AMITY UNIVERSITY NOIDA
AMITY INSTITUTE OF PSYCHOLOGY AND ALLIED SCIENCES
INTRODUCTION TO SPSS (STAT626)
M.A. ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY (SEMESTER 2)
SPSS ASSIGNMENT: EMPLOYEE SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
SUBMITTED BY:
Muskaan Saksena
A1698924073
MA OP (Section A)
SUBMITTED TO:
Dr Shruti Dutt
EMPLOYEE SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this survey was to gather insights into employee perceptions regarding their
job satisfaction, work-life balance, and overall workplace experience within the organization.
By analyzing these factors, the study aims to understand how different variables such as
department, years at the company, and salary may relate to employees’ levels of satisfaction
and well-being.
The dataset titled "employee_survey_data.sav" includes responses from 15 employees and
contains the following variables:
Employee ID: Unique identifier for each employee
Age: Age of the employee
Gender: Gender (Male/Female)
Department: Department in which the employee works (Sales, HR, Marketing)
Job Satisfaction: Self-reported job satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 5
Work-Life Balance: Self-reported balance between work and personal life (1 to 5
scale)
Years at Company: Number of years the employee has been with the organization
Salary: Annual salary of the employee
METHODOLOGY
The analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics software.
Descriptive statistics were performed to explore central tendencies and distributions of key
variables including Age, Job Satisfaction, Work-Life Balance, Years at Company, and Salary.
Visualization techniques such as histograms and boxplots were used for graphical
exploration. Correlation analysis was conducted to examine relationships between variables.
A one-way ANOVA was performed to compare job satisfaction scores across departments,
and a paired samples t-test was used to assess differences between job satisfaction and work-
life balance.
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics on the variables Age, Job Satisfaction, Work Life Balance,
Years_At_Company, and Salary.
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Age 15 26 45 33.87 5.780
Job_Satisfaction 15 2 5 3.53 1.060
Work_Life_Balance 15 2 5 3.47 .990
Years_At_Company 15 1 15 5.40 4.154
Salary 15 43000 68000 54133.33 7443.757
Valid N (listwise) 15
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for five variables: Age, Job Satisfaction, Work Life
Balance, Years at Company, and Salary, based on a sample of 15 participants.
Age ranges from 26 to 45 years, with a mean age of 33.87, indicating that most
employees are in their early to mid-30s.
Job Satisfaction has a mean score of 3.53 (on a scale of 1–5), suggesting that
employees are moderately satisfied with their jobs.
Work Life Balance shows a mean of 3.47, which also indicates a moderate level of
balance experienced by the employees.
Years at Company varies from 1 to 15 years, with an average of 5.40 years,
reflecting a fair mix of both new and more experienced employees.
Salary ranges between ₹43,000 to ₹68,000, with an average salary of ₹54,133.33,
showing a relatively moderate pay scale among the participants.
GRAPHS AND VISUALIZATIONS
Graph 1: Histogram showing the distribution of Job Satisfaction across Age Groups
The histogram shows that most participants are between 28 and 36 years old, with fewer in
their mid-20s and mid-40s. The average age is 33.87, and the data is moderately spread (SD
= 5.78). If linked to job satisfaction, insights will mostly reflect the views of people in their
early to mid-30s, with limited data from younger and older age groups.
Graph 2: Histogram showing the distribution of Job Satisfaction in relation to Work Life
balance
The histogram shows that most participants reported moderate to high job satisfaction (mean
= 3.53), with the highest frequency at rating 4. The distribution is slightly skewed toward
higher satisfaction, and responses show low variability (SD = 1.06). This suggests generally
positive job satisfaction, possibly linked to work-life balance.
Graph 3: Histogram showing the distribution of Work Life balance in relation to Years at the
Company
Graph 4: Histogram showing the distribution of Salary in relation to Years at the Company
Graph 5: Histogram showing the distribution of Salary in relation to Job Satisfaction
Graph 6: Boxplot showing Job Satisfaction across Different Departments
Case Processing Summary
Department Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
HR 5 100.0% 0 0.0% 5 100.0%
Job_Satisfaction Marketin 5 100.0% 0 0.0% 5 100.0%
Sales 5 100.0% 0 0.0% 5 100.0%
Job_Satisfaction
Graph 6: Boxplot showing Work Life Balance across Genders
Case Processing Summary
Gender Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Female 7 100.0% 0 0.0% 7 100.0%
Work_Life_Balance
Male 8 100.0% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%
Work_Life_Balance
Table 2: Correlation between Job Satisfaction, Work Life Balance, Years at Company and
Salary
Job_Satisfaction Work_Life_Balance Years_At_Compa Salary
ny
Pearson Correlation 1 .766** .305 .642**
Job_Satisfaction Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .269 .010
N 15 15 15 15
Pearson Correlation .766** 1 .264 .572*
Work_Life_Balance Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .342 .026
N 15 15 15 15
Years_At_Company Pearson Correlation .305 .264 1 .846**
Sig. (2-tailed) .269 .342 .000
N 15 15 15 15
Pearson Correlation .642** .572* .846** 1
Salary Sig. (2-tailed) .010 .026 .000
N 15 15 15 15
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
The Pearson correlation matrix explores the relationships among Job Satisfaction, Work Life
Balance, Years at Company, and Salary.
Job Satisfaction and Work Life Balance show a strong positive correlation (r =
0.766, p = 0.001), indicating that higher job satisfaction is significantly associated with
better work-life balance.
Job Satisfaction and Salary also demonstrate a moderate to strong positive
correlation (r = 0.642, p = 0.010), suggesting that higher salaries are linked to greater
job satisfaction.
Work Life Balance and Salary exhibit a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.572, p =
0.026), meaning better work-life balance tends to be associated with higher salaries.
Years at Company and Salary have a very strong positive correlation (r = 0.846, p =
0.000), indicating that longer tenure is strongly associated with higher salary.
Job Satisfaction and Years at Company, as well as Work Life Balance and Years at
Company, show weak and non-significant correlations (r = 0.305 and r = 0.264
respectively), suggesting little to no direct relationship between tenure and these
variables in this sample.
Table 3: ANOVA Comparison of Mean Job Satisfaction Scores Across Different Departments
Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Between
9.733 3 3.244 5.948 .012
Groups
Within Groups 6.000 11 .545
Total 15.733 14
Interpretation of ANOVA Results: Job Satisfaction Across Departments
The ANOVA results indicate a statistically significant difference in mean Job Satisfaction
scores across different departments:
The F-value is 5.948, and the p-value (Sig.) is 0.012.
Since the p-value is less than 0.05, the difference is significant at the 5% level.
These findings suggest that departmental affiliation has a meaningful impact on
employee Job Satisfaction. In other words, employees from different departments
experience different levels of satisfaction in their jobs. This variation could be due to several
factors such as departmental workload, management style, team dynamics, job roles, or
growth opportunities available in each department.
Table 4: Comparision of Job Satisfaction and Work Life Balance among employees using
Paired-Sample t-test
Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Job_Satisfaction 3.53 15 1.060 .274
Pair 1
Work_Life_Balance 3.47 15 .990 .256
Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Job_Satisfaction &
Pair 1 15 .766 .001
Work_Life_Balance
Paired Samples Test
A Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence
Deviatio Error Interval of the
n Mean Difference
Lower Upper
Job_Satisfaction
-
1 .067 .704 .182 -.323 .456 .367 14 .719
Work_Life_Bala
nce
Paired Samples t-test was conducted to compare the mean scores of Job Satisfaction and
Work Life Balance among employees, to examine whether there is a statistically significant
difference between the two related variables.
The mean score for Job Satisfaction was 3.53, and for Work Life Balance it was
3.47, with a small mean difference of 0.067.
The standard deviation of the difference was 0.704, and the standard error was
0.182, indicating relatively low variability in the difference between these paired
scores.
The test resulted in a t-value of 0.367 with 14 degrees of freedom, and a p-value of
0.719.
Since the p-value (0.719) is greater than the significance level of 0.05, the result is not
statistically significant. This implies that there is no meaningful difference between how
employees perceive their job satisfaction and their work-life balance.
In other words, the employees in this sample rated their job satisfaction and work-life balance
similarly, suggesting that these two aspects of their work experience are relatively aligned.
CONCLUSION
The analysis explored key workplace variables including Job Satisfaction, Work Life
Balance, Years at Company, Salary, and Age across a sample of 15 employees. Descriptive
statistics revealed that employees had moderate levels of job satisfaction (M = 3.53) and
work-life balance (M = 3.47), with an average tenure of 5.4 years and a mean salary of
₹54,133.33. The variability in responses, as seen through standard deviations, suggests some
degree of individual difference in experiences.
Correlation analysis demonstrated several meaningful relationships. A strong positive
correlation was found between Job Satisfaction and Work Life Balance (r = .766, p
= .001), indicating that employees who are more satisfied with their jobs also tend to report
better work-life balance. Similarly, Salary showed significant positive correlations with both
Job Satisfaction (r = .642, p = .010) and Work Life Balance (r = .572, p = .026),
suggesting financial compensation plays a role in shaping both outcomes. Notably, Years at
Company was strongly correlated with Salary (r = .846, p < .001), reflecting expected
growth in compensation with experience.
A paired samples t-test comparing Job Satisfaction and Work Life Balance showed no
statistically significant difference (t = .367, p = .719), indicating that employees tend to
perceive both aspects similarly. This consistency suggests that efforts to improve one could
positively impact the other.
Furthermore, ANOVA results revealed a significant difference in Job Satisfaction across
different departments (F = 5.948, p = .012). This implies that employees' levels of
satisfaction are influenced by the department they work in. It highlights the importance of
addressing department-specific factors that could be affecting morale and engagement, such
as leadership style, team dynamics, work demands, or resources.
In conclusion, the findings underscore the interconnectedness of employee experiences and
reveal key areas of focus for organizational improvement. Specifically, fostering work-life
balance, ensuring fair compensation, and understanding departmental differences can all
contribute to enhancing overall job satisfaction and employee well-being.
