HYPOTHESIS TEST

We are going to use Friedman one-way ANOVA test here which is recommended
by (George & Mallery, 2011). The Friedman one-way ANOVA is similar to traditional
analysis of variance with two notable exceptions: (a) Comparisons in the Friedman
procedure are based on mean rank of variables rather than on means and raw
scores, and (b) rather than calculating an F ratio, Friedman compares ranked
values with expected values in a chi-square analysis.

Hypothesis :1
The hypotheses for this test are as following:
H1: there is no significant role of shaving best practices in promoting the
need for strategic thinking at all levels w.r.t age, gender, income and
designation of the employee.
For testing the hypothesis we take = 0.05 and Degree of freedom here is 4 (k-1).
The decision rule here is if the significant value of the test is less than than we
reject the hypothesis otherwise we accept the hypothesis.

The ranking table and test statistics for the Friedmans test are as follows: of
Friedman test is as follows:

Ranks
Mean Rank
Strongly Agree 2.83
Agree 2.66
Neutral 2.92
Disagree 3.15
Strongly Disagree 3.43



Test Statistics
N 158
Chi-
square
31.887
df 4
Asymp.
Sig.
.000
a. Friedman Test
The significance value associated with chi-square analysis p=0.000 <0.05.Hence we
reject the null hypothesis which means that there is a significant difference between the
responses to these statements.

This difference is evident form the rank table above. The statement Businesses should
change the way they operate to align with greater social and environmental needs
receives the highest ranking. And there is a clear trend of higher agreement towards
statements advocating more pro-active involvement of business in society.
Hence we can conclude that there is a popular belief that business should play more
proactive role in society.













Hypothesis.2:
H2: Employees feel the need for knowledge management.
For testing the hypothesis we take = 0.05 and Degree of freedom here is 2 (k-1). The
decision rule here is if the significant value of the test is less than than we reject the
hypothesis otherwise we accept the hypothesis.
The Friedmans table is as follows:
Test Statistics
a

N 158
Chi-
Square
2.295
df 2
Asymp.
Sig.
.317
a. Friedman Test

Ranks
Mean Rank
Strongly Agree 1.95
Agree 1.97
Neutral 2.08
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

The significance value associated with chi-square analysis p=0.317 >0.05.
Hence we accept the null hypothesis which indicates that there is no significant
difference between the responses to these three statements.
The ranking table above gives highest ranking (2.08) to the last statement which
advocates the co-alignment of business and cause but as the difference is not very
significant so we cannot draw any preferential conclusion from these statements.
Although the test establishes that respondents are ambivalent towards the orientation of
businesses in helping social causes.
Hypothesis: 3
There is no significant difference in the satisfaction level for the incentive system of the
organization in motivating the employees. w.r.t . income of the employee.

We are going to use T-test to test this hypothesis. A T-test is a procedure used for
comparing sample means to see if there is sufficient evidence to infer that the means of
the corresponding population distribution also differ. There are three different types of T-
tests:
1. Independent Sample T-test: The independent sample T-test compares the
means of two different samples. The two samples share some variable of interest
in common, but there is no overlap between memberships of the two groups.
2. Paired Sample T-test: The second type of T-test, the paired sample t test, is
usually based on groups of individuals who experience both conditions of the
variable of interest. Note here that the same group experiences both levels of the
variable.
3. One Sample T-test: The third type of T-test is a one sample t test. It is designed
to test whether the mean of a distribution differs significantly from some preset
value. In this procedure, the sample mean is compared to a single fixed
value.(George & Mallery, SPSS for Windows, step by step 10e, 2011)

We are going to use one sample T-test here. The responses are recorded on a likert
scale varying from very important to not important at all. The responses are coded as
1=Not important at all, 2 = somewhat important and 3 = very important. So higher the
score is, higher is the importance of companys image in deciding about that factor. To
test the hypothesis we are going to take test value as 2, which denotes higher
importance, where 3 is the maximum and 1 is the minimum. The one sample T-tests
statistics are as follows:




One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Strongly Agree 158 2.2532 .85910 .06835
Agree 158 1.9494 .63645 .05063
Neutral 158 1.9937 .64341 .05119
Strongly Disagree 158 1.8038 .69994 .05568
Disagree 158 2.5000 .59456 .04730

The above table gives the standard deviation, mean value and standard error for the
different questions. Lets analyze them one by one.

One-Sample Test
Test Value = 2
t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Strongly Agree 3.704 157 .000 .25316 .1182 .3882
Agree -1.000 157 .319 -.05063 -.1506 .0494
Neutral -.124 157 .902 -.00633 -.1074 .0948
Strongly Disagree -3.523 157 .001 -.19620 -.3062 -.0862
Disagree 10.571 157 .000 .50000 .4066 .5934

In the above T-test table, the means of the five questions were compared with test value
2 and the results are given. The decision rule is if the significance value of the test is
greater than 0.05 then we accept the null hypothesis otherwise reject the null
hypothesis.
Where to work: p=0.000<0.05 -> Reject the null Hypothesis
What product or service to buy or where to shop: p = 0.319>0.05 -> Accept the
null hypothesis
Which product or services to recommend to people: p = 0.902 > 0.05 -> Accept
null Hypothesis
Which companies you want working in your locality: p = 0.001<0.05 -> Reject the
null Hypothesis
The brands you trust: p = 0.000 <0.05 -> Reject the null Hypothesis

Hence we conclude that:
Companys social and environmental commitment and image have a significant
effect on the decision of choosing workplace.
Companys social and environmental commitment and image does not have a
significant effect on the decision of choosing which product or services to buy or
where to shop
Companys social and environmental commitment and imagedoes not have a
significant effect on the decision of which product or services to recommend to
others.
Companys social and environmental commitment and image have a significant
effect on the decision of which company people want to be working in their
locality.
Companys social and environmental commitment and image have a significant
effect on the trustworthiness of the brand.











Hypothesis: 4
There is no significant relationship between existences of cohesiveness in the
organization and its role on facilitating sharing of information among employees.
We are going to test this hypothesis with the independent sample t-test. The results of
the analysis are as follows:

Group Statistics

N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Strongly Agree 95 2.7053 .52336 .05370
Agree 63 1.9365 .83999 .10583
Neutral
Strongly Disagree
Disagree

Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2-
tailed
)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper

Equal
variances
assumed
23.624 .000 7.089 156 .000 .76876 .10844 .55455 .98296
Equal
variances
not
assumed

6.478 93.926 .000 .76876 .11867 .53313 1.00438

This independent samples t-test analysis indicates that the 95 males have the mean
score of 2.7053 and 63 females have a mean score of 1.9365.

The significance level for the test is taken at 5%. The calculated p-value (0.000) is less
than 0.05. So according to decision rule we have to reject the null hypothesis.

This means that there is a significant difference between male and females in attitude
towards buying the product of a brand associated with a good cause over their preferred
brand.