No AI Generated Content
Analyzing the Effects of Green Training Sample Content on Healthcare Job Roles Assignment Sample
Get Free Samples Written by our Top-Notch Subject Expert Writers known for providing the Best Assignment writing service in Australia
Surveys are done to assimilate changes in the organization where the authorities are explaining more about the product upgrades. The main aim of the report is to provide examples of the application of data analysis and to present real material to show the efficiency of the results to the users of this report. Companies' employees are basically examined in this report about what they feel or whether they are satisfied or not with their work. Minjee Lee the Chief Analyst of the company has been given a responsibility by the CEO (Margot Robbie) to obtain an overview of all facets of the company’s employees. In this report, the given data sheets are examined and analysed to get accurate answers to the stated questions.
2.2 Memorandum
Date: 25th August 2022
To: Minjee Lee, Chief Analyst
From: Margot Robbie, CEO
Subject: Analysis of Employee Survey Data
Dear Minjee,
1. Summarisation of key variables of interest
- a) income that is distributed to the employees as a reward for their job roles is estimated at around 59.1105 as a means value. As stated by Dili-Ruiz et al. (2018), there are varieties of degrees that are estimated to the income levels where the people are estimating more nominal view to integrating more viable income to initiate more insight to provide job facilities. There are a total of 400 sample sizes from where the company has distributed their whole financial retrains to their employees. Casper the calculation it can be stated that the standard error is estimated at 1.41 (Nelson et al. 2018). The seems if the employees are getting enough salary to spend their needs, then job satisfaction will be increased to a great extent.
- b) job satisfaction can be referred to as the employees getting more viable returns to get the overall explanations that can be redeemed. Job satisfaction enables the accurate changes that are deprived in managing the overall siuasituationsdge et al. 2020). If the salaries are high then job satisfaction can be reflected in a good way. Employees work in a systematic way to get exact returns and the company thinks the same font.
2. Exploring relationships between two variables
- a) Two variables are being used to determine sample sizing activities that have determined that job satisfaction and income have originated through positive relationships. Furthermore, productivity in job satisfaction and income has explored positive relationships, which has established a positive mean value of 59.1105. Additionally, the standard deviation is 28.21146232 which explored positive relations between two variables (Kasalak and Dagyar 2020).
- b) Based on the positive value of standard deviation 795.8866063 has provided a positive correlation. In this relative exposure to present productivity in job satisfaction (Pinzone et al. 2019). Additionally, productivity and job satisfaction has been organized by descriptive statistics that explored a maximum value of 689, which has explored job satisfaction that has been provided to employees.
- c) Based on statistical analysis explored female employees' maximum income is less than male candidates proof less job satisfaction has been identified in female candidates (Liu et al. 2019). Hence, Kurtosis -1.58107 is the primary explored job satisfaction that has been identified in organizational productivity. Additionally, the confidence level of income has presented 2.773084, which has explored productivity in job satisfaction.
3. Estimating employee measures
- a) future budgets are made to show the 40 weeks' work duration in the office to state the job satisfaction to redeem the company policy. The working hours that are identified from calculations are 0.987439.
- b) Company culture and productivity impact on employee’s performance that has been presented that there are more viable changes. estimated proportions are belongs to the employees who are required to decrease the working hours which were obtained above.
4. Employee claims
- a) as per the business report it is claimed that more than a salary of 62,000 is being given to inverse the morality of the company. employees can be stated as an integral part of the company where they need to advise more of their potential to get more viable returns. Therefore, in case of an increase in salary, the whole mean value will be changed (Lu et al. 2019). This shows that the company will get more loss by comparing each genre in order to facilitate more viable norms. This increasing loss can be retrieved to a great extent.
- b) the calculations that are done to showcase the job satisfaction part need to be redeemed by glancing more thoughts to get more returns. It is claimed that less than 40% of employees enjoy their work but from the calculation, it can be stated that 75% of the employees get great satisfaction from their job attributes (Meng and Berger 2019). It is also stated that the company needs to retrieve its policies to get more competencies.
5. Choosing of appropriate sample size
- a) A sample size of 400 participants has delivered personal information and job satisfaction-related information that prescribe productivity of the organization and member union that helps to present each question data analysis for presenting statistical analysis. Based on CI mean, the population standard division is 0.029190198, which has explored collective information of data has authenticity and less volatile that presenting an appropriate analysis of the whole data set (Paais and Pattiruhu 2020).
- b) Moreover, the Z value of 1.644853627 is presenting job satisfaction depending on other variables, not only on income. Sampling errors have explored the value of -0.480042202, which helps to present limited eros are find out in this data set. Moreover, the interval upper and lower limit has explored 1.959963985 and 0.075557375 which present variance of the two variables is limited.
Conclusion
Based on the above context it can be stated that the job performance and satisfaction level of the employees are determined by using descriptive statistics. The above-mentioned calculations have shown drastic changes that are acquired to get the exact variables that needed to be assimilated to gain more competence. The confidence level that has been stated in this format is retrieved from the population size, income level and job satisfaction. This is also stated that there are many other influences that can be retrieved from the hypothetical analysis where they are differentiated in managing the changes in the company aspects. An analyst is inverted by the stated values that are ascertained in the values. Job characteristics have been renamed by assimilation where the job requirements are more and the strategies to output of more retrieval policies.
Data Analysis (Part B)
Q1(a)
Income |
|
Mean |
59.1105 |
Standard Error |
1.410573116 |
Median |
52.4 |
Mode |
45 |
Standard Deviation |
28.21146232 |
Sample Variance |
795.8866063 |
Kurtosis |
1.718329189 |
Skewness |
1.213267748 |
Range |
163.6 |
Minimum |
20.2 |
Maximum |
183.8 |
Sum |
23644.2 |
Count |
400 |
Confidence Level(95.0%) |
2.773084192 |
z-Test: Two Sample for Means |
||
Gender |
Job Satisfaction |
|
Mean |
1.495 |
1.725 |
Known Variance |
1 |
3 |
Observations |
400 |
400 |
Hypothesized Mean Difference |
2 |
|
z |
-22.3 |
|
P(Z<=z) one-tail |
0 |
|
z Critical one-tail |
1.644853627 |
|
P(Z<=z) two-tail |
0 |
|
z Critical two-tail |
1.959963985 |
Q1(b)
Job Satisfaction |
|
Mean |
1.726817 |
Standard Error |
0.038487 |
Median |
2 |
Mode |
2 |
Standard Deviation |
0.768774 |
Sample Variance |
0.591013 |
Kurtosis |
1.164089 |
Skewness |
1.077723 |
Range |
3 |
Minimum |
1 |
Maximum |
4 |
Sum |
689 |
Count |
399 |
Confidence Level (95.0%) |
0.075663 |
Q2(a)
Income |
Stay Org |
||
Mean |
59.1105 |
Mean |
2.7425 |
Standard Error |
1.410573 |
Standard Error |
0.058622 |
Median |
52.4 |
Median |
2 |
Mode |
45 |
Mode |
4 |
Standard Deviation |
28.21146 |
Standard Deviation |
1.172446 |
Sample Variance |
795.8866 |
Sample Variance |
1.37463 |
Kurtosis |
1.718329 |
Kurtosis |
-1.58107 |
Skewness |
1.213268 |
Skewness |
-0.09764 |
Range |
163.6 |
Range |
3 |
Minimum |
20.2 |
Minimum |
1 |
Maximum |
183.8 |
Maximum |
4 |
Sum |
23644.2 |
Sum |
1097 |
Count |
400 |
Count |
400 |
Confidence Level(95.0%) |
2.773084 |
Confidence Level (95.0%) |
0.115247 |
Q2(b)
Gender |
Member Union |
||
Mean |
1.495 |
Mean |
1.8275 |
Standard Error |
0.02919 |
Standard Error |
0.018914 |
Median |
1 |
Median |
2 |
Mode |
1 |
Mode |
2 |
Standard Deviation |
0.583804 |
Standard Deviation |
0.378288 |
Sample Variance |
0.340827 |
Sample Variance |
0.143102 |
Kurtosis |
-0.48004 |
Kurtosis |
1.033396 |
Skewness |
0.703085 |
Skewness |
-1.74019 |
Range |
2 |
Range |
1 |
Minimum |
1 |
Minimum |
1 |
Maximum |
3 |
Maximum |
2 |
Sum |
598 |
Sum |
731 |
Count |
400 |
Count |
400 |
Confidence Level (95.0%) |
0.057386 |
Confidence Level (95.0%) |
0.037184 |
Q2(c)
Age |
Man Employee Rel |
||
Mean |
39.41 |
Mean |
2.3475 |
Standard Error |
0.53055 |
Standard Error |
0.052786 |
Median |
38 |
Median |
2 |
Mode |
33 |
Mode |
3 |
Standard Deviation |
10.611 |
Standard Deviation |
1.055713 |
Sample Variance |
112.5934 |
Sample Variance |
1.11453 |
Kurtosis |
-0.36256 |
Kurtosis |
-0.13838 |
Skewness |
0.476206 |
Skewness |
0.45088 |
Range |
51 |
Range |
4 |
Minimum |
18 |
Minimum |
1 |
Maximum |
69 |
Maximum |
5 |
Sum |
15764 |
Sum |
939 |
Count |
400 |
Count |
400 |
Confidence Level (95.0%) |
1.043023 |
Confidence Level (95.0%) |
0.103773 |
Q3(a)
Work hours |
|||
Mean |
45.4325 |
Mean |
#DIV/0! |
Standard Error |
0.502277 |
Standard Error |
65535 |
Median |
40 |
Median |
#NUM! |
Mode |
40 |
Mode |
#N/A |
Standard Deviation |
10.04553 |
Standard Deviation |
#DIV/0! |
Sample Variance |
100.9127 |
Sample Variance |
#DIV/0! |
Kurtosis |
2.820596 |
Kurtosis |
#DIV/0! |
Skewness |
1.543923 |
Skewness |
#DIV/0! |
Range |
61 |
Range |
0 |
Minimum |
28 |
Minimum |
0 |
Maximum |
89 |
Maximum |
0 |
Sum |
18173 |
Sum |
0 |
Count |
400 |
Count |
0 |
Confidence Level (95.0%) |
0.987439 |
Confidence Level (95.0%) |
#NUM! |
Q3(b)
ProudOrg |
|
Mean |
1.5525 |
Standard Error |
0.043851 |
Median |
1 |
Mode |
1 |
Standard Deviation |
0.877021 |
Sample Variance |
0.769167 |
Kurtosis |
2.185803 |
Skewness |
1.720832 |
Range |
3 |
Minimum |
1 |
Maximum |
4 |
Sum |
621 |
Count |
400 |
Confidence Level(95.0%) |
0.086208 |
Q4(a)
1Hrs |
Income |
||
Mean |
45.4325 |
Mean |
59.1105 |
Standard Error |
0.502277 |
Standard Error |
1.410573 |
Median |
40 |
Median |
52.4 |
Mode |
40 |
Mode |
45 |
Standard Deviation |
10.04553 |
Standard Deviation |
28.21146 |
Sample Variance |
100.9127 |
Sample Variance |
795.8866 |
Kurtosis |
2.820596 |
Kurtosis |
1.718329 |
Skewness |
1.543923 |
Skewness |
1.213268 |
Range |
61 |
Range |
163.6 |
Minimum |
28 |
Minimum |
20.2 |
Maximum |
89 |
Maximum |
183.8 |
Sum |
18173 |
Sum |
23644.2 |
Count |
400 |
Count |
400 |
Confidence Level (95.0%) |
0.987439 |
Confidence Level (95.0%) |
2.773084 |
Q4(b)
Job Characteristics |
|
Mean |
3.325 |
Standard Error |
0.054827 |
Median |
4 |
Mode |
4 |
Standard Deviation |
1.096531 |
Sample Variance |
1.202381 |
Kurtosis |
0.111642 |
Skewness |
-0.981 |
Range |
4 |
Minimum |
1 |
Maximum |
5 |
Sum |
1330 |
Count |
400 |
Confidence Level (95.0%) |
0.107785 |
Q5
Income |
Job Satisfaction |
||
Mean |
59.1105 |
Mean |
1.725 |
Standard Error |
1.410573 |
Standard Error |
0.038433 |
Median |
52.4 |
Median |
2 |
Mode |
45 |
Mode |
2 |
Standard Deviation |
28.21146 |
Standard Deviation |
0.768669 |
Sample Variance |
795.8866 |
Sample Variance |
0.590852 |
Kurtosis |
1.718329 |
Kurtosis |
1.168085 |
Skewness |
1.213268 |
Skewness |
1.080445 |
Range |
163.6 |
Range |
3 |
Minimum |
20.2 |
Minimum |
1 |
Maximum |
183.8 |
Maximum |
4 |
Sum |
23644.2 |
Sum |
690 |
Count |
400 |
Count |
400 |
Confidence Level(95.0%) |
2.773084 |
Confidence Level (95.0%) |
0.075557 |
CIMean
Confidence Interval for mean (m) |
||
Data |
||
Population Standard Deviation (s) |
0.02919 |
|
|
200 |
|
Sample Size (n) |
400 |
|
Confidence Level |
95% |
|
|
||
Standard Error of the Mean ( ) |
0.02919 |
|
Z Value |
1.644854 |
|
Sampling Error/Margin of Error (= SE *Z Value) |
-0.48004 |
|
Confidence Interval |
||
Interval Lower Limit (= Sample Mean - ME) |
1.959964 |
|
Interval Upper Limit (= Sample Mean + ME) |
0.075557 |
CIProportion
Confidence Interval for proportion (p) |
||
Data |
||
Sample Size (n) |
400 |
|
Count of Successes |
152 |
|
Confidence Level |
95% |
|
Intermediate Calculations |
||
Sample Proportion (p) |
0.53055 |
|
Z Value |
2.820596 |
|
|
1.11453 |
|
Sampling Error/Margin of Error (= SE * Z Value) |
2.185803 |
|
Confidence Interval |
||
Interval Lower Limit (= Sample Proportion - ME) |
1.543923 |
|
Interval Upper Limit (= Sample Proportion + ME) |
1.720832 |
SampleSize
Sample size for a Proportion |
|
Data |
|
Estimate of True Proportion ( p or p ) |
0.502277 |
Sampling Error/Margin of Error |
0.703085 |
Confidence Level |
1.077723 |
Intermediate Calculations |
|
Z value |
65535 |
Calculated Sample Size |
1.718329 |
Result |
|
Minimum Sample Size Needed |
0.476206 |
Sample size for a Mean |
|
Data |
|
Population OR Sample Standard Deviation ( s or s) |
0.877021 |
Sampling Error/Margin of Error |
10.04553 |
Confidence Level |
0.086208 |
Intermediate Calculations |
|
Z value |
2.820596 |
Calculated Sample Size |
1.720832 |
Result |
|
Minimum Sample Size Needed |
0.043851 |
HT Mean
Hypothesis Test for µ (Mean) |
||
Hypotheses |
||
Null Hypothesis |
µ |
28.21146 |
Alternative Hypothesis |
µ |
0.111642 |
Test Type |
||
Level of significance |
||
α |
-0.48004 |
|
Critical Region |
||
Critical Value (s) |
183.8 |
|
Population Standard Deviation |
-0.981 |
|
Sample Data |
||
Sample Mean |
0.107785 |
|
Sample Size |
1.213268 |
|
Standard Error of the Mean |
23644.2 |
|
Z Sample Statistic |
1.080445 |
|
p-value |
23644.2 |
|
Decision |
||
Sample data has been presented has improvise salary stracture has need in organizational benefits . |
Hypothesis Test for µ (Mean) |
||
Hypotheses |
||
Null Hypothesis |
µ |
59.1105 |
Alternative Hypothesis |
µ |
1.720832 |
Test Type |
||
Level of significance |
||
α |
||
Critical Region |
||
Degrees of Freedom |
1.410573 |
|
Critical Value (s) |
1.213268 |
|
Sample Data |
||
Sample Standard Deviation |
20.2 |
|
Sample Mean |
-0.13838 |
|
Sample Size |
0.45088 |
|
Standard Error of the Mean |
400 |
|
t Sample Statistic |
1.720832 |
|
p-value |
65535 |
|
Decision |
||
Null hypothesis has presented that need to be developed by higher produced |
HT Proportion
Hypothesis Test for π (Proportion) |
||
Hypotheses |
||
Null Hypothesis |
π |
3.325 |
Alternative Hypothesis |
π |
0.054827 |
Test Type |
0.768669 |
|
Level of significance |
||
α |
23644.2 |
|
Critical Region |
||
Critical Value (s) |
1.213268 |
|
Sample Data |
||
Sample Size |
18173 |
|
Count of 'Successes' |
100.9127 |
|
Sample proportion, p |
163.6 |
|
Standard Error |
0.075557 |
|
Z Sample Statistic |
20.2 |
|
p-value |
-1.58107 |
|
Decision |
||
Null hypothesis has presented has in this projected dataset |
References
- Dilig-Ruiz, A., MacDonald, I., Varin, M.D., Vandyk, A., Graham, I.D. and Squires, J.E., 2018. Job satisfaction among critical care nurses: A systematic review. International journal of nursing studies, 88, pp.123-134.
- Judge, T.A., Zhang, S.C. and Glerum, D.R., 2020. Job satisfaction. Essentials of job attitudes and other workplace psychological constructs, pp.207-241.
- Kasalak, G. and Dagyar, M., 2020. The Relationship between Teacher Self-Efficacy and Teacher Job Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis of the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS). Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 20(3), pp.16-33.
- Liu, J., Zhu, B., Wu, J. and Mao, Y., 2019. Job satisfaction, work stress, and turnover intentions among rural health workers: a cross-sectional study in 11 western provinces of China. BMC family practice, 20(1), pp.1-11.
- Lu, H., Zhao, Y. and While, A., 2019. Job satisfaction among hospital nurses: A literature review. International journal of nursing studies, 94, pp.21-31.
- Meng, J. and Berger, B.K., 2019. The impact of organizational culture and leadership performance on PR professionals’ job satisfaction: Testing the joint mediating effects of engagement and trust. Public Relations Review, 45(1), pp.64-75.
- Nelson, A., Cooper, C.L. and Jackson, P.R., 2018. Uncertainty amidst change: The impact of privatization on employee job satisfaction and well-being. In Managerial, Occupational and Organizational Stress Research (pp. 345-359). Routledge.
- Paais, M. and Pattiruhu, J.R., 2020. Effect of motivation, leadership, and organizational culture on satisfaction and employee performance. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(8), pp.577-588.
- Pinzone, M., Guerci, M., Lettieri, E. and Huisingh, D., 2019. Effects of ‘green’training on pro-environmental behaviors and job satisfaction: Evidence from the Italian healthcare sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 226, pp.221-232.