10 Chapter5 PDF

Chapter V
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

This chapter aims at understanding the impact of organisational
culture on value expectancy behaviour of employees and employers. The
prime focus of this section is to examine the effect of organizational culture
on human behaviour at work. The study covers a sample of 360 members
from the public and private sector industrial organisations. The details of
the sample selection are given in the table 5.1.
Table: 5.1 Shows frequency and percentages of Sector, Area and Years of Service of
sample
SECTOR
'NOW: Nature of work

It is evident from the table that the selection of the sample is drawn
from a sample of 360 members in the public and private sector industrial
organisations. The table 5.1 shows the sector, area and years of service
wise selection of orgar~isationalmembers. The table indicates that the
public sector 50% of the sample (n ,180) is selected from the public sector
and the remaining 50% (n = 180) are selected from private sector industrial
organizations. The details of the table further reveals that the study
considered area wise selection of the technical and administrative
members. The study considered 180 members from the technical area and
180 members from the administrative area of respective public and private
sector organisations. 50' of public sector members (n = 90) belong to
technical area and the remaining 50% is belonging to administrative areas
(n = 90) in the public sector. The same selection also followed in the
private sector also. Tbe sample is further grouped, based on the years of
service of organizational members. From public sector, the technical
members (n = 90) are selected into 0-6 years of service (33.33%), 7-13
years of service (33.33%) and 14 and above years of service (33.33%).
The same criteria followed in the selection of administrative members viz.,
0-6 years of service (53.33%), 7-13 years of service (33.33%) and 14 and
above years of service (33.33%). Followed by that in private sector also
the same selection pattern followed.

Table: 5.2 Shows Means and SDs of organisational culture subvariables of total
sample:
Variables
openness
Confrontation
Trust
Authenticity
Proaction
Autonomy
Collaboration
Experimentation
Culture (total)
To draw a general picture of the data on various dimensions

collected descriptive statistics is carried out. Means and SDs are
calculated on the sub variables of organisational culture for the 360
sample. The means and SDs thus calculated are shown in the table 5.2.
An examination 0'1 the table 5.2 reveals that all the organisational culture
sub variables, except autonomy and collaboration, are having moderate
mean score in the total sample. The autonomy and collaboration is having
low means score in this research. The experimentation, authenticity and
proaction sub variables of the organisational culture have moderately high
mean score compared to other sub variables. If we look into the standard
deviation of the organisation culture variables, it is evident that the
openness sub variable is having high standard deviation compared to
other sub variables. Confrontation, authenticity and proaction also show
comparatively high standard deviation. While the collaboration sub variable
of organisational culture has the low variation in standard deviation, in this
particular research. The result shows a moderate level organisational
culture in the total sample selected for the study.
Table: 5.3 Shows Means and SDs of value expectancy subvariables of total
sample:
Variables Mean SO
Ability utilization 12.5944 3.6485
Achievement 12.1361 5.2726
Advancement 12.9472 5.5344
Authoritv 13.1361 5.1954

Autonomv I 360 I 12.7194 5.2228
360 13.2639 5.3714
360 15.7583 3.7691
Lifestyle 360 15.7833 3.4613
360 12.9194 5.1411
Physical Exercise 360 13.9500 4.1400
360 13.4528 4.5307
360 12.9889 4.9673
360 12.4056 5.1725
360 11.9972 5.1811
Variety 360 12.4139 5.3223
360 12.7667 5.4900
Peace of Mind 360 12.8722 5.4650
Comfort of Life 360 12.9861 5.3831
Dependency 360 12.9056 5.4647
Value (total) 360 275.21 67 94.2280

calculated on the sub variables of value expectancy for the 360 sample.
The means and SDs thus calculated are shown in the table 5.3. An
evaluation of the table 5.3 reveals that all the value expectancy sub
variables, except economic reward and life style, are having moderate
mean score in the total sample. Economic reward and life style of value
expectancy sub variable shows high level means score in this research.
The table further stlows that authority, creativity, physical exercise and
prestige are having moderately high mean score. While social relations
show moderately low mean score. If we look into the standard deviation of
the sub variables, of value expectancy, the table indicates that
advancement, aesthetics, working condition and peace of mind have high
standard deviation and ability utilization, economic reward and life style is
hav~nglow standard deviation compared to other sub variables. All other
variables show moderate level standard deviation in this research. The
result indicates a moderate level expectation and importance of
organisational members on the work values in this particular research.
Table: 5.4 Shows Means and SDs of organisational culture sub-variables of public
and private sector
Variables
Openness
Confrontation
Trust
Authenticity
Proaction
Autonomy
Collaboration
Experimentation
Culture (total)
Public 1180 1 70.5278 16.2517
Private I 180 I 141.9889 I 15.8326
To draw of general trend of the data on various dimensions
calculated on the sub variables of organisational culture of public and
private sector for the :360 sample. The means and SDs thus calculated
are shown in the table 5.4. It is evident from the table that all the
organisational culture sub variable in private sector organisations are
having high mean score compared to public sector organisations. The
confrontation, authenticity, proaction and experimentation sub variables
of organisational culture is having comparatively high mean score
compared to other sub variables in private sector. All the sub variables
of organisational culture in the public sector are having moderately low
mean score in this research. If we look into the standard deviation, the
table shows low standard deviation in authenticity, proaction,
collaboration and experimentation, in private sector. While in public
sector, confrontation and experimentation shows the low standard
deviation. The openness sub variable of public sector shows high
standard deviation compared to all variables in this research. The
results show the general trend that the public sector organisation is
having weak organisational culture and the private sector organisation
is having strong culture.

181
AmljpkdWt
Table: 5.5
~ ~
Shows Means and SDs of value expectancy sub-variables of public and
Ability utilization
Achievement
Advancement
Aesthetics
Altruism
Authority
Autonomy
Creativity
Economic reward
Lifestyle
Personal development
physical Exercise
Prestige
Risk
Social Interaction
Social Relations
Variety
Working Condition
Peace of Mind
Comfort of Life
Dependency
Value (total
To draw a general trend of the data on various dimensions
calculated on the sub variables of value expectancy of public and private
sector for the 360 sample. The means and SDs thus calculated are shown
in the table 5.5. The table reveals that all the value expectancy sub
variables in private sector organisation are having high mean score
compared to public sector organisations. Advancement, authority,
creativity, economic rewards and life style is having high mean score
compared other sub variables in private sector. While in public sector all
the variables show moderately low mean scores in the value expectancy
sub variables. If we look into the standard deviation, the public sector has
low standard deviation in the value expectancy, compared to private
sector. While the physical exercise sub variable of value expectancy in
private sector shows high standard deviation in this research. The result
shows the general trend that the private sector organisation is having high
value expectancy and work importance behaviour compared to public
sector organisations in this research.
Table: 5.6 Shows Means and SDs of Organisationalculture sub-variables of

organisation A - Public Sector
Variables
Openness
Confrontation
Trust
Authenticity
Proaction
Autonomy
Collaboration
Experimentation
collected descriptive? statistics is carried out. Means and SDs are
calculated on the sub variables of organisational culture of public sector for
the 90 sample. The means and SDs thus calculated are shown in the table
5.6. It is evident from the table that all the sub variables of organisational
culture are having moderate mean score. If we look into the standard
deviation it is found that the openness sub variable of organisational
culture shows high standard deviation, compared to other sub variables.
While, the standard deviation is found low in trust and authenticity sub
variable of organisational culture in this research. The result shows the
general trend that the public sector organisation A is having weak
organisational culture.
Table: 5.7 Shows Means and S D s of Organisational culture sub-

variables of Organisation 6- Public Sector
To dram a general trend of the data on various dimensions

5.7. It is evider~tfrom the table that all the sub variables of organisational
While, the standard deviation is found low in confrontation authenticity,
collaboration and experimentation sub variable of organisational culture in
this research. The rc?sultshows the general trend that the public sector
organisation B is having weak organisational culture.
Table: 5.8 Shows Means and SDs ot Organisational culture sub-variables of

Organisation C: Private Sector
Variables I sector 1 N I Mean I Std. Deviation /
Openness I private 1 180 1 17.8389 1 3.5926
t-----i
Confrontation
Trust
Authenticity
Private
private
Private
i I 180
180
180
18.3278
i7.3,oo
18.001 1
I 3.1901
3.1097
3.6130
Proaction Private 180 18.2833 2.0559
Autonomy Private 180 16.8944 3.0935
Collaboration Private 180 16.7889 2.8793
Experimentation Private 180 18.4187 1.7397

calculated on the sub variables of organisational culture of private sector
for the 180 sample. The means and SDs thus calculated are shown in the
table 5.8. It is evident from the table that all the sub variables of
organisational culture are having moderate mean score. Confrontation,
authenticity, proactior~and experimentation are having high mean score
compared to other organisational culture sub variables. If we look into the
standard deviation it is found that the experimentation and proaction sub
variables have low standard deviation compared to other sub variables of
organisational culture. The result shows the general trend that the private
sector organisation is liaving strong organisational culture in this research.
Table: 5.9 Shows Means and SDs of Value expectancy subvariables of
Organisation A: Public Sector
Sector N Mean Std. Deviation
Ability Utilization Public 90 8.3222 1.5781
Public 90 7.4222 1.3067
Advancement Public 90 7.9333 1.4206
Public 90 7.1222 1.0998
Public 90 8.5444 1.3915
Public 90 8.0000 1.3069
Public 90 7.8667 1.3171
Public 90 7.9444 1.3185
Economic Reward Public 90 13.2556 3.4885
Public 90 13.3111 3.0599
Public 90 8.0000 1.3069
Public 90 11.2000 2.3759
Prestige
Risk
Social Interaction
Social Relation
Variety
Working Condition
Peace of Mind
Comfort of Life
Dependency

calculated on the s u t ~variables of value expectancy of public sector for the
90 sample. The means and SDs thus calculated are shown in the table
5.9. It is evident from the table that majority sub variables of value
expectancy are having moderate mean score. While economic reward and
life style sub variables of value expectancy is having high mean score. If
we look into the standard deviation of sub variables of value expectancy it
is evident from the fable that majority sub variables of value expectancy
are having low standard deviation except, economic reward, life style and
physical exercises. The result shows a general trend of moderate value
expectancy and work importance behaviour of public sector members, in
organisation two, in tbis research.
Table: 5.10 Shows Means and SDs of Value expectancy sub-variables of

Organisation 0: Public Sector
Sector N Mean SD
Public 90 7.6444 1.31 81
Public 90 7.0556 1.1353
ltruism ( Public I
8.2889 1.5305
I Autonomv I PU 8.0444 1.2712
I Creativitv I Public 8.1000 1.0711
Public 12.6000 3.1402
I Life Stvle I Public 12.9778 2.9641
Comfort of Life 1 8.3222 1 1.6681

Dependency 7.9556 1 1.15.6

calculated on the sub variables of value expectancy of public sector for the
expectancy are having moderate mean score. While economic reward and
life style sub varisbles of value expectancy is having moderately high
mean score. If we look into the standard deviation of sub variables of value
expectancy it is evident from the table that majority sub variables of value
expectancy is having low standard deviation except, economic reward, life
style and physical axercises. The result shows a general trend of moderate
value expectancy and work importance behaviour of public sector
members, in organisation two, in this research.
Table: 5.11 Shows Means and SDs of Value expectancy sub-variables of

Organisation C: Private Sector
Sector N Mean SD
Private 180 15.6944 1.7080
Achievement Private 180 16.7389 3.3798
Advancement 1 Private 1 180 18.2889 1.5004
Aesthetics I Private ( 180 17.6778 1 2.6524
( Private 1 180 1 17.4556 1 3.2032
Private 180 18.1278 1.4104
Private 180 17.4833 2.71 86
Private 180 18.5056 1.0805
Private 180 18.5889 1.1472
Private 180 18.4222 0.9857
Private 180 17.8778 1.3646
Physical Exercises Private 180 16.4056 4.0592
Private 180 17.2780 3.4079
Private 180 17.1722 3.5278
Private 180 16.7889 3.6341
Social Relation Private 180 16.0944 4.2972
Variety Private 180 16.9889 3.5153

Working Condition Private 180 17.5667 3.3428
Peace of Mind Private 180 17.5722 3.5971
Comfort of Life private 180 17.7389 3.1647
1 Dependency
-~
1
~
Private 180 17.7333 3.3769

calculated on the sub variables of value expectancy of private sector for
the 180 sample. The rneans and SDs thus calculated are shown in the
table 5.1 1. It is evident from the table that majority sub variables of value
expectancy are having high mean score. While advancement, authority,
creativity, economic rewards, and life style sub variables of value
expectancy is having highest mean score. If we look into the standard
deviation of sub variables of value expectancy it evident from the table that
ability utilization, advancement, authority, creativity, economic rewards, life
style and personal development sub variables of value expectancy is
having low standard deviation. While physical exercises and social relation
shows high standard deviation. The result shows a general trend of high
value expectancy and work importance behaviour of private sector
members, in organisation two, in this research.
Table: 5.12 Shows Means and SDs of Organisational culture sub-

variables of technical members: Public Sector
Variables 1 sector I N I Mean SD
Confrontation
Authenticity Public 8.9444 3.5738

Proaction Public
Public
90
90
8.9444
9.3667
3.5738
3.5741
I
Collaboration Public 90 9.4333 3.2570
Public 90 9.1333 3.0398

calculated on the sull variables of organisational culture of public sector for
While, the standard deviation is found low in trust and authenticity sub
variable of organisational culture in this research. The result shows the
general trend that the technical members of public sector organisation
share the organisational culture at low level in this research.
Table: 5.13 Shows Means and SDs of Organisational culture sub-

variables of technical members: Private Sector
I Variables Sector I N I Mean SD 1
Openness
Confrontation
Trust
Authenticity
Proaction
Autonomy
Collaboration
Ex~erimentation

calculated on the sub variables of organisational culture of private sector
for the 90 sample. The means and SDs thus calculated are shown in the
table 5.13. It is evident from the table that all the confrontation sub
variables of organisational culture are having highest mean score. Other
sub variables like openness, authenticity, proaction and experimentation
are having high mean score compared to other sub variables of
organisational culture. If we look into the standard deviation, it is found
that the openness and c:onfrontation is having very low standard deviation.
The trust, authenticity and experimentation also show low standard
deviation. The result shows the general trend that the technical members
of private sector organiaation share the organisational culture at high level
in this research.
Table: 5.14 Shows Means and SDs of Organisational culture sub-variables of

administrative members: Public Sector
Confrontation
To draw a general picture of the data on various dimensions collected

descriptive statistics is carried out. Means and SDs are calculated on the sub
variables of organisatior~alculture of public sector for the 90 sample. The
means and SDs thus calculated are shown in the table 5.14. It is evident from
the table that all the sub variables of organisational culture are having
moderate mean score. If we look into the standard deviation it is found that
the openness sub variable of organisational culture shows high standard
deviation, compared to other sub variables. While, the standard deviation is
found low in trust, collaboration, and experimentation sub variable of
organisational culture in this research. The result shows the general trend that
the administrative members of public sector organisation share the
organisational culture at low level in this research.
Table: 5.15 Shows Means and SDs of Organisationalculture sub-variables of
administrative members: Private Sector
To draw a general trend of the data on various dimensions

5.15. It is evident from the table that the experimentation sub variable of
organisational culture is having highest mean score. While confrontation,
authenticity, proaction and collaboration is having high mean score
compared to other sub variable in this research. If we look into the
standard deviation it is found that the openness and trust sub variable of
organisational cuhture shows high standard deviation, compared to other
sub variables. While, the standard deviation is found low in authenticity,
proaction, and experimentation sub variable of organisational culture in
this research. The result shows the general trend that the administrative
members of public sector organisation share the organisational culture at
high level in this research.
Table: 5.16 Shows Means and SDs of Value Expectancy sub-variables of
administrativemembers: Public Sector
Variables Sector N Mean SD
Achievement Public 90 7.6444 1.3181
Aesthetics Public 90 7.0556 1.1353
Altruism Public 90 7.8889 1.2647
Authority Public 90 8.2889 1.5305
Autonomy Public 90 8.0444 1.2712
Creativity Public 90 8.1000 1.0711
Economic Reward Public 90 12.9278 3.3259
Life Style Public 90 12.9778 2.9641
Personal Development Public 90 7.9222 1.3088
Physical Exercises Public 90 11.7889 2.4055
Prestige Public 90 9.9444 1.9566
Risk Public 90 8.6889 1.3378
Social Interaction Public 90 8.0222 1.3490
Social Relation Public 90 7.8778 1.2616
Variety Public 90 7.8333 1.6232
Working Condition Public 90 7.91 11 1.6870
Peace of Mind Public 90 8.2000 1.6571
Comfort of Life Public 90 8.3222 1.6681
Dependency Public 90 7.9556 1.1506

expectancy are having moderate mean score. While, economic reward, life
style and physical exercise sub variables of value expectancy is having
moderately high mean score. If we look into the standard deviation of sub
variables of value expectancy it is evident from the table that majority sub
variables of value expectancy is having low standard deviation except,
economic reward, life style and physical exercises. The result shows a
general trend of moderate value expectancy and work importance
behaviour of public sector administrative members, in this research.
Table: 5.17 Shows Means and SDs of Value Expectancy subvariables of

administrative members: Private Sector

the 90 sample. The means and SDs thus calculated are shown in the
table 5.17. It i:; evident from the table that majority sub variables of
value expectancy are having high mean score. While personal
development, physical exercise and social relation sub variables of
value expectancy is having high mean score. If we look into the
standard deviation of sub variables of value expectancy it evident from
the table that ability utilization, advancement, authority, creativity,
economic rewards, life style and personal development sub variables of
value expectancy is; having low standard deviation. While physical
exercises, social relation and peace of mind shows moderately high
standard deviation. The result shows a general trend of high value
expectancy and work importance behaviour of private sector
administrative members, in this research.
Table: 5.18 Shows Means and SDs Value Expectancy variables of technical
members: Public Sector
Variables
Ability Utilization
Achievement
Advancement
Aesthetics
Altruism
Authority
Autonomy
Creativity
Economic Reward
Life Style
Personal Development
Phvsical Exercises
Prestige
Risk
Social Interaction
Social Relation
Variety
Working Condition
Peace of Mind
Comfort of L i e
Dependency
To draw a general trend of the data on various dimensions collected

descriptive statistics is carlied out. Means and SDs are calculated on the sub
variables of value expectancy of public sector for the 90 sample. The means
and SDs thus calculated are shown in the table 5.18. It is evident from the table
that majority sub variables of value expectancy are having moderate mean
score. While, economic reward, life style and physical exercise sub variables of
value expectancy is having moderately high mean score. If we look into the
standard deviation of sub variables of value expectancy it is evident from the
table that majority sub variables of value expectancy is having low standard
deviation except, economic reward, life style and physical exercises. The result
shows a general trend of moderate value expectancy and work importance
behaviour of public sector technical members, in this research
Table: 5.19 Show Means and SDs of Value Expectancy sub-variables of

technical members: Private Sector
expectancy are having high mean score. While creativity, economic
reward, life style and social interaction sub variables of value expectancy is
having high mean sc:ore. If we look into the standard deviation of sub
variables of value expectancy it evident from the table that ability
utilization, advancement, authority, creativity, economic rewards, life style
personal development and social interaction sub variables of value
expectancy is having low standard deviation. While all other sub variables
of value expectancy i:; having high standard deviation. The result shows a
general trend of high value expectancy and work importance behaviour of
private sector administrative members, in this research.
Table: 5.20 Shows Means and SDs of Organisational culture sub- variables of O-
6 Years of Sewice members: Public Sector
Variables
Openness
Confrontation
Trust
Authenticity
Proaction
Autonomy
Collaboration
Experimentation

collected descriptivc? statistics is carried out. Means and SDs are
the 60 sample. The rneans and SDs thus calculated are shown in the table
5.20. It is evident fr'om the table that all the sub variables of organisational
deviation it is found that all the sub variable of organisational culture shows
moderately high standard deviation, compared to other sub variables.
While, the standard deviation is found low in confrontation sub variable of
organisational cultl~rein this research. The result shows the general trend
that the 0-6 years of service members of public sector organisation share
the organisational culture at low level in this research.
Table: 5.21 Shows Means and SDs of Organisational culture sub-variables of 7-

13 Years of Service members: Public Sector
Confrontation
Collaboration
Experimentation

While, the standard deviation is found moderate in other sub variable of
organisational culture in this research. The result shows the general trend
that the 7-13 years of service members of public sector organisation share
the organisational culture at low level in this research.
Table: 5.22 Shows the details of Means and SDs of Organisational culture
sub- variables of 14 and above Years of Service members: Public Sector
Variables
Openness
Confrontation
Trust
Authenticity
Proaction
Autonomy
Collaboration
Experimentation

While, the standard deviation is found high in openness sub variable of
organisational culture in this research. The result shows the general trend
that the 14 and above years of service members of public sector
organisation share the organisational culture at low level in this research.
Table: 5.23 Shows Means and SDs of Organisational culture sub-variables of

0-6 Years of Sewice members: Private Sector
Variables
Openness
Confrontation
Trust
Authenticity
Proaction
Autonomy
Collaboration
Experimentation

culture are having moderate mean score. While the confrontation sub
variable of organisational culture shows the highest mean score. If we look
into the standard deviation it is found that majority sub variable of
organisational culture shows low standard deviation, compared to other
sub variables. h i e the standard deviation is found lowest in
confrontation sub variable of organisational culture in this research. The
result shows the general trend that the 0-6 years of service members of
private sector organisation share the organisational culture at high level in
this research.
Table: 5.24 Shows Means and SDs of Organisational culture sub-variables of 7-13
Years of Service members: Private Sector
Collaboration

culture are having moderate mean score. While the confrontation and
experimentation sub variable of organisational culture shows the highest
mean score. If we look into the standard deviation it is found that the trust,
authenticity and proaction sub variables of organisational culture shows
low standard deviation. The collaboration sub variable shows high
standard deviation and confrontation and openness shows the lowest
standard deviation among sub variable of organisational culture in this
research The result shows the general trend that the 7-13 years of service
members of private sector organisation share the organisational culture at
high level in this research.
Table: 5.25 Shows Means and SDs of Organisational culture sub- variables of 14
and above Years of Service members: Private Sector
Variables Mean SD
15.6333 5.421 1
Confrontation Private 60 16.2667 4.7936
Trust Private 60 15.4667 4.3936
Authenticity Private 60 18.0333 2.9571
Pmaction Private 60 18.0333 2.9571
Private 60 17.0000 3.8532
Private 60 18.1333 2.2957

collected descriptive statistics is carried out. Means and S D s are
calculated on the :sub variables of organisational culture of public sector for
5.25. It is evident from the table that majority the sub variables of
organisational culture are having moderate mean score. While the
authenticity, proaction and experimentation sub variable of organisational
culture shows the highest mean score. If we look into the standard
deviation it is found that the openness confrontation and trust, sub
variables of organisational culture shows high standard deviation. The
experimentation, authenticity and proaction sub variable shows moderately
low standard deviation The result shows the general trend that the 14 and
above years of service members of private organisation share the
organisational culture at high level in this research.
Table: 5.26 Shows Means and SDs of Value Expectancy sub variables of 0-6
I I I I
Ability Utilization Private 60 15.9167 1.7004
Advancement Private 60 18.5667 1.0312
Aesthetics Private 18.4333
Altruism Private 17.2167
Authority Private 18.1833
Creativitv Private 18.4000 1.0923
Economic Reward
Life Style
Physical Exercises
Prestige
Risk
Social Interaction
Social Relation
Private 60 15.1167 4.2946
Private 60 16.0333 4.4454
Private 60 14.7833 5.0492
Comfort of Life Private 60 15.6667 4.6016
Private 60 15.4000 4.8370

variables of value expectancy of private sector for the 60 sample. The means
and SDs thus calculated are shown in the table 5.26. It is evident from the
table that majority sub variables of value expectancy are having high mean
score. While personal advancement, aesthetics, authority, economic rewards
and life style sub variables of value expectancy is having highest mean score.
If we look into the standard deviation of sub variables of value expectancy it
evident from the table that ability utilization, advancement, aesthetics,
creativity, economic rewards, life style and personal development sub
variables of value expectancy is having low standard deviation. While all other
sub variables of value expectancy shows high standard deviation. The result
shows a general trend of high value expectancy and work importance
behaviour of private sector 0-6 years of service members, in this research.
Table: 5.27 Shows Means and SDs of Value Expectancy sub-variables of 7-13

and SDs thus calculated are shown in the table 5.27. It is evident from the
table that majority sub variables of value expectancy are having high mean
score. While the dependency sub-variable is having highest mean score. If we
look into the standard deviation of sub variables of value expectancy it evident
from the table that majority sub variables of value expectancy is having low
standard deviation. While, other sub-variables of value expectancy viz.,
aesthetics, altruism, physical exercise, prestige, risk, social interaction and
social relation is having moderately high standard deviation. The result shows
a general trend of high value expectancy and work importance behaviour of
private sector 7-13 years; of service members, in this research.
Table: 5.28 Shows Means and SDs of Value Expectancy sub-variables of 14 and
above Years of Service members: Private Sector
-
Ability Utilization Private 60 15.8333 1.6587
Advancement Private 60 18.5667 1.2264
Aesthetics Private 60 18.2000 1.5272
.
Altruism Private 60 18.8333 1.9051
Authority Private 60 17.9333 1.3513
Creativity Private 60 18.5667 1.1404
Economic Reward Private 60 18.6667 1.1449
Life Style Private 60 16.2000 3.5834
Personal Development Private 60 18.0167 1.2821
Physical Exercises Private 60 17.1333 3.2284
Prestige Private 60 17.8333 ,6989
Risk Private 60 18.4500 1.3583
Social Interaction Private 60 17.8500 2.261 1
Social Relation Private 60 16.5000 3.9122
Variety Private 17.3833 3.4301
Working Condition Private
Peace of Mind Private 19.0667 ,9364
Comfort of Life Private 18.7333 1.0229
Dependency Private 60 18.8833 1.1511

descriptive statistics is, carried out. Means and SDs are calculated on the sub
that majority sub variables of value expectancy are having high mean score.
While the dependency sub-variable is having highest mean score. If we look
into the standard deviation of sub variables of value expectancy it evident from
the table that majori.ty sub variables of value expectancy is having low standard
deviation. While, other sub-variables of value expectancy viz., autonomy,
lifestyle, physical exercise, social interaction, social relation, variety and working
condition is having moderately high standard deviation. The result shows a
general trend of high value expectancy and work importance behaviour of
private sector 14 and above years of service members, in this research.
Table: 5.29 Shows Means and SDs of Value Expectancy sub-variables of 0-6
Years of Sewice members: Public Sector
To draw a general trend of the data on various dimensions collected

that majority sub variables of value expectancy are having moderate mean
score. While, economic reward, l i e style and physical exercise sub variables of
value expectancy is having moderately high mean score. If we look into the
table that majority sub variables of value expectancy is having low standard
deviation except, econom!c reward, life style and physical exercises. The result
shows a general trend of moderate value expectancy and work importance
behaviour of public sector 0-6 years of service members, in this research.
Table: 5.30 Shows the details of Means and SDs of value expectancy sub-variables
of 7-13 Years of Sewice members: Public Sector
Sector N Mean SO
Public 60 9.8833 2.2254
Achievement Public 60 7.5667 I 1.4656
Advancement Public I 60 7.6833 1.3715
Aesthetics Public 60 7.1667 1.1224
Altruism Public 60 8.1833 1.5126
Authority Public 60 8.2500 1.1293
Autonomy Public 60 8.0167 1.1423
Creativitv I Public 1 60 1 7 7833 I ,9223
Public 60 12.4333 3.3363
Life Style Public 60 12.5500 2.7273
Public 60 7.9167 1.3186
Physical Exercises Public 60 11.4000 2.5459
Prestige Public 60 9.6167 2.0260
Rlsk Public 60 8.6667 1.3730
Public 60 8.2667 1.3513
Social Relation Public 60 7.8833 1.2768
Public 60 7.6333 1.5179
Working Condition Public 60 7.9167 1.7300
Public 60 8.3667 1.6770
Public 60 8.1333 1.4668
Dependency I public I 60 1 8.1167 1.2900

descriptive statistics is carlied out. Means and SDs are calculated on the sub
and SDS thus calculated are shown in the table 5.30. It is evident from the table
that majority sub variables of value expectancy are having fmderate mean
=re, while, economic reward, Iife style and physical exercise sub variables of
value expectancy is lhaving moderateb high mean score. If We lm* into the
table that majority s i b variables of value expectancy is having lo* standard
deviation except, ability utilization, economic reward. Iife srhe physical
exercises and presti(~e.The result shows a general trend of moderate value
eqectancy and work importance behaviour of public sector 7-13 Years of
sewice members, in this research.
collected descriptive :statistics is carried out. Means and SDs are
60 sample. The mean:; and SDs thus calculated are shown in the table
expectancy are having moderate mean score. While, economic reward, life
style and physical exercise sub variables of value expectancy is having
moderately high mean score. If we look into the standard deviation of sub
variables of value expectancy it is evident from the table that majority sub
variables of value expectancy is having low standard deviation except,
ability utilization, economic reward, life style and physical exercises. The
result shows a general trend of moderate value expectancy and work
importance behaviour of public sector 14 and above years of senrice
members, in this research.

The scores given in the table 5.32 indicates the means and
standard deviations on organisational culture for the various subgroups. It
is evident from the table that private sector has strong organisational
culture (141.98) than the public sector (70.52), when the overall culture
scores are compared. It is clear form the table further that there is low
standard deviation among private sector compared to public sector. When
we come to the areas of work, there is a general trend that the technical
managers (109.33) widely share strong organisational culture compared to
administrative managers (103.17). This is the general trend observed
when we compare the mean scores of the technical and administrative
managers. Similarly, this general trend is observed when the sample is
divided in terms of years of service too. When we look into sector- area
mean scores, it is evident from the table that the technical and
administrative members in the private sector highly shares that
organisational culture compared to public sector. Similar observation is
found in different years of service where the private sector member's
shares high organisational culture compared to public sector.

Table 5.33 Shows Means and Standard Deviations of Organizational culture sub-
Administrative
Administrative
Administrative
In the present study, the organisational culture variable involves
eight sub variables. Since a pattern of differences are observed between
technical and administrative managers in their perception of Organisational
culture on over all culture, it would be interesting to know more on the eight
sub variables of the organisational culture between the sub groups, of the
sample. There for a sub group analysis is done on each sub variables of
organisational culture. The mean and standard deviations, thus obtained
on the sub variables on organisational culture for the various categories of
the sample are shown in the table 5.33.
The scores gtven in the table 5.33 indicates the means and
standard deviations on openness culture for the various subgroups. It is
evident from the table that private sector has strong openness culture
(17.83) than the public sector (9.08), when the overall culture scores are
compared. Table further shows that there is low standard deviation among
private sector compared to public sector. When we come to the areas of
work, there is a general trend that the technical managers (14.22) widely
share strong openness culture compared to administrative managers
(12.6944). This is the general trend observed when we compare the mean
scores of the technical and administrative managers. Similarly, this general
trend is observed when the sample is divided in terms of years of service
too. When we look into sector area mean scores it is evident from the table
that the technical and administrative members in the private sector highly
shares that openness culture compared to public sector. Similar
observation is found in different years of service where the private sector
member's shares high openness culture compared to public sector.
Table 5.34 Shows Means and Standard Deviations of Organizational culture sub-
-
variable CONFRONTATION for the various sub groups
standard deviations on confrontation culture for the various subgroups. It is
evident from the table that private sector has strong confrontation Culture
(18.32) than the public sector (8.61), when the culture scores are
compared. Table furthsr shows that there is low standard deviation among
public sector compared to private sector. When we come to the areas of
work, there is a general trend that the technical managers (14.1 167) widely
share strong confrontation culture compared to administrative managers
too. When we look into sector-area mean scores it is evident from the table
share that confrontation culture compared to public sector. Similar
observation is found in different years of service, where the private sector
member's shares high confrontation culture compared to public sector.

q
,m
, $m and Wt 215
standard deviations on trust culture for the various subgroups. It is evident
from the table that private sector has strong trust culture (17.35) than the
public sector (8.92), when the culture scores are compared. Table further
shows that there is low standard deviation among public sector compared
to private sector. When we come to the areas of work, there is a general
trend that the technical managers (13.32) widely share strong trust culture
compared to administrative managers (12.95). This is the general trend
observed when we compare the mean scores of the technical and
administrative managers. Similarly, this general trend is observed when
the sample is divided in terms of years of service too. When we look into
sector-area mean scores it is evident from the table that the technical and
administrative members in the private sector highly shares that trust
culture compared to public sector. Similar observation is found in different
years of service, where the private sector member's shares high trust
culture compared to public sector.

standard deviations on ;authenticity culture for the various subgroups. it is
evident from the table that private sector has strong authenticity culture
(18.28) than the publ~c sector (8.75), when the culture scores are
share strong authenticity culture compared to administrative managers
too. When we look into !sector-area mean scores it is evident from the table
shares that authenticity culture compared to public sector. Similar
member's shares high authenticity culture compared to public sector.

standard deviations on proaction culture for the various subgroups. It is
evident from the table that private sector has strong proaction culture
compared. Table furtl-~ershows that there is low standard deviation among
share strong proaction culture compared to administrative managers
share that proaction culture compared to public sector. Similar observation
is found in different years of service, where the private sector member's
shares high proaction culture compared to public sector.

standard deviations on autonomy culture for the various subgroups. It is
evident from the table that private sector has strong autonomy culture
work, there is a general trend that the technical managers (13.1 1) widely
share strong autonomy culture compared to administrative managers
trend is obsewed when the sample is divided in terms of years of service
share that autonomy culture compared to public sector. Similar 0 b s e ~ a t i o n
is found in different years of service, where the private sector member's
shares high autonomy culture compared to public sector.

Table: 5.39 Shows Means and Standard Deviations of Organisational
culture sub-variable COLLABORATION for the various
standard deviations on c:ollaboration culture for the various subgroups. It is
evident from the table that private sector has strong collaboration culture
share strong collaboration culture compared to administrative managers
trend is o b s e ~ e dwhen the sample is divided in terms of years of service
share that collaboration culture compared to public sector. Similar
member's shares high collaboration culture compared to public sector.

Table: 5.40 Shows Means and Standard Deviations of Organisational
culture sub-variable EXPERIMENTATION for the various
sub groups
standard deviations on experimentation culture for the various
subgroups. It is evidert from the table that private sector has strong
experimentation culture (18.41) than the public sector (8.67), when the
culture scores are compared. Table further shows that there is low
standard deviation among public sector compared to private sector.
When we come to the areas of work, there is a general trend that the
technical managers (13.93) widely share strong experimentation culture
compared to administrative managers (13.15). This is the general trend
the sample is divided in terms of years of service too. When we look
into sector-area mean scores it is evident from the table that the
technical and administrative members in the private sector highly share
that experimentation culture compared to public sector. Similar
observation is found in different years of service, where the private
sector member's shares high experimentation culture compared to
public sector.
standard deviations on value expectancy for the various subgroups. It is
evident from the table that private sector has strong e expectancy (365.95)
than the public sector (184.48), when the value expectancy scores are
compared; When we come to the areas of work, there is a general trend
that the administrative managers (283.58) is giving moderate importance
to value expectancy campared to technical managers (266.85). This is the
general trend observed when we compare the mean scores of the
technical and administrative managers. Similarly, this general trend is
observed when the sample is divided in terms of years of service too.
When we look into sector- area mean scores, it is evident from the table
that the technical anti administrative members in the private sector is
giving high importance to work values compared to public sector. Similar
member's shares high value expectancy compared to public sector. It is
clear form the table further that there is high standard deviation among
private sector compared to public sector.
In the present study, the Value Expectancy variable involves

twenty-one sub variables. Since a pattern of differences are observed
between technical and administrative managers in their perception of
Value Expectancy on over all Expectancy behaviour, it would be
interesting to know more on the twenty one sub variables of the Value
Expectancy between the sub groups, of the sample. Therefore a sub
group analysis is done on each sub variables of Value Expectancy. The
mean and standard deviations, thus obtained on the sub variables on
Value Expectancy for the various categories of the sample are shown in
the table 5.42.
Table: 5.42 Shows Means and Standard Deviations of Value Expectancy
sub-variable ABILITY UTILIZATION for the various sub -
groups
- -
VALUE EXPECTANCY SUB VARIABLE ABILITY UTILIZATION
sector I Area Years Mean SD N
Technical
Public Administralrve
Total
Technical
Private Administrative
Total
Technical
1 Total Administrative
Total
standard deviations on work value ability utilization for the various
subgroups. It is evident from the table that private sector is giving high
importance to ability utilization (15.69) than the public sector (9.49), when
the overall vale expectancy scores are compared. When we come to the
areas of work, there is a general trend that the administrative managers
(13.20) are giving moderate importance to the work value ability utilization
compared to technical managers (11.98). This is the general trend
sector area mean scores it is evident from the table that the technical and
administrative members in the private sector is giving high importance to
the work value abil~ty utilization compared to public sector. Similar
member's is giving h ~ g himportance ability utilization compared to public
sector. Table further shows high standard deviation among private sector
compared to public sector.

standard deviations on work value achievement for the various subgroups.
It is evident from the table that private sector has strong achievement
(16.73) than the public sector (7.53), when the overall value expectancy
scores are compared.. When we come to the areas of work, there is a
general trend that the administrative managers (13.02) are giving
moderate importance to the work value achievement compared to
technical managers (11.24). This is the general trend observed when we
compare the mean scores of the technical and administrative managers.
Similarly, this general trend is observed when the sample is divided in
terms of years of service too. When we look into sector area mean scores
it is evident from the table that the technical and administrative members in
the private sector is grving high importance to the work value achievement
compared to public sector. Similar observation is found in different years of
service, where the private sector member's is giving high importance
achievement compared to public sector. Table further shows high standard
deviation among private sector compared to public sector

-
sub-variable ADVANCEMENT for the various sub groups
standard deviations on work value advancement for the various
subgroups. It is evident from the table that private sector has strong
advancement (18.65) than the public sector (7.60), when the overall value
expectancy cores are compared. When we come to the areas of work,
there is a general trend that the administrative managers (12.92) are giving
moderate importance! to the work value advancement compared to
terms of years of senrice too. When we look into sector area mean scores
the private sector is giving high importance to the work value advancement
compared to public sector. Similar 0 b ~ e ~ a t i is

0 nfound in different years of
service where the private sector member's is giving high importance
advancement compared to public sector. Table further shows low standard
deviation in both private sector and public sector.

Table: 5.45 Shows Means and Standard Deviations of Value Exwctancv
sub-variable AESTHETICS -for the various sub groups
VALUE EXPECTANCY. SUB VARIABLE -AESTHETICS
Sector Area Years Mean SD N
0-6 7.1333 1.1958 30
7-13 7.2000 1.1265 30
Technical
14 &above 7.0333 9994 30
Total 7.1222 1.0998 90
0-6 7.0667 1.2015 30
7-13 7.1333 1.1366 30
Public Administrative
14 &above 6.9667 1.0981 30
Total 7.0556 1.1353 90
04 7.1000 1.1889 60
7-13 7.1667 1.1224 60
Total
14 &above 7.12030 1.0415 60
Total 7.0889 1.1151 180
04 18.4000 1.2205 30
7-13 14.3667 4.4604 30
Technical
14 & above 17.9333 1.6595 30
Total 16.9000 3.3387 90
06 18.4667 1.3578 30
7-13 18.4333 1.3309 30
Private ~dministrative
14 &above 18.4667 1.3578 30
Total 18.4556 1.3338 90
0-6 18.4333 1.2804 60
7-13 16.4000 3.8541 60
Total
14 8 above 18.2000 1.5272 60
Total 17.6778 2.6524 180
04 12.7687 5.8058 60
7-13 10.7833 4.8436 60
Technical
14 &above 12.4833 5.6613 60
Total 12.01 11 5.4935 180
06 12.7667 5.8870 60
7-13 12.7833 5.8283 60
Total Administrative
14 &above 12.7167 5.9264 60
Total 12.7556 5.8478 160
-
0-6 11.7833 5.8219 120
7-13 12.7667 5.4297 120
Total
14 &above 12.6000 5.7721 120
Total 12.3833 5.6778 360
standard deviations on work value aesthetics for the various subgroups.
It is evident from the table that private sector has strong aesthetics (17.67)
than the public sector (7.08), when the overall value expectancy cores are
compared. When we coine to the areas of work, there is a general trend
that the administrative managers (12.75) are giving moderate importance
to the work value aesthetics compared to technical managers (12.01). This
is the general trend observed when we compare the mean scores of the
observed when the sarriple is divided in terms of years of service too.
When we look into sector area mean scores it is evident from the table that
the technical and administrative members in the private sector is giving
high importance to the work value aesthetics compared to public sector.
Similar observation is fo~tndin different years of service where the private
sector member's is giving high importance aesthetics compared to public
sector. Table further shows low standard deviation in both private sector
and public sector.

standard deviations on work value altruism for the various subgroups. It is
evident from the table that private sector has strong altruism (17.45) than
the public sector (8.21), when the overall value expectancy cores are
compared. When we come to the areas of work, there is a general trend
to the work value altr~iismcompared to technical managers (12.33). This IS
the general trend observed when we compare the mean scores of the
high importance to the work value altruism compared to public sector.
Similar observation is found in different years of service where the private
sector member's is giving high importance altruism compared to public
and public sector.

standard deviations on work value authority for the various subgroups. It is
evident from the table that private sector has strong authority (18.12) than
compared. When we corne to the areas of work, there is a general trend
to the work value authority compared to technical managers (12.96). This
high importance to the ,work value authority compared to public sector.
sector member's is giving high importance authority compared to public
and public sector.

-
sub-variable AUTONOMY for the various sub groups
-
VALUE EXPECTANCY SUB VARIABLE -AUTONOMY
0-6 7.5333 1.4077 30
7.13 8.0333 1.2172 30
Techr~ical
14 &above 8.0333 1.2994 30
Total 7.8667 1.3171 90
0-6 7.8667 1.3060 30
7-13 8.0000 1.0828 30
14 & above 8.2667 1.4126 30
Total 8.0444 1.2712 90
0-6 7.7000 1.3567 60
7-13 8.0167 1.1423 60
Total
14 & above 8.1500 1.3508 60
Total 7.9556 1.2938 180
0-6 18.1000 1.5166 30
7-13 18.3333 1.5162 30
Technical
14 &above 13.9667 3.81 90 30
Total 16.8000 3.2123 90
0-6 17.4333 2.7628 30
7-13 18.7333 1.1121 30
14 & above 18.3333 1.1244 30
Total Administrative
standard deviations on work value autonomy for the various subgroups. It
is evident from the table that private sector has strong autonomy (17.48)
than the public sector 1;7.95),when the overall value expectancy cores are
to the work value autonomy compared to technical managers (12.33). This
high importance to the work value autonomy compared to public sector.
sector member's is giving high importance autonomy compared to public
and public sector.

standard deviations on work value creativity for the various subgroups. It is
evident from the table lhat private sector has strong creativity (18.50) than
to the work value creal:ivity compared to technical managers (13.22). This
high importance to the work value creativity compared to public sector.
sector member's is giving high importance creativity compared to public
and public sector.

standard deviations on work value economic reward for the various
economic reward (18.58) than the public sector (12.92), when the overall
value expectancy cores are compared. When we come to the areas of
work, there is a general trend that the administrative managers (15.60) are
giving high importance to the work value economic reward compared to
terms of years of service too. When we look into sector area mean scores
the private sector is giving high importance to the work value economic
reward compared to public sector. Similar observation is found in different
years of service where the private sector member's is giving high
importance economic reward compared to public sector. Table further
shows low standard deviation in private sector and high standard deviation
in public sector.
5.51 shows Means and Standard Deviations of value
-
Eiwctancy sub-variable LIFE STYLE for the various
standard deviations on work value life style for the various subgroups. It is
evident from the table that private sector has strong life style (18.42) than
that the administrative managers (15.90) are giving high importance to the
work value life style compared to technical managers (15.66). This is the
When we look into sector-area mean scores it is evident from the table that
high importance to the work value life style compared to public sector.
sector member's is giving high importance life style compared to public
sector. Table further :shows low standard deviation in private sector and
high standard deviation in public sector.

standard deviations on work personal development for the various
personal development (17.87) than the public sector (7.96), when the
overall value expectan1:y cores are compared. When we come to the areas
of work, there is a general trend that the administrative managers (12.95)
are giving high impo..tance to the work value personal development
compared to technical managers (12.88) This is the general trend
sector-area mean scores it is evident from the table that the technical and
administrative members: in the private sector is giving high importance to
the work value personal development compared to public sector. Similar
member's is giving high importance personal development compared to
public sector. Table further shows low standard deviation in both private
sector and public sector.

Table: 5.53 Shows Means and Standard Deviations of Value
Expectancy sub-variable PHYSICAL ACTIVITY - for the
various sub groups
Public
L
Technical
7-13
14 & above
Total
10.9333
10.5333
11.ZOO0
2.5316
2.3154
2.3759
30
30
90
Private
standard deviations on work value physical activity for the various
subgroups. It is evidenl from the table that private sector has strong
physical activity (16.40) than the public sector (11.49), when the overall
giving high importance to the work value physical activity compared to
compare the mean sccres of the technical and administrative managers.
terms of years of service too. When we look into sector-area mean scores
the private sector is giving high importance to the work value physical
activity compared to public sector. Similar observation is found in different
years of service where the private sector member's is giving high
importance physical activity compared to public sector. Table further
shows high standard deviation in private sector compared to public sector.

Table: 5.54 Shows Means and Standard Deviations of Value Expectancy sub-
-
variable PRESTIGE for the various sub groups
-
VALUE EXPECTANCY SUB VARIABLE - PRESTIGE
06 10.4333 1.9061 30
7-13 9.7000 2.0869 30
Technical
14& above 9.3000 1.8223 30
Total 9.8111 1.9768 90
0-6 10.3000 2.0026 30
7-13 9.5333 1.9954 30
148 above 100000 1.8570 30
Total 9.9444 1.9566 90
06 10.3667 1.9395 60
7-13 9.6167 2.0260 60
Total
148above 9.6500 1.8579 60
Total 9.8776 1.9624 180
0-6 11.9333 4.7265 30
7-13 17.4333 3.2672 30
Technical
148above 18.4667 1.0417 30
Total 15.9444 4.4123 90
06 18.4667 1.1059 30
7-13 18.0333 1.6501 30
148 above 17.8333 6989 30
Total 18.1111 1.2311 90
0-6 15.2000 4.7364 60
7.13 17.7333 2.5964 60
Total
- 14& above 18.1500 ,9356 60
Total 17.0278 3.4079 180
0-6 11.1833 3.6522 60
7-13 13.5667 4.7599 60
Techni.:al
14 8above 13.8833 4.8506 60
Total 12.8778 4.5913 180
0-6 14.3833 4.4191 60
7-13 13.7833 4.6545 60
Total
Administrative 14 &above 13.9167 4.1875 60
Total 14.0278 4.4072 180
0-6 12.7833 4.3448 120
7-13 13.90W 4.6889 120
Total
14&above 13.6750 4.5122 120
Total 13.4528 4.5307 360
standard deviations on work value prestige for the various subgroups. It is
evident from the table that private sector has strong prestige (17.02) than
that the administrative managers (14.02) are giving high importance to the
work value prestige corripared to technical managers (12.87). This is the
When we look into secto(-area mean scores it is evident from the table that
high importance to the work value prestige compared to public sector.
sector member's is giving high importance prestige compared to public
sector. Table further shows high standard deviation in private sector

standard deviations on work value risk for the various subgroups. It is
evident from the table that private sector has strong risk (17.17) than the
public sector (8.80), when the overall value expectancy cores are
to the work value risk compared to technical managers (12.42). This is the
high importance to the work value risk compared to public sector. Similar
member's is giving high importance risk compared to public sector. Table
further shows high standard deviation in private sector compared to public
sector.
standard deviations on work value social interaction for the various
subgroups. It is evident from the table that private sector has strong social
interaction (16.78) than the public sector (8.08), when the overall value
moderate importance to the work value social interaction compared to
technical managers ('11.65). This is the general trend observed when we
the private sector is giving high importance to the work value social
interaction cornparecl to public sector. Similar observation is found in
different years of sewice where the private sector member's is giving high
importance social interaction compared to public sector. Table further
shows high standard deviation in private sector compared to public sector.

sub-variable SOCIAL RELATION -for the various sub groups
standard deviations on work value social relations for the various
subgroups. It is evident from the table that private sector has strong social
relations (16.09) than the public sector (7.90), when the overall value
expectancy cores art! compared. When we come to the areas of work,
moderate importance to the work value social relations compared to
technical managers ( 1 1.30). This is the general trend observed when we
the private sector is giving high importance to the work value social
relations compared to public sector. Similar observation is found in
different years of service where the private sector member's is giving high
importance social relations compared to public sector. Table further shows
high standard deviation in private sector compared to public sector.

Table: 5.58 Shows Means and Standard Deviations of Value Expectancy sub
variable VARIETY -for the various sub groups
standard deviations on work value variety for the various subgroups. It is
evident from the table that private sector has strong variety (16.98) than
to the work value variety compared to technical managers (1 1.77). This is
the general trend observed when we compare the mean scores of the
high importance to the work value variety compared to public sector.
sector member's is giving high variety compared to public sector. Table
further shows high standard deviation in private sector compared to public
sector.
standard deviations on work value working condition for the various
working condition (17.56) than the public sector (7.96), when the overall
giving moderate importance to the work value work~ngcondition compared
to technical managers (12.22). This is the general trend observed when we
terms of years of servace too. When we look into sector-area mean scores
the private sector is giving high importance to the work value working
condition compared to public sector. Similar observation is found in
different years of service where the private sector member's is giving high
working condition compared to public sector. Table further shows high
standard deviation in private sector compared to public sector.

standard deviations on work value peace of mind for the various
subgroups. It is evident from the table that private sector has strong peace
of mind (17.57) than the public sector (8.17), when the overall value
moderate importance tc the work value peace of mind compared to
the private sector is givi~nghigh importance to the work value peace of
mind compared to public sector. Similar observation is found in different
years of service where th14 private sector member's is giving high peace of
mind compared to public sector. Table further shows low standard
deviation in public sector compared to private sector.

Table: 5.61 Shows Means and Standard Deviations of Value Expectancy sub-
-
variable COMFORT OF LIFE for the various sub groups
standard deviations on work value comfort of life for the various
when the overall value

comfort of life (17.73) than the public sector (8.23),
moderate importance to the work value comfort of life compared to
the private sector is giving high importance to the work value comfort of life
compared to public sector. Similar observation is found in different years of
service where the private sector member's is giving high comfort of life
compared to public sector. Table further shows low standard deviation in
both public and private sector.

subvariable DEPENDENCY -for the various sub groups
standard deviations on work value dependency for the various subgroups.
It is evident from the table that private sector has strong dependency
(17.73) than the public sector (8.07), when the overall value expectancy
cores are compared. When we come to the areas of work, there is a
general trend that the administrative managers (13.42) are giving
moderate importance to the work value dependency compared to technical
managers (12.38). This is the general trend observed when we compare
the mean scores of the technical and administrative managers. Similarly,
this general trend is observed when the sample is divided in terms of years
of service too. When we look into sector-area mean scores it is evident
from the table that the technical and administrative members in the private
sector is giving high importance to the work value dependency compared
to public sector. Similar observation is found in different years of service
where the private sector member's is giving high dependency compared to
public sector. Table further shows low standard deviation in both public
and private sector.

Correlation
At this stage it is interesting to know the more on theextend of relationship that exists between organisational culture
and value expectancy behaviour. Therefore as a second step of analysis inter correlation between organisational culture and
value expectancy variables are calculated. The inter correlation thus obtained are shown in the table below.
Table 5.63 shows inter correlation Organizational Culture variables and Value Expectancy variables for the total sample
EXP 108' ,019' - . .029 ,098' -167 038 C

W 050' 122' 155' .091 033 O W 082" 048" ,034 021' 034 '022 M9' -023
CUL 092' 1% W ..I43 ,152' .I91 -068 022' ,084' ,170 167' .I05 -107 013 246" 249" ,133' ,177 - 112 2 ' -012 - 161'
Correlation Significance ' (p < 0.05).

Correlation Significance " (p < 0.01)
The general findings observed in this analysis are summarized as follows.
1. There is significant relationship between organisational culture sub
variable openness with value expectancy sub variables achievement,
advancement, aesthetics, altruism, creativity, life style, risk taking, social
interaction and social relations, peace of mind and total value
expectancy behaviour. All these correlation are significant at the
p < 0.05) level.

variable confrontation with value expectancy sub variable achievement,
social interaction, social relationship, variety, peace of mind, comfort of
life and total value expectancy behaviour. These relationship are
significant at p < 0.01 level. While, on other value expectancy sub
variables like altruism, risk, and dependency behaviour the relationship
are significant at p < 0.05 level.

variable trust with value expectancy sub variables achievement, social
interaction social relationship, peace of mind and total value expectancy
behaviour. These relationship are significant at p < 0.01 level. While, on
other value expectancy sub variables like altruism, risk, variety, life style,
working condition, comfort of life, and dependency behaviour, the
relationship are significant at p < 0.05 level.
4. There is significant relationship between independent organisational

culture sub variable authenticity with value expectancy sub variables
altruism, autonomy, prestige, and social relationship behaviour. All
these correlation are significant at p < 0.05) level.

variable proaction with value expectancy sub variables altruism,
prestige, working condition and social relationship behaviour. All these
correlation are significant at p < 0.05) level.
6. There is significant relationship between organisational culture sub variable

autonomy with value expectancy sub variables, personality development.
These relationship are significant at p < 0.01 level. While, on other value
expectancy sub variables like ability utilization, authority, variety and
comfort of life, the relationship are significant at p < 0.05 level.

variable collaboration with value expectancy sub variables achievement
and dependency. These relationship are significant at p < 0.01 level.
While, on other value expectancy sub variables like altruism, personal
development, peace of mind and social interaction and social
relationship the relationship are significant at p < 0.05 level.

variable experimentation behaviour with value expectancy sub variables
achievement, altruism, creativity, economic rewards, personal
development, life style, risk taking, working condition, peace of mind and
dependency. These relationship are significant at p < 0.05 level. While,
on other value expectancy sub variables like social interaction and
social relationship the relationship are significance is at p < 0.01 level.
9. There is significant relationship between total organizational culture with

value expectancy sub variables ability utilization achievement, altruism,
creativity, econo~nicrewards, risk taking, personal development, variety
and comfort of life. These relationships are significant at p < 0.05 level.
While, on other value expectancy sub variables like social interaction,
social relationship is significant at (p < 0.01) level.
Table 5.64 Shows inter correlation Organizational Culture variables and Value Expectancy variables for the Public Sector
VARUBLE ABL ACH ADV AES ALT AUl AUl CRE ECO LIFE E R PHY PRES RISK SOCI SOR VER WOR PEA COM DEP ETH
OPE W .OW W3 ..MlS 051' ,082' 1 033' -025 -033 ,324. - 126 024 184' 022' 037' 112' - 058 078' ,030' .056' 158'
CON ..M6 -059 096 -183 018 083 ,066 -132 ,063 .O68 108 .059 -080 .I22 160' 066' 076 001 ,014' -W4 111' -044
TRU 023' -078 -053 ,059. 033' ,138' 060' -027 020 030 ,043 -013 168 120 031' 075' 013 -109 028' 081' 043 -032
AUTH -.I02 -018 -049 ..M9 W7 .I22 058 107 038 .040 ,031 -.058 ,079' ,004' -033 022' 058' -074 006 017 459 -062
PRO -102 019' -049 -038 W7 -122 059 107' ,038' -040 031' 058' 079 ,016' ,033f 022 -058 074' W6 017 -058 -062
AUT 002 074' OM 107' ,027 ,043 033' -051 020 W9' 064 022 015' 067' -140 131 088 -020 ,051 116 -014 031
Correlation Significance ' (p < 0.05).

Correlation Significance " (p c 0.01)
The general findings observed in this analysis are summarized as
follows.
1. There is significant relationship between organisational culture

sub variable openness with value expectancy sub variables
ability utilization, achievement, altruism, authority, autonomy,
creativity, risk taking, personal development, social interaction
and social relationship, variety, peace of mind, comfort of life
dependency and total value expectancy behaviour. All these
correlation are significant at p < 0.05) level.

sub variable confrontation with value expectancy sub variables
social interaction, sub social relationship peace of mind, comfort
of life and dependency. All these correlation are significant at
p < 0.05 level.

sub variable trust with value expectancy sub variables ability
utilization, aesthetics, altruism, authority, autonomy, social
interaction, social relationship, peace of mind, and comfort of life.
All these correlation are significant at p < 0.05 level.

sub variable authenticity with value expectancy sub variables
prestige, risk taking, social relations and variety. All these
correlation are significant at p < 0.05 level.
5. There is significant relationship between independent variable

proaction with value expectancy variables achievement,
creativity. economic rewards, risk taking, personal development,
physical activity and social interaction and working condition. All
these correlation are significant at p < 0.05 level.

sub variable authority with value expectancy variables
achievement, aesthetics, autonomy, life style, prestige and risk
taking. All these correlation are significant at p < 0.01 level.

sub variat~lecollaboration with value expectancy sub variables
ability utilization, altruism autonomy, and risk. All these

sub variable experimentation with value expectancy sub
variables achievement, aesthetics, authority, creativity,
economic rewards, personal development, social interaction,
social relationship and working condition. All these correlation
are signifcant at p < 0.05 level.
Table 5.65 Shows inter correlation Organizational Culture variables and Value Expectancy variables for the Private Sector
VARUBLE ABL Am ADV AES ALT AUl AUT CRE ECO LIFE PER PHY PRES RISK SOCl SOR YER COM DEP
--
OPE 026 ,161' 052' 113. 098' 132 -078 015' -056 038' -128 -031 -069 ,097' 174' 121. -105 ,093 - 081
--
CON ,067 187" -109 .lCO 178' -138 -106 026 -039 4 ,038 ,022 -122 l5D' 258" 241" 198" ,1601 161'
--
TRU 072 236.' -067 053' 166' -050 080 014 -107 135' -062 WX lsB' 276" 265" 21C. ,152. 187' 171'
i AUT .032 -024 4 1 -081 138' -I44 170' 016 -029 C65 611.133 -023 U3T -.032 -139
PRO -032 ,024 -141 ,081 ,138 -14 110' ,076 -029 -065 -133 -023 0
%' -032 139
AUl ,013' -W6 .W W7 ,022 135' 116 051 041 -044 188" -201 -103 -085 112
CO 088' 202' 124 OW 105' 008 028' 026' 099' 024' 167' -088 085 131' 072'
W 058' iW6' -023 -086 -098 -067 019 063' 025' 061' 143' -089 W3 OW 01Y 0SC 020 OW ,039' 027 ,060 -021
CUL . ,135' .OK6 -lW 152' -081 -034 022' 043' -085 -145 -0% -107 -119 216" ,201" 1ST 121 -142 1 -079 188'
C o ~ r a l a t i o nSignificance ' (p < 0.05).
Correlation Significance " ( p < 0.01).

The general findings observed in this analysis are summarized as follows.

variable openness with value expectancy sub variables achievement,
advancement, aesthetics, altruism, risk taking, creativity, life style,
risk, social interaction, social relationship, peace of mind and total
value expectancy behaviour. All these correlation are significant at
p < 0.05 level.

variable confrontation with dependent variable achievement, social
interaction, social relationship, variety, peace of mind and total value
expectancy behaviour. All these correlation are significant at p < 0.01
level. While, on other value expectancy sub variables like altruism,
risk and dependency, the relationship are significant at p < 0.05 level.

variable trusts with value expectancy sub variables achievement,
social interaction social relationship, peace of mind, total value
expectancy behaviour. All these correlation are significant at p < 0.01
level. While, on other value expectancy sub variables like altruism, life
style, risk taking, prestige, variety, comfort of life, and dependency
behaviour the relationship is significant at p < 0.05 level.

variable authenticity with value expectancy sub variables altruism
autonomy, prestige, and social relationship behaviour. All these

variable proaction with value expectancy sub variables altruism,
prestige, working condition and social relationship behaviour. All these
variable autonomy with value expectancy sub variables ability
utilization authority, variety and comfort of life. All these correlation are
significant at p < 0.05 level. While, on other value expectancy sub
variable 1ik.s personality development, the relationship is significant at
p < 0.01 level.

variable icollaboration with value expectancy sub variables
achievement, altruism, risk, life style, personal development, peace of
mind and social interaction and social relationship. All these
correlation are significant at p < 0.05 level. While, on other value
expectancy sub variable like dependency, the relationship is
significant at p < 0.01 level.

variable experimentation with value expectancy sub variables, ability
utilization achievement altruism, creativity, life style, economic
rewards, personal development, life style, risk taking, working
condition and dependency. All these correlation are significant at
p < 0.05 level. While, on other value expectancy sub variable like,
social interaction and social relationship, the relationship is significant
at p < 0.01 level.
9. There is significant relationship between total organizational culture

with value expectancy sub variables ability utilization, achievement,
creativity, economic rewards, risk taking, personal development, and
variety, comfort of life, and total value expectancy. All these
correlatior are significant at p < 0.05 level. While, on other value
expectancy sub variable like, social interaction and social relationship,
the relationship is significant at p < 0.01 level.
Results of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
To draw a general picture on the independent variables, Analysis if

Variances (ANOVA) are done on organisational culture variables. It is
evident from the previous analysis that there exists difference between
public sector as well as private sector, technical as well as administration,
and between different years of service, as far as their perception of some
of the organisational culture and value expectancy variables are
concerned. This discrepancy is observed in the case of the over all
organisational culture and value expectancy variables also. When we
come to the standard deviations, the same trend is observed on various
sub variables of organisational culture and value expectancy. This general
trend is observable between technical and administrative categories in
varying degrees. The results of inter correlation analysis also shows that
the over all organi:jational culture as well as the sub variables are
significantly related to the over all organisational culture and sub variables
of value expectancy. Therefore it is worth analyzing in detail, the
differences and inter--correlationsthat observed between the sub variables
between the independent and dependent variable. To test the various
hypotheses, formulated in the study, ANOVA are calculated on various sub
variables for the total sample as well as for the sub categories of the
sample. To do the ANOVA, a design of 2 x 2 ~ 3
factorial design is followed,
where the first 2 tends for the two sector first variable sector, namely,
public and private sector, the second 2 tends for the nature of work
namely, technical and administrative, and the 3 tends for the years of
service namely, 0-6 years, 7-13 years and 14 and above years.
Table: 5.66 Shows details of analysis of variance related to organisational
culture.
Corrected Model 485323 142(a) 44120.286 231.143
Intercept 40647('0.025
1 AREA
il4 1Li.J.X
'M4 103.17
'M5 107.10
YEARS
491.275 2.574 ,078 'M6 107.72
'M7 103.95
1
SECTOR' AREA
366.025 1 366.025 1.918 167
(Ax 6 )
SECTOR ^YEARS
7800.?06 3900.103 20.432 000
1 1
AREA * YEARS
1
SECTOR ' AREA *
11252,850 :3 1626425 29.476
(A x B x C)
68425.833 190.879
I I I I I
Total 4616441).000 360
M I : Public Sector
M2: Private Sector
M3: Technical Nature of Work
M4: Administrative Nature of Work
M5: 0-6 Years of Service
M6: 7-13 Years of Service
M7: 14 and above Years of Service
An examination of the table 5.66 reveals that the main effect of the
factor A (public and private sector) is significant (F (1, 348) = 2407.821; p
< .01). The main effect analysis on the sector (A) indicates that there is
significant difference in the organisational culture of public and private sector
industries. The means score indicates in the table clearly indicates that the
private sector has high mean score compared to public sector in this
research. This indicates that private sector has strong culture compared to
public sector.
The main effect of the second factor, Area (B) is found to be significant
(F (1, 348) = 17.e98; p < .01). The main effect analysis on the Area (B)
indicates that ther(2 is significant difference in technical and administrative
managers in their shared beliefs towards organisational culture. It is evident
from the mean values of the two group that technical managers highly share
the organisational culture compared to administrative members in this
research. This ~ndicates that technical managers highly share the
organisational culture compared to administrative members.
The main effect of the third factor(C) Years of service (0-6. 7-13 and
14 and above) is found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 2.574; p > .01). This
indicates that culture difference is insignificant in different years of service
managers in public and private sector.
The first order interaction effect of Sector and Area (A x 6)indicates

insignificant (F (1, 348) = 1.918); p .01) in different years of service
managers in public and private sector. This indicates that culture difference is
insignificant in technical and administrative managers in public and private
sector.
The s e c ~ ~ n
order
d interaction, effect of Sector and Years of service (A
x C) has found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 20.432; p <: .01) relation to
organisational culture. It is evident from the mean values of the three groups
that 0-6 years of servicie members in private sector is having high mean score
compared to 0-6 years of service members in public sector. The same trend
observed in the 7-13 years of service and 14 and above years of service
members. This shows the members of different years of service in private
sector highly share the organisational culture compared to public sector.
The third order interaction, effect of Area and Years of service (€3 x C)
has found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 4.985; p < .01). The means scores
indicate that 0-6 years of service technical members is having moderate
mean score compared to 0-6 years of service administrative members. The
same trend observed in the 14 and above years of service. While the 7-13
years of service administrative members is having high mean score compared
to technical members. This indicates that 0-6 and 7-13 years of service
technical members mcderately shares the organisational culture compared to
administrative members. While the 7-13 years of service administrative
service group moderately shares the organisational culture compared to
technical members.
Finally, the higher order interaction effect between three main factors
viz., Sector, Area and 'Years of Service (A x B x C) has found to be significant
(F (2, 348) = 29.476; P < 0.01). The significant main effect analysis on the
Sector, Area and Years of Service (A x B x C ) indicates that there is sectoral
difference exist in between technical and administrative members who
belongs to different service years, towards the organisational culture. The
mean scores indicates that 0-6, 7-13 and 14 and above years technical
members in private sector having high mean score compared to 0-6, 7-13 and
14 and above years technical members in public sector. Similar finding is also
cited in administrative members. This indicates that the technical and
administrative members of different years of service in private sector highly
share the organisational culture compared to public sector.
Table: 5.67 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Openness
Source
Corrected Model
Intercept
SECTOR
(A)
AREA
(6)
YEARS
(C)
SECTOR AREA
(A x 6)
SECTOR * YEARS
(A x C)
AREA * YEARS
(B x C)
SECTOR ' AREA *
YEARS
(A x B x C)
Error
Total
factor A (public anti private sector) is significant (F (1, 348) = 560.855;
P < .01) The main effect analysis on the sector (A) indicates that there is
significant difference in the openness culture of public and private sector
industries. The means scores show in the table clearly indicates that the
research. This indicates that private sector has strong openness culture
The main effect (of the second factor, Area (B) is found to be significant
(F (2, 348) = 17.201; P < .01). The main effect analysis on the Area (B)
indicates that there is significant difference in technical and administrative
managers in their shared beliefs towards openness culture. It is evident from
the mean values of the two groups that technical managers highly share the
openness culture compared to administrative members in this research. This
indicates that technical managers highly share the openness culture
compared to administrative members.
The main effect of the third factor(C) Years of service (0-6, 7-13 and
14 and above) is found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 8.133; p < .01) relation to
openness culture. The significant main effect analysis on different service
years indicates that there is difference in 0-6, 7-13 and 14 and above
members in their shared beliefs towards openness culture. The tests on the
differences between m'eans clearly indicate that the 7-13 years of service
members have moderately high mean score compared to 0-6 and 14 and
above service years. The 14 and above members have low mean score and
0-6 years have modera!:e mean score in this research. This indicates that the
7-13 years of service nembers have moderately high-level beliefs on the
openness culture and t?e 14 and above members have low-level beliefs on
the openness culture. The 0-6 years of service members have moderate level
belief on the openness c:ulture.
The first order interaction effect of Sector and Area (A x B) indicates

insignlicant (F (1, 346) = 2.169); p > 0.01) in different years of service
managers in public and private sector. This indicates that culture difference is
sector.
The second order interaction, effect of Sector and Years of service

(A x C) has found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 15.479; p < .Ol) relation to
openness culture. It is evident from the mean values of the three groups that
0-6 years of service members in private sector is having high mean score
members. This show the members of different years of service in private
sector highly share the openness culture compared to public sector.
The third order interaction, effect of Area and Years of service (B x C)

has found to be sigr~ificant (F (2, 348) = 14.245; p < .01). The tests on the
differences between means indicate that 0-6, years of service technical
members has moderate mean score compared to administrative members.
7-13 and 14 and above years technical members having low mean score
compared to administrative members. This shows that the 0-6 technical
members have moderate attitude towards the openness culture while the
administrative people have low. Further, the 7-13 and 14 and above years of
service technical members have low attitude to openness culture compared to
administrative members, where they have moderate attitude.
viz., Sector, Area and Years of Service (A x 6 x C) has found to be significant
Sector, Area and Years of Service (A x B x C) indicates that there is sectoral
belongs to different service years, towards the openness culture. The mean
scores indicates that 0-6, 7-13 and 14 and above years technical members in
private sector having high mean score compared to 0-6, 7-13 and 14 and
above years technical members in public sector. Similar finding is also
observed in administmtive members. This indicates that the technical and
share the openness culture compared to public sector.
Table: 5.68 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) o n Confrontation
Source
Corrected Model
Intercept
SECTOR
(A)
AREA
(0)
- .
YEARS
(C)
-
SECTOR ' AREA
( A x B)
SECTOR ' YEARS
(A x C)
AREA 'YEARS
174.5:'2 2 87.286 15.825 ,000
(0 x C)
SECTOR ' AREA '
YEARS 149.717 2 74.858 13.572 .000
(A x B x C)
Error 1919.4137 348 5.516
Total 76750.COO 360
factor A (public and private sector) is significant (F (I, 348) = 1538.789; P< .01).
The main effect analysis on the sector (A) indicates that there is significant
difference in the confrontation culture of public and private sector industries.
The means scores show in the table clearly indicates that the private sector
has high mean score compared to public sector in this research. This
indicates that private sector has strong confrontation culture compared to
public sector.
The main effect of the factor, B (technical and administrative) is found to

be significant (F (2, 348) = 27.106; P < .01) relation. The main effect analysis on
the Area (B) indicates that there is significant difference in technical and
administrative managers in their shared beliefs towards confrontation culture. It
is evident from the mean values of the two groups that technical managers
highly share the confrontation culture compared to administrative members in
this research. This indicates that technical managers highly share the
confrontation culture compared to administrative members.
The main effect of the third factor(C) Years of service (0-6, 7-13 and
14 and above) is found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 6.848; p < .01) relation to
confrontation culture. The significant main effect analysis on different service
years indicates that there is difference in 0-6, 7-13 and 14 and above
members in their shared beliefs towards confrontation culture. The tests on
the differences between means clearly indicate that the 7-13 years of service
members have moderately high mean score compared to 0-6 and 14 and
above service years. The 14 and above members have low mean score and
0-6 years have moderate mean score in this research. This indicates that the
7-13 years of service members have moderately high-level beliefs on the
confrontation culture and the 14 and above members have low-level beliefs
on the confrontation culture. The 0-6 years of service members have
moderate level belie1 on the confrontation culture.
In the first order interaction effect Sector and Area (A x B) has found to
be significant (F (1, 348) = 13.217; P < .01). The interaction effect on the
Sector and Area (A x 6)indicates that technical managers in the private
sector is having high mean score compared to public sector. The same trend
observed in the administrative managers. This indicates that technical
managers in the private sector highly share the confrontation culture
compared to public sector. The administrative managers in private sector are
having high means score compared to those in public sector. This indicates
that administrative managers in the private sector highly share the
confrontation culture compared to those in public sector.
(A x C) has found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 34.493; p < .01) relation to
confrontation culture. It IS evident from the mean values of the three groups
that 0-6 years of service members in private sector is having high mean score
compared to 0-6 years 01 service members in public sector. The same trend
observed in the 7-13 years of service and 14 and above years of servlce
members. This shows tke members of different years of service in private
sector highly share the confrontation culture compared to public sector.

has found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 15.825; p < .01). The tests on the
differences between means indicate that 0-6, years of service technical
members has moderate mean score compared to administrative members.
7-13 and 14 and above years technical members having low mean score
compared to administrative members. This shows that the 0-6 technical
members have moderate attitude towards the confrontation culture while the
administrative people have low. Further, the 7-13 and 14 and above years of
service technical members have low attitude to confrontation culture
compared to administrative members, where they have moderate attitude.
viz., Sector, Area and Years of Service (A x B x C) has found to be significant
(F (2, 348) = 13.572; P c 0.01). The significant main effect analysis on the
Sector, Area and Years cA Service (A x B x C) indicates that there is sectoral
belongs to different senrice years, towards the confrontation culture. The
observed in administrative members. This indicates that the technical and
share the confrontatior~culture compared to public sector.
Table: 5.69 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Trust
Sum ot Mean Mean

Source df F Sig.
Squares Square
Corrected Model 6980.856(a) 11 634.623 78.310 000

.- .-
Intercept 62146.944 1 62146.944 7668.654 000

- -.
M I 8.92
SECTOR
6384.044 1 6384.044 787.762 000
(A) M2 17.35
-
M3 13.22
AREA
12100 I 12.100 1.493 223
(6) M4 12.95
M5 13.79
YEARS 4.893 008 M6 12.91

79.306 2 39.653
(C)
M7 12.70
SECTOR ' AREA

(A x 6 )
SECTOR "
YEARS (A
x C)
AREA YEARS
(B x C)
SECTOR * AREA
' YEARS
(A x 6 x C)
Error
Total
factor A (public and private sector) is significant (F (1, 348) = 787.62;
P < .01). The main eftect analysis on the sector (A) indicates that there is
significant difference in the trust culture of public and private sector
industries. The mean:; scores show in the table clearly indicates that the
private sector has h ~ g hmean score compared to public sector in this
research. This indicates that private sector has strong trust culture
The main effect of the factor, B (technical and administrative) is

found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 1.493; P > 0.01). This indicates that
culture difference is insignificant to nature of work.
The main effect of the third factor(C) Years of service (0-6, 7-13
and 14 and above) is found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 4.893; p < 0.01)
relation to trust culture. The significant main effect analysis on different
service years indicates that there is difference in 0-6, 7-13 and 14 and
above members in their shared beliefs towards trust culture. The tests on
the differences betl~eenmeans clearly indicate that the 7-13 years of
service members have moderately high mean score compared to 0-6 and
14 and above service years. The 14 and above members have low mean
score and 0-6 years have moderate mean score in this research. This
indicates that the 7-13 years of service members have moderately high-
level beliefs on the trust culture and the 14 and above members have low-
level beliefs on the trust culture. The 0-6 years of service members have
moderate level belief on the trust culture.
The first order interaction effect of Sector and Area (A x B)

indicates insignificant (F (1, 348) = 3.159); p > 0.01) in different years of
service managers in public and private sector. This indicates that culture
difference is insignificant in technical and administrative managers in
public and private sector.
The secona order interaction, effect of Sector and Years of service

(A x C) has found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 23.600; p < 0.01) relation
to confrontation c~~lture.
It is evident from the mean values of the three
groups that 0-6 years of service members in private sector is having high
mean score compared to 0-6 years of service members in public sector.
The same trend observed in the 7-13 years of service and 14 and above
years of service members. This shows the members of different years of
service in private sector highly share the trust culture compared to public
sector.
The third order interaction, effect of Area and Years of service (6x C)
has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 1.447; p > 0.01). This indicates
that culture difference is insignificant in technical and administrative
managers belong to different years of service in public and private sector.
Finally, the higher order interaction effect between three main

factors viz., Sector, Area and Years of Service (A x B x C) has found to be
significant (F (2, 348) = 4.556; P < 0.01). The significant main effect
analysis on the Sector, Area and Years of Service (A x B x C) indicates
that there is sectoral difference exist in between technical and
administrative members who belongs to different service years, towards
the trust culture. The mean scores indicates that 0-6, 7-13 and 14 and
above years technical members in private sector having high mean score
compared to 0-6, 7-13 and 14 and above years technical members in
public sector. Similar finding is also observed in administrative members.
This indicates that the technical and administrative members of different
years of service in private sector highly share the trust culture compared to
public sector.
1 1 11 1
Table: 5.70
source
Corrected
Model
Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Authenticity
sum
Squares
8492.4:33(a)
Mean
Square
772.039
F
111.137
sig 1 Mean
1
1
Intercept 65772 I00 65772.100 9468.048
49.878 4 ; W t
YEARS
16.467
SECTOR '
AREA
(A x B)
SECTOR *
YEARS
(A x C)
AREA *
YEARS
(B x C)
SECTOR '
AREA
YEARS 186.422 2 93.21 1 13.418
i
factor A (public and private sector) is significant (F (I,
348) = 1177.473;
P < .01) The main ~ f f e c tanalysis on the sector (A) indicates that there
is significant difference in the authenticity culture of public and private
sector industries. The means scores show in the table clearly indicates
that the private sector has high mean score compared to public sector in
this research. This indicates that private sector has strong authenticity
culture compared tc~public sector.

found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 7.180; P < .01) relation. The main
effect analysis on the Area ( 8 ) indicates that there is significant
difference in technical and administrative managers in their shared
beliefs towards authenticity culture. It is evident from the mean values
of the two groups that technical managers highly share the authenticity
culture compared to administrative members in this research. This
indicates that technical managers highly share the authenticity culture
compared to administrative members.
and 14 and above11is found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 1.185; p > .01).
This indicates that culture difference is insignificant in different years of
service managers in public and private sector.
The first srder interaction effect of Sector and Area (A x 8)

indicates insignificant (F (1, 348) = 1.638); p > .01) in different years of
service managers in public and private sector. This indicates that
culture difference is insignificant in technical and administrative
The second order interaction, effect of Sector and Years of
service (A x C) has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 2.250; p > . 0 l )
relation to authenticity culture.
The third order interaction, effect of Area and Years of service

(B x C) has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 1.254; p > .01). This
indicates that culture difference is insignificant in technical and
administrative managers belong to different years of service in public
and private sector.

factors viz., Sector, Area and Years of Service (A x B x C) has found to
be significant (F (2, 348) = 13.418; P < 0.01). The significant main effect
the authenticity culture. The mean scores indicates that 0-6, 7-13 and
14 and above years technical members in private sector having high
mean score compared to 0-6, 7-13 and 14 and above years technical
members in public sector. Similar finding is also observed in
administrative members. This indicates that the technical and
administrative members of different years of service in private sector
highly share the authenticity culture compared to public sector.
X d y m and ws
t 297
Table: 5.71 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Proaction
I Source
Sum of
Squares df 1 Mean
Square 1 / Sig.
Corrected
Model
1 Intercept
1 65772.100
YEARS
(C)
SECTOR
AREA
(A x B)
SECTOR
YEARS 31.267
(A x C)
AREA
YEARS
(B x C )
SECTOR '
AREA '
YEARS
Error
Total
298 Chapter v ,
P < .01) The main effect analysis on the sector (A) indicates that there is
significant difference in the proaction culture of public and private sector
research. This indicates that private sector has strong proaction culture

effect analysis on the Area (B) indicates that there is significant difference
in technical and administrative managers in their shared beliefs towards
proaction culture. It is evident from the mean values of the two groups that
technical managers highly share the proaction culture compared to
administrative members in this research. This ~ndicatesthat technical
managers highly share the proaction culture compared to administrative
members.
and 14 and above) is found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 1.185; p > .01).

indicates insignificant (F (1, 348) = 1.638); p > .01) in different years of
service managers in public and private sector. This indicates that culture
difference is insignificant in technical and administrative managers in
public and private sectcr.
service (A x C) has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 2.250; p > .01)
relation to ~ r o a c t i o nculture.

(B x C) has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 1.254; p > .01). This
and private sector.

factors viz., Sector Area and Years of Service (A x B x C) has found to
be significant (F (2 348) = 13.418; P < 0.01). The significant main effect
the proaction c u l t ~ ~ r The
e . mean scores indicates that 0-6, 7-13 and 14
and above years tachnical members in private sector having high mean
score compared to 0-6, 7-13 and 14 and above years technical
highly share the proaction culture compared to public sector.
Table: 5.72 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Autonomy
Source
Sum of
Squares df 1 Mean
Square I F I /
Sig.
Mean
Corrected
Model
1 6073,7R9(aJ
Intercept 60580.278
SECTOR
5538.' 78
(A)
AREA
(B)
i 6.944
YEARS
29.622
(C)
--
SECTOR
AREA 11.378
( A x B)
-
SECTOR *
YEARS 113.489
(A x C)
-
AREA '
YEARS 57.489
(B x C)
-
SECTOR *
1 AREA *
YEARS 316.6E9
(A x B x C)
Error 3147,933
-
Total 69802.000
factor A (public arid private sector) is significant (F (1, 348) = 612.238;
P < ,131). The main effect analysis on the sector (A) indicates that there is
significant difference in the autonomy culture of public and private sector
research. This indicates that private sector has strong autonomy culture
compared to public: sector.

found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = ,768; P > .01). This indicates that
culture difference is insignificant to nature of work.


indicates insignificant (F (1, 348) = 1.258); p > .Ol) in different years of
service managers in public and private sector. This indicates that
culture difference is insignificant in technical and administrative

service ( A x C) has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 6.273; p > .01)
relation to autonomy culture.
(6 x C) has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 3.178; p > .01). This
and private sector.

factors viz., Sector, Area and Years of Service ( A x B x C ) has found to
be significant (F (2, 348) = 17.505; P i0.01). The significant main effect
analysis on the Sector, Area and Years of Service (A x B x C ) indicates
the autonomy culture. The mean scores indicates that 0-6, 7-13 and 14
and above years technical members in private sector having high mean
score compared to 0-6, 7-13 and 14 and above years technical
highly share the autonomy culture compared to public sector.
ana(jsii and !&enr(ts
303
Table: 5.73 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Collaboration
r Source
1 Sumof
c-..r..ae
df
Mean
Square
F Sig.
Mean
Corrected 1 5 4 4 9 75.886 -
000
) Model
Intercept 60424.71 1 -p1 60424.71 1 8452.367 ,000 -
1
1 SECTOR
.. ..-
M1 9.12 1
19.306 9.653
SECTOR '
[EA
(A x B)
SECTOR
lL- 48.400 ; --
48.400 7
r:
YEARS 121.117 60.558

(A x C) -
AREA
p+f~~$$z$~~
YEARS
factor A (public and private sector) is significant (F (1, 348) = 739.979; P < .01).
difference in the collaboration culture of public and private sector
research. This indicates that private sector has strong collaboration culture
The main effect of the factor, B (technical and administrative) is found

to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = ,155; P > .01). This indicates that culture
difference is insignificant to nature of work in public and private sector.
The main effect of the third factor, Years of service (C) has found to
be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 1.350; p > .01). This indicates that culture
difference is insignificant in different years of service managers in public
and private sector
In the first order interaction effect Sector and Area (A x B) has

348) = 6.770; P < .01). The interaction effect
found to be significant (F' (I,
on the Sector and Area (A x B) indicates that technical managers in the
private sector is having high mean score compared to public sector. The
same trend observed in the administrative managers. This indicates that
technical managers in the private sector highly share the collaboration
culture compared to public sector. The administrative managers in private
sector are having high nieans score compared to those in public sector.
This indicates that administrative managers in the private sector highly
share the collaboration culture compared to those in public sector.

collaboration culture. It is evident from the mean values of the three groups
sector highly share the collaboration culture compared to public sector.
(B x C ) has found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 3.675; p < .01). The means
scores indicate that 0-6 years of service technical members is having
moderate mean score compared to 0-6 years of service administrative
members. The tests on the differences between means indicate that 0-6,
years of service tech~~ical
members has moderate mean score compared
to administrative members. 7-13 and 14 and above years technical
members having low mean score compared to administrative members.
This shows that the 0-6 technical members have moderate attitude
towards the collaboration culture while the administrative people have low.
Further, the 7-13 ancl 14 and above years of service technical members
have low attitude to collaboration culture compared to administrative
members, where they have moderate attitude.
viz., Sector, Area and 'Years of Service (A x B x C ) has found to be significant
belongs to different service years, towards the collaboration culture. The
members in private sector having high mean score compared to 0-6,7-13 and
observed in administrative members. This shows that the sectoral trend that
observed in the main effect replicated in the higher order interaction. This
indicates that the technical and administrative members of different years of
service in private sector highly share the collaboration culture compared to
public sector.
306 h p t e r 2'
Table: 5.74 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Experimentation
P < .01). The main effect analysis on the sector (A) indicates that there is
significant difference in the experimentation culture of public and private
sector industries. The means scores show in the table clearly indicates that
the private sector has high mean score compared to public sector in this
research. This indicates that private sector has strong experimentation culture

to be significant (F (2, 348) = 11.700; P c .01) relation. The main effect
analysis on the Area (B) indicates that there is significant difference in
technical and administrative managers in their shared beliefs towards
experimentation culture. It is evident from the mean values of the two groups
that technical managers highly share the experimentation culture compared to
administrative members in this research. This indicates that technical
managers highly share the experimentation culture compared to
administrative members.
The main effect of the third factor((=) Years of service (0-6, 7-13 and
14 and above) has found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 4.442; p < .01). The
significant main effect analysis on different service years indicates that there is
difference in 0-6, 7-13 and 14 and above members in their shared beliefs
towards experimentation culture. The tests on the differences between means
clearly indicate that the 7-13 years of service and 0-6 years of service
members have moderate mean score compared to 14 and above service
years. The 14 and above members have moderately high mean score in this
research. This indicates that the 7-13 and 0-6 years of service members have
moderate-level beliefs on the experimentation culture and the 14 and above
members have moderately high beliefs on the experimentation culture.

insignificant (F ( I , 348) = .404); p > .0l) in different years of service managers
in public and private sector. This indicates that culture difference is
sector.
The second order interaction, effect of Sector and Years of service (A
x C) has found to be significant (F (2, 348) 4.768; p < .01) relation to
experimentationculture. It is evident from the mean values of the three groups
compared to 0-6 years af service members in public sector. The same trend
sector highly share the experimentation culture compared to public sector.

(8 x C) has found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 12.555; p < .01). The tests on
the differences between means indicate that 0-6, years of service and 14 and
above years technical members have moderate mean score compared to
administrative members. 7-13 years technical members having moderately
high mean score compared to administrative members. This shows that the 0-
6 and 14 and above technical members have moderate attitude towards the
experimentation culture while the 0-6, years of service administrative people
have low attitude towards the experimentation. Further, the 7-13 and 14 and
above years of service technical and administrative members have moderate
attitude to experimentation culture.
belongs to different service years, towards the experimentation culture. The
observed in administrative members. This indicates that the technical and
share the experimentation culture compared to public sector.
ANOVA: Value Expectancy
Table: 5.75 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Value Expectancy

Mean Square F Sig. Mean
-.
279984.882 904.725 000

Model
Intercept 27267916.900 1 27267916.900 881 11796 000
1I 1 ;1 1 1 1~ ~ ~ ~
SECTOR
(A x BI
20232.217
22121.344
10116.108
22121.344
2:6.;:
SECTOR '
YEARS 23633.750 2 11816.875 38.184 ,000
YEARS 10518.117 2 5259.058 16.994 ,000
SECTOR
'AREA '
YEARS 14414.272 2 7207.136 23.289 ,000
Error 107695.400 348 309.470

Total 30455446.000 360
-
310 , Chapter 2,
An examination of the table 5.75 reveals that the main effect of

the factor A (public and private sector) is significant (F (1, 348) =
9576.754; P < .01). The main effect analysis on the sector (A) indicates
that there is significant difference in the value expectancy of public and
private sector industries. The means scores show in the table clearly
indicates that the private sector has high mean score compared to
private sector in this research. This indicates that public sector has
strong value expectancy compared to public sector.
The main effect of the factor, 6 (technical and administrative) is

effect analysis on the Area (B) indicates that there is significant
difference in technical and administrative managers in their value
expectancy. It is evident from the mean values of the two groups that
administrative managers have high value expectancy compared to
technical members in this research. This indicates that administrative
managers have high value expectancy compared to technical members.
The main effect of the third factor, Years of service (C) has
found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 32.689; p < .01). The tests on the
differences between means clearly indicate that the 7-13 service years
members have moderately high mean score compared to 0-6 and 14
and above service years. The 0-6 years of service members and 14 and
above service year's members have moderately low mean score in this
research. This indicates that the 7-13 years of service members have
moderately high the value expectancy behaviour. The 0-6 years of
service and 14 and above years of service members have moderately
high low value expectancy behaviour.
In the first order interaction effect Sector and Area (A x 6) has
found to be significant (F (1, 348) = 71.481; P < .01). The interaction
effect on the Sector and Area (A x B) indicates that administrative
managers in the private sector is having high mean score compared to
public sector. The same trend observed in the technical managers. This
indicates that administrative managers in the private sector are having
high value expectancy compared to public sector. The technical
managers in private sector are having high means score compared to
those in public sector. This indicates that technical managers in the
private sector are having high value expectancy compared to public
sector. This shows that technical and administrative members of private
sector are having high value expectancy behaviour compared to public
sector.

service (A x C) has found to be significant (F (2, 348) 38.184; p < .O1)
relation to value expectancy. It is evident from the mean values of the
three groups that 0-6 years of service members in private sector is
having high mean score compared to 0-6 years of service members in
public sector. The same trend observed in the 7-13 years of service and
14 and above years of service members. This shows the members of
different years of service in private sector are having high value
expectancy compared to public sector. This shows the members of
different years of service in private sector are having high value
expectancy behaviour compared to public sector.

( 6 x C) has found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 16.994; p < .01). The
tests on the differences between means clearly indicate that the 7-13
service years administrative members have moderately high mean
score compared to 0-6 and 14 and above service years. The 0-6 years
of service members and 14 and above year's of service members have
moderately low mean score. This indicates that the 7-13 years of
administrative service members have moderately high the value
expectancy behaviour. The 0-6 years of service and 14 and above
years of service members have moderately high low value expectancy
behaviour. The same trend observed in technical members.

the value expectancy behaviour. The mean scores indicates that 0-6, 7-
13 and 14 and above years administrative members in private sector is
having high mean score compared to 0-6, 7-13 and 14 and above years
administrative members in public sector. Similar finding is also
observed in technical members. This indicates that the technical and
are having high value expectancy behaviour compared to public sector.
Table: 5.76 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Ability Utilization
Sum of Mean Mean

Source
Squares
df
Square
F Sig.
Corrected
3824.322(a) 11 347.666 126.759 000
Model
Intercept 57103.21 I I 57103.211 20819.918 000
-.
SECTOR M I 9.49
3459.600 1 3459.600 1261.375 000
(A) M2 15.69
AREA M3 11.98
132.01 1 1 132.01 1 48.131 ,000
(B) M4 13.20
M5 12.32
YEARS
16.572 2 8.286 3.021 .000 M6 12.60
(C)
M7 12.85
SECTOR '
AREA 115.600 1 115.600 42.148 .OOO
(A x B)
SECTOR
YEARS 47.517 2 23.758 8.662 000
(A x C)
AREA ' YEARS
25.206 2 12.603 4.595 000
(B x C)
SECTOR '
AREA ' YEARS 27.817 2 13.908 5.071 .OOO
(AxBxC)
-- --
Error 354.467 348 2.743
--
Total 61882.000 360
significant difference in the ability utilization expectancy of public and
indicates that the private sector has high mean score compared to public
sector in this research. This indicates that private sector has strong ability
utilization expectancy compared to public sector.
in technical and administrative managers in ability utilization expectancy.
It is evident from the mean values of the two groups that administrative
managers have high ability utilization expectancy compared to technical
members in this research. This indicates that administrative managers
have high ability utilization expectancy compared to technical members.
be significant (F (2, 348) = 3.021; p < .01). The tests on the differences
between means clearly indicate that the 7-13 service years members have
moderately high mean score compared to 0-6 and 14 and above service
years. The 0-6 years of service members and 14 and above service year's
members have moderately low mean score in this research. This indicates
that the 7-13 years of service members have moderately high the ability
utilization expectancy behaviour. The 0-6 years of service and 14 and
above years of service members have moderately high low ability
utilization expectancy behaviour.
In the first order interaction effect Sector and Area ( A x 6) has found to
Sector and Area (A x 6) indicates that administrative managers in the private
observed in the technical managers. This indicates that administrative
managers in the private sector are having high ability utilization expectancy
compared to public sector. The technical managers in private sector are
that technical managers in the private sector are having high ability utilization
expectancy compared to public sector. This shows that technical and
administrative members of private sector are having high ability utilization

(A x C) has found to be significant (F (2, 348) 8.662; p < .01) relation to
ability utilization expectancy. It is evident from the mean values of the three
years of service members. This show the members of different years of
service in private sector are having high ability utilization expectancy
compared to public sector. This show the members of different years of
service in private sector are having high ability utilization expectancy
behaviour compared to public sector.

(6 x C ) has found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 4.595; p < .01). The tests
on the differences between means clearly indicate that the 7-13 service
years administrative members have moderately high mean score
compared to 0-6 and 14 and above service years. The 0-6 years of service
members and 14 and above year's of service members have moderately
low mean score. This indicates that the 7-13 years of administrative
service members have moderately high the ability utilization expectancy
behaviour. The 0-6 years of service and 14 and above years of service
members have moderately high low ability utilization expectancy

factors viz., Sector, Area and Years of Service (A x B x C ) has found to be
analysis on the Sector, Area and Years of Service (A x 6 x C ) indicates
the ability utilization behaviour. The mean scores indicates that 0-6, 7-13
and 14 and above years administrative members in private sector is having
high mean score compared to 0-6, 7-13 and 14 and above years
administrative members in public sector. Similar finding is also observed
in technical members. This indicates that the technical and administrative
members of different years of service in private sector are having high
ability utilization behaviour compared to public sector.
Table: 5.77 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Achievement
factor A (public and private sector) is significant (F (1, 348) = 2863.857; P < .01).
dierence in the achievement expectancy of public and private sector
research. This indicates that private sector has strong achievement
expectancy compared to public sector.

to be significant (F (2, 348) = 107.47; P < .01) relation. The main effect
analysis on the Area (B) indicates that there is significant difference in
technical and administrative managers in achievement expectancy. It is
evident from the mean values of the two groups that administrative managers
have high achievement expectancy compared to technical members in this
research. This indicates that administrative managers have high achievement
expectancy comparecl to technical members.
The main effect of the third factor, Years of service (C) has found to be
significant (F (2, 348) = 42.063; p < .01). The tests on the differences between
means clearly indicate that the 7-13 service years members have moderately
high mean score compared to 0-6 and 14 and above service years. The 0-6
years of service members and 14 and above service year's members have
moderately low mean score in this research. This indicates that the 7-13 years
of service members have moderately high the achievement expectancy
members have moderately high low achievement expectancy behaviour.
Sector and Area (A x 6) indicates that administrative managers in the private
managers in the private sector are having high achievement expectation
that technical managers in the private sector are having high achievement
expectation compared to public sector. This shows that technical and
administrative members of private sector are having high achievement
expectation behaviour compared to public sector.

achievement expectancy. It is evident from the mean values of the three groups
members. This shows the members of diierent years of service in private
sector are having high achievement expectancy compared to public sector.
This shows the members of diierent years of service in private sector are
having high achievement expectancy behaviour compared to public sector.

administrative members have moderately high mean score compared to 0-6
and 14 and above service years. The 0-6 years of service members and 14
and above year's of service members have moderately low mean score. This
indicates that the 7-13 years of administrative service members have
moderately high the achievement expectancy behaviour. The 0-6 years of
service and 14 and above years of service members have moderately high
low achievement expectancy behaviour. The same trend observed in
technical members.
viz., Sector, Area and Years of Service ( A x 6 x C) has found to be significant
Sector, Area and Years of Sewice (A x B x C) indicates that there is sectoral
belongs to different service years, towards the achievement behaviour. The
mean scores indicates that 0-6, 7-13 and 14 and above years administrative
members in private sector is having high mean score compared to 0-6, 7-13
and 14 and above years administrative members in public sector. Similar
finding is also obse,ved in technical members. This indicates that the
technical and administrative members of different years of service in private
sector are having high achievement behaviour compared to public sector.
Table: 5.78 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Advancement
significant difference in the advancement expectancy of public and private
research. This indicates that private sector has strong advancement

found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = ,078; P < .01) relation. This indicates
that advancement expectancy difference is insignificant to nature of work in
that the 7-13 years of service members have moderately high the
advancement expectancy behaviour. The 0-6 years of service and 14 and
above years of service members have moderately high low advancement
expectancy behaviour.
In the first order interaction effect Sector and Area (A x B) has found
to be significant (F (1, 348) = 24.792; P < .01). The interaction effect on the
Sector and Area (A x B) indicates that administrative managers in the
private sector is having high mean score compared to public sector. The
same trend observed in the technical managers. This indicates that
administrative managers in the private sector are having high advancement
expectancy compared to public sector. The technical managers in private
sector are having high means score compared to those in public sector. This
indicates that technical managers in the private sector are having high
advancement expectancy compared to public sector. This shows that
technical and administrative members of private sector are having high
advancement expectancy behaviour compared to public sector.
The second order interaction, effect of Sector and Years of service (A x

C) has found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 5.541; p < .01) relation to
advancement expectancy. It is evident from the mean values of the three
groups that 0-6 years of service members in private sector is having high mean
score compared to 0-5 years of service members in public sector. The same
trend observed in the 7-13 years of service and 14 and above years of service
members. This show the members of different years of service in private sector
are having high advancement expectancy compared to public sector. This
show the members of different years of service in private sector are having high
advancement expectancy behaviour compared to public sector.

(B x C) has found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 5.814; p < .Ol). The tests
years administrative members have moderately high mean score compared
to 0-6 and 14 and above service years. The 0-6 years of service members
and 14 and above year's of service members have moderately low mean
score. This indicates that the 7-13 years of administrative service members
have moderately high the advancement expectancy behaviour. The 0-6
years of service and 14 and above years of service members have
moderately high low advancement expectancy behaviour. The same trend
observed in technical members.
viz., Sector, Area and Years of Service (A x B x C) has found to be
significant (F (2, 348) = 5.661; P < 0.01). The significant main effect analysis
on the Sector, Area and Years of Service (A x B x C) indicates that there is
sectoral difference exist in between technical and administrative members
322 Chapter v
who belongs to different service years, towards the advancement behaviour.

The mean scores indicates that 0-6, 7-13 and 14 and above years
administrative members in private sector is having high mean score
compared to 0-6, 7-13 and 14 and above years administrative members in
public sector. Similar finding is also observed in technical members. This
indicates that the techiical and administrative members of different years of
service in private sector are having high advancement behaviour compared
to public sector.
Table: 5.79 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Aesthetics

An examination of the table 5.79 reveals that the main effect of
the factor A (public and private sector) is significant (F (1, 348) =
3252.01 4; P < .01). The main effect analysis on the sector (A)
indicates that there is significant difference in the aesthetics expectancy
of public and private sector industries. The means scores show in the
table clearly indicates that the private sector has high mean score
compared to public sector in this research. This indicates that private
sector has strong aesthetics expectancy compared to public sector.

effect analysis on the Area (8) indicates that there is significant
difference in technical and administrative managers in aesthetics
administrative managers have high aesthetics expectancy compared to
technical members in this research. This indicates that administrative
managers have high aesthetics expectancy compared to technical
members.
moderately high the aesthetics expectancy behaviour. The 0-6 years of
high low aesthetics expectancy behaviour.
I n the first order interaction effect Sector and Area (A x 6) has
effect on the Sector and Area (A x 6) indicates that administrative
high aesthetics expectancy compared to public sector. The technical
private sector are having high aesthetics expectancy compared to
public sector. This shows that technical and administrative members of
private sector are having high aesthetics expectancy behaviour

service (A x C) has found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 13.367; p < .Ol)
relation to aesthetics expectancy. It is evident from the mean values of
the three groups that 0 - 6 years of service members in private sector is
different years of service in private sector are having high aesthetics
different years of service in private sector are having high aesthetics

(B x C) has found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 11.562; p < .01). The
service years administrative members have moderately high mean
Xmlijm and~ ecuC~ 325
score compared to 0-6 and 14 and above service years. The 0-6 years
of service members and 14 and above year's of service members have
administrative service members have moderately high the aesthetics
expectancy behaviour. The 0-6 years of service and 14 and above
years of service members have moderately high low aesthetics
expectancy behaviour. The same trend observed in technical members.

the aesthetics behaviour. The mean scores indicates that 0-6, 7-13 and
14 and above yea:s administrative members in private sector is having
administrative members in public sector. Similar finding is also
observed in technical members. This indicates that the technical and
are having high aesthetics behaviour compared to public sector.
Table: 5.80 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Altruism
wlean Mean
df F Sig.
aquare3 Square
Corrected 764.815 184.271 ,000
Model
Intercept 59315.669 1 59315.669 14291.283 ,000
-
SECTOR M1 8.21
7682 136 1 7682.136 1850.904 000
M2 17.45
AREA
(6)
YEARS
(C)
SECTOR '
AREA (A 248.336
x B)
SECTOR '
YEARS
(A x C)
AREA 'YEARS
(B x C)
SECTOR '
AREA YEARS
significant difference m the altruism expectancy of public and private sector
industries. The means scores show in the table clearly indicates that the private
sector has high mean score compared to public sector in this research. This
indicates that private sector has strong altruism expectancy compared to public
sector.
%a@s and Q.sults 327
The main effect of the factor, B (technical and administrative) is found to

be significant (F (2, 348) = 21.926; P < .01) relation. The main effect analysis on
the Area (B) indicates that there is significant difference in technical and
administrative managers in altruism expectancy. It is evident from the mean
values of the two groups that administrative managers have high altruism
expectancy compar~?d
to technical members in this research. This indicates that
administrative managers have high altruism expectancy compared to technical
members.
of service members have moderately high the altruism expectancy behaviour.
The 0-6 years of service and 14 and above years of service members have
moderately high low altruism expectancy behaviour.
be significant (F (1, 348) = 59.833; P < .01). The interaction effect on the Sector
and Area (A x 6) indicates that administrative managers in the private sector is
having high mean score compared to public sector. The same trend obsetved
in the technical managers. This indicates that administrative managers in the
private sector are having high altruism expectancy compared to public sector.
The technical managers in private sector are having high means score
compared to those in public sector. This indicates that technical managers in
the private sector are having high altruism expectancy compared to public
sector. This shows that technical and administrative members of private sector
are having high altruism expectancy behaviour compared to public sector.
(A x C) has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 2.474; p > 0.01) relation to
altruism expectancy. This indicates that the altruism expectancy is
difference is insignificant to members of different years of service in public
and private sector.
The third order interaction, effect of Area and Years of service (B x C )

and 14 and above service years. The 0-6 years of service members and 14 and
above year's of service members have moderately low mean score. This
moderately high the altruism expectancy behaviour. The 0-6 years of service
and 14 and above years of service members have moderately high low altruism
expectancy behaviour. The same trend observed in technical members.
viz., Sector, Area and Years of Service (Ax B x C ) has found to be significant (F
(2, 348) = 21.167; P < 0.01). The significant main effect analysis on the Sector,
Area and Years of Service (A x B x C) indicates that there is sectoral difference
exist in between technical and administrative members who belongs to dierent
service years, towards the altruism behaviour. The mean scores indicates that
0-6, 7-13 and 14 and above years administrative members in private sector is
having high mean score compared to 0-6, 7-13 and 14 and above years
administrative members in public sector. Similar finding is also observed in
technical members. This indicates that the technical and administrative
members of different years of service in private sector are having high altruism
%m&s and Wt
s 329
Table: 5.81 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Authority

Sum of df
Mean F Sig. Mean
Source Square
Sauares -
Corrected
Model 0 3 1 11 818.730 416.364 ,000
Intercept ,669 31591.397 .OOO
007,-nnc I nFcl COf I --- I M I 8.14 1

t--t-----+-----t
r\~~
tvl, 1~.d6
1 225 ,114 ,735
SECTOR '
YEARS 3.317 2 1.658 843 ,431
(A x C) --
AREA ' YEARS 2 5.486 2.790 .063
10.972
(B x C)
SECTOR '
AREA ' YEARS 8.450 2 4.225 2.149 118
(A x B x C)
Error 1.966
Total 7181 1.000 360
factor A (public and private sector) is significant (F (1,348) =4561.696; P < .01).
difference in the authority expectancy of public and private sector industries.
The means scores show in the table clearly indicates that the private sector has
high mean score compared to public sector in this research. This indicates that
private sector has strong authority expectancy compared to public sector.
found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 5.256; P > .01) relation. This
indicates that authority expectancy difference is insignificant to nature of
work in public and private sector.
The main effect of the third factor(C) Years of service (0-6, 7-13 and 14
and above) is found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = ,688; p > -01).This indicates
that authority value expectancy difference is insignificant in different years of

insignificant difference (F ( I , 348) = .I 14; p > .01). This indicates that authority
expectancy difference is insignificant in technical and administrative managers
in public and private sector.
The second order interaction, effect of Sector and Years of service (A

x C) has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = ,843; p > .01) relation to authority
expectancy. This indicates that authority expectancy difference is insignificant in
different years of service managers in public and private sector.
The third order interaction, effect of Area and Years of service (A x C)

has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = = 2.790; p > 0.01) relation to authority
expectancy. This indicates that the authority expectancy difference is
insignificant to members of different years of service in public and private
sector.
The higher order interaction effect of Sector, Area and Years of Service
(A x B x C) has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 2.149; P > 0.01) in
relation to authority. This indicates that the authority expectancy difference is
insignificant to members of different years of service in public and private
sector.
Table: 5.82 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Autonomy
Mean Mean
Source df F Sig.
Square
8 239.892 .000
Intercept 1 58242.336 17764.176 .OOO
SECTOR M1 7.95
1 8170.069 2491.908 ,000
M2 17.48
---
AREA M3 12.33
!53.669 1 53.669 16.369 ,000
M4 13.10
M5 12.73
YEARS 8.586 .069 M6 13.27
2 37.986
M7 12.15
SECTOR ' AREA :31.803 1 31.803 9.700 ,065
I I I : I 1 .:I
.-
2 54.036 16.481 ,000

--
Y E A R S '"872 v . 4 3 6 I
:;
"
-
SECTOR ^ AREA '
YEARS 105.239 52.619
significant difference in the autonomy expectancy of public and private
research. This indicates that private sector has strong autonomy

effect analysis on the Area (8) indicates that there is significant difference
in technical and administrative managers in autonomy expectancy. It is
evident from the mean values of the two groups that administrative
managers have high autonomy expectancy compared to technical
have high autonomy expectancy compared to technical members.
The main effect of the third factor (C) Years of service (0-6, 7-13
This indicates that autonomy value expectancy difference is insignificant in
The first order interaction effect of Sector and Area (A x 8)

indicates insignificant difference (F (1, 348) = 9.700); p > .01). This
indicates that autonomy expectancy difference is insignificant in technical
and administrative managers in public and private sector.

(A x C) has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 16.481; p > .O1) relation
to autonomy expectancy. This indicates that autonomy expectancy
and private sector.

(A x C) has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = = 16.298; p > 0.01)
relation to autonomy expectancy. This indicates that the autonomy
expectancy is difference is insignificant to members of different years of
service in public and private sector.
The higher order interaction effect of Sector, Area and Years of

Service (A x B x C) has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 1.049;
P > 0.01) in relation to autonomy. This indicates that the autonomy
expectancy difference is insignificant to members of different years of
service in public and private sector.
Table: 5.83 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Creativity
Squares Square
-
63335.069
AREA
M4 13.30
sEcTOR' AREA
SECTOR ' YEARS

5.450 2.725 2.084
AREA * YEARS
.506 ,253 ,824
(B x C)
SECTOR ' AREA *
YEARS 3.050 2 1.525 1.166 ,313
Error 455.100 348 1.308
73693.000 360
An examiliation of the table 5.83 reveals that the main effect of the
P< .01). The main effect analysis on the sector (A) indicates that there is
significant difference in the creativity expectancy of public and private sector
private sector has h~ghmean score compared to public sector in this
research. This indicates that private sector has strong creativity
expectancy comparecl to public sector.

found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = .359; P > .Of) relation. This indicates
that creativity expectancy difference is insignificant to nature of work in
and 14 and above) is found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = .652; p > .01).
This indicates that creativity value expectancy difference is insignificant in

348) = .478); p > .01). This indicates
indicates insignificant difference (F (I,
that creativity expectancy difference is insignificant in technical and
administrative managers in public and private sector.
The second order interaction, effect of Area and Years of service

(A x C) has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 2.084; p > .01) relation to
creativity expectancy. This indicates that creativity expectancy difference is
insignificant in different years of service managers in public and private sector.
In the third order interaction, effect of Area and Years of service

(6x C) in relation to creativity was analyzed. The interaction effect of Area
and Years of service (B x C) has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) =
,193; p > 0.01) in relation to creativity.

Service (A x B x C) has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 1.166; P >
0.01) in relation to creativity. This indicates that the creativity expectancy
and private sector.
Table: 5.84 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Economic Reward

Sum of Mean Mean
'Ource F Sig.
Squares _ df
--
Square
corrected 43.131 ,000
2942.0013(a) 11 267.455
Model
Intercept 89397025
- 1 89397.025 14416.425 ,000
SECTOR M I 12.92
2884.336 1 2884.336 465.136 ,000
(A) M2 18,58
AREA M3 15.91
9.02!5 1 9.025 1.455
(0) M4 15.60
M5 15.79
YEARS 1.070 ,344 M6 15.50
13.267 2 6.633
(c) M7 15.97
-
SECTOR
AREA 10.336 1 10.336 1.667 ,198
(A x B)
SECTOR
YEARS 10.822 2 5.411 ,873 ,419
(A x C ) - -
AREA
YEARS 2.067 2 1.033 1 67 .847
(B x C)
SECTOR *
AREA *
12.156 2 6.078 ,980 ,376
YEARS
(A x B x C)
Error 2157.967 348 6.201
Total 94497.000 360
P .r .01). The main effect analysis on the sector (A) indicates that there is
significant difference in the economic reward expectancy of public and
sector in this research. This indicates that private sector has strong
economic reward expectancy compared to public sector.

found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 1.455; P i .01) relation. This
indicates that economic reward expectancy difference is insignificant to
nature of work in public and private sector.
and 14 and above) is found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 1.070;
p > .01). This indicates that economic reward value expectancy
and private sector.

indicates insignificant difference (F (1, 348) = 1.667); p > .01). This
indicates that economic reward expectancy difference is insignificant in
technical and administrative managers in public and private sector.

(A x C) has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = ,873; p > .01) relation to
economic reward expectancy. This indicates that economic reward
expectancy difference is insignificant in different years of service managers

(A x C) has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = .167; p > .O1) relation to
economic reward expectancy. This indicates that economic reward
expectancy difference is insignificant in different years of service managers
Ana@u and %@-dt~ 337

Service (A x B x C) has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = ,980; P >
0.01) in relation to economic reward. This indicates that the economic
reward expectancy difference is insignificant to members of different years
of service in public and private sector.
Table: 5.85 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Life style

.
Source Square=
surn7-r
- =+ Square
Corrected
Model
Intercept
SECTOR
(A)
AREA
(B)
YEARS
(C)
SECTOR *
AREA
(A x B)
SECTOR
YEARS
significant difference in the life style expectancy of public and private
the private sector has h ~ g hmean score compared to public sector in this
research. This indicates that private sector has strong life style expectancy

found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = .978; P < .01) relation. This indicates
that life style expectancy difference is insignificant to nature of work in
and 14 and above) is found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = ,1723; p > .01).
This indicates that life style value expectancy difference is insignificant in
The first order interaction effect of Sector and Area (A x 8)

indicates insignificant difference (F (1, 348) = ,180); p > .01). This indicates
that life style expectancy difference is insignificant in technical and

service (A x C ) has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 1.758; p 1.01)
relation to life style expectancy. This indicates that life style expectancy
and private sector.
The third order interaction, effect of Area and Years of service (A x C)

has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = ,206; p > .01) relation to life style
expectancy. This indicates that l i e style expectancy difference is insignificant
in different years of service managers in public and private sector.

Service (A x 6 x C) has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = ,725;
P > 0.01) in relation to life style. This indicates that the life style expectancy
and private sector
Table: 5.86 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Personal Development

1
Sum of
I I
,",earl i I I ~- e~ a~ n - - ~ ~ ~
df Square F Sig.
Source c,..,~.~~
--
".,"".I"
.-- -
458.945 ,000
Model
Intercept
M I 7.96
SECTOR 1 8850.625 5033.531 -000
-^t- M2 17.87
r r l r, ? ag
AREA 336 i 1-0 1 191 / .662 1 ,.S," C . V ~
(B)
IV13 I L . "
YEARS
(C)
SECTOR
AREA
(A x 8)
SECTOR '
YEARS
(A x C) --
AREA " YEARS
(6 x C)
SECTOR '
AREA ' YEARS
(A x B x C)
Error
Total
significant difference in the personal development expectancy of public and
sector in this research. This indicates that private sector has strong personal
development expectancy compared to public sector.

found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = ,191; P > .O1) relation. This indicates
that personal development expectancy difference is insignificant to nature of
work in public and private sector.
The main effect of the third factor (C) Years of service (0-6, 7-13 and
14 and above) is found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = ,741; p > .01). This
indicates that personal development value expectancy difference is
insignificant in different years of service managers in public and private
sector.
The first order interaction effect of Sector and Area (A x 8) indicates

insignificant difference (F (1, 348) = ,987); p > .01). This indicates that
personal development expectancy difference is insignificant in technical and

(A x C ) has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = .289; p > .01) relation to
personal development expectancy. This indicates that personal
development expectancy difference is insignificant in different years of

( A x C) has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 3.812; p > .01) relation to
personal development expectancy. This indicates that personal
development expectancy difference is insignificant in different years of
Service (A x B x C) has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 2.002; P >
0.01) in relation to personal development. This indicates that the personal
development expectancy difference is insignificant to members of different
years of service in public and private sector.
Table: 5.87 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)on Physical Exercise

7
--
Mean Mean
Source df Square F Sig.
281.779 32.1 13 ,000

--
Intercept 70056.900 1 70056.900 7984.128 000
SECTOR M I 11.49
1 2170.71 1 247.388 000
M2 16.40
P < .01). The main effect analysis on the sector (A) indicates that there
is significant difference in the physical exercise expectancy of public
and private sector industries. The means scores show in the table
clearly indicates that the private sector has high mean score compared
to public sector in this research. This indicates that private sector has
strong physical exercise compared to public sector.

found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 6.934; P < .01) relation. This
indicates that physical exercise expectancy difference is insignificant to
nature of work in public and private sector.
and 14 and above) is found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 1.853; p >
.01). This indicates that physical exercise value expectancy difference
is insignificant in different years of service managers in public and
private sector.
The first order interaction effect of Sector and Area (A x 6 )

indicates insignificant difference (F (1, 348) = ,558); p >. .01). This
indicates that physical exercise expectancy difference is insignificant in
technical and administrative managers in public and private sector.

service (AxC) has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = = ,285; p > .01)
relation to physical exercise expectancy. This indicates that physical
exercise expectancy difference is insignificant in different years of

(AxC) has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 9.609; p > .01) relation
to physical exercise expectancy. This indicates that physical exercise
expectancy difference is insignificant in different years of service
Service (A x B x C ) has found to be insignificant (F (2, 348) = 27.609;
P > 0.01) in relation to physical exercise. This indicates that the
physical exercise expectancy difference is insignificant to members of
different years of service in public and private sector.
Table: 5.88 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Prestige
Sum of Mean Mean

Source df F Sig.
Squares Square
--
Corrected 99.262
5588164(a) 11 508.01 5 .OOO
Model
-
Intercept 65151.803 1 65151.803 12730.153 000
SECTOR M I 9.87
4601.025 1 4601.025 899.004 ,000
(A) M2 17.02
-
AREA M3 12.87
119.025 1 119.025 23.257 ,000
(B) M4 14.02
M5 12.78
YEARS 41 8 5 3 8.178 .000 M6 13.67
83.706 2
(C)
M7 13.90
SECTOR '
AREA 93.025 1 93.025 18.176 ,000
(A x 6) -.
SECTOR '
YEARS 243.717 2 121.858 23.810 ,000
(A x C)
AREA 'YEARS 2 94.808 18.525 ,000
189.617
(6x C )
SECTOR '
AREA ' YEARS 258.050 2 129.025 25.210 ,000
(A x B x C)
Error 1781.033 348 5.118
Total 72521.000 360

significant difference in the prestige expectancy of public and private
sector industries. The means scores show in the table clearly indicates
that the private sector has high mean score compared to public sector in
this research. This indicates that private sector has strong prestige

effect analysis on the Area (B) indicates that there is significant
difference in technical and administrative managers in prestige
administrative managers have high prestige expectancy compared to
technical members !n this research. This indicates that administrative
managers have high prestige expectancy compared to technical
members.
The main effect of the third factor, Years of service (C) has found
to be significant (F (2, 348) = 8.178; p < .01). The tests on the differences
between means clearly indicate that the 7-13 service years members
have moderately high mean score compared to 0-6 and 14 and above
service years. The 0-6 years of service members and 14 and above
service year's members have moderately low mean score in this
moderately high the prestige expectancy behaviour. The 0-6 years of
high low prestige expectancy behaviour.
effect on the Sector and Area (A x 8 ) indicates that administrative
high prestige expectancy compared to public sector. The technical
private sector are having high prestige expectancy compared to public
sector. This shows that technical and administrative members of private
sector are having high prestige expectancy behaviour compared to
oublic sector.

service (A x C) has found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 23.810; p < .01)
relation to prestige expectancy. It is evident from the mean values of the
three groups that 0-6 years of service members in private sector is
14 and above years of service members. This show the members of
different years of service in private sector are having high prestige
expectancy compared to public sector. This show the members of
different years of service in private sector are having high prestige

(6 x C) has found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 18.525; p < .01). The
service years administrative members have moderately high mean score
compared to 0-6 and 14 and above service years. The 0-6 years of
service members and 14 and above year's of service members have
administrative service members have moderately high the prestige
expectancy behaviour. The 0-6 years of service and 14 and above years
of service members have moderately high low prestige expectancy

the prestige behaviour. The mean scores indicates that 0-6, 7-13 and 14
and above years administrative members in private sector is having high
mean score compared to 0-6, 7-13 and 14 and above years
prestige behaviour compared to public sector.
7
Table: 5.89
Source
Intercept
SECTOR
Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Risk
7
sum of
Squares
60736.344
l
6300.100
7
I 1
. 0 2
wean
Square
q i
60736.044
~.
6300.1 00
I
H
. ..
.
+
13716.455
1422.797 ,000
Mean
..
-~
M I 8.80
M2 17.17
AREA
(B)
YEARS
(C)
SECTOR
AREA
(A x B)
SECTOR
YEARS
(A x C )
AREA
YEARS
(B x C)
SECTOR *
AREA *
YEARS
Error
Total
significant difference in the risk taking expectancy of public and private
research. This indicates that private sector has strong risk taking
expectancy comparecl to public sector.

in technical and administrative managers in risk taking expectancy. It is
managers have high risk taking expectancy compared to technical
have high risk taking expectancy compared to technical members.
that the 7-13 years of service members have moderately high the risk
taking expectancy behaviour. The 0-6 years of service and 14 and above
A ~ J Sand
S Xgdts 349
years of service members have moderately high low risk taking expectancy
behaviour.

found to be significant (F (1, 348) = 37.963; P < .01). The interaction effect
on the Sector and Area (A x B) indicates that administrative managers in
the private sector is having high mean score compared to public sector.
The same trend observed in the technical managers. This indicates that
administrative managers in the private sector are having high risk taking
sector are having high means score compared to those in public sector.
This indicates that technical managers in the private sector are having high
risk taking expectancy compared to public sector. This shows that
technical and administrative members of private sector are having high risk
taking expectancy behaviour compared to public sector.

risk taking expectancy. It is evident from the mean values of the three
service in private sector are having high risk taking expectancy compared
to public sector. 'This shows the members of different years of service in
private sector are having high risk taking expectancy behaviour compared
to public sector.
(0 x C ) has found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 14.346; p < .01). The tests
service members have moderately high the risk taking expectancy
members have moderately high low risk taking expectancy behaviour. The
same trend observed in technical members.
Finally, the higher order interaction effect also analyzed into. The
higher order interaction that in between three main factors viz., Sector,
Area and Years of Service (A x B x C ) has found to be significant (F (2,
348) = 23.410; P < 0.01) in relation to risk. The significant main effect
analysis on the Sector, Area and Years of Service ((A x B x C)) indicates
the risk. The tests on the differences between means indicate that 0-6, 7-
13 and 14 and above years technical members in private sector having
high mean score compared to technical members in public sector. Similar
finding is also cited in administrative members. This shows that technical
and administrative members of different service years in private sector
have high work importance to risk compared to public sector.
Table: 5.90 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Social Interaction
factor A (public and private sector) is significant (F (1, 348) = 1448.30; P< .01).
difference in the social interaction expectancy of public and private sector
research. This indicates that private sector has strong social interaction
to be significant (F (2, 348) = 42.401; P < .01) relation. The main effect
analysis on the Area iB) indicates that there is significant difference in
technical and administrative managers in social interaction expectancy. It is
evident from the mean values of the two groups that administrative managers
have high social interaction expectancy compared to technical members in
this research. This indicates that administrative managers have high social
interaction expectancy compared to technical members.
of service members have moderately high the social interaction expectancy
members have moderately high low social interaction expectancy behaviour.
be significant (F (1, 348) =: 42.401; P < .01). The interaction effect on the
Sector and Area (A x 8)indicates that administrative managers in the private
managers in the private sector are having high social interaction expectancy
that technical managers in the private sector are having h ~ g h
social interaction
administrative members of private sector are having high social interaction
social interaction expectancy. It is evident from the mean values of the three
mean score compared to 0-6 years of service members in public sector. The
same trend observed in the 7-13 years of service and 14 and above years of
service members. This shows the members of different years of service in
private sector are having high social interaction expectancy compared to
public sector. This shows the members of different years of service in private
sector are having high social interaction expectancy behaviour compared to
public sector.

(B x C) has found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 5.215; p < .01). The tests on
the differences between means clearly indicate that the 7-13 service years
and 14 and above service years. The 0-6 years of service members and 14
and above year's of service members have moderately low mean score. This
moderately high the social interaction expectancy behaviour. The 0-6 years
of service and 14 and above years of service members have moderately high
low social interaction expectancy behaviour. The same trend observed in
technical members.
belongs to different service years, towards the social interaction behaviour.
The mean scores indicates that 0-6. 7-13 and 14 and above years
administrative members in private sector is having high mean score
compared to 0-6, 7-13 and 14 and above years administrative members in
public sector. Similar finding is also observed in technical members. This
indicates that the technical and administrative members of different years of
service in private sector are having high social interaction behaviour
compared to public sectcr.
Table: 5.91 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Social Relation
1 Source Sum
Squares 1 I
dl Mean
Square I F 1 Sig. ( Mean 1
Corrected 7942.789(a) 11 722.072 151.192 .OOO
Model
Intercept 55403.21 1 1 55403.21 1 11600.672 ,000
SECTOR M I 7.90
1 6916.900 1448.304 ,000
M2 16.09
M3 11.30
202.500 1 202 500 42.401 ,000
M4 12.69
...
M5 10.70
YEARS 296.739 2 148.369 31.067 ,000 M6 13.05
(C)
M7 12.23
-
-3
SECTOR '
202.500 1 202.500 42.401 ,000
(A x B)
SECTOR
YEARS 224.517 2 112.258 23.505 ,000
(A x C)
AREA
YEARS 49.817 2 24.908 5.215 ,006
(6 x C)
SECTOR '
AREA
YEARS 49.817 2 24.908 ' 5.215 .006
significant difference in the social relation expectancy of public and private
research. This indicates that private sector has strong social relation
The main effect of the factor, I3 (technical and administrative) is

in technical and administrative managers in social relation expectancy. It is
managers have high social relation expectancy compared to technical
have high social relatlon expectancy compared to technical members.
that the 7-13 years of service members have moderately high the social
relation expectancy behaviour. The 0-6 years of service and 14 and above
years of service members have moderately high low social relation
356 Chapter V

high social relation expectancy compared to public sector. The technical
private sector are having high social relation expectancy compared to
public sector. This shows that technical and administrative members of
private sector are having high social relation expectancy behaviour

social relation expectancy. It is evident from the mean values of the three
service in private sector are having high social relation expectancy
compared to public sector. This shows the members of different years of
service in private sector are having high social relation expectancy
The third order interaction, effect of Area and Years of service (B x

C) has found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 5.215; p < .01). The tests on
the differences between means clearly indicate that the 7-13 service years
administrative members have moderately high mean score compared to O-
6 and 14 and above service years. The 0-6 years of service members and
14 and above year's of service members have moderately low mean
score. This indicates that the 7-13 years of administrative service members
have moderately high the social relation expectancy behaviour. The 0-6
years of service and 14 and above years of service members have
moderately high low social relation expectancy behaviour. The same trend

the social relation behaviour. The mean scores indicates that 0-6, 7-13 and
14 and above years administrative members in private sector is having
social relation behaviour compared to public sector.
Table: 5.92 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Variety
Mean Mean
F Sig.
I I Square
SECTOR IVI I I.UJ

7535.025 1 7535.025 1402.315 ,000
.- -. M2 16,98
M3 11 77
145.66!3 145.669 27.110 ,000
M4 13,05
M5 11.53-
YEARS
148.772 2 74.386 13.844 ,000 M6 12.65
M7 13.05
SECTOR
148.225 1 148.225 27.586 ,000
YEARS 205.71'7 2 102.858 19.143 ,000
YEARS 55.572 2 27.786 5.171 ,006
AREA
60.450 2 30.225 5.625 ,004
YEARS
348 5.373
Total 65647.000 360
significant difference in the variety expectancy of public and private sector
research. This indicates that private sector has strong variety expectancy
found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 27.1 10; P < .01) relation. The main
in technical and administrative managers in variety expectancy. It is
managers have high variety expectancy compared to technical members in
this research. This ~ndicates that administrative managers have high
variety expectancy compared to technical members.
moderately high the variety expectancy behaviour. The 0-6 years of
high low variety expectancy behaviour.

administrative managers in the private sector are having high variety
variety expectancy compared to public sector. This shows that technical
and administrative members of private sector are having high variety

service (A x C) has found to be significant (F (2, 348) 19.143; p < .01)
relation to variety expectancy. It is evident from the mean values of the
three groups that 0--6 years of service members in private sector is
different years of service in private sector are having high variety

(B x C) has found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 5.171; p < .01). The tests
service members have moderately high the variety expectancy behaviour.
The 0-6 years of service and 14 and above years of service members have
moderately high low variety expectancy behaviour. The same trend

significant (F (2. 348) = 5.625; P < 0.01). The significant main effect
Mysir and RauCts 361

the variety behaviour. The mean scores indicates that 0-6, 7-13 and 14
and above years administrative members in private sector is having high
mean score compared to 0-6, 7-13 and 14 and above years administrative
members in public sector. Similar finding is also observed in technical
members. This ind~catesthat the technical and administrative members of
Table: 5.93 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Working Condition

significant difference in the working condition expectancy of public and
sector in this research. This indicates that private sector has strong
working condition expectancy compared to public sector.

effect analysis on the Area (6) indicates that there is significant difference
in technical and administrative managers in working condition expectancy.
It is evident from the mean values of the two groups that administrative
managers have high working condition expectancy compared to technical
have high working condition expectancy compared to technical members.
that the 7-13 years of service members have moderately high the working
condition expectancy. The 0-6 years of service and 14 and above years of
service members have moderately high low working condition expectancy.
ano(vsic and %enrCts 363

high working condition expectancy compared to public sector. The
technical managers in private sector are having high means score
compared to those in public sector. This indicates that technical
managers in the private sector are having high working condition
administrative members of private sector are having high working
condition expectancy behaviour compared to public sector.

working condition expectancy. It is evident from the mean values of the
three groups that 0-6 years of service members in private sector is having
high mean score compared to 0-6 years of service members in public
sector. The same trend observed in the 7-13 years of service and 14 and
above years of service members. This shows the members of different
years of service in private sector are having high working condition
different years of service in private sector are having high working
condition expectancy behaviour compared to public sector.
service members have moderately high the working condition expectancy
members have moderately high low working condition expectancy

the working condition behaviour. The mean scores indicates that 0-6, 7-13
working condition behaviour compared to public sector.
Table: 5.94 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Peace of Mind
Mean
Source df
Square
F Sig. Mean
Corrected 8905.722(a) 11 809.61 1 155.112 ,000

Model -
59649.878 1 59649.878 11428.186 ,000
-.
SECTOR M1 8.17
1 7952.400 1523.582 ,000
M2 17.57
AREA
(B)
/ -.-
51378 1 1
1
--
51378
--
9.843 / 1
002 M3 12.494
M4 13.25
I
AREA
YEARS 61.006 30.503
SECTOR '
AREA
YEARS
(A x B x C)
1 92150 / 1
2 46.075 8.827 1 1
000
Error
factor A (public and private sector) is significant (F ( 1 , 348) = 1523.582;
significant difference in the peace of mind expectancy of public and private
research. This indicates that private sector has strong peace of mind
The main effect of the factor, €3 (technical and administrative) is

in technical and administrative managers in peace of mind expectancy. It is
managers have high peace of mind expectancy compared to technical
have high peace of mind expectancy compared to technical members.
that the 7-13 years of service members have moderately high the peace of
mind expectancy behaviour. The 0-6 years of service and 14 and above
years of service members have moderately high low peace of mind
In the first order interaction effect Sector and Area (A x 8)has

found to be significant (F (1, 348) = 8.449; P < .Dl). The interaction
high peace of mind expectancy compared to public sector. The
technical managers in private sector are having high means score
compared to those in public sector. This indicates that technical
managers in the private sector are having high peace of mind
administrative members of private sector are having high peace of mind

(A x C) has found to be significant (F (2, 348) 32.198; p < .O1) relation to
peace of mind expectancy. It is evident from the mean values of the three
service in private sector are having high peace of mind expectancy
service in private sector are having high peace of mind expectancy

service members have moderately high the peace of mind expectancy
members have moderately high low peace of mind expectancy behaviour.
The same trend observed in technical members.
the peace of mind behaviour. The mean scores indicates that 0-6, 7-13
in technical members. 'This indicates that the technical and administrative
peace of mind behaviour compared to public sector.
Table: 5.95 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Comfort of Life

Mean
F Sig.
I
I
..-d-, 1
aquaras
89753643.) t i11
gyuals
815942 198.903
3 C L IV M IVI I o.,
1 8132.003 1982.350 ,000
M2 17,,a
M3 12.43
107.803 1 107.803 26.279 .OOO
M4 13,53
M5 12.04
YEARS
160.62% 2 80.31 1 19.578 .000 M6 13.47
M7 13.44
AREA 75.625 1 75.625 18.435 ,000
, - ,.
JR *
YEARS 229.0821 2 114.544 27.923 ,000
AREA '
YEARS 128.42% 2 64.21 1 15.653 ,000
SECTOR
AREA *
141.800 2 70.900 17.283 ,000
YEARS
AxBxC - -
Error 1427.567 348 4.102
Total 71 113.000 360
factor A (public and private sector) is significant (F ( I , 348) = 1982.350;
significant difference in the comfort of life of public and private sector
research. This ind~catesthat private sector has strong comfort of life
compared to public sector

found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 26.279; P c .01) relation. The main
effect analysis on the Area (5)indicates that there is significant difference
in technical and administrative managers in comfort of life expectancy. It is
managers have high comfort of life expectancy compared to technical
have high comfort of life expectancy compared to technical members.
that the 7-13 years of service members have moderately high the comfort
of life expectancy behaviour. The 0-6 years of service and 14 and above
years of service members have moderately high low comfort of life

found to be significant (F ( 1 , 348) = 18.435; P < .01). The interaction effect
on the Sector and Area (A x 0) indicates that administrative managers in
administrative managers in the private sector are having high comfort of
life compared to public sector. The technical managers in private sector
are having high means score compared to those in public sector. This
indicates that technical managers in the private sector are having high
comfort of life expectancy compared to public sector. This shows that
comfort of life behaviour compared to public sector.

comfort of life expectancy. It is evident from the mean values of the three
service in private sector are having high comfort of life expectancy
service in private sector are having high comfort of life expectancy
aMCy.5i.s and W t r 371

(B x C) has found to be significant (F (2, 348) = 15.653; p < .01). The
service years administrative members have moderately high mean score
service members have moderately high the comfort of life expectancy
members have moderately high low comfort of life expectancy behaviour.

the comfort of life behaviour. The mean scores indicates that 0-6, 7-13 and
comfort of life behaviour compared to public sector.
Table: 5.96 Shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Dependency
significant difference in the dependency behaviour of public and private
research. This indicates that private sector has strong dependency
behaviour compared to public sector

in technical and administrative managers in dependency expectancy. It is
managers have high dependency expectancy compared to technical
have high dependency expectancy compared to technical members.
that the 7-13 years of service members have moderately high the
dependency expectancy behaviour. The 0-6 years of service and 14 and
above years of service members have moderately high low dependency

administrative managers in the private sector are having high dependency
dependency behaviour compared to public sector. This shows that
dependency behaviour compared to public sector.

(A x C) has found to be significant (F (2, 348) 38.812; p < .O1) relation to
dependency expectancy. It 1s evident from the mean values of the three
service in private sector are having high dependency expectancy
compared to public sector. This shows the members of different years of
service in private sector are having high dependency expectancy
service members have moderately high the dependency expectancy
members have moderately high low dependency expectancy behaviour.

the dependency behaviour. The mean scores indicates that 0-6, 7-13 and
dependency behaviour compared to public sector
Table: 5.97 ~hows'tdtestof Low and High Organisational Culture on Value
expectancy
Total
Total
-"
$
m
C
Public
Private
X
Y
a
-
m
Technical
>
Administrative
06 years of service
7-13 years of service
14 and above years of

service
I
Ability Utilization
-
Total
E
C
Public
rn
Private
3 -
-a=
m
Technical
>
Administrative
0.6 years of service 8.79 1.89 57 15.52 2.44 63 16.664" 0.000
7-13 years of service 9.82 2.26 57 15.13 1.94 63 13.711" 0.000

- - .
14 and above years cd

service 10.42 2.55 60 1528 2.55 60 10369" 0.000
L
Achievement
--
Total
2 Public
-s
U
Private
%
W
-2 ------------
Technical
Administrative
7.13 years of service

service
Advancement
Total
C
c
Public
Administrative
service
Organisational culture
Aesthetics
Total 7.59 2.54 174 16.87 3.83 186 26865" 0.000

- ----
Public 712 110 167 6.69 1.25 13 1326 0230
--
Private
Technical 7.20 1.08 84 16.22 4.18 96 19.091" 0000
Administrative 7.94 3.34 90 17.57 3.28 90 19.369" 0000

-
0-6 years of service 7.16 1.19 57 17.84 2.95 63 25 331" 0000
7-13 years of service 7.12 1.09 57 16.00 4.18 63 15.43" 0.000
14 and above years
Altruism
Total
Public
Private
Technical
Administrative
06 years of service
713 years of service
14 and above years of service

Creativiv
Total
Public
--
Private
Technical
--
Administrative
06 years of service
14 and above years
Economic Reward
Total
Public
Private
Technical
Administrative
OK years of service
713 years of service
14and above years

Physical Activily
Total
Public
Private
Technical
--
Administrative
14 and above years
Total
Public
Private
Technical
Administrative
14 and above years of servi

Risk
Total
Public
Private
- --
Technical
Administrative
14 and above years of service
Social interaction
Total
Public
Private
Technical
Administrative
06 years of service
--
7-13 years of sewice
14 and above years of sewice

Social relations
Total
Public
Private
Technical
--
Administrative
14 and above years of servi
Variety
Total
Public
Private
Technical
Administrative 8.70 3.30 90 17.40 3.33 90 17.496" 0.000
0-6 years of service 8.70 3.30 90 17.40 3.33 90 17.496" 0.000
7.13 years of service 7.68 1.54 57 17.90 2.77 63 24.395" 0.000
14 and above years of service 9.18 3.76 60 16.13 4.56 60 9.035" 0.000
Working condition
Total
Public
Private
Technical
Z
o Administrative
.-
. m
C
0
.

W -
a
2 7-13 years of service
2 -
Peace of mind
Technical
r
2
rn
Administrative
%
Y
a -
3

-
Organisational culture
Comforts of life Low Culture High Culture
Mean SD N Mean SD N
- -
Total 8.63 2.63 174 17.06 390 186
- -.
Public 8 1 1.65 167 8.54 139 13 0.634 0.492
- - -
Private 18.71 0.95 7 17.70 3.22 173 0828 0.436
.
Technical 8.07 1.61 84 16.26 4.33 96 16.281" 0.000
Results of Critical Ratio analysis
To know the effect of organisational culture on value expectancy

the sample is regrouped as high organisational culture and low
organisational culture group (Refer table No. 97). Based on the mean
scores on the organisational culture this classification is made. After
classifying the group into high and low organisational c u l t ~ ~ group,
re critical
ratios are calculated between the mean scored on value expectancy
scores for the 2 x 2 ~ 3factorial groups. For aver all value expectancy scores
it is found that the scores are significantly higher for strong organisational
culture group compared to weak organisational culture group.
When public sector units and private sector units are analyzed
compared there is no significant difference between of weak and strong
organisational culture group, in the case of public and private sector
organisations. However, there is significant difference between technical
and administrative managers. In the different service groups also there are
significant differences between the groups as far as value expectancy is
concerned.
Similarly, mean difference analysis is done separately on 21-sub

variables of value expectancy. In all the 21 sub variables, the strong
culture group has significantly higher mean value expectancy scores
compared to the weak culture group. Findings (Refer, Table No: 5.97)
indicate that members have high expectation to ability utilization,
achievement, advancement, aesthetics, altruism, authority, autonomy,
creativity, economic reward, life style, personal development, good
physical activity, high prestige, high risk taking, more social integration,
more social relationship, more variety, good working conditions, stable
peace of mind, high comfort of life and greater dependency at work in
strong culture group sector compared to weak culture group. It is clear
from this evidence that members in the strong culture attaches high
importance to work values compared to weak culture. When, the public -
private sector is considered it is found that the insignificant difference
observed on the previous case is observed here. There is no significant
difference between strong and weak culture group, as far as value
expectancy is concerned on public - private sector organisations.
But when nature of activity is considered, administrative managers

of strong organisational culture group are having significantly higher scores
on value expectancy compared to weak organisational culture
administrative group. Similarly, when strong and weak organisational
culture technical managers group are compared on their value expectancy
scores, it is also found that the strong organisational culture technical
managers is having significantly higher mean scores compared to the low
culture group.
The same trend is observed in the different years of service group.

When strong and weak organisational culture group of 0-6 years of service
managers is compared on their value expectancy scores, it is also found
that the strong organisational culture group of 0-6 years of service
managers is having significantly higher mean scores compared to the
weak organisational culture group. Similarly, when strong and weak
organisational culture group of 7-13 years of service managers is
compared on their value expectancy scores, it is also found that the strong
organisational culture group of 7-13 years of service managers is having
significantly higher mean scores compared to the weak organisational
culture group. The same trend is observed in 14 and above years of
service group.

10 Chapter5 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 Chapter5 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter V

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

'NOW: Nature of work

wise selection of orgar~isationalmembers. The table indicates that the

considered area wise selection of the technical and administrative

sector organisations. 50' of public sector members (n = 90) belong to

technical area and the remaining 50% is belonging to administrative areas

service of organizational members. From public sector, the technical

years of service (33.33%) and 14 and above years of service (33.33%).

The same criteria followed in the selection of administrative members viz.,

above years of service (33.33%). Followed by that in private sector also

the same selection pattern followed.

To draw a general picture of the data on various dimensions

Authoritv 13.1361 5.1954

To draw a general picture of the data on various dimensions

collected descriptive statistics is carried out. Means and SDs are

calculated on the sub variables of organisational culture of public and

organisational culture sub variable in private sector organisations are

having high mean score compared to public sector organisations. The

confrontation, authenticity, proaction and experimentation sub variables

of organisational culture is having comparatively high mean score

of organisational culture in the public sector are having moderately low

table shows low standard deviation in authenticity, proaction,

collaboration and experimentation, in private sector. While in public

sector, confrontation and experimentation shows the low standard

deviation. The openness sub variable of public sector shows high

standard deviation compared to all variables in this research. The

having weak organisational culture and the private sector organisation

is having strong culture.

Table: 5.6 Shows Means and SDs of Organisationalculture sub-variables of

Table: 5.7 Shows Means and S D s of Organisational culture sub-

To dram a general trend of the data on various dimensions

Table: 5.8 Shows Means and SDs ot Organisational culture sub-variables of

To draw a general picture of the data on various dimensions

To draw a general picture of the data on various dimensions

Table: 5.10 Shows Means and SDs of Value expectancy sub-variables of

Comfort of Life 1 8.3222 1 1.6681

To draw a general picture of the data on various dimensions

Table: 5.11 Shows Means and SDs of Value expectancy sub-variables of

Variety Private 180 16.9889 3.5153

Private 180 17.7333 3.3769

Table: 5.12 Shows Means and SDs of Organisational culture sub-

Authenticity Public 8.9444 3.5738

To draw a general picture of the data on various dimensions

Table: 5.13 Shows Means and SDs of Organisational culture sub-

To draw a general picture of the data on various dimensions

Table: 5.14 Shows Means and SDs of Organisational culture sub-variables of

To draw a general picture of the data on various dimensions collected

To draw a general trend of the data on various dimensions

To draw a general picture of the data on various dimensions

Table: 5.17 Shows Means and SDs of Value Expectancy subvariables of

To draw a general picture of the data on various dimensions

To draw a general trend of the data on various dimensions collected

Table: 5.19 Show Means and SDs of Value Expectancy sub-variables of

To draw a general picture of the data on various dimensions

Table: 5.21 Shows Means and SDs of Organisational culture sub-variables of 7-

To draw a general picture of the data on various dimensions

To draw a general picture of the data on various dimensions

Table: 5.23 Shows Means and SDs of Organisational culture sub-variables of

To draw a general picture of the data on various dimensions

To draw a general picture of the data on various dimensions

Confrontation Private 60 16.2667 4.7936

Trust Private 60 15.4667 4.3936