A Study On Organization Climate in Mafoi Management Consultants LTD

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Organizational climate is comprised of mixture of norms, values, expectations, policies and procedures that influence work motivation, commitment and ultimately, individual and work unit performance. Positive climate encourages, while negative climates inhibits discretionary effort. Organizational climate refers to the quality of working environment. If people feel that they are valued and respected within the organization, they are more likely to contribute positively to the achievements of the business outcomes. Creating a healthy organizational climate requires attention to the factors which influence employees perceptions, including the quality of leadership, the way in which decisions are made and whether the efforts of employees are recognized. In fact Climate may be thought of as the perceptions of the characteristics of an organization. Climate for an organization is somewhat like the personality for a person. Just as every individual has a personality that makes each person unique, each organization has an organizational climate that clearly distinguishes its personality from other organization. Every organization is different and has a unique feeling and character beyond its structural characteristics. Thus every organization deals with its member in a distinct way through its policies on allocations of resources, communication pattern, reward and penalty, leadership and decision making style, etc. The organizational policy and conviction with regard to all these and a cluster of other related activities influence the feelings, attitudes and behavior of its members and results in the creation of the unique organizational climate. The content of organizational climate has varied widely and they include almost all the important aspect of organizations such as structure, communication, leadership, Conflicts, reward system, inter personal relationships organizational effectiveness, reasonability and so forth. It has been pointed out that the contents of the climate constructed by various researches overlap with many other major concepts in organizational behavior Glick, 1985. Such overlaps seems to have promoted researchers to raise the question how the concept of climate is different from other organizational variables, especially, structure and job satisfaction.
A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi 1
1.1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Organizational climate is a relative enduring characteristic of an organization which distinguishes it from other organization: (a) and embodies members collective perceptions about their organization with respect to such dimensions as autonomy, trust, cohesiveness, support, recognition, innovation and fairness: (b) is produced by members interaction; (c) serves as a basis for interpreting the situation; (d) reflects the prevalent norms, values and attitudes of the organizations culture; and (e) acts as a source of influence for shaping behavior. (Moran and Volkwein, 1992, p.2) Francese (1993) who examined the effect of climate in service responsiveness; Meudell and Gadd (1994) who studied climate and culture in short life organizations; and Vallen (1993) who was concerned about organizational climate and service staff burnout. Organizational climate has much to offer in terms of its ability to explain the behavior of people in the workplace. Ashforth (1985, p. 838) put forward the view that climate has the potential to facilitate a truly integrative science of organizational behavior, The atmosphere that employees perceive is created in their organizations by practices, procedures and rewards Employees observe what happens to them (and around them) and then draw conclusions about the organizations priorities. They then sit their own priorities accordingly. (Schneider, 1994, p. 18) Schneider, Brief and Guzzo (1996, p.9) argue that sustainable organizational change is most assured when both the climate what the organizations, members experience and the culture what the organizations members believe the organization values change.
EARLY FORMULATIONS OF THE CLIMATE CONSTRUCT The concept of climate can be traced back to the work of Lewin, Lippitt and White (1939) and a work entitled Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates (Denison, 1996; Schneider, 1990). The Lewin et. Al. (1939) study investigated the relationship between leadership style and climate, a factor that has remained central to the
concept, Joyce and Slocum (1982) trace the concept back to the studies of Koffka (1935) on behavior environment; Lewins (1936) study on life space; and Murrays (1938) work on organizational climate. Lewins (1951) approach to climate was conceptualized by the relationship between individuals, their social environment and how that is set in a framework. Lewin expressed this in terms of simple equation: B = f (P.E.) In which, B = Behavior, E= Environment, P = the person It is clear from Lewins equation that the concept of climate takes a psychological approach, focusing upon the individual and seeking to understand the cognitive processes and behavior. Lewins conceptualization of the theory provides the underpinnings of many studies and approaches to climate research. THREE APPROACHES TO THE CLIMATE CONSTRUCT James and Jones (1974) conducted a major review of the theory and research on organizational climate ad identified climate in three separate ways that were not mutually exclusive, (a) multiple measurement organizational attribute approach, (b) perceptual measurement organizational attribute approach, and (c) the perceptual measurement individual attribute approach. In the multiple measurement organizational approach James and Jones cite forehand and Gilmer (1964) as defining organizational climate as a defining organizational climate as a set of characteristics that describe an organization and that (a) distinguish the organization from other organizations (b) are relatively enduring over time, and (c) influence the behavior of people in the organization.
A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi
Schneider and Bartlett (1968) had proposed four organizational climate dimensions,
Individual autonomy: based on the factors of the individual responsibility, agent Interdependence, rules orientation and opportunities for exercising individual initiative.
The degree of structure imposed upon the position: based on the factors of structure, managerial structure and the closeness of supervision.
Reward orientation: based upon the factors of reward, general satisfaction, promotionalachievement orientation, and being profit minded and sales oriented.
Consideration, warmth and support: based upon the factors of managerial support, nurturing of subordinates and warmth and support.
In reviewing psychological climate as a set of perceptually based, psychological attributes Jones and James (1979) noted that the process reflected the developments that had occurred in the conceptualization of climate and the nature of its major influences. They propose that psychological climate:
(a) refers to the individuals cognitively based description of the situation; (b) involves a psychological processing of specific perceptions into more abstract depictions of the psychologically meaningful influences in the situation; (c) tends to be closely related to situational characteristics that have relatively direct and immediate ties to the individual experience; and (d) is multidimensional, with a central core of dimensions that apply across a variety of situations(through additional dimensions might be need to better describe particular situations. (Jones and James, 1979, p.205)
Schneider and Hall (1972) describe climate as a global perception held by individuals about their own organizational environment. Schneider and Snyder (1975) further clarified the approach by defining climate as a summary perception which individuals form of (or about) an organization. For them it is a global impression of the organization. CHARACTERISTICS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE The nature of organizational climate will be clear from its following characteristics:
General perception: Organizational climate is a general expression of what the organization is. It represents the summary perception which people have about an organization.
Quality concept: It is an abstract and intangible concept. It is difficult to explain the components of organizational climate in quantifiable units.
Distinct identity: It reflects how an organization is different from other organizations. It gives a distinct identity to the organization.
Enduring Quality: It is built up over a period of time. It represents a relatively enduring quality of the internal environment that is experienced by the organizational members
Multi dimensional concept: There are several dimensional of the concept of organizational climate such as individual autonomy, authority structure, leadership style, pattern of communication, degree of conflict and cooperation, etc.
DIMENSIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE It is very difficult to measure organizational climate because it is multi dimensional concept. The important components that collectively represent the climate of an organization are as discussed below:
Member Orientation: The dominant orientation of an organization is the main concern of its members, and this is important determinant of climate. If the dominant orientation or concern is to adhere to established rules and regulations, the climate will be characterized by control, on other hand if the orientation is to produce excellence, the climate will be characterized by achievements. Interpersonal Relationship: An organizations interpersonal-relations are reflected in the way informal groups are formed, and operate to satisfy the needs of members. If informal relations supplement the formal procedures, the organization will be benefited. Individual Freedom: If the individuals are given sufficient freedom or autonomy to work and exercise authority, there will be efficiency in operation. Self control will lighten the burden of the higher level executives. Degree of Control: The control system may be either rigid or flexible. If the control is rigidly followed, there will be impersonal or bureaucratic atmosphere in the organization. The scope for self regulation will be the minimum.
Type of Structure: It clarifies who is to direct whom and who is responsible to whom. It serve as the basis for inter personal relations between superiors and subordinates. If the authority is centralized as the top level, the scope for participation in decision making by the subordinates will be low. Where authority is delegated to the subordinate, there will be an atmosphere of participative decision making. Management Orientation (Style): The dominant style of manager and supervisor may be task oriented or relation oriented. If the task orientation is predominant, the leadership style will be autocratic. The organization climate will be considerate and supportive if the managers are relation oriented while dealing with works. The needs and aspirations of the workers will be given due importance. This will produce team sprite in the organization. Reward System: The system of rewards and punishments is an important component of organizational climate. When the reward are based on merit and productivity. There will be an atmosphere of competition among employees for high performance. They will put more and more hard work to develop themselves and to earn higher rewards such as increments and promotion. Communication: Communication is concerned with the flow of information; its direction (top- down, bottom-up, horizontal).for instance, if organization communication is based on top-down formal mode, the subordinates will not be able to express themselves. They may feel frustration as management does not entertain their ideas, suggestion and reaction. Conflict Management: Differences among people and group in organization are not uncommon. If they are managed effectively, there will be an atmosphere of cooperation in the organization. If they are suppressed or not handled properly, people will be unhappy and there will be an atmosphere of distrust and non-cooperation.
Degree of Trust: The degree of trust or lacks of trust among various members in the organization affect the climate. If there is mutual trust between different individuals, group, and also between management and workers, there will be peace in the organization. The members will cooperate with each other for attainment of organization objective. Risk Taking: How members respond to risk and whose help I sought in situation involving risk are important in any organization. If individuals feel free to try new idea without any fear, they will not hesitate in taking risk. Such an atmosphere will be conducive to innovative idea. FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE According to Lawrence James and Allan Jones have classified the factors that influence organizational climate into five major components:
y y y
Organizational context - mission, goals and objective, function, etc. Organization structure - size, degree of centralization and operating procedure. Leadership process - leadership styles, communication, decision making and related processes.
Physical environment employee safety, environment stresses and physical space characteristics.
Organizational values and norms conformity, loyalty, impersonality and reciprocity.
y 1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM This study is under taken to analyze the organizational climate in Ma Foi. It helps in analyzing the present organizational climate followed in the company and how far does the employees are satisfied with the present process and do they require any changes in the present process followed which could help them in modifying and developing present situation.
1.3 NEED FOR THE STUDY
The investigator has made the study to measure the prevailing organizational climate in Mafoi Management Consultants Ltd. It helps the management to concentrate the area which wants to improve for the betterment of organization.
CHAPTER II 2.1 INDUSTRY PROFILE

MANAGEMENT CONSULTING Management consulting indicates to both the industry of, and the practice of, helping organizations improve their performance, primarily through the analysis of existing business problems and development of plans for improvement. Organizations hire the services of management consultants for a number of reasons, including gaining external (and presumably objective) advice, access to the consultants' specialized expertise, or simply as extra temporary help during a one-time project, where the hiring of more permanent employees is not required. Because of their exposure to and relationships with numerous organizations, consulting firms are also said to be aware of industry "best practices", although the transferability of such practices from one organization to another is the subject of ridicule Consultancies may also provide organizational change management assistance, development of coaching skills, technology implementation, strategy development, or operational improvement services. Management consultants generally bring their own, proprietary methodologies or frameworks to guide the identification of problems, and to serve as the basis for recommendations for more effective or efficient ways of performing business tasks. HISTORY Management consulting grew with the rise of management as a unique field of study. The first management consulting firm was Arthur D. Little, founded in 1886 by the MIT professor of the same name. Though Arthur D. Little later became a general management consultancy, it originally specialized in technical research. Booz & Company was founded by Edwin G. Booz, a graduate of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, in 1914 as a management consultancy and the first to serve both industry and government clients.
10
After World War II, a number of new management consulting firms formed, most notably Boston Consulting Group, founded in 1963, which brought a rigorous analytical approach to the study of management and strategy. Work done at Boston Consulting Group, McKinsey, Booz & Company, and the Harvard Business School during the 1960s and 70s developed the tools and approaches that would define the new field of strategic management, setting the groundwork for many consulting firms to follow. In 1983, Harvard Business School's influence on the industry continued with the founding of Monitor Group by six professors. One of the reasons why management consulting grew first in the USA is because of deep cultural factors: it was accepted there, (contrary to say, Europe), that management and boards alike might not be competent in all circumstances; therefore, buying external competency was seen as a normal way to solve a business problem. This is referred to as a "contractual" relation to management. By contrast, in Europe, management is connected with emotional and cultural dimensions, where the manager is bound to be competent at all times. This is referred to as the "pater families" pattern .Therefore seeking (and paying for) external advice was seen as inappropriate .However, it is sometimes argued that in those days the average level of education of the executives was significantly lower in the USA than in Europe, where managers were Grandes Ecoles graduates (France) or "Doktor" (Germany), though this is very difficult to quantify given the vastly differing management structures in American and European businesses. It was only after World War II, in the wake of the development of the international trade led by the USA, that management consulting emerged in Europe. The current trend in the market is a clear segmentation of management consulting firms. Another branch of management consulting is Human Resource consulting. Such firms provide advice to their clients regarding the financial and retirement security, health, productivity, and employment relationships of their global workforce APPROACHES In general, various approaches to consulting can be thought of as lying somewhere along a continuum, with an 'expert' or prescriptive approach at one end, and a facilitative approach at the other. In the expert approach, the consultant takes the role of expert, and provides expert advice
or assistance to the client, with, compared to the facilitative approach, less input from, and less collaboration with, the client(s). With a facilitative approach, the consultant focuses less on specific or technical expert knowledge, and more on the process of consultation itself. Because of this focus on process, a facilitative approach is also often referred to as 'process consulting,' with Edgar Schein being considered the most well-known practitioner. The consulting firms listed above are closer toward the expert approach of this continuum. Many consulting firms are organized in a matrix structure, where one 'axis' describes a business function or type of consulting: for example, strategy, operations, technology, executive leadership, process improvement, talent management, sales, etc. The second axis is an industry focus: for example, oil and gas, retail, automotive. Together, these form a matrix, with consultants occupying one or more 'cells' in the matrix. For example, one consultant may specialize in operations for the retail industry, and another may focus on process improvement in the downstream oil and gas industry. SPECIALIZATIONS Management consulting refers generally to the provision of business consulting services, but there are numerous specializations, such as information technology consulting, human resource consulting, and others, many of which overlap, and most of which are offered by the large diversified consultancies listed below. So-called "boutique" consultancies, however, are smaller organizations specializing in one or a few of such specializations. CURRENT STATE OF THE INDUSTRY Management consulting has grown quickly, with growth rates of the industry exceeding 20% in the 1980s and 1990s. As a business service, consulting remains highly cyclical and linked to overall economic conditions. The consulting industry shrank during the 2001-2003 period, but has been experiencing slowly increasing growth since. In 2007, total global revenues for management consulting are expected to exceed the $300 billion mark.
12
Currently, there are four main types of consulting firms: 1. Large, diversified organizations that offer a range of services, including information technology consulting, in addition to a strategy consulting practice (e.g. Accenture, ABeam Consulting, Capgemini, Deloitte, IBM). Some very large IT service providers have moved into consultancy as well and are also developing strategy practices (e.g. Wipro, Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys) 2. Medium-sized information technology consultancies that blend boutique style with some of the same services and technologies bigger players offer their clients (e.g. IDS Scheer, arinso). 3. Large management and strategic consulting specialists that offer primarily strategy consulting but are not specialized in any specific industry (e.g. Bain & Company, Booz & Company,McKinsey & Company, The Boston Consulting Group, Oliver Wyman, A.T. Kearney, OC&C Strategy Consultants). 4. Boutique firms, often quite small, which have focused areas of consulting expertise in specific industries, functional areas or technologies (e.g. Heidrick & Struggles, Towers Perrin, the Avascent Group, Newton Industrial Consultants, Kaiser Associates) . Most of the boutiques were founded by famous business theorists. Small firms with less than 50 employees are often referred to as niche consultancies (e.g. Agility Works, iProCon HCM). If they have a unique concept and market it successfully, they often grow out of this segment very fast or are bought by larger players interested in their knowhow. A fifth type that is emerging is the sourcing advisory firm, that advise buyers on sourcing choices related to insourcing, outsourcing, vendor selection, and contract negotiations. The top 10 sourcing advisors (as ranked by the Black Book of Outsourcing) were TPI, Gartner, Hackett Group, Everest Group, PwC, Avasant, PA Consulting, and EquaTerra. Although a fast growing sector, the largest sourcing advisory practices would likely be classified as boutiques when considering the management consulting industry as a whole - with one of the largest players, TPI, for example, citing 2006 revenues of less than US$150M during its acquisition by ISG.
13
TRENDS Management consulting is becoming more prevalent in non-business related fields as well. As the need for professional and specialized advice grows, other industries such as government, quasi-government and not-for-profit agencies are turning to the same managerial principles that have helped the private sector for years. One important and recent change in the industry has been the spin-off or separation of the consulting and the accounting units of the large diversified firms. For these firms, which began business as accounting firms, management consulting was a new extension to their business. But after a number of highly publicized scandals over accounting practices, such as the Enron scandal, accountancies began divestiture of their management consulting units, to more easily comply with the tighter regulatory scrutiny that followed. RISE OF INTERNAL CORPORATE CONSULTING GROUPS Added to these approaches are corporations that set up their own internal consulting groups, hiring internal management consultants either from within the corporation or from external firms employees. Many corporations have internal groups of as many as 25 to 30 full-time consultants. Internal consulting groups are often formed around a number of practice areas, commonly including: organizational development, process management, information technology, design services, training, and development. HUMAN RESOURCE CONSULTING Human resource consulting that has emerged from management consulting, as clients' needs have become more complex and specialized, widening the gap between HR needs and work force capabilities, and thus accentuating the ability of HR management consulting firms to fill this gap. While the multi-faceted nature of business sometimes causes overlap in consulting industries (i.e., with regards to human resources, general management, and information technology), the following are core fields around which most HR consultancies are based:
14
Human Capital, including remuneration (also called total rewards), employee rewards and incentive programs, and talent acquisition and management
Health & Benefits; i.e., orchestrating optimal employee health plans with the carriers themselves
y y
Mergers & Acquisitions, examining fit across culture, job-type, transaction costs, etc. Communication, including surveying employee attitudes, satisfaction, engagement, and other employee behaviors
y y
Retirement Outsourcing
Services may also include legal counseling, global initiatives, investments consulting, and the implementation of HR technologies to facilitate human capital management. The HR consulting industry also employs more actuaries than any other in order to assist in their services. ADVANTAGES There are several potential benefits of internal consultants to those who employ them:
y
If properly managed and empowered, internal consulting groups evaluate engagement on projects in light of the corporation's strategic and tactical objectives.
Often, the internal consultant requires less ramp up time on a project due to familiarity with the corporation, and is able to guide a project through to implementation-a step that would be too costly if an external consultant were used.
y y
Internal relationship provides opportunities to keep certain corporate information private. It is likely that the time and materials cost of internal consultants is significantly less than external consultants operating in the same capacity.
Note: Corporations need to be conscious of and consistent with how internal consultant costs are accounted for on both a project and organizational level to evaluate cost effectiveness.
y
Internal consultants are often uniquely suited to
1. Lead external consulting project teams, or

2. Act as organizational subject matter experts embedded with external consulting teams under the direction of organizational management. A group of internal consultants can closely monitor and work with external consulting firm. This would ensure better delivery, quality, and overall operating relationship. External firms providing consulting services have a dichotomy in priority. The health of the external firm is in aggregate more important that the health of the client organization. (client objectives are ultimately secondary to that of the strategic goals of the external firm) Again assuming proper management, internal consulting groups are less likely have a dichotomy in priority. The health of the client organization is in aggregate more important that the health of the internal consulting group. (Put the company objectives first) DISADVANTAGES
y
The internal consultant may not bring the objectivity to the consulting relationship that an external firm can.
An internal consultant also may not bring to the table best practices from other corporations. A way to mitigate this issue is to recruit experience into the group and/or proactively provide diverse training to internal consultants.
Where the consulting industry is strong and consulting compensation high, it can be difficult to recruit candidates.
It is often difficult to accurately measure the true costs and benefits of an internal consulting group.
When financial times get tough, internal consulting groups that have not effectively demonstrated economic value (costs vs. benefits) are likely to face size reductions or reassignment.
16
2.2 COMPANY PROFILE

Ma Foi is an international HR service provider servicing world class companies across the globe. Ma Foi which was started in 1992 has grown into a full spectrum HR services provider for clients worldwide. It has helped generate career opportunities for more than 2, 50, 000 individuals in 36 countries and has worked for over 204 Fortune 500 organizations.
Ma Foi offers the broadest HR services portfolio ranging from Executive Search, Staffing, Consulting and Outsourcing to Automation and Training. The organization has built a network of offices across the country to be within reach of candidates and flex workers.
Ma Foi continues to focus on developing customized and innovative HR services, leveraging on its unique strengths of geographical presence and end-to-end capability across all HR service functions. Grown to be the largest HR service provider in India. Revenue grew to Rs. 7830 million (2008) as against Rs. 4311.10 million (2007) reflecting a CAGR of 71% over the last 16 years. Worked for over 204 Fortune 500 organizations. Globally present in 13 countries through 108 offices India, UAE (Dubai & Abu Dhabi), Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, UK, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Oman, USA, Thailand, Hong Kong and China. 1,442 core staff + 47,908 on deputation. 2, 35,213 placed in 36 countries, incl. 1104 in GM and above levels. Value / Process driven - ISO 9001:2000 Certification obtained from TUV.
17
MA FOI MISSION To emerge as the most respected HR Service Provider in the world, anchored on values of growth, dignity, transparency and diversity. MA FOI SERVICES Executive search Selection Specialist staffing Training Consulting Outsourcing Talent Transition service Assessment EXECUTIVE SEARCH Our understanding of cultural sensitivities, market knowledge and powerful networking skills enable us to provide world class talent across all industry segments. In our executive search process, stress is laid on culture-fit as the right sync helps in longer retention and higher business productivity.
Ma Foi Global Search also provides interim management, an exclusive service that helps fill unexpected but immediate gaps in senior management and also helps find the best temp leadership to manage crucial projects. We provide interim managers who possess rich leadership experience and move into challenging roles swiftly and comfortably. SELECTION Ma Foi recruits one candidate every 3 working minutes. We work with over 1500 companies - Fortune 500s, large global corporations, multi nationals, small and medium enterprises, and companies who look at establishing themselves in the emerging markets of
18
South and Southeast Asia. As the largest recruitment specialists in India we bring with us expertise that helps identify the best talent for your organization.
We can find the right talent at the junior and middle management levels for your organization. We believe that matching candidates to jobs is only possible by having deep insights and understanding of both the candidate and the client.
SPECIALIST STAFFING While recruiting specialists and experts for a particular project or assignment finding candidates with the right skill and cultural fit is very critical. The right people can drive performance and achieve desired results.
Also as organizations make efforts to be more agile and to quickly adapt to the changes in the economy, they turn to the contingent workforce to have on-demand access to professionals and experts. Organizations also see the opportunity to reduce benefits and retirement costs by engaging the contingent workforce as they are cost-effective. Spanning from senior contributor to interim executive, Ma Foi can identify the right fit for an unfilled position. TRAINING Ma Foi Academy provides globally benchmarked training support to four diverse groups of stakeholders:
y y y y
college students and fresh graduates working professionals corporate houses Government agencies and NGOs
19
We customize training modules, programs and courseware based on the need of improvement and learning. The Academy also offers psychometric and ability tests for students, working executives and organizations.
Our training programs and performance support tools are designed to increase productivity and improve access to opportunities. CONTENT WRITING Ma Foi Academy specializes in content development. The team has created Learning Object based content for instructor-lead delivery in life skills such as communication, motivation, attitude and team building.
The deliverables for the instructor-led modules range from student handout and exercises, activities and inventories, power point presentations, comprehensive trainer manual and evaluation solutions. We also give multimedia solutions and provide content, deployment, integration and maintenance services. We develop customized content on:
y y y y y y y y
Instructional design Retail selling Pharma selling Sales training Soft skills Business writing Spoken English Cross-cultural sensitivity
CONSULTING Ma Foi specializes in developing customized suite of HR consulting solutions based on the operational models of your organization. With a special focus on small and medium
enterprises, we bring practical, results-driven HR practices to your business that helps retain people, improve business productivity and performance of employees. Our end-to-end HR solutions that are tailor made to suit every unique business need are designed to be cost efficient.
HR systems
y y
productivity solutions
y y y y
diagnostics
y
HR audit HR policy manual design
compensation and benefits benchmarking survey database ready reports compensation structuring / re-structuring
employee engagement study
employee satisfaction study
organization structure design
y y y y
exit diagnostics 360 degree survey opinion survey statistical research study
y y y y
roles and responsibilities documentation competency mapping assessment & development centre
y y
variable pay-plan designing job evaluation study compliance advisory service
design & implementation
facilitate KRA/KPI setting
performance management systems
y y
manpower rightsizing career transition consultative training
OUTSOURCING Ma Foi helps organizations focus on their core processes by handling all the backend processes in an efficient and time-bound manner. We offer strategic outsourcing solutions that
21
give you access to intellectual capital which may not be available in-house. We help small firms with access to the same economies of scale, efficiency, and expertise that large companies enjoy. Our outsourcing solutions include: payroll process outsourcing and statutory compliance outsourcing solutions. ASSESSMENT We offer well researched, highly standardized and renowned assessment tests that help measure sensitivity, memory, intelligence, aptitude and personality of a candidate, employee, student or any individual. Our Assessment Tests help in recruitment, assessing leadership skills, identifying employees for promotion and self assessment. Ma Foi provides a comprehensive suite of assessment tools that help employers, employees and individuals achieve greater productivity. Our state of the art ability and personality assessment tests help evaluate sensitivity, memory, intelligence, aptitude and personality of a person.
MA FOI GROUP COMPANIES Ma Foi Management Consultants Ltd. (HQ India) Ma Foi Management Consultants FZ LLC, Dubai Ma Foi Consultants Europe Ltd., London Ma Foi Management Consultants Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Singapore Ma Foi Management Consultants Lanka (Private) Ltd., Colombo Ma Foi Malaysia Sdn Bhd, Kuala Lumpur Ma Foi & Partners , Muscat, Sultanate of Oman Ma Foi Kuwait Administrative Consultancy WLL Ma Foi Management Consultants LLC, Abu Dhabi Ma Foi Consultants USA Inc. Ma Foi Riyada HR Consulting WLL, Bahrain
Ma Foi Management Consultants Hong Kong Ltd. Ma Foi Consultants (Thailand) Societe Anonyme Ma Foi Management Consultants (Shanghai) Limited Ma Foi Consulting Solutions Ltd., India Ma Foi Global Search Services Ltd., India Agensi Pekerjaan Select Appointments Sdn Bhd, KL MinVesta InfoTech Limited, India MA FOI - STRATEGIC INTENT 1. Transition to a leading global Recruitment and HR firm specializing in cross-border expertise movement, with deep geographical presence in Asia and market leadership in > 5 economies. 2. To consolidate market leadership in India with market share above 10% and growth rate ahead of the market. 3. Emerge as the prime outsourcing destination for both IT and HR business processes for the Randstad world. 4. Emerge as a leading HRO / RPO player leveraging on our unique strength of Global Delivery Centers and end-to-end capability in Recruitment, Consulting, Automation and Outsourcing. 5. Achieve operating margin > 8% by right product mix, productivity measures and technology deployment. 6. Be known as an organization firmly committed to Quality and the Customer to be the most valuable HR & Staffing brand in the markets we operate. 7. Evolve identity as contributor to enhancing employability in multiple economies in Asia train half-a-million people through career skills initiative. 8. 8. Be a Company connecting deeply with the community around, anchoring CSR
efforts on Education, Employability and Micro-Enterprise.

ENDORSEMENTS Certified with ISO 9001: 2000 by TUV Management Service GmbH Certified by TUV Management Service GmbH for ISO 27001:2005 (Previously BS77992: 2002 ) Certification. This is for Information Security Management System for Payroll Processing Registered with Asian Development Bank & carried out World Bank funded projects Member of the National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM) Member of Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) Awarded Certificate for Strong Commitment to Excel by CII EXIM business excellence award Won the Ramakrishna Bajaj National Quality Award Trophy 2007 in the services sector Won the International Asia Pacific Quality Award in the large services category. This award is administered by the Asia Pacific Quality Organization (APQO).
24
CHAPTER III
3.1 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
To find out the climate in the organization.
To find out the factors affecting the organizational climate
To find out the problems faced by the employees in general
To give relevant suggestion to improve the organization climate
25
3.2 HYPOTHESIS OF STUDY
Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant relationship between the different age group, salary and experience with organizational climate. Alternate Hypothesis (H1): There is a significant relationship between the different age group, salary and experience with organizational climate.
RESEARCH DESIGN: The study is descriptive research study. The main purpose of descriptive research is description of the state of affairs as it exists at present. In the present study, descriptive method is used to study the prevailing organizational climate.
3.3 DATA COLLECTION METHOD
The primary data was collected through a well structured questionnaire with close-ended questions measures at 5-point likert type scale and suggestion questions. Secondary data required for the project was collected from the company records and Internet.
3.4 SAMPLING PLAN: Simple convenience sampling method is used. Sample size consists of 100 respondents.
26
3.5 STATISTICAL TOOLS:
Simple percentage analysis and tabulation is used to analysis the data. Bar diagram is used to give pictorial representation to the analysis. The following test was used for the study.
ONE WAY ANOVA TEST
PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS: Percentage refers to a special kind of ratio. Percentage is used in making comparison about two or more series of data. Percentage as also used to describe relationship. It is also used to compare the relative terms dx of two or more series of data.
Formula: Number of respondents x 100 Total no. of respondent ANOVA: The analysis of variance frequently referred to by the contraction ANOVA is a statistical technique specially designed to test whether the means of more than two quantitative populations are equal.
The analysis of variance technique developed by R.A. Fisher in 1920s diversified practical problems. Basically, it consists of classifying and cross classifying statistical results and testing whether the means of a specified classification differ significantly. In this way it is determined whether the given classification is important in affecting the results
. In one way classifications the data are classified according to only one criterion. The null hypothesis is H0=M1=M2=M3=.MK. H1=M1=M2=M3=.....MK. To find the correlation factor: T2 Total number of items in the given data.
C.F =
To calculate the value of F:
F=
Variance between Samples Variance with in Samples
Source of Variation
Sum of Squares
Degree of Freedom
Variance
Between Samples
SSC
V1=C-1
SSC/C-1
Within Samples
SSE
V2=N-C
SSE/N-C
28
3.6 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
Opinions of employees may be biased at time.
The sample size consists of 100 among 158 employees. Finding of the study has its own limitations.
Since Mafoi is very large organization it was not possible to cover all departments within a period of month.
29
CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Table 1: Age wise representation of the respondents
Frequency 18-20 21-25 26-30 30 & Above Total 12 52 28 8 100 Percent 12.0 52.0 28.0 8.0 100.0 Valid Percent 12.0 52.0 28.0 8.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 12.0 64.0 92.0 100.0
Chart 1:
Inference: The above reveals the fact that Majority of the respondents, about 52% belong to the category of 2125 years of age and 28% belong to the category of 18-20 years of age and 8% belong to the category of 30& above.
30
Table 2: Gender wise representation of the respondents

Cumulative Frequency Male Female Total 52 Percent 52.0 Valid Percent 52.0 Percent 52.0
48
48.0
48.0
100.0
100
100.0
100.0
Chart 2:
Inference: The above reveals the fact that Majority of the respondents, about 52 % belong to the category of male and 48% belong to the category of Female.
Table 3: Educational Qualification wise representation of the respondents

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent HSC UG PG Others Total 5 19 69 7 100 5.0 19.0 69.0 7.0 100.0 5.0 19.0 69.0 7.0 100.0 5.0 24.0 93.0 100.0
Chart 3:
Inference: The above reveals the fact that Majority of the respondents, about 69 % belong to the category of PG, 19% belong to the category of UG, 7% belong to the category of others and 5% belong to the category of HSC.
32
Table 4: Experience wise representation of the respondents

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 3 Years & Above Total 30 41 21 8 100 30.0 41.0 21.0 8.0 100.0 30.0 41.0 21.0 8.0 100.0 30.0 71.0 92.0 100.0
Chart 4:
Inference: The above reveals the fact that Majority of the respondents, about 41 % belong to the category of 2 Years, 30% belong to the category of 1 Year, and 21% belong to the category of 3 Years and 3 Years & above.
Table 5: Marital Status wise representation of the respondents

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Married Unmarried Total 31 69 100 31.0 69.0 100.0 31.0 69.0 100.0 31.0 100.0
Chart 5:
Inference: The above reveals the fact that Majority of the respondents, about 69 % belong to the category of Unmarried, and 31% belong to the category of Married.
34
Table 6: My work area is a safe working Environment

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Total 1 9 30 60 100 1.0 9.0 30.0 60.0 100.0 1.0 9.0 30.0 60.0 100.0 1.0 10.0 40.0 100.0
Chart 6:
Inference: Nearly 60% of the respondents strongly agree with the safe working environment, 30% of the respondents agree. 9% of the respondents neutral and 1% disagreeing related to safe working environment.
35
Table 7: My working area is clean and comfortable with necessary equipments

Frequen cy Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Total 2 8 30 60 100 2.0 8.0 30.0 60.0 100.0 2.0 8.0 30.0 60.0 100.0 Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 2.0 10.0 40.0 100.0
Chart 7:
Inference: Nearly 30% of the respondents agree with the safe working environment, 60% of the respondents strongly agree.8% of the respondents neutral and 2% disagreeing related to working area is clean and comfortable with necessary equipments.
36
Table 8: I maintain a good balance between work and other aspects of my life
Chart 8:
Inference: Nearly 60% of the respondents agree with the I maintain a good balance between work and other aspects of my life, 30% of the respondents strongly agree, 8% of the respondents neutral and 2% of the respondents disagreeing related to I maintain a good balance between work and other aspects of my life.
37
Table 9: I am satisfied with my working condition they are up to my expectation

Chart 9:
Inference: Nearly 31% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with my working condition they are up to my expectation, 59% of the respondents strongly agree, 8% of the respondents neutral and2% of the respondents disagreeing related to I am satisfied with my working condition they are up to my expectation.
38
Table 10: I have the flexibility to arrange my work schedule to meet my personal/ family responsibilities
Chart 10:
Inference: Nearly 31% of the respondents agree with I have the flexibility to arrange my work schedule to meet my personal/ family responsibilities, 59% of the respondents strongly agree, 8% of the respondents neutral and2% of the respondents disagreeing related to I have the flexibility to arrange my work schedule to meet my personal/ family responsibilities.
39
Table 11: My superior gives me help and support

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Total 1 9 60 30 100 1.0 9.0 60.0 30.0 100.0 1.0 9.0 60.0 30.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 1.0 10.0 70.0 100.0
Chart 11:
Inference: Nearly 60% of the respondents agree with my superior gives me help and support, 30% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents neutral and1% of the respondents disagreeing related to my superior gives me help and support.
40
Table 12: My supervisor gives feedback on what I am doing right and where to improve
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Total 1 9 60 30 100 1.0 9.0 60.0 30.0 100.0 1.0 9.0 60.0 30.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 1.0 10.0 70.0 100.0
Chart 12:
Inference: Nearly 60% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with My supervisor gives feedback on what I am doing right and where to improve, 30% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents neutral and 1% of the respondents disagreeing related to My supervisor gives feedback on what I am doing right and where to improve.
41
Table 13: I am able to work in team with my co workers

Chart 13:
Inference: Nearly 45% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I am able to work in team with my co workers, 45% of the respondents strongly agree, 8% of the respondents neutral and 3% of the respondents disagreeing related I am able to work in team with my co workers.
42
Table 14: My department communicates well with other departments in my organization

Chart 14:
Inference: Nearly 31% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with My department communicates well with other departments in my organization, 59% of the respondents strongly agree, 8% of the respondents neutral and 2% of the respondents disagreeing related to My department communicates well with other departments in my organization.
43
Table 15: My department makes a valuable contribution to my organization

Chart 15:
Inference: Nearly 60% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with My department makes a valuable contribution to my organization, 30% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents neutral and 1% of the respondents disagreeing related My department makes a valuable contribution to my organization.
44
Table 16: My departments meet its customer requirements

Chart 16:
Inference: Nearly 62% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with My department meet its customer requirements, 28% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents neutral and 1% of the respondents disagreeing related to My department meet its customer requirements.
45
Table 17: Management pays careful attention to my suggestion

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Total 1 2 9 60 28 100 1.0 2.0 9.0 60.0 28.0 100.0 1.0 2.0 9.0 60.0 28.0 100.0 1.0 3.0 12.0 72.0 100.0
Chart 17:
Inference: Nearly 60% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with Management pays careful attention to my suggestion, 30% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents neutral and 1% of the respondents disagreeing related to Management pays careful attention to my suggestion.
Table 18: I trust management

Chart 18:
Inference: Nearly 61% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I trust management, 28% of the respondents strongly agree, 7% of the respondents neutral and 1,3% of the respondents no idea related to I trust management.
Table 19: Management has a good understanding of what goes on in my department

Chart 19:
Inference: Nearly 61% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with Management has a good understanding of what goes on in my department, 28% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents neutral and 2% of the respondents disagreeing related to Management has a good understanding of what goes on in my department.
48
Table 20: I am treated with respect by management

Chart 20:
Inference: Nearly 61% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I am treated with respect by management, 28% of the respondents strongly agree, 10% of the respondents neutral and 1% of the respondents disagreeing related I am treated with respect by management.
49
Table 21: I wish to give suggestions for the development of the organization
Chart 21:
Inference: Nearly 61% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I wish to give suggestions for the development of the organization, 28% of the respondents strongly agree, 10% of the respondents neutral and 1% of the respondents disagreeing related to I wish to give suggestions for the development of the organization.
50
Table 22: Management Keeps my department adequately informed about what is going on in the organization
Chart 22:
Inference: Nearly 60% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with Management Keeps my department adequately informed about what is going on in the organization, 28% of the respondents strongly agree, 10% of the respondents neutral and 2% of the respondents disagreeing related to Management Keeps my department adequately informed about what is going on in the organization.
Table 23: My organization encourages me to help in developing improved work processes

Chart 23:
Inference: Nearly 59% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with My organization encourages me to help in developing improved work processes, 28% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents neutral and 4% of the respondents disagreeing related to My organization encourages me to help in developing improved work processes
52
Table 24: At my organization, Management seeks the involvement of employees when making important decisions
Chart 24:
Inference: Nearly 57% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with At my organization, Management seeks the involvement of employees when making important decisions , 28% of the respondents strongly agree, 13% of the respondents neutral and 2% of the respondents disagreeing related to At my organization, Management seeks the involvement of employees when making important decisions .
Table 25: My organization is sensitive to my individual needs

Chart 25:
Inference: Nearly 60% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with My organization is sensitive to my individual needs , 28% of the respondents strongly agree, 10% of the respondents neutral and 2% of the respondents disagreeing related to My organization is sensitive to my individual needs.
54
Table 26: I know what is happening in other parts of my organization

Chart 26:
Inference: Nearly 59% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I know what is happening in other parts of my organization , 28% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents neutral and 4% of the respondents disagreeing related to I know what is happening in other parts of my organization.
55
Table 27: I am recognized for my good work

Chart 27:
Inference: Nearly 38% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I am recognized for my good work , 52% of the respondents strongly agree, 8% of the respondents neutral and 2% of the respondents disagreeing related to I am recognized for my good work.
56
Table 28: I receive appropriate feedback about my performance

Chart 28:
Inference: Nearly 60% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I receive appropriate feedback about my performance, 30% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents neutral and 1% of the respondents disagreeing related to I receive appropriate feedback about my performance.
57
Table 29: My organization has realistic work expectations

Chart 29:
Inference: Nearly 62% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with My organization has realistic work expectations , 28% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents neutral and 1% of the respondents disagreeing related to My organization has realistic work expectations.
58
Table 30: I am satisfied with the pay and benefit I receive

Chart 30:
Inference: Nearly 60% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I am satisfied with the pay and benefit I receive, 28% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents neutral and 2, 1% of the respondents no idea related to I am satisfied with the pay and benefit I receive.
Table 31: Promotions are based on the performance

Chart 31:
Inference: Nearly 61% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with Promotions are based on the performance, 28% of the respondents strongly agree, 7% of the respondents neutral and 3,1% of the respondents no idea related to Promotions are based on the performance.
60
Table 32: I receive adequate training relevant to my job

Chart 32:
Inference: Nearly 60% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I receive adequate training relevant to my job, 30% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents neutral and 1% of the respondents disagreeing related to I receive adequate training relevant to my job.
61
Table 33: I have the skills I consider most important to do my job effectively
Chart 33:
Inference: Nearly 60% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I have the skills I consider most important to do my job effectively, 30% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents neutral and 1% of the respondents disagreeing related to I have the skills I consider most important to do my job effectively.
62
Table 34: Training helps me to improve my performance

Chart 34:
Inference: Nearly 33% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with Training helps me to improve my performance, 57% of the respondents strongly agree, 8% of the respondents neutral and 2% of the respondents disagreeing related to Training helps me to improve my performance.
63
Table 35: I feel stress in my job

Chart 35:
Inference: Nearly 39% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I feel stress in my job, 52% of the respondents strongly agree, 7% of the respondents neutral and 2% of the respondents disagreeing related to I feel stress in my job.
64
Table 36: My organization helps me to develop myself and my career

Chart 36:
Inference: Nearly 60% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with My organization helps me to develop myself and my career, 30% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents neutral and 1% of the respondents disagreeing related to My organization helps me to develop myself and my career.
65
Table 37: I think my work is overloaded

Chart 37:
Inference: Nearly 62% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I think my work is overloaded, 28% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents neutral and 1% of the respondents disagreeing related to I think my work is overloaded.
66
Table 38: I am willing to put in extra effort when necessary

Chart 38:
Inference: Nearly 48% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I am willing to put in extra effort when necessary, 40% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents neutral and 1,2% of the respondents no idea related to I am willing to put in extra effort when necessary.
Table 39: I am proud to say I work in my organization

Chart 39:
Inference: Nearly 51% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I am proud to say I work in my organization, 35% of the respondents strongly agree, 10% of the respondents neutral and 3,1% of the respondents disagreeing related to I am proud to say I work in my organization.
Table 40: I am loyal to my organization

Chart 40:
Inference: Nearly 60% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I am loyal to my organization, 30% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents neutral and 1% of the respondents disagreeing related to I am loyal to my organization.
69
Table 41: I plan to spend my entire career in my organization

Chart 41:
Inference: Nearly 56% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I plan to spend my entire career in my organization, 32% of the respondents strongly agree, 10% of the respondents neutral and 1,1% of the no idea disagreeing related to I plan to spend my entire career in my organization.
Table 42: I have a high working morale

Chart 42:
Inference: Nearly 57% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I have a high working morale, 32% of the respondents strongly agree, 10% of the respondents neutral and 1% of the respondents disagreeing related to I have a high working morale.
71
Table 43: I recommend my organization as the best place to work to others

Chart 43:
Inference: Nearly 56% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I recommend my organization as the best place to work to others, 32% of the respondents strongly agree,10% of the respondents neutral and 2% of the respondents disagreeing no idea related to I recommend my organization as the best place to work to others.
Response regarding the strength of the organisation
y y y y y y y y y y
Team work. New ideas, Quality, Trust, Hard work and unity. Achieving target Safe working environment. Trusting employees. Excellent working environment. Treat everybody as equal. Producing quality products that meet customer requirements. Employees valuable contribution. Appropriate and relevant suggestions by superior.
Response regarding areas need improvement in the organization
Mafoi should improve in their Computer Technology, like Speeds up their computer System and OS this leads to Increase their productivity.
73
ONE WAY ANOVA TEST
Tabulation for Mean Work Environment Vs Gender Table 44:

Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total .327 38.225 38.552 df Mean Square .327 .390 F Sig. .362
1 98 99
.838
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Gender and Work Environment in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Gender and Work Environment in the origination.
Inference: The significant value is 0.362 > 0.05.Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Gender and Work Environment in the organization.
74
Tabulation for Mean Work Environment Vs Age Table 45:

Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total .432 38.120 38.552 df Mean Square .144 .397 F Sig. .780
3 96 99
.362
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Age and Work Environment in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Age and Work Environment in the origination.
Inference:
The significant value is 0.780 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Age and Work Environment in the organization.
75
Tabulation for Mean Work Environment Vs Qualification Table 46:

Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total .093 38.459 38.552 df 3 96 99 Mean Square .031 .401 F Sig.
.077 .972
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Qualification and Work Environment in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Qualification and Work Environment in the origination.
Inference: The significant value is 0.972 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Qualification and Work Environment in the organization.
76
Tabulation for Mean Work Environment Vs Experience Table 47:

Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 1.165 37.386 38.552 df 3 96 99 Mean Square .388 .389 F Sig.
.997 .398
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Experience and Work Environment in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Experience and Work Environment in the origination.
Inference:
The significant value is 0.398 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Experience and Work Environment in the organization.
77
Tabulation for Mean Work Environment Vs Marital Status Table 48:

.394 .531
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Marital Status and Work Environment in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Marital Status and Work Environment in the origination.
Inference:
The significant value is 0.531 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Marital Status and Work Environment in the organization.
78
Tabulation for Mean Team Work Vs Gender Table 49:

Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 38.137 38.571 98 99 .389 .435 1 df Mean Square .435 1.117 .293 F Sig.
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Gender and Team work in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Gender and Team work in the origination.
Inference:
The significant value is 0.293 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Gender and Team work in the origination.
79
Tabulation for Mean Team Work Vs Age Table 50:

Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total .435 38.137 38.571 df 1 98 99 Mean Square .435 .389 F 1.117 Sig. .293
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Age and Team work in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Age and Team work in the origination.
Inference:
The significant value is 0.293 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Age and Team work in the origination.
80
Tabulation for Mean Team Work Vs Qualification Table 51:

Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total .101 df 3 Mean Square F Sig.
.034 .084 .968 .401
38.470 96 38.571 99
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Qualification and Team work in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Qualification and Team work in the origination.
Inference:
The significant value is 0.968 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Qualification and Team work in the origination.
81
Tabulation for Mean Team Work Vs Experience Table 52:
Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 1.030
df 3
Mean Square
Sig.
.343 .878 .455 .391
37.541 96 38.571 99
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Experience and Team work in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Experience and Team work in the origination.
Inference:
The significant value is 0.455 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Experience and Team work in the origination.
82
Tabulation for Mean Team Work Vs Marital Status Table 53: Sum of Squares df Mean Square Between Groups Within Groups Total .196 1 F Sig.
.196 .500 .481 .392
38.375 98 38.571 99
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Marital Status and Team work in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Marital Status and Team work in the origination. Inference:
The significant value is 0.481 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Marital Status and Team work in the origination.
83
Tabulation for Mean Management Effectiveness Vs Age Table 54:

.195 .470 .704 .415
39.845 96 40.430 99
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Age and Management Effectiveness in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Age and Management Effectiveness in the origination
Inference:
The significant value is 0.704 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Age and Management Effectiveness in the origination.
84
Tabulation for Mean Management Effectiveness Vs Gender Table 55:

.563 .455
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Gender and Management Effectiveness in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Gender and Management Effectiveness in the origination
Inference:
The significant value is 0.455 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Gender and Management Effectiveness in the origination.
85
Tabulation for Mean Management Effectiveness Vs Qualification Table 56:

.019 .996
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Qualification and Management Effectiveness in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Qualification and Management Effectiveness in the origination
Inference:
The significant value is 0.996 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Qualification and Management Effectiveness in the origination.
86
Tabulation for Mean Management Effectiveness Vs Experience Table 57: Sum of Squares df Mean Square Between Groups Within Groups Total .981 39.449 40.430 3 96 99 .327 .411 F Sig.
.796 .499
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Experience and Management Effectiveness in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Experience and Management Effectiveness in the origination
Inference:
The significant value is 0.499 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Experience and Management Effectiveness in the origination.
87
Tabulation for Mean Management Effectiveness Vs Marital Status Table 58:

.527 .470
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Marital Status and Management Effectiveness in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Marital Status and Management Effectiveness in the origination
Inference:
The significant value is 0.470 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Marital Status and Management Effectiveness in the origination.
88
Tabulation for Mean Involvement Vs Age Table 59:

.247 .863
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Age and Involvement in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Age and Involvement in the origination
Inference:
The significant value is 0.863 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Age and Involvement in the origination.
89
Tabulation for Mean Involvement Vs Gender Table 60: Sum of Squares df Mean Square Between Groups Within Groups Total .093 37.297 37.390 1 98 99 .093 .381 F Sig.
.243 .623
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Gender and Involvement in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Gender and Involvement in the origination
Inference:
The significant value is 0.623 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Gender and Involvement in the origination.
90
Tabulation for Mean Involvement Vs Qualification Table 61:

.106 .957
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Qualification and Involvement in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Qualification and Involvement in the origination
Inference:
The significant value is 0.957 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Qualification and Involvement in the origination.
91
Tabulation for Mean Involvement Vs Experience Table 62:

1.490 .222
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Experience and Involvement in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Experience and Involvement in the origination
Inference:
The significant value is 0.222 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Experience and Involvement in the origination.
92
Tabulation for Mean Involvement Vs Marital Status Table 63:

.058 .151 .698 .381
37.332 98 37.390 99
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Marital Status and Involvement in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Marital Status and Involvement in the origination
Inference:
The significant value is 0.698 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Marital Status and Involvement in the origination.
93
Tabulation for Mean Reward and Recognition Vs Age Table 64:

1.357 .261
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Age and Reward and Recognition in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Age and Reward and Recognition in the origination
Inference:
The significant value is 0.261 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Age and Reward and Recognition in the origination.
94
Tabulation for Mean Reward and Recognition Vs Gender Table 65:
Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total .804 38.026 38.830
df 1 98 99
Mean Square .804 .388
Sig.
2.072 .153
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Gender and Reward and Recognition in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Gender and Reward and Recognition in the origination
Inference:
The significant value is 0.153 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Gender and Reward and Recognition in the origination.
95
Tabulation for Mean Reward and Recognition Vs Qualification Table 66:

.087 .217 .884 .402
38.568 96 38.830 99
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Qualification and Reward and Recognition in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Qualification and Reward and Recognition in the origination
Inference:
The significant value is 0.884 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Qualification and Reward and Recognition in the origination.
96
Tabulation for Mean Reward and Recognition Vs Experience Table 67:

Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 1.163 df 3 Mean Square F Sig.
.388 .988 .402 .392
37.667 96 38.830 99
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Experience and Reward and Recognition in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Experience and Reward and Recognition in the origination
Inference:
The significant value is 0.402 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Experience and Reward and Recognition in the origination.
97
Tabulation for Mean Reward and Recognition Vs Marital Status Table 68:
.197 .658
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Marital Status and Reward and Recognition in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Marital Status and Reward and Recognition in the origination
Inference:
The significant value is 0.658 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Marital Status and Reward and Recognition in the origination.
98
Tabulation for Mean Competency Vs Age Table 69:

1.446 .234
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Age and Mean Competency in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Age and Mean Competency in the origination.
Inference:
The significant value is 0.234 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Age and Mean Competency in the origination.
99
Tabulation for Mean Competency Vs Gender Table 70:

1.908 .170
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Gender and Mean Competency in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Gender and Mean Competency in the origination.
Inference:
The significant value is 0.170 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Gender and Mean Competency in the origination.
100
Tabulation for Mean Competency Vs Qualification Table 71:
df 3 96 99
Sig.
.303 .823
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Qualification and Mean Competency in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Qualification and Mean Competency in the origination.
Inference:
The significant value is 0.823> 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Qualification and Mean Competency in the origination.
101
Tabulation for Mean Competency Vs Experience Table 72:

1.593 .196
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Experience and Mean Competency in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Experience and Mean Competency in the origination.
Inference:
The significant value is 0.196 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Experience and Mean Competency in the origination.
102
Tabulation for Mean Competency Vs Marital Status Table 73:
Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total .684
df 1
Mean Square
Sig.
.684 1.557 .215 .439
43.059 98 43.743 99
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Marital Status and Mean Competency in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Marital Status and Mean Competency in the origination.
Inference:
The significant value is 0.215 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Marital Status and Mean Competency in the origination.
103
Tabulation for Mean Commitment Vs Age Table 74:
Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 2.435
df 3
Mean Square
Sig.
.812 2.107 .104 .385
36.983 96 39.418 99
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Age and Mean Commitment in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Age and Mean Commitment in the origination.
Inference:
The significant value is 0.104 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Age and Mean Commitment in the origination.
104
Tabulation for Mean Commitment Vs Gender Table 75:

Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 1.120 38.298 39.418 df 1 98 99 Mean Square 1.120 .391 F Sig.
2.865 .094
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Gender and Mean Commitment in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Gender and Mean Commitment in the origination.
Inference:
The significant value is 0.094 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Gender and Mean Commitment in the origination.
105
Tabulation for Mean Commitment Vs Qualification Table 76:

.079 .193 .901 .408
39.181 96 39.418 99
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Qualification and Mean Commitment in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Qualification and Mean Commitment in the origination.
Inference:
The significant value is 0.901 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Qualification and Mean Commitment in the origination.
106
Tabulation for Mean Commitment Vs Experience Table 77:
Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 1.733 37.685 39.418
df 3 96 99
Sig.
1.472 .227
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Experience and Mean Commitment in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Experience and Mean Commitment in the origination.
Inference:
The significant value is 0.227 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Experience and Mean Commitment in the origination.
107
Tabulation for Mean Commitment Vs Marital Status Table 78:
df 1 98 99
Sig.
.748 .389
H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Marital Status and Mean Commitment in the origination.
H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Marital Status and Mean Commitment in the origination.
Inference:
The significant value is 0.389 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that there is no significant mean perception of Marital Status and Mean Commitment in the origination.
108
CHAPTER V 5.1 FINDINGS
Majority of the respondents, about 52% belong to the category of 2125 years of age and 28% belong to the category of 18-20 years of age and 8% belong to the category of 30& above. Majority of the respondents, about 52 % belong to the category of male and 48% belong to the category of Female. Majority of the respondents, about 69 % belong to the category of PG, 19% belong to the category of UG, 7% belong to the category of others and 5% belong to the category of HSC. Majority of the respondents, about 41 % belong to the category of 2 Years, 30% belong to the category of 1 Year, 21% belong to the category of 3 Years and 3 Years & above. Majority of the respondents, about 69 % belong to the category of Unmarried, 31% belong to the category of Married. 60% of the respondents reveal that they are working with the safe working environment. 60% of the respondents reveal that their working area is clean and comfortable with necessary equipments. 59% of the respondents reveal that they can flexibility to arrange my work schedule to meet their personal/ family responsibilities. 60% of the respondents reveal that their superior gives help and support. 60% of the respondents reveal that they are satisfied with supervisor gives feedback on what theyre doing right and where to improve. 45% of the respondents reveal that they were able to work in team with my co workers. 59% of the respondents strongly reveal that their department communicates well with other departments in my organization. 57% of the respondents reveal that Training helps me to improve my performance. 52% of the respondents reveal that I feel stress in my job. 60% of the respondents reveal that I am satisfied with My organization helps me to develop myself and my career
62% of the respondents reveal that I am satisfied with I think my work is overloaded. 48% of the respondents reveal that I am satisfied with I am willing to put in extra effort when necessary. 57% of the respondents reveal that Training helps me to improve my performance. 52% of the respondents reveal that I feel stress in my job. 60% of the respondents reveal that I am satisfied with My organization helps me to develop myself and my career 62% of the respondents reveal that I am satisfied with I think my work is overloaded. 48% of the respondents reveal that I am satisfied with I am willing to put in extra effort when necessary. From the study it is clear that there is no significant difference between mean perception of Age, Gender, Qualification, Experience Marital Status and Work Environment in the organization. From the study it is clear that there is no significant difference between mean perception of Age, Gender, Qualification, Experience Marital Status and Team work in the origination. From the study it is clear that there is no significant difference between mean perception of Age, Gender, Qualification, Experience Marital Status and Management Effectiveness in the origination. From the study it is clear that there is no significant difference between mean perception of Age, Gender, Qualification, Experience Marital Status and Involvement in the origination. From the study it is clear that there is no significant difference between mean perception of Age, Gender, Qualification, Experience Marital Status and Reward and Recognition in the origination. From the study it is clear that there is no significant difference between mean perception of Age, Gender, Qualification, Experience Marital Status and Mean Competency in the origination. From the study it is clear that there is no significant difference between mean perception of Age, Gender, Qualification, Experience Marital Status and Mean Commitment in the origination.
5.2 SUGGESTIONS
The management provides sufficient training to employees. A few measures can be taken to develop and organize the training program.
The employees works are been recognized by the management and appreciated. It can be maintained in such a way that the employees morale will be improved.
Need to improve the environment of the working condition.
A few measures can be taken to revise regarding pay and benefits.
Team performance must be highly encouraged and recognized.
Employees have a high trust in management. It can be maintained in such a way employees involvement and commitment will increase.
Employees are willing to give suggestions for the development of the organization. The suggestions given by the employee must be duly responded.
Create a congenial work atmosphere and pleasing surroundings, and arrange for better job facilities by having better tools and appliance. These will improve working capacity; develop enthusiasm, and a sense of loyalty towards the Organization.
111
5.3 CONCLUSION
Climate is the atmosphere of the organization, a relatively enduring quality of the internal environment of an organization, which is experienced by its members and influences their behavior. Organizational climate may affect quality of service and employees commitment and involvement towards the organization. Climate dimensions in one way or other affect the level of organizational climate. It is need to be taken into account while evaluating the organizational effectiveness. Climate surveys are studies of employees' perceptions and perspectives of an organization. The surveys address attitudes and concerns that help the organization work with employees to instill positive changes. In general, they are aimed at all aspects of the employees' jobs. The study analyzes everything from an employee's workload to their relationships with coworkers and superiors to their salary to company policies.
112
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Articles y Koys, Daniel J. and Thomas A DeCotiis, 1991, Inductive Measures of Psychological Climate,Human Relations, Vol. 44, No. 3., pp. 265-285. y Poole, Marshall Scott, 1985, Communication and Organizational Climate: Review, Critique, and a New Perspective, Robert D. McPhee and Phillip K. Tompkins (eds) Organizational Communications: Traditional themes and New Directions, Sage Publications.
y
Cameron, Kim S. and Sarah J. Freeman, 1991, Cultural Congruence, Strength, and Type: Relationships to Effectiveness, Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 5, p. 23-58.
Books y y y Kotari C.R,2nd edition (2003) Research Methodology, Guptha K.K, PP-68,117,277. Pattannayak Biswajeet 3rd edition (2005) Human Resource management. Stephen P.Robbins and Timothy A. Judge 13th edition (2009) Organizational Behavior.
Websites
y y y y
www.ebsco.com www.sciencedirect.com www.hr-survey.com www.citehr.com
113
APPENDIX
QUESTIONNAIRE Organizational Climate Survey
Dear Sir /madam I am Kirubakaran I, Doing my Master in Business administration (MBA) at Karunya University Coimbatore. As part of my curriculum, I have taken up a project at Ma Foi Management Consultants Ltd on, A Study on organization Climate Please takes some time to fill the Questionnaires.
PERSONAL DETAILS : NAME GENDER AGE : : : Male 18-20 HSE 1 year Female 21-25 UG 2 years 26-30 PG 30&above Others 3years 3 years above
QUALIFICATION: EXPERIENCE :
MONTHLY INCOME: below 3000
3000-5000
5000- 8000
8000 & above
MARITAL STATUS: Married
Unmarried
NUMBER OF DEPENDANTS: 1
4 & above
114
Please tick mark the relevant answer as provided against each question.
Strongly Disagree
Environment
1. My work area is a safe working environment. 2. My work area is clean and comfortable with necessary equipments. 3. I maintain a good balance between work and other aspects of my life.
4. I am satisfied with my working conditions they are up to my expectation. 5. I have the flexibility to arrange my work schedule to meet my personal/family responsibilities.
Team Work
6. My superior gives me help and support. 7. My supervisor gives feedback on what I am doing right and where to improve. 8. I am able to work in team with my co-workers. 9. My department communicates well with other departments in my organization. 10. My department makes a valuable contribution to my organization. 11. My department meets its customer requirements.
Management Effectiveness
12. Management pays careful attention to my suggestion. 13. I trust management.
14. Management has a good understanding of what goes on in my department. 15. I am treated with respect by management.
16. I wish to give suggestions for the development of the organization. A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi 115
Disagree
Strongly Agree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
17. Management keeps my department adequately informed about what is going on in the organization. 18. My organization encourages me to help in developing improved work processes.
19. At my organization, management seeks the involvement of employees when making important decisions. 20. My organization is sensitive to my individual needs. 21. I know what is happening in other parts of my organization.
Reward and Recognition

22. I am recognized for my good work. 23. I receive appropriate feedback about my performance. 24. My organization has realistic work expectations. 25. I am satisfied with the pay and benefit I receive 26. Promotions are based on the performance.
Competency
27. I receive adequate training relevant to my job.
28. I have the skills I consider most important to do my job effectively. 29. Training helps me to improve my performance. 30. I feel stress in my job.
31. My organization helps me to develop myself and my career. 32. I think my work is overloaded.
Commitment
33. I am willing to put in extra effort when necessary. 34. I am proud to say I work in my organization.
Strongly Agree
Neutral
Involvement
Agree
35. I am loyal to my organization.

36. I plan to spend my entire career in my organization.
37. I have a high working morale.

38. I recommend my organization as the best place to work to others.
39. What are the greatest strengths of your organization?
40. What are the areas that need the most improvement in your organization?
Thank You for your cooperation
117

A Study On Organization Climate in Mafoi Management Consultants LTD

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A Study On Organization Climate in Mafoi Management Consultants LTD

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

1.1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi

A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi

A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi

A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi

Organizational values and norms conformity, loyalty, impersonality and reciprocity.

1.3 NEED FOR THE STUDY

A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi

CHAPTER II 2.1 INDUSTRY PROFILE

A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi

A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi

A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi

A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi

Internal consultants are often uniquely suited to

1. Lead external consulting project teams, or

A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi

2.2 COMPANY PROFILE

A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi

A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi

A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi

HR audit HR policy manual design

employee engagement study

employee satisfaction study

organization structure design

variable pay-plan designing job evaluation study compliance advisory service

design & implementation

facilitate KRA/KPI setting

performance management systems

manpower rightsizing career transition consultative training

A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi

efforts on Education, Employability and Micro-Enterprise.

A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi

3.1 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

 To find out the climate in the organization.

 To find out the factors affecting the organizational climate

 To find out the problems faced by the employees in general

 To give relevant suggestion to improve the organization climate

A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi

3.2 HYPOTHESIS OF STUDY

3.3 DATA COLLECTION METHOD

A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi

3.5 STATISTICAL TOOLS:

ONE WAY ANOVA TEST

To calculate the value of F:

Variance between Samples Variance with in Samples

A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi

3.6 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

 Opinions of employees may be biased at time.

A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi

CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi

Table 2: Gender wise representation of the respondents

Table 3: Educational Qualification wise representation of the respondents

A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi

Table 4: Experience wise representation of the respondents

Table 5: Marital Status wise representation of the respondents

A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi

Table 6: My work area is a safe working Environment

A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi

Table 7: My working area is clean and comfortable with necessary equipments

A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi

To find out the climate in the organization.

To find out the factors affecting the organizational climate

To find out the problems faced by the employees in general

To give relevant suggestion to improve the organization climate

Opinions of employees may be biased at time.