Analysis & Interpretation of Data

INTRODUCTION
The methodology described in the previous chapter provided the baseline for datagathering. In this chapter, the presentation of data is systematically linked to the
format of the self-developed questionnaire attached in the appendix. The following
will be used to analyze data: description of the sample, main results, discussion,
presentation and interpretations of the results.
This chapter will focus on the analysis and interpretation of data that was collected
for this study. According to De Vos (1998:203), data analysis entails that the
analyst break down data into constituent parts to obtain answers to research
questions and to test hypotheses. The analysis of research data does not in its
own provide the answers to research questions.
The purpose of interpreting the data is to reduce it to an intelligible and
interpretable form so that the relations of research problems can be studied and
tested, and conclusions drawn. On the other hand, when the researcher interprets
the research results, he/she studies them for their meaning and implications (De
Vos, 1998:203). The next section will discuss the characteristics of the sample in
order for the findings to be clearly understood.
The main results will draw on the description of the independent and dependent
variables of the study. Since the sample size was less than 100 respondents, the
researcher will mainly use raw frequencies to describe the biographic section of
the sample. The N-value cannot exceed the total number of respondents.
Frequency distribution tables help the researcher to be able to see the spread of
the sample or to describe the sample. In other words, the researcher becomes
familiar with the demographic variables through the use of frequency distribution
tables.
The SPPS Version 11.0 was used by the researcher to analyze the data.
Univariate analysis was used in the description of the sample in terms of
demographic characteristics as well as instrument scores. Since one of the
objectives of this research is to provide a profile or description of the sample in
terms of various variables, this analysis is sufficient.
Demographic statistics
The following section provides an overview of the demographic profile of the
sample.
Question 1: Gender
Table 4.1:
Gender distribution of sample
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Male
Valid Female
Total
24.2
24.2
24.2
25
75.8
75.8
100.0
33
100.0
100.0
Gender
Male
24.2%
Female
75.8%
Graph 4.1: Gender

Table 4.1 indicates that there are 25 female respondents and 8 male respondents.
In total, there are 33 respondents. As the frequency table clearly shows, there is
imbalance between male and female respondents. Women are by far in the
majority (25). The extremely small number of male respondents will make it
difficult to influence the results.
4.1.1.1.1
Question 2: Age
Table 4.2: Different ages
Valid
30 or younger
16
48.5
53.3
53.3
Older than 30 years
14
42.4
46.7
100.0
Total
30
90.9
100.0
9.1
33
100.0
Missing System
Total
Age in complete years

Older than 30 years
46.7%
30 or younger
53.3%
Graph 4.2: Age in complete years

Table 4.2 presents the age distribution of 33 respondents. The age range of the
respondents was from 21 72 years of age.
More than half of the respondents
(16) are 30 years old or younger; 14 respondents are older than 30 years. 3
people did not respond.
Question 3: Educational qualifications

Table 4.3:
Highest educational qualifications
Frequency Percent
Valid
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Illiterate
3.0
3.0
3.0
Level 2: Grade 10 (Std 8)
3.0
3.0
6.1
6.1
6.1
12.1
12.1
12.1
24.2
18.2
18.2
42.4
6.1
6.1
48.5
15
45.5
45.5
93.9
6.1
6.1
100.0
33
100.0
100.0
Level 5: One year Certificate or

Diploma
Level 6: B Degree/Higher Diploma
Level 7: Honours degree
Level 8: Masters/Doctoral degree
Total
Highest Qualifications
16
15
14
12
10
8
6
6
Count
2
1
Graph 4.3: Highest qualifications
Table 4.3 shows the distribution of highest academic qualifications amongst the 33
respondents. It is clear that the respondents are mostly literate with only 1
respondent being illiterate. The mean qualification for the respondents is Honours
Degree, 15 respondents; followed by a post-Standard 10, one year Certificate or
Diploma (6 respondents); or Standard 10 (4 respondents). Two respondents hold
Masters Degrees. Most of the respondents have some form of education.
Question 4: Language
Table 4.4:
Home language
Valid
English
18.2
18.2
18.2
Afrikaans
21.2
21.2
39.4
African
20
60.6
60.6
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
Home Langauge
English or English
39.4%
African
60.6%
Graph 4.4: Home language
Table 4.4 presents the distribution of home languages of 33 respondents. It is

clear that 20 respondents speak an African language, 6 speak English and 7
speak Afrikaans.
Question 4.1: Language (recoded)
Table 4.5:
Home language (recoded)
English or Afrikaans
Valid African
Total
13
39.4
39.4
39.4
20
60.6
60.6
100.0
33
100.0
100.0
Question 5: Race
Table 4.6: Race
White
21.2
21.2
21.2
Black
23
69.7
69.7
90.9
6.1
6.1
97.0
3.0
3.0
100.0
33
100.0
100.0
Valid Coloured
Indian
Total
Race
30
23
20
10
Count
2
White
Black
Coloured
Indian
\
Graph 4.5: Race
Table 4.6 indicates that 23 respondents are Black; 7 respondents are White; 2
respondents are Coloured and only 1 respondent is Indian. Thus the sample is
biased towards African respondents, followed by Whites.
4.1.1.1.2
Question 6: Marital status

Table 4.7:
Marital status
Valid
Never married
14
42.4
42.4
42.4
Married to first partner
12
36.4
36.4
78.8
Traditionally married
6.1
6.1
84.8
Divorced
12.1
12.1
97.0
Widowed
3.0
3.0
100.0
33
100.0
100.0
Total
Marital
status
16
14
14
12
12
10
8
6
4
Count
4
2
2
1
Graph 4.6: Marital status

The marital status of the 33 respondents is reflected in Table 4.7. It is clear that
the majority of the respondents (14) at the time of the survey were not married;
12 respondents are married to their first partner; 2 respondents are traditionally
married; 4 respondents are divorced and 1 respondent is widowed.
4.1.1.1.3
Question 7: Occupation
Table 4.8:
Different occupations
Valid
Social worker
16
48.5
51.6
51.6
Administrative clerk
11
33.3
35.5
87.1
Security officer
3.0
3.2
90.3
Management
9.1
9.7
100.0
31
93.9
100.0
6.1
33
100.0
Total
Missing System
Total
Graph 4.7: Occupation

Table 4.8 indicates that 16 respondents are social workers; 11 respondents are
administration clerks; 1 respondent is a security officer, and 3 respondents are in
management positions. As was indicated, the sample is inclined towards the
social worker category.
Question 8: Job title

Table 4.9:
Different job titles
Valid
Missing
12.1
12.1
12.1
A/C
3.0
3.0
15.2
Admin Clerk
9.1
9.1
24.2
Admin Officer
3.0
3.0
27.3
Chief Social Worker
9.1
9.1
36.4
Data Capture
3.0
3.0
39.4
Field Worker
6.1
6.1
45.5
Food Service
3.0
3.0
48.5
Junior Social Worker
3.0
3.0
51.5
Principal Typist
3.0
3.0
54.5
Security Officer
3.0
3.0
57.6
Senior Admin Clerk
3.0
3.0
60.6
Senior Secretary
3.0
3.0
63.6
Senior Social Worker
15.2
15.2
78.8
Social Worker
15.2
15.2
93.9
Supervisor
3.0
3.0
97.0
Switchboard Operator
3.0
3.0
100.0
33
100.0
100.0
Total
Table 4.9 indicates that 4 people did not respond about their job title. One
respondent is an accounting clerk; 3 respondents are administration clerks; 1
respondent is an administration officer; 3 respondents are chief social workers; 1
respondent is a data capturer; 2 respondents are fieldworkers; 1 respondent is a
food service worker; 1 respondent is a junior social worker; 1 respondent is a
principal typist; 1 respondent is a security officer; 1 respondent is a senior
administration clerk; 1 respondent is a senior secretary; 5 respondents are senior
social workers; 5 respondents are social workers; 1 respondent is a supervisor
and 1 respondent is a switchboard operator. Social workers are by far
in the
majority and therefore are inclined to influence the results.

Question 9: Family income
Table 4.10:
Family income
Valid
R0-00 R2 999 per month
15.2
16.7
16.7
R3 000 5 999 per month
10
30.3
33.3
50.0
R6 000 - R8 999 per month
24.2
26.7
76.7
R9 000 - 11 999 per month
9.1
10.0
86.7
R15 000 - R17 999 per month
3.0
3.3
90.0
R18 000 - R 20 999 per month
6.1
6.7
96.7
R 24 000 plus per month
3.0
3.3
100.0
30
90.9
100.0
9.1
33
100.0
Total
Missing System
Total
Income
R0-00 - R5 999 pe
50.0%
R6 000 or more per m
50.0%
Graph 4.8: Income

Table 4.10 indicates that 5 respondents are earning between R0 R2 999 p.m.; 10
respondents are earning R5 999 or less; 8 respondents are earning R6 000 or
more p.m.; 3 respondents are earning between R9 000 R11 999 p.m.; 1
respondent is earning between R15 000 R17 999 p.m.; 2 respondents are
earning between R18 000 - R20 999 p.m. and 1 respondent is earning R24 000
plus p.m. Three people did not respond. The mean income is between R2 999
R5 999 p.m.
In order to simplify the income categories these were reduced to two groups. It
should be clear that half the respondents are in the lower income category, while
the other half are in the higher income category.
Question 9: Family income (recoded)

Table 4.11:
Family income (recoded)
Valid
R0-00 - R5 999 per month
15
45.5
50.0
50.0
R6 000 or more per month
15
45.5
50.0
100.0
Total
30
90.9
100.0
9.1
33
100.0
Missing System
Total
Discussion of the above results

The demographic information shows that there is gender imbalance, that is, there
are more female respondents than males. Therefore, the results will be biased
towards female opinions. The majority of the respondents are 30 years old and
younger. The oldest respondent is 72 years old. The respondents seem to be
literate, as most of them are postgraduates. The majority of the respondents
speak African languages and the minority are either English- or Afrikaansspeaking. Africans are in the majority; Whites, Coloureds and Indians are in the
minority.
Most of the respondents have never been married, and only a few are married to
their first partner. A small percentage is either widowed or
divorced.
Social
workers are by far in the majority. The results also show that most of the
respondents are social workers, from junior to top management levels. Social
workers are not working in isolation as they are backed by administration
personnel, food service personnel and security officers. The results further show
that the lowest salary earned by the respondents is between R0 R2 999 and the
highest salary earned by the respondents is R24 000 and higher per month.
In the following section, relevant data about the response frequencies of

employees at Social Development (Germiston) to the different questionnaires is
reported. The objective of Table 4.12, consisting of question 10 26 is to analyze
those questions which had Yes/Unsure/No responses as developed by the
researcher to get the perceptions of the respondents regarding the factors
affecting their well-being.
THE SELF-DESIGNED QUESTIONNAIRE

A self-designed questionnaire was used to explore various issues of social factors
influencing employee well-being (see Appendix D).
This questionnaire has the objective of measuring social factors influencing
employee well-being. This questionnaire has 18 items. The items are as follows:
Feedback about job performance
Salary increase
Promotion
Disciplinary hearing
Reward for good performance
Shift work (Day and night duty)
Fringe benefits pension fund
Fringe benefits medical aid
Fringe benefits housing allowance
Overtime work
Leave (paternity, sick, study or holiday)
Downsizing
Retrenchment
Filling of vacant posts
In-service training
Team-building exercises
Equipments to fulfil duties

This data will be interpreted together with the Organization Climate Audit (OCA)
(Perspektief College) results to draw up a profile of employee well-being at Social
Development (Germiston).
This measuring instrument aims to gather data to address the following research
objective:
To draw up a profile of employee well-being at Social Development.

The descriptive statistics of the self-designed questionnaire
The following table indicates descriptive statistics on the different questions
regarding work-related issues as developed by the researcher. A short
interpretation is provided underneath each question to explain the researchers
understanding of the result.
Table 4.12:
Descriptive statistics on the different questions regarding
work-related issues
Yes
10. Did you get feedback about your job performance in Count
No
14
Total
18
32
the past year?

14
respondents
received
feedback
about
their
job
performance. 18 respondents did not receive feedback in
43.8%
56.3% 100.0%
the past year.1 respondent did not respond.

11. Did you receive a salary increase in the past year?
29
respondents
received
salary
increase
and
Count
29
33
respondents did not receive salary increase in the past year.

This could be because they are still on probation. (Newly
appointed employees in the department serve 12 months
87.9%
12.1% 100.0%
before they can be deemed permanent..)
12. Were you promoted in the past year?
Count
30
33
3 respondents were promoted and 30 respondents were not

promoted in the past year.
13. Were you a subject of a disciplinary hearing in the
Count
9.1%
4
90.9% 100.0%
29
33
past year?
4 respondents were the subject of a disciplinary hearing and
29 respondents were not the subject of a disciplinary
12.1%
87.9% 100.0%
hearing in the past year.

14. Were you rewarded for good performance in the
Count
28
33
past year?
5 respondents were rewarded for good performance and 28
respondents were not rewarded for good performance in the
15.2%
84.8% 100.0%
past year.
15. Have you worked night shift in the past year?
Count
30
32
2 respondents have worked night shift and 30 respondents

have not worked night shift in the past year. This could be
because of the fact that in this study only security officials
work shifts that is, day and night shifts. 1 respondent did
not respond.
6.3%
93.8% 100.0%
Yes
16. Did you get fringe benefits such as pension funds
Count
No
21
Total
12
33
in the past year?

21 respondents received pension funds and 12 respondents
did not receive pension funds in the past year as they are %
employed on a contract basis; therefore they are not given
63.6%
36.4% 100.0%
pension funds.
17. Did you get fringe benefits such as medical aid in
Count
20
13
33
the past year?

20 respondents received medical aid and 13 respondents
60.6%
39.4% 100.0%
did not receive medical aid. Medical aid is optional.

18. Did you get fringe benefits such as housing
Count
17
16
33
subsidy in the past year?

17
respondents
received
housing
subsidy
and
16
respondents did not receive housing subsidy in the past
51.5%
48.5% 100.0%
year. Housing subsidy is also optional.

19. Were you paid for overtime work in the past year? 16 Count
16
16
32
respondents were paid for overtime and 16 respondents

were not paid for overtime in the past year. Overtime is not
compulsory.
16 respondents were paid for overtime as
there was a major project at the Department of Social

Development (Germiston) the Food Security Scheme. 16
50.0%
50.0% 100.0%
respondents were working after hours, that is, after 16:00

during the week and during the weekends (Saturday and
Sunday). 1 respondent did not respond.
20. Did you get leave in the past year (paternity, sick, Count
28
33
study or holiday)?
28 respondents were given leave (paternity, sick, study or
holiday) in the past year. 5 respondents did not get leave as %
they are still new at the department that is, they have only
84.8%
15.2% 100.0%
been there a few weeks or a few months.

Yes
21. Was your department downsized in the past five
Count
Unsure
5
17
No
11
Total
33
years?
5
respondents
reported
that
their
department
was
downsized in the past five years, 17 respondents are unsure

and
11 respondents
reported
that
there
was
no
departmental downsizing in the past five years. This

information is biased.
15.2%
51.5% 33.3% 100.0%
Yes
22. Were employees retrenched in the past five years?
4
respondents
reported
that
the
employees
Count
Unsure
4
No
Total
21
33
were
retrenched, 8 respondents reported that they are unsure

and 21 respondents reported that there were no employees
12.1%
24.2% 63.6% 100.0%
who were retrenched in the past five years.

23. Were vacant positions filled in the past five years?
Count
22
33
22 respondents reported that vacant positions were filled, 4

respondents reported that they are unsure and 7
respondents reported that vacant positions were not filled in
66.7%
12.1% 21.2% 100.0%
the past five years.

24. Did employees attend in-service training in the past
Count
29
87.9%
6.1%
19
33
five years?
29 respondents attended in-service training, 2 respondents
reported that they are unsure and 2 respondents reported %
that they did not attend in-service training in the past five
6.1% 100.0%
years.
25. Did employees participate in team-building
Count
33
exercises in the past five years?

19 respondents participated in team-building exercises, 6
respondents are unsure and 8 respondents did not
57.6%
18.2% 24.2% 100.0%
participate in team-building exercises in the past five years.

26. Did employees get the necessary equipment to fulfil Count
12
10
11
33
their duties in the past five years?

12 respondents received the necessary equipment to fulfil
their duties, 10 respondents are unsure and 11 respondents %
reported that they did not receive the necessary equipment
to fulfil their duties in the past five years.
36.4%
30.3% 33.3% 100.0%
ORGANISATION CLIMATE AUDIT SCALE (OCA)

The OCA was designed by Perspective Training College in Potchefstroom
Silverton (North West Province). The package of the OCA scale consists of a
scale, consisting of 17 subscales, 25 answer sheets, and 2 Paswin Floppy Discs
(enabling the researcher to analyze data). The researcher analyzed the data
through the use of SPPS.11.0 as administered by Statkon, University of
Johannesburg. The purpose of the OCA scale is to evaluate the present climate in
the organization and making recommendations for the future. It has 17 subscales
and each subscale consists of specific statements to which the respondents are
required to respond on five-point scales that will be provided whereby, (1) will
indicate Never; (2) Sometimes; (3) Half the Time; (4) Often and (5) Always.
Each subscale has a score ranging from 62 to 68. Lower scores represent the
relative presence of social factors influencing employee well-being, whereas
higher scores represent the absence of social factors influencing employee wellbeing. Clinical cutting scores are also established for each
subscale,
distinguishing various degrees of severity of the problem. One subscale was

omitted in respect of administrative staff and security personnel as they do not
work directly with the clients. The omitted subscale was: Relationship with
clients.
Question 27: Achievement

The following table indicates the scores of the respondents on achievement:
Table 4.13:
Frequency distribution of perceptions about achievement
Valid
16.00
3.0
3.0
3.0
17.00
3.0
3.0
6.1
18.00
6.1
6.1
12.1
19.00
6.1
6.1
18.2
20.00
3.0
3.0
21.2
21.00
15.2
15.2
36.4
22.00
3.0
3.0
39.4
23.00
6.1
6.1
45.5
24.00
18.2
18.2
63.6
25.00
6.1
6.1
69.7
26.00
18.2
18.2
87.9
27.00
3.0
3.0
90.9
28.00
3.0
3.0
93.9
29.00
6.1
6.1
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
Table 4.13 shows the distribution of scores of the 33 respondents, as a measure

of achievement. The cutting score for this subscale is 65. OCA is a positive scale,
that is, if the cutting score is 65, the respondents should score above 65. This
also means that the respondents are not experiencing problems. If they score
below 65, then there is a significant problem. Therefore, one can deduce from this
data that the respondents have a clinically significant problem in terms of
achievement. It is clear from the table that the mean is 23.12, the maximum is 29
and the minimum is 16. The total number of the respondents is 33. On average,
the results show that the respondents do not reach their planned work objectives
and seem to be less motivated at work.
Question 28: Job Satisfaction

The following table indicates the scores of the respondents on job satisfaction
Table 4.14:
Frequency distribution of perceptions about job satisfaction
10.00
3.0
3.0
3.0
11.00
3.0
3.0
6.1
12.00
12.1
12.1
18.2
14.00
9.1
9.1
27.3
16.00
3.0
3.0
30.3
17.00
3.0
3.0
33.3
18.00
9.1
9.1
42.4
Valid 19.00
3.0
3.0
45.5
20.00
3.0
3.0
48.5
21.00
3.0
3.0
51.5
22.00
12.1
12.1
63.6
23.00
9.1
9.1
72.7
24.00
6.1
6.1
78.8
25.00
21.2
21.2
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
Table 4.14 shows the distribution of scores of 33 respondents for the job
satisfaction subscale, as a measure of job satisfaction. The cutting score for this
subscale is 65; therefore, one can deduce from this data that the respondents
have a clinically significant problem in terms of job satisfaction. It is clear from the
table that the mean is 19.3, the maximum is 25 and the minimum is 10. The total
number of the respondents is 33. On average, this clearly shows that the
respondents do not find their job interesting and are no longer committed to their
jobs.
Question 29: Effectiveness of top management

The following table indicates the scores of the respondents on effectiveness of top
management.
Table 4.15:
Frequency distribution of perceptions about managerial effectiveness
Valid
9.00
3.0
3.0
3.0
10.00
6.1
6.1
9.1
11.00
6.1
6.1
15.2
12.00
3.0
3.0
18.2
13.00
12.1
12.1
30.3
14.00
6.1
6.1
36.4
15.00
3.0
3.0
39.4
16.00
12.1
12.1
51.5
17.00
9.1
9.1
60.6
18.00
6.1
6.1
66.7
19.00
6.1
6.1
72.7
20.00
3.0
3.0
75.8
21.00
3.0
3.0
78.8
22.00
6.1
6.1
84.8
23.00
6.1
6.1
90.9
24.00
6.1
6.1
97.0
35.00
3.0
3.0
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
Table 4.15 shows effectiveness of top management subscale scores of the

sample. The cutting score for this subscale is 65; therefore, one can deduce from
this data that the respondents have a clinically significant problem in terms of
effectiveness of top management. It is clear from the table that the mean is 17,
the maximum is 35 and the minimum is 9. The total number of the respondents is
33. The results clearly show that top management promotes the careers of certain
workers. The respondents have lost trust in top management; they also feel that
top management does not consider them when making decisions.
Question 30: Effectiveness of immediate supervisor
The following table indicates the scores of the respondents on the effectiveness of
immediate supervisor.
Table 4.16:
Frequency distribution of perceptions about
effectiveness of immediate supervisor
7.00
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.00
3.0
3.0
6.1
12.00
3.0
3.0
9.1
13.00
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
12.1
14.00
1
1
15.00
6.1
6.1
21.2
16.00
3.0
3.0
24.2
17.00
2
1
6.1
3.0
6.1
3.0
30.3
18.00
20.00
6.1
6.1
39.4
Valid 21.00
6.1
6.1
45.5
22.00
6.1
6.1
51.5
23.00
6.1
6.1
57.6
24.00
9.1
9.1
66.7
25.00
3.0
3.0
69.7
26.00
6.1
6.1
75.8
27.00
9.1
9.1
84.8
28.00
6.1
6.1
90.9
29.00
6.1
6.1
97.0
31.00
3.0
3.0
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
15.2
33.3
Table 4.16 shows effectiveness of immediate supervisor subscale scores of the

immediate supervisor. It is clear from the table that the mean is 21.21, the
maximum is 31 and the minimum is 7. The total number of respondents is 33.
The results show that the immediate supervisors only promote the careers of
certain workers; they do not look after the respondents interests, who are not
considered when decisions are made.
Question 31: Equality
The following table indicates the scores of the respondents on equality
Table 4.17:
Frequency distribution of perceptions about equality
9.00
3.0
3.0
3.0
11.00
3.0
3.0
6.1
13.00
6.1
6.1
12.1
14.00
6.1
6.1
18.2
15.00
12.1
12.1
30.3
16.00
15.2
15.2
45.5
17.00
9.1
9.1
54.5
Valid 18.00
9.1
9.1
63.6
19.00
9.1
9.1
72.7
20.00
6.1
6.1
78.8
22.00
3.0
3.0
81.8
24.00
9.1
9.1
90.9
25.00
6.1
6.1
97.0
27.00
3.0
3.0
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
Table 4.17 shows equality subscale scores of the sample. The cutting score for
this subscale is 65; therefore, one can deduce from this data that the respondents
have a clinically significant problem in terms of equality.
It is clear from the table
that the mean is 17.7, the maximum is 27 and the minimum is 9. The total number
of the respondents is 33. The results clearly show that the same standards are
not applicable to everyone in the workplace: some respondents are not given
equal opportunity to advance their careers and do not receive the same treatment
as others.
Question 32: Job security
The following table indicates the scores of the respondents on job security
Table 4.18:
Frequency distribution of perception about job security
5.00
3.0
3.0
3.0
8.00
3.0
3.0
6.1
9.00
3.0
3.0
9.1
10.00
3.0
3.0
12.1
11.00
6.1
6.1
18.2
14.00
12.1
12.1
30.3
15.00
6.1
6.1
36.4
Valid 16.00
3.0
3.0
39.4
17.00
12.1
12.1
51.5
19.00
3.0
3.0
54.5
20.00
9.1
9.1
63.6
21.00
9.1
9.1
72.7
23.00
9.1
9.1
81.8
25.00
18.2
18.2
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
Table 4.18 shows job security subscale scores of the sample. The cutting score
for this subscale is 65; therefore, one can deduce from this data that the
respondents have a clinically significant problem in terms of job security. It is clear
from the table that the mean is 17.7, the maximum is 25 and the minimum is 5.
The total number of the respondents is 33. On average, the results also show that
the respondents do not have promotion possibilities in their jobs.
Question 33: Working conditions
The following table indicates the scores of the respondents on working conditions
Table 4.19:
Frequency distribution of perceptions about working conditions
Valid
6.00
3.0
3.0
3.0
8.00
9.1
9.1
12.1
9.00
6.1
6.1
18.2
10.00
3.0
3.0
21.2
12.00
6.1
6.1
27.3
13.00
3.0
3.0
30.3
14.00
12.1
12.1
42.4
16.00
9.1
9.1
51.5
17.00
3.0
3.0
54.5
18.00
6.1
6.1
60.6
19.00
9.1
9.1
69.7
21.00
3.0
3.0
72.7
22.00
15.2
15.2
87.9
24.00
6.1
6.1
93.9
25.00
6.1
6.1
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
Table 4.19 shows working conditions subscale scores of the sample. The cutting
score for this subscale is 65; therefore, one can deduce from this data that the
respondents have a clinically significant problem in terms of working conditions. It
is clear from the table that the mean is 16.3, the maximum is 25 and the minimum
is 6. The total number of the respondents is 33. The results shows that safety
standards are not being implemented at work: the working environment is not
comfortable and not safe.
Question 34: Relationship with team members
The following table indicates the scores of the respondents on their relationship
with their team members.
Table 4.20:
Frequency distribution of perceptions about relationship with team members
11.00
3.0
3.0
3.0
17.00
6.1
6.1
9.1
19.00
6.1
6.1
15.2
20.00
6.1
6.1
21.2
21.00
6.1
6.1
27.3
22.00
3.0
3.0
30.3
23.00
6.1
6.1
36.4
Valid 24.00
12.1
12.1
48.5
25.00
9.1
9.1
57.6
26.00
6.1
6.1
63.6
27.00
6.1
6.1
69.7
28.00
3.0
3.0
72.7
29.00
3.0
3.0
75.8
30.00
24.2
24.2
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
Table 4.20 shows the relationship with team members subscale scores of the
relationship with team members.
It is clear from the table that the mean is 24.4,
the maximum is 30 and the minimum is 11. The total number of the respondents
is 33. On average, the results of the study clearly show that the respondents do
not get along with their team members; they do not treat others with respect and
have lost trust in each other.
Question 35: Training in this organization
The following table indicates the scores of the respondents on training at the
organization.
Table 4.21:
Frequency distribution of perceptions about training in this
organisation
.00
3.0
3.0
3.0
21.00
3.0
3.0
6.1
23.00
3.0
3.0
9.1
24.00
3.0
12.1
3.0
12.1
12.1
26.00
1
4
27.00
3.0
3.0
27.3
28.00
3.0
3.0
30.3
29.00
6.1
3.0
6.1
3.0
36.4
31.00
2
1
Valid 32.00
3.0
3.0
42.4
33.00
3.0
3.0
45.5
34.00
15.2
15.2
60.6
36.00
6.1
6.1
66.7
37.00
12.1
12.1
78.8
40.00
6.1
6.1
84.8
43.00
9.1
9.1
93.9
44.00
3.0
3.0
97.0
48.00
3.0
3.0
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
24.2
39.4
Table 4.21 shows training in the organization subscale scores of the sample. The
cutting score for this subscale is 65; therefore, one can deduce from this data that
the respondents have a clinically significant problem in terms of training in the
organization. It is clear from the table that the mean is 32.4, the maximum is
48
and the minimum is 00. The total number of respondents is 33. On average, the
results indicates that there is no training plan for them, although others feel that
the training they receive makes their job easier and they are able to implement the
training they receive in their workplace. This is surely applicable to social workers.
Question 36: Conflict
The following table indicates the scores of the respondents on conflict.
Table 4.22:
Frequency distribution of perceptions about conflict
Valid
16.00
3.0
3.1
3.1
17.00
3.0
3.1
6.3
19.00
3.0
3.1
9.4
20.00
3.0
3.1
12.5
22.00
6.1
6.3
18.8
23.00
3.0
3.1
21.9
24.00
6.1
6.3
28.1
25.00
9.1
9.4
37.5
27.00
3.0
9.1
3.1
9.4
40.6
28.00
1
3
29.00
6.1
6.3
56.3
31.00
3.0
3.1
59.4
32.00
3.0
3.1
62.5
33.00
6.1
6.3
68.8
34.00
9.1
9.4
78.1
35.00
3.0
3.1
81.3
36.00
3.0
3.1
84.4
39.00
3.0
3.1
87.5
41.00
3.0
3.1
90.6
42.00
6.1
6.3
96.9
46.00
3.0
3.1
100.0
Total
32
97.0
100.0
3.0
33
100.0
Missing System
Total
50.0
Table 4.22 shows conflict subscale scores of the sample. The cutting score for
this subscale is 65; therefore, one can deduce from this data that the respondents
have a clinically significant problem in terms of conflict.
It is clear from the table
that the mean is 29.3, the maximum is 46 and the minimum is 16. The total
number of the respondents is 33. On average, the results from the respondents
shows that top management and supervisors do not deal well with conflict. The
results show that conflicts paralyze the organization and also affect the
respondents ability to work.
Question 37: Communication
This
dimension
measures
satisfaction
regarding
communication
between
supervisor and the employees in the workplace. The following table indicates the
scores of the respondents on communication.
Table 4.23:
Frequency distribution of perceptions about communication
.00
3.0
3.0
3.0
21.00
3.0
3.0
6.1
24.00
6.1
6.1
12.1
25.00
3.0
3.0
15.2
27.00
3.0
3.0
18.2
28.00
6.1
6.1
24.2
30.00
6.1
6.1
30.3
31.00
3.0
3.0
33.3
32.00
6.1
6.1
39.4
33.00
3.0
3.0
42.4
34.00
3.0
3.0
45.5
Valid 35.00
3.0
3.0
48.5
36.00
3.0
3.0
51.5
37.00
3.0
3.0
54.5
39.00
6.1
6.1
60.6
40.00
6.1
6.1
66.7
41.00
9.1
9.1
75.8
42.00
9.1
9.1
84.8
43.00
3.0
3.0
87.9
45.00
3.0
3.0
90.9
47.00
3.0
3.0
93.9
49.00
6.1
6.1
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
Table 4.23 shows communication subscale scores of the sample. The cutting
score for this subscale is 65. Therefore, one can deduce that the respondents
have a clinically significant problem in terms of communication. It is clear from the
table that the mean score is 34, the maximum is 49 and the minimum is 00. Thus,
all respondents have scored below 65. The total number of the respondents is 33.
This means that, according to this result, all respondents are of the opinion that
communication in the office is not open, respectful, transparent and effective. On
average, the results further show that management and supervisors do not inform
them timeously on changes that affect them. The results also show that meetings
are a waste of time.
Question 38: Orientation towards change
The following table indicates the scores of the respondents on orientation towards
change.
Table 4.24:
Frequency distribution of perceptions about orientation towards
change
Valid
.00
3.0
3.0
3.0
13.00
3.0
3.0
6.1
16.00
6.1
6.1
12.1
17.00
3.0
3.0
15.2
19.00
3.0
3.0
18.2
20.00
3.0
3.0
21.2
21.00
12.1
12.1
33.3
22.00
3.0
3.0
36.4
23.00
6.1
6.1
42.4
24.00
18.2
18.2
60.6
25.00
6.1
6.1
66.7
27.00
6.1
6.1
72.7
28.00
3.0
3.0
75.8
29.00
6.1
6.1
81.8
30.00
12.1
12.1
93.9
36.00
3.0
3.0
97.0
63.00
3.0
3.0
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
Table 4.24 shows orientation towards change subscale scores of the sample. The
the respondents have a clinically significant problem in terms of orientation
towards change. It is clear from the table that the mean is 24.4, the maximum is
63 and the minimum is 00. The total number of the respondents is 33. The results
show that the maximum is nearly to the cutting score, that is, 65. This indicates
that the respondents clearly show that change is necessary in their organization.
The results also show that the respondents are ready for change in their
organization.
Question 39: Relationship with clients
The following table indicates the scores of the respondents on their relationship
with the clients.
Table 4.25:
Frequency distribution of perceptions about relationship with clients
.00
6.1
6.1
6.1
23.00
3.0
3.0
9.1
26.00
6.1
6.1
15.2
27.00
9.1
9.1
24.2
28.00
3.0
3.0
27.3
29.00
6.1
6.1
33.3
Valid 30.00
9.1
9.1
42.4
31.00
3.0
3.0
45.5
32.00
6.1
6.1
51.5
33.00
9.1
9.1
60.6
34.00
10
30.3
30.3
90.9
35.00
9.1
9.1
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
Table 4.25 shows relationship with clients subscale scores of the sample. The
the respondents have a clinically significant problem in terms of relationship with
clients. It is clear from the table that the mean is 29.4, the maximum is 35 and the
minimum is 00. The total number of the respondents is 33. Since the majority of
the respondents are social workers, they are the ones who work directly with the
clients, unlike other respondents who are administrative clerks.
Question 40: Labour unions
The following table indicates the scores of the respondents on labour unions.
Table 4.26:
Frequency distribution of perceptions about labour unions
Valid
.00
15.2
15.6
15.6
10.00
3.0
3.1
18.8
13.00
3.0
3.1
21.9
14.00
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.1
25.0
16.00
1
1
21.00
9.1
9.4
37.5
22.00
18.2
18.8
56.3
23.00
6.1
6.3
62.5
24.00
3.0
3.1
65.6
26.00
6.1
6.3
71.9
28.00
3.0
3.1
75.0
30.00
3.0
3.1
78.1
32.00
3.0
3.1
81.3
33.00
6.1
6.3
87.5
36.00
12.1
12.5
100.0
Total
32
97.0
100.0
3.0
33
100.0
Missing System
Total
28.1
Table 4.26 shows labour unions subscale scores of the sample. The cutting score
respondents have a clinically significant problem in terms of labour unions.
It is
clear from the table that the mean is 21.03, the maximum is 36 and the minimum
is 00. The total number of respondents is 33. On average, the results show that
labour unions have an influence for some of the respondents, as joining the labour
union are not compulsory.
Question 41: Expectations
The following table indicates the scores of the respondents on expectations.
Table 4.27:
Frequency distribution of perceptions about expectations
12.00
6.1
6.1
6.1
14.00
3.0
3.0
9.1
16.00
6.1
6.1
15.2
18.00
6.1
6.1
21.2
20.00
6.1
6.1
27.3
21.00
3.0
3.0
30.3
22.00
3.0
3.0
33.3
Valid 23.00
3.0
3.0
36.4
24.00
6.1
6.1
42.4
25.00
9.1
9.1
51.5
27.00
3.0
3.0
54.5
28.00
6.1
6.1
60.6
29.00
3.0
3.0
63.6
30.00
12
36.4
36.4
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
Table 4.27 shows expectations subscale scores of the sample. The cutting score
respondents have a clinically significant problem in terms of expectation. It is clear
from the table that the mean is 24.4, the maximum is 30 and the minimum is 12.
Discussion of the above results

The above results (OCA) show clearly that the respondents scored below the
cutting score, 65. This indicates that they are experiencing problems in 16 of the
17 dimensions. On the following dimensions, the respondents felt more negative:
Achievement The results show that on average, the respondents do not

reach their planned work objectives. The maximum score for the dimension of
achievement was 29. The respondents do not take responsibility for achieving
their work goals. They also do not do things properly and as a result are
demotivated.
Job satisfaction The results clearly show that on average, the respondents
are dissatisfied with their jobs. The maximum score for the dimension of job
satisfaction was 25. The respondents do not look back coming to work, they
are not committed and do not like their jobs. From these results, there appears
to be problems in terms of job satisfaction in this organization that needs to be
addressed urgently by management.
Top management The results show that on average, the respondents are
not satisfied with top management because top management only promotes
the careers of certain workers. The maximum score for the dimension of top
management was 35. The respondents have lost trust in top management.
They feel that top management does not look after their interests, does not
consider them when it makes decisions, does not care about them as persons,
does not do its job well and does not invite them to talk about their work
problems.
Supervisor The results clearly show that on average, the respondents are
not satisfied with their supervisors because their supervisors do not care about
them as persons, and do not invite them to talk about their problems. The
maximum score for the dimension of supervisor was 31.The respondents do
not look after their interests and only promote the careers of certain workers.
Equality The results show that on average, the respondents are not given
equal opportunities to advance in their careers. The maximum score for the
dimension of equality was 27. The respondents also feel that some co-workers
receive special favours.
Job Security The results show that on average, the respondents feel that
they do not have promotion possibilities in their jobs. The maximum score for
the dimension of job security was 25. The respondents are not optimistic about
their jobs.
Working Conditions The results show that on average, safety standards are
not exercised at their work. The maximum score for the dimension of working
conditions was 25. The respondents also feel that their work environment is
not safe and comfortable. The administration clerks taking applications for
different grants are mostly affected by the working conditions that might
jeopardize their health and well-being.
Relationship with team members The results show that on average, the
respondents do not get along with their team members, they do not treat each
other with respect and they have lost trust in one another. The maximum score
for the dimension of relationship with team members was 30. Management will
need to promote positive inter-employee relationships through various
techniques and programs.
Training The respondents indicated that they are not receiving training,
especially the administration clerks and the security officers. The maximum
score for the dimension of training was 48. Social workers are able to
implement the training they are receiving in their workplace.
Conflict The results clearly show that on average, top management and
supervisors do not deal well with conflict. The maximum score for the
dimension of conflict was 46. The respondents also feel that conflict paralyzes
the organization.
Communication The result shows that the respondents are not informed
timeously about the changes that affect them, top management does not
communicates directly with the respondents and they feel that communication
is not effective in this organization. The maximum score for the dimension of
communication was 49. Management should take communication into
consideration, allow employees to pace themselves and have a say in their
own jobs.
Relationship with clients The results show that the respondents (social
workers in this instance) are being irritated by clients. The maximum score for
the dimension of relationship with clients was 35. The respondents also find it
difficult to hide their anger when dealing with difficult clients.
Labour unions The results reveal that on average, labour unions do not
respect the respondents opinions; they intimidate them and do not act on their
behalf. The maximum score for the dimension of Labour unions was 36.
Expectation The results show that on average, the respondents do not look
forward to the future. The maximum score for the dimension of expectation
was 30. The respondents are not optimistic about the future.
CONCLUSION
The main results of the study are summarized as follows:
There is a statistically significant difference between home language of the

respondents and the dimensions of the OCA scale.
Home language is an important determinant that can be associated with

equality. English/Afrikaans respondents are less likely to be given equal
opportunities to advance in their careers than African-language-speaking
respondents.
Home language is an important determinant that can be associated with job

satisfaction. African respondents are more likely to experience job satisfaction
than English/Afrikaans respondents.

expectation. African respondents are more optimistic about the future than the
English/Afrikaans respondents.

energy. English/Afrikaans-speaking respondents are less likely to enjoy the
things that they are doing than African respondents.

responsibility. African respondents are more likely to get what they want if they
work hard than English/Afrikaans respondents.
There is statistically significant difference between family income of the

respondents and energy. Family income is an important determinant that can be
associated with energy. The respondents earning R6 000 or more per month are
less likely to enjoy life than the respondents who are earning less than R5 999 per
month.
There is also a statistically significant difference between age and feedback about
job performance. The respondents who are 30 years old and younger are less likely
to get feedback about their job performance than those who are above 30 years
and older. It can be deduced that respondents who are 30 years old and younger
know that their career life has a long way to go and thus are critical about issues
around their jobs. They worry about career development, promotion and incentives
as these may bring better prospects for their career and ultimately job satisfaction.
Home language is an important determinant of medical aid. English/Afrikaans
respondents have a greater need for medical aid than African respondents.
In this chapter, the description of the independent and dependent variables were
described by means of frequencies, t-tests and cross-tabulations.

Analysis &amp; Interpretation of Data

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Analysis &amp; Interpretation of Data

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

INTRODUCTION

Graph 4.1: Gender

Older than 30 years

Age in complete years

Graph 4.2: Age in complete years

More than half of the respondents

Question 3: Educational qualifications

Level 2: Grade 10 (Std 8)

Level 3: Grade 11 (Std 9)

Level 4: Grade 12 (Std 10)

Level 5: One year Certificate or

Graph 4.3: Highest qualifications

Graph 4.4: Home language

Table 4.4 presents the distribution of home languages of 33 respondents. It is

Question 6: Marital status

Married to first partner

Graph 4.6: Marital status

Graph 4.7: Occupation

Question 8: Job title

Chief Social Worker

Junior Social Worker

Senior Admin Clerk

Senior Social Worker

and 1 respondent is a switchboard operator. Social workers are by far

majority and therefore are inclined to influence the results.

R0-00 R2 999 per month

R3 000 5 999 per month

R6 000 - R8 999 per month

R9 000 - 11 999 per month

R15 000 - R17 999 per month

R18 000 - R 20 999 per month

R 24 000 plus per month

Graph 4.8: Income

Question 9: Family income (recoded)

R0-00 - R5 999 per month

R6 000 or more per month

Discussion of the above results

In the following section, relevant data about the response frequencies of

THE SELF-DESIGNED QUESTIONNAIRE

Feedback about job performance

Reward for good performance

Shift work (Day and night duty)

Fringe benefits pension fund

Fringe benefits medical aid

Fringe benefits housing allowance

Leave (paternity, sick, study or holiday)

Filling of vacant posts

Equipments to fulfil duties

To draw up a profile of employee well-being at Social Development.

the past year?

performance. 18 respondents did not receive feedback in

the past year.1 respondent did not respond.

respondents did not receive salary increase in the past year.

before they can be deemed permanent..)

12. Were you promoted in the past year?

3 respondents were promoted and 30 respondents were not

13. Were you a subject of a disciplinary hearing in the

hearing in the past year.

2 respondents have worked night shift and 30 respondents

in the past year?

the past year?

did not receive medical aid. Medical aid is optional.

subsidy in the past year?

respondents did not receive housing subsidy in the past

Analysis & Interpretation of Data

Analysis & Interpretation of Data