Analysis Professional Success

Studenți:
Amatiesei Oana
Cipcă Cosmin
Roca Roxana
Sfredel Răzvan
Hypothesis 1
There is a significant relationship between Empathy and Leadership (Political Skills-Total).
Null Hypothesis 1
There is no significant relationship between Empathy and Leadership (Political Skills-Total).
Variables of interest are Empathy [(Q9+Q10+Q11+Q12)/4] and Leadership
{[(Q24+Q30+Q38+Q33+Q29+Q34)/6+(Q28+Q31+Q39+Q40+Q41)/5+(Q25+Q26+Q27+Q35)/4+(Q3
2+Q36+Q37)/3]/4}
It’s appropriate to conduct the Pearson coefficient because it’s designed to test the relationship between
two variables. It describes both the strength and direction.
First, we will want to check Assumption of homoscedasticity and Assumption of linearity. To do that,
we realized a scatterplot

Fig. 1. Scatterplot Empathy vs Leadership (Political Skills)

Considering the shape of the cluster, we can say that the assumption of homoscedasticity is tenable.
Also, because we can draw a line through the main cluster we can say that it respects the linearity.
Considering the direction of the line drawn, we can say that there is a positive relationship: High scores
on Empathy will have correspondent high scores in Leadership.

Now, the Pearson coefficient looks like that:

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

Empathy 4,7970 ,94656 505

Leadership_Total 5,0761 ,91323 505

Correlations

Leadership_Tot
Empathy al

Empathy Pearson Correlation 1 ,362**

Sig. (2-tailed) ,000

N 505 505
Leadership_Total Pearson Correlation ,362** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) ,000

N 505 505

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

We can observe that we don’t have missing data (N=505). Our significance level is at 0,000 so our correlation
is significant. Since our coefficient is positive we have positive relationship (high levels in Empathy are
associated with high levels in Leadership).
Based on Cohen (1988), we can asses the strength of the relationship (0,1 – 0,29-small; 0,3 – 0,49-medium; 0,5
– 1,0 - large), thus we have a medium strength relationship.

Conclusions:
A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was conducted to evaluate the null hypothesis that there is
no significant relationship between Empathy and Leadership (N=505).
Preliminary analysis showed that there were no violations in the assumptions of normality, linearity or
homoscedasticity. There was a significant evidence to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there was a
positive association between level of Empathy (M=4,7970; SD=0,94656) and Leadership (M=5,0761;
SD=0,91323), r =0,204. High levels of empathy are associated with high levels of leadership.
Hypothesis 2
There is a significant relationship between accomplishment and salary.
Null Hypothesis 2
There is no significant relationship between accomplishment and salary.

Variables of interest are Accomplishment [(Q1+Q2+Q3)/3] and Salary [(Q5+Q8)/2]

It’s appropriate to conduct the Pearson coefficient because it’s designed to test the relationship between
two variables. It describes both the strength and direction.
First, we will want to check Assumption of homoscedasticity and Assumption of linearity. To do that,
we realized a scatterplot

Fig. 2. Scatterplot Accomplishment vs Salary

Considering the shape of the cluster, we can say that the assumption of homoscedasticity is tenable.
Also, because we can draw a line through the main cluster we can say that it respects the linearity.
Considering the direction of the line drawn, we can say that there is a positive relationship: High scores
on Accomplishment will have correspondent high scores in Salary.
Now, the Pearson coefficient looks like that:
 Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Acomplisment 5,0441 1,12639 505
Salary 4,4901 1,36419 505

Correlations
Acomplisment Salary
Acomplisment Pearson 1 ,204**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000
N 505 505
Salary Pearson ,204** 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000
N 505 505
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

We can observe that we don’t have missing data (N=505). Our significance level is at 0,000 so our
correlation is significant. Since our coefficient is positive we have positive relationship (high levels in
Accomplishment are associated with high levels in Salary).
Based on Cohen (1988), we can asses the strength of the relationship (0,1 – 0,29-small; 0,3 – 0,49-
medium; 0,5 – 1,0 - large), thus we have a small strength relationship.

Conclusions:
A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was conducted to evaluate the null hypothesis that
there is no significant relationship between accomplishment and salary (N=505).
Preliminary analysis showed that there were no violations in the assumptions of normality, linearity or
homoscedasticity. There was a significant evidence to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there
was a positive association between level of accomplishment (M=5,0441; SD=1,12639) and salary
(M=4,4901; SD=1,36419), r =0,204. High levels of accomplishment are associated with high levels of
salary.
Descriptive Analysis

Statistics

Gender Studies Age

N Valid 505 505 505

Missing 0 0 0
Mean ,5703 2,3683 1,3485
Median 1,0000 2,0000 1,0000
Mode 1,00 2,00 1,00
Std. Deviation ,49552 ,74468 ,58869
Variance ,246 ,555 ,347

As we can see, we have no missing data for Demographics (N=505).

Mean show us the measure of central tendency and its value concentrates in a single representative
level all that is typical, essential, common and objective in the research.
For Gender we have the value 0,5703. That means that the proportion of male and female in the
respondents’ pool aren’t equal. In frequency table we can see that males were 43% and females 57%.

Gender

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid ,00 217 43,0 43,0 43,0

1,00 288 57,0 57,0 100,0

Total 505 100,0 100,0

Median shows us also the central tendency, but it’s less affected by outliers. The value 1 show us that
there are more women respondents than men.
Mode is the parameter which corresponds to the highest value, the most frequent one. For Gender we
have value 1 (Female respondents were in 57% of cases).
Std. deviation is the statistical measure of volatility. If it has low value, that means that means that the
values are grouped around the average value. For gender, we have 0.49552.