A Correlational Study on Working Environment and Job Satisfaction of the Call Center Agents

Statistical Tools:

Descriptive Statistics

In the statement of the problem, the research aims to describe the demographic profile of the
respondents in terms of age, sex, and income. This requires the use of descriptive statistics to
summarize the data collected on these variables.

Descriptive statistics can be used to provide a summary of the characteristics of the samples.
For example, in this case, the mean, median, or mode of the age variable can be calculated to
describe the typical age of the respondents. Similarly, the frequency of responses for each
category of the sex variable can be presented as a percentage to describe the gender
distribution of the sample.

For the income variable, descriptive statistics can be used to summarize the range and
distribution of the data. This can be presented in the form of a frequency distribution or a
histogram to show the frequency of responses in each income category.

Median Scores and Average Median Scores

Median Score and Average of the Median Scores are often used as statistical tools when
analyzing Likert-scale data, which is a type of ordinal data that measures respondents' attitudes
or opinions towards a specific topic.

In Likert-scale data, respondents are presented with a series of statements or questions and are
asked to rate their level of agreement or disagreement on a numerical scale, usually ranging
from 1 to 5 or 1 to 7. The responses are then assigned a numerical value and summed up to
obtain a total score for each respondent.

The median score is a commonly used measure of central tendency in Likert-scale data
analysis. It represents the midpoint of the distribution of scores and is useful when the data is
skewed or has outliers. By using the median score, researchers can identify the most common
response among respondents and make conclusions based on this central tendency.

The average of the median scores is also a useful statistical tool when analyzing Likert-scale
data with multiple variables. By taking the median score of each variable and then averaging
them, researchers can obtain an overall measure of central tendency for the entire dataset. This
tool helps to simplify the analysis and provide a single value that represents the attitudes or
opinions of the respondents towards the topic being studied.

Overall, using the median score and average of the median scores as statistical tools when
analyzing Likert-scale data provides a robust and reliable way to measure the central tendency
of the data, especially when the distribution of the data is skewed or has outliers.

Spearman’s Rho Correlation

Spearman's Rho Correlation is a statistical tool that is commonly used to measure the strength
and direction of the relationship between two variables. It is a non-parametric measure of
correlation, which means that it does not require the variables to be normally distributed.
Instead, it is based on the rank order of the variables.

Spearman's Rho Correlation is often used when the variables being studied are ordinal or
non-linear, or when the assumptions of the more commonly used Pearson correlation cannot be
met. It is particularly useful in the social sciences, where Likert-scale data is commonly used.

To calculate Spearman's Rho Correlation, the ranks of each variable are first determined. The
correlation is then calculated by comparing the ranks of the two variables. The value of
Spearman's Rho Correlation ranges from -1 to +1, where a value of -1 indicates a perfect
negative correlation, 0 indicates no correlation, and +1 indicates a perfect positive correlation.

Spearman's Rho Correlation was likely used as a statistical tool in the study because it is
well-suited for analyzing the relationships between ordinal variables, such as the perceived
working environment and job satisfaction level. The results of the correlation analysis can help
researchers understand the strength and direction of the relationship between the two variables
and can be used to support or reject hypotheses or research questions.

Chi-Square Test and Fisher’s Exact Test

Chi-Square Test is used to test for the independence of two categorical variables. It compares
the observed frequencies of the categories in each variable with the frequencies that would be
expected if the two variables were independent. If the difference between the observed and
expected frequencies is large, it suggests that the two variables are dependent.

Fisher's Exact Test is a statistical tool used to analyze contingency tables with small sample
sizes. It is used to calculate the probability of observing a particular distribution of data under
the assumption of independence. If this probability is very small, it suggests that the variables
are not independent.

These tests were likely used in the study to analyze the relationship between the demographic
variables (age, sex, income) and the job satisfaction level. The Chi-Square Test and Fisher's
Exact Test can help researchers determine if there is a significant association between these
variables. The results of these tests can provide insights into the factors that influence job
satisfaction and can help organizations develop strategies to improve employee satisfaction.

Fisher's exact test is a more appropriate statistical tool to use than the chi-square test when the
sample size is small (typically less than 20 or 30) and/or when one or more of the expected cell
frequencies in a contingency table is less than 5.

In situations where the sample size is small, the chi-square test may be unreliable, and the
results may not accurately reflect the true relationship between the variables. In such cases,
Fisher's exact test provides a more accurate measure of the probability of the observed
distribution of data and can therefore be more reliable.

Furthermore, Fisher's exact test is generally more powerful than the chi-square test when the
sample size is small and the expected cell frequencies are low. It can provide a more precise
measure of the relationship between the variables and reduce the likelihood of making a Type II
error (failing to reject a false null hypothesis).
In summary, Fisher's exact test should be used instead of the chi-square test when analyzing
categorical data with a small sample size and/or when one or more of the expected cell
frequencies is less than 5.

1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of:

1.1. Age
1.2. Sex
1.3. Income

Respondents Demographic Profile

Count Percentage
Age:
18 - 21 14 14.1
22 - 25 56 56.6
26 - 29 19 19.2
30 - Above 10 10.1
Total 99 100.0

Sex:
Female 51 51.5
Male 48 48.5
Total 99 100.0

Income:
10,000 - below 1 1.0
11,000 - 20,000 42 42.4
21,000 - 30,000 49 49.5
31,000 - 40,000 5 5.1
41,000 - 50,000 2 2.0
Total 99 100.0

The demographic profile of the respondents in this study indicates a predominantly young adult
population with nearly equal representation of male and female respondents, and a majority of
respondents falling within the lower to middle-income brackets.

The majority of the respondents fall in the age range of 22-25 (56.6%), followed by 26-29 years
old (19.2%). This could indicate that the study primarily attracted young adults in their
mid-twenties. The age group of 18-21 years old made up 14.1% of the sample, while 10.1%
were 30 years old and above.

The study had nearly equal representation of male and female respondents, with 48.5% male
and 51.5% female. The gender balance in the sample is beneficial as it allows for better
representation of both sexes in the study. However, it is worth noting that this study only
includes male and female respondents and does not take into account non-binary or other
gender identities.

The majority of the respondents had an income in the range of 21,000 - 30,000 (49.5%),
followed by 11,000 - 20,000 (42.4%). Only a small percentage of respondents had an income
above 31,000, with 5.1% in the 31,000 - 40,000 range and only 2% above 41,000.
Note:

Qualitative Interpretation of 5-Point Likert Scale Measurements

Likert-Scale Description Likert-Scale Likert Scale interval
Strongly disagree 1 1.00 - 1.80
Disagree 2 1.81 - 2.60
Neutral/Uncertain 3 2.61 - 3.40
Agree 4 3.41 - 4.20
Strongly agree 5 4.21 - 5.00
Source: Nyutu, E. N., Cobern, W. W., & Pleasants, B. A-S. (2021). Correlational study of student
perceptions of their undergraduate laboratory environment with respect to gender and major.
International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology (IJEMST), 9(1),
83-102. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.1182

This can be used to analyze the respondents' perceptions of their work environment.

2. How do the respondents perceive their work environment in terms of:

2.1. Physical features;
2.2. Leadership styles;
2.3. Company values; and
2.4. Company policies and protocols

Distribution and median scores of the respondents perceive their work environment
Median
PERCEIVED WORKING ENVIRONMENT 1 2 3 4 5
Score
Physical Features
1. I am able to work well because my surroundings in the
office are neat and organized.
1 4 13 46 35 4.00
2. The company that I am employed with can provide all the
necessary resources needed for my work.
1 4 10 54 30 4.00
3. The facility in the office impacts my work environment. 0 0 1 2 96 5.00
4. As I observe, the workplace that I have is built really well
and it makes the working environment productive.
0 8 12 45 34 4.00
5. Sometimes I cannot work well because of the unwanted
destruction from the working environment.
6 11 18 37 27 4.00
Physical Features Average (Median) Score 2 5 11 37 44 4.2020
Agree
Leadership Style
1. I am motivated to work efficiently because the company is
5 4 19 33 38 4.00
able to provide good leadership.
2. The leadership style in my workplace is not toxic and it
5 4 14 39 37 4.00
helps employees to do their best in their respective work.
3. I am happy because the leaders in our office push us to
5 5 11 43 35 4.00
become better each day.
 4. In our company, the leaders and the subordinates ensure
4 5 14 39 37 4.00
that there is a collaboration from one another.
5. Leadership style in the company truly affects the work
0 2 11 46 40 4.00
environment of the employee.
Leadership Style Average (Median) Score 4 4 14 40 37 4.0909
Agree
Company Values
1. The company that I am working with highly prioritizes our
2 3 12 47 35 4.00
company values.
2. I experience that my leaders and other co-employees
2 4 14 41 38 4.00
have accountability with each other at work.
3. There is honesty in my working environment that makes
3 6 16 40 34 4.00
me work effectively.
4. The character of every employee resonates with the core
1 8 21 35 34 4.00
values of the company.
5. I observe that my company values a good character in
0 5 19 32 43 4.00
the workplace.
Company Values Average (Median) Score 2 5 16 39 37 4.1212
Agree
Company Policies and Protocol
1. My company ensures the health and safety of every
3 3 11 42 40 4.00
employee.
2. The company that I am working with exercises an equal
2 6 17 40 34 4.00
opportunity for all.
3. There's no present discrimination in the workplace that I
2 8 14 34 41 4.00
am with.
4. It is good that there is a code of conduct which helps the
employee perform with their responsibility and to do it to the 0 5 16 38 40 4.00
best of their ability.
5. My company has good benefits for me and my
4 4 15 41 35 4.00
co-employees.
6. I am aware of the disciplinary policy in my company, and
0 4 10 38 47 4.00
this drives me to work ethically.
Company Policies and Protocol Average (Median) Score 2 5 14 39 39 4.1010
Agree

Average Score
Perceived Working Environment Qualitative Interpretation
(Std. Deviation)
4.2020
Physical Features Agree
(0.71400)
4.0909
Leadership Style Agree
(0.88168)
4.1212
Company Values Agree
(0.86038)
4.1010
Company Policies and Protocol Agree
(0.83599)
4.1288
Overall Perceived Working Environment Agree
(0.70766)

The results presented show the average score and standard deviation for the respondents'
perception of their working environment, specifically regarding physical features, leadership
style, company values, company policies, and protocol. The scores are on a scale of 1 to 5, with
higher scores indicating a more positive perception. The average scores for each category were
all above 4, indicating that the respondents generally had a positive perception of their working
environment.

The respondents rated the physical features of their workplace the highest, with an average
score of 4.2020 and a relatively low standard deviation of 0.71400. This suggests that the
respondents agreed that their workplace had adequate physical features such as lighting,
temperature, cleanliness, and space, which can contribute to a comfortable and productive
working environment.

The average score for leadership style was 4.0909, indicating that the respondents generally
had a positive perception of their supervisors or managers. However, the standard deviation
was relatively high at 0.88168, which suggests that the respondents may have had different
experiences or opinions regarding their leaders' management styles. It would be useful to
conduct further research to explore these differences and identify ways to improve leadership
effectiveness in the workplace.

The respondents also rated their company values positively, with an average score of 4.1212
and a standard deviation of 0.86038. This indicates that the respondents agreed that their
company had values that aligned with their personal beliefs and goals, which can contribute to a
sense of purpose and job satisfaction.

The respondents' perception of their company's policies and protocols was also positive, with an
average score of 4.1010 and a standard deviation of 0.83599. This suggests that the
respondents generally agreed that their company had clear policies and procedures that were
followed consistently, which can contribute to a sense of stability and predictability in the
workplace.

The overall perceived working environment score was 4.1288, which is slightly higher than the
average score for the individual categories. This suggests that the respondents had an overall
positive perception of their working environment, which is a good indication of employee
satisfaction and engagement.

Note:

The results suggest that the respondents generally had a positive perception of their working
environment, with high ratings for physical features, leadership style, company values, and
company policies and protocols. These findings can be useful for employers and managers to
identify areas of strength in the workplace and make necessary improvements to enhance
employee satisfaction and productivity. However, it is important to note that the study only
represents the perceptions of the respondents and may not reflect the actual working conditions
or experiences of all employees in the organization.

3. What is the level of job satisfaction of the participants?

3.1. Work and Workplace;
3.2. Supervisor and Management;
3.3. Benefits and Rewards;
3.4. Recognition; and
3.5 Communication.

Note:
 Job Satisfaction Level
Average Score Job Satisfaction
Above 4 Satisfied
3.00 - 4.00 Ambivalence
Below 3.00 Not Satisfied

Distribution and median scores of the respondents level of job satisfaction

Median
LEVEL OF JOB SATISFACTION 1 2 3 4 5 6
Score
Work and Work Experience
1. I like the people I work with. 2 3 9 21 39 25 5.00
2. I find I have to work harder at my job because of the
12 13 10 17 35 12 4.00
incompetence of people I work with.
3. Many of our rules and procedures need to be
10 2 17 28 30 12 5.00
streamlined.
4. I like doing the things I do at work. 3 4 7 31 30 24 5.00
5. I have too many duties and responsibilities 3 6 8 30 36 16 5.00
6. I have the opportunity to take part in trainings,
6 4 11 25 37 16 5.00
webinars, meetings, and outreach activities
7. I receive the information, tools, and resources I need
1 2 9 19 42 26 5.00
to do my job effectively
8. I know what is expected of me at work 0 2 7 21 48 21 5.00
9. I am allowed / encouraged to make decisions to
0 4 9 25 35 26 5.00
solve problems for my customers.
10. I know how to measure the quality of my work 0 2 7 25 48 17 5.00
11. I would not consider leaving my job 10 7 15 23 33 11 4.00
12. I would consider leaving my job for another with
6 5 11 14 35 28 5.00
better pay
13. I would consider leaving my job for another with
3 6 9 14 41 26 5.00
greater opportunities for advancement.
14. There are other job skills I would like to learn 1 2 11 9 46 30 5.00
15. I am concerned about potential of job loss due to
5 6 5 21 36 26 5.00
changes in county/state/fed funding
Work and Work Experience Average (Med) Score 4 5 10 22 38 21 4.8182
Satisfie
d
Supervisor and Management
1. My department or agency has the right people and
3 2 6 31 39 18 5.00
skills to do its work.
2. My department or agency practices high standards
1 2 9 19 44 24 5.00
and ethics.
3. My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her
2 3 14 14 41 25 5.00
job.
4. My supervisor shows interest in my feelings and
2 5 10 25 33 24 5.00
acknowledges my concerns.
5. My supervisor treats me with dignity and respect 1 6 5 24 35 28 5.00
6. My agency consistently demonstrates support for a
3 4 9 22 38 23 5.00
diverse workforce.
7. My supervisor holds me and my co-workers
0 2 7 26 35 29 5.00
accountable for performance
8. I can rely on my supervisor 2 4 10 17 41 25 5.00
9. I often feel that I do not know what is going on with
11 6 13 18 42 9 5.00
the organization.
10. I feel I can go to management if my supervisor
3 6 9 23 33 25 5.00
doesn’t listen
Supervisor and Management Average (Med) Score 3 4 9 22 38 23 4.6313
Satisfie
d
Benefits and Rewards
1. I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do. 3 8 7 27 41 13 5.00
2. I am not satisfied with the benefits I receive. 3 3 13 27 36 17 5.00
3. I would like to work more/less hours 0 3 12 23 32 29 5.00
4. I would like to see a social committee for lunches
and special days (slipper days, tiara days, flowers in 1 7 8 24 40 19 5.00
your hair day, jewelry day, ugly sweater day, etc.)
5. There are few rewards for those who work here. 17 9 11 29 24 9 4.00
Benefits and Rewards Average (Med) Score 5 6 10 26 35 17 4.5253
Satisfie
d

Recognition
1. I do not feel that the work I do is appreciated. 2 4 2 23 42 26 5.00
2. My performance evaluation provides me with
12 7 13 25 33 9 4.00
meaningful information about my performance
3. I would appreciate management recognition on my
2 1 6 21 36 33 5.00
anniversary
4. I would like to see employee recognition and
1 4 7 17 31 39 5.00
appreciation by management and my fellow employees
Recognition Average (Med) Score 4 4 7 22 36 27 4.9040
Satisfie
d
Communication
1. Communications seem good within this organization. 2 7 5 26 34 25 5.00
2. As it plans for the future, my department or agency
3 7 14 29 29 17 4.00
asks for my ideas
3. I have the opportunity to give input on decisions
3 6 12 26 30 22 5.00
affecting my work
4. I know how my agency measures its success 1 7 7 25 33 26 5.00
Communication Average (Med) Score 2 7 10 27 32 23 4.5000
Satisfie
d

Average Score
Job Satisfaction Level Qualitative Interpretation
(Std. Deviation)
4.8182
Work and Work Experience Satisfied
(0.78719)
4.6313
Supervisor and Management Satisfied
(1.04634)
4.5253
Benefits and Rewards Satisfied
(0.96196)
4.9040
Recognition Satisfied
(0.91383)
 4.5000
Communication Satisfied
(1.10426)
4.6758
Overall Job Satisfaction Level Satisfied
(0.78599)

The results presented show the average score and standard deviation for the respondents' job
satisfaction level, specifically regarding work and work experience, supervisor and
management, benefits and rewards, recognition, and communication. The scores are on a scale
of 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating a higher level of job satisfaction. The average scores for
each category were all above 4, indicating that the respondents were generally satisfied with
their job.

The respondents rated their work and work experience the highest, with an average score of
4.8182 and a relatively low standard deviation of 0.78719. This suggests that the respondents
were satisfied with their job tasks, workload, work environment, and overall job experience.

The average score for supervisor and management was 4.6313, indicating that the respondents
were generally satisfied with their supervisors or managers. However, the standard deviation
was relatively high at 1.04634, which suggests that the respondents may have had different
experiences or opinions regarding their leaders' management styles or interpersonal skills.

The respondents also rated their benefits and rewards positively, with an average score of
4.5253 and a standard deviation of 0.96196. This indicates that the respondents were satisfied
with the compensation and benefits offered by their employer, such as salary, health insurance,
retirement plans, and other perks.

The respondents' perception of recognition was the highest-rated category, with an average
score of 4.9040 and a standard deviation of 0.91383. This suggests that the respondents felt
recognized and appreciated for their work and contributions to the organization, which can
contribute to a sense of motivation and engagement.

The respondents' perception of communication was slightly lower than the other categories, with
an average score of 4.5000 and a higher standard deviation of 1.10426. This suggests that the
respondents may have had different experiences or opinions regarding communication within
their organization, such as frequency, clarity, and effectiveness.

The overall job satisfaction level score was 4.6758, which is slightly higher than the average
score for the individual categories. This suggests that the respondents were generally satisfied
with their job, which is a good indication of employee retention and productivity.

Note:

The results suggest that the respondents were generally satisfied with their job, with high ratings
for work and work experience, recognition, and supervisor and management. However, there is
room for improvement in communication, as well as addressing any potential issues or concerns
that may affect employee satisfaction and engagement. These findings can be useful for
employers and managers to identify areas of strength and opportunities for improvement in the
workplace. It is important to note that the study only represents the perceptions of the
respondents and may not reflect the actual job satisfaction level or experiences of all employees
in the organization.
4. Are there significant relationships between:
4.1. The profile of the respondents and job satisfaction?
4.2. The perceived working environment and the profile of the respondents?
4.3. The respondents’ level of job satisfaction and their perceived working environment?

Job Satisfaction Level Spearman’s

Age Group Total Sig. Value
Rho
Not Satisfied Ambivalence Satisfied
18 - 21 2 1 11 14
22 - 25 2 7 47 56
26 - 29 0 2 17 19 0.161749 0.109711
30 - Above 0 0 10 10
Total 4 10 85 99

The given result shows the job satisfaction levels of different age groups and their correlation
coefficient using Spearman's Rho. The age groups are divided into four categories: 18-21,
22-25, 26-29, and 30-above. The job satisfaction levels are categorized into three groups: Not
Satisfied, Ambivalence, and Satisfied. The result also provides the total number of respondents
in each age group and the total number of respondents overall.

Looking at the data, we can see that the majority of respondents across all age groups are
satisfied with their job, with the exception of the 18-21 age group, where only 11 out of 14
respondents reported being satisfied.

Spearman's Rho is a statistical measure used to determine the strength and direction of the
relationship between two variables. In this case, the variables are age group and job satisfaction
level. The Spearman's Rho value for the given data is 0.161749, which indicates a weak
positive correlation between age group and job satisfaction level. The p-value or significance
value is 0.109711, which is greater than the typical alpha level of 0.05, indicating that the
correlation is not statistically significant.

Therefore, we can conclude that there is a weak positive correlation between age group and job
satisfaction level. However, this correlation is not statistically significant, and it is possible that
other factors may have a stronger influence on job satisfaction levels than age group alone.

Job Satisfaction Level Fisher's Exact

Sex Total Sig. Value
Test
Not Satisfied Ambivalence Satisfied
Female 3 6 42 51
Male 1 4 43 48 1.273559 0.610809
Total 4 10 85 99
3 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5.

The given result shows the job satisfaction levels of male and female respondents and their
Fisher's exact test result with significance value. The job satisfaction levels are categorized into
three groups: Not Satisfied, Ambivalence, and Satisfied. The result also provides the total
number of male and female respondents and the total number of respondents overall.

Looking at the data, we can see that both male and female respondents are generally satisfied
with their job, with slightly more female respondents reporting ambivalence.
Fisher's exact test is a statistical test used to determine the association between two categorical
variables. In this case, the variables are sex and job satisfaction level. The Fisher's exact test
result for the given data is 1.273559, which indicates that there is no significant association
between sex and job satisfaction level. The p-value or significance value is 0.610809, which is
greater than the typical alpha level of 0.05, further indicating that the association is not
statistically significant.

Therefore, we can conclude that there is no significant association between sex and job
satisfaction level. This means that job satisfaction levels are similar for both male and female
respondents, and gender is not a significant factor in determining job satisfaction levels in this
sample. It is worth noting that this result is based on the given sample, and the generalizability
of the result may depend on the representativeness of the sample.

Job Satisfaction Level Spearman’s

Average Income Total Sig. Value
Rho
Not Satisfied Ambivalence Satisfied
10,000 - below 1 0 0 1
11,000 - 20,000 2 4 36 42
21,000 - 30,000 1 6 42 49
0.109144 0.282198
31,000 - 40,000 0 0 5 5
41,000 - 50,000 0 0 2 2
Total 4 10 85 99

The given result shows the job satisfaction levels of different income groups and their correlation
coefficient using Spearman's Rho. The income groups are divided into five categories:
10,000-below, 11,000-20,000, 21,000-30,000, 31,000-40,000, and 41,000-50,000. The job
satisfaction levels are categorized into three groups: Not Satisfied, Ambivalence, and Satisfied.
The result also provides the total number of respondents in each income group and the total
number of respondents overall.

Looking at the data, we can see that the majority of respondents across all income groups are
satisfied with their job, with the exception of the 10,000-below income group, where only one
respondent reported being satisfied.

Spearman's Rho is a statistical measure used to determine the strength and direction of the
relationship between two variables. In this case, the variables are average income and job
satisfaction level. The Spearman's Rho value for the given data is 0.109144, which indicates a
weak positive correlation between average income and job satisfaction level. The p-value or
significance value is 0.282198, which is greater than the typical alpha level of 0.05, indicating
that the correlation is not statistically significant.

Therefore, we can conclude that there is a weak positive correlation between average income
and job satisfaction level. However, this correlation is not statistically significant, and it is
possible that other factors may have a stronger influence on job satisfaction levels than average
income alone. Additionally, it is worth noting that the sample size for some of the income groups
is quite small (e.g., only 2 respondents in the 41,000-50,000-income group), which may limit the
generalizability of the results.

Spearman’s
Age Group Perceived Working Environment Total Sig. Value
Rho
 Strongly Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree
Disagree Agree
18 - 21 0 2 2 5 5 14
22 - 25 1 1 4 24 26 56
26 - 29 0 0 3 6 10 19 0.113123 0.264916
30 - Above 0 0 1 4 5 10
Total 1 3 10 39 46 99

The result presented is a correlation analysis between age group and perceived working
environment. The table shows the number of respondents for each category of the five-point
Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree) for each age group, as
well as the total number of respondents. The Spearman’s Rho coefficient and the Sig. Value are
also presented.

The Spearman’s Rho coefficient is a measure of the strength and direction of the relationship
between two variables. In this case, the variables are age group and perceived working
environment. The coefficient ranges from -1 to +1, with a value of 0 indicating no correlation, a
positive value indicating a positive correlation, and a negative value indicating a negative
correlation.

The result shows that there is a positive correlation (Spearman’s Rho = 0.113123) between age
group and perceived working environment. However, the correlation is weak. The Sig. Value is
0.264916, which means that the result is not statistically significant at the 0.05 level. This
suggests that the observed correlation could be due to chance, and that there is not enough
evidence to conclude that there is a true relationship between age group and perceived working
environment.

Looking at the results for each age group, the majority of respondents in each age group either
agree or strongly agree with the survey questions about the working environment. The highest
number of respondents who agree or strongly agree is in the 22-25 age group, followed by the
26-29 age group. The 18-21 age group has the lowest number of respondents who agree or
strongly agree, but also has the highest number of respondents who disagree or strongly
disagree with the survey questions about the working environment.

It is important to note that this result only provides information about the correlation between
age group and perceived working environment. It does not provide information about the causes
of this correlation or the factors that may influence it. Therefore, further research is needed to
investigate the relationship between age and perceived working environment, and to identify the
factors that may contribute to this relationship.

In conclusion, the result shows a weak positive correlation between age group and perceived
working environment, but this correlation is not statistically significant. The result suggests that
age group may not be a major factor in determining the perceived working environment, and
that other factors may be more influential.

Perceived Working Environment

Fisher's
Sex Total Sig. Value
Strongly Strongly Exact Test
Disagree Neutral Agree
Disagree Agree
Female 1 2 2 23 23 51
6.004995 0.144102
Male 0 1 8 16 23 48
 Total 1 3 10 39 46 99
5 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5.

The result presented is a contingency table analysis between sex and perceived working
environment. The table shows the number of respondents for each category of the five-point
Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree) for each sex, as well as
the total number of respondents. The Fisher's Exact Test and the Sig. Value are also presented.

The Fisher's Exact Test is a statistical test used to determine if there is a significant association
between two categorical variables. In this case, the variables are sex and perceived working
environment. The test is used because the sample size is relatively small and the expected
frequencies in the contingency table are low. The Sig. Value indicates the level of statistical
significance at which the null hypothesis can be rejected.

The result shows that there is no significant association between sex and perceived working
environment (Fisher's Exact Test = 6.004995, Sig. Value = 0.144102). This suggests that the
distribution of responses to the survey questions about the working environment is not
significantly different between males and females.

Looking at the results for each sex, the majority of respondents in both groups either agree or
strongly agree with the survey questions about the working environment. However, the female
group has a slightly higher number of respondents who strongly agree compared to the male
group. The male group has a slightly higher number of respondents who are neutral or disagree
compared to the female group.

It is important to note that this result only provides information about the association between
sex and perceived working environment. It does not provide information about the causes of this
association or the factors that may influence it. Therefore, further research is needed to
investigate the relationship between sex and perceived working environment, and to identify the
factors that may contribute to this relationship.

In conclusion, the result shows that there is no significant association between sex and
perceived working environment. The result suggests that sex may not be a major factor in
determining the perceived working environment, and that other factors may be more influential.
However, it is important to note that this result is based on a relatively small sample size and
further research is needed to confirm these findings.

Perceived Working Environment

Average Spearman’s
Total Sig. Value
Income Strongly Strongly Rho
Disagree Neutral Agree
Disagree Agree
10,000 - below 0 0 0 1 0 1
11,000 - 20,000 1 2 5 14 20 42
21,000 - 30,000 0 1 5 20 23 49
0.050160 0.621973
31,000 - 40,000 0 0 0 3 2 5
41,000 - 50,000 0 0 0 1 1 2
Total 1 3 10 39 46 99

The result presented is a contingency table analysis between average income and perceived
working environment. The table shows the number of respondents for each category of the
five-point Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree) for each
income group, as well as the total number of respondents. The Spearman's Rho correlation
coefficient and the Sig. Value are also presented.

The Spearman's Rho correlation coefficient is a statistical measure of the strength of the
association between two variables. In this case, the variables are average income and
perceived working environment. The coefficient ranges from -1 to 1, with -1 indicating a perfect
negative correlation, 0 indicating no correlation, and 1 indicating a perfect positive correlation.
The Sig. Value indicates the level of statistical significance at which the null hypothesis can be
rejected.

The result shows a positive correlation between average income and perceived working
environment (Spearman's Rho = 0.050160, Sig. Value = 0.621973), although the correlation is
weak and is not statistically significant. This suggests that respondents with higher average
incomes are slightly more likely to have a positive perception of the working environment than
respondents with lower average incomes.

Looking at the results for each income group, the majority of respondents in all groups either
agree or strongly agree with the survey questions about the working environment. However,
there are some differences in the distribution of responses between income groups. The highest
income group (41,000 - 50,000) has a lower number of respondents than other income groups,
but all respondents in this group agree or strongly agree with the survey questions about the
working environment. The lowest income group (10,000 - below) has only one respondent, who
agrees with the survey questions about the working environment.

It is important to note that this result only provides information about the association between
average income and perceived working environment. It does not provide information about the
causes of this association or the factors that may influence it. Therefore, further research is
needed to investigate the relationship between income and perceived working environment, and
to identify the factors that may contribute to this relationship.

In conclusion, the result shows a weak positive correlation between average income and
perceived working environment. The result suggests that income may be a factor in determining
the perceived working environment, although other factors may also be influential. However, it is
important to note that this result is based on a relatively small sample size and further research
is needed to confirm these findings.

Job Satisfaction Pairwise Correlation with Work Environment: Physical Features

Level
Spearman’s Rho Sig. Value Decision Remark
Work and Work
0.426096 0.000011 Reject H0 Significant
Experience
Supervisor and
0.537390 0.000000 Reject H0 Significant
Management
Benefits and
0.298714 0.002671 Reject H0 Significant
Rewards

Recognition 0.444232 0.000004 Reject H0 Significant

 Communication 0.632756 0.000000 Reject H0 Significant

The table provides the correlation coefficients (Spearman’s Rho) and the associated p-values
for the relationship between physical features of the work environment and various factors such
as work and work experience, supervisor and management, benefits and rewards, recognition,
and communication.

The results show that all these factors have a positive correlation with the physical features of
the work environment. The strongest correlation was found between communication and
physical features of the work environment (Spearman’s Rho = 0.632756), indicating that a better
physical environment can lead to better communication among employees.

The correlation between supervisor and management and physical features of the work
environment was also found to be high (Spearman’s Rho = 0.53739), suggesting that a better
physical environment can improve the effectiveness of management practices and create a
positive work culture.

The correlation between recognition and physical features of the work environment was also
found to be significant (Spearman’s Rho = 0.444232), suggesting that a better physical
environment can positively impact the recognition of employees and their work.

The correlation between work and work experience and physical features of the work
environment was also significant (Spearman’s Rho = 0.426096), indicating that a better physical
environment can lead to a more positive work experience for employees.

Finally, the correlation between benefits and rewards and physical features of the work
environment was found to be low but still statistically significant (Spearman’s Rho = 0.298714),
suggesting that a better physical environment can also have an impact on employee benefits
and rewards.

Overall, these results suggest that creating a positive work environment is a multifaceted task
that requires a focus on various factors such as communication, leadership, recognition, work
experience, benefits, and rewards. A better physical environment can positively impact each of
these factors, leading to a more engaged and satisfied workforce.

Job Satisfaction Pairwise Correlation with Work Environment: Leadership Style

Level
Spearman’s Rho Sig. Value Decision Remark
Work and Work
0.267298 0.007481 Reject H0 Significant
Experience
Supervisor and
0.585827 0.000000 Reject H0 Significant
Management
Benefits and
0.282503 0.004610 Reject H0 Significant
Rewards

Recognition 0.317250 0.001376 Reject H0 Significant

 Communication 0.582779 0.000000 Reject H0 Significant

The results presented in the table indicate the correlation coefficients (Spearman's Rho) and the
corresponding significance values for the relationship between the variables "Work Environment
- Leadership Style". Specifically, the variables include "Work and Work Experience", "Supervisor
and Management", "Benefits and Rewards", "Recognition", and "Communication".

Spearman's Rho is a non-parametric statistical measure of the strength and direction of the
relationship between two variables. The values range from -1 to 1, where 1 indicates a perfect
positive correlation (i.e., when one variable increases, the other variable increases as well), 0
indicates no correlation, and -1 indicates a perfect negative correlation (i.e., when one variable
increases, the other variable decreases).

In the table, all variables show positive correlations with leadership style, with correlation
coefficients ranging from 0.267298 to 0.582779. The significance values indicate the probability
of obtaining such correlations by chance, with values less than 0.05 indicating a significant
relationship.

The job satisfaction factor "Supervisor and Management" has the strongest correlation with
leadership style (r = 0.585827, p < 0.001), followed by "Communication" (r = 0.582779, p <
0.001), "Recognition" (r = 0.31725, p = 0.001376), "Benefits and Rewards" (r = 0.282503, p =
0.00461), and "Work and Work Experience" (r = 0.267298, p = 0.007481).

These results suggest that leadership style is positively correlated with various aspects of the
job satisfcation, such as effective communication, recognition of employees' contributions,
benefits and rewards, and management effectiveness. It is important to note that these
correlations do not necessarily imply causation. Other factors, such as organizational culture,
employee motivation, and job satisfaction, may also influence the relationship between
leadership style and the work environment.

Overall, these results provide valuable insights into the factors that contribute to a positive work
environment, which can help organizations to improve employee satisfaction and performance.
They also highlight the importance of effective leadership in creating a supportive and
productive workplace culture.

Job Satisfaction Pairwise Correlation with Work Environment: Company Values

Level
Spearman’s Rho Sig. Value Decision Remark
Work and Work
0.408788 0.000027 Reject H0 Significant
Experience
Supervisor and
0.681917 0.000000 Reject H0 Significant
Management
Benefits and
0.283737 0.004427 Reject H0 Significant
Rewards

Recognition 0.410117 0.000025 Reject H0 Significant

 Communication 0.658175 0.000000 Reject H0 Significant

The results presented in the table indicate the correlation coefficients (Spearman's Rho) and the
corresponding significance values for the relationship between the variables "Work Environment
- Company Values". Specifically, the variables include "Work and Work Experience", "Supervisor
and Management", "Benefits and Rewards", "Recognition", and "Communication".

In the table, all variables show positive correlations with company values, with correlation
coefficients ranging from 0.283737 to 0.681917. The significance values indicate the probability
of obtaining such correlations by chance, with values less than 0.05 indicating a significant
relationship.

The job satisfaction factor "Supervisor and Management" has the strongest correlation with
company values (r = 0.681917, p < 0.001), followed by "Communication" (r = 0.658175, p <
0.001), "Recognition" (r = 0.410117, p = 0.000025), "Work and Work Experience" (r = 0.408788,
p = 0.000027), and "Benefits and Rewards" (r = 0.283737, p = 0.004427).

These results suggest that company values are positively correlated with various aspects of the
job satisfaction factors, such as effective communication, recognition of employees'
contributions, benefits and rewards, and management effectiveness. The variable "Work and
Work Experience" also shows a significant positive correlation, indicating that employees with
more work experience tend to be more aligned with the company's values.

Pairwise Correlation with Work Environment: Company Policies and

Job Satisfaction
Protocol
Level
Spearman’s Rho Sig. Value Decision Remark
Work and Work
0.311397 0.001705 Reject H0 Significant
Experience
Supervisor and
0.663655 0.000000 Reject H0 Significant
Management
Benefits and
0.402535 0.000036 Reject H0 Significant
Rewards

Recognition 0.369007 0.000171 Reject H0 Significant

Communication 0.641647 0.000000 Reject H0 Significant

The table presents the correlation coefficients (Spearman's Rho) and significance values for the
relationship between the variables "Work Environment - Company Policies and Protocol". The
variables include "Work and Work Experience", "Supervisor and Management", "Benefits and
Rewards", "Recognition", and "Communication".

The results show that all job satisfaction factors have a positive correlation with company
policies and protocol, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.311397 to 0.663655. The
significance values indicate that these correlations are statistically significant (p < 0.05).
The strongest correlation is observed between the factor "Supervisor and Management" and
company policies and protocol (r = 0.663655, p < 0.001), followed by "Communication" (r =
0.641647, p < 0.001), "Benefits and Rewards" (r = 0.402535, p = 0.000036), "Recognition" (r =
0.369007, p = 0.000171), and "Work and Work Experience" (r = 0.311397, p = 0.001705).

These results suggest that effective company policies and protocols are positively associated
with various aspects of the job satisfaction, such as good communication, effective
management, and recognition of employees' contributions. The factors "Work and Work
Experience" and "Benefits and Rewards" also show a significant positive correlation, indicating
that employees with more work experience and better benefits and rewards tend to be more
aligned with company policies and protocols.

In summary, the results indicate that having clear company policies and protocols is important
for creating a positive work environment. Effective communication, management practices, and
recognition of employees' contributions are crucial for aligning employees with these policies
and protocols. Organizations should therefore focus on developing and implementing clear
policies and protocols while also ensuring that these are effectively communicated and aligned
with employees' values and expectations.

Perceived Working Environment

Job Satisfaction Level Total
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree
Disagree Agree
Not Satisfied 1 2 0 1 0 4
Ambivalence 0 0 3 6 1 10
Satisfied 0 1 7 32 45 85
Total 1 3 10 39 46 99

The table represents the job satisfaction level of employees in relation to their perceived
working environment. The job satisfaction level is categorized into three groups, namely "Not
Satisfied", "Ambivalence", and "Satisfied". The perceived working environment is classified into
five groups, namely "Strongly Disagree", "Disagree", "Neutral", "Agree", and "Strongly Agree".
The total number of employees is 99.

The results show that the majority of the employees (85 out of 99) are satisfied with their job.
Out of these satisfied employees, 45 strongly agree and 32 agree with the perceived working
environment. Only one employee strongly disagrees, and two employees disagree with the
perceived working environment.

There are a total of 10 employees who are ambivalent towards their job satisfaction level. Out of
these, one strongly disagrees, and six disagree with the perceived working environment. Three
employees are neutral, and one agrees, and one strongly agrees with the perceived working
environment.

Four employees (1+2+1) are not satisfied with their job, and all of them have a negative
perception of their working environment. One employee strongly disagrees, two employees
disagree, and one employee agrees with the perceived working environment.

The results suggest that there is a strong correlation between job satisfaction and perceived
working environment. The majority of the employees who are satisfied with their job also have a
positive perception of their working environment. On the other hand, employees who are not
satisfied with their job have a negative perception of their working environment.

Overall, the results indicate that creating a positive working environment is essential for
increasing job satisfaction among employees. Employers should focus on improving the working
conditions, fostering a positive company culture, and providing opportunities for employee
development and growth. By doing so, organizations can promote job satisfaction among
employees, which can lead to increased productivity, better employee retention, and overall
success for the organization.

Correlation between the Job Satisfaction and Perceived Working Environment

Spearman’s Rho Sig. Value Decision Remark

0.396243 0.000049 Reject H0 Significant

The correlation between job satisfaction and perceived working environment is a crucial aspect
for organizations to consider in ensuring the well-being and productivity of their employees. This
table shows the results of a correlation analysis between job satisfaction and perceived working
environment. The Spearman's Rho coefficient is 0.396243, and the significance value is
0.000049.

The significance value of 0.000049 is less than the typical threshold of 0.05, which means that
the correlation between job satisfaction and perceived working environment is statistically
significant. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis (H0) that there is no correlation between job
satisfaction and perceived working environment.

The Spearman's Rho coefficient of 0.396243 indicates a moderate positive correlation between
job satisfaction and perceived working environment. This means that as the perceived working
environment improves, job satisfaction tends to increase as well. On the other hand, if the
perceived working environment deteriorates, job satisfaction tends to decrease.

Overall, these results suggest that a positive working environment can contribute significantly to
increasing job satisfaction among employees. Organizations that prioritize creating a supportive
and positive working environment for their employees are likely to experience higher levels of
job satisfaction, which can translate into increased productivity, improved employee retention,
and overall success for the organization.

Employers should regularly assess their employees' job satisfaction levels and working
conditions to identify areas for improvement. By addressing employees' concerns and
implementing strategies to create a positive working environment, organizations can promote
job satisfaction and achieve greater success.