 2 4 3 4 1 25 100
%age 4 32 8 8 16 12 16 4 100
Gender Parameter A e Total Total
I Environment of I rust and
Male Honesty 20-25 ~ 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-60 51-65 Over 55 No %age
Non-response 0 ~ 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.5
Strongly agree 0 0 5 1 4 5 2 3 2C 10
Agree 1 C 8 12 22 11 7 7 68 34
Neutral 2 5 8 7 9 8 16 6 61 30.5
Disagree 1 6 10 4 5 9 1 1 37 18.5
Strongly disagree 0 0 7 2 0 1 2 1 13 6.5
Sub-total 4 11 38 26 41 34 28 18 200 100
%age 2 5.5 19 13 20.5 17 14 9 100
Female Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Strongly agree 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 8
Agree 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 0 9 36
Neutral 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 5 20
Disagree 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 6 24
Strongly disagree 0 2 0 0 1 0 ...Q 0 3 12
Sub-total 1 8 2 2 4 3 4 1 25 100
""age 4 32 8 8 16 12 16 4 100
Table 6 Summary of Responses for Parameters "Good Neighbour", "STOP for Safety" and
"Environment of Trust and Honesty"
58
Age Distribution of Responses from Males for Tactic
"Gre at Day""
20
• 18 : 16 [ 14 : 12 '" 10
--- .L_'- '0 8
= 6 -><- / "- --...
.., :::0 E 4 I - - - A' ~
2 / . X ~~
z o ./
,
2~25 26-30 31--35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 o.oer
Age 55
--+-Noo-respcnse --II-~agret
A[Tee
...--
__CisofT<e----~ iIsa[Tee
Age Distribution of Responses from Femalesfor Tac1lc ''Great Days"
6r---~
! 5
i
4+---1: 3 t-------j
'0
; 2 t---J_ ---
.a ~ 1 z
20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 Oot«
Age 55
--+-Non-responsl
--II-SIr""lh agre Ag"'"
...--
Figure 13 (a) and (b): Age Distribution of Responses for Tactic "Great Days" from (a) Males and (b) Females
20
• 18 : 16 [ 14 : 12 '" 10 '0 8
.! 6
!i 4 z 2 o
Age Distribution of Response s from Males for Tactic
"Shared Values"
~
JY' \
I!. \ _ -
.\ \
' .\ / ' . --
/ 'V ' .
A
---
~
2~25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 o.oer
Age 55
--+-t-bH"esponse
...--
Age Distribution of Responses from Femalesfor Tac1lc
"Shared Values"
.
: 4 5 4:; 3
..
: 3'"
'0 2 Ii 2
~ 1 Z :0 1
1\
.1. -.l
I \
J~ .}. ..L:::, ~
l i ....,. II 'j, , 1 -'- \
~ ~ -=::, ....,.
L L -"' ~ -"
20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 Ooter
Age 55
Figure 14 (a) and (b): Age Distribution of Responses for Tactic "Shared Values" from (a) Males and (b) Females
20
• 18 : 16
~ 14 : 12 '" 10 '0 8
= 6
i
4z 2
o
Age Distribution of Responses from Males for Tac1lc
"Reliability Centred Production"
"-
/ ""
/ \ \
/ \ ~
tI )<.. • . - . /
/ / .,.- "'-_ Ir'
f-_/ ~
...
2~25 2&-30 31--35 30-40 41-45 40-50 51-65 o.er
Age 55
--+-Mxl-response : 6 ___ SlrCJnflyag ~ 5
t.
Agree
'"
----
'0 .: 3 2____ Ciso[Tee
~ E 1 ____ SlrCJr9y
cis ...
Age Distribution of Responses from Femalesfor Tac1lc
"Reliability Centred Production"
-
,
r--L ~ ~ /-... /
20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 Ooter
Age 55
--+-Non-f"espc:nse --II-SIr""lh agree
Agree
----
_ _ Dsa[Tee
-+-Slr""lh cisllQree
Figure 15 (a) and (b): Age Distribution of Responses for Tactic "Reliability Centred Production" from (a) Males and (b) Females
Gender Tactic Age
Male Great Days 20-25 26-30 31.:J5 36-40 41-45 4~ 51-65 Over 55
Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Strongly agree 2 2 10 9 8 8 8 6
Agree 2 5 18 10 19 15 13 9
Neutral 0 4 7 6 10 5 4 2
Disagree 0 0 2 1 3 5 3 1
Strongly disagree 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
Sub-total 4 11 38 26 41 34 28 18
Okage 2 5.5 19 13 20.5 17 14 9
Female Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Strongly agree 0 2 0 0 1 2 1 0
Agree 1 5 1 2 2 1 2 0
Neutral 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
Disagree 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total 1 8 2 2 4 3 4 1
%age 4 32 8 8 16 12 16 4
Gender Tactic A~e
Male Shared Values 20-25 26-30 31.:J5 36-40 41-45 ~ 51-65 Over 55
Non-response 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Strongly agree 2 3 13 6 15 17 10 6
Agree 1 5 14 13 19 9 13 8
Neutral 1 1 10 6 5 5 4 2
Disagree 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0
Strongly disagree 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1
Sub-total 4 11 38 26 41 34 28 18
%age 2 5.5 19 13 20.5 17 14 9
Female Non-response 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Strongly agree 0 4 1 1 0 1 2 0
Agree 1 2 1 1 0 1 2 1
Neutral 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0
Disagree 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total 1 8 2 2 4 :3 4 1
°kage 4 32 8 8 16 12 '16 4
Gender Tactic A~e
Male Reliability-Centred Production 20-25 26-30 31.:J5 36-40 41-45 ~ 51-65 Over 55
Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Strongly agree 1 7 16 7 18 15 5 9
I Agree 2 3 13 14 14 12 17 5
Neutral 1 1 7 5 6 6 3 3
Disagree 0 0 2 0 2 1 2 1
Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Sub-total 4 11 38 26 41 34 28 18
%age 2 5.5 19 13 20.5 17 14 9
Female Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Strongly agree 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0
Agree 1 6 1 2 4 1 2 0
Neutral 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Sub-total 1 8 2 2 4 3 4 1
%age 4 32 8 8 16 12 16 4
Table 7 Summary of Responses for Parameters "Great Days", "Shared Values" and ''Reliability Centred Production"
Total Total No %age
0 0
53 26.5 91 45.5
38 19
15 7.5
3 1.5
200 100
100
0 0
6 24
14 56
3 12
2 8
0 0
25 100
100
Total Total No %age
2 1
72 36
82 41
34 17
6 3
4 2
200 100
100
1 4
S 36
9 36
5 20
1 4
0 0
25 100
100
Total Total No %age
0 0
78 39
80 40
.32 16
8 4
2 1
200 100
100
0 0
5 20
17 68
2 8
0 0
1 4
25 100
100
60
AQe Distribution of Response s from Males for Tactic
"Service Level Agreements"
.
30: 25
-+-f'b'H'espc:nse~20 _ _ SrongIy ogre<
..
A'IeeII< 15 -
'0 j I} 10 5
/ ..
... ... ~--- __ Ilsa_
z ~-"'- -....
- + -5!rongIy
0 cisa'lee
2~25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-60 51-55 o.<er
Age 55
Age Distribution of Responses from Femalesfor Tactic
"Service Level Agreements'·
.
5•
:
.
:'3
: 3
'"
'0 2 li 2
~ 1 '"' 1
t---
1\
/ \
\ /" \
1 ~. L ~--
r-1~ ..i
j / ~ --"-
21)-25 2&-30 31-35 36-40 .1-45 016-50 51-55 001«
Ago 55
Agree
Figure 16 (a) and (b): Age Distribution of Responses for Tactic "Service Level Agreements" from (a) Males and (b) Females
Age Distribution of Responses from Males for Tactic
"Five Quality Principle ... •
25r -__________________________ ~
i20~---4
: 15+---.---~
II<
'0 10 +-_ _ _ +-_
j
~ 5t--~~~==~~~~.r~~~~
z
2~25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 ~ 51-65 o.<er
Age 55
-+-NorH"esponse _ _ Slronglyog
Agree
---
- + -Slrongly ... a.,eeAge Distribution of Responaesfrom Femalesfor Tactic
"Five Quality Principle ... •
.r-~~---_, : 3 t---lt---1r ---
~ 3 t---/--,O;---f--'<:---j
: 2 +---H~r_-----t---,---;i
'"
'0 2 +---++-'t---I,---,/----\---I
~ 1
:il E 1 t--/f;1'----'''''---'~_h~--',,---j
21)-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 .1-45 016-50 51-55 00101'
Ago 55
-+-tb'wespc:nse
Figure 17 (a) and (b): Age Distribution of Responses for Tactic "Five Quality Principles"
from (a) Males and (b) Females
.
Age Distribution of Response. from Males for
"Undenlland h_ wort< contributes to strategy"
25 T---,
: 2O+---f-~----~---~
[
~
; 15 _______ ~
'0 10t---f----~~---~~--~
... co
§ 5+---J(---l
z
20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 4&-50 51-55 o.<er
Age 55
5
.. •
: li
.
3Go
A'Iee : 3
~ 2
0
li 2
~ 1
~
'"' 1 0
Age Distribution of Responses from Females for
"Understand h_ work contributes II> strategy"
/I~ / " , L
-"'-
£''L / ~L \ L"--.. "'-/ --~
J \. L -'"
21)-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 .1-45 016-50 51-55 001«
Ago 55
Figure 18 (a) and (b): Age Distribution of Responses for "Understand how work contributes to strategy" from (a) Males and (b) Females
-+-tbH'espcm:e _ _ Slrongly agree
All"'"
---
_ _ Chagree - + -Slrongly
...
Gender Tactic Aile Total Total Male Service Level Agreements 20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-60 51-05 Over 55 No %age
Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1
Strongly agree 2 2 11 9 11 9 6 5 55 27.5
Agree 1 6 22 13 24 14 "!§ 8 103 51.5
Neutral 1 2 4 4 4 9 5 5 34 17
Disagree 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 4 2
Strongly disagree 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Jl 2 1
Sub-total 4 11 38 26 41 34 28 18 200 100
%age 2 5.5 19 13 20.5 17 14 9 100
Female Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Strongly agree 0 3 1 1 1 2 2 0 10 40
Agree 1 4 1 1 3 1 2 1 14 56
Neutral 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0
Sub-total 1 8 2 2 ~ l 4 1 25 100
o,{,age 4 32 8 8 16 12 16 4 100
Gender Tactic A!l.e Total Total
Male Rve Quality Principles 20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-60 51-05 Over 55 No %age
Non-response 0 0 0 0 1 2 Jl Jl ~ 1.5
Strongly agree 1 0 4 4 6 4 4 2 25 12.5
Agree 2 5 10 10 20 10 17 9 83 41.5
Neutral 1 2 13 5 9 11 6 5 52 26
Disagree 0 4 9 6 4 4 0 2 29 14.5
Strongly disagree 0 0 2 1 1 3 1 0 8 4
Sub-total 4 11 38 26 41 34 28 18 20C 100
%age 2 5.5 19 13 20.5 17 14 9 100
Female Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Strongly agree 0 2 0 C 0 0 0 0 2 8
Agree 1 2 1 2 0 2 3 J 11 44
Neutral 0 3 1 0 3 1 1 1 10 40
Disagree 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 8
Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 0
Sub-total 1 8 2 2 4 3 4 1 25 100
o,{,age 4 32 8 8 16 12 16 4 100
Gender Parameter Age Total Total
I unaerstano now WOrK
Male contributes to strategy 20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-60 51-05 Over 55 No %age
Non-response 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 1.5
Strongly agree 3 4 23 11 18 14 10 8 91 45.5
I Agree 1 4 15 13 ~ 14 17 6 9C 45
Neutral 0 3 0 1 0 1 1 2 8 4
Disagree 0 0 0 1 2 3 ...Q 2 8 4
Strongly disagree 0 0 0 C 0 0 ...Q 0 0 0
Sub-total 4 11 38 26 41 34 28 18 200 100
%age 2 5.5 19 13 20.5 17 14 9 100
Female Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...Q 0 0 0
Strongly agree 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 12 48
Agree 0 4 1 0 1 1 2 0 9 36
Neutral 0 2 0 C 1 0 0 0 3 12
Disagree 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total 1 8 2 2 4 3 4 1 25 100
%age 4 32 8 8 16 12 16 4 100
Table 8 Summary of Responses for Parameters "Service Level Agreements", "Five Quality Principles" and ''Understand how work contributes to strategy"
62
Age Dillribution of Responses from Males for
"Management visibly shows commitment to strategy"
16r - - - ,
• 14+------~
i
12+---~~---~----~~ 10+---f~~--~~----f~~~
~ 8
o
..
6 +---I'i-f-'>\,--+-?I--->;o!lr- --'l---'li
4z ~t:~~~~:B~~~
2~25 2~ 31-35 3&-40 41-'15 4S-5O 51-55 o.er
Age 55
- - -5lrcr9Y "II
--*--
Ag_-lIf-llAgr . . - -5lrcr9Y
disogr . .
Age Dlllrlbution of Responsesfrom Females for
"Management vilibly shows commitment to strategy"
4+---~~---~
:4+-__ ~A~ __________________ ~
~ 3+---7~-\\ +---~
t3~-~/ ~,~---~
~2+--+-' ~\---~1\----/,f~~'---~
I
~ +--j:..---.\,---------T\..- / / \~ 1 I / ,'-. 77 '\ / V
7/ ' J / \/ / \
20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 4H5 <46-50 51-55 0.«
Ago 55
Figure 19 (a) and (b): Age Distribution of Responses for "Management visibly shows commitment to strategy" from (a) Males and (b) Females
· ..
• 14 18 16·
l12..
10It:
0 8
~ 6
J>
E 4
" 2
z 0
Age Distribution of Responses from Males for ''Trust supervisor to look after bell intere ...
/ '
~ . /
- \;:---
/I";:" ~ ./' y ' ...
/// \ "- ... ::,....
.... ~//./ ~ _ 'it
~ II! ..."""
...
2~25 ~ 31-35 3&-40 41-'15 46-50 51-55 o.er
Age 55
- -5lrcr9Y "II A'Iee
--*- -
Age Dlstrlbutton of Responses from Females for ''Trust supervisor to look afte r best Interests"
: 2 +---,pt---1_----~-_!
c
i
2+--f-~----~~---_!'"
'l; 1 +-of---1t-l ...
...
,
~1 +----+-.-:'\-\---~-...,A_~.__...,L-__l
..
20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 <46-50 51-55 0...-
Ago 55
Figure 20 (a) and (b): Age Distribution of Responses for ''Trust Supervisor to look after best interests" from (a) Males and (b) Females
Age Dillribution of Responses from Males for "Engen Refinery tru .... d to keep promises and commitments"
Age Distribution of Responses from Females for "Engen Reftnery trusted to keep proml_s and commHments"
18
x / '\
/'''" . / ~
/ '\. ...-'T'\. ____
\=
I JI,. ,
/ "
--...
\J/l "'!- - :'-.. ,,~
ii..L-/ ~
2~25 ~ 31-35 36-40 41-'15 46-50 51-55 o.er
Age 55
- . -Non-respcnse
A'Iee
~
-lIf-Dsa~
- -5lrcr9Y _'lee
4T---~
: 3+---~---
i 3+--~~---~
:2+--~'~+_---~~-----~
'"
'l; 2+--++~-~---_+~~----~
l 1 +--~1-1~\--l<.
~ E 1 +--flcr-~ ... ___'*__A*_~ ___ - - - - -_1
20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 <46-50 51-55 0...-
Ago 55
~ Non-respcllSe ___ strOf9y agree
Ag ....
-lIf-Dsa'lee - -SranfIY
cis.ee
Figure 21 (a) and (b): Age Distribution of Responses for "Engen Refinery can be trusted to keep promises and commitments" from (a) Males and (b) Females
Gender Parameter Age Total Total
I Managers VISlDly snow
Male commitment to strategy 2~25 2s.:JO 31-35 36-40 41-45 4~ 51~ Over 55 No %age
Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1
Strongly agree 2 0 7 4 10 7 2 3 35 17.5
Agree 0 8 9 11 13 14 10 8 73 36.5
Neutral 2 1 12 8 10 5 11 3 52 26
Disagree 0 2 9 2 6 6 4 4 33 16.5
Strongly disagree 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 5 2.5
Sub-total 4 11 38 26 41 34 28 18 200 100
%age 2 5.5 19 13 20.5 17 14 9 100
Female Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Strongly agree 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 8
Agree 1 3 1 2 1 2 0 0 10 40
Neutral 0 4 0 0 1 1 2 0 8 32
Disagree 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 5 20
Strongly disagree 0 ~ ~ Q 0 0 Jl 0 c 0
Sub-total 1 8 2 2 4 3 4 1 25 100
%age 4 32 8 8 16 12 16 4 100
Gender Parameter Age Total Total
ITrust supervisor to look after
Male best interests ~25 2s.:JO 31-35 36-40 41-45 4~ 51~ Over 55 No %age
Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5
Strongly agree 3 ~ 9 1 8 4 3 f ~ 16.5
Agree 1 7 ~ 10 16 7 8 6 64 32
Neutral 0 3 9 7 8 12 10 3 52 26
Disagree 0 0 7 6 6 8 5 3 35 17.5
Strongly disagree 0 1 4 2 3 3 1 1 15 7.5
Sub-total 4 11 38 26 41 34 28 18 200 100
%age 2 5.5 19 13 20.5 17 14 9 100
Female Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Strongly agree 0 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 8 32
Agree 0 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 8 32
Neutral 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 6 24
Disagree 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 8
Strongly disagree 0 1 C 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
Sub-total 1 8 2 2 4 3 4 1 2f 100
%age 4 32 8 8 16 12 16 4 100
Gender Parameter A e Total Total
I Engen Refinery trusted to keep promises and
Male commitments ~25 2s.:JO 31-35 36-40 41-45 ~ 51~ Over 55 No %age
Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 1 1 0.5
Strongly agree 1 0 7 3 10 6 5 2 34 17
Agree 1 7 11 12 17 8 7 10 73 36.5
Neutral 2 2 13 8 10 14 14 3 66 33
Disagree 0 2 6 2 3 4 1 1 19 9.5
Strongly disagree 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 7 3.5
Sub-total 4 11 38 26 41 34 28 18 200 100
%age 2 5.5 19 13 20.5 17 14 9 100
Female Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Strongly agree 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 12
Agree 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 0 11 44
Neutral 0 3 1 0 2 1 1 1 9 36
Disagree 0 0 ~ 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
Strongly disagree 0 1 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 1 4
Sub-total 1 8 2 2 4 3 4 1 25 100
%age 4 32 8 8 16 12 16 4 100
Table 9 Summary of Responses for Parameters of Management Commitment and Trust
64
~
·
• c 0 ...• •
~
Section B of the questionnaire covered the factors affecting work performance as well as the interaction between employees and their direct line supervisor. Figures 22 and 23, respectively, show the overall view of responses related to the importance and presence of factors affecting employees' work performance. Details regarding the distribution of responses across the Lickert scales of ''Most Important" to
"Unimportant" in Figure 22 and "Always" to ''Never'' in Figure 23, have also been shown
The data related to the importance of factors affecting work performance was further disseminated according to gender and age in order to investigate any relationships between these categories and the responses from employees. The results of this cross- tabulation have been shown in Tables 10 to 18.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Figure 22
Importance of Factors Affecting Work Performance 0.9 0.9
:;;
..
g .!!
..
!~ 0 a.
X. ill
" ti
(f) u.
Factors
o Unimportant . Unimportant
• Less important o Important OVery Important
• Most important IIOmitted
Summary of Responses Relating to the Importance of Factors Affecting Work Performance
100%
80".4
~ 60%
•
..
c
&.
..
• 400.4II: 29.8
20%
0%
~?J.
.. '"
i"
~
Presence of Factors Affecting Performance
36.9
34.7
#"
~ #
>S'
30.7
fl 0.4
<5''''
O
~<tFactors ~
Figure 23 Summary of Response Related to the Actual Presence of Factors Affecting Perfonnance in the Workplace
Gender Factor Age Total Total
Male Mutual trust 20-25 26-30 31-35 3~ 41-45 46-60 51~ Over 55 No %age
Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Most Important 4 4 25 16 27 16 14 13 119 59.5
Very Important 0 5 9 6 10 11 12 4 57 28.5
Important 0 2 2 4 3 5 2 1 19 9.5
less Important 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 3 1.5
Unimportant 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 1
Sub-total 4 11 38 26 41 34 28 18 200 100
o,{,age 2 5.5 19 13 20.5 17 14 9 100
Female Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0
Most Important 0 7 1 1 2 1 4 0 16 64
Very Important 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 B 32
Important 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
less Important 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unimportant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total 1 8 2 2 4 3 4 1 25 100
%age 4 32 8 8 16 12 16 4 100
Table 10 Importance of Mutual Trust between Supervisor and Employee as a Factor Affecting Work Perfonnance
CNever
• Seldom DOften DVeryolten .AIWays
Omitted
66
Gender Factor Aile Total Total Male Supervisor Approachabilit-J 20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-60 51-55 Over 55 No %age
Non-response 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1
Most Important 3 S 22 14 26 15 11 12 108 54
Very Important 1 4 11 S 11 12 11 5 64 32
Important 0 2 2 2 4 5 6 1 22 11
Less Important 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 1
Unimportant 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 1
Sulrtotal 4 11 38 26 41 34 28 18 200 100
%age 2 5.5 19 13 20.5 17 14 9 100
Female Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Most Important 0 6 1 2 3 1 2 0 15 60
Very Important 1 2 1 0 1 1 2 1 9 36
Important 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 4
Less Important 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unimportant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c
0Sulrtotal 1 8 2 2 4 3 4 1 25 100
%age 4 32 8 8 16 12 16 4 100
Table 11 Importance of Supervisor Approachability as a Factor Affecting Work Performance
Gender Factor Age Total Total
Male Supervisor Support 20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-60 51-55 Over 55 No %aoe
Non-response 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.5
Most Important 2 4 25 10 25 17 13 8 104 52
Very Important 1 4 10 14 14 13 9 8 73 36.5
Important 1 3 3 2 1 4 5 2 21 10.5
Less Important 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5
Unimportant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sulrtotal 4 11 38 26 41 34 28 18 200 100
%age 2 5.5 19 13 20.5 17 14 9 100
Female Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Most Important 1 6 1 1 2 2 1 1 15 60
Very Important 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 0 9 36
Important 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
Less Important 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 C 0
Unimportant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SuMotal 1 8 2 2 4 3 4 1 25 100
%age 4 32 8 8 16 12 16 4 100
Table 12 Importance of Supervisor Support as a Factor Affecting Work Performance
Gender Factor Age Total Total
Male Fair Remuneration 20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-60 51-55 Over 55 No 'Ioage
Non-response 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1
Most Important 4 6 29 16 28 18 15 13 129 64.5
Very Important 0 ~ 3 7 6 10 E 5 4C 20
Important 0 2 3 2 5 1 6 0 1ii 9.5
Less Important 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 4 2
Unimportant 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 6 3
Sulrtotal 4 11 38 26 41 34 28 18 200 100
%age 2 5.5 19 13 20.5 17 14 9 100
Female Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Most Important 0 4 1 1 3 1 1 0 11 44
Very Important 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 9 36
Important 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 12
Less Important 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 4
Unimportant 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
Sulrtotal 1 8 2 2 4 3 4 1 25 100
%age 4 32 8 8 16 12 16 4 100
Table 13 Importance of Fair Remuneration as a Factor Affecting Work Performance
Gender Factor Age Total Total Male Clear Goals and Objective 20-25 26-30 31-35 ~O 41-45 4~ 51.Qi Over 55 No %age
Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Most Important 3 5 23 13 21 11 14 13 103 51.5
Very Important 1 5 10 12 16 13 ~ 4 ~ 35
Important 0 1 4 1 1 8 5 1 21 10,5
Less Important 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 4 2
Unimportant 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1
Sub-total 4 11 38 26 41 34 28 18 200 100
%age 2 5,5 19 13 20,5 17 14 9 100
Female Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Most Important 0 6 1 0 1 1 ~ 0 12 48
Very Important 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 12 48
Important 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Less Important 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
Unimportant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total 1 8 2 2 4 3 4 1 25 100
%age 4 32 8 8 16 12 16 4 100
Table 14 Importance of Clear Goals and Objectives as a Factor Affecting Work Performance
Gender Factor Age Total Total
Male Opportunity to Clarify ISSUE 20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-60 51-65 Over 56 No %~e
Non-response 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1
Most Important 2 4 18 7 19 8 13 11 82 41
Very Important 2 5 16 14 16 16 6 6 81 40,~
Important 0 1 2 4 5 6 8 1 27 13,5
Less Important 0 1 0 0 1 3 1 0 6 3
Unimportant 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1
Sub-total 4 11 38 26 41 34 28 18 200 100
%age 2 5,5 19 13 20,S 17 14 9 100
Female Non-response 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Most Important 0 5 1 0 1 0 2 j: S 36
Very Important 1 2 1 2 3 3 2 0 14 56
Important 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 8
Less Important 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unimportant 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 C 0 0
Sub-total 1 8 2 2 4 3 ~ 1 25 lOC
%age 4 32 8 8 16 12 16 4 100
Table 15 Importance of the Opportunity to Clarify Issues as a Factor Affecting Work Performance
68