Report Last Sarah

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING REPORT
AT
GD EXPRESS SDN BHD,
PETALING JAYA, SELANGOR
BY
SITI SARAH BT JANURI
(2003330728)
INDUSTRIAL TRAINING REPORT

AT
GD EXPRESS SDN BHD,
NO 19, JALAN TANDANG,
40450 PETALING JAYA,
SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN.
BY
(2003330728)
REPORT
SUBMITTED
TO
FACULTY OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
AND QUANTITATIVE SCIENCES
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA
SHAH ALAM
AS PART OF REQUIREMENT
19
FOR
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE (HONS) (STATISTICS)
29th NOVEMBER 2005
Supervisors Approval :
--------------------------------------------------------------Puan Ida Rosmini bt. Othman

Faculty of Information Technology and Quantitative Sciences
Universiti Teknologi Mara
Shah Alam
Selangor Darul Ehsan
20
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Praise to Allah, the Most Gracious and the Most Merciful Lord for His Blessing.
I wish to express my gratitude to my supervisors Puan Mazni bt. Mohamad
and Puan Ida Rosmini bt. Othman, for their guidance, enduring patience and
encouragement during the completion of this report. I also wish to thank the
coordinator of industrial training, Encik Mohd Zain b. Hamzah.
I would like to extend my appreciation to the Board of Director of GD
Express Sdn Bhd, Mr. Leong Teck Lean for giving me the opportunity to do
industrial training at GD Express Sdn Bhd.
Many thanks to the Head of Domestic Public Relation Department of GD
Express Sdn Bhd, Puan Zaihanizah bt Borhan and Head of Human Resource, Miss
Mala a/p Kupusamy as my organizations supervisor for their guidance and help. My
gratitude is also for all staff of GD Express Sdn Bhd, who has helped and supported
me during this training. Also, to GDex organizations supported this study. All are
thanked for their ongoing support throughout the many vicissitudes of this complex
and challenging process. The time and effort staff took in completing the
questionnaire made this study possible.
Last, a heartfelt thank you to my parents and friends for their constant
patience, guidance and support.
21st NOVEMBER, 2005
21
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study is to identify the factors contribute to satisfaction of

workers at GD Express Sdn Bhd and to look at the relationship between level of
satisfaction of workers and their performance. Organizational theorists have shown
that organizational effectiveness is closely associated with how human resource and
their functions are organized. Effectively managed employees are expected to
demonstrate higher levels of commitment toward the organization and higher levels
of job satisfaction. A survey of 190 officer level and executive levels of GDEx
workers was conducted using questionnaire. The methods of analysis used in this
study were test of normality, test of association- chi- square analysis, comparison
mean, regression analysis and factor analysis. The findings show that, on the whole,
officer reported a higher level of satisfaction compared to executive level. In
addition, workers satisfaction showed no relationship between performances. Four
predictor variables are employer, department, facilities and needs were selected to
test on level of satisfaction.
The results showed there is significant linear
relationship between employer and department with level of satisfaction. While,

there is no linear relationship between facilities and needs with level of satisfaction.
The study revealed that the level of satisfaction and employer have the highest
positive correlation
22
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENT
PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ABSTRACT
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
vi
CHAPTER ONE : INTRODUCTION

1.1
Background of Industrial Training
1.2
Objectives of Industrial Training
1.3
Background of the Company
1.4
Philosophy of the Company
1.5
Mission of the Company
1.6
Vision of the Company
1.7
Quality Policy of the Company
1.8
Organization Chart of the Company
CHAPTER TWO : BACKGROUND

2.1
A Study on Level of Satisfaction among Workers at GD

Express Sdn Bhd
2.2
Background of the Study
2.3
Problem Statement
10
2.4
Objectives of the Study
10
2.5
Significance of the Study
11
2.6
Literature Review
11
CHAPTER THREE : METHODOLOGY

3.1
Scope of the Study
16
3.2
Method of Data Collection
16
3.3
Methods of Data Analysis
17
CHAPTER FOUR : ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

4.1
Descriptive Analysis
19
4.2
Test of Normality
21
23
4.3
Test of Association- Chi- Square Analysis
24
4.4
Comparisons Mean
25
4.5
Regression Analysis
26
CHAPTER FIVE : CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1
Conclusions
34
5.2
Recommendations
35
REFERENCES
APPENDIX
24
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
23
4.2.1
Test of Normality
4.3.1
Test of Association- Chi- Square Analysis
4.4.1
Analysis of Variance
4.5.1.1
4.5.2.1
4.5.3.1
4.5.3.1.1
Correlation Analysis
Test of Multicollinearity
Data
Test significant for Each Predictor Variable
24
26
27
28
29
30
LIST OF FIGURES
25
FIGURE
PAGE
4.1.1
Percentage of Gender
19
4.1.2
Percentage of Race according Gender
20
4.1.3
4.2.1
4.4.1
4.5.3.3.1
4.5.3.3.2
Percentage of Race among Position Level

Test of Normality
Independent Sample t- test
The Residual Versus The Predicted Value
The Q-Q Plot
21
22
25
33
33
26
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1
BACKGROUND OF INDUSTRIAL TRAINING
All final year students of Bachelor of Science (Hons) (Statistics), Faculty of

Information Technology and Quantitative Sciences, Universiti Teknologi Mara, Shah
Alam are required to do industrial training. This is to expose the students to working
life where they can apply the theories that they learn at the university. All students
must give commitment to the duties that are assigned to them during the training.
1.2
OBJECTIVES OF INDUSTRIAL TRAINING
The objectives of industrial training are:

(1)
To practice the theory that has been studied at the university by solving the
research problem and analyzing the real data.
(2)
To expose students to the new development in research and data analysis.
(3)
To get working experience for enhancing knowledge in many aspects.
1.3 BACKGROUND OF THE DEPARTMENT
27
GD Express Sdn Bhd (GDex) was formed in 1997 to provide express delivery
service for both the domestic and international markets. It operates a network of 73
stations, comprising 36 branches, 6 affiliate stations and 31 agents throughout East
and West Malaysia. GDex has a fleet of more than 170 trucks and vans used
primarily for hauling of documents and parcels between stations and the National
Hub (termed "line-haul" fleet) for local pick-ups and deliveries. The company's
express delivery service operations are structured along the principles of the "Hub
and Spoke" concept whereby customers' packages are collected by the branches, sent
by trucks to a Central Clearing Hub for sorting and then redirected to their ultimate
destinations.
GDex is the first local express delivery company to obtain ISO 9001: 2000
(Quality Management System) certifications for all its entire 18 departments in 2003.
In its quest to be a world class service provider, the company has embarked on a
world class excellence training programme called the Prime Minister Quality Award
programme (PMQA) to equip its employees for world class performance in express
carrier service and operations.
GDex is listed on the Mesdaq market of Bursa Malaysia through its holding
company GD Express Carrier Bhd in May 2005. Internationally, GDEx had strategic
alliances with international courier companies such as FedEx, DHL Worldwide
Express, TNT Express and United Parcel Service. Beside that, GD Express is also
strategic partner of FedEx in Malaysia. In other word, GDEx will cover all the area
that cannot be covered by their partners.
GDEx courier services include;
1.
Domestic Express Carrier Service
28
a. Express Service
b. Diplomatic Service Bulk Service
2.
International Express Carrier Service

a.
Express Service
b.
Freight Services
3.
Customized Logistics Solutions Services

a.
Security Handling
b.
Mailroom Handling
c.
Project Handling
4.
Customer Service
a.
Call center at HQ for pick up and help desk.
b.
Customer service staff at every branch.
c.
Tracking and tracing Service.
d.
Unique reference number for each call.
e.
Online tracking
The success of GDEx will depend on three key competencies - systems,

quality and culture. GDEx is the company that driven by their systems. The quality
processes will ensure that services provided are reliable, timely and meet the needs
of customers. The culture will emphasizes good corporate governance, performance
orientation and a desire for continues improvement. The combination of these three
competencies will enable GDEx to become the premier express carrier in Malaysia.
29
Within Malaysia, GDEx have an extensive network of stations spread across

the country to provide service to our customers. On the international front, GDEx
work with established foreign express carriers to offer express delivery services to
over 212 countries worldwide. GDEx also try to increase efficiency in their
operation. To make this thing happen GDEx already upgrade their infrastructure and
security. By upgrading infrastructure security, its make GDEx become strength in
the market. GDEx network facilities include the following:
1.4
A 25,000 sq feet central all-weather clearing hub
Comprehensive security surveillance system
More than 160 delivery vans and trucks
Over 65 stations
State-of-the-art IT system with proprietary software
A 10,000 sq feet packaging and warehouse complex
Customized storage and bulk-handling equipment
More than 800 staff
PHILOSOPHY OF THE COMPANY
30
Figure 1.1: Management Philosophy

GD Express management philosophy starts with people - ourselves, and ends
with people - our customers. Our core values revolve around people, emphasizing on
respecting, developing and caring for our staff and network members.
Correspondingly, our people are expected to be pro-active, professional, honest,
improvement seeking, think more and do more. We believe that only people with
such qualities can perform with integrity to deliver a secured and reliable express
carrier service. We are committed to fulfilling the management principles laid down
when we review, modify or reconstruct our organization structure, operating systems,
administrative functions, financial management, internal controls and marketing
strategies. We ensure every action in the company has to be objective oriented and
accountable, while every member is remunerated according to performance.
1.5 MISSION OF THE COMPANY
31
GDex has the mission to deliver the most trusted and professional express
carrier service Malaysia.
1.6 VISION OF THE COM PANY
The vision of the company is to be a market leader and industry role model
providing high quality, value for money, technology driven express delivery service.
1.7 QUALITY POLICY OF THE COMPANY
The quality policy of the company is:

Gear towards continual improvement
Deliver on time
Extra effort to ensure customer satisfaction
CHAPTER TWO
32
BACKGROUND
2.1
A STUDY ON LEVEL OF SATISFACTION AMONG WORKERS AT

GD EXPRESS SDN BHD
2.2
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Since Elton Mayo studied the work habits of the employees at the Hawthorne
Western Electric Plant in the 1920's (Pugh, 1990) and discovered that the perceptions
the employees had about how they were treated by management had some effect on
their work habits and production, there has been considerable research on job
satisfaction. By 1985, over 4700 articles had been written on some aspect of job
satisfaction (Spector, 1985). Schultz (1982) defined job satisfaction as the
psychological disposition of people toward their work - and this involves a collection
of numerous attitudes or feelings (p.287). Thus, job satisfaction or dissatisfaction
depends on a large number of factors ranging from where employees have to eat their
lunch to the sense of self fulfillment they may receive from doing their jobs.
Herzberg (1973) found that job attitudes are a powerful force and are functionally
related to the productivity, stability, and adjustment of the industrial working force
(p. 96). Also, the positive effects of high attitudes are more potent than the negative
effects of low attitudes (Herzberg, 1973, p. 96). Thus, a explanation of the factors
that produce a positive attitude about work is important to the improvement of job
performance.
33
Why is there so much research on job satisfaction? One supposition is that

there is a positive correlation between job satisfaction and productivity. However, the
evidence in support of such a relationship is not conclusive. Smith, Kendall, & Hulin
(1969) found no correlation between job satisfaction and performance. Gruneberg
(1979) stated that productivity had a stronger positive influence on job satisfaction
than job satisfaction had on productivity. Barbash (1979) stated that the relationship
between job satisfaction and performance-related behavior has yet to be significantly
proven.
When workers dissatisfaction is so high and increasing, how can you avoid
it? Or, if you are working and feel dissatisfied, how to face it? First, it is important to
know that, there are different kinds of job satisfaction. The survey taken is just to
describe overall investigation of job satisfaction. This is when a person considers the
whole job and everything about it. Overall job satisfaction is actually a combination
of intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfactions. Intrinsic job satisfaction is when workers
consider only the kind of work they do, the tasks that make up the job. Extrinsic job
satisfaction is when workers consider the conditions of work, such as their payment,
co-workers, and supervisors.
The strength of a company looked by the workers. The workers who give a
good performance such as responsibilities, commitment and efficiency will increase
the quality of work. Effective employees management are expected to demonstrate
higher levels of commitment toward the organization and higher levels of job
satisfaction. "Employees are most productive when they feel their contributions are
valued and their feedback is welcomed by management, said Max Messmer,
chairman of Accountemps and author of Motivating Employees For Dummies
34
(John Wiley & Sons, Inc.). "The reverse is also true - an unsupportive atmosphere
can lead to reduce performance levels and higher turnover for businesses."
This investigation is used to measure the satisfaction level of GDex workers.
From this study, we could see the performance of workers and the factors that
contributing of workers satisfaction
2.3
PROBLEM STATEMENT
This study is taken to look at the factors that contribute to workers loyalty
and satisfaction to the organization. The data used for this study was obtained from
questionnaire distributed among workers. This study involved the executives and
officers at GD Express Sdn Bhd at Petaling Jaya headquarter only.
2.4
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The objectives of the study are:

1.
To find the relationship between level of satisfaction and the performance.
2.
To determine whether there are any association between level of satisfaction

and the demographic factors, such as; gender, salary, position level and race.
3.
To compare the mean satisfaction score between demographic factors, such

as; gender, salary, position level and race.
4.
To identify the factors that affect of worker satisfaction.
35
2.5
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This study enables us to find out whether there are any relationship between
level of satisfaction and their performance. Besides that, it will enable us to find out
whether there is any association between level of satisfaction and demographic
factors. It is hoped that this study will be able to provide information on factors that
influence the satisfaction of workers in order to improve the facilities and better
management so that the performance of workers will increase. This will enhance the
good image of the company and enables the company to widen its business to the
higher level and more established.
2.6
LITERATURE REVIEW
A study by Shikdar AA and Das B (2003) on The Relationship between

Worker Satisfaction and Productivity in a Repetitive Industrial Task at
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Sultan Qaboos University
stated the objective of this investigation was to determine the manner by which
production standards or goals, performance or production feedback and monetary or
wage incentive affected or moderated the relationship between worker satisfaction
and productivity in a repetitive production task in a fishing industry. The industrial
study was conducted to measure worker satisfaction and productivity under various
experimental conditions involving production standards, performance feedback and
monetary incentive. Only the participative standard and performance feedback
condition affected the worker satisfaction-productivity relationship significantly for
36
the fish-trimming task. The positive correlation coefficient (0.87) for this condition
was found to be highly significant. This has an important implication for setting a
strategy for achieving higher worker satisfaction and productivity in such an
industry. Production standards with feedback generally improved worker satisfaction
and productivity. Monetary incentive further improved worker performance but
added no incremental satisfaction gain. The incorporation of production standards,
performance feedback and monetary incentive affected worker satisfaction and
productivity differently and this had an effect on the worker satisfaction-productivity
relationship. In an earlier laboratory study, no significant worker satisfactionproductivity relationship was found when subjects (college students) were provided
with similar experimental conditions.
The other study by Ibrahim Ali and Juhary Haji Ali on The Effects Of The
Interaction Of Technology, Structure, And Organizational Climate On Job
Satisfaction in Sunway Academic Journal 2, 2332 (2005). This study examines the
effects of the interaction of technology, structure, and organizational climate on job
satisfaction in power-generation plants. Correlation tests and series of hierarchical
regression analyses were performed. The study reveals several significant
correlations among these three organizational variables and with employee job
satisfaction.
Worker Satisfaction at Academic Institution is a study by Rita Johan (2002)
at Atma Jaya Ctaholic University, Jakarta, Indonesia. The objective of this study is to
know the level of satisfaction on teachers in Indonesia. The study found that job
satisfaction is an important factor for get the optimum job. Besides that, factors
37
influence the job satisfaction divided by two which is intrinsic factor and extrinsic
factor.
The Relationship between Perceived Leadership Behaviours and Job
Satisfaction of Undergraduate Trained Teachers under the Twining Program between
MPIK and UPSI is a research by Dr. Jaganathan A/L Marimuthu, Ishak bin Osman
and Noorul Aini bt. Abdul Rahman (2001). The objective of the study is to know the
relationship of teacher expectation about leadership behavior and job satisfaction.
The sample is 60 teachers doing a course Program Khas Pensiswazahan Guru
Maktab Perguruan Ilmu Khas Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris. The study found
that have positive relationship between job satisfaction and expectation of leadership
behaviours. Besides that, teachers satisfied with headmaster that have realize success,
power and responsibilities, creativity, social, better position opportunity, benefits,
working conditions and overall job satisfaction.
Sarimah (2000) on the study job satisfaction at Maktab Pengurusan
Temenggong Ibrahim (MPTI), Johor Baharu. The purpose of this study is to look
overall level of satisfaction among lecturers. 48 lecturers is a sample in this study.
The result is only 1 respondent not satisfied, 26 neutral and 21 respondent satisfied
with their job. Also, the study found that there is weak relationship between job
satisfaction with gender and years of service.
The study by Georgia Profesional Standards Commision, Atlanta, Amerika
Syarikat (1985) to know perception about the headmaster function and leadership to
execute the school activities found more 30 percent not satisfied on communication
between teachers and headmaster. This study shows the teachers hoped the
headmaster give the good communication.
38
Muchinsky (1979) found that job satisfaction and organizational climate were
correlated.
Gorton and Kalaman (1985) found in their national survey of 400 elementary
school assistant principals that over 50% of the respondents did not view their
current jobs as career positions and hoped within five years to become principals.
Twenty-nine percent wanted to become central office administrators. These studies
suggest that opportunity for advancement is important to assistant principals. Thus, it
is reasonable to assume that how an assistant principal views the opportunity for
advancement affects that persons job satisfaction. Therefore, a positive, linear
relationship between opportunity for advancement and job satisfaction was expected.
Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1959) stated that the relationship
between workers and supervisors is overrated as a variable affecting job satisfaction.
Morris Altman (University of Saskatchewan) on Job Satisfaction and
performance: Is a Happy Worker a Productive Worker? For decades, researchers have
been concerned with the job satisfaction-job performance relationship (the implicit
assumption guiding this research has been that a happy worker is a productive
worker). Even William Shakespeare wrote: "To business that we love we eagerly
arise, and go to with delight." Performance related outcomes of job satisfaction have
been studied over the years:
performance measures (ratings, quantity measures)
Job Satisfaction and Performance

1.
Correlational analyses: Incontrovertible evidence that satisfaction and
performance are weakly related Recent meta-analysis by Muchinsky & Iaffaldano

(1985) found corrected r = .17
39
2.
Causal analysis suggests that performance is more likely to cause satisfaction
than vice versa (a productive worker is a happy worker)

3.
It should be noted that some moderators of the job satisfaction job
performance relationship have been found. Specifically, the strength of the

correlation between satisfaction and performance depends on performance-reward
contingencies: higher correlations have been found when rewards are strongly tied to
performance.
40
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.1
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The survey was done at GD Express Sdn Bhd which involved only HQ (PJ).
They were grouped into two categories which were E1- E2 as the executives and A1A3 as the officers. The S1- S2 was the management officers and was not included in
the survey because both categories were provided by the management.
3.2
METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION
Source of Data
Questionnaire was used to collect information on this study. The
questionnaire consists of four sections which were Demographic Respondent, Level
of Satisfaction, Management Method and Facilities.
Sample
The population of this study was the workers of GD Express Sdn Bhd at Jalan
Tandang, Petaling Jaya. About 190 respondents from executive level (E1- E3) and
officer level (A1- A3) have been chosen from this population by simple random
sampling.
41
Calculation number of sample using estimation of proportion:

Total population, N = 460
Proportion (p) = 0.7
Standard error, d= 0.05
Alpha () = 0.05, where n=sample

n = (Z1-/2)2 p(1-p)
d2
= (1.96) 2 0.7(0.3)
(0.05) 2
= 323
adjusted n = n =
n___
1+ n
N
=
323
1.702
= 190
3.3
METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS
The methods of data analysis used in this study were:

1.
Test of normality
The purpose is to check whether a variable is normally distributed. This is
because all parametric tests require the variables analyzed to be normally
distributed.
2.
Test of Association Chi- square analysis

To determine whether there is an association between two categorical
variables in a contingency table (cross tabulation).
42
3.
Comparison Mean
Independent sample t- test is to compare the means of a variable between two
independent groups and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is to compare the
means of three or more groups.
4.
Regression Analysis
- Correlation analysis
- To measure of the degree to which two variables are linearly
associated. The coefficient ranges from -1 to +1, where a value
close to zero is no correlation, a value <0.5 or >-0.5 is weak or
low correlation, between 0.5 and 0.7 is moderate correlation
and higher than 0.7 or lower than -0.7 is high or strong correlation.
- Test of Multicollinearity
- To check correlation among predictor variables.
- Regression model
- A multiple regression model is used to predict one dependent
variable (Y) from two or more independent variables (X 1, X2
Xp)
- Coefficient of Multiple Regression
- To know how many percentage of total variation in the dependent
variable is explained by the predictor variables.
- Diagnostic Test Residual
- To determine the appropriateness of the model.
43
CHAPTER FOUR
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
4.1
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
Figure 4.1.1 Percentage of Gender
The chart above shows that 52% of the respondents are female while 48% are male.
44
Figure 4.1.2 Percentage of Race according Gender
The result shows that most workers at GD Express Sdn Bhd are Malays with 65.22%
of them are male and 48.98% are female.
45
Figure 4.1.3 Percentage of Race among Position Level
The chart above shows that most executives at GD Express Sdn Bhd are Chinese
with 39.39% and most officers at GD Express is Malay with 62.42%. (Refer to
Appendix 1).
4.2
TEST OF NORMALITY
The first step in the analysis was to perform the test of normality. This was to
check whether the distribution of the data was normally distributed or not.
If the size of the data was more than 30, we used Kolmogorov-Smirnov to
test the normality, but if the size of the sample was less than or equal to 30, ShapiroWilk was used.
46
Figure 4.2.1: Test of Normality
Normal Q-Q Plot of M_SAT

5.0
Normal Q-Q Plot of M_EMPLYR

6
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Expected Normal Value
4.5
1
0
Observed Value
Observed Value
Normal Q-Q Plot of M_DEPT
Normal Q-Q Plot of M_FACIL
5.0
6
4.5
4.0
4
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
0
3.5
1
0
Observed Value
Observed Value
Normal Q-Q Plot of M_NEED

6
1
1
Observed Value
47
Table 4.2.1: Test of Normality

Variable
Level of satisfaction
Employer
Department
Facilities
Needs
Kolmogorov- Smirnov Z
1.177
1.148
1.595
1.041
1.312
p-value
0.125
0.143
0.012
0.228
0.064
The charts and table shows that the distribution of all variables is
approximately normal except data for Department.
4.3
TEST OF ASSOCIATION- CHI- SQUARE TEST
48
To determine whether there is an association between level of

satisfaction and performances and demographic backgrounds.
Table 4.3.1: Test of Association- Chi- Square Test
VARIABLE
P-VALUE
Level of satisfaction * performance
0.498
Level of satisfaction * gender
0.005
Level of satisfaction * position
0.000
Level of satisfaction * years of service
0.001
Level of satisfaction * monthly salary
0.000
Level of satisfaction * race
0.001
Based on the Table 4.3.1 above, we can conclude that:

1. There is no relationship between level of satisfaction and performance.
2. There is a relationship between level of satisfaction and gender, position,
years of service, monthly salary and race.
4.4
COMPARISON MEAN
49
Independent sample t- test allows us to compare the means of a variable between

two independent groups and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) allows to us to compare
the means of three or more groups.
Figure 4.4.1: Independent Sample t- test

3.70
p-value=0.027
p-value=0.000
3.62
3.60
3.52
Mea
n
3.50
3.40
3.30
3.35
3.30
3.20
3.10
Executive
Officer
Position Level
Male
Female
Gender
The chart shows that the mean satisfactions score for position level and
gender are more than three. Means the officers are more satisfied with GDex
compared to executive level and male are more satisfied than female. Since pvalue<0.05, we conclude that there is a significant difference in the mean satisfaction
between executives and officers and male received a significantly (p-value<0.001)
higher mean score than female.
Table 4.4.1: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
50
Variable
Level of satisfaction*years of service
Level of satisfaction*monthly salary
Level of satisfaction*race
F- test
2.629
18.783
0.936
p- value
0.036
0.000
0.424
The table above shows there is evidence to conclude that the mean
satisfaction is different for five categories of years of service and for three categories
of monthly salary was at 5% level of significance. (P-value<0.05).
Then, Duncan test was to determine which pairs different. The results
indicate on the average, those with RM2001- RM3000 monthly salary had moderate
satisfaction while less than RM2000 monthly salary had highest satisfaction.
The table above also shows there is no evidence to conclude at the 5% level
of significance that the mean satisfaction score is different for the four categories of
race, (p-value>0.05).
4.5
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
The regression analysis was performed in order to investigate the factors that
contribute to the level of satisfaction of workers at GD Express Sdn Bhd. The
considerable factors are employer, department, facilities and needs.
A random
sample of 190 workers was selected in order to conduct the regression analysis.
The study consists of four quantitative predictor variables (employer,
department, facilities and needs). The tests that we used were correlation analysis,
test of multicollinearity and test concerning the regression coefficient.
4.5.1 Correlation Analysis

51
To measure of the degree to which two variables are linearly associated. It

measured by Pearsons Coefficient of Correlation.
Table 4.5.1.1: Correlation analysis
VARIABLE
r level of satisfaction score*mean of
PEARSON
CORRELATION
P-VALUE
0.619
0.000
0.495
0.000
0.447
0.000
0.236
0.001
employer score

department score

facilities score

need score
Based on the Table 4.5.1.1 above, we can conclude that:

1. There exists significant moderate linear positive correlation between level of
satisfaction and mean employer score.
2. There exists significant weak linear positive correlation between level of
satisfaction and mean department score, level of satisfaction and mean
facilities score and level of satisfaction and mean need score.
From the results, mean satisfaction score and mean employer score has the
highest correlation which is 0.619. This means that the higher the mean employer
score, the higher mean satisfaction score and vice versa. In contrast, mean
52
satisfaction score and mean need score has the lowest correlation which is 0.236
even though the correlation is still positive.
4.5.2 Test of Multicollinearity
Table 4.5.2.1: Test of Multicollinearity
Variable
Employer
Department
Facilities
Needs
Variance Inflation
Factor (VIF)
1.869
1.656
2.148
1.083
Tolerance (TOL)
0.535
0.604
0.466
0.924
Test of Multicollinearity is to check correlation among predictor variables and it

is exists when any of these conditions exist:
1. Correlation matrix of predictor variables, Corr (Xi,Xk)0.8
2. Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) 10
3. Tolerance (TOL)<0.1
Since all correlation matrix of predictor variables, Corr (Xi,Xk)<0.8, Variance

Inflation Factor (VIF) <10, Tolerance (TOL)>0.1, problem of multicollinearity does
not exist in the regression model. We can say that the predictor variables are not
highly correlated among others.
53
4.5.3 Regression Model
A multiple regression is to predict one quantitative dependent variable from

several independent variables. Multiple regression serves two functions. First, this
technique yields an equation that predicts the dependent variable from the various
independent or predictor variables. Second, this technique identifies those
independent variables that relate to the dependent variable, after controlling the other
variables.
Table 4.5.3.1: Data (Refer to Appendix 6)

The data are simply shown below:
Y
X1
X2
X3
X4
Level of Satisfaction (mean)

Level of Satisfaction towards Employer (mean)
Level of Satisfaction towards Department (mean)
Level of Satisfaction towards Facilities (mean)
Level of Satisfaction towards Needs (mean)
Linear Regression Model

Yi=0+ 1xi1+ 2xi2+ 3xi3+ 4xi4+i
Where:
Yi value of the response variable in the ith trial

0, 1xi1, 2xi2, 3xi3, 4xi4, - regression parameter
xi1,xi2,xi3,xi4- a known constant (the value of the independent variable
in the ith trial)
54
i- random error with mean E(i)=0 and variance V(i)=2.

Sample size, n = 190
4.5.3.1 Test Concerning the Regression Coefficient
The estimated model:

^
Y 1.758 0.317 X 1 0.182 X 2 0.039 X 3 0.050 X 4

Table 4.5.3.1.1: Test Significant For Each Predictor Variable
Variable
Employer
Department
Facilities
Needs
t-test
6.710
3.440
-0.743
1.479
p-value
0.000
0.001
0.458
0.141
Based on the results, we can conclude that:

1. There is significant linear relationship between level of satisfaction and employer
and department. (p-value<0.05).
2. There is no significant linear relationship between level of satisfaction and
facilities and needs. (p-value>0.05).
Since facilities and needs not significant linear relationship to level of
satisfaction, the final estimated regression function:
^
Y 1.876 0.309 X 1 0.172 X 2 ,

Where X1= employer, X2= department
The estimate of 1 is b1= 0.309

55
p-value= 0.000<0.05.
EMPLOYER is a significant predictor variable.
A worker who has higher satisfied with their employer get higher satisfaction than
workers who not satisfied with their employer by 0.309 when department was held
constant.
The estimate of 2 is b2= 0.172

DEPARTMENT is a significant predictor variable.
A worker who has higher satisfied with their department gets higher satisfaction than
workers who not satisfied with their department by 0.172 when employer was held
constant.
4.5.3.2 The Coefficient of Multiple Regression
Forty three percent of the total variation in the level of satisfaction has been
explained by employer, department, facilities and needs. But facilities and needs are
not significant predictor variables, hence, only 42.2% has been explained by
employer and department. Since, we do not include facilities and needs, the
percentage was reduced. Then, 57.8% of total variation in satisfaction is explained by
other factors. (R2= 0.422). (Refer to Appendix 10)
56
4.5.3.3 The Diagnostic Test for Residual
The diagnostic test for residual is to check the appropriateness of the model.
We have to plot the residuals, ei against predicted value, to know whether the error
term fulfill the assumptions. It is because the assumptions of error term must be
proven to be valid before regression analysis can be carried out. Assumptions of error
term are independent, identically normal distributed with mean 0 and constant
variance, 2.
Figure 4.5.3.3.1 The Residual Versus The Predicted Value

4.5
Unstandardized Predicted Value
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
-1.0
-.5
0.0
.5
1.0
1.5
Unstandardized Residual
57
From the figure, we can saw that the points in the scatter plot are randomly
scattered. Then, we can conclude that the distribution of the error (residuals) has a
constant variance.
Figure 4.5.3.3.2 The Q-Q Plot

Normal Q-Q Plot of Unstandardized Residual
1.5
1.0
Exp e cte d No rma l Valu e
.5
0.0
-.5
-1.0
-1.5
-1.5
-1.0
-.5
0.0
.5
1.0
1.5
Observed Value
Since the points lie straight on the line, we said that the distribution of error is
normal.
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analysis and results from the previous chapter, we can conclude that:
(i)
All variables are normally distributed except the variable department.
58
(ii)
There is no relationship between workers satisfaction and performance but

relationship do exist between workers satisfaction with gender, position level,
years of service, monthly salary and race.
(iii) The comparison mean shows there is significant difference in mean of

satisfaction on gender, position level, years of service and monthly salary. The
results indicate that male is more satisfied than female while officers are more
satisfied compared than executive level. Besides that, those with RM2001RM3000 monthly salary had moderate satisfaction compared to less than
RM2000 monthly salary had highest satisfaction.
(iv) From the regression analysis conducted, we found that the important factors to
determine the level of satisfaction are employer and department. Facilities and
Needs are not significant predictor variables. Even though the study shows that
Employer and Department are the significant predictor variables, they can only
explain 42.2% of the total variation in level of satisfaction. 57.8% of the total
variation in level of satisfaction maybe explained by other predictor variables
which are not included in this study.
The final estimated regression model obtained is as below:

^
Y 1.876 0.309 X 1 0.172 X 2

Where
Y = level of satisfaction (mean)

X1 = level of satisfaction towards employer
X2 = level of satisfaction towards department
59
The pairwise correlation of the variables mean satisfaction and mean employer
has the highest positive correlation (r= 0.619). This means that the relationship
between these two variables is strong. While, the predictor variables are not
highly correlated among others.
We conclude that the model is appropriate since the distribution of error term is
normal and has a constant variance.
5.2
RECOMMENDATIONS
Since we have regression model, we can predict mean level of satisfaction

according to employer and department. In future, we would be able to estimate
level of satisfaction for each employee based on mean score for employer and
department only. However, only 42.2% explain of the total variation in level of
satisfaction. Therefore, we need to find the other variable contributing to ensure
better regression model. The examples of the variables are benefits, job security
and fair policies and procedures. Since research on the relationship between
level of satisfaction and performance has been conducted, I would like propose
a study on the relationship between level of satisfaction and absenteeism and
turnover. The reason of this study is to know whether absenteeism and turnover
contributes on level of satisfaction of workers. Besides that, using stratified
sampling on position level and then simple random sampling to find
respondents and get more accurate results.
60
REFERENCES
1. Neil J. Salkind, (2000), Exploring Research, 4th Ed, Prentice Hall.

2. Ahmad Mahzan Ayob (2002), Kaedah Penyelidikan Sosioekonomi. Kuala Lumpur
Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
61
3. Herzberg, F. (2003), One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?

Harvard
Business Review.
4. Jaganathan, Ishak & Noorul Aini. (2001).The relationship between Perceived
Leadership behaviours and job satisfaction of undergraduate trained teachers
Under the twinning program between MPIK and UPSI.
5. Gruneberg, E. (1979), Understanding Job Satisfaction. New York: John Wiley and
Sons.
6. Rasimah A. (2004), A Guide to Data Management and Analysis, Universiti
Teknologi Mara
7. Ibrahim Ali , Juhary Haji Ali, The Effects Of The Interaction Of Technology,
Structure, And Organizational Climate on Job Satisfaction, Sunway Academic
Journal 2, 2332 (2005)
8. John B. (2003), Study looks at ways of achieving worker satisfaction wuth
acoustical conditions <http:www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca.> Accessed on Nov 1, 2005.
9. Smith (2004), Do happy employees make companies more productive?
<http:www.explore.rice.edu/explore/News > Accessed on Nov 1, 2005.
10. GD Express Sdn Bhd (2005) <http:www.gdexpress.com> Accessed on Oct 2005
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Descriptive Analysis
62
gender
Valid
Male
Female
Total
Frequency
92
98
190
Percent
48.4
51.6
100.0
Valid Percent
48.4
51.6
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
48.4
100.0
gender * Race: Crosstabulation
gender
Male
Female
Total
Count
% within gender
Count
% within gender
Count
% within gender
Malay
60
65.2%
48
49.0%
108
56.8%
Race:
Chinese
Indian
14
12
15.2%
13.0%
17
31
17.3%
31.6%
31
43
16.3%
22.6%
Others
6
6.5%
2
2.0%
8
4.2%
Total
92
100.0%
98
100.0%
190
100.0%
Position at GDex * Race: Crosstabulation
Position
at GDex
Total
E1- E3 (Executive) Count

% within Position at GDex
A1- A3 (Officer)
Count
Count
Malay
10
30.3%
98
62.4%
108
56.8%
Race:
Chinese
Indian
13
7
39.4%
21.2%
18
36
11.5%
22.9%
31
43
16.3%
22.6%
Others
3
9.1%
5
3.2%
8
4.2%
Total
33
100.0%
157
100.0%
190
100.0%
Appendix 2: Test of Normality
63
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

N
Normal Parameters a,b
Most Extreme
Differences
M_SAT
190
3.4782
.51383
.085
.060
-.085
1.177
.125
Mean
Std. Deviation
Absolute
Positive
Negative
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
M_EMPLYR
190
3.2805
.82562
.083
.083
-.078
1.148
.143
M_DEPT
190
3.4295
.69524
.116
.093
-.116
1.595
.012
M_FACIL
190
3.1418
.80105
.076
.067
-.076
1.041
.228
M_NEED
190
3.5639
.86974
.095
.054
-.095
1.312
.064
a. Test distribution is Normal.

b. Calculated from data.
Appendix 3: Test of Association- Chi- Square Analysis

Chi-Square Tests
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value
5.365a
6.502
6
6
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
.498
.369
.078
df
3.107
190
a. 5 cells (41.7%) have expected count less than 5. The

minimum expected count is .15.
Chi-Square Tests
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value
10.413a
12.091
9.812
2
2
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
.005
.002
.002
df
190

minimum expected count is 1.94.
64
Chi-Square Tests
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value
26.235a
26.857
2
2
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
.000
.000
.000
df
17.377
190

Chi-Square Tests
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value
27.172a
23.547
8
8
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
.001
.003
.206
df
1.602
190

Chi-Square Tests
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value
62.250a
31.033
4
4
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
.000
.000
.000
df
17.009
190

Chi-Square Tests
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value
23.988a
19.512
1.448
6
6
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
.001
.003
.229
df
190

65
Appendix 4: Comparison Mean- Independent Sample t- test

Group Statistics
M_SAT
gender
Male
Female
Mean
3.6172
3.3477
92
98
Std. Deviation
.47043
.52083
Std. Error
Mean
.04905
.05261
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances
F
M_SAT Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig.
.023
.881
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
3.736
188
.000
.2696
.07216
.12722
.41191
3.748
187.726
.000
.2696
.07193
.12768
.41146
Group Statistics
M_SAT
Position at GDex
E1- E3 (Executive)
A1- A3 (Officer)
Mean
3.2987
3.5159
33
157
Std. Deviation
.69125
.46217
Std. Error
Mean
.12033
.03689
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances
F
M_SAT Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
6.354
Sig.
.013
t-test for Equality of Means
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
-2.231
188
.027
-.2172
.09738
-.40932
-.02513
-1.726
38.227
.092
-.2172
.12586
-.47196
.03751
Appendix 5: Comparison Mean- Analysis of Variance
66
Level of satisfaction*years of service

ANOVA
M_SAT
Sum of
Squares
2.684
47.215
49.899
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
df
4
185
189
Mean Square
.671
.255
F
2.629
Sig.
.036
F
18.783
Sig.
.000
M_SAT
Duncan
a,b
Years of services
3 years- 4 years
5 years and above
6 months and below
1 year- 2 years
7 months- 1 year
Sig.
N
34
5
33
78
40
Subset
for alpha
= .05
1
3.2626
3.2857
3.4286
3.5595
3.5679
.122
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 16.805.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean
of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are
not guaranteed.
Level of satisfaction*monthly salary

ANOVA
M_SAT
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
8.347
41.552
49.899
df
2
187
189
Mean Square
4.174
.222
67
M_SAT
Duncan
a,b
Monthly salary
RM2001- RM3000
Less than RM1000
RM1001- RM2000
Sig.
N
13
62
115
Subset for alpha = .05

1
2
2.7088
3.5046
3.5509
1.000
.706
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 29.485.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean
of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are
not guaranteed.
Level of satisfaction*race
ANOVA
M_SAT
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.742
49.157
49.899
df
3
186
189
Mean Square
.247
.264
F
.936
Sig.
.424
Appendix 6: Regression Analysis

A random sample of workers is shown below:
mean
satisfaction
level
3.43
mean
employer
mean
department
mean
facilities
mean needs
3.29
3.20
3.06
4.00
3.79
3.29
3.40
2.69
3.57
2.79
2.57
3.40
3.63
4.29
3.43
3.29
4.00
3.69
3.71
3.86
4.29
5.00
4.69
3.71
3.93
3.29
3.40
3.00
3.86
3.86
3.43
3.60
3.25
3.57
68
3.86
3.43
3.60
3.25
3.57
2.86
2.71
3.40
2.88
1.57
3.07
1.71
3.00
3.88
2.71
3.07
2.86
4.00
3.13
3.14
2.36
2.43
3.00
2.44
3.00
3.14
2.57
2.80
2.19
3.00
3.14
2.57
3.00
2.19
3.00
3.86
3.00
3.00
2.25
2.00
3.43
2.86
3.00
2.81
2.86
2.86
1.71
3.00
2.06
3.86
3.00
2.43
3.00
2.50
3.00
3.43
3.57
3.20
3.38
4.43
4.00
4.43
4.00
4.25
5.00
4.36
4.71
4.20
4.38
5.00
3.21
2.29
3.00
2.63
2.86
3.36
2.57
3.60
2.75
2.14
3.93
4.14
3.20
3.75
2.00
2.79
3.86
3.20
3.31
3.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
4.63
3.57
3.50
3.14
4.00
2.88
3.86
2.79
3.57
4.20
3.88
4.71
3.86
4.43
4.00
3.75
4.14
3.86
4.43
4.00
3.75
4.14
4.00
4.43
3.60
4.06
4.14
3.29
3.43
3.00
3.38
4.86
3.21
4.00
4.40
4.06
1.86
3.29
4.43
3.40
4.06
4.14
3.93
3.00
4.80
3.13
2.57
3.64
2.86
3.20
2.38
4.00
3.29
3.14
3.20
2.25
1.86
69
3.79
4.14
3.60
3.75
3.86
4.00
3.57
3.40
2.81
2.71
3.21
3.71
3.80
3.13
3.29
4.00
3.43
3.20
2.25
4.29
3.29
3.29
3.00
2.88
2.00
3.64
3.29
3.00
2.81
2.43
3.43
3.29
2.60
3.06
2.00
3.86
3.57
4.40
4.19
3.86
3.86
3.57
4.40
4.19
3.86
4.07
4.57
3.60
3.81
4.43
4.21
4.71
3.00
3.25
4.71
3.29
3.00
2.40
3.25
3.00
4.07
3.86
3.60
3.94
3.43
4.00
2.86
2.80
2.31
3.43
4.14
3.57
4.00
1.63
1.29
3.43
3.86
2.80
2.94
2.14
4.14
4.14
3.40
2.56
2.14
4.00
3.43
3.80
2.75
4.14
3.50
3.43
5.00
2.88
3.86
4.00
3.29
3.80
3.13
4.14
4.21
4.57
4.40
4.13
4.71
3.43
3.43
3.00
2.81
2.43
3.29
3.71
2.80
3.06
4.43
3.29
3.71
2.80
3.06
4.43
3.79
3.14
3.40
3.13
4.14
3.43
5.00
5.00
3.94
3.14
3.21
3.43
3.20
2.56
3.71
3.07
2.29
4.40
1.38
5.00
3.64
2.00
3.40
2.25
4.14
3.64
2.00
3.40
2.25
4.14
70
3.64
2.43
2.40
2.75
4.14
3.50
3.14
2.60
1.81
3.71
4.79
3.86
4.00
4.50
4.71
3.93
3.43
4.00
3.25
4.29
3.21
5.00
4.20
4.38
4.14
3.50
3.00
3.00
2.63
4.71
3.21
2.00
2.40
1.19
3.86
3.71
4.14
4.00
3.75
5.00
3.14
3.00
2.40
2.31
4.43
3.14
3.00
2.40
2.31
4.43
3.93
3.71
3.60
3.06
3.29
3.43
3.71
3.00
2.75
3.57
3.14
3.29
2.40
2.44
3.00
3.07
2.71
4.00
3.44
4.43
3.07
3.43
3.40
3.38
3.14
2.71
2.29
2.60
1.75
4.43
3.00
2.71
3.20
3.06
4.43
3.64
3.29
3.40
2.88
3.00
3.07
2.14
3.00
3.31
3.86
3.14
3.00
3.40
3.38
3.14
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.81
3.00
2.79
3.14
3.80
3.25
2.71
2.79
3.14
3.80
3.25
2.71
3.29
3.57
3.60
3.94
4.43
1.71
1.00
1.00
0.88
3.00
1.71
1.00
1.00
0.88
3.00
3.86
3.14
3.20
3.63
3.71
4.21
4.57
3.80
3.50
4.29
3.79
3.29
3.80
3.00
3.43
3.14
2.14
3.60
3.19
3.29
71
3.14
2.14
3.60
3.19
3.29
3.14
3.57
3.20
2.94
3.29
3.36
2.86
3.20
3.94
4.86
4.21
2.57
4.00
4.31
3.29
3.57
3.86
2.80
3.06
4.29
3.07
3.71
2.80
2.94
4.29
3.64
3.43
3.60
4.44
4.57
4.86
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.36
3.29
2.80
3.38
4.00
3.43
3.29
2.60
3.06
2.43
3.50
3.43
3.00
4.13
4.00
3.50
3.00
4.80
3.13
4.43
3.50
3.00
4.80
3.13
4.43
3.21
2.86
3.00
3.00
4.71
3.43
3.29
3.20
3.06
4.00
3.79
3.29
3.40
2.69
3.57
2.79
2.57
3.40
3.63
4.29
3.43
3.29
4.00
3.69
3.71
3.86
4.29
5.00
4.69
3.71
3.93
3.29
3.40
3.00
3.86
3.86
3.43
3.60
3.25
3.57
2.86
2.71
3.40
2.88
1.57
3.07
1.71
3.00
3.88
2.71
3.07
2.86
4.00
3.13
3.14
3.21
2.29
3.00
2.69
2.86
3.36
2.57
3.60
2.75
2.14
3.93
4.14
3.20
3.75
2.00
2.79
3.86
3.20
3.31
3.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
4.63
3.57
3.50
3.14
4.00
2.88
3.86
72
2.79
3.57
4.20
3.88
4.71
3.86
4.43
4.00
3.75
4.14
4.00
4.43
3.60
4.06
4.14
3.29
3.43
3.00
3.38
4.86
3.64
3.29
3.00
2.81
2.43
3.43
3.29
2.60
3.06
2.00
3.86
3.57
4.40
4.19
3.86
4.07
4.57
3.60
3.81
4.43
4.21
4.71
3.00
3.25
4.71
3.29
3.00
2.40
3.25
3.00
4.07
3.86
3.60
3.94
3.43
4.00
2.86
2.80
2.31
3.43
4.14
3.57
4.00
1.63
1.29
3.43
3.86
2.80
2.94
2.14
3.07
2.29
4.40
1.38
5.00
3.64
2.00
3.40
2.25
4.14
3.64
2.43
2.40
2.75
4.14
3.50
3.14
2.60
1.81
3.71
4.79
3.86
4.00
4.50
4.71
3.93
3.43
4.00
3.25
4.29
3.21
5.00
4.20
4.38
4.14
3.50
3.00
3.00
2.63
4.71
3.21
2.00
2.40
1.19
3.86
3.71
4.14
4.00
3.75
5.00
3.14
3.00
3.40
3.38
3.14
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.81
3.00
2.79
3.14
3.80
3.25
2.71
3.29
3.57
3.60
3.94
4.43
1.71
1.00
1.00
0.88
3.00
1.71
1.00
1.00
0.88
3.00
73
3.86
3.14
3.20
3.63
3.71
4.21
4.57
3.80
3.50
4.29
3.79
3.29
3.80
3.00
3.43
3.14
2.14
3.60
3.19
3.29
3.64
3.71
3.60
3.44
3.86
4.07
3.57
3.60
3.50
3.71
3.86
4.86
4.00
4.50
4.00
3.43
3.29
3.20
3.06
4.00
2.79
2.57
3.40
3.63
4.29
3.86
4.29
5.00
4.69
3.71
3.86
3.43
3.60
3.25
3.57
3.07
1.71
3.00
3.88
2.71
2.36
2.43
3.00
2.44
3.00
3.14
2.57
3.00
2.19
3.00
3.43
2.86
3.00
2.81
2.86
3.00
2.43
3.00
2.50
3.00
4.00
4.43
4.00
4.25
5.00
3.21
4.00
4.40
4.06
1.86
3.29
4.43
3.40
4.06
4.14
3.93
3.00
4.80
3.13
2.57
3.64
2.86
3.20
2.38
4.00
3.29
3.14
3.20
2.25
1.86
3.79
4.14
3.60
3.75
3.86
4.00
3.57
3.40
2.81
2.71
3.21
3.71
3.80
3.13
3.29
3.93
3.29
3.40
3.00
3.86
3.86
3.43
3.60
3.25
3.57
2.86
2.71
3.40
2.88
1.57
3.07
1.71
3.00
3.88
2.71
3.07
2.86
4.00
3.13
3.14
74
3.79
3.29
3.40
2.69
3.57
3.86
3.43
3.60
3.25
3.57
3.64
2.00
3.40
2.25
4.14
Appendix 7: Correlation Matrix

Correlations
M_SAT
M_EMPLYR
M_DEPT
M_FACIL
M_NEED
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
M_SAT
M_EMPLYR M_DEPT
M_FACIL
M_NEED
1
.619**
.495**
.447**
.236**
.
.000
.000
.000
.001
190
190
190
190
190
.619**
1
.529**
.660**
.233**
.000
.
.000
.000
.001
190
190
190
190
190
.495**
.529**
1
.605**
.193**
.000
.000
.
.000
.008
190
190
190
190
190
.447**
.660**
.605**
1
.264**
.000
.000
.000
.
.000
190
190
190
190
190
.236**
.233**
.193**
.264**
1
.001
.001
.008
.000
.
190
190
190
190
190
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Appendix 8: Test of Multicollinearity &
Test Concerning the Regression
Coefficient
75
Coefficientsa
Model
1
(Constant)
M_EMPLYR
M_DEPT
M_FACIL
M_NEED
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
1.758
.173
.317
.047
.182
.053
-.039
.052
.050
.034
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
.509
.246
-.060
.085
t
10.151
6.710
3.440
-.743
1.479
Sig.
.000
.000
.001
.458
.141
Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance
VIF
.535
.604
.466
.924
1.869
1.656
2.148
1.083
a. Dependent Variable: M_SAT
Appendix 9
ANOVAb
Model
1
Regression
Residual
Total
Sum of
Squares
21.072
28.828
49.899
df
2
187
189
Mean Square
10.536
.154
F
68.344
Sig.
.000a
a. Predictors: (Constant), M_DEPT, M_EMPLYR

b. Dependent Variable: M_SAT
Coefficientsa
Model
1
(Constant)
M_EMPLYR
M_DEPT
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
1.876
.151
.309
.041
.172
.048
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
.496
.233
t
12.431
7.579
3.551
Sig.
.000
.000
.000
a. Dependent Variable: M_SAT
Appendix 10
76
Model Summaryb
Change Statistics
Model
1
R
R Square
.656a
.430
Adjusted
R Square
.418
Std. Error of
the Estimate
.39211
R Square
Change
.430
F Change
34.889
df1
4
df2
185
Sig. F Change
.000
df2
187
Sig. F Change
.000
a. Predictors: (Constant), M_NEED, M_DEPT, M_EMPLYR, M_FACIL

Model Summaryb
Change Statistics
Model
1
R
R Square
.650a
.422
Adjusted
R Square
.416
Std. Error of
the Estimate
.39263
R Square
Change
.422
F Change
68.344
df1
2
a. Predictors: (Constant), M_DEPT, M_EMPLYR

77

Report Last Sarah

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report Last Sarah

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING REPORT

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING REPORT

29th NOVEMBER 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------Puan Ida Rosmini bt. Othman

21st NOVEMBER, 2005

SITI SARAH BT JANURI

The purpose of the study is to identify the factors contribute to satisfaction of

The results showed there is significant linear

relationship between employer and department with level of satisfaction. While,

CHAPTER ONE : INTRODUCTION

Background of Industrial Training

Objectives of Industrial Training

Background of the Company

Philosophy of the Company

Mission of the Company

Vision of the Company

Quality Policy of the Company

Organization Chart of the Company

CHAPTER TWO : BACKGROUND

A Study on Level of Satisfaction among Workers at GD

Background of the Study

Objectives of the Study

Significance of the Study

CHAPTER THREE : METHODOLOGY

Scope of the Study

Method of Data Collection

Methods of Data Analysis

CHAPTER FOUR : ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Test of Association- Chi- Square Analysis

CHAPTER FIVE : CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Test of Association- Chi- Square Analysis

Percentage of Race according Gender

Percentage of Race among Position Level

BACKGROUND OF INDUSTRIAL TRAINING

All final year students of Bachelor of Science (Hons) (Statistics), Faculty of

OBJECTIVES OF INDUSTRIAL TRAINING

The objectives of industrial training are:

To expose students to the new development in research and data analysis.

To get working experience for enhancing knowledge in many aspects.

1.3 BACKGROUND OF THE DEPARTMENT

Domestic Express Carrier Service

International Express Carrier Service

Customized Logistics Solutions Services

Call center at HQ for pick up and help desk.

Customer service staff at every branch.

Tracking and tracing Service.

Unique reference number for each call.

The success of GDEx will depend on three key competencies - systems,

Within Malaysia, GDEx have an extensive network of stations spread across

A 25,000 sq feet central all-weather clearing hub

Comprehensive security surveillance system

More than 160 delivery vans and trucks

State-of-the-art IT system with proprietary software

A 10,000 sq feet packaging and warehouse complex

Customized storage and bulk-handling equipment

More than 800 staff

PHILOSOPHY OF THE COMPANY

Figure 1.1: Management Philosophy

1.5 MISSION OF THE COMPANY

1.6 VISION OF THE COM PANY

1.7 QUALITY POLICY OF THE COMPANY

The quality policy of the company is:

A STUDY ON LEVEL OF SATISFACTION AMONG WORKERS AT