Study of Training and Development Activities

Study of training and development activities

A Case study of Sangam Dairy

Study of training and development activities

A Case study of Sangam Dairy

Dissertation Submitted to the Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University, Department of Business Management in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the Degree of

Master in Philosophy (Business Management)

Submitted by: Jyothi P (Roll No. DYP-M.Phil-09004)

Research Guide: Dr. R. Gopal Director, Dean and HOD Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University, Department of Business Management Sector 4, Plot No. 10, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai. 400 614 March 2011

Declaration

I hereby declare that the dissertation “Study of Training and development activites - A Case Study of Sangam Dairy” submitted for the degree of Master in Philosophy (Business Management) at Padamshree Dr. D.Y. Patil University‘s Department of Business Management is my original work and the dissertation has not formed the basis for the award of any degree, associate ship, fellowship or any other similar titles.

Place: Navi Mumbai (Jyothi P) Date:

iii

Certificate

This is to certify that the dissertation titled “Study of Training and development activites - A Case Study of Sangam Dairy‖ is the bona fide research work carried out by Mrs. Jyothi P, student of Master in Philosophy (Business Management), at Padamshree Dr. D.Y. Patil University‘s Department of Business Management during the period 2009-2011, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the Degree of ‗Master in Philosophy (Business Management)‘ and that the dissertation has not formed the basis for the award previously of any degree, diploma, associate ship, fellowship or any other similar title.

Place: Navi Mumbai (Dr. R. Gopal) Date:

Acknowledgement

It is an honour for me to present this thesis as an MPhil student and greatly indebted to Padamshree Dr. D.Y. Patil University‘s Department of Business Management, which has offered me admission to M. Phil. program and provided me an excellent opportunity to carry out this research project. I owe my deepest gratitude to Dr. R. Gopal, Director, Dean and HoD, Department of Business Management of Padamshree Dr. D.Y. Patil University, whose valuable guidance, encouragement and support throughout the course of the project which enabled me develop an understanding of the project. Without his encouragement and guidance, this project would not have reached this stage.

I would like to thank the management and employees of Sangam Dairy, Sangam Jagarlamudi, Guntur (dt) for their help and cooperation in collection of data for this project. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my father-in-law Prof D Ramakotaiah, Former Vice- Chancellor, Nagarjuna University for his help and guidance in analysing the data and his encouragement which helped me in many ways in overcoming various hurdles and enhancing my determination to complete my project. I would like to express my sincere thanks to my husband Chandra Sekhar for sparing a good amount of his spare in helping me with the project and my children Yashwanth and Drithi for supporting me and allowing me to spend my free time on this project work.

Lastly I offer my regards to all those who directly or indirectly helped and supported me in completion of this project.

Place: Navi Mumbai (Jyothi P) Date:

Contents List of abbreviations ...... x List of Tables ...... xii List of Figures ...... xii Executive Summary ...... xiii 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.0 Origin and Importance of Training ...... 2 1.1 Meaning and definition of training ...... 5 1.2 Need and importance of training ...... 6 2. Concepts and theories ...... 8 2.0 Methods of Training ...... 9 2.0.1 On-the-job training methods ...... 9 2.0.2 Job Rotation ...... 10 2.0.3 Coaching ...... 10 2.0.4 Job Instruction ...... 10 2.0.5 Committee Assignments ...... 10 2.1 Off-the-Job Methods ...... 11 2.1.1 Vestibule training ...... 11 2.1.2 Role Playing ...... 11 2.1.3 Lecture Method ...... 11 2.1.4 Conference or Discussion ...... 12 2.1.5 Programmed Instruction ...... 12 2.2 Evaluation of Training ...... 12 3. Dairy Industry – Introduction ...... 14 3.0 The Dairy Industry ...... 15 3.1 Dairying Meaning ...... 16 3.2 History of Dairy Development ...... 16 3.3 Infrastructure: Dairy Industry ...... 17 3.4 White revolution ...... 19 3.5 Importance of the Dairy Industry ...... 22 3.6 India: World‘s Largest Milk Producer ...... 23 3.7 Dairy in India ...... 26 3.8 Anand Pattern ...... 30

3.9 National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) ...... 33 3.10 Indian Dairy Corporation (IDC) ...... 34 3.11 Operation Flood I, II and III...... 34 3.12 Dairy development in Andhra Pradesh ...... 38 3.13 State-Wise Growth of Milk Production under Operation Flood ...... 39 4. Literature review ...... 40 4.0 Review of literature on Training and development ...... 41 4.1 Review of literature on Dairy Industry ...... 53 5. Objectives ...... 57 6. Research Methodology...... 59 6.0 Secondary data: ...... 60 6.1 Primary Data: ...... 61 6.2 Sample size: ...... 61 6.3 Sampling Method: ...... 61 6.4 Data collection method ...... 61 6.4.1 Questionnaires: ...... 62 6.4.2 Schedules: ...... 62 6.5 Data Analysis: ...... 62 7. Sangam Dairy – A case study ...... 63 7.0 Company profile of Sangam Dairy...... 64 7.1 Organisational structure ...... 67 7.2 Market profile of sangam dairy ...... 68 7.3 Some facts about Sangam ...... 69 7.4 Other Services ...... 70 7.5 Future targets ...... 70 7.6 Awards and recognitions ...... 71 7.7 Innovations and interventions ...... 71 7.8 Services offebred to the milk producers by Sangam ...... 72 7.8.1 Milk procurement ...... 72 7.8.2 Animal breeding services ...... 72 7.8.3 Feed and fodder development ...... 73 7.8.4 Animal health programme ...... 73 7.8.5 Other activities ...... 73 7.9 Man power status ...... 74

vii

7.10 HR Activities in Sangam Diary ...... 74 7.11.1 Recruitment ...... 75 7.11.2 Recruitment policy ...... 75 7.11.3 Selection ...... 75 7.12 Industrial relations ...... 77 7.12.1 Grievance redressal system ...... 77 7.12.2 Industial disputes system ...... 77 7.12.3 Works commiittee ...... 77 7.12.4 Safety committee ...... 77 7.13 Wage and salary administration ...... 77 7.13.1 Job Evaluation ...... 77 7.13.2 Wage and salary components ...... 78 7.14 Performance appraisal ...... 78 7.14.1 Methods of Performance Appraisal ...... 78 7.15 Employee welfare and social security ...... 79 7.16 Social security ...... 79 7.17 Training programmes arranged in Sangam Dairy ...... 79 7.17.1 On the job training ...... 79 7.17.2 Off the job training ...... 80 8. Data Analysis ...... 87 8.0 General questions ...... 88 8.1 Questions specific to Executives ...... 96 8.2 Questions specific to Workers ...... 105 8.3 Questions specific to HR Executives ...... 118 9 Conclusions, Suggestions and Limitations ...... 129 9.0 Conclusions & findings ...... 130 9.1 Suggestions ...... 131 9.2 Limitations ...... 133 10 Appendix I – Research questionnaire ...... 134 10.0 Questionnaire on Training and Development for Managers ...... 135 10.1 Questionnaire on Training and Development For workers ...... 139 10.2 ...... 143

10.3 Questionnaire on Training and Development for HR executives .... 146 11 Appendix II – SPSS Output ...... 150

viii

11.0 Responses of Executives ...... 151 11.1 Responses of HR Executives ...... 182 11.2 Responses of workers ...... 206 12. Appendix III – Bibliography ...... 236 12.0 Books ...... 237 12.1 Journals ...... 238 12.2 Webliography ...... 240 13 Appendix IV – Copies of Literature ...... 241

List of abbreviations

AMUL Anand co-operative Milk producers Union Limited

APDDCF Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Co-operative Federation

BPE Bureau of Public Enterprises

ECM Energy Corrected Milk

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation

GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

GBMS Greater Bombay Milk Scheme

GDP Gross Domestic Product

HQ Head Quarters

HR Human Resource

HRD Human Resource Department

ICMR Indian Council of Medical Research

IFCN International Farm Comparison Network

IWFP India World Food Programme

MCM Mahila Chetna Manch

MOA Ministry of Agriculture

NCA National Commission on Agriculture

NDDB National Dairy Development Board

OD Operational Development

OF Operation Flood

UNICEF United Nations International Children‘s Emergency Fund

VDC Veterinary Development Council

WFP World Food Programme

WTO World Trade Organization

GOI Government of India

AI Artificial Insemination

List of Tables

Table 3.1 IFCN Ranking – Countries by Milk Volume2007 ...... 21

Table 3.2 Average annual of milk production in India ...... 27

Table 3.3 Some of the major Dairy Cooperative Federations ...... 29

Table 3.4 Statewise Milk productions in India during 1997 to 2009 ...... 31

Table 3.5 Dairy Coops-Progress on Key Parameters during 2008-09 .. 36

Table 7.1 Man Power Status (as on May, 2007) ...... 74

Table 7.2 Training programmes with the place and duration ...... 83

Table 7.3 Training Programmes conducted ...... 85

List of Figures

Figure 1 Milk Density World-wide ...... 25

Figure 2 Organisational Structure ...... 67

xii

Executive Summary

xiii

Executive Summary

Introduction:

The beginning of training could be traced to the Stone Age when people started transferring knowledge through signs and deeds to others. Vocational training started during the industrial revolution when apprentices were provided direct instructions in the operation of machines. Training is an educational process. People can learn new information, re-learn and reinforce existing knowledge and skills, and most importantly have time to think and consider what new options can help them improve their effectiveness at work. Effective trainings convey relevant and useful information that inform participants and develop skills and behaviors that can be transferred back to the workplace.

Training can help employees better understand the information they are given and can encourage them to play a fuller part in the way the organisation conducts its affairs. Training is one of the most crucial ways that organizational performance can be improved. Employee training is the attempt at improving the employee‘s performance, to result in overall increased organizational performance.

Meaning and definition of training:

The term ―TRAINING‖ is often interpreted as an activity when an expert and learner work together to effectively transfer information from the expert to the learner. (To enhance a learner‘s knowledge attitudes or skills) so the learner can perform a current task as job in a better way.

In simple terms ―Training may be defined as a planned program designed to improve performance and to bring about measurable changes in knowledge, skills, attitude and social behavior of employees for doing a particular job‖. Several leading personalities like FLIPPO, CAMP BELL, Dale. S. Beach defined the training and gave their

xiv

interpretation of training. From these definitions it is clear that every employee should be given training in order to bring required changes in his knowledge, skills and attitudes for optimum performance and contribution to the organization. For this purpose, it is presumed that every employee should possess formal education. However, a training program includes an element of education.

Training is aimed at application of knowledge gained, to have job experience to perform specific tasks. Whereas education is to provide theoretical orientation through class - room learning and bring awareness about general concepts and develop broad perspective.

There is a basic distinction between education and training. Training can be described as a short - term process utilizing a systematic and organized procedure by which non-managerial personnel acquire technical knowledge and skills for a definite purpose. It refers to instructions in technical and mechanical operations and designed primarily to suit non-managerial personnel to perform specific jobs. As employees are to be trained according to the changes taking place in the organization generally training programs have short duration.

Training is a process of increasing knowledge and skill for a specific job. Training is aimed at improving the behavior and performance of a person.

Need and importance of training :

There are several reasons for imparting training. They are as follows:

6. To minimize industrial accidents. 7. To prevent obsolescence. 8. To deal with human relations. 9. To increase the fair value earning power & job security of employees. 10. It moulds the employee‘s attitude and helps them to achieve a better co-operation. 11. To improve organization climate. 12. To reduce grievances and reduce accidents. 13. To reduce grievances and safety of employees. 14. To fulfill the need for additional hands to cope with an increased production of goods and services.

Dairy Industry:

Majority of rural population are dependent on agriculture and allied activities. Dairying and animal husbandry are very closely connected with agriculture in the country constituting over 26 per cent of agricultural output. Dairy sector alone accounts for about two third of animal husbandry output. The dairy economy derives its strength of 288 million (1992) of cattle and buffaloes, accounting 19 per cent of the global and 51 per cent of Asian bovine population. India ranked second in the world after the United States of America in milk production.

In the narrow sense ‗dairying‘ can he understood as an activity related to the production and consumption of milk and milk products. cattle and buffaloes, especially milch animals, with a view to improvising the productivity and production of milk to be used in the production of milk products. Dairying can also be construed as that which includes animal husbandry with the ultimate objective of upgrading the cattle for better exploitation of drought power. Dairy development consists of many kinds of changes — changes in milk production (involving changes in milch animals, their feeding and management), changes in milk handling and processing (involving changes in transportation. Techniques of milk

xvi

treatment and preservation), and changes in milk marketing (involving packing. storage. transport and related methods). One common characteristic of all these kinds of changes is that a tangible set of inputs and outputs of dairy system must undergo some technical change

The growth of the dairy industry, took place almost entirely in the cooperative sector under the ―Operation Flood‖ projects I. II and III between 1970 and 1994. The infrastructure and manpower of the National Dairy Development Board itself are indeed a part the MoA (Department of AH&D), but these are limited to the essential physical facilities for offices in their HQ at Anand and the four regional offices at Delhi, Calcutta. Bombay. and Bangalore; arid the professional and supporting staff that oversee the implementation of the Operation Flood arid Oil Seed Growers Project, the NDDB underwent three rounds of voluntary retirement schemes for its employees at all levels between 1992 and 2000: and have considerably reduced and reoriented the workforce to suit the newer challenges during the 21st century. The NDDB also has in its fold. Several managed units and fully owned subsidiaries, aiding and supporting the development activities under its core projects.

Importance of the Dairy Industry:

The number of operational holdings in India is increasing and average size of holding (about 1.68) is going down. There are about 96 million small and marginal holdings, owning on an average less than two half acres of land. In addition, about 30 per cent of the rural households are landless. There is extreme inequality in the present distribution of land in India, which emphasizes the basic cause of problem of small Landholders. In contrast, significantly, the distribution of milk animals in rural areas is less skewed, as compared to land and the productivity of animals kept by small farmers doesn‘t compare unfavorably with that of large farmers.

xvii

HRD in dairy industry :

Development function has to do with increasing of skill, knowledge, behaviour and infusing the result kind of attitude. HRD function remained largely a neglected area in initial years of both the units. They were confined mostly to deputing some higher level to places like Anand, Erode, Bombay, Bangalore and Hyderabad. These activities were meant for cattle rearing, increasing the yield in milk, dairy technology aspects such as preserving milk, aseptic packaging, quality control and marketing of milk products. There was neither a cogent policy nor regular training activity in these organizations at the stage.

But during the last decade or so the HRD activity has received importance. It has been realized that the activities must be organized on the basis of need and in a systematic way at all levels of employees. In general HRD is regarded as an integral aspect of the personnel department and the department is entrusted with the responsibility of organizing HRD function.

SangamDairy:

The Sangam diary offers and illustration of one of the most successful dairies sponsored on the Anand pattern. The name and style of the Sangam dairy is due to presence of ―Sangameswara temple at village Sangam Jagarlamudi in the immediate vicinity of the dairy plant. The dairy is located on the Guntur & Tenali highway (via Narakodur) about 16 km from Guntur town.

Andhra Pradesh has permanent place in the dairy map of India. The cattle wealth of A.P. is estimated at Rs. 220 crores and account of 70 per cent total value. The Sangam dairy, Vadlamudi was commissioned on 1-8-1978.

The Dairy has provision to mark 8 M.T of butter, 6 M.T of Ghee and 22 M.t of milk powder per day. The surplus milk after meeting the demand

xviii

from the public will be converted into products. Sangam Ghee is consumed pack is being done only from Sangam Dairy, Vadlamudi in the state. During 1988, trails were successfully conducted on manufacture of infant milk food, based on the formula, provided by the centre subsequently. Infant milk food with the brand name of ―Sangam spray‖ was introduced in customer pack of 1kg and ½ kg throughout the country. The Sangam diary, Vadlamudi had the distinction of being first public sector organization in the county, which produces milk powder - skim and whole milk powder. The Ice cream milk powder is also being manufactured in the dairy.

Objectives of the study:

1. To understand the need and nature of the training programmes. 2. To understand the organizational infrastructure available to conduct the employee training programmes. 3. To get a feedback from the employees with respect to the usefulness of the training programmes. 4. To identify the gap in the training programmes of the sample organization and make suggestion to improve the same. 5. The study has been done with and special reference to Sangam Dairy.

Research Methodology:

The sample size for data collection is 125. The type of sampling chosen is ―Stratified sampling‖ as the population is divided into different segments on the basis of certain common characteristics and then selection of items randomly from them to constitute the sample. For the study the sample is selected randomly from different departments and different levels in each department. Necessary care was taken so ensure the sampling remained random. The method used for data collection for the study is questionnaire and schedules. Data collected from the above

xix

exercise was fed to the SPSS software and an analysis was carried on the output of the SPSS. The graph and tables that were generated by the software is enclosed at Annexure II. The analysis was carried out separately for workers, executives and HR employees engaged in the process of training employees.

Findings:

1. Majority of the employees are quite satisfied with the training programmes conducted in Sangam. 2. Mostly in-house training programmes are conducted than institutional training programmes. 3. Employees participate in determining their training programmes and orient them to their specific needs. 4. Training programmes are not linked with performance appraisal. Promotion policy in sangam is mostly based on seniority. 5. Most of the employees are having more than 20-30 years of experience. But in this period of their service, yearly they are only 2-4 training programmes some of them have not attended any training programmes. 6. The training programmes held are mostly of short term training programme and they are mostly on the job training programmes and the employees also preferred on the job training programmes. 7. Most of the employees agreed that training programmes help in achieving individual as well as organizational goals. 8. In sangam training needs are identified by the need and suggestions of superiors and the HR people also said the same. 9. In Sangam most of the employees accepted that time duration given for them is sufficient. 10. In Sangam nearly half of the employees have not been given induction training programme, most of the employees have suggested that induction training programmes are essential.

11. In Sangam more than half of the employees are given more responsibility after training programmes, very few are getting promotion or financial incentives. This may be the reason the employees are not that interested in training programmes. 12. In Sangam, the management is not sending employees to government aided training programmes. These training programmes are very helpful for the employees but however no one is sponsored in the recent past. 13. In Sangam HR people accepted that only some of the training objectives are met at present but they are making effort to meet all the objectives. 14. Training programmes held so far gave satisfactory results. 15. In Sangam preference is given to young employees who have joined recently for training programmes.

xxi

1. Introduction

1.0 Origin and Importance of Training ...... 2 1.1 Meaning and definition of training ...... 5 1.2 Need and importance of training ...... 6

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.0 Origin and Importance of Training

For centuries a kind of training in the business has passed from father to son, changing over so slightly to adjust to the times which continue even now in many big companies in India.

With the rapid changes in the business environment, the needs of management development and training are also changing fast. A few years back, it is left to individual managers themselves to develop their managerial competencies. There was hardly handful of organisations, which had put in place a well - articulated management development programme. However, with the increasing and growing realisation of HR as a strategic advantage, many trends and experiments are happening, especially in management development and in training management in general.

Building an efficient managerial force requires not only proper selection but also effective training. Industry is frequently compelled particularly during periods of business expansion to draw people from various faculties and train them for specific operations. A systematic training program improves quality and quantity of work in a scientific way, safeguards machinery, reduces costs, raises employees earnings, morale and provides a creative means for imparting company‘s policies.

In the words of Prof. Lawrence A Appley ―Management is the development of people to get the things done through them in a systematic approach. Practical training is a method of importance for a growing firm to teach the trainee methods and techniques for dealing with tasks in different departments. The method of skill required for this purpose by the instructor is great for not only does he need to be able to give a lucid explanation of the way and also be able to convince his trainees that the job is important and that it is being done in the best possible way.

Training can help employees better understand the information they are given and can encourage them to play a fuller part in the way the organisation conducts its affairs. Training is one of the most crucial ways that organisational performance can be improved. Employee training is the attempt at improving the employee‘s performance, to result in overall increased organisational performance.

Employees who are insufficiently trained are more susceptible to making disastrous mistakes that could jeopardise the safety and well being of both their fellow co-workers and customers

The requirements of training are the combinations of two functions:

1) Technical ability covering both knowledge and experience

2) Personal qualities and administrative ability that consists of knowledge and understanding of the various policies of the organization.

Whatever may be the process no amount of technical ability is by itself sufficient for effective supervision unless accompanied by practical training and experience of the job for a considerable period of time.

Training may be broadly divided into two ways. One is training in with the industry (TWI) training will be given touch with different departments of

the company and they may be attached to training institutes which are maintained by the industry. For example, the banking industry is having its own staff training colleges at various places. Similarly one can see this type of institutes in textile, jute, cement etc.to a maximum extent the government needs are catered by administrative staff college of india, Hyderabad. Similarly in Andhra Pradesh govt., has established Marri Chenna Reddy Institute of Human Resources Development at Hyderabad to impart training to various state government employees.

On the other hand, professional institutes like Indian institute of Management, Institute of cost and management accountants (ICMA). Institute of charted accountants of India (ICAI), Institute of certified financial analysis of India (ICFAI) have been conducting short term courses to train the junior/ middle/ senior level executives to meet specific challenges.

The training called for has to deal with specific objectives of human and administrative sides of their tasks in general terms as well as in particular relation to the methods of the individual companies. Proficiency in these directions requires a two-fold line of training. In the changing technical conditions training is useful to augment the manager‘s skill for new environment. Most of the managers are with technical background and they may have little touch with functional areas are like personnel management, industrial relations, finance, industrial psychology, general management and marketing. Training opens new avenues to present and future managers providing intensive touch in the most modern skill and techniques.

The training consists of what might be called organised growth providing systematic assistance in the acquisition of personal qualities making up leadership and co-operation to achieve the desired objectives. It is almost inevitable that much of the emphasis in training programs seeks

to develop values and attitudes, which are essential ingredients of social awareness and managerial responsibilities.

Any worthwhile training program aims at improving decision-making skills in different disciplines. This can be achieved by lectures model building and role-playing and followed by seminars, Group discussions and business games. Now-a-days in management, the tools and techniques drawn from mathematics, economics, behavioral sciences, computers and statistics are gaining more importance.

The training policy should be based on clear-cut objectives participation in training emphasizes the importance of trainees responsibilities.

1.1 Meaning and definition of training

1. In simple terms ―Training may be defined as a planned program designed to improve performance and to bring about measurable changes in knowledge, skills, attitude and social behavior of employees for doing a particular job‖. According to FLIPPO ―Training is the act of increasing the knowledge and skills of an employee for doing a particular job‖.

2. Training is an attempt to improve current of future employee performance by increasing an employee‘s ability to perform through learning usually by changing the employee‘s attitude or increasing his or her skills and knowledge.

3. CAMP BELL defines training as ―Typically designed for a short term, started set purpose such as the operation of some pieces of

machinery, which development involves a broader education for long term purposes‖.

4. Dale. S. Beach defines the training as ―the organized procedure by which people learn knowledge and skill for a definite purpose‖.

From the above definitions it is very clear that every employee should be given training in order to bring required changes in his knowledge, skills and attitudes for optimum performance and contribution to the organization. For this purpose, it is presumed that every employee should possess formal education. However, a training program includes an element of education.

Training is a process of increasing knowledge and skill for a specific job. Training is aimed at improving the behavior and performance of a person.

1.2 Need and importance of training

There are several reasons for imparting training. They are as follows:

1. To make employees more effective and productive. 2. To match the employee specification with job requirements of organizational needs. 3. To cope with the technological advancements. 4. To improve the quality of product I service. 5. To reduce wastage. 6. To minimize industrial accidents. 7. To prevent obsolescence. 8. To deal with human relations. 9. To increase the fair value earning power & job security of employees. 10. It moulds the employee‘s attitude and helps them to achieve a better co — operation. 11. To improve organization climate. 12. To reduce grievances and reduce accidents. 13. To reduce grievances and safety of employees. 14. To fulfill the need for additional hands to cope with an increased production of goods and services.

2. Concepts and theories

2.0 Methods of Training ...... 9 2.0.1 On-the-job training methods ...... 9 2.0.2 Job Rotation ...... 10 2.0.3 Coaching ...... 10 2.0.4 Job Instruction ...... 10 2.0.5 Committee Assignments ...... 10 2.1 Off-the-Job Methods ...... 11 2.1.1 Vestibule training ...... 11 2.1.2 Role Playing ...... 11 2.1.3 Lecture Method ...... 11 2.1.4 Conference or Discussion ...... 12 2.1.5 Programmed Instruction ...... 12 2.2 Evaluation of Training ...... 12

Chapter 2

Concepts and theories

The term ‗training‘ denotes a systematic procedure for training technical knowhow to the employees so as to increase their knowledge and skills for doing particular jobs. Training is the act of increasing the knowledge and skills of an employee for doing a particular job, Training makes newly appointed workers fully productive in the minimum of time. Training is equally necessary for the old employees whenever machines and equipment are introduced and/ or there is a change in the techniques of doing the things. In fact training is a continuous process. It does not stop anywhere.

2.0 Methods of Training

As a result of research in the field of training, a number of programmes are available. Some of these are new methods, while others are improvements over the traditional methods. The training programmes commonly used to train operative and supervisory personnel are discussed below. These programs are classified into on-the-job and off- the-job training programmes.

2.0.1 On-the-job training methods

This type of training, also known as job instruction training, is the most commonly used method. Under this method, the individual is placed on a regular job and taught the skills necessary to perform that job. The trainee learns under the supervision and guidance of a qualified instructor. On-the-job training has the advantage of giving firsthand knowledge and experience under the actual working conditions. On-the- job training methods include job rotation, coaching, job instruction or training through step-by-step and committee assignments.

2.0.2 Job Rotation

This type of training involves the movement of the trainee from one job to another. The trainee receives job knowledge and gains experience from his supervisor or trainer in each of the different job assignments. Though this method of training is common in training managers for general management positions, trainees can also be rotated from job to job in workshop jobs. This method gives an opportunity to the trainee to understand the problems of employees on their jobs and respect them.

2.0.3 Coaching

The trainee is placed under a particular supervisor who functions as a coach in training the individual. The supervisor provides feedback to the trainee on his performance and offers him some suggestions for improvement. Often the trainee shares some of the duties and responsibilities of the coach and relieves him of his burden.

2.0.4 Job Instruction

This method is also known as training through step by step. Under this method, trainer explains the trainee the way of doing the job, job knowledge and skills and allows him to do the job. The trainer appraises the performance of the trainee, provides feedback information and corrects the trainee.

2.0.5 Committee Assignments

Under the committee assignment, group of trainees are given assignments and asked to solve an actual organizational problem. The trainees solve the problem jointly. It develops team work.

2.1 Off-the-Job Methods

Under this method of training, trainee is separated from the job situation and his attention is focused upon learning the material related to his future job performance. Off-the-job training methods are as follows.

2.1.1 Vestibule training

In this method, actual work conditions are simulated in a class room. Material, files and equipment which are used in actual job performance are also used in training. This type of training is commonly used for training personnel for clerical and semi-skilled jobs. The duration of this training ranges from days to a few weeks.

2.1.2 Role Playing

It is defined as a method of human interaction that involves realistic behaviour in imaginary situations. This method of training involves action, doing and practice. The participants play the role of certain characters, such as the production manager, mechanical engineer, superintendent, maintenance engineer, quality control inspector, foreman, worker and the like. This method is mostly used for developing interpersonal interactions and relations.

2.1.3 Lecture Method

The lecture is a traditional and direct method of instruction. The instructor organizes the material and gives it to a group of trainees in the form of a talk. To be effective, the lecture must motivate and create interest among the trainees. An advantage of lecture method is that it is direct and can be used for a large group of trainees.

2.1.4 Conference or Discussion

It is a method in training the clerical, professional and supervisory personnel. This method involves a group of people who pose ideas, examine and share facts, ideas and data, test assumptions, and draw conclusions, all of which contribute to the improvement of job performance. Discussion has the distinct advantage over the lecture method as the discussion involves two-way communication and hence feedback is provided. The participants feel free to speak in small groups. The success of this method depends on the leadership qualities of the person who leads the group.

2.1.5 Programmed Instruction

In recent years this method has become popular. The subject — matter to be learned is presented in a series of carefully planned sequential units. These units are arranged from simple to more complex levels of instruction. The trainee goes through these units by answering questions or filling the blanks. This method is expensive and time consuming.

2.2 Evaluation of Training

In order to assess the extent to which training programmes have achieved the purposes for which they are designed, it is necessary to evaluate various activities that have culminated in the implementation of the training package. Such an evaluation exercise would provide relevant information not only about the effectiveness of training but also about the future design of other training programmes. It is through the process of evaluation that training specialists can monitor the training prgorammes and update, modify and innovate in future training programme. The evaluation of the outcome and consequence of training also provides useful data on the basis of which relevance of training and it‘s integration with other functions of management can be established.

Employee development, which involves improving and increasing the abilities of employees, is required for the success of organizations. Development begins with the orientation programme and continues to change. When there is a personnel Department, the responsibility for planning and implementing formal employee development programmes usually is delegated to it. Otherwise, employee development is conducted informally by various individuals and groups.

The primary activities involved in employee development are orientation, training in job skills, and cultivation of managerial skills. Other activities related to employee development are evaluating performance, counseling and communicating organizational policies and procedures.

2.3 HRD in dairy industry

Development function has to do with increasing of skill, knowledge, behaviour and infusing the result kind of attitude. HRD function remained largely a neglected area in initial years of both the units. They were confined mostly to deputing some higher level people to places like Anand, Erode, Bombay, Bangalore and Hyderabad. These activities were meant for cattle rearing, increasing the yield in milk, dairy technology aspects such as preserving milk, aseptic packaging, quality control and marketing of milk products. There was neither a cogent policy nor regular training activity in these organizations at the stage.

3. Dairy Industry – Introduction

3.0 The Dairy Industry ...... 15 3.1 Dairying Meaning...... 16 3.2 History of Dairy Development ...... 16 3.3 Infrastructure: Dairy Industry ...... 17 3.4 White revolution ...... 19 3.5 Importance of the Dairy Industry ...... 22 3.6 India: World‘s Largest Milk Producer ...... 23 3.7 Dairy in India ...... 26 3.9 National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) ...... 33 3.10 Indian Dairy Corporation (IDC) ...... 34 3.11 Operation Flood I, II and III ...... 34 3.12 Dairy development in Andhra Pradesh ...... 38 3.13 State-Wise Growth of Milk Production under Operation Flood . 39

Chapter 3 Dairy Industry – Introduction

3.0 The Dairy Industry Majority of rural population are dependent on agriculture and allied activities. Dairying and animal husbandry are very closely connected with agriculture in the country constituting over 26 per cent of agricultural output. Dairy sector alone accounts for about two third of animal husbandry output. The dairy economy derives its strength of about 288 million of cattle and buffaloes, accounting 19 per cent of the global and 51 per cent of Asian bovine population. India ranked second in the world after the United States of America in milk production.

Traditionally milk is the most widely accepted and used animal product in India. But even the satisfactory growth in dairy sector, it has only been able to raise the per capita milk availability to a little over 200 grams per day in 1996-97 against the 220 grams requirement as recommended by the ICMR and National Institute of Nutrition. In addition to it, there is also another problem with regarded to the availability of milk. It has been largely varied across the regions or States. The main constraint to less availability and large variation across the regions is not only limited to the production of milk but also purchasing power of the people as well as inadequate handling and processing facilities and marketing infrastructure.

Moreover, milk production at the micro level appears substantial but the extent of marketable surplus constitutes a small proportion of the total production. Further, retention of milk depends upon various parameters like food habits, family needs, and ceremonial

diversity vis-à-vis milk utilization pattern at the rural producer‘s level in the country. In the recent years, no precise information in regard to ration of milk, family consumption, share of marketable surplus and utilization pattern at the producers level are available at the national level. As of now, the information regarding the above are available only from NCA (1976). Therefore, for milk marketing agencies and balancing out learn flush milk supply, it Is essential to have latest comprehensive estimates on milk production, retention marketing, conversion, price realization through sale of milk and milk products, utilization of milk etc.

3.1 Dairying Meaning In the narrow sense ‗dairying‘ can he understood as an activity related to the production and consumption of milk and milk products. cattle and buffaloes, especially milch animals, with a view to improvising the productivity and production of milk to be used in the production of milk products. Dairying can also be construed as that which includes animal husbandry with the ultimate objective of upgrading the cattle for better exploitation of drought power. Dairy development consists of many kinds of changes — changes in milk production (involving changes in milch animals, their feeding and management), changes in milk handling and processing (involving changes in transportation. Techniques of milk treatment and preservation), and changes in milk marketing (involving packing. storage. transport and related methods). One common characteristic of all these kinds of changes is that a tangible set of inputs and outputs of dairy system must undergo some technical change

3.2 History of Dairy Development The agricultural strategy followed since the mid 1960s have by and large, left the small farmers behind due to the alleged resource – non-neutral nature of green revolution. In the light of this

experience and in view of the present emphasis on social justice in the planning documents. Dairy farming is receiving scrupulous attention. The crucial role of dairying is highlighted by the ever increasing demand for milk and milk products and the need to provide a nutrient food to combat the widely prevailing malnutrition problem.

During the pre-independence period, dairy development was limited to a few pockets of Calcutta, Madras, Bangalore and Gujarat. The most notable of this venture was an Anand cooperative Milk producer Union Limited (AMUL) of Kaira district, Gujarat. But, after independence, government set up the National dairy development board in 1965 to make the ambitious project a success. Besides, the operation flood project was taken up in 1970 to balance the demand and supply of milk through making additional income by replicating the ANAND pattern

3.3 Infrastructure: Dairy Industry The growth of the dairy industry, took place almost entirely in the cooperative sector under the ―Operative Flood‖ projects I. II and III between 1970 and 1994. The infrastructure and manpower of the National Dairy Development Board itself are indeed a part the MoA (Department of AH&D), but these are limited to the essential physical facilities for offices in their HQ at Anand and the four regional offices at Delhi, Calcutta. Bombay. and Bangalore; arid the professional and supporting staff that oversee the implementation of the Operation Flood arid Oil Seed Growers Project, the NDDB underwent three rounds of voluntary retirement schemes for its employees at all levels between 1992 and 2000: and have considerably reduced and reoriented the workforce to suit the newer challenges during the 21st century. The NDDB also has in its fold. Several managed units and fully owned subsidiaries, aiding and supporting the development activities under its core projects.

The dairy industry itself, under the cooperative network established during the OF project, is a completely decentralised infrastructure network spread over the length and breadth of the country comprising some 1,33,349 village level societies (as on March 2009), spread over 177 milk unions encompassing nearly 346 districts in the country, States Cooperative Milk marketing federations (17) and the National Cooperative Dairy Federation of India. The rural processing and packaging, infrastructure, the urban milk plants and a part of the specialized transport fleet of Road Milk Tankers are state federations, and do not form a part of the ‗Public Sector Infrastructure‖ owned and managed by the State and Central Government. The Rail Milk Tankers used for long distance transport of milk by the National Milk Grid, managed by the NDDB, are however, the property of the NDDB and are made available to the user dairies on hire. The total number of road & rail tankers in the system is some 1229 and has the capacity to move up to 0.5 million liters of milk per day. Some of the urban milk plants however are and part of the government infrastructure both Central and State.

The organized dairy industry represents less than 20 per cent of the total milk produced in the country and is made up of three distinctly different sectors: the Government, the Cooperative and the Private. Interim volumes of milk actually handled, installed processing capacities and marketing infrastructure, the cooperative sector is by far the largest and the most widely owned. In terms of installed processing capacities alone though, the cooperative and private sectors have more or less matching capacities and the government only a small presence. Together they have the capacity to process some 33 per cent of the daily average, milk production in the country, but they actually handle less than 20 per cent

Much of the processing capacities created in the private sector in the wake of the de-licensing of the Indian dairy industry (Liberation of the Indian Economy in 1991), is lying idle: only some 60 per cent of the capacities in the private sector are operated on a day to day basis. In the government sector too most of the primary processing facilities installed in rural areas (mainly milk chilling centers) are not functional, and dairy plants in the smaller towns and cities are grossly underutilized.

In the cooperative sector all plants are used to their full capacity and remain underutilized only during the lean production season. Between 1995 and 2000, many new dairy processing facilities mostly in the private sector, both urban and rural have been added to the national infrastructure. These processing capacities include liquid milk processing and manufacture of products: milk powders, table butter and white butter, cheese, ghee, condensed milk and milk sweets

3.4 White revolution The success of the dairy industry lies in the availability of liquid milk. In India the production of milk has been increasing steadily. From 21.2 million tonnes in 1968-69, it increased to 110 million tonnes in 2008-2009. However, since production has peaked and the demand has saturated, it is now threatening to depress prices.

According to Dr. Kurien, unlike in 1970 when India faced the problem of scarcity, India today faces the problem of plenty. The future of the industry according to him depends on finding new markets. Unless this is done, the industry would stagnate as supply would swamp demand.

The ongoing liberalization programme and the excess supply of milk had led to the Government to throw open the industry to the private sector. The corporate presence in this industry, though

significant, is limited to a few large players and a handful of products. The profitability of the industry has been good. A large number of cooperative societies and Indian and multinational corporations have been producing and marketing milk products With so many corporates coming into the dairy business, there is bound to the increased competition in some existing products as well as an introduction of new value added products.

Amrut Milk Products, the first private dairy set up after the delicensing, is doing well. The unit was set up in October 1992. For the period April 1993 to March 1994, 13 companies tapped the capital market, aggregating Rs. 99.43 crore. Ravileela Dairy Products started a dairy project in March 1994. The total public issue was for Rs. 5.19 crore. Thapar Milk products started a dairy project in March 1994, with a capacity to process 300,000 liters of raw milk a day. The cost of the project was Rs. 21.04 crore. It collected Rs. 13.95 crore. Roadmaster Foods of the Roadmaster group expanded its capacity in Punjab by setting up a second unit with a capacity of 450,000 litres a day.

There has been a flood of new companies entering the market even last year. Vadilal Dairy International, diversified from ice cream into milk products such as butter, cheese, cheese spreads, flavored cheese and ghee. Its fully integrated Rs.25 crore project is to be located at Sonnar, Maharashtra.

Table 3.1: IFCN Ranking – Countries by Milk Volume2007 Milk Production Milk delivered Milk processed into tradable products Rank Country (2007) MT ECM Country (2007) MT ECM Country (2006) M T ECM 1 India 114.4 USA 78.7 USA 39.2 2 USA 79.3 Germany 28.4 Germany 20.1 3 Pakistan 35.2 China 23.2 France 17.9 4 China 32.5 France 22.9 New Zealand 15.0* 5 Germany 29.4 India 20.6 China 11.4 6 Russia 28.5 Brazil 17.7 India 10.0* 7 Brazil 26.2 New Zealand 16.9 Brazil 8.1 8 France 24.2 United Kingdom 13.7 Italy 7.9 9 New Zealand 17.3 Russia 13.6 Netherlands 7.3 10 United Kingdom 13.9 Netherlands 11.4 Russia 7.3 11 Ukraine 12.2 Italy 9.8 Poland 6.3 12 Poland 12 Australia 9.4 Australia 5.8 13 Netherlands 11.5 Poland 8.4 Argentina 5.5 14 Italy 11 Japan 7.9 United Kingdom 4.6 15 Turkey 10.6 Argentina 7.9 Turkey 4.0* Source: IFCN Dairy Report 2008 pp. 58,60,61 IFCN data, national statistics, estimates Explanation: ECM formula: (4% fat, 3,3% protein); * IFCN estimates

3.5 Importance of the Dairy Industry As stated earlier, the number of operational holdings in India is increasing and average size of holding (about 1.68) is going down. There are about 96 million small and marginal holdings, owning on an average less than two half of land. In addition, about 30 per cent of the rural households are landless. There is extreme inequality in the present distribution of land in India, which emphasizes the basic cause of problem of small Landholders. In contrast, significantly, the distribution of milk animals in rural areas is less skewed, as compared to land and the productivity of animals kept by small farmers doesn‘t compare unfavorably with that of large farmers.

Increasing milk production is one way by which we can solve the problem of marginal and small farmers or even the landless. But to make this venture a worthwhile proposition provision of a remunerative market outlet is a must. Rural poor are mostly powerless. They do not have assets, they are illiterate and unorganized and do not have sufficient skills.

Since, small farmers are not organized, the middlemen who came between the producers and the final customer tend to exploit them and reap the fruits of the big margins available between what the customers says for the final finished product and what the producers of the basic material receivers.

The National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) made much needed interventions and successfully. Conceptualized, designed, organized and implemented operation flood ensuring a remunerative market outlet to milk producers round the year through the organization of Anand pattern milk producers‘ cooperatives and providing regular supplies of milk to urban customers at reasonable price.

3.6 India: World’s Largest Milk Producer

Milk production is an important livestock-sector activity. According to data gathered by the International Farm Comparison Network (IFCN), in 2005 around 149 million farm households throughout the world were engaged in milk production. On average, these households keep two milking cows (or buffaloes) yielding about 11 liters/day. Assuming a mean household size of five to six, some 750 to 900 million people (or 12-14 percent of the world population) rely on dairy farming to some extent. As we see from the attached map which maps the Milk density World-wide, the milk density is one among the highest in the world.

With an annual production of 108 million tons of ECM, 65 percent of which is produced by buffaloes, and a national herd of 113 million head of cattle/ buffaloes, India is the world‘s largest milk-producing country. Some 75 million dairy farming households, with an average of 1.5 adult female cows or buffaloes per farm, are engaged in the sector each producing about 4 liters of milk per farm/day. During the period under review, production rose by 3 to 4 percent per annum or approximately 4 million tons, thanks to higher milk yields and more cows and buffaloes.

The predominant dairy production systems may be classified as low- input/low-yield systems (956 liters/cow/year). Feeding is based mainly on crop residues such as straw and green fodder, supplemented by small quantities of low cost compound feed. Milking is done by hand and the milk transported to village collection centers or collected by local milkmen. About 45 percent of the milk is used by the farming households and only 15 to 20 percent is delivered to formal milk processors.

Annual per capita milk consumption increased by 1.5 to 2.4 percent per annum from 1990, reaching 98 kg in 2005 and steadily increasing at the rate of 1.5% thereafter. Previously, rising demand for milk was mainly driven by population growth whereas increases in per capita consumption have now become an additional driver. India has always been 100 percent self-sufficient in milk, with total imports/exports of only 0.3 million tons per annum; it may thus be considered as almost unconnected with the world dairy market.

India‘s annual milk production has increased by more than five times in the last 40 years, rising from 21.2 million tons in 1968 – 69 to almost 110 million tons in 2008 – 09. This rapid growth and modernization is largely credited to the contribution of dairy cooperative, under the Operation Flood Project., assisted by many multilateral agencies, including the European Union, the World Bank, FAO and WFP (World Food Program). In the Indian context of poverty and malnutrition, milk has a special role to play for its many nutritional advantages as well as providing supplementary income to farmers in over 5,00,000 remote villages.

The annual value of India's milk production amounts to more than Rs.1,430 billion in 2008-09. Dairy cooperatives generate employment opportunities for around 13.9 million farm families. Livestock contributes about 25.6 per cent to the GDP from agriculture. About 22.45 million people work in livestock sector, which is around 5.8% of the total work force in the country. The annual rate of growth in milk production India is between 5-6 per cent, against the World‘s at 1 per cent

The steep rise in the growth pattern has been attributed to a sustained expansion in domestic demand, although the per capita consumption is modest at 70kg of milk equivalent.

Figure 1 Milk Density World-wide

3.7 Dairy in India Indian dairying is emerging as sunrise industry. India represents one of the world‘s largest and forecast growing markets for milk and milk products due to the increasing disposable incomes among the 250 million strong middle classes.

The world dairy is zooming on India for its rapidly growing markets that promise trade pattern, following GATT and the emergence of the World Trade Organization (WTO), offer to the Indian dairy industry an opportunity to take its bow as an export. India‘s enthusiasm to integrate with the world economy is reflected in technological up gradation, professional excellence and cost- effective approach. The average annual per capita availability has increased from 178 gms/day in 1991-92 to 258 gms/day in 2008- 2009. (The below table shows the average annual milk production and per capita availability in India Table 3.2).

The two main reasons for the world focus on India are

i. the low-cost economy; and ii. the liberalization process initiated in 1991.

Other important factors include low inflation rate; inexpensive labour, the presence of the world‘s third largest democracy; an independent judiciary well established and free from government interference; and Increase in communications due to widespread use of the English among the educated and the professional class.

Table3.2 Average annual of milk production in India Per Capita Availability Year Production (MT) (gms/day) 1991-1992 55.7 178 1992-1993 58.0 182 1993-1994 60.6 187 1994-1995 63.8 194 1995-1996 66.2 197 1996-1997 69.1 202 1997-1998 72.1 207 1998-1999 75.4 213 1999-2000 78.3 217 2000-2001 80.6 220 2001-2002 84.4 225 2002-2003 86.2 230 2003-2004 88.1 231 2004-2005 92.5 233 2005-2006 97.1 241 2006-2007 100.9 246 2007-2008 104.8 252 2008-2009 108.5 258 Source: Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, GoI

The future of India dairy sector is promising, as there is a sufficient domestic demand as well as good scope for export of dairy products. According to Bhalla et.al (1999), the consumption of milk and milk products is expected to increase from 52 million tons in 1993 to about 290 million tons in 2020. The ninth Plan target for milk production has been set at 94.69 million tones, envisaging an annual growth rate of 7.06 per cent and by the year 2011- 12 the milk; production is targeted to increase to 227.5 million tones.

Meeting this domestic consumption growth and export demand poses challenge for the Indian Dairy Industry.

The NDDB, which made a profit of Rs. 75 crores in 1998-99, has set out to raise milk procurement by cooperatives to 33 percent of the marketable surplus that is 488 lakhs kg/day by 2010 and the liquid milk sales 365 lakhs kg/day, from the present level of 75 lakhs kg/day NDDB cooperative cover 80 per cent of the marketable farmers in operation flood programme. Mother dairy is wholly owned subsidiary of the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB). Other co-operative under the NDDB umbrella

The growth of dairying in this country with the milk production more than trebling in the last few decades has been a commendable achievement and well recognized. Nevertheless, one would accept that we have still a long way to go to achieve the true potential that the country has a generation of meaningful technologies for the small livestock owners, the transfer of technologies to the millions of these rural people and an efficient delivery system of the inputs and services. Several management aspects do constitute challenges, which one must successfully face in the years to come. Only then can one be satisfied that this country with its traditions will seize the opportunities to have a flourishing and prosperous dairy industry.

The above Table 3.2 shows milk production in India increased from 55.7 m.tones in 1991-92 to 108.5 m.tonnes in 2008-09 The production figures in India show a continuous increase of milk production over the years, even though the Indian dairy development is handicapped by low-yielding, non-descriptive cows and buffaloes, a little or no land holdings, natural herbage and costly concentrates.

Table. 3.3 Some of the major Dairy Cooperative Federations

Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Ltd (APDDCF)

Bihar State Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd (COMPFED)

Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (GCMMF)

Haryana Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Ltd. (HDDCF)

Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd (HPSCMPF)

Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd (KMF)

Kerala State Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (KCMMF)

Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd (MPCDF)

Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Maryadit Dugdh Mahasangh (Mahasangh)

Orissa State Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd (OMFED)

Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd (UP) (PCDF)

Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd (MILKFED)

Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd (RCDF)

Tamilnadu Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd (TCMPF)

West Bengal Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd. (WBCMPF)

Source: NDDB.org

The per capita availability of milk in India increased from 178 gms/day in 1991-92 (Table 3.2) to 258 gms/ day in 2008-09. The per capita availability of milk production in India shows a continuous increase of growth over the years and also a continuously large growth in the consumption patterns by the increasing population.

Table 3.4 below shows the state wise milk production in India during the periods 1997 to 2009. The milk production has been on an increasing trend across the states. Except for a few states, mostly

small ones, the increase in milk production has been significant. The states where the governments are more proactive and where they have taken noticeable steps under the operation flood and where the people are largely dependent on agriculture the increase in production has been very significant. Some of the states worth mentioning are Gujarat, Haryana, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Tamilnadu.

3.8 Anand Pattern

The Anand pattern is a three tier structure consisting of the producers‘ society at the village level, which collects the milk from the producers twice daily and pay them on behalf of its member unions, the federation undertakes the collective marketing of milk and milk products, besides attending to quality control. The role of the government is to supervise, guide, encourage and wherever necessary discipline the erring co-operatives. The Anand pattern this establishes a direct link between the producers and the customer.

Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited or Anand Milk Union Limited (Amul): -

The Arey Milk Colony was established in 1945 by the Bombay government under Greater Bombay Milk Scheme (GBMS). During 1946, the first Farmer‘s Integrated Dairy Co-operative was established in Kaira district at Anand, which later came to be known as Anand Milk Union Limited (AMUL). Thus, after independence, both AMUL and GBMS together set a faster pace by dairy development. With emphasis on developing techniques of processing and marketing under Indian conditions.

Table 3.4 Statewise Milk productions in India during 1997 to 2009 State 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 All India 72128 74513 78286 80607 84406 86159 88082 92484 97066 100869 104840 108463 Andhra Pradesh 4473 4842 5122 5521 5814 6584 6959 7257 7624 7939 8925 9570 Arunachal Pradesh 43 45 46 42 42 46 46 48 48 49 50 24 Assam 719 725 667 683 682 705 727 739 747 751 752 753 Bihar ** 3420 3440 3454 2489 2664 2869 3180 4743 5060 5450 5783 5934 Goa 38 41 44 45 45 46 48 57 56 57 58 59 Gujarat 4913 5059 5269 5312 5862 6089 6421 6745 6960 7533 7911 8386 Haryana 4373 4527 4679 4850 4978 5124 5221 5222 5299 5367 5442 5745 Himachal Pradesh 714 724 742 761 756 773 786 870 869 872 874 884 J & K 1167 1232 1286 1321 1360 1389 1414 1422 1400 1400 1498 1498 Karnataka 3970 4231 4471 4599 4797 4539 3857 3917 4022 4124 4244 4538 Kerala 2343 2420 2532 2605 2718 2419 2111 2025 2063 2119 2253 2441 Madhya Pradesh 5377 5442 5519 4761 5283 5343 5388 5506 6283 6375 6572 6855 Maharashtra 5193 5609 5707 5849 6094 6238 6379 6567 6769 6978 7210 7455 Manipur 62 65 68 66 68 69 71 75 77 77 78 78 Meghalaya 59 61 62 64 66 68 69 71 73 75 77 77 Mizoram 17 20 18 14 14 15 15 16 15 16 17 17 Nagaland 46 48 48 51 57 58 63 69 74 67 45 53 Orissa 672 733 850 876 929 941 997 1283 1342 1431 1625 1672 Punjab 7165 7394 7706 7777 7932 8173 8391 8554 8909 9168 9282 9387 Rajasthan 6487 6923 7280 7455 7758 7789 8054 8310 8713 9375 9536 9491

State 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 Sikkim 35 35 35 35 37 45 48 46 48 49 49 49 Tamil Nadu 4061 4273 4586 4910 4988 4622 4752 4784 5474 5560 5586 5673 Tripura 57 76 77 77 90 79 84 86 87 89 91 96 Uttar Pradesh 12934 13618 14152 13857 14648 15288 15943 16512 17356 18095 18861 19537 West Bengal 3415 3441 3465 3471 3515 3600 3686 3790 3891 3982 4087 4176 A&N Islands 22 22 23 22 23 26 25 24 20 23 24 26 Chandigarh 43 43 42 43 43 43 44 43 46 46 47 47 D&N Haveli 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 5 5 5 4 Daman & Diu 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Delhi 267 290 290 291 294 296 299 303 310 289 282 285 Lakshadweep 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 Pondicherry 36 36 37 37 37 37 40 41 43 45 46 46 Chhattisgarh - - - 777 795 804 812 831 839 849 866 908 Uttaranchal - - - 1025 1066 1079 1188 1195 1206 1213 1221 1230 Jharkhand - - - 910 940 952 954 1330 1335 1401 1442 1466 Source: Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, GoI

The growing demand for milk in Bombay provided the stimulus for the milk products in Kaira district to increase production and the Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producer‘s Union, popularly known as ‗AMUL‖ came into being starting with just two milk producer societies with a daily collection of 250 liters in 1948. With 13 district cooperative milk producers' Union members and No. of Producer Members of 2.9 million comprised in 15,322 Village Societies AMUL has a present total Milk handling capacity of 13.07 million liters per day and Milk collection (Total - 2009-10) 3.32 billion liters Milk collection (Daily Average 2009-10) 9.10 million liters Milk Drying Capacity of 647 Mts. per day Cattle feed manufacturing Capacity of 3740 Mts per day

3.9 National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) The NDDB was set up under the aegis of the ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, Government of India in September 1965, under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The President of India nominates its Board of Directors including Chairman. The Secretary of NDDB is the Chief Executive of the Organization who is supported by professionals to carry out the board‘s activities. It promoted projects of general public utility as well as international liaison with other National Dairy Board and International agencies to facilitate the exchange of information for conducting research in the field of dairying and animal husbandry. The package of services, which the NDDB offers help in the creation of viable Cooperative Farmers Organizations with facilities for procuring, processing and marketing of milk and milk products. The NDDB‘s approach towards the modernization of dairying has been well accepted under India‘s various Five-year plans and the World Bank aided projects in India and abroad.

3.10 Indian Dairy Corporation (IDC) The Indian Dairy Corporation was set up under the Company‘s Act on 13th February 1970. It is a Government of India undertaking. The immediate need to set up IDC was to handle the commercial and financial transaction of ―India-World Food Programme (IWFP) Project-618, popularly known as the ―Operation Flood‖. This has become mainly a financing-cum-promotional agency of the central government.

The White Revolution aims at massive dairy development on a cooperative basis. Impressed by the economic transformation it had brought about in the life styles of the Gujarat farmers, it was decided that the ‗AMUL‘ (Anand Pattern) should be replicated nationally.

3.11 Operation Flood I, II and III Operation Flood phase-I was originally designed to be implemented over a period of 55 years and launched on July 1970, but it was extended till March 31, 1981 over 10 states. Operation Flood Phase- Il was launched on October2, 1979. While Operation Flood Phase-I was still under way and concluded on- March 31, 1985. Operation Flood Phase-Ill covered 22 states/Union Territories. OF-Ill was started on April 1, 1985 to consolidate the extensive milk procurement; and marketing infrastructure created under Operation Flood-I and Operation Flood-Il in 23 States/Union Territories and finally completed in March 31, 1996.

The OF-I project had an initial outlay of Rs. 954 crores, which was later increased to Rs. 116.40 crores. The OF-II programme had an outlay of Rs.458.5 crores, where as it was Rs. 1303.1 crores during OF-Ill programme.

When the third phase was over the following benefits had reached the small dairy farmers.

Sustained increase in production (4-5 per cent growth per annum) rising the per capital availability of milk to nearly 220 gms/day. Dependence on commercial imports of milk powder ended. Marketing mechanism improved providing assured outlet for milk producers and quality milk for customers. The quality of milch animals improved National Wide network of professionally managed co-operatives established.

At the end of OF-Ill 72,744 District Co-operative Societies in 170 milk shed covering 267 districts of country having a total membership of 93.14 lakhs had been organized. The members of supply about 10.99 million kg milk per day which is processed by 370 liquid milk processing plants and product factories under the organized sector in India. The average liquid milk marketed through milk cooperatives by the end of OF-I was 27.9 lakhs liters/day, which increased to the level of 100.2 lakhs litres/day by the end of OFIII.

As per World Bank experts‘ opinion, for an initial investment of Rs.200 crores in OF-Il, the net return/year to the rural economy had been Rs.24,000 crores. No other major development programme all over the world has matched this input-output ratio.

Table 3.5 Dairy Cooperatives- Progress on Key Parameters during 2008-09 Farmer Women No. of DCS Organized Milk Procurement Milk Marketing@ State / UT Members Members (Cumulative) (TKgPD) (TLPD) ('000) ('000) Andhra Pradesh 4656 825 167 1337 1395 Assam 66 3 0 3 3 Bihar 7320 373 57 413 395 Chhattisgarh 746 30 7 20 36 Delhi 0 0 2763 Goa 177 19 3 39 75 Gujarat 13646 2839 784 8726 2931 Haryana 6668 309 73 534 332 Himachal Pradesh 739 32 11 46 19 Jammu & Kashmir ** ** ** ** ** Jharkhand 44 1 0 3 205 Karnataka 11432 2024 638 3248 2267 Kerala # 3582 745 159 758 979 Madhya Pradesh 5615 265 46 526 408

Maharashtra 21492 1761 430 3292 2892 Nagaland 46 2 0 2 4 Orissa 3111 175 74 296 274 Puducherry 101 39 18 62 88 Punjab 6711 387 53 925 656 Rajasthan 13681 678 199 1655 1191 Sikkim 272 9 1 12 12 Tamil Nadu# 9900 2203 863 2246 1986 Tripura 84 5 1 2 12 Uttar Pradesh 20473 966 264 713 455 West Bengal 2787 203 68 232 663 ALL - INDIA 133349 13893 3916 25089 20041 Note: (1) * refers to provisional, ** for not reported and NA for not applicable (2) # includes conventional societies and Taluka unions formed earlier (3) @ Cooperatives (state) and metro dairies Source : www.nddb.org

3.12 Dairy development in Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh has an excellent potential for milk production with progressive formers who are more receptive to the new technology and scientific practices prior to 1960. Dairy development was not given importance until 1960, it was only in 1961, a separate milk commissioner was appointed to formulate dairy development programme in the state.

Planning for organized dairy industry in Andhra Pradesh was conceived in 1959 and a pilot milk project. The animal husbandry expanded steadily in 1964, the department, UNICEF gifted dairy equipment of value Rs. 1 crore to Hyderabad and Vijayawada with the main objective of linking and supplying surplus milk gram producing area to the consuming area.

The dairy development activities were carried out by the Government through dairy development department. Through the dairy industry started as a service organization and recognized as development organization, in view of the nature of the business it was converted in the commercial organization. Thus Andhra Pradesh Diary Development Corporation was formed as 2-4-1974 state Government Undertaking.

Efforts to commission the milk product factory, Vijayawada and the chilling centers in Krishna district were taken up. The work regarding co-operative dairies at Nellore, Chittoor, and Kurnool were also completed. These measures are needed considerable technical man-power that was not available. In this state we did not name dairy technology center to which training naturally we had to look for institutions like national dairy research institute of Kurnool, Bangalore, and Allahabad. While these dairies came to operation one after another the need for getting a whole equates technical and administrative men was keenly felt. All efforts were made to secure

experienced people as deputation from other departments for various posts.

As per the policy of the Government of Andhra Pradesh to develop dairying on co-operative lives on Anand patterns as being bid through at the country the ―Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Co- operative Federation(APDDCF) limited was registered as 5-5-1981 to implement the operation flood-Il program in the state.

3.13 State-Wise Growth of Milk Production under Operation Flood The State-Wise growth performance in milk production during OF I depicted a maximum significant growth in milk production in Himachal Pradesh with a compound growth rate of 22.28 per cent per annum followed by Assam and Kerala; where as a minimum non-significant growth rate of 0.21 per cent per annum was obtained in Uttar Pradesh followed by Gujarat and Maharashtra. The growth in milk production during Operation Flood-Ill showed that the maximum significant growth was obtained in Nagaland (35.97 per cent per annum‘s) followed by Maharashtra and Haryana and the minimum significant growth was noticed in Meghalaya with a compound growth rate of 1.18 per cent per annum followed by Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan.

4. Literature review

4.0 Review of literature on Training and development ...... 41 4.1 Review of literature on Dairy Industry...... 53

Chapter 4 Literature Review

4.0 Review of literature on Training and development

Most of the universities and professional institutes in India and abroad have made the study on Training and Development. Most of the studies on Training in India focus only on one or the other aspect of training. There is hardly any account of a comprehensive examination of all the aspects of training covered in one study. Several research studies have been undertaken with specific reference to training and development covering several aspects such as effectiveness of training and executive development, need assessment of the training, attitude and behaviour of the employees. methods of training, benefits of training, evaluation of training programmes etc. However, an attempt is made to review certain important studies related to the present study.

Deloyd S. Steinmter (1976)‘ in his ―The History of Training‖ in Training and Development Handbook, dealt with the following aspects. History of Training — Man had ability to pass on to others, the knowledge and skill gained in mastering circumstances. This was done signs and words. Through training, learning took place and knowledge was transferred.

Richard B. Johnson (1976) in his ―Organisation and Management of Training‖ in the training and development handbook stated that: ―An organisation, whether public or private, exists and grows because it provides the community with services or goods. The community sees it as worthwhile. To do this effectively, the organisation must function at an optimum level of productivity. This level is a direct result of collective efforts of the employees. Yet not every employee works at the level

established by the standard of the performance for the job he or she holds. Similarly groups of employees may not consistently produce up to the standards. When there is a gap between actual performance and what is needed, productivity suffers. Training can reduce if not eliminate this gap. It does so by changing the behaviour of individuals by giving them whatever additional specific items of knowledge, skill, and attitude they need to perform up to that standard. Changing behaviour is the function of training‖.

Uday Pareek and Venkateswara Rao (l991) in their ―Designing and Managing Human Resources Systems‖, dealt with various aspects of the training of employees, involving the employees in decision making on various facets of training peripherally, expectations of training, the status given to training at different levels of the organisation, the non- professional image of training, the role of training in productivity in the organisations evaluation of training and control etc.

Sushila Singhal (l990) in her publication ―Banks and Customers — A Behavioural Analysis‖, emphasised the need to strengthen personnel management function involving recruitment, training, promotion, placement and performance appraisal of employees. Performance appraisal should aim at objective assessment of what the employee does and how his/her capability can be used. She further stressed that a process of convenient evaluation, follow up and feedback should be introduced at stages of recruitment, training and promotion. The management of banks can seek the help of behavioural scientist to mould their employee attitude/behaviour to tone up their efficiency etc. The author of this publication attempted at analysing the job behaviour of the employees in the banking industry and its relationship with the quality of customer service.

Bhatwadekar, M.V. in his ―Evaluation of Training‖ dealt with evaluation of training, i.e., 1. Evaluation of a session. 2. Evaluation of a topic. 3. Evaluation of a training programme, and 4. Evaluation of a training institute.

Any training activity in which a few hundred people are employed and on which approximately Rs. 15.20 crores are spent per annum is bound to give rise to the following questions. a. Are the facilities proved adequate to sustain a sufficient flow of trained persons? b. Are the trainees receiving training that is purposeful and relevant for their job? c. How much money is being spent on each trainee? d. And do companies derive any benefits from trained employees? e. What are the benefits and are they commensurate with resources spent on training? f. Finally, what benefits accrue to the society which ultimately pays for its costs? Or does their activity constitute a waste of resources?

The above pertinent questions must be provided with answers. But the way in which the training programmes have come to be organised renders the task of evaluation impossible.

He concluded that various factors having bearing on the impact of training on the job performance should give some idea of the vastness and complexity of the problem.

This whole area remains unexplored and only a systematic research by a team over a long period of time may provide satisfactory answers to the

vexed questions. In the absence of some measurement of output, evaluation of training on comprehensive basis cannot be undertaken.‖

Hamblin, A.C.E. (1974) in his ―Evaluation and Control of Training‖, defined evaluation (though the term literally means assessment of value) in the context of training as ―any attempt to obtain information on the effects of training programme and assess the value of training in the light of information‖. Further, Hamblin says that evaluation helps in providing feedback for improvement (and better control) of training. Evaluation is therefore collection of relevant data and analysis in order to determine whether a particular training effort is worthwhile or not, from the point of objective set. Although cost benefit analysis is an essential feature of good training, it is necessary to recognize that much hard work has to be done in establishing what has actually been achieved before it is possible to say whether the costs involved are justified.

Good results come only if the training objectives are right. These objectives are also the start of evaluation, because they provide the necessary standards for measurement.

Donald L. Kirk Patrick (l976) in his ―Evaluation of Training‖ in Training and Development Hand Book, stated that effective training directors will make an effort to evaluate all their training activities and the success of these efforts depends to a large extent on a clear understanding of just what ―evaluation‖ means. 1) To clarify the meaning of evaluation, and 2) To suggest techniques for conducting the evaluation. These objectives will be related ―in house class room programmes, one of the most common forms of training‖. Many of the principles and procedures can be applied to all kinds of training activities such as performance review, participation in outside programmes, programmed instruction and the reading of selected books.

Saxena, A.P. (1973) brought out an edited volume under the title ―Training in Government, objectives and opportunities‖. Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi (1985) for and on behalf of the training division, Department of Personnel and Administration Reforms, Government of India, incorporating there in, the proceedings of the annual conference conducted by the Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi, 1985. A number of papers dealing with various aspects of training of employees presented at the conference are included in this book.

Krishnaswamy, R. in his Article, ―Training Objectives at the Institution Level‖ mentioned about the resources gap in training. The availability of resources will determine the development of training objectives and the choice of desirable training techniques. Both these are critical determinants for ensuring the sense of training for growth. He also felt that there is a resource gap in training i.e., availability of proper trainers of the training programme and training institutions. Thus the conference had only identified the shortcomings in the training procedure at present, but failed to suggest remedial actions. He discussed various qualities of a trainer such as, a high standard of competence, his behaviour, emphasis, personnel needs, effective use of training inputs etc. Ghosh, N.K. (1984) in his Article ―Role of Training for the better organization and productivity‖ stated that: ―Training has become a very useful tool in the hands of the management because of its important role in the man power development. With the sophistication in the industries, the role of training has become more important. The following points deserve vivid description‖. 1) Why Training? 2) What is in the training? 3) What are the intangible results of the training? 4) What are the training loopholes?

5) What are the training inputs? 6) What is the role of refresher training in the industry set up?

Concluding the article, it is said ―Training has its advantages, given the result context, training can really play wonders. But how many of us are really serious about it? In a developing country like ours, to the employer, training is a social responsibility, to a trainee, it is another kind of employment, to a trade union it is like there would be members in the process, if training to a society, it is a physical shape of statutory obligation and to a trainer, it is his means of bread and butter.‖ In addition to these, certain other important studies related to the present study are also reviewed.

Regarding the socialization process as induction training is called helps the individual to blend his personality with the organization. Dayal (1990) points out that the socialization process helps an employee to know more about himself, his hopes, aspirations and inclinations.

Chattopadhyay, P.K. (1990) collected data from 143 middle and senior managers of 18 organizations. His results showed that in terms of the benefits of management trainee scheme, 35.7 per cent felt that it increased management skills, while for 34.3 per cent and 32.8 per cent it enhanced adaptability, and motivation respectively.

During 1971 Argyris made a pioneering research study on the benefits of training. He suggested that an organization effectiveness depends on its ability to achieve its goals to maintain itself internally and to adapt to its environment. Continuous training would help the employees to cope with changes and retain organizational viability as well.

In a similar attempt Srinivasan (1977) collected data on trainees, focusing on the individuals‘ motivation for attending training programmes;

the study highlighted two areas — career development and continuing education.

In another study on the objectives of management development in India, Sai, P. (1997) collected data from 57 organizations, (41 private and 16 public) on the executive training schemes. He found that in majority of the cases the main objective of such training was individual development and growth followed by improving skills and knowledge, meeting organizational needs, and attitudinal change in that order.

McGhee and Thayer (l961) have made an in-depth study on identification of training needs and they have proposed a model of that consists of three components organizational analysis, Task analysis and Man analysis.

Johnson (2002) provides the following additional methods of identifying training needs. They are Analysis of Equipment, Brain storming, problem clinic, simulation.

Dayal (1990) suggests that a detailed study of jobs and skill analysis is absolutely necessary for training activity to be meaningful.

As far as the supervisory category is concerned, Sundaram (1970) points out that the training needs for supervisors can be identified through careful observation of their work, which is indicative of poor performance, low production, high cost, poor product quality, high scrap spoilage, wastage, accidents, absenteeism in and turn over.

Ghosh (1984) stresses the need for behavioural inputs in any training programme organized for supervisors; using the Delphi technique for assessing the training needs for managers.

Srinivasan (1977) recommends that the training programmes should focus on corporate planning, organizational development, and personnel management.

Bhatia (1981) sees a shift from knowledge to attitude as the main objective of training. He identifies three areas of training technical skills and knowledge, knowledge of organization and external systems, and conceptual and interpersonal skills. He suggests that the emphasis on these three must vary according to the level of employee.

Seth (1984) administered a 72 — item Questionnaire on 119 Personnel Managers. On the basis of his research result, Seth suggested that training for personnel managers should be directed towards attitudes and beliefs underlying managerial philosophy and their inter-relatedness.

In India, the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) introduced the action learning (simulation) method of training in some public enterprises like oil companies, air-craft manufacturing companies, fertilizer companies etc., (according to Bakshi (1979) till now over 82 such companies have introduced this programme with some degree of success.

Basha (1971) takes the stand that multinational operating in India find that their home tested training techniques do not have the same impact here. Due to the differences in culture and background, business games, T-groups, case methods, and workshops are not as effective in India as perhaps in Europe or America. He concludes that given the Indian context, the lecture-cum-discussion method would be most useful. In the same spirit, Prahlad and Thiagarajan (1971) suggest that structured exercises seem to offer greater scope in India. Saxena (1973) suggests that the OD technique can be most useful for training employees in Government.

In order to create a realistic atmosphere in training, Srinivasan (1980) used experimental learning techniques in training a group postal employees in the post staff college, New Delhi.

Agarwal (1982) in his study on graduate Engineering trainees in three large public sector organizations found that both the method and the contents of the training were perceived by the trainees as de motivating and dissatisfying.

Sai (l997) in his study of 57 organizations found that the most preferred method for executive training was conference followed by lectures, video, case study, role play, business games, programmed instructions and computer aided instructions in that order.

Charles (1980) provides through his study that the training Administration basically refers to converting training needs into contents, types of training programmes, location of training programmes, choice of faculty and participants and general administration. These issues deal with the design and development of training programmes.

Chatterjee (1978) lists four types of standard training programmes. They are induction training, supervisory training, technical training and management development training programme.

Saiyadain (1984) highlights the problems relate to faculty, participants and administration in the implementation of training programmes in public enterprises.

Mehta (l990) points out that the training effectiveness depends on two considerations. Firstly, trainers are fully responsible for training. If the employees do not show results, the trainer should be held accountable for

it. Secondly, training per se is not the answer to the problems. Training effectiveness depends on the kind of atmosphere and culture that is prevalent back home.

Sikka (1985) suggests two models to evaluate training effectiveness. First is the expectation — achievement model consisting of matching post-training achievements with pre-training expectations of the boss, peers the sub-ordinates and trainer himself. The second is the experimental control group model, wherein a group of employees who have gone through training is compared in terms of their performance with those who have not.

Omarbin Sayeed (1998) found that learning effect is a function of trainees ability to develop meaningful expectation of career utility of training and a deep sense of job involvement as most important variables contributing to training effectiveness. According to Lawande (l980), who carried research in Glaxo, it would be better at the individual level, if the person himself identifies the need for training and records it or the appraisee discusses the individual‘s training needs in view of his deficiencies on the job. Then, this process helps a great deal in making training useful to both the employees and the organization.

Studies on the identification of training needs emphasise not only the organizational analysis but job and individual role analysis as well. It is also useful to emphasise the need for training in human resources management.

A more direct approach was used by Kanitkar et al. (1994) instead of going to HRM Department, they approached section heads and senior managers of 73 milk unions associated with National Dairy Development Board. Their study revealed five contents of training that were identified

by a very large majority of respondents. These were cost consciousness, loss control, marketing, sanitation and hygiene and operations and maintenance of utilities.

―Who needs what kind of training‖ was the focus of a study by Singh et al. (1998). In a study of 92 Anganwadi workers, they found that the need for training correlated inversely with age and in service training.

Gopalakrishna and Achuthan (1985) asked 39 executives from 27 organizations to rank various training programmes according to the requirements of their organization programmes that could change the attitude and behaviour of participants and programmes that focus strategic decision-making, problem-solving etc., referred to top rank.

Srinivasan and Virmani (1977) mentions that a study conducted by the Administrative Staff College of India identifies lack of seriousness on the part of sponsored officers, lack of discussion with superiors on training, and different expectations from training, as major problems of training.

According to a paper published in Economic Times of May 26, 1976, 65 per cent contribution to successful training expenses is made by food, lodging and recreation facilities during the training programme.

Jam (1985) collected data on 119 managers in the Steel industry who had attended in company or external training programmes regarding the infrastructural facilities provided like the reading material, training equipment and good instructions etc.

Bannerji (1981) collected data on supervisors who had undergone training in an Indian Engineering Company. They were administered a check-list. According to him most of them felt that training did improve

their self-confidence, motivation, identification with management goals, and communication ability.

Maheswari (1989) collected data on 999 respondents from Banking Institutions. Though these managers found training programmes less effective with respect to their contribution to job performance, they did endorse the usefulness of formal training.

On a supervisory development course, Sinha (1984) asked the participants before the commencement of the training programme to write what qualities in their opinion, should the supervisor possess and rate them on a scale of 1 to 10. The results of the study suggest that training can show visible and effective results.

Kazmi (1990) found that most organizations have a high level of formalization with regard to the collection of gaining evaluation data.

Kumar & Shankar (1993) found that the alumni who want through training programmes reported training to be very much useful (34%) quite useful (63%) and of somewhat utility (3%).

Subramanian and Sajjan Rao (1997) studied the effect of tailor made training on 34 workers labeled as dirt bag or marginal workers. These workers were rated by their supervisors on overall job performance and adaptability and discipline etc.

According to Lippitt (1978) points out that HRD consists of a series of activities conducted to design behavioural changes in a specific period.

Rao (1985) defines HRD as a function consists of various activities related to training and development and performance appraisal.

Saiyadain (1981) points out that astonishing list of activities have been carried out in the name of HRD.

According to Monappa (1985) only HRD activities can achieve its ultimate aim of improving quality of life.

The research of Gopalakrishnan and Achuthan (1985) can be called comprehensive, as it deals with training needs, nature and duration of programmes and faculty mix.

Saiyadain (1987) conducted a survey of training functions in India covering 49 organizations. These results suggest that organizations have taken the help of external consultants in estimating the effectiveness of training programmes.

Subramanian, S. and Sajjan Rao, K. ―An integrated Training Intervention. New Perspective for enhancing work effectiveness of low performances‖, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 1997, 33 (1), pp. 68-80.

4.1 Review of literature on Dairy Industry

In the lines that follow, a brief account on review of current literature on dairy development has been provided with. Such type of review will provide enough access to the reader to understand the recent trends and the underlying problems faced by the dairy industry, as well as farmers and customers. This type of exercise would also provide to the researcher for identifying the research gap and gives appropriate direction for the identification of the objectives of the study.

―Gupta in his study stated that the per capita consumption of milk in India is only 140 grams. while in most of the European countries, it is between 1990 to 1698 grams per day. He also stressed that market surveys have revealed that only 43 percent of milk available is consumed in liquid form and the remaining is converted in to kova, dahi and other milk products.

Sharma et.al, worked out the economic demand for milk at 36.68 million liters in 1978 for India as against the recommended level of 210 grams per capita per day. According to his study, the milk production should increase at the rate of 3 metric tons. Annually up to 1978, thereafter at the rate of 4 metric annually so as to bridge the ever increasing gap between the demand and availability.

Muranjan identified key factors which affect the milk procurement viz., procurement price. Price of related commodities growth of procurement agencies and changes in the overall productions of milk in public sector diary plants in Maharashtra area.

Pillai considered the cost of fodder, cost of feed, labor cost (both family and hired labor) veterinary and miscellaneous expenses as variable cost, and depreciation and interests on value of animal, cow-shed and dead stock were treated as fixed cost. Among fixed costs the costs on shed, cows were significant and feed cost ranks high among the components of variable cost.

Bhasin pointed in his article that feed alone accounts for 60 to 70 per cent of the total cost of production in India. In Western countries, it accounts for 45 to 60 per cent. The difference is due to the component of labor cost.

In his study Jayachnadra made an attempt to study the season-wise cost and returns from dairying as well as the possibilities of employment

generation in drought—prone area of Chitttoor district. The study reveals that in order to reduce the cost of maintenance of much animals, it is essential; to increase the availability of fodder, especially green fodder.

Girdhari started in his article ―Dairy marketing ―, that if dairying is to be organized in the country on proper lines, proper marketing systems have to be developed. Effective marketing organization of milk requires development of suitable systems viz. procurement, process, pricing, packaging and distribution of milk and milk products.

David Avery Vose observe that the structure of the procurement market fluid milk served by a single co-operative societies approximated to monopoly, while markets having more sellers resemble a highly concentrated oligopoly where in the service constituted a source of product differentiation sanitary regulation, milk marketing order, full supply contract, the perishable nature of the product and transport cost influence this strength of barriers to entry.

Shaik studied milk-marketing practices and found that dairy industries, however in general, has not given give importance to marketing so far. Professionalism is not observed in the marketing of dairy products. He opined that this attitude needs to be changed especially when one considers future potential of growth of the dairy industry.

In spite of increase in supply and demand for milk, the channels of trade have not under gone any significant changing. Marketing of the middle men appear to have increased considerably

MahinderKaur and Gill seeks to examine the present system of milk marketing in Ludhiana district of Punjab in terms of existing milk market channels, costs involved and profit margin in different milk marketing channels. The study reveals that the direct channels (producer and

customer) in the most efficient from the point out view of producer and customers.

An economic study on intensive cattle development programmed in Bihar made by Ramakanti. A brief review of the current literature on dairying in India reveals that much emphasis was laid on economic aspects of the milk production and certain managerial aspects. However, scent attention was given to customer preferences and satisfaction about milk and milk products and certain of the important areas such as channels of distribution and promotional activities. Against this back drop, an attempt is made in this study to deserve in to the introduced areas as specified above.

5. Objectives

Chapter 5

Objectives

The objectives of the study are:

5. The study has been done with and special reference to Sangam Dairy.

6. Research Methodology

6.0 Secondary data: ...... 60 6.1 Primary Data: ...... 61 6.2 Sample size: ...... 61 6.3 Sampling Method: ...... 61 6.4 Data collection method ...... 61 6.4.1 Questionnaires: ...... 62 6.4.2 Schedules: ...... 62 6.5 Data Analysis: ...... 62

Chapter 6

Research Methodology

Methodology is a system of principles, practices and procedures applied to a specific branch of knowledge and it can also be described as the method of achieving objectives through the data collection.

Basically, data can be classified into two types

Secondary data Primary data

6.0 Secondary data:

Secondary data means data that is already available. They refer to the data which have already been collected and analyzed by someone else and which have already passed through the statistical process is called secondary data. Secondary data may either be published data or unpublished data.

The sources of secondary data are:

Printed materials and brochures Evaluation statements of the employees feedback using questionnaire method.

The secondary data used for the study are Company books and yearly accounts manuals. The history of the company, organizational structure, employee data, training methods are collected from company books, Financial structure, production figures, annual accounts, annual budget details are collected from early account manuals.

6.1 Primary Data:

Primary data can be collected either from experience or through survey. That data which is collected afresh and for the first time and thus happened to be original in character is called primary data. Some of the means of collecting Primary data are listed below:

Observation Through personal interview Questionnaire Schedules

6.2 Sample size:

The sample size for data collection is 125. The sample size was selected by using sample size calculator available at the website http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm. The sample size that was arrived at with a confidence level of 95% and confidence interval of 8% is 121.

6.3 Sampling Method:

The type of sampling chosen is ―Stratified sampling‖ as the population is divided into different segments on the basis of certain common characteristics and then selection of items randomly from them to constitute the sample. For the study the sample is selected randomly from different departments and different levels in each department. Necessary care was taken so ensure the sampling remained random.

6.4 Data collection method

The method used for data collection for the study is questionnaire and schedules.

6.4.1 Questionnaires:

The questionnaires are generally sent through mail to informants. For this study 50 questionnaires were administered to persons in the managerial and supervisory positions. The data collection through questionnaire is relatively cheap and economical. However non-response is usually high in this case and needs lot of followup.

The questionnaire was administered to about 75 workers. As most of the workers were not adequately educated to understand the questionnaires that were made in English, after a preliminary visit to the dairy the questionnaire was translated to Telugu, their mother tongue, The questionnaire and the options to all the questions are translated to Telugu and were given to the workers for obtaining their responses. For those workers who are not even proficient in reading Telugu schedules method was used for data collection.

6.4.2 Schedules:

Schedule method of data collection is very much like the collection of data through questionnaire, with a little difference that schedules are filled by the enumerators. Most of the workers in the organisation are insufficiently educated to respond to questionnaire. Hence, decided to use schedule for such sample respondents. Schedules were administered to about 40 respondents personally by researcher so as to ensure better control over data collection process.

6.5 Data Analysis: Data collected from the above exercise was fed to the SPSS software and an analysis was carried on the output of the SPSS. The graph and tables that were generated by the software is enclosed at Annexure II. The analysis was carried out separately for workers, executives and HR employees engaged in the process of training employees.

7. Sangam Dairy – A case study

7.0 Company profile of Sangam Dairy ...... 64 7.1 Organisational structure ...... 67 7.2 Market profile of sangam dairy ...... 68 7.3 Some facts about Sangam ...... 69 7.4 Other Services ...... 70 7.5 Future targets ...... 70 7.6 Awards and recognitions ...... 71 7.7 Innovations and interventions ...... 71 7.8 Services offebred to the milk producers by Sangam ...... 72 7.9 Man power status ...... 74 7.10 HR Activities in Sangam Diary ...... 74 7.12 Industrial relations ...... 77 7.13 Wage and salary administration ...... 77 7.14 Performance appraisal ...... 78 7.15 Employee welfare and social security ...... 79 7.16 Social security...... 79 7.17 Training programmes arranged in Sangam Dairy ...... 79

Chapter 7 Sangam Dairy – A Case study

7.0 Company profile of Sangam Dairy

Sangam dairy, Vadlamudi has area site of 27.3 acres and cost of factory building is Rs. 120 lakhs and the cost of UNICWF equipment and reaction of about 19.4 Cores at present.

The Guntur district Sangam diary registered on 6-7-1983. Authorized share capital is Rs. 5,00,000/- and paid up share capital is 3,02,000/-. The number of societies registered is 193, number of societies affiliated 165, amount of fixed deposits are worth Rs.6,61,500/-.

In 1988-90 machinery was established in processing section chillier capacity 20,000 ltd capacity 13 tanks. Now the above capacity is imported chiller capacity.

The factory has the installing capacity of 1.25 expansions to 2.59 lakh liters per day in the second stage. Sangam Dairy, Vadlamudi had the distribution of handling milk to its capacity in the second year operation. Apart from the handling milk (to its capacity) from Guntur district, it also

handled surplus milk received from districts of Prakasam during 1982-83 with a view to handling the increased surplus milk from Nellore, east and west Godavari districts, A second spray drying plant with latest design to produce about 14 M.T of milk powder had been established and commissioned during 1982.

Guntur District was formed on 1 October. 1904 with head quarters at Guntur. About 157 mandals have come into existence with effect from 25th May 1985 in the place of taluks and firkas. The Krishna and Nalgonda districts bound the district on the north, on the west by Prakasam and Mahaboobnagar districts, on the south by Prakasam district, on the east by Bay of Bengal. It is situated between 15-18 and 16- 50 of the north longitude and 7- 10 and 80-55 of the eastern longitude under the operation flood – 1 program. Guntur district was selected to develop dairy activities on Amul pattern. Keeping in view the 3-tier system of village dairy cooperative society at village level managed by the selected representative of milk producers, a co-operative union at district level managed by the representatives of village dairy co-operative societies and co-operative federation at state level which is the apex body are in vogue.

The Guntur district milk producers‘ co-operative union limited is registered under Andhra Pradesh co-operative society‘s act 1964 with registration number: 83 DD DT. 23.2.1977 with 81 affiliated milk producers‘ cooperative societies. At present 840 milk procuring co-operative and 125 milk collection centers are functioning in the area of Guntur district milk producer‘s cooperatives union limited. They are supplying a maximum quantity of 2.2 lakh liters milk per day during flush season. The board of management of the union comprise of 12 elected board of directors from the village dairy co-operative societies and 5 ex-official board directors comprising of one representative each from Andhra Pradesh dairy development co-operative Federation (A.P.D.D), Director of Animal Husbandry, Registrar of Co-operative societies, representative of finance

agency and the chief executive on the union. The management of the dairy was handed over to the Guntur district milk producers Co-operative Union limited by the Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation on 30-8-1978.

The Dairy has provision to mark 8 M.T of butter, 6 M.T of Ghee and 22 M.t of milk powder per day. The surplus milk after meeting the demand from the public will be converted into products. Sangam Ghee is consumed pack is being done only from Sangam Dairy, Vadlamudi in the state. During 1988, trails were successfully conducted on manufacture of infant milk food, based on the formula, provided by the centre subsequently. Infant milk food with the brand name of ―Sangam spray‖ was introduced in customer pack of 1kg and ½ kg throughout the country.

The Sangam diary, Vadlamudi had the distinction of being first public sector organization in the county, which produces milk powder - skim and whole milk powder. The Ice cream milk powder is also being manufactured in the dairy.

7.1 Organisational structure

Figure 2: Organisational Structure

Organisation structure

The structure of the milk products factory, Sangam is in such a way that there exist top-level management, upper, middle management and low level management.

Top level mamanagement

It refers to the administrative function and consists of board of Directors, Chairman, General Manager of the company. They constitute authority in the company, they set the objects the goal establishes the policies and that being put into effect not. The organization effectiveness depends upon willingness.

Upper level management

It consists of the various department heads such as plant manager production manager, Deputy director of procurement, senior A/C officer, marketing manager, material manager, personal manager and quality control manager.

Middle management

This group consists of the deputy heads of the upper middle managers. They are assistant dairy manager, assistant director A/C officer, assistant manager of stores, quality control officer, personal officer, and welfare section supervisor.

Lower level management

This group includes foreman, assistant dairy manger field supervisor, quality control, assistant manager and security supervisor.

7.2 Market profile of sangam dairy The union is currently marketing 150 lakh litres of milk in all the towns in Guntur district besides twin cities of Secendrabad and Hyderabad, Tirupati and Chennai. Sangam produces and markets several milk products like o Skim milk powder o Table butter under vijaya brand o White butter o Ghee o Doodhpeda o Sterilized flavoured milk

o Butter milk in sachets o Kalakan o Basundi cups o Curd(200 ml sachets,100 ml sachets) o Sweet lassi (200 ml glasses, 200 ml sachets) o Milk cake o Paneer o Sangam dairy also markets Mineral Water under ‗ Vijayasangam brand‘. Water is manufactured using ―Reverse osmosis‖ process.

7.3 Some facts about Sangam Sangam has a strength of 167 lakh member producers and produced around 479 lakh litres per annum during the year 2008 – 2009. Sangam pumps back around Rs.240 lakh in to the rural economy every 10 days towards payment to the milk producers (2008 – 2009). Sangam cooperative is spread across and interwoven with 643 villages of Guntur districts. Cream rich Sangam milk and Toned milk is sold in 8 towns in Guntur districts. Sangam is brand leader in Guntur district. Sangam paid one of the returns to the member producers during 2008- 2009, 76% of the turnover was paid as purchase price to farmer Sangam dairy products sell at a premium price on account of its quality and richness. Vijaya table butter is one of the leading brands in all Metro‘s. Table butter in 500 gms, 100 gms, 10 gms(chiplets) is manufactured at Sangam Dairy.

Sangam besides giving remunerative price to the farmers has been consistently paying price difference to all its milk producers from its surpluses. Sangam Dairy commands a business turnover of approximately 189 crores. It is projected to double in the next five years. Sangam hybrid fodder seeds are processed at it‘s own seed processing plant at Guntur and are sold to all leading cooperatives in the country.

7.4 Other Services Apart from the business of Dairy and dairy products Sangam is involved in serving the farming community in a big way. Various services that are offered to the farmers include Animal vaccines at subsidy rates Fodder seeds Distribution of chaff cutters Distribution of cattle feed on subsidy rates Distribution of mineral mixture Cattle insurance on 1/5 subsidy Providing financial aid in construction of society building Distribution of cross breed cows and heifers Training programmes to all farmers and paid secretaries Accidents insurance to all member producers

7.5 Future targets Some of the targets that sangam has set itself are To enhance the present procurement to 4.0 ltrs/day. To enhance the business turnover to 300 crores. To make pucca buildings for all the milk societies in villages. To bring all the societies in the districts to electronic milk testing.

To achieve total computerization of ERP – programme with OFC LAN network. To achieve auto milk collection units more than 80 milk societies in villages.

7.6 Awards and recognitions Sangam was awarded for excellence and some of the awards are Recipient of excellence award and udgyog ratna award during the year 1997 from the institution of economic studies – New Delhi. Recipient of gold star award from the council of economic study New Delhi in 1998. Recipient of sri Mulukunuru viswanatha Reddy Award for coop excellence by the coop development foundation – Hydarabad in 2005.

7.7 Innovations and interventions Sangam which has been innovating and some of their new interventions which have improved the position of the dairy and worth mentioning are 1. Marketing of Sangam milk initiated in Hyderabad (june1997) and Chennai (sep1999) and currently around 18,500 ltrs per day is sold on Hyderabad, 54,000 in Chennai, Tirupati, Kalahasti, Kanchi, Nellore and cuddapah. 2. Diversification into pure drinking water production and marketing of ―Vijaya Sangam‖ Mineral Water in 20 ltrs jars, 12 ltrs cans, 5ltrs bottles,1 ltr bottles, 500ml sachets. 3. Curd in200grams poly pouches and 100 ml cups. 4. Kalakhand in 250 grams plastic boxes. 5. Sweet lassi in 200 ml glasses and sachets marketing since April 2004.

6. Sangam ghee poly pouches in 1liter, 500 ml and 200 ml marketing since November 2000. 7. Milk cake and Paneer in 250 grams and home pack launched in January 2006. 8. Supplying cattle feed to meet the requirement of producers at just Rs.9.00 per kg. 9. Hybrid fodder seed, vaccines at subsidized prices to farmers. 10. Insurance coverage (milk producers accidental insurance) to 1,00,000 member milk producers for an amount of Rs.50,000.

7.8 Services offebred to the milk producers by Sangam

7.8.1 Milk procurement o Procuring all the surplus milk offered by Milk Producers round the year with remunerative price based on quality of milk offered. o Providing adequate infrastructural facilities for collection, testing and transportation of milk. o Free supply of testing chemicals to the MPCS. o Providing service to all the EMT machines used for fat testing. o Providing managerial assistance to the dairy co-operatives. o Encouraging the milk producers to form co-operatives and assisting them in the process. o Encouraging milk producers through awards to the best producers and co-operatives.

7.8.2 Animal breeding services o Providing artificial insemination services through the A.I centers maintained by the union. o Providing high pedigree frozen semen procured from reputed organizations o Supply of breeding bulls of Murrah breed for natural service.

7.8.3 Feed and fodder development Supplying quality feed of special ordinary, economy Categories regularly from union owned feed plants. o Supplying quality mineral mixture regularly. o Supplying hybrid varieties of fodder seed at cost. o Supplying fodder slips of improved varieties. o Conducting Silvil Pasture programme in orchards. o Conduct in wells recharging.

7.8.4 Animal health programme o Supplying Vaccine for prevention of HS. HS-BQ and FMD diseases on subsidized cost. o Supplying deworming drugs for calf and adult cattle on full cost o Arranging veterinary First Aid training to the MPCS Staff. o Providing veterinary First Aid service through the VFA centers maintained by the union. o Conducting animal health camps. o Conducting Mastitis control programme. o Organizing Brucellosis prevention programme.

7.8.5 Other activities o Providing insurance coverage for milk animals, milk producer, spouse and cattle shed under the Gopal Raksha Scheme. o Providing transport reimbursement for milk producers who procure Murrah Buffaloes and cross breed cows from other states.

7.9 Man power status

Table 7.1: Man Power Status (as on May, 2007) S.No. Name of the Post Scale of the No. of Pay (Rs.) Persons 1. Managing Director 1 2. Deputy director Cadre 8400-16525 2 3. Manager – Gr-1 Cadre 6850-14425 12 4. Manager - Gr-2 Cadre 5980-12100 28 5. J. Ms/ Mrktg. Supts. 5000-10600 5 6. Supervisors / Sr.Assts / UD 4190-8700 55 Accountants 7. Plant Mechanics / B.Os/ D.O.s/ 3550-7150 17 Sr/Drivers 8. Jr.Drivers / Jr. Assts / L Das/ 3290-6550 185 Typists / Mrkt. Asst / Field / Assts. Etc. 9. O.C.S/T.S. Das/ Cleaners / F.Hs 2750-5150 310 Total 615 Source : Company Records

7.10 HR Activities in Sangam Diary o Human resource management o Human resource development policy o Recruitment o Selection o Placement o Industrial Relations o Industrial Disputes System o Wage and Salary Administration o Performance appraisal.

7.10.1 Human resource activities in the organisation Human resources are nothing but the manpower in an organization. The development of human resources can be known by verifying the organizations human resources development policy. 7.11 Aspects covered under Human Resource Management

7.11.1 Recruitment Recruitment is a process to identify the suitable candidates to the suitable job.

7.11.2 Recruitment policy This organization follows two types of sources for the recruitment of the candidates. (i) Inside sources (ii) Outside sources

7.11.2.1 Inside sources This organization takes the help of inside sources in procedures like promotions, employee references, employee children's and transfers etc.

7.11.2.2 Outside sources The Organization follows this type of outside sources help to recruit the candidates. Outside sources of paper advertisements, through colleges and universities, employment exchanges Internet etc.

7.11.3 Selection Meaning: "Selection is a process to select the Right candidates for the given job."

7.11.3.1 Selection Procedure Sangam dairy follows the following procedure to the process of selection.

7.11.3.2 Application Bank It involves collection of candidate Name, Qualification, and experience etc. through the application they receive.

7.11.3.3 Tests After completion of short listing from the Application Blank, the HR department in Sangam conducts written test to assess the capability of the shortlisted candidates.

7.11.3.4 Interviews After completion of written test the organization conducts interviews for the applicants who qualified in the written test.

7.11.3.5 Medical Test It is a common test for every job in Sangam. The candidates qualified after the Interview will undergo medical test and only those who are successful after the medical test are offered appointment.

7.11.3.6 Placement Placement means to place the right candidates in the right job. The process of placement is done in two stages.

7.11.3.7 Induction Induction means to introduce the new employee for the organization. Generally the induction period is one day to one week, depending up on the person. If it is a big organization the induction period is one month. In Sangam dairy the Induction period, depending on the job, lasts between one day to one week.

7.11.3.8 Probation In Sangam the Executive and managerial cadre probationary period is six months to one year. If the management is not yet satisfied probation period could be extended.

7.12 Industrial relations

7.12.1 Grievance redressal system There are two types of methods followed to handle the Grievances of employees in Sangam. Step ladder policy Open door policy.

7.12.2 Industial disputes system Industrial disputes act 1947 described the methods and machinery to settle the disputes. The organization is following the same.

7.12.3 Works commiittee As per the industrial disputes act 1947 every organization where 100 or more workers are ordinarily employed the management should constitute workers committee with representatives of both employers and workers.

7.12.4 Safety committee As per Factories act 1948 every factory, where 1000 or More workers are ordinarily employed the management should constitute safety committee. As the number of employees in the organization is less than it is not mandatory to have a safety committee but however keeping the safety of employees in view they have a safety committee in place which looks after the safety of man and machines.

7.13 Wage and salary administration

7.13.1 Job Evaluation Job Evaluation is a method to evaluate the jobs. Based on the Job analysis the salary or wage of different cadres is fixed in Sangam.

7.13.2 Wage and salary components Basic salary + Dearness Allowances+ V.D.A.+T.A.+Medical Allowances +Other Allowances.

Policy procedure on D.A. Fixation ln this Organization they Follow in fixation of D.A .through collective bargaining between management & trade unions Wage board Recommendations, Index numbers, Awards consider in collective bargaining process.

7.14 Performance appraisal Performance appraisal is a method to evaluate the Performance of an individual.

7.14.1 Methods of Performance Appraisal In Sangam there are two types of methods Involved in performance appraisal. 1. Traditional method 2. Modern method

7.14.1.1 Traditional methods Traditional methods are (i) Simple Ranking Method (ii) Person-to-Person comparison method (iii) Graphic Scale Method (iv) Confidential method (vi) Forced method

7.14.1.2 Modernisation method: The modern methods are (i) MBO (management by objectives) (ii) BARS (Behavioral Anchored Rating Sales) (iii) Psychological Appraisal (iv) 3600appraisal

7.15 Employee welfare and social security . The following welfare Provisions mandated under the Factories act 1948 are provided for the smooth running of the Organization. Sec 42 Washing Facilities Sec 43 Facilities for Storing and Drying Clothing Sec 44 First aid Appliances Sec 45 Facilities for Sitting Sec 46 Canteen Facilities Sec 47 Shelters lunch rooms and Lunch Rooms Sec 48 Creches Sec 49 Welfare Affairs

7.16 Social security There are some Social Security Legislations existing in Sangam. 1. Employee Insurance Act 1948 2. Employee Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act1942.

7.17 Training programmes arranged in Sangam Dairy Like wise any other organization the Sangam Dairy unit also conduct the following training programmes. The dairy unit undertake the following programmes as its training programme. They are 1. On the job training 2. Off the job training

7.17.1 On the job training Methods of on the job training takes place in Sangam are a. Job rotation b. Job instruction training c. Coaching. d. Committee assignments.

7.17.1.1 Job rotation Job rotation implies systematic, planned and co-coordinated effort to transfer an executive from job to job or from plant to plant. The main aim of job rotation is to broaden the general back ground of the training business. A junior entrant who is new to the organization requires a considerable degree of specialized knowledge and skill but a man can never acquire the diversified skill unless he is put in different types of situations.

7.17.1.2 Job instruction training Under this method instruction is being given by the senior or the instructor and the employee or the junior will follow the instructions laid by the senior in order to arrive their task or to co-operate with the management so as to increase the productivity.

7.17.1.3 Coaching Under this method the immediate superior guides the subordinates about various methods and skills of job. He briefs the trainees what new is expected from him and also guides him how to get it. He also watches their performance.

7.17.1.4 Committee assignments Under this method ad-hoc committee is constructed and is assigned a subject related to make recommondents. Through the discussion in the committee meetings the performance of the members are reviewed and grade is given according to the performance.

7.17.2 Off the job training Off the job training techniques used in Sangam are a. Role play b. Lecture method c. management games d. case study e. special courses

7.17.2.1 Role play Under this method their definite role is given to an employee to play on. No dialogues will be given to the before. The employee should play a particular role if he is in a present situation which is given to him.

7.17.2.2 Lecture method A conference or Group meeting is conducted according to the organized plan in which members practiced the oral discussion of a particular problem and thus develop their knowledge and Understanding. It is an Executive training device for conference. members and conference leaders.

7.17.2.3 Management Games Role play is a technique generally used for human relations and leadership training. The purpose of trainees is to give an opportunity to the learn of human relation skills through practice and to developing sight of one‘s own behavior and effect upon others.

7.17.2.4 Case study Case study method is generally to teach law, business management and human relations etc. let the trainee may understand that there will be different solutions to a particular problem. Under this method real or hypothetical problem is given and solutions are to be given.

7.17.2.5 Special courses Under this method the special courses are offered by the management to the manager to study for the future benefit and to improve his own knowledge and to develop the organization .all this expenses will be bare by the company only.

The HRD activities of Sangam dairy are organized in a three tier system — village level, unit level and federation level. Villages form the grass root level of the co-operative milk societies. The membership of the villagers is mobilized and they are encouraged to become members of the society. They constitute an important aspect of dairy industry in the sense that the

milk is supplied by them for processing at the district level. The farmers are given guidance about the cattle rearing. They are also educated on various aspects of dairy technology like fodder for the cattle, maintenance of their health, promotion of hygiene, increase in milk yield and their role in the organizational set up co-operative societies. In this regard a good number of training programmes are organized for the farmers aiming at their participation and qualitative improvement in their contribution for effective functioning of society. A manager is appointed for this purpose at Sangam diary who along with his supporting staff goes to the rural areas and organize the training programmes at this level.

At the district level where the milk processing units are located attention is paid to cover both managerial as well as non-managerial employees under various training programmes. As regards the non- managerial employees, on the job-training becomes the key aspect. As soon as an employee is hired he is placed under the guidance of a supervisor, his performance on the job is closely supervised and monitored by the supervisor. The employee is given feedback about his performance and if necessary coaching is given to overcome his deficiencies and improve his performance.

In Sangam diary a training centre is established where the supervisors, technical staff, clerks, workers, helpers and dairy attendants are given training. This is mostly in the nature of off-the job training. If expertise in the organization in the unit is not adequate they can bring outside expert to train. It is noticed that an employee is given training not only in the narrow area of his job but also helped to acquire skills and knowledge in the related traits of the job. By this the concept of multi skilling is applied and employee after-receiving his training is able to perform the jobs of related trades. The researcher found that the efforts of the centre, through appreciable are not adequate and they need to be further strengthened.

It is also the practice of the units to send the employees to premier centres of dairy industry in the country for advanced training by utilizing the services of different experts.

At the state level where the federation operates, it is not uncommon for the units to depute administration staff to Hyderabad where training is offered in different aspects of effective management of co-operative as well as different aspects of industrial relations like grievance redressal, workers participation in management, communications, leadership development, productivity improvement etc.

The types of training activities undertaken by Sangam dairy are presented in Table 7.2 and Table 7.3 respectively.

Table 7.2: Training programmes with the place and duration

SI Programme Place Period 1. Animal Insemination Ahmadabad 110 days 2. Animal husbandry Anand Two months 3. Co-operative Training Bombay 11 days Short — course on Dairy 4. Bangalore 3 months Development Input Training for organization and 5. Anand Erode One month society 6. Motivation for Women Erode Two months 7. Quality Control Training Bangalore One month 8. Internal Training — Vijayawada KDMPCU Ltd One month 9. Co-operative Management Training Anand One month Extension at NDD Institution Building 10. Erode 15 days Development Quality Control Training (at a period 11. KDMPCU Ltd., 1 month of Joining) 12. Dairying Office Management Hyderabad 21 days

2 or 3 13. HRD Course Hyderabad months Operation and maintenance as 14. Baroda 40 days aseptic filling machines 15. IDDB Allahabad 2 years 16. In Plant Training Bangalore 1 month 17. English Training Hyderabad 20 days 18. First aid Training — Vijayawada KDMPCU Ltd 3 days 19. On powder maintenance NDDB Anand 25 days 20. APS BARODA - 21. Tinseemers Madras I week 22. Dairy Technology Hyderabad 3 months Source: Sangam HR departments records

As mentioned in the above Table 7.2 various training programmes are being organized in Vijayawada, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Bombay, Madras, Ahmedabad, Anand, Erode, Baroda, and Allahabad. The training programmes include animal insemination, animal husbandry, co-operative training, short-course on dairy development, input training for organization and society, motivation for women, quality control training, internal training, cooperative management training extension at NDD institution building development, dairy office management, HRD course, operation and maintenance as aseptic filling machines, in plant training, English training, first aid training, power maintenance, APS, tinseemers and dairy technology. The duration of the above training programmes vary from one week to two years depending upon the nature of the programme.

As revealed from the table 7.3 the planning included 8 training programmes i.e veterinary first aid and Artificial insemination, VDC training, institutional building and clean milk production, refresher course in Animal insemination and first aid, farmers induction programmes, MCM training programmes, management and accounts of MPCS and women

Table 7.3 Training Programmes conducted

Sl.No. Name of the Programme Duration Batch size 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 Veterinary first aid & Artificial 1 Insemination) 45 DAYS 20 60 60 60 60 2 V.D.C Training 12 DAYS 20 20 20 40 40 Institutional Building and clean 3 milk production 3 DAYS 20 160 160 180 180 Refresher Course in A.l & first 4 aid 6 DAYS 20 40 40 40 40 Farmers Inductions 5 programme 1 DAY 50 600 600 600 600 6 M.C.M. Training Programme 2 DAYS 20 300 300 300 300 Management and Accounts of 7 MPCS 5 DAYS 20 100 100 100 100 8 Woman Presidents 3 DAYS 10 30 30 30 30 1310 1310 1350 1350 Source: Sangam HR department records

presidents. The total number of trainees deputed for the above programmes year wise are 1310 (2004-05), 1310 (2005-06), 1350 (2006- 07), and 1350 (2007-08). The duration of the programmes vary from one day to 45 days. As indicated in the above table the management provided the farmers induction programmes of one day duration and MCM training programmes of two days duration for 600 and 300 farmers respectively as per their plan.

8. Data Analysis

8.0 General questions ...... 88 8.1 Questions specific to Executives ...... 96 8.2 Questions specific to Workers ...... 105 8.3 Questions specific to HR Executives...... 118

Chapter 8 Data Analysis 8.0 General questions Age of Respondents

Respondents Age No of respondents 20 to 30 Years 9 30 to 40 Years 19 40 to 50 Years 33 50 to 60 Years 64

20 to 30 Years 7% 30 to 40 Years 15%

50 to 60 Years 51% 40 to 50 Years 27%

The sample consisted of 125 employees of which 51% are of the age group of 50 – 60 and less than 50% have more than 10 years till their retirement. This organisation has most of the employees above 50 years of age as is with most of the organisations under government or in the public sector. Most of the people were recruited when the dairy started operation and the recruitment in the later periods were minimal owing to the improvement in technology and the output increase could be achieved with the same man power. As seen only 7% of the man power is in the age group 20 to 30 years. This group size will see an increase after about ten years when the people in the 50 to 60 years age group retire and new people are recruited.

Respondents distribution – Gender

Gender No of respondents Female 21 Male 104

Female 17%

Male 83%

The sample consists of 83% are male and 17% are female.

Respondents distribution – Designation

Designation No of Respondents Asst Manager 14 Field Supervisor 4 Junior Assistant 11 Jr Asst Manager 2 Junior Manager 12 Manager 9 Sr Assistant 20 Senior Manger 10 Worker 43

Asst Manager Field 11% Supervisor 3%

Junior Worker Assistant 34% 9% Jr Asst Manager 2% Junior Manager 10%

Senior Manager Manger Sr Assistant 7% 8% 16%

Among respondents 34% are workers,16% are SeniorManagers,11% are AssistantManagers,10% are Junior Managers, 9% are Junior Managers, 8% are Senior Managers, 7% are Managers,3% field Managers and 2% are Junior Assistant Managers are the respondents for the study.

Respondents distribution – department wise

Department No of Respondents Engineering 15 Finance & Accounts 7 Human Resources 20 Marketing 8 P & I Wing 25 Plant & Production 50

Engineering 12% Finance & Accounts 6% Plant & Production 40% Human Resources 16%

Marketing 6% P & I Wing 20%

In respondents 40% are plant and production,20% are p&I wing,16% are hr,12% are Engineering,6% are marketing and 6% are finance department.

Experience profile of respondents

Question: How long have you been working for this company?

Experience No of Respondents < 10 years 22 10 to 20 years 32 > 20 years 71

< 10 years 17%

> 20 years 57% 10 to 20 years 26%

Among the respondents 57% have more than 20 years of experience,26% have between 10-20 years of experience, and 17% have less than 10 years of experience.

Respondents opinion about Importance of training

How important is training to your role in the Organisation?

Importance of training No of Respondents Very important 63 Important 26 Somewhat important 25 Least important 8 No opinion 3

Least important No opinion 7% 2%

Somewhat important 20% Very important 50%

Important 21%

Among the respondents 50% of employees feel training is important for their role, 21% of employees feel training is somewhat important, 20% of employees feel training is important,7% of employees feel training is least important and 2% expressed no opinion about the utility of the trainnig.

Opinion on Need of training for improving skills of workers

Do you think training is essential for improving skills on the job?

Training for improving skills No of Respondents Very much Essential 63 I can perform as well without training 39 To some extent 3

To some extent 3%

I can perform as well without training 37% Very much Essential 60%

Among the respondents 60% of them feel training is essential and helps them in performing their duties while 37% of them feel that they can perform well without training, and only 3% of them feel that to some extent training is essential. This indicates that the trainings help the employees in improving the skills and help them do their work in a more efficient manner.

Preferred training method

Question asked: What type of training program you prefer?

Training method preferred No of Respondents On the job 52 Away from work 15 Combination of both 38

Combinati on of both 36% On the job 50%

Away from work 14%

Among the respondents 50% of them prefer on the job training, 36% of them prefer combination of both and 14% of them prefer off the job training. The results are as expected as in most of the industries where technology is in use on the job training methods train the people in better way and also make them confident and better prepared for carrying out their jobs.

8.1 Questions specific to Executives

Number of Trainings attended

Question asked: How many training programs did you attend this year?

Trainings attended No of Respondents Attended atleast one 13 Attended more than one 16 Attended as per need and suggestion of superiors 26 We need not attend but learn on the job 7

We need not attend but learn on the Attended job atleast one 11% 21%

Attended as per need and Attended suggestion more than of superiors one 42% 26%

Among the respondents them 42% indicated that they attended trainings as suggested by superiors and when ever required, 26% of them attended more than one training, 21% attended only one and 11% did not attend any training program but they learnt on the job. In all a total of 53% attended trainings either on a need basis or learnt on the job which again is a need based effort. This shows that the company is making a good effort in making an effective use of training as a tool of improving the capabilities of the employees.

No of days of training attended

Question asked: What is the minimum number of days of training participation during in the year?

Training duration No of Respondents 1 Week 29 2 Weeks 21 4 Weeks 12

4 Weeks 19%

1 Week 47%

2 Weeks 34%

Almost all respondents attended at least a training during the past one year which seems to be a very good effort on the part of HR department.

Problems encountered during training

Question asked: Have come across any problem during the training sessions conducted in your organisation?

Problems during training No of Respondents Interpersonal 4 Personal 13 External 14 No problem 31

Interperso nal 6%

Personal 21%

No problem 50%

External 23%

Among the respondents 50% of employees have no problem during the training sessions, 23% have external problems, 21% have personal problems and the 6% have interpersonal problems. As 50% had no problem while another 50% had some kind of problem this area needs the attention of the management.

Practice during training

Question asked: Enough practice is given to the participants during the training session. Do you agree with this statement?

Enough Practice during training No of Respondents Strongly agree 12 Agree 41 Somewhat agree 5 Disagree 4

Disagree 7% Somewhat Strongly agree agree 8% 19%

Agree 66%

Among the respondents 66% felt that enough practice is given during training sessions,19% strongly agreed to this question put to them, 8% agreed somewhat and 7% disagreed. This shows that 85% of employees agreed that they get enough practice during training sessions.

Assessment of effectiveness of training

Question asked: How does the organisation assess the effectiveness of training programs?

Training effectiveness assessment No of Respondents Periodical tests during training 14 Feedback from the trainer 33 Measurement of change in Quality or result achieved 14 By measuring the change in employee turnover or 1 reduction in accidents

By measuring the change in employee Measuremen turnover or Periodical t of change reduction in tests during in Quality or accidents training result 2% 22% achieved 23%

Feedback from the trainer 53%

The respondents were asked about the manner in which the effectives of training can be assessed. Among the respondents 53% have responded that feedback from trainers, 23% have answered by improvement in the quality of work after the training, 22% have answered that a test during training, 2% have answered that employee turnover or reduction in accidents can be used as a tool for knowing the effectiveness of training.

100

Result of tests during training

Question asked: If tests are conducted during training period, what was your result?

Test results No of Respondents Good 33 Average 25 Poor 4

Poor 7%

Average Good 40% 53%

Among the test results of 53% respondents are good, 40% are with average results and 7% had poor results. Overall 93% of the trainees had a good or average results and probably the trainees had the desired effect on the employees.

101

Incentive on successful training completion

Question asked: Is there any change in your job assignment after successful completion of training?

Changes post Training No of Respondents Promotion 13 More responsibility 27 They consider a request for transfer 2 Job rotation or change of department 19

Job Promotion rotation or 22% change of department 31%

They consider a More request for responsibili transfer ty 3% 44%

After training 44% of the respondents got more responsibility, 31% got job rotation or change of department, 22% got promotion and request for transfer of 3% was accepted. A total of 66% of the respondents were either promoted or given more responsibility after successful training. This not only ensures interest in training participation but also motivates more employees to attend the trainings and take them seriously.

102

Effectiveness of training in relation to Job

Question asked: Considering the trainings attended by you in the recent past, effectiveness of training and the job you are performing after the training what do you feel about the trainings?

Effectiveness of training No of Respondents They are very much useful and improve the efficiency 48 Not that useful but should be conducted for whatever improvement they 10 bring in They are not that much useful but help the employee in diverting his 1 attention and relaxing They are least useful but should be conducted as company requires the 1 trainings to be conducted Not at all useful and is a waste of company resources and money 2

2% 2% They are very much useful and 3% improve the efficiency

Not that useful but should be 16% conducted for whatever improvement they bring in

They are not that much useful but help the employee in diverting his attention and relaxing

They are least useful but should be 77% conducted as company company requires the trainings to be conducted Not at all useful and is a waste of company resources and money

Among the respondents 77% feel that trainings are very much useful and improve the efficiency, 16% feel that trainings are not that useful but should be conducted for whatever improvements they bring in, 3% feel that trainings are not at useful,2% feel not that they are least useful but should be conducted as a matter of policy. The overwhelming majority opinion shows that the trainings are serving the purpose for which they are conducted in any organisation.

103

Effectiveness of training to subordinates

Question asked: Did anyone reporting to you attend any training in the recent past?

Whether any Subordinate trained No of Respondents Yes 30 No 32

If Yes what is your opinion about the effectiveness of the training?

Effectiveness of subordinate No of Respondents training Very effective 17 Somewhat effective 13

yes, Very No effective Yes, 52% Yes 48% 27% Somewhat effective 21%

Subordinates of about 48% of the supervisors attended trainings. Of these supervisors about 27% felt that the training was very effective and the remaining 21 % felt that the training was somewhat effective in improving the efficiency of the subordinates. This shows that almost all the supervisors whose subordinates were trained felt that the training was effective.

104

8.2 Questions specific to Workers Induction training

Question asked: Did the organisation conduct any training programme immediately after recruiting?

Induction training imparted No of Respondents Yes 24 No 19

No 44% Yes 56%

Among the respondents 56% of employees were given induction training and 44% of employees were not given induction training but they were directly put on job and given on the job training.

105

Usefulness of Induction training

Question asked: That training was useful for your work?

Usefulness of induction training No of Respondents Yes 28 No 15

No 35%

Yes 65%

Among the respondents 65% feel that induction training programme is useful and 35% feel that induction training programme is not useful.

106

Training for improvement of skills on the job

Question asked: Do you think training is essential for improving your skills on the job?

Training for improvement of skills No of Respondents Very much essential 27 I can perform as well without training 13 To some extent 3

To some extent 7%

I can perform as well without training 30% Very much essential 63%

When the respondents were asked to respond about the utility of training in improving the skills of the trainee 63% of them felt that the training is very much essential in improving the skills of the trainees while about 7% felt that the the trainings help to some extent. At the same time a significant 30% of the employees felt that they can perform as well without the need for training.

107

Preferred Duration of training

Question asked: Do you prefer short term training programme or long term training programme?

Duration of training preferred No of Respondents Short term (2 to 3 days) 10 1 to 2 weeks 25 Long term (more than 2 weeks) 8

Long term (more Short than 2 term (2 to weeks) 3 days) 19% 23%

1 to 2 weeks 58%

Among the respondents 58% preferred 1-2 weeks training, 23% preferred 2-3 days training, 19% preferred more 2 weeks training. The preference seems to be for short term training.

108

Training method preferred

Question asked: Do you prefer on the job training programmes or training conducted away from your work area?

Type of training preferred No of Respondents On the job training 26 Away from work 3 Combination of both 14

Combinatio n of both 33%

On the job training 60%

Away from work 7%

Among the respondents 50% preferred on the job training programme, 33% preferred combination of both and 7% preferred away from work. It looks as though the trainings are conducted in true spirit with the trainees involved in training and the preference seem to be for learning on the job so that they tackle real time problems in an effective and efficient manner.

109

Trainings attended

Question asked: How many training programmes did you attend during the last one year?

No fo trainings attended No of Respondents 0-2 29 02 to 04 14

02 to 04 33%

0-2 67%

Among the respondents 67% had less than 2 training programmes during the last year and 33% attended between 2-4 training programmes.

110

Practice during training

Question asked: Enough practice is given to the participants during the training session. Do you agree with this statement?

Practice during training No of Respondents Strongly agree 27 Agree 5 Somewhat agree 11

Somewhat agree 25%

Strongly agree Agree 63% 12%

63% of the trainees felt that they received enough practice during the training while 25% partially agreed to this. A minority of 12% said that they did not get enough practice during the trainings. The trainings conducted seems to be with emphasis on giving the trainees enough practice.

111

Time duration of trainings

Question asked: The time duration given for the training period is

Duration of training No of Respondents Sufficient 31 To be extended 7 Do not know 5

Do not know 12%

To be extended 16%

Sufficient 72%

Almost three fourths of the respondents felt that the duration of the trainings is sufficient while 16% felt that the duration is not sufficient. It shows that the training duration is aptly determined for that audience.

112

Incentive on completion of training

Question asked: Is there any change in your job assignment after successful completion of training?

Changes post training No of Respondents Promotion 8 More responsibility 24 Consider a request for transfer 3 Job rotation or change of department 8

Job rotation Promotion or change of 18% department 19%

Consider a request for transfer 7%

More responsibility 56%

56% of the respondents are given more responsibility and 18% are promoted on successful completion of the training.

113

Effectiveness of training

Question asked: Considering the trainings attended by you in the recent past, effectiveness of training and the job you are performing after the training what do you feel about the trainings

Effectiveness of training No of Respondents They are very much useful and improve the efficiency 32 Not that useful but should be conducted for whatever improvement they 7 bring in They are not that much useful but help the employee in diverting his 3 attention and relaxing They are least useful but should be conducted as company policy requires 1 the trainings to be conducted

2% They are very much useful and improve the efficiency 7%

Not that useful but should be conducted for whatever 16% improvement they bring in

They are not that much useful but help the employee in diverting his attention and relaxing 75%

They are least useful but should be conducted as company policy requires the trainings to be conducted

Almost 75% of employees trained felt that the training are very much useful and improve the efficiency. Of the remaining 25% only 2% felt that trainings are least useful.

114

Government aided trainings

Question asked: Did you attend any government aided training programmes?

Govt aided training No of Respondents Yes 5 No 38

Yes 12%

No 88%

Among the respondents 88% have not attended any government aided training programmes and 12% are attended government aided training programmes.

115

Who are trained more

Question asked: Who do you think are given more preference in trainings?

Training prefrence No of Respondents Managers 14 Skilled workers 23 All are given equal preference 4 There is a different criterion for that 2

There is a different All are given criterion for equal that preference 5% 9% Managers 33%

Skilled workers 53%

Among the respondents 53% feel training is preferred to skilled workers,33% feel training is preferred to managers,9% feel all are given equal preference, 5% feel training is given by different criterion.

116

Feedback on trainings

Question asked: Is a feedback collected after training?

Feedback No of Respondents Yes and I gave feedback 17 Yes but I did not give feedback 6 No, they never ask for feedback 20

Yes and I gave No, they feedback never ask 40% for feedback 46%

Yes but I did not give feedback 14%

Among the respondents 46% indicated that they were not asked feedback, 40% have given their feedback and 14% were asked feedback but they have not given their opinion. It looks as though the system of asking feedback from participants is not followed strictly as almost 60% missed out giving their feedback.

117

8.3 Questions specific to HR Executives Barriers to training

Question asked: What do you think are the important barriers to training and development in your organisation

Barriers to training No of Respondents Time 15 Lack of interest by the staff 1 Non availability of skilled trainers 4

Non availability of skilled trainers 20%

Lack of interest by the staff 5%

Time 75%

Among the respondents 75% feel time is the important barriers to training, 20% feel non availability of skilled trainers and 5% feel lack of interest by the staff.

118

Question asked: How is the trainee participation and interest ensured by the organisation?

Trainee interest No of Respondents By closely monitoring the participation 15 By giving certificates 4 Any other 1

Any other 5%

By giving certificates 20%

By closely monitoring the participation 75%

75% of the HR team indicated that the interest among the trainees is kept alive by monitoring the participants closely and 20% felt that the interest can be kept alive by giving them certificates.

119

Question asked: The extent to which the training objectives are met during the training session

Extent of achivement of objectives No of Respondents All the objectives are met 3 Most of the objectives are met 5 Some of the objectives are met 11 Not sure 1

Not sure 5% All the objectives are met 15%

Most of the Some of the objectives are objectives are met met 25% 55%

Among the HR respondents 55% feel that some of the objectives are met during the training period, 25% feel that most of the objectives are met, 15% feel that all the objectives are met and 5% are not sure.

120

Question asked: If yes what type of training programme do you suggest?

Type of training No of Respondents Short term training 13 Combination of both 7

Combinatio n of both 35%

Short term training 65%

65% of the HR executives who were interviewed felt that short term trainings should be conducted and about 35% felt that the trainings should be a combination of both long term and short term. They informed that short term trainings keeps the participants interested and the trainings conducted give good results.

121

Do you think training is essential for improving skills on the job?

Age Very much I can perform as well To some extent Not required Essential without training 20 to 30 3.0 2.0 .0 4.0 Years 33.3% 22.2% .0% 44.4% 30 to 40 11.0 6.0 .0 2.0 Years 57.9% 31.6% .0% 10.5% 40 to 50 19.0 9.0 1.0 4.0 Years 57.6% 27.3% 3.0% 12.1% 50 to 60 30.0 22.0 2.0 10.0 Years 46.9% 34.4% 3.1% 15.6%

20 to 30 Years 30 to 40 Years 40 to 50 Years 50 to 60 Years

57.60% 57.90%

46.90% 44.40%

33.30% 31.60% 34.40% 27.30% 22.20% 12.10%15.60% 10.50% 3.00%3.10% 0.00%0.00% Very much Essential I can perform as well without To some extent Not required training

Very much Essential I can perform as well without training To some extent Not required

57.90% 57.60% 44.40% 46.90% 33.30% 31.60% 34.40% 27.30% 22.20% 15.60% 10.50% 12.10% 0.00% 0.00% 3.00% 3.10%

20 to 30 Years 30 to 40 Years 40 to 50 Years 50 to 60 Years

122

What type of training program you prefer?

Age On the job Away from work Combination of both 20 to 30 Years 4.0 .0 3.0 44.4% .0% 33.3% 30 to 40 Years 9.0 3.0 4.0 47.4% 15.8% 21.1% 40 to 50 Years 13.0 5.0 11.0 39.4% 15.2% 33.3% 50 to 60 Years 26.0 7.0 20.0 40.6% 10.9% 31.3% 50.00% 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 20 to 30 Years 25.00% 30 to 40 Years 20.00% 40 to 50 Years 15.00% 50 to 60 Years 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% On the job Away from work Combination of both

50.00% 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% On the job 25.00% 20.00% Away from work 15.00% Combination of both 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 Years Years Years Years

123

What is the minimum number of days of training participation during in the year?

Age 1 Week 2 Weeks 4 Weeks 20 to 30 Years 3.0 3.0 .0 33.3% 33.3% .0% 30 to 40 Years 3.0 1.0 4.0 15.8% 5.3% 21.1% 40 to 50 Years 5.0 6.0 3.0 15.2% 18.2% 9.1% 50 to 60 Years 18.0 11.0 5.0 28.1% 17.2% 7.8% 35.00%

30.00%

25.00% 20 to 30 Years 20.00% 30 to 40 Years 15.00% 40 to 50 Years

10.00% 50 to 60 Years

5.00%

0.00% 1 Week 2 Weeks 4 Weeks

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

20.00% 1 Week 2 Weeks 15.00% 4 Weeks 10.00%

5.00%

0.00% 20 to 30 Years 30 to 40 Years 40 to 50 Years 50 to 60 Years

124

Considering the trainings attended by you in the recent past, effectiveness of training and the job you are performing after the training what do you feel about the trainings?

Age They are Not that useful They are not They are least Not at all very much but should be that much useful but useful and is useful and conducted for useful but help should be a waste of improve the whatever the employee conducted as company efficiency improvement in diverting his company resources they bring in attention and company and money relaxing requires the trainings to be conducted 20 to 30 4.0 1.0 .0 1.0 .0 Years 44.4% 11.1% .0% 11.1% .0% 30 to 40 6.0 2.0 .0 .0 .0 Years 31.6% 10.5% .0% .0% .0% 40 to 50 9.0 4.0 .0 .0 1.0 Years 27.3% 12.1% .0% .0% 3.0% 50 to 60 29.0 3.0 1.0 .0 1.0 Years 45.3% 4.7% 1.6% .0% 1.6%

50.00%

45.00% They are very much useful and improve the efficiency 40.00%

35.00% Not that useful but should be 30.00% conducted for whatever improvement they bring in 25.00%

20.00% They are not that much useful but help the employee in 15.00% diverting his attention and relaxing 10.00% They are least useful but 5.00% should be conducted as company company requires the 0.00% trainings to be conducted 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 Years Years Years Years

125

Do you prefer short term training programme or long term training programme?

Age Short term (2 to 3 days) 1 to 2 weeks Long term (more than 2 weeks) 20 to 30 Years .0 1.0 .0 .0% 11.1% .0% 30 to 40 Years 1.0 7.0 .0 5.3% 36.8% .0% 40 to 50 Years 6.0 7.0 2.0 18.2% 21.2% 6.1% 50 to 60 Years 3.0 10.0 6.0 4.7% 15.6% 9.4% 40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00% 20 to 30 Years 20.00% 30 to 40 Years 15.00% 40 to 50 Years 10.00% 50 to 60 Years

5.00%

0.00% Short term (2 to 3 1 to 2 weeks Long term (more days) than 2 weeks)

40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00% Short term (2 to 3 days)

20.00% 1 to 2 weeks 15.00%

10.00% Long term (more than 2 weeks) 5.00%

0.00% 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 Years Years Years Years

126

Do you prefer on the job training programmes or training conducted away from your work area?

Age On the job training Away from work Combination of both 20 to 30 Years 1.0 .0 .0 11.1% .0% .0% 30 to 40 Years 6.0 .0 2.0 31.6% .0% 10.5% 40 to 50 Years 9.0 2.0 4.0 27.3% 6.1% 12.1% 50 to 60 Years 10.0 1.0 8.0 15.6% 1.6% 12.5%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

20.00% 20 to 30 Years 30 to 40 Years 15.00% 40 to 50 Years 10.00% 50 to 60 Years 5.00%

0.00% On the job Away from work Combination of training both

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

20.00% On the job training 15.00% Away from work

10.00% Combination of both

5.00%

0.00% 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 Years Years Years Years

127

Considering the trainings attended by you in the recent past, effectiveness of training and the job you are performing after the training what do you feel about the trainings

Age They are very Not that useful but They are not that They are least useful much useful should be conducted much useful but but should be and improve for whatever help the employee conducted as company the efficiency improvement they in diverting his policy requires the bring in attention and trainings to be relaxing conducted 20 to 30 1.0 .0 .0 .0 Years 11.1% .0% .0% .0% 30 to 40 4.0 4.0 .0 .0 Years 21.1% 21.1% .0% .0% 40 to 50 11.0 3.0 1.0 .0 Years 33.3% 9.1% 3.0% .0% 50 to 60 16.0 .0 2.0 1.0 Years 25.0% .0% 3.1% 1.6%

35.00% They are very much useful and 30.00% improve the efficiency

25.00% Not that useful but should be 20.00% conducted for whatever improvement they bring in

15.00% They are not that much useful but help the employee in 10.00% diverting his attention and relaxing 5.00% They are least useful but should be conducted as company policy requires the trainings to 0.00% be conducted 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 Years Years Years Years

128

9 Conclusions, Suggestions and Limitations 9.0 Conclusions & findings ...... 130 9.1 Suggestions ...... 131 9.2 Limitations ...... 133

129

Chapter 9 Conclusions, Findings and Limitations

9.0 Conclusions & findings 1. Majority of the employees are quite satisfied with the training programmes conducted in Sangam. 2. Mostly in-house training programmes are conducted than institutional training programmes. 3. Employees participate in determining their training programmes and orient them to their specific needs. 4. Training programmes are not linked with performance appraisal. Promotion policy in sangam is mostly based on seniority. 5. Most of the employees are having more than 20-30 years of experience. But in this period of their service, yearly they are only 2-4 training programmes some of them have not attended any training programmes. 6. The training programmes held are mostly of short term training programme and they are mostly on the job training programmes and the employees also preferred on the job training programmes. 7. Most of the employees agreed that training programmes help in achieving individual as well as organizational goals. 8. In sangam training needs are identified by the need and suggestions of superiors and the HR people also said the same. 9. In Sangam most of the employees accepted that time duration given for them is sufficient. 10. In Sangam nearly half of the employees have not been given induction training programme, most of the employees have suggested that induction training programmes are essential. 11. In Sangam more than half of the employees are given more responsibility after training programmes, very few are getting promotion or financial incentives. This may be the reason the employees are not that interested in training programmes.

130

12. In Sangam, the management is not sending employees to government aided training programmes. These training programmes are very helpful for the employees but however no one is sponsored in the recent past. 13. In Sangam HR people accepted that only some of the training objectives are met at present but they are making effort to meet all the objectives. 14. Training programmes held so far gave satisfactory results. 15. In Sangam preference is given to young employees who have joined recently for training programmes.

9.1 Suggestions 1. It was observed that the trainings were not held as per plan and the training programs should be held regularly as per the requirement to get more advantage of the trainings. 2. The employees should be given more motivational training programs and the trainings that are conducted should be interesting because they are in the bore dome state. 3. The organization should conduct more of practical training programmes so that each employee is given a chance to learn practically and clear his or her doubts. 4. In Sangam as seen in the data analysis 51% of the employees are in the age group 50 – 60 years and another 21% are in the age group of 40 – 50 years. Also, about 57% of the total sample has experience of more than 20 years. Keeping this fact in view the necessity to conduct long term training programmes is less and short term programmes will be enough to keep the employees in touch with the latest and also this reduces the expenses. 5. Many of the employees felt that induction training helped them in delivering better results. Hence induction training should be given compulsorily to all the employees of the organization so that all the employees can understand better the companies and

131

management‘s expectations from them and they can be better prepared to deliver the expectations. 6. After the successful training completion most of the employees got more responsibility while some of them were promoted. Giving the employees incentives on successful completion of the training should be thought of as a motivational scheme as this will increase the interest of the employees in trainings. As the employees acquire new knowledge, skills or aptitude and apply them on their job, they should be significantly rewarded for their effort. 7. The HR executives should try to meet all the objectives of training programmes when they conduct a training programme. 8. Some of the employees in the organization feel that they can perform as well without training programme which shows that the trainings could not meet their expectations or the trainings did not add to their knowledge. So, an effort should be made to make a careful planning of the training programmes and also to select employees with uniform aptitude and knowledge levels so that the trainings can be made interesting for all the participants. 9. The training programme should be designed in such a way that fulfils organizational requirement and the individual needs. 10. The management and the HR department should compulsorily take the opinion and suggestions of the workers and the employees who participate in the trainings programmes through written feedback or by interviewing them personally wherever written feedback is not possible. 11. The organization must conduct feedback analysis of training programme and take immediate action and incorporate the suggestions so that the employees too feel their inclusion in training programmes. This automatically promotes buy-in and ownership of the employees for the trainings and increases participation and interest.

132

12. Sangam mostly concentrating on training programmes for skilled workers and managers. They should take care of the training needs of other employees and those in support services as well. 13. The trainer has to adjust the training programme to the individual abilities and aptitude. Individuals vary in intelligence and aptitude from person to person.

9.2 Limitations

1. . The scope of the present study is very wide, which required much time, so the researcher had to confine the study to the human resource activities. 2. . The study period is very limited. The researcher had to collect the information in a short period. Time is not sufficient to do a thorough study. 3. . It is felt that some of the answers given by the employees to the questionnaire are theoretical and the opinions expressed are dependent on the employees, union rules and the management. 4. . The study is restricted to Sangam. Although there are some limitations to the study this can be helpful for the understanding of the Human Resource Policies and Practices of the dairy industry. 5. . All the employees are working from the time the organization started operations and it is felt that due to this reason they developed a great sense of loyalty to the organization. Due to this loyalty they are not willing to give answer against their organization in which they started their career and have built their social status and development of their families depended on the organisation.

133

10 Appendix I – Research questionnaire

10.0 Questionnaire on Training and Development for Managers ... 135 10.1 Questionnaire on Training and Development For workers ..... 139

10.2 ...... 143

10.3 Questionnaire on Training and Development for HR executives 146

134

Chapter 10 Appendix I – Research Questionnaire

10.0 Questionnaire on Training and Development for Managers i. Name (optional) : ii. Age : iii. Sex : Male / Female iv. Designation : v. Department :

1. For how long have you been working for this company a) Less than 10 years b) 10 – 20 years c) More than 20 years

2. How important is training to your role in the organisation? a) Very important b) Important c) Somewhat important d) Least important

3. Do you think training is essential for improving your skills on the job? a) Very much essential b) I can perform as well without training c) To some extent

4. Type of training method used in your organisation. Please tick the relevant a) On the job b) off the job

135

c) A combination of both

5. Do you prefer on the job training programmes or training conducted away from your work area? a) On the job training b) Away from work c) Combination of both

6. Is attending training compulsory and if yes how many do you attend in a year? a) Yes, we should attend at least one b) Yes, we attend more than one c) Yes, but we attend as per the need and suggestion by their superiors d) No, we need not attend any training programs and learn on the job

7. What is the minimum number of days of participation is required per year a) One week b) Two weeks c) Four weeks d) More than four weeks

8. Have you come across any problem during the training sessions conducted in your organisation? a) Interpersonal b) Personal c) External

136

9. Enough practice is given to the participants during the training session. Do you agree with this statement? a) Strongly agree b) Agree c) Somewhat agree d) Disagree

10. How does the organisation assess the effectiveness of training programmes a) Periodical test during the training period b) Feedback from the trainers c) Measurement of change in quality or result achieved. d) By measuring the reduction in employee turnover or the accidents.

11. If tests are conducted during training period or at the end of training to evaluate the participant’s involvement and learning what was your result?

12. Is there any change in your job assignment after successful completion of training? a) Promotion b) More responsibility c) They consider a request for transfer d) Job rotation or change of department e) Any other

13. Considering the trainings attended by you in the recent past, effectiveness of training and the job you are performing after the training what do you feel about the trainings a) They are very much useful and improve the efficiency

137

b) Not that useful but should be conducted for whatever improvement they bring in c) They are not that much useful but help the employee in diverting his attention and relaxing d) They are least useful but should be conducted as company policy requires the trainings to be conducted e) Not at all useful and is a waste of company resources and money

14. Did anyone reporting to you attend any training in the recent past? Yes No If yes, what is your opinion about the effectiveness of the training? a) Very affective b) Somewhat affective c) Not that effective but still is required to divert the attention from routine work d) Not at all affective and a waste of time

15. Any suggestions / changes / improvements would you like to suggest to make the trainings programs more effective and useful.

138

10.1 Questionnaire on Training and Development For workers i. Name (Optional): ii. Age : iii. Sex : Male / Female iv. Designation : v. Department :

1. For how long have you been working for this company a) Less than 10 years b) 10 – 20 years c) More than 20 years

2. Did the organisation conduct any training programme immediately after recruiting? Yes No If yes how many days?

3. That training was useful for your work? Yes No

4. Do you think training is essential for improving your skills on the job? a) Very much essential b) I can perform as well without training c) To some extent

5. Do you prefer short term training programme or long term training programme a) Short term (2 to 3 days) b) 1 to 2 weeks c) Long term (more than 2 weeks)

139

6. Do you prefer on the job training programmes or training conducted away from your work area? a) On the job training b) Away from work c) Combination of both Any reason for the above preference 7. How many training programmes did you attend during the last one year? a) 0-2 b) 2-4 c) 4-6 d) More than 6 8. Enough practice is given to the participants during the training session. Do you agree with this statement? a) Strongly agree b) Agree c) Somewhat agree d) Disagree

9. The time duration given for the training period is a) Sufficient b) To be extended c) To be shortened d) Do not know

10. Is there any change in your job assignment after successful completion of training? a) Promotion b) More responsibility c) Consider a request for transfer d) Job rotation or change of department e) Any other

140

11. Considering the trainings attended by you in the recent past, effectiveness of training and the job you are performing after the training what do you feel about the trainings a) They are very much useful and improve the efficiency b) Not that useful but should be conducted for whatever improvement they bring in c) They are not that much useful but help the employee in diverting his attention and relaxing d) They are least useful but should be conducted as company policy requires the trainings to be conducted e) Not at all useful and is a waste of company resources and money

12. Did you attend any government aided training programmes? Yes No If yes how many have you attended in the last year?

13. Who do you think are given more preference in trainings? a) Managers b) Skilled workers c) All are given equal preference d) There is a different criterion for that.

14. Is a feedback collected after training? a) Yes and I gave feedback b) Yes but I did not give feedback c) No, they never ask for feedback If yes and if you gave a feedback, were your suggestions anytime incorporated in later trainings.

141

15. Any suggestions / changes / improvements you would like to suggest in order to make the trainings programs in your organisation more effective and useful.

142

10.2 i. :

ii. :

iii.

iv. :

v. :

1. a) 10 b) 10 – 20 c) 20 2. ?

3. ?

4. ? a) b) c) 5. a) (2 to 3 ) b) 1 2 c) (2 ) 6. ? a) b) c)

7. ? a) 0-2 b) 2-4 c) 4-6 d) 6 8.

143

a) b) c) d) 9. a) b) c) d) 10. ? a) b) c) d) e) 11.

a) b) c) d) e) 12.

13. ? a) b) Skilled workers c) d) 14. ? a) b) c)

144

15.

145

10.3 Questionnaire on Training and Development for HR executives Demographic data

i. Name : ii. Age : iii. Sex : Male / Female iv. Designation :

1. For how long you have been working in this department? a) Less than 10 years b) 10-20 years c) More than 20 years

2. Do you think training is essential for improving the skills of the workers? Yes No If yes what type of training programme do you suggest? a) Short term training b) Long term training c) Combination of both

3. How are training needs of the employees assessed a) Feedback from employees b) Requirement of sectional heads c) Schedule already prepared d) Any other

4. Which category of employees is given more training in your organisation?

146

a) Operational b) Managerial c) Both

5. How many trainings did you conduct during the current year so far? a) ForExecutives: Planned______, Actually conducted______b) For workers: Planned______, Actually conducted______

6. Type of training method used in your organisation. Please tick the relevant a) On the job b) Off the job c) A combination of both

7. Do the training programmes have any clearly laid out objectives to focus on a) Yes b) No

8. The extent to which the training objectives are met during the training session a) All the objectives are met b) Most of the objectives are met c) Some of the objectives are met d) None of the objectives are met e) Not sure

9. Is there any incentive offered to attend the training programme (please specify)

147

10. Who conducts your training programmes in your organization a) External trainers b) In house trainers c) Combination of both

11. Do you have in house training department to conduct or organise the employee training programmes a) Yes b) No

12. How is the trainee participation and interest ensured by the organisation? a) By closely monitoring the participation b) By giving rewards c) By giving certificates d) Any other

13. How does the organisation assess the effectiveness of training programmes a) Periodical test during the training period b) Feedback from the trainers c) Measurement of change in quality or result achieved. d) By measuring the reduction in employee turnover or the accidents.

14. If tests are conducted during training period or at the end of training to evaluate the participant’s involvement and learning, how were the results? a) Satisfactory

148

b) Somewhat satisfactory c) Not satisfied

15. What do you think are the important barriers to training and development in your organisation a) Time b) Money c) Lack of interest by the staff d) Non availability of skilled trainers

16. Have you come across any problem during the training session conducted in your organisation? a) Interpersonal b) Personal c) External

17. Any suggestions / changes / improvements you would like to suggest in order to make the trainings programs in your organisation more effective and useful.

149

11 Appendix II – SPSS Output

11.0 Responses of Executives ...... 151 11.1 Responses of HR Executives...... 182 11.2 Responses of workers ...... 206

150

Chapter 11 Appendix II – SPSS Output

11.0 Responses of Executives Age Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent 20-30 25.00 6 9.68 9.68 9.68 30-40 35.00 8 12.90 12.90 22.58 40-50 45.00 14 22.58 22.58 45.16 50-60 55.00 34 54.84 54.84 100.00 Total 62 100.0 100.0 age_range N Valid 62 Missing 0 Mean 47.26 Std Dev 10.15 Minimum 25.00 Maximum 55.00

Gender Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Female f 7 11.29 11.29 11.29 Male m 55 88.71 88.71 100.00 Total 62 100.0 100.0

Designation Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Asst Manager am 10 16.13 16.13 16.13 Field Supervisor f 4 6.45 6.45 22.58 Junior Assistant ja 8 12.90 12.90 35.48 Jr Asst Manager jam 2 3.23 3.23 38.71 Junior Manager jm 10 16.13 16.13 54.84 Manager m 6 9.68 9.68 64.52 Sr Assistant sa 14 22.58 22.58 87.10 Senior Manger sm 8 12.90 12.90 100.00 Total 62 100.0 100.0

Department Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent

151

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent > 20 yea 1 1.61 1.61 1.61 Engineering e 15 24.19 24.19 25.81 Finance & Accounts fa 7 11.29 11.29 37.10 Marketing m 8 12.90 12.90 50.00 P & I Wing pi 16 25.81 25.81 75.81 Plant & Production pp 15 24.19 24.19 100.00 Total 62 100.0 100.0

How long have you been working for this company? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent < 10 years a 14 22.58 22.58 22.58 10 to 20 years b 13 20.97 20.97 43.55 > 20 years c 35 56.45 56.45 100.00 Total 62 100.0 100.0

How important is training to your role in the Organisation? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Very important a 26 41.94 41.94 41.94 Important b 25 40.32 40.32 82.26 Somewhat important c 8 12.90 12.90 95.16 Least important d 3 4.84 4.84 100.00 Total 62 100.0 100.0

Do you think training is essential for improving skills on the job? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Cum Percent Percent Very much Essential a 39 62.90 62.90 62.90 I can perform as well without b 3 4.84 4.84 67.74 training To some extent c 20 32.26 32.26 100.00 Total 62 100.0 100.0

Type of training method used in your organisation? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent On the job a 27 43.55 43.55 43.55 Off the job b 10 16.13 16.13 59.68 Combination of both c 25 40.32 40.32 100.00 Total 62 100.0 100.0

What type of training program you prefer? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent On the job a 26 41.94 41.94 41.94 Away from work b 12 19.35 19.35 61.29 Combination of both c 24 38.71 38.71 100.00 Total 62 100.0 100.0

How many training programs do you ateend in a year?

152

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Cum Percent Percent Attend atleast one a 13 20.97 20.97 20.97 Attend more than one b 16 25.81 25.81 46.77 Attend as per need and suggestion of c 26 41.94 41.94 88.71 superiors We need not attend but learn on the d 7 11.29 11.29 100.00 job Total 62 100.0 100.0

What is the minimum number of days participation required in a year? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent 1 Week a 29 46.77 46.77 46.77 2 Weeks b 21 33.87 33.87 80.65 4 Weeks c 12 19.35 19.35 100.00 Total 62 100.0 100.0

Have come across any problem during the training sessions conducted in your organisation? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Interpersonal a 4 6.45 6.45 6.45 Personal b 13 20.97 20.97 27.42 External c 14 22.58 22.58 50.00 No problem d 31 50.00 50.00 100.00 Total 62 100.0 100.0

Enough practice is given to the participants during the training session. Do you agree with this statement? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Strongly agree a 12 19.35 19.35 19.35 Agree b 41 66.13 66.13 85.48 Somewhat agree c 5 8.06 8.06 93.55 Disagree d 4 6.45 6.45 100.00 Total 62 100.0 100.0 How does the organisation assess the effectiveness of training programs? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Cum Percent Percent Periodical tests during training a 14 22.58 22.58 22.58 Feedback from the trainer b 33 53.23 53.23 75.81 Measurement of change in Quality or c 14 22.58 22.58 98.39 result achieved By measuring the change in employee d 1 1.61 1.61 100.00 turnover or reduction in accidents Total 62 100.0 100.0

If tests are conducted during training period, what was your result? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Good a 33 53.23 53.23 53.23

153

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Average b 25 40.32 40.32 93.55 Poor c 4 6.45 6.45 100.00 Total 62 100.0 100.0

Is there any change in your job assignment after successful completion of training? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Cum Percent Percent 1 1.61 1.61 1.61 Promotion a 13 20.97 20.97 22.58 More responsibility b 27 43.55 43.55 66.13 They consider a request for transfer c 2 3.23 3.23 69.35 Job rotation or change of d 19 30.65 30.65 100.00 department Total 62 100.0 100.0

Considering the trainings attended by you in the recent past, effectiveness of training and the job you are performing after the training what do you feel about the trainings? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Cum Percent Percent They are very much useful and improve the a 48 77.42 77.42 77.42 efficiency Not that useful but should be conducted b 10 16.13 16.13 93.55 for whatever improvement they bring in They are not that much useful but help the c 1 1.61 1.61 95.16 employee in diverting his attention and relaxing They are least useful but should be d 1 1.61 1.61 96.77 conducted as company company requires the trainings to be conducted Not at all useful and is a waste of company e 2 3.23 3.23 100.00 resources and money Total 62 100.0 100.0

Did anyone reporting to you attend any training in the recent past? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Yes a 30 48.39 48.39 48.39 No b 32 51.61 51.61 100.00 Total 62 100.0 100.0

If Yes what is your opinion about the effectiveness of the training? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent 32 51.61 51.61 51.61 Very effective a 17 27.42 27.42 79.03 Somewhat effective b 13 20.97 20.97 100.00 Total 62 100.0 100.0

Designation * QEHW1 [count, row %, column %, total %].

154

Designation < 10 years 10 to 20 years > 20 years Total Asst Manager 3.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 30.0% 20.0% 50.0% 100.0% 21.4% 15.4% 14.3% 16.1% 4.8% 3.2% 8.1% 16.1% Field Supervisor .0 .0 4.0 4.0 .0% .0% 100.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 11.4% 6.5% .0% .0% 6.5% 6.5% Junior Assistant 4.0 1.0 3.0 8.0 50.0% 12.5% 37.5% 100.0% 28.6% 7.7% 8.6% 12.9% 6.5% 1.6% 4.8% 12.9% Jr Asst Manager 1.0 1.0 .0 2.0 50.0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% 7.1% 7.7% .0% 3.2% 1.6% 1.6% .0% 3.2% Junior Manager 3.0 6.0 1.0 10.0 30.0% 60.0% 10.0% 100.0% 21.4% 46.2% 2.9% 16.1% 4.8% 9.7% 1.6% 16.1% Manager 1.0 1.0 4.0 6.0 16.7% 16.7% 66.7% 100.0% 7.1% 7.7% 11.4% 9.7% 1.6% 1.6% 6.5% 9.7% Sr Assistant 2.0 .0 12.0 14.0 14.3% .0% 85.7% 100.0% 14.3% .0% 34.3% 22.6% 3.2% .0% 19.4% 22.6% Senior Manger .0 2.0 6.0 8.0 .0% 25.0% 75.0% 100.0% .0% 15.4% 17.1% 12.9% .0% 3.2% 9.7% 12.9% Total 14.0 13.0 35.0 62.0 22.6% 21.0% 56.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 22.6% 21.0% 56.5% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 28.88 14 .01 Likelihood Ratio 34.50 14 .00 N of Valid Cases 62

Designation * QE2 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Very important Important Somewhat important Least important Total Asst Manager 3.0 6.0 1.0 .0 10.0 30.0% 60.0% 10.0% .0% 100.0%

155

Designation Very important Important Somewhat important Least important Total 11.5% 24.0% 12.5% .0% 16.1% 4.8% 9.7% 1.6% .0% 16.1% Field Supervisor 1.0 3.0 .0 .0 4.0 25.0% 75.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 3.8% 12.0% .0% .0% 6.5% 1.6% 4.8% .0% .0% 6.5% Junior Assistant 3.0 3.0 2.0 .0 8.0 37.5% 37.5% 25.0% .0% 100.0% 11.5% 12.0% 25.0% .0% 12.9% 4.8% 4.8% 3.2% .0% 12.9% Jr Asst Manager .0 2.0 .0 .0 2.0 .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 8.0% .0% .0% 3.2% .0% 3.2% .0% .0% 3.2% Junior Manager 6.0 2.0 2.0 .0 10.0 60.0% 20.0% 20.0% .0% 100.0% 23.1% 8.0% 25.0% .0% 16.1% 9.7% 3.2% 3.2% .0% 16.1% Manager 3.0 2.0 1.0 .0 6.0 50.0% 33.3% 16.7% .0% 100.0% 11.5% 8.0% 12.5% .0% 9.7% 4.8% 3.2% 1.6% .0% 9.7% Sr Assistant 6.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 14.0 42.9% 35.7% 7.1% 14.3% 100.0% 23.1% 20.0% 12.5% 66.7% 22.6% 9.7% 8.1% 1.6% 3.2% 22.6% Senior Manger 4.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 8.0 50.0% 25.0% 12.5% 12.5% 100.0% 15.4% 8.0% 12.5% 33.3% 12.9% 6.5% 3.2% 1.6% 1.6% 12.9% Total 26.0 25.0 8.0 3.0 62.0 41.9% 40.3% 12.9% 4.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 41.9% 40.3% 12.9% 4.8% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 16.11 21 .76 Likelihood Ratio 17.69 21 .67 N of Valid Cases 62

Designation * QE3 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Very much I can perform as well without To some Total Essential training extent Asst Manager 8.0 1.0 1.0 10.0 80.0% 10.0% 10.0% 100.0% 20.5% 33.3% 5.0% 16.1% 12.9% 1.6% 1.6% 16.1%

156

Designation Very much I can perform as well without To some Total Essential training extent Field 4.0 .0 .0 4.0 Supervisor 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 10.3% .0% .0% 6.5% 6.5% .0% .0% 6.5% Junior 4.0 .0 4.0 8.0 Assistant 50.0% .0% 50.0% 100.0% 10.3% .0% 20.0% 12.9% 6.5% .0% 6.5% 12.9% Jr Asst .0 .0 2.0 2.0 Manager .0% .0% 100.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 10.0% 3.2% .0% .0% 3.2% 3.2% Junior 6.0 .0 4.0 10.0 Manager 60.0% .0% 40.0% 100.0% 15.4% .0% 20.0% 16.1% 9.7% .0% 6.5% 16.1% Manager 3.0 .0 3.0 6.0 50.0% .0% 50.0% 100.0% 7.7% .0% 15.0% 9.7% 4.8% .0% 4.8% 9.7% Sr Assistant 9.0 2.0 3.0 14.0 64.3% 14.3% 21.4% 100.0% 23.1% 66.7% 15.0% 22.6% 14.5% 3.2% 4.8% 22.6% Senior Manger 5.0 .0 3.0 8.0 62.5% .0% 37.5% 100.0% 12.8% .0% 15.0% 12.9% 8.1% .0% 4.8% 12.9% Total 39.0 3.0 20.0 62.0 62.9% 4.8% 32.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 62.9% 4.8% 32.3% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 15.76 14 .33 Likelihood Ratio 18.37 14 .19 N of Valid Cases 62

Designation * QE4 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation On the job Off the job Combination of both Total Asst Manager 5.0 1.0 4.0 10.0 50.0% 10.0% 40.0% 100.0%

157

Designation On the job Off the job Combination of both Total 18.5% 10.0% 16.0% 16.1% 8.1% 1.6% 6.5% 16.1% Field Supervisor 3.0 .0 1.0 4.0 75.0% .0% 25.0% 100.0% 11.1% .0% 4.0% 6.5% 4.8% .0% 1.6% 6.5% Junior Assistant 3.0 2.0 3.0 8.0 37.5% 25.0% 37.5% 100.0% 11.1% 20.0% 12.0% 12.9% 4.8% 3.2% 4.8% 12.9% Jr Asst Manager 2.0 .0 .0 2.0 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 7.4% .0% .0% 3.2% 3.2% .0% .0% 3.2% Junior Manager 4.0 2.0 4.0 10.0 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 100.0% 14.8% 20.0% 16.0% 16.1% 6.5% 3.2% 6.5% 16.1% Manager 2.0 1.0 3.0 6.0 33.3% 16.7% 50.0% 100.0% 7.4% 10.0% 12.0% 9.7% 3.2% 1.6% 4.8% 9.7% Sr Assistant 5.0 1.0 8.0 14.0 35.7% 7.1% 57.1% 100.0% 18.5% 10.0% 32.0% 22.6% 8.1% 1.6% 12.9% 22.6% Senior Manger 3.0 3.0 2.0 8.0 37.5% 37.5% 25.0% 100.0% 11.1% 30.0% 8.0% 12.9% 4.8% 4.8% 3.2% 12.9% Total 27.0 10.0 25.0 62.0 43.5% 16.1% 40.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 43.5% 16.1% 40.3% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 10.27 14 .74 Likelihood Ratio 11.03 14 .68 N of Valid Cases 62

Designation * QE5 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation On the job Away from work Combination of both Total Asst Manager 5.0 3.0 2.0 10.0 50.0% 30.0% 20.0% 100.0% 19.2% 25.0% 8.3% 16.1% 8.1% 4.8% 3.2% 16.1%

158

Designation On the job Away from work Combination of both Total Field Supervisor 3.0 1.0 .0 4.0 75.0% 25.0% .0% 100.0% 11.5% 8.3% .0% 6.5% 4.8% 1.6% .0% 6.5% Junior Assistant 4.0 1.0 3.0 8.0 50.0% 12.5% 37.5% 100.0% 15.4% 8.3% 12.5% 12.9% 6.5% 1.6% 4.8% 12.9% Jr Asst Manager .0 .0 2.0 2.0 .0% .0% 100.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 8.3% 3.2% .0% .0% 3.2% 3.2% Junior Manager 3.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 30.0% 20.0% 50.0% 100.0% 11.5% 16.7% 20.8% 16.1% 4.8% 3.2% 8.1% 16.1% Manager .0 2.0 4.0 6.0 .0% 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% .0% 16.7% 16.7% 9.7% .0% 3.2% 6.5% 9.7% Sr Assistant 9.0 1.0 4.0 14.0 64.3% 7.1% 28.6% 100.0% 34.6% 8.3% 16.7% 22.6% 14.5% 1.6% 6.5% 22.6% Senior Manger 2.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 100.0% 7.7% 16.7% 16.7% 12.9% 3.2% 3.2% 6.5% 12.9% Total 26.0 12.0 24.0 62.0 41.9% 19.4% 38.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 41.9% 19.4% 38.7% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 16.85 14 .26 Likelihood Ratio 21.36 14 .09 N of Valid Cases 62

Designation * QE6 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Attend Attend Attend as per need We need not Total atleast one more than and suggestion of attend but learn one superiors on the job Asst 2.0 1.0 6.0 1.0 10.0 Manager 20.0% 10.0% 60.0% 10.0% 100.0% 15.4% 6.3% 23.1% 14.3% 16.1% 3.2% 1.6% 9.7% 1.6% 16.1%

159

Designation Attend Attend Attend as per need We need not Total atleast one more than and suggestion of attend but learn one superiors on the job Field 1.0 1.0 2.0 .0 4.0 Supervisor 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% 7.7% 6.3% 7.7% .0% 6.5% 1.6% 1.6% 3.2% .0% 6.5% Junior .0 3.0 3.0 2.0 8.0 Assistant .0% 37.5% 37.5% 25.0% 100.0% .0% 18.8% 11.5% 28.6% 12.9% .0% 4.8% 4.8% 3.2% 12.9% Jr Asst .0 1.0 .0 1.0 2.0 Manager .0% 50.0% .0% 50.0% 100.0% .0% 6.3% .0% 14.3% 3.2% .0% 1.6% .0% 1.6% 3.2% Junior 4.0 5.0 1.0 .0 10.0 Manager 40.0% 50.0% 10.0% .0% 100.0% 30.8% 31.3% 3.8% .0% 16.1% 6.5% 8.1% 1.6% .0% 16.1% Manager .0 .0 6.0 .0 6.0 .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 23.1% .0% 9.7% .0% .0% 9.7% .0% 9.7% Sr Assistant 5.0 1.0 6.0 2.0 14.0 35.7% 7.1% 42.9% 14.3% 100.0% 38.5% 6.3% 23.1% 28.6% 22.6% 8.1% 1.6% 9.7% 3.2% 22.6% Senior 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 8.0 Manger 12.5% 50.0% 25.0% 12.5% 100.0% 7.7% 25.0% 7.7% 14.3% 12.9% 1.6% 6.5% 3.2% 1.6% 12.9% Total 13.0 16.0 26.0 7.0 62.0 21.0% 25.8% 41.9% 11.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 21.0% 25.8% 41.9% 11.3% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 32.11 21 .06 Likelihood Ratio 37.71 21 .01 N of Valid Cases 62

Designation * QE7 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation 1 Week 2 Weeks 4 Weeks Total

160

Designation 1 Week 2 Weeks 4 Weeks Total Asst Manager 8.0 1.0 1.0 10.0 80.0% 10.0% 10.0% 100.0% 27.6% 4.8% 8.3% 16.1% 12.9% 1.6% 1.6% 16.1% Field Supervisor 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 100.0% 6.9% 4.8% 8.3% 6.5% 3.2% 1.6% 1.6% 6.5% Junior Assistant 4.0 .0 4.0 8.0 50.0% .0% 50.0% 100.0% 13.8% .0% 33.3% 12.9% 6.5% .0% 6.5% 12.9% Jr Asst Manager 1.0 1.0 .0 2.0 50.0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% 3.4% 4.8% .0% 3.2% 1.6% 1.6% .0% 3.2% Junior Manager 2.0 6.0 2.0 10.0 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% 100.0% 6.9% 28.6% 16.7% 16.1% 3.2% 9.7% 3.2% 16.1% Manager 4.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 66.7% 16.7% 16.7% 100.0% 13.8% 4.8% 8.3% 9.7% 6.5% 1.6% 1.6% 9.7% Sr Assistant 7.0 5.0 2.0 14.0 50.0% 35.7% 14.3% 100.0% 24.1% 23.8% 16.7% 22.6% 11.3% 8.1% 3.2% 22.6% Senior Manger 1.0 6.0 1.0 8.0 12.5% 75.0% 12.5% 100.0% 3.4% 28.6% 8.3% 12.9% 1.6% 9.7% 1.6% 12.9% Total 29.0 21.0 12.0 62.0 46.8% 33.9% 19.4% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 46.8% 33.9% 19.4% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 22.85 14 .06 Likelihood Ratio 25.02 14 .03 N of Valid Cases 62

Designation * QE8 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Interpersonal Personal External No problem Total Asst Manager 1.0 2.0 1.0 6.0 10.0 10.0% 20.0% 10.0% 60.0% 100.0%

161

Designation Interpersonal Personal External No problem Total 25.0% 15.4% 7.1% 19.4% 16.1% 1.6% 3.2% 1.6% 9.7% 16.1% Field Supervisor 1.0 1.0 2.0 .0 4.0 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% 25.0% 7.7% 14.3% .0% 6.5% 1.6% 1.6% 3.2% .0% 6.5% Junior Assistant 1.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 8.0 12.5% 12.5% 37.5% 37.5% 100.0% 25.0% 7.7% 21.4% 9.7% 12.9% 1.6% 1.6% 4.8% 4.8% 12.9% Jr Asst Manager .0 2.0 .0 .0 2.0 .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 15.4% .0% .0% 3.2% .0% 3.2% .0% .0% 3.2% Junior Manager 1.0 1.0 6.0 2.0 10.0 10.0% 10.0% 60.0% 20.0% 100.0% 25.0% 7.7% 42.9% 6.5% 16.1% 1.6% 1.6% 9.7% 3.2% 16.1% Manager .0 1.0 .0 5.0 6.0 .0% 16.7% .0% 83.3% 100.0% .0% 7.7% .0% 16.1% 9.7% .0% 1.6% .0% 8.1% 9.7% Sr Assistant .0 1.0 1.0 12.0 14.0 .0% 7.1% 7.1% 85.7% 100.0% .0% 7.7% 7.1% 38.7% 22.6% .0% 1.6% 1.6% 19.4% 22.6% Senior Manger .0 4.0 1.0 3.0 8.0 .0% 50.0% 12.5% 37.5% 100.0% .0% 30.8% 7.1% 9.7% 12.9% .0% 6.5% 1.6% 4.8% 12.9% Total 4.0 13.0 14.0 31.0 62.0 6.5% 21.0% 22.6% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 6.5% 21.0% 22.6% 50.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 39.37 21 .01 Likelihood Ratio 39.97 21 .01 N of Valid Cases 62

Designation * QE9 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Strongly agree Agree Somewhat agree Disagree Total Asst Manager 1.0 7.0 .0 2.0 10.0 10.0% 70.0% .0% 20.0% 100.0% 8.3% 17.1% .0% 50.0% 16.1% 1.6% 11.3% .0% 3.2% 16.1%

162

Designation Strongly agree Agree Somewhat agree Disagree Total Field Supervisor .0 4.0 .0 .0 4.0 .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 9.8% .0% .0% 6.5% .0% 6.5% .0% .0% 6.5% Junior Assistant 1.0 7.0 .0 .0 8.0 12.5% 87.5% .0% .0% 100.0% 8.3% 17.1% .0% .0% 12.9% 1.6% 11.3% .0% .0% 12.9% Jr Asst Manager .0 2.0 .0 .0 2.0 .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 4.9% .0% .0% 3.2% .0% 3.2% .0% .0% 3.2% Junior Manager 5.0 5.0 .0 .0 10.0 50.0% 50.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 41.7% 12.2% .0% .0% 16.1% 8.1% 8.1% .0% .0% 16.1% Manager .0 3.0 2.0 1.0 6.0 .0% 50.0% 33.3% 16.7% 100.0% .0% 7.3% 40.0% 25.0% 9.7% .0% 4.8% 3.2% 1.6% 9.7% Sr Assistant 3.0 8.0 2.0 1.0 14.0 21.4% 57.1% 14.3% 7.1% 100.0% 25.0% 19.5% 40.0% 25.0% 22.6% 4.8% 12.9% 3.2% 1.6% 22.6% Senior Manger 2.0 5.0 1.0 .0 8.0 25.0% 62.5% 12.5% .0% 100.0% 16.7% 12.2% 20.0% .0% 12.9% 3.2% 8.1% 1.6% .0% 12.9% Total 12.0 41.0 5.0 4.0 62.0 19.4% 66.1% 8.1% 6.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 19.4% 66.1% 8.1% 6.5% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 24.67 21 .26 Likelihood Ratio 26.70 21 .18 N of Valid Cases 62

Designation * QE10 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Periodical Feedback Measurement of By measuring the Total tests during from the change in Quality or change in employee training trainer result achieved turnover or reduction in accidents Asst .0 7.0 3.0 .0 10.0 Manager .0% 70.0% 30.0% .0% 100.0%

163

Designation Periodical Feedback Measurement of By measuring the Total tests during from the change in Quality or change in employee training trainer result achieved turnover or reduction in accidents .0% 21.2% 21.4% .0% 16.1% .0% 11.3% 4.8% .0% 16.1% Field 1.0 3.0 .0 .0 4.0 Supervisor 25.0% 75.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 7.1% 9.1% .0% .0% 6.5% 1.6% 4.8% .0% .0% 6.5% Junior 2.0 4.0 2.0 .0 8.0 Assistant 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% .0% 100.0% 14.3% 12.1% 14.3% .0% 12.9% 3.2% 6.5% 3.2% .0% 12.9% Jr Asst 2.0 .0 .0 .0 2.0 Manager 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 14.3% .0% .0% .0% 3.2% 3.2% .0% .0% .0% 3.2% Junior 1.0 4.0 5.0 .0 10.0 Manager 10.0% 40.0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% 7.1% 12.1% 35.7% .0% 16.1% 1.6% 6.5% 8.1% .0% 16.1% Manager 3.0 3.0 .0 .0 6.0 50.0% 50.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 21.4% 9.1% .0% .0% 9.7% 4.8% 4.8% .0% .0% 9.7% Sr Assistant 3.0 9.0 2.0 .0 14.0 21.4% 64.3% 14.3% .0% 100.0% 21.4% 27.3% 14.3% .0% 22.6% 4.8% 14.5% 3.2% .0% 22.6% Senior 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 8.0 Manger 25.0% 37.5% 25.0% 12.5% 100.0% 14.3% 9.1% 14.3% 100.0% 12.9% 3.2% 4.8% 3.2% 1.6% 12.9% Total 14.0 33.0 14.0 1.0 62.0 22.6% 53.2% 22.6% 1.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 22.6% 53.2% 22.6% 1.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 26.83 21 .18 Likelihood Ratio 26.56 21 .19

164

Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) N of Valid Cases 62

Designation * QE11 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Good Average Poor Total Asst Manager 3.0 6.0 1.0 10.0 30.0% 60.0% 10.0% 100.0% 9.1% 24.0% 25.0% 16.1% 4.8% 9.7% 1.6% 16.1% Field Supervisor 2.0 2.0 .0 4.0 50.0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% 6.1% 8.0% .0% 6.5% 3.2% 3.2% .0% 6.5% Junior Assistant 5.0 3.0 .0 8.0 62.5% 37.5% .0% 100.0% 15.2% 12.0% .0% 12.9% 8.1% 4.8% .0% 12.9% Jr Asst Manager 1.0 1.0 .0 2.0 50.0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% 3.0% 4.0% .0% 3.2% 1.6% 1.6% .0% 3.2% Junior Manager 5.0 4.0 1.0 10.0 50.0% 40.0% 10.0% 100.0% 15.2% 16.0% 25.0% 16.1% 8.1% 6.5% 1.6% 16.1% Manager 5.0 1.0 .0 6.0 83.3% 16.7% .0% 100.0% 15.2% 4.0% .0% 9.7% 8.1% 1.6% .0% 9.7% Sr Assistant 8.0 5.0 1.0 14.0 57.1% 35.7% 7.1% 100.0% 24.2% 20.0% 25.0% 22.6% 12.9% 8.1% 1.6% 22.6% Senior Manger 4.0 3.0 1.0 8.0 50.0% 37.5% 12.5% 100.0% 12.1% 12.0% 25.0% 12.9% 6.5% 4.8% 1.6% 12.9% Total 33.0 25.0 4.0 62.0 53.2% 40.3% 6.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 53.2% 40.3% 6.5% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 6.43 14 .95 Likelihood Ratio 7.71 14 .90 N of Valid Cases 62

Designation * QE12 [count, row %, column %, total %].

165

Designation Promotion More They consider Job rotation or Total responsibility a request for change of transfer department Asst 1.0 2.0 5.0 .0 2.0 10.0 Manager 10.0% 20.0% 50.0% .0% 20.0% 100.0% 100.0% 15.4% 18.5% .0% 10.5% 16.1% 1.6% 3.2% 8.1% .0% 3.2% 16.1% Field .0 2.0 1.0 .0 1.0 4.0 Supervisor .0% 50.0% 25.0% .0% 25.0% 100.0% .0% 15.4% 3.7% .0% 5.3% 6.5% .0% 3.2% 1.6% .0% 1.6% 6.5% Junior .0 1.0 4.0 .0 3.0 8.0 Assistant .0% 12.5% 50.0% .0% 37.5% 100.0% .0% 7.7% 14.8% .0% 15.8% 12.9% .0% 1.6% 6.5% .0% 4.8% 12.9% Jr Asst .0 .0 1.0 1.0 .0 2.0 Manager .0% .0% 50.0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 3.7% 50.0% .0% 3.2% .0% .0% 1.6% 1.6% .0% 3.2% Junior .0 2.0 7.0 .0 1.0 10.0 Manager .0% 20.0% 70.0% .0% 10.0% 100.0% .0% 15.4% 25.9% .0% 5.3% 16.1% .0% 3.2% 11.3% .0% 1.6% 16.1% Manager .0 1.0 3.0 .0 2.0 6.0 .0% 16.7% 50.0% .0% 33.3% 100.0% .0% 7.7% 11.1% .0% 10.5% 9.7% .0% 1.6% 4.8% .0% 3.2% 9.7% Sr Assistant .0 2.0 4.0 1.0 7.0 14.0 .0% 14.3% 28.6% 7.1% 50.0% 100.0% .0% 15.4% 14.8% 50.0% 36.8% 22.6% .0% 3.2% 6.5% 1.6% 11.3% 22.6% Senior .0 3.0 2.0 .0 3.0 8.0 Manger .0% 37.5% 25.0% .0% 37.5% 100.0% .0% 23.1% 7.4% .0% 15.8% 12.9% .0% 4.8% 3.2% .0% 4.8% 12.9% Total 1.0 13.0 27.0 2.0 19.0 62.0 1.6% 21.0% 43.5% 3.2% 30.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1.6% 21.0% 43.5% 3.2% 30.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 32.53 28 .25

166

Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Likelihood Ratio 23.07 28 .73 N of Valid Cases 62

Designation * QE13 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation They are Not that useful They are not They are least Not at all Total very much but should be that much useful but useful and useful and conducted for useful but should be is a waste improve whatever help the conducted as of company the improvement employee in company resources efficiency they bring in diverting his company and money attention requires the and relaxing trainings to be conducted Asst 6.0 3.0 .0 .0 1.0 10.0 Manager 60.0% 30.0% .0% .0% 10.0% 100.0% 12.5% 30.0% .0% .0% 50.0% 16.1% 9.7% 4.8% .0% .0% 1.6% 16.1% Field 4.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.0 Supervisor 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 8.3% .0% .0% .0% .0% 6.5% 6.5% .0% .0% .0% .0% 6.5% Junior 6.0 2.0 .0 .0 .0 8.0 Assistant 75.0% 25.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 12.5% 20.0% .0% .0% .0% 12.9% 9.7% 3.2% .0% .0% .0% 12.9% Jr Asst 1.0 .0 .0 1.0 .0 2.0 Manager 50.0% .0% .0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% 2.1% .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 3.2% 1.6% .0% .0% 1.6% .0% 3.2% Junior 8.0 2.0 .0 .0 .0 10.0 Manager 80.0% 20.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 16.7% 20.0% .0% .0% .0% 16.1% 12.9% 3.2% .0% .0% .0% 16.1% Manager 4.0 2.0 .0 .0 .0 6.0 66.7% 33.3% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 8.3% 20.0% .0% .0% .0% 9.7% 6.5% 3.2% .0% .0% .0% 9.7% Sr Assistant 12.0 .0 1.0 .0 1.0 14.0 85.7% .0% 7.1% .0% 7.1% 100.0% 25.0% .0% 100.0% .0% 50.0% 22.6% 19.4% .0% 1.6% .0% 1.6% 22.6% Senior 7.0 1.0 .0 .0 .0 8.0

167

Designation They are Not that useful They are not They are least Not at all Total very much but should be that much useful but useful and useful and conducted for useful but should be is a waste improve whatever help the conducted as of company the improvement employee in company resources efficiency they bring in diverting his company and money attention requires the and relaxing trainings to be conducted Manger 87.5% 12.5% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 14.6% 10.0% .0% .0% .0% 12.9% 11.3% 1.6% .0% .0% .0% 12.9% Total 48.0 10.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 62.0 77.4% 16.1% 1.6% 1.6% 3.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 77.4% 16.1% 1.6% 1.6% 3.2% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 43.99 28 .03 Likelihood Ratio 23.65 28 .70 N of Valid Cases 62

Designation * QE14a [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Yes No Total Asst Manager 3.0 7.0 10.0 30.0% 70.0% 100.0% 10.0% 21.9% 16.1% 4.8% 11.3% 16.1% Field Supervisor 1.0 3.0 4.0 25.0% 75.0% 100.0% 3.3% 9.4% 6.5% 1.6% 4.8% 6.5% Junior Assistant 4.0 4.0 8.0 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 13.3% 12.5% 12.9% 6.5% 6.5% 12.9% Jr Asst Manager 1.0 1.0 2.0 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 3.3% 3.1% 3.2% 1.6% 1.6% 3.2% Junior Manager 5.0 5.0 10.0 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 16.7% 15.6% 16.1% 8.1% 8.1% 16.1% Manager 4.0 2.0 6.0 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% 13.3% 6.3% 9.7%

168

Designation Yes No Total 6.5% 3.2% 9.7% Sr Assistant 5.0 9.0 14.0 35.7% 64.3% 100.0% 16.7% 28.1% 22.6% 8.1% 14.5% 22.6% Senior Manger 7.0 1.0 8.0 87.5% 12.5% 100.0% 23.3% 3.1% 12.9% 11.3% 1.6% 12.9% Total 30.0 32.0 62.0 48.4% 51.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 48.4% 51.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 8.85 7 .26 Likelihood Ratio 9.53 7 .22 N of Valid Cases 62

Designation * QE14b [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Very effective Somewhat effective Total Asst Manager 7.0 2.0 1.0 10.0 70.0% 20.0% 10.0% 100.0% 21.9% 11.8% 7.7% 16.1% 11.3% 3.2% 1.6% 16.1% Field Supervisor 3.0 .0 1.0 4.0 75.0% .0% 25.0% 100.0% 9.4% .0% 7.7% 6.5% 4.8% .0% 1.6% 6.5% Junior Assistant 4.0 4.0 .0 8.0 50.0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% 12.5% 23.5% .0% 12.9% 6.5% 6.5% .0% 12.9% Jr Asst Manager 1.0 1.0 .0 2.0 50.0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% 3.1% 5.9% .0% 3.2% 1.6% 1.6% .0% 3.2% Junior Manager 5.0 2.0 3.0 10.0 50.0% 20.0% 30.0% 100.0% 15.6% 11.8% 23.1% 16.1% 8.1% 3.2% 4.8% 16.1% Manager 2.0 3.0 1.0 6.0 33.3% 50.0% 16.7% 100.0% 6.3% 17.6% 7.7% 9.7% 3.2% 4.8% 1.6% 9.7% Sr Assistant 9.0 3.0 2.0 14.0

169

Designation Very effective Somewhat effective Total 64.3% 21.4% 14.3% 100.0% 28.1% 17.6% 15.4% 22.6% 14.5% 4.8% 3.2% 22.6% Senior Manger 1.0 2.0 5.0 8.0 12.5% 25.0% 62.5% 100.0% 3.1% 11.8% 38.5% 12.9% 1.6% 3.2% 8.1% 12.9% Total 32.0 17.0 13.0 62.0 51.6% 27.4% 21.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 51.6% 27.4% 21.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 18.98 14 .17 Likelihood Ratio 20.43 14 .12 N of Valid Cases 62

Department * QEHW1 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department < 10 years 10 to 20 years > 20 years Total > 20 yea .0 .0 1.0 1.0 .0% .0% 100.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 2.9% 1.6% .0% .0% 1.6% 1.6% Engineering 3.0 10.0 2.0 15.0 20.0% 66.7% 13.3% 100.0% 21.4% 76.9% 5.7% 24.2% 4.8% 16.1% 3.2% 24.2% Finance & Accounts 3.0 .0 4.0 7.0 42.9% .0% 57.1% 100.0% 21.4% .0% 11.4% 11.3% 4.8% .0% 6.5% 11.3% Marketing 1.0 1.0 6.0 8.0 12.5% 12.5% 75.0% 100.0% 7.1% 7.7% 17.1% 12.9% 1.6% 1.6% 9.7% 12.9% P & I Wing 2.0 1.0 13.0 16.0 12.5% 6.3% 81.3% 100.0% 14.3% 7.7% 37.1% 25.8% 3.2% 1.6% 21.0% 25.8% Plant & Production 5.0 1.0 9.0 15.0 33.3% 6.7% 60.0% 100.0% 35.7% 7.7% 25.7% 24.2% 8.1% 1.6% 14.5% 24.2% Total 14.0 13.0 35.0 62.0 22.6% 21.0% 56.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

170

Department < 10 years 10 to 20 years > 20 years Total 22.6% 21.0% 56.5% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 30.94 10 .00 Likelihood Ratio 30.29 10 .00 N of Valid Cases 62

Department * QE2 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department Very Important Somewhat Least Total important important important > 20 yea .0 1.0 .0 .0 1.0 .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 4.0% .0% .0% 1.6% .0% 1.6% .0% .0% 1.6% Engineering 10.0 3.0 2.0 .0 15.0 66.7% 20.0% 13.3% .0% 100.0% 38.5% 12.0% 25.0% .0% 24.2% 16.1% 4.8% 3.2% .0% 24.2% Finance & 1.0 5.0 1.0 .0 7.0 Accounts 14.3% 71.4% 14.3% .0% 100.0% 3.8% 20.0% 12.5% .0% 11.3% 1.6% 8.1% 1.6% .0% 11.3% Marketing 4.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 8.0 50.0% 25.0% 12.5% 12.5% 100.0% 15.4% 8.0% 12.5% 33.3% 12.9% 6.5% 3.2% 1.6% 1.6% 12.9% P & I Wing 6.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 16.0 37.5% 31.3% 18.8% 12.5% 100.0% 23.1% 20.0% 37.5% 66.7% 25.8% 9.7% 8.1% 4.8% 3.2% 25.8% Plant & 5.0 9.0 1.0 .0 15.0 Production 33.3% 60.0% 6.7% .0% 100.0% 19.2% 36.0% 12.5% .0% 24.2% 8.1% 14.5% 1.6% .0% 24.2% Total 26.0 25.0 8.0 3.0 62.0 41.9% 40.3% 12.9% 4.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 41.9% 40.3% 12.9% 4.8% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 16.45 15 .35 Likelihood Ratio 17.79 15 .27 N of Valid Cases 62

Department * QE3 [count, row %, column %, total %].

171

Department Very much I can perform as well without To some Total Essential training extent > 20 yea 1.0 .0 .0 1.0 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 2.6% .0% .0% 1.6% 1.6% .0% .0% 1.6% Engineering 10.0 .0 5.0 15.0 66.7% .0% 33.3% 100.0% 25.6% .0% 25.0% 24.2% 16.1% .0% 8.1% 24.2% Finance & 3.0 .0 4.0 7.0 Accounts 42.9% .0% 57.1% 100.0% 7.7% .0% 20.0% 11.3% 4.8% .0% 6.5% 11.3% Marketing 4.0 1.0 3.0 8.0 50.0% 12.5% 37.5% 100.0% 10.3% 33.3% 15.0% 12.9% 6.5% 1.6% 4.8% 12.9% P & I Wing 10.0 2.0 4.0 16.0 62.5% 12.5% 25.0% 100.0% 25.6% 66.7% 20.0% 25.8% 16.1% 3.2% 6.5% 25.8% Plant & 11.0 .0 4.0 15.0 Production 73.3% .0% 26.7% 100.0% 28.2% .0% 20.0% 24.2% 17.7% .0% 6.5% 24.2% Total 39.0 3.0 20.0 62.0 62.9% 4.8% 32.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 62.9% 4.8% 32.3% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 8.07 10 .62 Likelihood Ratio 9.14 10 .52 N of Valid Cases 62

Department * QE4 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department On the job Off the job Combination of both Total > 20 yea 1.0 .0 .0 1.0 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 3.7% .0% .0% 1.6% 1.6% .0% .0% 1.6% Engineering 5.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0% 18.5% 50.0% 20.0% 24.2% 8.1% 8.1% 8.1% 24.2%

172

Department On the job Off the job Combination of both Total Finance & Accounts 4.0 .0 3.0 7.0 57.1% .0% 42.9% 100.0% 14.8% .0% 12.0% 11.3% 6.5% .0% 4.8% 11.3% Marketing 5.0 .0 3.0 8.0 62.5% .0% 37.5% 100.0% 18.5% .0% 12.0% 12.9% 8.1% .0% 4.8% 12.9% P & I Wing 5.0 3.0 8.0 16.0 31.3% 18.8% 50.0% 100.0% 18.5% 30.0% 32.0% 25.8% 8.1% 4.8% 12.9% 25.8% Plant & Production 7.0 2.0 6.0 15.0 46.7% 13.3% 40.0% 100.0% 25.9% 20.0% 24.0% 24.2% 11.3% 3.2% 9.7% 24.2% Total 27.0 10.0 25.0 62.0 43.5% 16.1% 40.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 43.5% 16.1% 40.3% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 9.10 10 .52 Likelihood Ratio 11.20 10 .34 N of Valid Cases 62

Department * QE5 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department On the job Away from work Combination of both Total > 20 yea 1.0 .0 .0 1.0 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 3.8% .0% .0% 1.6% 1.6% .0% .0% 1.6% Engineering 2.0 4.0 9.0 15.0 13.3% 26.7% 60.0% 100.0% 7.7% 33.3% 37.5% 24.2% 3.2% 6.5% 14.5% 24.2% Finance & Accounts 3.0 .0 4.0 7.0 42.9% .0% 57.1% 100.0% 11.5% .0% 16.7% 11.3% 4.8% .0% 6.5% 11.3% Marketing 3.0 2.0 3.0 8.0 37.5% 25.0% 37.5% 100.0% 11.5% 16.7% 12.5% 12.9% 4.8% 3.2% 4.8% 12.9% P & I Wing 7.0 4.0 5.0 16.0 43.8% 25.0% 31.3% 100.0%

173

Department On the job Away from work Combination of both Total 26.9% 33.3% 20.8% 25.8% 11.3% 6.5% 8.1% 25.8% Plant & Production 10.0 2.0 3.0 15.0 66.7% 13.3% 20.0% 100.0% 38.5% 16.7% 12.5% 24.2% 16.1% 3.2% 4.8% 24.2% Total 26.0 12.0 24.0 62.0 41.9% 19.4% 38.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 41.9% 19.4% 38.7% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 12.96 10 .23 Likelihood Ratio 15.33 10 .12 N of Valid Cases 62

Department * QE6 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department Attend Attend Attend as per need We need not Total atleast more than and suggestion of attend but learn one one superiors on the job > 20 yea .0 1.0 .0 .0 1.0 .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 6.3% .0% .0% 1.6% .0% 1.6% .0% .0% 1.6% Engineering 6.0 8.0 1.0 .0 15.0 40.0% 53.3% 6.7% .0% 100.0% 46.2% 50.0% 3.8% .0% 24.2% 9.7% 12.9% 1.6% .0% 24.2% Finance & 1.0 2.0 4.0 .0 7.0 Accounts 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% .0% 100.0% 7.7% 12.5% 15.4% .0% 11.3% 1.6% 3.2% 6.5% .0% 11.3% Marketing .0 1.0 5.0 2.0 8.0 .0% 12.5% 62.5% 25.0% 100.0% .0% 6.3% 19.2% 28.6% 12.9% .0% 1.6% 8.1% 3.2% 12.9% P & I Wing 2.0 4.0 7.0 3.0 16.0 12.5% 25.0% 43.8% 18.8% 100.0% 15.4% 25.0% 26.9% 42.9% 25.8% 3.2% 6.5% 11.3% 4.8% 25.8% Plant & 4.0 .0 9.0 2.0 15.0 Production 26.7% .0% 60.0% 13.3% 100.0% 30.8% .0% 34.6% 28.6% 24.2% 6.5% .0% 14.5% 3.2% 24.2% Total 13.0 16.0 26.0 7.0 62.0

174

Department Attend Attend Attend as per need We need not Total atleast more than and suggestion of attend but learn one one superiors on the job 21.0% 25.8% 41.9% 11.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 21.0% 25.8% 41.9% 11.3% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 28.40 15 .02 Likelihood Ratio 36.58 15 .00 N of Valid Cases 62

Department * QE7 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department 1 Week 2 Weeks 4 Weeks Total > 20 yea .0 .0 1.0 1.0 .0% .0% 100.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 8.3% 1.6% .0% .0% 1.6% 1.6% Engineering 2.0 9.0 4.0 15.0 13.3% 60.0% 26.7% 100.0% 6.9% 42.9% 33.3% 24.2% 3.2% 14.5% 6.5% 24.2% Finance & Accounts 3.0 1.0 3.0 7.0 42.9% 14.3% 42.9% 100.0% 10.3% 4.8% 25.0% 11.3% 4.8% 1.6% 4.8% 11.3% Marketing 4.0 4.0 .0 8.0 50.0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% 13.8% 19.0% .0% 12.9% 6.5% 6.5% .0% 12.9% P & I Wing 11.0 3.0 2.0 16.0 68.8% 18.8% 12.5% 100.0% 37.9% 14.3% 16.7% 25.8% 17.7% 4.8% 3.2% 25.8% Plant & Production 9.0 4.0 2.0 15.0 60.0% 26.7% 13.3% 100.0% 31.0% 19.0% 16.7% 24.2% 14.5% 6.5% 3.2% 24.2% Total 29.0 21.0 12.0 62.0 46.8% 33.9% 19.4% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 46.8% 33.9% 19.4% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 20.38 10 .03 Likelihood Ratio 21.54 10 .02 N of Valid Cases 62

175

Department * QE8 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department Interpersonal Personal External No problem Total > 20 yea 1.0 .0 .0 .0 1.0 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 25.0% .0% .0% .0% 1.6% 1.6% .0% .0% .0% 1.6% Engineering 1.0 6.0 7.0 1.0 15.0 6.7% 40.0% 46.7% 6.7% 100.0% 25.0% 46.2% 50.0% 3.2% 24.2% 1.6% 9.7% 11.3% 1.6% 24.2% Finance & Accounts .0 1.0 2.0 4.0 7.0 .0% 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% 100.0% .0% 7.7% 14.3% 12.9% 11.3% .0% 1.6% 3.2% 6.5% 11.3% Marketing .0 1.0 .0 7.0 8.0 .0% 12.5% .0% 87.5% 100.0% .0% 7.7% .0% 22.6% 12.9% .0% 1.6% .0% 11.3% 12.9% P & I Wing 2.0 2.0 1.0 11.0 16.0 12.5% 12.5% 6.3% 68.8% 100.0% 50.0% 15.4% 7.1% 35.5% 25.8% 3.2% 3.2% 1.6% 17.7% 25.8% Plant & Production .0 3.0 4.0 8.0 15.0 .0% 20.0% 26.7% 53.3% 100.0% .0% 23.1% 28.6% 25.8% 24.2% .0% 4.8% 6.5% 12.9% 24.2% Total 4.0 13.0 14.0 31.0 62.0 6.5% 21.0% 22.6% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 6.5% 21.0% 22.6% 50.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 37.80 15 .00 Likelihood Ratio 34.57 15 .00 N of Valid Cases 62

Department * QE9 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department Strongly agree Agree Somewhat agree Disagree Total > 20 yea .0 1.0 .0 .0 1.0 .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 2.4% .0% .0% 1.6% .0% 1.6% .0% .0% 1.6% Engineering 7.0 7.0 1.0 .0 15.0 46.7% 46.7% 6.7% .0% 100.0% 58.3% 17.1% 20.0% .0% 24.2% 11.3% 11.3% 1.6% .0% 24.2% Finance & Accounts .0 5.0 2.0 .0 7.0 .0% 71.4% 28.6% .0% 100.0%

176

Department Strongly agree Agree Somewhat agree Disagree Total .0% 12.2% 40.0% .0% 11.3% .0% 8.1% 3.2% .0% 11.3% Marketing 1.0 7.0 .0 .0 8.0 12.5% 87.5% .0% .0% 100.0% 8.3% 17.1% .0% .0% 12.9% 1.6% 11.3% .0% .0% 12.9% P & I Wing 4.0 10.0 2.0 .0 16.0 25.0% 62.5% 12.5% .0% 100.0% 33.3% 24.4% 40.0% .0% 25.8% 6.5% 16.1% 3.2% .0% 25.8% Plant & Production .0 11.0 .0 4.0 15.0 .0% 73.3% .0% 26.7% 100.0% .0% 26.8% .0% 100.0% 24.2% .0% 17.7% .0% 6.5% 24.2% Total 12.0 41.0 5.0 4.0 62.0 19.4% 66.1% 8.1% 6.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 19.4% 66.1% 8.1% 6.5% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 31.00 15 .01 Likelihood Ratio 33.06 15 .00 N of Valid Cases 62

Department * QE10 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department Periodical Feedback Measurement of By measuring the Total tests during from the change in Quality or change in employee training trainer result achieved turnover or reduction in accidents > 20 yea .0 1.0 .0 .0 1.0 .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 3.0% .0% .0% 1.6% .0% 1.6% .0% .0% 1.6% Engineering 3.0 5.0 6.0 1.0 15.0 20.0% 33.3% 40.0% 6.7% 100.0% 21.4% 15.2% 42.9% 100.0% 24.2% 4.8% 8.1% 9.7% 1.6% 24.2% Finance & 2.0 5.0 .0 .0 7.0 Accounts 28.6% 71.4% .0% .0% 100.0% 14.3% 15.2% .0% .0% 11.3% 3.2% 8.1% .0% .0% 11.3% Marketing 2.0 5.0 1.0 .0 8.0 25.0% 62.5% 12.5% .0% 100.0% 14.3% 15.2% 7.1% .0% 12.9% 3.2% 8.1% 1.6% .0% 12.9%

177

Department Periodical Feedback Measurement of By measuring the Total tests during from the change in Quality or change in employee training trainer result achieved turnover or reduction in accidents P & I Wing 6.0 7.0 3.0 .0 16.0 37.5% 43.8% 18.8% .0% 100.0% 42.9% 21.2% 21.4% .0% 25.8% 9.7% 11.3% 4.8% .0% 25.8% Plant & 1.0 10.0 4.0 .0 15.0 Production 6.7% 66.7% 26.7% .0% 100.0% 7.1% 30.3% 28.6% .0% 24.2% 1.6% 16.1% 6.5% .0% 24.2% Total 14.0 33.0 14.0 1.0 62.0 22.6% 53.2% 22.6% 1.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 22.6% 53.2% 22.6% 1.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 14.06 15 .52 Likelihood Ratio 15.89 15 .39 N of Valid Cases 62

Department * QE11 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department Good Average Poor Total > 20 yea 1.0 .0 .0 1.0 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 3.0% .0% .0% 1.6% 1.6% .0% .0% 1.6% Engineering 7.0 7.0 1.0 15.0 46.7% 46.7% 6.7% 100.0% 21.2% 28.0% 25.0% 24.2% 11.3% 11.3% 1.6% 24.2% Finance & Accounts 5.0 2.0 .0 7.0 71.4% 28.6% .0% 100.0% 15.2% 8.0% .0% 11.3% 8.1% 3.2% .0% 11.3% Marketing 5.0 3.0 .0 8.0 62.5% 37.5% .0% 100.0% 15.2% 12.0% .0% 12.9% 8.1% 4.8% .0% 12.9% P & I Wing 8.0 6.0 2.0 16.0 50.0% 37.5% 12.5% 100.0% 24.2% 24.0% 50.0% 25.8% 12.9% 9.7% 3.2% 25.8% Plant & Production 7.0 7.0 1.0 15.0 46.7% 46.7% 6.7% 100.0%

178

Department Good Average Poor Total 21.2% 28.0% 25.0% 24.2% 11.3% 11.3% 1.6% 24.2% Total 33.0 25.0 4.0 62.0 53.2% 40.3% 6.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 53.2% 40.3% 6.5% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 4.18 10 .94 Likelihood Ratio 5.31 10 .87 N of Valid Cases 62

Department * QE12 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department Promotion More They consider Job rotation or Total responsibility a request for change of transfer department > 20 yea .0 1.0 .0 .0 .0 1.0 .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 7.7% .0% .0% .0% 1.6% .0% 1.6% .0% .0% .0% 1.6% Engineering .0 5.0 9.0 .0 1.0 15.0 .0% 33.3% 60.0% .0% 6.7% 100.0% .0% 38.5% 33.3% .0% 5.3% 24.2% .0% 8.1% 14.5% .0% 1.6% 24.2% Finance & .0 .0 5.0 .0 2.0 7.0 Accounts .0% .0% 71.4% .0% 28.6% 100.0% .0% .0% 18.5% .0% 10.5% 11.3% .0% .0% 8.1% .0% 3.2% 11.3% Marketing 1.0 1.0 .0 1.0 5.0 8.0 12.5% 12.5% .0% 12.5% 62.5% 100.0% 100.0% 7.7% .0% 50.0% 26.3% 12.9% 1.6% 1.6% .0% 1.6% 8.1% 12.9% P & I Wing .0 4.0 6.0 1.0 5.0 16.0 .0% 25.0% 37.5% 6.3% 31.3% 100.0% .0% 30.8% 22.2% 50.0% 26.3% 25.8% .0% 6.5% 9.7% 1.6% 8.1% 25.8% Plant & .0 2.0 7.0 .0 6.0 15.0 Production .0% 13.3% 46.7% .0% 40.0% 100.0% .0% 15.4% 25.9% .0% 31.6% 24.2% .0% 3.2% 11.3% .0% 9.7% 24.2% Total 1.0 13.0 27.0 2.0 19.0 62.0 1.6% 21.0% 43.5% 3.2% 30.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1.6% 21.0% 43.5% 3.2% 30.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests.

179

Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 29.40 20 .08 Likelihood Ratio 31.53 20 .05 N of Valid Cases 62

Department * QE13 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department They are Not that useful They are not They are least Not at all Total very much but should be that much useful but useful and useful and conducted for useful but should be is a waste improve whatever help the conducted as of company the improvement employee in company resources efficiency they bring in diverting his company and money attention requires the and relaxing trainings to be conducted > 20 yea 1.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.0 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 2.1% .0% .0% .0% .0% 1.6% 1.6% .0% .0% .0% .0% 1.6% Engineering 11.0 4.0 .0 .0 .0 15.0 73.3% 26.7% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 22.9% 40.0% .0% .0% .0% 24.2% 17.7% 6.5% .0% .0% .0% 24.2% Finance & 6.0 1.0 .0 .0 .0 7.0 Accounts 85.7% 14.3% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 12.5% 10.0% .0% .0% .0% 11.3% 9.7% 1.6% .0% .0% .0% 11.3% Marketing 4.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 .0 8.0 50.0% 25.0% 12.5% 12.5% .0% 100.0% 8.3% 20.0% 100.0% 100.0% .0% 12.9% 6.5% 3.2% 1.6% 1.6% .0% 12.9% P & I Wing 13.0 2.0 .0 .0 1.0 16.0 81.3% 12.5% .0% .0% 6.3% 100.0% 27.1% 20.0% .0% .0% 50.0% 25.8% 21.0% 3.2% .0% .0% 1.6% 25.8% Plant & 13.0 1.0 .0 .0 1.0 15.0 Production 86.7% 6.7% .0% .0% 6.7% 100.0% 27.1% 10.0% .0% .0% 50.0% 24.2% 21.0% 1.6% .0% .0% 1.6% 24.2% Total 48.0 10.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 62.0 77.4% 16.1% 1.6% 1.6% 3.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 77.4% 16.1% 1.6% 1.6% 3.2% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 19.20 20 .51

180

Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Likelihood Ratio 14.94 20 .78 N of Valid Cases 62

Department * QE14a [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department Yes No Total > 20 yea 1.0 .0 1.0 100.0% .0% 100.0% 3.3% .0% 1.6% 1.6% .0% 1.6% Engineering 10.0 5.0 15.0 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% 33.3% 15.6% 24.2% 16.1% 8.1% 24.2% Finance & Accounts 6.0 1.0 7.0 85.7% 14.3% 100.0% 20.0% 3.1% 11.3% 9.7% 1.6% 11.3% Marketing 2.0 6.0 8.0 25.0% 75.0% 100.0% 6.7% 18.8% 12.9% 3.2% 9.7% 12.9% P & I Wing 8.0 8.0 16.0 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 26.7% 25.0% 25.8% 12.9% 12.9% 25.8% Plant & Production 3.0 12.0 15.0 20.0% 80.0% 100.0% 10.0% 37.5% 24.2% 4.8% 19.4% 24.2% Total 30.0 32.0 62.0 48.4% 51.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 48.4% 51.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 13.59 5 .02 Likelihood Ratio 14.86 5 .01 N of Valid Cases 62

Department * QE14b [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department Very effective Somewhat effective Total > 20 yea .0 .0 1.0 1.0 .0% .0% 100.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 7.7% 1.6% .0% .0% 1.6% 1.6% Engineering 5.0 4.0 6.0 15.0 33.3% 26.7% 40.0% 100.0%

181

Department Very effective Somewhat effective Total 15.6% 23.5% 46.2% 24.2% 8.1% 6.5% 9.7% 24.2% Finance & Accounts 1.0 4.0 2.0 7.0 14.3% 57.1% 28.6% 100.0% 3.1% 23.5% 15.4% 11.3% 1.6% 6.5% 3.2% 11.3% Marketing 6.0 1.0 1.0 8.0 75.0% 12.5% 12.5% 100.0% 18.8% 5.9% 7.7% 12.9% 9.7% 1.6% 1.6% 12.9% P & I Wing 8.0 5.0 3.0 16.0 50.0% 31.3% 18.8% 100.0% 25.0% 29.4% 23.1% 25.8% 12.9% 8.1% 4.8% 25.8% Plant & Production 12.0 3.0 .0 15.0 80.0% 20.0% .0% 100.0% 37.5% 17.6% .0% 24.2% 19.4% 4.8% .0% 24.2% Total 32.0 17.0 13.0 62.0 51.6% 27.4% 21.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 51.6% 27.4% 21.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 19.36 10 .04 Likelihood Ratio 21.46 10 .02 N of Valid Cases 62

11.1 Responses of HR Executives Age Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent 20-30 25.00 2 10.00 10.00 10.00 30-40 35.00 3 15.00 15.00 25.00 40-50 45.00 4 20.00 20.00 45.00 50-60 55.00 11 55.00 55.00 100.00 Total 20 100.0 100.0

Age N Valid 20 Missing 0 Mean 47.00 Std Dev 10.56 Minimum 25.00 Maximum 55.00

182

Gender Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Female f 5 25.00 25.00 25.00 Male m 15 75.00 75.00 100.00 Total 20 100.0 100.0

Designation Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Asst Manager am 4 20.00 20.00 20.00 Junior Assistant ja 3 15.00 15.00 35.00 Junior Manager jm 2 10.00 10.00 45.00 Manager m 3 15.00 15.00 60.00 Sr Assistant sa 6 30.00 30.00 90.00 Senior Manger sm 2 10.00 10.00 100.00 Total 20 100.0 100.0

Department Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Human Resources hr 20 100.00 100.00 100.00 Total 20 100.0 100.0

How long have you been working for this company? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent < 10 years a 3 15.00 15.00 15.00 10 to 20 years b 4 20.00 20.00 35.00 > 20 years c 13 65.00 65.00 100.00 Total 20 100.0 100.0

Do you think training is essential for improving the skills of the workers Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Yes a 20 100.00 100.00 100.00 Total 20 100.0 100.0

If yes what type of training programme do you suggest? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Short term training a 13 65.00 65.00 65.00 Combination of both c 7 35.00 35.00 100.00 Total 20 100.0 100.0

How are training needs of the employees assessed? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Feedback from employees a 7 35.00 35.00 35.00 Requirement of sectional heads b 12 60.00 60.00 95.00 Schedule already prepared c 1 5.00 5.00 100.00 Total 20 100.0 100.0

Which category of employees is given more training in your organisation? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent

183

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Operational a 3 15.00 15.00 15.00 Managerial b 7 35.00 35.00 50.00 Both c 10 50.00 50.00 100.00 Total 20 100.0 100.0

How many trainings did you conduct during the current year so far? For Executives Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent 20 100.00 100.00 100.00 Total 20 100.0 100.0

How many trainings did you conduct during the current year so far? For workers Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent 20 100.00 100.00 100.00 Total 20 100.0 100.0

Type of training method used in your organisation. Please tick the relevant Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent On the job a 16 80.00 80.00 80.00 Off the job b 3 15.00 15.00 95.00 A combination of both c 1 5.00 5.00 100.00 Total 20 100.0 100.0

Do the training programmes have any clearly laid out objectives to focus on? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Yes a 19 95.00 95.00 95.00 No b 1 5.00 5.00 100.00 Total 20 100.0 100.0

The extent to which the training objectives are met during the training session Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent All the objectives are met a 3 15.00 15.00 15.00 Most of the objectives are met b 5 25.00 25.00 40.00 Some of the objectives are met c 11 55.00 55.00 95.00 Not sure e 1 5.00 5.00 100.00 Total 20 100.0 100.0

Is there any incentive offered to attend the training programme (please specify) Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent 20 100.00 100.00 100.00 Total 20 100.0 100.0

Who conducts your training programmes in your organization Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent External trainers a 6 30.00 30.00 30.00 In house trainers b 8 40.00 40.00 70.00 Combination of both c 6 30.00 30.00 100.00 Total 20 100.0 100.0

184

Do you have in house training department to conduct or organise the employee training programmes? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Yes a 14 70.00 70.00 70.00 No b 6 30.00 30.00 100.00 Total 20 100.0 100.0

How is the trainee participation and interest ensured by the organisation? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Cum Percent Percent By closely monitoring the a 15 75.00 75.00 75.00 participation By giving certificates c 4 20.00 20.00 95.00 Any other d 1 5.00 5.00 100.00 Total 20 100.0 100.0

How does the organisation assess the effectiveness of training programmes? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Cum Percent Percent Periodical test during the training period a 8 40.00 40.00 40.00 Feedback from the trainers b 5 25.00 25.00 65.00 Measurement of change in quality or c 6 30.00 30.00 95.00 result achieved. By measuring the reduction in employee d 1 5.00 5.00 100.00 turnover or the accidents. Total 20 100.0 100.0

If tests are conducted during training period or at the end of training to evaluate the participant’s involvement and learning, how were the results? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Satisfactory a 12 60.00 60.00 60.00 Somewhat Satisfactory b 8 40.00 40.00 100.00 Total 20 100.0 100.0

What do you think are the important barriers to training and development in your organisation Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Time a 15 75.00 75.00 75.00 Lack of interest by the staff c 1 5.00 5.00 80.00 Non availability of skilled trainers d 4 20.00 20.00 100.00 Total 20 100.0 100.0

Have you come across any problem during the training session conducted in your organisation? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Interpersonal a 9 45.00 45.00 45.00 Personal b 10 50.00 50.00 95.00 External c 1 5.00 5.00 100.00

185

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Total 20 100.0 100.0

Designation * QEHW1 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation < 10 years 10 to 20 years > 20 years Total Asst Manager 1.0 .0 3.0 4.0 25.0% .0% 75.0% 100.0% 33.3% .0% 23.1% 20.0% 5.0% .0% 15.0% 20.0% Junior Assistant 2.0 .0 1.0 3.0 66.7% .0% 33.3% 100.0% 66.7% .0% 7.7% 15.0% 10.0% .0% 5.0% 15.0% Junior Manager .0 1.0 1.0 2.0 .0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% .0% 25.0% 7.7% 10.0% .0% 5.0% 5.0% 10.0% Manager .0 2.0 1.0 3.0 .0% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% .0% 50.0% 7.7% 15.0% .0% 10.0% 5.0% 15.0% Sr Assistant .0 1.0 5.0 6.0 .0% 16.7% 83.3% 100.0% .0% 25.0% 38.5% 30.0% .0% 5.0% 25.0% 30.0% Senior Manger .0 .0 2.0 2.0 .0% .0% 100.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 15.4% 10.0% .0% .0% 10.0% 10.0% Total 3.0 4.0 13.0 20.0 15.0% 20.0% 65.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 15.0% 20.0% 65.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 15.30 10 .12 Likelihood Ratio 15.14 10 .13 N of Valid Cases 20

Designation * QH2a [count, row %, column %, total %]. QH2a Designation Yes Total Asst Manager 4.0 4.0 100.0% 100.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% Junior Assistant 3.0 3.0 100.0% 100.0%

186

QH2a Designation Yes Total 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% Junior Manager 2.0 2.0 100.0% 100.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% Manager 3.0 3.0 100.0% 100.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% Sr Assistant 6.0 6.0 100.0% 100.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% Senior Manger 2.0 2.0 100.0% 100.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% Total 20.0 20.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 20

Designation * QH2b [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Short term training Combination of both Total Asst Manager 4.0 .0 4.0 100.0% .0% 100.0% 30.8% .0% 20.0% 20.0% .0% 20.0% Junior Assistant 2.0 1.0 3.0 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% 15.4% 14.3% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 15.0% Junior Manager 1.0 1.0 2.0 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 7.7% 14.3% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% 10.0% Manager 1.0 2.0 3.0 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% 7.7% 28.6% 15.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% Sr Assistant 4.0 2.0 6.0

187

Designation Short term training Combination of both Total 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% 30.8% 28.6% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 30.0% Senior Manger 1.0 1.0 2.0 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 7.7% 14.3% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% 10.0% Total 13.0 7.0 20.0 65.0% 35.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 65.0% 35.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 3.88 5 .57 Likelihood Ratio 5.08 5 .41 N of Valid Cases 20

Designation * QH3 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Feedback from Requirement of Schedule already Total employees sectional heads prepared Asst Manager 1.0 3.0 .0 4.0 25.0% 75.0% .0% 100.0% 14.3% 25.0% .0% 20.0% 5.0% 15.0% .0% 20.0% Junior 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 Assistant 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0% 14.3% 8.3% 100.0% 15.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 15.0% Junior .0 2.0 .0 2.0 Manager .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0% .0% 16.7% .0% 10.0% .0% 10.0% .0% 10.0% Manager 1.0 2.0 .0 3.0 33.3% 66.7% .0% 100.0% 14.3% 16.7% .0% 15.0% 5.0% 10.0% .0% 15.0% Sr Assistant 4.0 2.0 .0 6.0 66.7% 33.3% .0% 100.0% 57.1% 16.7% .0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% .0% 30.0% Senior .0 2.0 .0 2.0 Manger .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0% .0% 16.7% .0% 10.0% .0% 10.0% .0% 10.0%

188

Designation Feedback from Requirement of Schedule already Total employees sectional heads prepared Total 7.0 12.0 1.0 20.0 35.0% 60.0% 5.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 35.0% 60.0% 5.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 11.21 10 .34 Likelihood Ratio 10.40 10 .41 N of Valid Cases 20

Designation * QH4 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Operational Managerial Both Total Asst Manager .0 3.0 1.0 4.0 .0% 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% .0% 42.9% 10.0% 20.0% .0% 15.0% 5.0% 20.0% Junior Assistant .0 .0 3.0 3.0 .0% .0% 100.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 30.0% 15.0% .0% .0% 15.0% 15.0% Junior Manager 1.0 .0 1.0 2.0 50.0% .0% 50.0% 100.0% 33.3% .0% 10.0% 10.0% 5.0% .0% 5.0% 10.0% Manager .0 1.0 2.0 3.0 .0% 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% .0% 14.3% 20.0% 15.0% .0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% Sr Assistant 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0% 66.7% 28.6% 20.0% 30.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 30.0% Senior Manger .0 1.0 1.0 2.0 .0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% .0% 14.3% 10.0% 10.0% .0% 5.0% 5.0% 10.0% Total 3.0 7.0 10.0 20.0 15.0% 35.0% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 15.0% 35.0% 50.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 10.99 10 .36 Likelihood Ratio 12.90 10 .23 N of Valid Cases 20

189

Designation * QH5 [count, row %, column %, total %]. QH5 Designation Total Asst Manager 4.0 4.0 100.0% 100.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% Junior Assistant 3.0 3.0 100.0% 100.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% Junior Manager 2.0 2.0 100.0% 100.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% Manager 3.0 3.0 100.0% 100.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% Sr Assistant 6.0 6.0 100.0% 100.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% Senior Manger 2.0 2.0 100.0% 100.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% Total 20.0 20.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 20

Designation * QH5b [count, row %, column %, total %]. QH5b Designation Total Asst Manager 4.0 4.0 100.0% 100.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% Junior Assistant 3.0 3.0 100.0% 100.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% Junior Manager 2.0 2.0 100.0% 100.0%

190

QH5b Designation Total 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% Manager 3.0 3.0 100.0% 100.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% Sr Assistant 6.0 6.0 100.0% 100.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% Senior Manger 2.0 2.0 100.0% 100.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% Total 20.0 20.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 20

Designation * QH6 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation On the job Off the job A combination of both Total Asst Manager 3.0 1.0 .0 4.0 75.0% 25.0% .0% 100.0% 18.8% 33.3% .0% 20.0% 15.0% 5.0% .0% 20.0% Junior Assistant 3.0 .0 .0 3.0 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 18.8% .0% .0% 15.0% 15.0% .0% .0% 15.0% Junior Manager 2.0 .0 .0 2.0 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 12.5% .0% .0% 10.0% 10.0% .0% .0% 10.0% Manager 2.0 1.0 .0 3.0 66.7% 33.3% .0% 100.0% 12.5% 33.3% .0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% .0% 15.0% Sr Assistant 4.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 66.7% 16.7% 16.7% 100.0% 25.0% 33.3% 100.0% 30.0% 20.0% 5.0% 5.0% 30.0% Senior Manger 2.0 .0 .0 2.0 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%

191

Designation On the job Off the job A combination of both Total 12.5% .0% .0% 10.0% 10.0% .0% .0% 10.0% Total 16.0 3.0 1.0 20.0 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 4.90 10 .90 Likelihood Ratio 5.79 10 .83 N of Valid Cases 20

Designation * QH7 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Yes No Total Asst Manager 3.0 1.0 4.0 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% 15.8% 100.0% 20.0% 15.0% 5.0% 20.0% Junior Assistant 3.0 .0 3.0 100.0% .0% 100.0% 15.8% .0% 15.0% 15.0% .0% 15.0% Junior Manager 2.0 .0 2.0 100.0% .0% 100.0% 10.5% .0% 10.0% 10.0% .0% 10.0% Manager 3.0 .0 3.0 100.0% .0% 100.0% 15.8% .0% 15.0% 15.0% .0% 15.0% Sr Assistant 6.0 .0 6.0 100.0% .0% 100.0% 31.6% .0% 30.0% 30.0% .0% 30.0% Senior Manger 2.0 .0 2.0 100.0% .0% 100.0% 10.5% .0% 10.0% 10.0% .0% 10.0% Total 19.0 1.0 20.0 95.0% 5.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 4.21 5 .52 Likelihood Ratio 3.44 5 .63

192

Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 20

Designation * QH8 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation All the Most of the Some of the Not Total objectives are objectives are met objectives are met sure met Asst 2.0 1.0 1.0 .0 4.0 Manager 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% .0% 100.0% 66.7% 20.0% 9.1% .0% 20.0% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% .0% 20.0% Junior .0 1.0 2.0 .0 3.0 Assistant .0% 33.3% 66.7% .0% 100.0% .0% 20.0% 18.2% .0% 15.0% .0% 5.0% 10.0% .0% 15.0% Junior .0 1.0 1.0 .0 2.0 Manager .0% 50.0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% .0% 20.0% 9.1% .0% 10.0% .0% 5.0% 5.0% .0% 10.0% Manager .0 2.0 1.0 .0 3.0 .0% 66.7% 33.3% .0% 100.0% .0% 40.0% 9.1% .0% 15.0% .0% 10.0% 5.0% .0% 15.0% Sr Assistant .0 .0 5.0 1.0 6.0 .0% .0% 83.3% 16.7% 100.0% .0% .0% 45.5% 100.0% 30.0% .0% .0% 25.0% 5.0% 30.0% Senior 1.0 .0 1.0 .0 2.0 Manger 50.0% .0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% 33.3% .0% 9.1% .0% 10.0% 5.0% .0% 5.0% .0% 10.0% Total 3.0 5.0 11.0 1.0 20.0 15.0% 25.0% 55.0% 5.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 15.0% 25.0% 55.0% 5.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 15.88 15 .39 Likelihood Ratio 17.48 15 .29 N of Valid Cases 20

Designation * QH9 [count, row %, column %, total %]. QH9 Designation Total

193

QH9 Designation Total Asst Manager 4.0 4.0 100.0% 100.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% Junior Assistant 3.0 3.0 100.0% 100.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% Junior Manager 2.0 2.0 100.0% 100.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% Manager 3.0 3.0 100.0% 100.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% Sr Assistant 6.0 6.0 100.0% 100.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% Senior Manger 2.0 2.0 100.0% 100.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% Total 20.0 20.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 20

Designation * QH10 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation External trainers In house trainers Combination of both Total Asst Manager 2.0 2.0 .0 4.0 50.0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% 33.3% 25.0% .0% 20.0% 10.0% 10.0% .0% 20.0% Junior Assistant .0 1.0 2.0 3.0 .0% 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% .0% 12.5% 33.3% 15.0% .0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% Junior Manager .0 1.0 1.0 2.0 .0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% .0% 12.5% 16.7% 10.0%

194

Designation External trainers In house trainers Combination of both Total .0% 5.0% 5.0% 10.0% Manager .0 1.0 2.0 3.0 .0% 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% .0% 12.5% 33.3% 15.0% .0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% Sr Assistant 2.0 3.0 1.0 6.0 33.3% 50.0% 16.7% 100.0% 33.3% 37.5% 16.7% 30.0% 10.0% 15.0% 5.0% 30.0% Senior Manger 2.0 .0 .0 2.0 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 33.3% .0% .0% 10.0% 10.0% .0% .0% 10.0% Total 6.0 8.0 6.0 20.0 30.0% 40.0% 30.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 30.0% 40.0% 30.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 12.50 10 .25 Likelihood Ratio 15.46 10 .12 N of Valid Cases 20

Designation * QH11 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Yes No Total Asst Manager 3.0 1.0 4.0 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% 21.4% 16.7% 20.0% 15.0% 5.0% 20.0% Junior Assistant 3.0 .0 3.0 100.0% .0% 100.0% 21.4% .0% 15.0% 15.0% .0% 15.0% Junior Manager 1.0 1.0 2.0 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 7.1% 16.7% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% 10.0% Manager 3.0 .0 3.0 100.0% .0% 100.0% 21.4% .0% 15.0% 15.0% .0% 15.0% Sr Assistant 4.0 2.0 6.0 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% 28.6% 33.3% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 30.0% Senior Manger .0 2.0 2.0

195

Designation Yes No Total .0% 100.0% 100.0% .0% 33.3% 10.0% .0% 10.0% 10.0% Total 14.0 6.0 20.0 70.0% 30.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 70.0% 30.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 7.70 5 .17 Likelihood Ratio 9.53 5 .09 N of Valid Cases 20

Designation * QH12 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation By closely monitoring the By giving Any Total participation certificates other Asst Manager 4.0 .0 .0 4.0 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 26.7% .0% .0% 20.0% 20.0% .0% .0% 20.0% Junior 3.0 .0 .0 3.0 Assistant 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 20.0% .0% .0% 15.0% 15.0% .0% .0% 15.0% Junior 1.0 1.0 .0 2.0 Manager 50.0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% 6.7% 25.0% .0% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% .0% 10.0% Manager 2.0 1.0 .0 3.0 66.7% 33.3% .0% 100.0% 13.3% 25.0% .0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% .0% 15.0% Sr Assistant 4.0 2.0 .0 6.0 66.7% 33.3% .0% 100.0% 26.7% 50.0% .0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% .0% 30.0% Senior Manger 1.0 .0 1.0 2.0 50.0% .0% 50.0% 100.0% 6.7% .0% 100.0% 10.0% 5.0% .0% 5.0% 10.0% Total 15.0 4.0 1.0 20.0 75.0% 20.0% 5.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 75.0% 20.0% 5.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests.

196

Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 13.50 10 .20 Likelihood Ratio 10.49 10 .40 N of Valid Cases 20

Designation * QH13 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Periodical test Feedback Measurement of By measuring the Total during the from the change in quality or reduction in training trainers result achieved. employee period turnover or the accidents. Asst 2.0 1.0 1.0 .0 4.0 Manager 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% .0% 100.0% 25.0% 20.0% 16.7% .0% 20.0% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% .0% 20.0% Junior 2.0 .0 1.0 .0 3.0 Assistant 66.7% .0% 33.3% .0% 100.0% 25.0% .0% 16.7% .0% 15.0% 10.0% .0% 5.0% .0% 15.0% Junior .0 .0 2.0 .0 2.0 Manager .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 33.3% .0% 10.0% .0% .0% 10.0% .0% 10.0% Manager 1.0 2.0 .0 .0 3.0 33.3% 66.7% .0% .0% 100.0% 12.5% 40.0% .0% .0% 15.0% 5.0% 10.0% .0% .0% 15.0% Sr Assistant 3.0 2.0 1.0 .0 6.0 50.0% 33.3% 16.7% .0% 100.0% 37.5% 40.0% 16.7% .0% 30.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% .0% 30.0% Senior .0 .0 1.0 1.0 2.0 Manger .0% .0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 16.7% 100.0% 10.0% .0% .0% 5.0% 5.0% 10.0% Total 8.0 5.0 6.0 1.0 20.0 40.0% 25.0% 30.0% 5.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 40.0% 25.0% 30.0% 5.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 20.25 15 .16 Likelihood Ratio 18.10 15 .26 N of Valid Cases 20

197

Designation * QH14 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Satisfactory Somewhat Satisfactory Total Asst Manager 3.0 1.0 4.0 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% 25.0% 12.5% 20.0% 15.0% 5.0% 20.0% Junior Assistant 2.0 1.0 3.0 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% 16.7% 12.5% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 15.0% Junior Manager 1.0 1.0 2.0 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 8.3% 12.5% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% 10.0% Manager .0 3.0 3.0 .0% 100.0% 100.0% .0% 37.5% 15.0% .0% 15.0% 15.0% Sr Assistant 5.0 1.0 6.0 83.3% 16.7% 100.0% 41.7% 12.5% 30.0% 25.0% 5.0% 30.0% Senior Manger 1.0 1.0 2.0 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 8.3% 12.5% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% 10.0% Total 12.0 8.0 20.0 60.0% 40.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 60.0% 40.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 6.46 5 .26 Likelihood Ratio 7.65 5 .18 N of Valid Cases 20

Designation * QH15 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Time Lack of interest by the Non availability of skilled Total staff trainers Asst Manager 4.0 .0 .0 4.0 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 26.7% .0% .0% 20.0% 20.0% .0% .0% 20.0% Junior 2.0 .0 1.0 3.0 Assistant 66.7% .0% 33.3% 100.0% 13.3% .0% 25.0% 15.0%

198

Designation Time Lack of interest by the Non availability of skilled Total staff trainers 10.0% .0% 5.0% 15.0% Junior 1.0 .0 1.0 2.0 Manager 50.0% .0% 50.0% 100.0% 6.7% .0% 25.0% 10.0% 5.0% .0% 5.0% 10.0% Manager 3.0 .0 .0 3.0 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 20.0% .0% .0% 15.0% 15.0% .0% .0% 15.0% Sr Assistant 4.0 .0 2.0 6.0 66.7% .0% 33.3% 100.0% 26.7% .0% 50.0% 30.0% 20.0% .0% 10.0% 30.0% Senior Manger 1.0 1.0 .0 2.0 50.0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% 6.7% 100.0% .0% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% .0% 10.0% Total 15.0 1.0 4.0 20.0 75.0% 5.0% 20.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 75.0% 5.0% 20.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 13.50 10 .20 Likelihood Ratio 10.49 10 .40 N of Valid Cases 20

Designation * QH16 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Interpersonal Personal External Total Asst Manager 2.0 2.0 .0 4.0 50.0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% 22.2% 20.0% .0% 20.0% 10.0% 10.0% .0% 20.0% Junior Assistant 1.0 2.0 .0 3.0 33.3% 66.7% .0% 100.0% 11.1% 20.0% .0% 15.0% 5.0% 10.0% .0% 15.0% Junior Manager .0 2.0 .0 2.0 .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0% .0% 20.0% .0% 10.0% .0% 10.0% .0% 10.0% Manager 1.0 2.0 .0 3.0 33.3% 66.7% .0% 100.0% 11.1% 20.0% .0% 15.0% 5.0% 10.0% .0% 15.0%

199

Designation Interpersonal Personal External Total Sr Assistant 4.0 2.0 .0 6.0 66.7% 33.3% .0% 100.0% 44.4% 20.0% .0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% .0% 30.0% Senior Manger 1.0 .0 1.0 2.0 50.0% .0% 50.0% 100.0% 11.1% .0% 100.0% 10.0% 5.0% .0% 5.0% 10.0% Total 9.0 10.0 1.0 20.0 45.0% 50.0% 5.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 45.0% 50.0% 5.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 13.41 10 .20 Likelihood Ratio 10.63 10 .39 N of Valid Cases 20

Department * QEHW1 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department < 10 years 10 to 20 years > 20 years Total Human Resources 3.0 4.0 13.0 20.0 15.0% 20.0% 65.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 15.0% 20.0% 65.0% 100.0% Total 3.0 4.0 13.0 20.0 15.0% 20.0% 65.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 15.0% 20.0% 65.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 20 Department * QH2a [count, row %, column %, total %]. QH2a Department Yes Total Human Resources 20.0 20.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Total 20.0 20.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 20

Department * QH2b [count, row %, column %, total %].

200

Department Short term training Combination of both Total Human Resources 13.0 7.0 20.0 65.0% 35.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 65.0% 35.0% 100.0% Total 13.0 7.0 20.0 65.0% 35.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 65.0% 35.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 20

Department * QH3 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department Feedback from Requirement of Schedule already Total employees sectional heads prepared Human 7.0 12.0 1.0 20.0 Resources 35.0% 60.0% 5.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 35.0% 60.0% 5.0% 100.0% Total 7.0 12.0 1.0 20.0 35.0% 60.0% 5.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 35.0% 60.0% 5.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 20

Department * QH4 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department Operational Managerial Both Total Human Resources 3.0 7.0 10.0 20.0 15.0% 35.0% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 15.0% 35.0% 50.0% 100.0% Total 3.0 7.0 10.0 20.0 15.0% 35.0% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 15.0% 35.0% 50.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 20

Department * QH5 [count, row %, column %, total %]. QH5 Department Total Human Resources 20.0 20.0 100.0% 100.0%

201

QH5 Department Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Total 20.0 20.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 20

Department * QH5b [count, row %, column %, total %]. QH5b Department Total Human Resources 20.0 20.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Total 20.0 20.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 20

Department * QH6 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department On the job Off the job A combination of both Total Human Resources 16.0 3.0 1.0 20.0 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 100.0% Total 16.0 3.0 1.0 20.0 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 20

Department * QH7 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department Yes No Total Human Resources 19.0 1.0 20.0 95.0% 5.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 100.0% Total 19.0 1.0 20.0

202

Department Yes No Total 95.0% 5.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 20

Department * QH8 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department All the Most of the Some of the Not Total objectives are objectives are met objectives are met sure met Human 3.0 5.0 11.0 1.0 20.0 Resources 15.0% 25.0% 55.0% 5.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 15.0% 25.0% 55.0% 5.0% 100.0% Total 3.0 5.0 11.0 1.0 20.0 15.0% 25.0% 55.0% 5.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 15.0% 25.0% 55.0% 5.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 20

Department * QH9 [count, row %, column %, total %]. QH9 Department Total Human Resources 20.0 20.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Total 20.0 20.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 20

Department * QH10 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department External trainers In house trainers Combination of both Total Human Resources 6.0 8.0 6.0 20.0 30.0% 40.0% 30.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 30.0% 40.0% 30.0% 100.0% Total 6.0 8.0 6.0 20.0 30.0% 40.0% 30.0% 100.0%

203

Department External trainers In house trainers Combination of both Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 30.0% 40.0% 30.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 20

Department * QH11 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department Yes No Total Human Resources 14.0 6.0 20.0 70.0% 30.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 70.0% 30.0% 100.0% Total 14.0 6.0 20.0 70.0% 30.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 70.0% 30.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 20

Department * QH12 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department By closely monitoring the By giving Any Total participation certificates other Human 15.0 4.0 1.0 20.0 Resources 75.0% 20.0% 5.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 75.0% 20.0% 5.0% 100.0% Total 15.0 4.0 1.0 20.0 75.0% 20.0% 5.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 75.0% 20.0% 5.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 20 Department * QH13 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department Periodical test Feedback Measurement of By measuring the Total during the from the change in quality or reduction in training trainers result achieved. employee period turnover or the accidents. Human 8.0 5.0 6.0 1.0 20.0 Resources 40.0% 25.0% 30.0% 5.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 40.0% 25.0% 30.0% 5.0% 100.0% Total 8.0 5.0 6.0 1.0 20.0

204

Department Periodical test Feedback Measurement of By measuring the Total during the from the change in quality or reduction in training trainers result achieved. employee period turnover or the accidents. 40.0% 25.0% 30.0% 5.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 40.0% 25.0% 30.0% 5.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 20

Department * QH14 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department Satisfactory Somewhat Satisfactory Total Human Resources 12.0 8.0 20.0 60.0% 40.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 60.0% 40.0% 100.0% Total 12.0 8.0 20.0 60.0% 40.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 60.0% 40.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 20

Department * QH15 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department Time Lack of interest by the Non availability of skilled Total staff trainers Human 15.0 1.0 4.0 20.0 Resources 75.0% 5.0% 20.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 75.0% 5.0% 20.0% 100.0% Total 15.0 1.0 4.0 20.0 75.0% 5.0% 20.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 75.0% 5.0% 20.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 20

Department * QH16 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department Interpersonal Personal External Total Human Resources 9.0 10.0 1.0 20.0 45.0% 50.0% 5.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 45.0% 50.0% 5.0% 100.0%

205

Department Interpersonal Personal External Total Total 9.0 10.0 1.0 20.0 45.0% 50.0% 5.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 45.0% 50.0% 5.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 20

11.2 Responses of workers Age Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent 20 -30 25.00 1 2.33 2.33 2.33 30 - 40 35.00 8 18.60 18.60 20.93 40 - 50 45.00 15 34.88 34.88 55.81 50 - 60 55.00 19 44.19 44.19 100.00 Total 43 100.0 100.0 age_range N Valid 43 Missing 0 Mean 47.09 Std Dev 8.33 Minimum 25.00 Maximum 55.00

Gender Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Female f 9 20.93 20.93 20.93 Male m 34 79.07 79.07 100.00 Total 43 100.0 100.0

Designation Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Worker w 43 100.00 100.00 100.00 Total 43 100.0 100.0

Department Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent P & I Wing pi 8 18.60 18.60 18.60 Plant & Production pp 35 81.40 81.40 100.00 Total 43 100.0 100.0

How long have you been working for this company? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent

206

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent < 10 years a 5 11.63 11.63 11.63 10 to 20 years b 15 34.88 34.88 46.51 > 20 years c 23 53.49 53.49 100.00 Total 43 100.0 100.0

Did the organisation conduct any training programme immediately after recruiting? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Yes a 24 55.81 55.81 55.81 No b 19 44.19 44.19 100.00 Total 43 100.0 100.0

That training was useful for your work? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Yes a 28 65.12 65.12 65.12 No b 15 34.88 34.88 100.00 Total 43 100.0 100.0

Do you think training is essential for improving your skills on the job? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Cum Percent Percent Very much essential a 27 62.79 62.79 62.79 I can perform as well without b 13 30.23 30.23 93.02 training To some extent c 3 6.98 6.98 100.00 Total 43 100.0 100.0

Do you prefer short term training programme or long term training programme? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Short term (2 to 3 days) a 10 23.26 23.26 23.26 1 to 2 weeks b 25 58.14 58.14 81.40 Long term (more than 2 weeks) c 8 18.60 18.60 100.00 Total 43 100.0 100.0

Do you prefer on the job training programmes or training conducted away from your work area? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent On the job training a 26 60.47 60.47 60.47 Away from work b 3 6.98 6.98 67.44 Combination of both c 14 32.56 32.56 100.00 Total 43 100.0 100.0

How many training programmes did you attend during the last one year? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent 0-2 a 29 67.44 67.44 67.44 2-4 b 14 32.56 32.56 100.00 Total 43 100.0 100.0

207

The time duration given for the training period is Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Sufficient a 31 72.09 72.09 72.09 To be extended b 7 16.28 16.28 88.37 Do not know d 5 11.63 11.63 100.00 Total 43 100.0 100.0

Is there any change in your job assignment after successful completion of training? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Cum Percent Percent Promotion a 8 18.60 18.60 18.60 More responsibility b 24 55.81 55.81 74.42 Consider a request for transfer c 3 6.98 6.98 81.40 Job rotation or change of d 8 18.60 18.60 100.00 department Total 43 100.0 100.0

Considering the trainings attended by you in the recent past, effectiveness of training and the job you are performing after the training what do you feel about the trainings Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Cum Percent Percent They are very much useful and improve a 32 74.42 74.42 74.42 the efficiency Not that useful but should be conducted b 7 16.28 16.28 90.70 for whatever improvement they bring in They are not that much useful but help the c 3 6.98 6.98 97.67 employee in diverting his attention and relaxing They are least useful but should be d 1 2.33 2.33 100.00 conducted as company policy requires the trainings to be conducted Total 43 100.0 100.0

Did you attend any government aided training programmes? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Yes a 5 11.63 11.63 11.63 No b 38 88.37 88.37 100.00 Total 43 100.0 100.0

Who do you think are given more preference in trainings?

208

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Cum Percent Percent Managers a 14 32.56 32.56 32.56 Skilled workers b 23 53.49 53.49 86.05 All are given equal preference c 4 9.30 9.30 95.35 There is a different criterion for d 2 4.65 4.65 100.00 that Total 43 100.0 100.0

Is a feedback collected after training? Value Label Value Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum Percent Yes and I gave feedback a 17 39.53 39.53 39.53 Yes but I did not give feedback b 6 13.95 13.95 53.49 No, they never ask for feedback c 20 46.51 46.51 100.00 Total 43 100.0 100.0 age_range * QEHW1 [count, row %, column %, total %]. age_range < 10 years 10 to 20 years > 20 years Total 25.00 1.0 .0 .0 1.0 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 20.0% .0% .0% 2.3% 2.3% .0% .0% 2.3% 35.00 4.0 4.0 .0 8.0 50.0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% 80.0% 26.7% .0% 18.6% 9.3% 9.3% .0% 18.6% 45.00 .0 10.0 5.0 15.0 .0% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% .0% 66.7% 21.7% 34.9% .0% 23.3% 11.6% 34.9% 55.00 .0 1.0 18.0 19.0 .0% 5.3% 94.7% 100.0% .0% 6.7% 78.3% 44.2% .0% 2.3% 41.9% 44.2% Total 5.0 15.0 23.0 43.0 11.6% 34.9% 53.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 11.6% 34.9% 53.5% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 42.79 6 .00 Likelihood Ratio 43.87 6 .00 N of Valid Cases 43 age_range * QW2 [count, row %, column %, total %]. age_range Yes No Total 25.00 1.0 .0 1.0 100.0% .0% 100.0%

209

age_range Yes No Total 4.2% .0% 2.3% 2.3% .0% 2.3% 35.00 6.0 2.0 8.0 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% 25.0% 10.5% 18.6% 14.0% 4.7% 18.6% 45.00 9.0 6.0 15.0 60.0% 40.0% 100.0% 37.5% 31.6% 34.9% 20.9% 14.0% 34.9% 55.00 8.0 11.0 19.0 42.1% 57.9% 100.0% 33.3% 57.9% 44.2% 18.6% 25.6% 44.2% Total 24.0 19.0 43.0 55.8% 44.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 55.8% 44.2% 100.0%

Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 3.54 3 .32 Likelihood Ratio 3.98 3 .26 N of Valid Cases 43 age_range * QW3 [count, row %, column %, total %]. age_range Yes No Total 25.00 1.0 .0 1.0 100.0% .0% 100.0% 3.6% .0% 2.3% 2.3% .0% 2.3% 35.00 6.0 2.0 8.0 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% 21.4% 13.3% 18.6% 14.0% 4.7% 18.6% 45.00 11.0 4.0 15.0 73.3% 26.7% 100.0% 39.3% 26.7% 34.9% 25.6% 9.3% 34.9% 55.00 10.0 9.0 19.0 52.6% 47.4% 100.0% 35.7% 60.0% 44.2% 23.3% 20.9% 44.2% Total 28.0 15.0 43.0 65.1% 34.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 65.1% 34.9% 100.0%

210

Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 2.63 3 .45 Likelihood Ratio 2.94 3 .40 N of Valid Cases 43 age_range * QW4 [count, row %, column %, total %]. age_range Very much I can perform as well without To some Total essential training extent 25.00 1.0 .0 .0 1.0 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 3.7% .0% .0% 2.3% 2.3% .0% .0% 2.3% 35.00 5.0 3.0 .0 8.0 62.5% 37.5% .0% 100.0% 18.5% 23.1% .0% 18.6% 11.6% 7.0% .0% 18.6% 45.00 8.0 5.0 2.0 15.0 53.3% 33.3% 13.3% 100.0% 29.6% 38.5% 66.7% 34.9% 18.6% 11.6% 4.7% 34.9% 55.00 13.0 5.0 1.0 19.0 68.4% 26.3% 5.3% 100.0% 48.1% 38.5% 33.3% 44.2% 30.2% 11.6% 2.3% 44.2% Total 27.0 13.0 3.0 43.0 62.8% 30.2% 7.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 62.8% 30.2% 7.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 2.69 6 .85 Likelihood Ratio 3.41 6 .76 N of Valid Cases 43 age_range * QW5 [count, row %, column %, total %]. age_range Short term (2 to 3 1 to 2 Long term (more than 2 Total days) weeks weeks) 25.00 .0 1.0 .0 1.0 .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0% .0% 4.0% .0% 2.3% .0% 2.3% .0% 2.3% 35.00 1.0 7.0 .0 8.0 12.5% 87.5% .0% 100.0% 10.0% 28.0% .0% 18.6% 2.3% 16.3% .0% 18.6% 45.00 6.0 7.0 2.0 15.0 40.0% 46.7% 13.3% 100.0%

211

age_range Short term (2 to 3 1 to 2 Long term (more than 2 Total days) weeks weeks) 60.0% 28.0% 25.0% 34.9% 14.0% 16.3% 4.7% 34.9% 55.00 3.0 10.0 6.0 19.0 15.8% 52.6% 31.6% 100.0% 30.0% 40.0% 75.0% 44.2% 7.0% 23.3% 14.0% 44.2% Total 10.0 25.0 8.0 43.0 23.3% 58.1% 18.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 23.3% 58.1% 18.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 8.44 6 .21 Likelihood Ratio 9.70 6 .14 N of Valid Cases 43 age_range * QW6 [count, row %, column %, total %]. age_range On the job training Away from work Combination of both Total 25.00 1.0 .0 .0 1.0 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 3.8% .0% .0% 2.3% 2.3% .0% .0% 2.3% 35.00 6.0 .0 2.0 8.0 75.0% .0% 25.0% 100.0% 23.1% .0% 14.3% 18.6% 14.0% .0% 4.7% 18.6% 45.00 9.0 2.0 4.0 15.0 60.0% 13.3% 26.7% 100.0% 34.6% 66.7% 28.6% 34.9% 20.9% 4.7% 9.3% 34.9% 55.00 10.0 1.0 8.0 19.0 52.6% 5.3% 42.1% 100.0% 38.5% 33.3% 57.1% 44.2% 23.3% 2.3% 18.6% 44.2% Total 26.0 3.0 14.0 43.0 60.5% 7.0% 32.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 60.5% 7.0% 32.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 3.47 6 .75 Likelihood Ratio 4.17 6 .65 N of Valid Cases 43 age_range * QW7 [count, row %, column %, total %]. age_range 0-2 2-4 Total

212

age_range 0-2 2-4 Total 25.00 1.0 .0 1.0 100.0% .0% 100.0% 3.4% .0% 2.3% 2.3% .0% 2.3% 35.00 8.0 .0 8.0 100.0% .0% 100.0% 27.6% .0% 18.6% 18.6% .0% 18.6% 45.00 11.0 4.0 15.0 73.3% 26.7% 100.0% 37.9% 28.6% 34.9% 25.6% 9.3% 34.9% 55.00 9.0 10.0 19.0 47.4% 52.6% 100.0% 31.0% 71.4% 44.2% 20.9% 23.3% 44.2% Total 29.0 14.0 43.0 67.4% 32.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 67.4% 32.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 8.07 3 .04 Likelihood Ratio 10.58 3 .01 N of Valid Cases 43 age_range * QW8 [count, row %, column %, total %]. age_range Strongly agree Agree Somewhat agree Total 25.00 1.0 .0 .0 1.0 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 3.7% .0% .0% 2.3% 2.3% .0% .0% 2.3% 35.00 4.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 100.0% 14.8% 40.0% 18.2% 18.6% 9.3% 4.7% 4.7% 18.6% 45.00 5.0 3.0 7.0 15.0 33.3% 20.0% 46.7% 100.0% 18.5% 60.0% 63.6% 34.9% 11.6% 7.0% 16.3% 34.9% 55.00 17.0 .0 2.0 19.0 89.5% .0% 10.5% 100.0% 63.0% .0% 18.2% 44.2% 39.5% .0% 4.7% 44.2% Total 27.0 5.0 11.0 43.0 62.8% 11.6% 25.6% 100.0%

213

age_range Strongly agree Agree Somewhat agree Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 62.8% 11.6% 25.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 13.66 6 .03 Likelihood Ratio 15.90 6 .01 N of Valid Cases 43 age_range * QW9 [count, row %, column %, total %]. age_range Sufficient To be extended Do not know Total 25.00 1.0 .0 .0 1.0 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 3.2% .0% .0% 2.3% 2.3% .0% .0% 2.3% 35.00 6.0 .0 2.0 8.0 75.0% .0% 25.0% 100.0% 19.4% .0% 40.0% 18.6% 14.0% .0% 4.7% 18.6% 45.00 9.0 6.0 .0 15.0 60.0% 40.0% .0% 100.0% 29.0% 85.7% .0% 34.9% 20.9% 14.0% .0% 34.9% 55.00 15.0 1.0 3.0 19.0 78.9% 5.3% 15.8% 100.0% 48.4% 14.3% 60.0% 44.2% 34.9% 2.3% 7.0% 44.2% Total 31.0 7.0 5.0 43.0 72.1% 16.3% 11.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 72.1% 16.3% 11.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 11.99 6 .06 Likelihood Ratio 13.98 6 .03 N of Valid Cases 43 age_range * QW10 [count, row %, column %, total %]. age_range Promotion More Consider a Job rotation or change Total responsibility request for of department transfer 25.00 .0 .0 1.0 .0 1.0 .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 33.3% .0% 2.3% .0% .0% 2.3% .0% 2.3% 35.00 .0 6.0 1.0 1.0 8.0 .0% 75.0% 12.5% 12.5% 100.0% .0% 25.0% 33.3% 12.5% 18.6%

214

age_range Promotion More Consider a Job rotation or change Total responsibility request for of department transfer .0% 14.0% 2.3% 2.3% 18.6% 45.00 3.0 6.0 1.0 5.0 15.0 20.0% 40.0% 6.7% 33.3% 100.0% 37.5% 25.0% 33.3% 62.5% 34.9% 7.0% 14.0% 2.3% 11.6% 34.9% 55.00 5.0 12.0 .0 2.0 19.0 26.3% 63.2% .0% 10.5% 100.0% 62.5% 50.0% .0% 25.0% 44.2% 11.6% 27.9% .0% 4.7% 44.2% Total 8.0 24.0 3.0 8.0 43.0 18.6% 55.8% 7.0% 18.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 18.6% 55.8% 7.0% 18.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 21.08 9 .01 Likelihood Ratio 15.57 9 .08 N of Valid Cases 43 age_range * QW11 [count, row %, column %, total %]. age_range They are Not that useful but They are not They are least Total very much should be that much useful but should useful and conducted for useful but help be conducted as improve the whatever the employee in company policy efficiency improvement they diverting his requires the bring in attention and trainings to be relaxing conducted 25.00 1.0 .0 .0 .0 1.0 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 3.1% .0% .0% .0% 2.3% 2.3% .0% .0% .0% 2.3% 35.00 4.0 4.0 .0 .0 8.0 50.0% 50.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 12.5% 57.1% .0% .0% 18.6% 9.3% 9.3% .0% .0% 18.6% 45.00 11.0 3.0 1.0 .0 15.0 73.3% 20.0% 6.7% .0% 100.0% 34.4% 42.9% 33.3% .0% 34.9% 25.6% 7.0% 2.3% .0% 34.9% 55.00 16.0 .0 2.0 1.0 19.0 84.2% .0% 10.5% 5.3% 100.0% 50.0% .0% 66.7% 100.0% 44.2% 37.2% .0% 4.7% 2.3% 44.2% Total 32.0 7.0 3.0 1.0 43.0 74.4% 16.3% 7.0% 2.3% 100.0%

215

age_range They are Not that useful but They are not They are least Total very much should be that much useful but should useful and conducted for useful but help be conducted as improve the whatever the employee in company policy efficiency improvement they diverting his requires the bring in attention and trainings to be relaxing conducted 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 74.4% 16.3% 7.0% 2.3% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 12.18 9 .20 Likelihood Ratio 14.44 9 .11 N of Valid Cases 43 age_range * QW12 [count, row %, column %, total %]. age_range Yes No Total 25.00 .0 1.0 1.0 .0% 100.0% 100.0% .0% 2.6% 2.3% .0% 2.3% 2.3% 35.00 .0 8.0 8.0 .0% 100.0% 100.0% .0% 21.1% 18.6% .0% 18.6% 18.6% 45.00 2.0 13.0 15.0 13.3% 86.7% 100.0% 40.0% 34.2% 34.9% 4.7% 30.2% 34.9% 55.00 3.0 16.0 19.0 15.8% 84.2% 100.0% 60.0% 42.1% 44.2% 7.0% 37.2% 44.2% Total 5.0 38.0 43.0 11.6% 88.4% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 11.6% 88.4% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.55 3 .67 Likelihood Ratio 2.56 3 .46 N of Valid Cases 43 age_range * QW13 [count, row %, column %, total %]. age_range Managers Skilled All are given equal There is a different Total workers preference criterion for that 25.00 1.0 .0 .0 .0 1.0 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%

216

age_range Managers Skilled All are given equal There is a different Total workers preference criterion for that 7.1% .0% .0% .0% 2.3% 2.3% .0% .0% .0% 2.3% 35.00 3.0 5.0 .0 .0 8.0 37.5% 62.5% .0% .0% 100.0% 21.4% 21.7% .0% .0% 18.6% 7.0% 11.6% .0% .0% 18.6% 45.00 5.0 8.0 2.0 .0 15.0 33.3% 53.3% 13.3% .0% 100.0% 35.7% 34.8% 50.0% .0% 34.9% 11.6% 18.6% 4.7% .0% 34.9% 55.00 5.0 10.0 2.0 2.0 19.0 26.3% 52.6% 10.5% 10.5% 100.0% 35.7% 43.5% 50.0% 100.0% 44.2% 11.6% 23.3% 4.7% 4.7% 44.2% Total 14.0 23.0 4.0 2.0 43.0 32.6% 53.5% 9.3% 4.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 32.6% 53.5% 9.3% 4.7% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 6.00 9 .74 Likelihood Ratio 7.59 9 .58 N of Valid Cases 43 age_range * QW14 [count, row %, column %, total %]. age_range Yes and I gave Yes but I did not give No, they never ask for Total feedback feedback feedback 25.00 .0 .0 1.0 1.0 .0% .0% 100.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 5.0% 2.3% .0% .0% 2.3% 2.3% 35.00 1.0 1.0 6.0 8.0 12.5% 12.5% 75.0% 100.0% 5.9% 16.7% 30.0% 18.6% 2.3% 2.3% 14.0% 18.6% 45.00 3.0 2.0 10.0 15.0 20.0% 13.3% 66.7% 100.0% 17.6% 33.3% 50.0% 34.9% 7.0% 4.7% 23.3% 34.9% 55.00 13.0 3.0 3.0 19.0 68.4% 15.8% 15.8% 100.0% 76.5% 50.0% 15.0% 44.2% 30.2% 7.0% 7.0% 44.2% Total 17.0 6.0 20.0 43.0 39.5% 14.0% 46.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

217

age_range Yes and I gave Yes but I did not give No, they never ask for Total feedback feedback feedback 39.5% 14.0% 46.5% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 14.71 6 .02 Likelihood Ratio 16.19 6 .01 N of Valid Cases 43

Gender * QEHW1 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Gender < 10 years 10 to 20 years > 20 years Total Female 3.0 6.0 .0 9.0 33.3% 66.7% .0% 100.0% 60.0% 40.0% .0% 20.9% 7.0% 14.0% .0% 20.9% Male 2.0 9.0 23.0 34.0 5.9% 26.5% 67.6% 100.0% 40.0% 60.0% 100.0% 79.1% 4.7% 20.9% 53.5% 79.1% Total 5.0 15.0 23.0 43.0 11.6% 34.9% 53.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 11.6% 34.9% 53.5% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 14.00 2 .00 Likelihood Ratio 17.20 2 .00 N of Valid Cases 43

Gender * QW2 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Gender Yes No Total Female 7.0 2.0 9.0 77.8% 22.2% 100.0% 29.2% 10.5% 20.9% 16.3% 4.7% 20.9% Male 17.0 17.0 34.0 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 70.8% 89.5% 79.1% 39.5% 39.5% 79.1% Total 24.0 19.0 43.0 55.8% 44.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 55.8% 44.2% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1- sided) sided) sided) Pearson Chi-Square 2.23 1 .14 Likelihood Ratio 2.36 1 .12

218

Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1- sided) sided) sided) Fisher's Exact Test 1.00 .13 Continuity 1.24 1 .26 Correction N of Valid Cases 43

Gender * QW3 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Gender Yes No Total Female 7.0 2.0 9.0 77.8% 22.2% 100.0% 25.0% 13.3% 20.9% 16.3% 4.7% 20.9% Male 21.0 13.0 34.0 61.8% 38.2% 100.0% 75.0% 86.7% 79.1% 48.8% 30.2% 79.1% Total 28.0 15.0 43.0 65.1% 34.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 65.1% 34.9% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1- sided) sided) sided) Pearson Chi-Square .80 1 .37 Likelihood Ratio .85 1 .36 Fisher's Exact Test 1.00 .32 Continuity .25 1 .61 Correction N of Valid Cases 43

Gender * QW4 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Gender Very much I can perform as well without To some Total essential training extent Female 7.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 77.8% 11.1% 11.1% 100.0% 25.9% 7.7% 33.3% 20.9% 16.3% 2.3% 2.3% 20.9% Male 20.0 12.0 2.0 34.0 58.8% 35.3% 5.9% 100.0% 74.1% 92.3% 66.7% 79.1% 46.5% 27.9% 4.7% 79.1% Total 27.0 13.0 3.0 43.0 62.8% 30.2% 7.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 62.8% 30.2% 7.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

219

Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 2.06 2 .36 Likelihood Ratio 2.35 2 .31 N of Valid Cases 43

Gender * QW5 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Gender Short term (2 to 3 days) 1 to 2 weeks Long term (more than 2 weeks) Total Female 3.0 6.0 .0 9.0 33.3% 66.7% .0% 100.0% 30.0% 24.0% .0% 20.9% 7.0% 14.0% .0% 20.9% Male 7.0 19.0 8.0 34.0 20.6% 55.9% 23.5% 100.0% 70.0% 76.0% 100.0% 79.1% 16.3% 44.2% 18.6% 79.1% Total 10.0 25.0 8.0 43.0 23.3% 58.1% 18.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 23.3% 58.1% 18.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 2.76 2 .25 Likelihood Ratio 4.35 2 .11 N of Valid Cases 43

Gender * QW6 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Gender On the job training Away from work Combination of both Total Female 7.0 .0 2.0 9.0 77.8% .0% 22.2% 100.0% 26.9% .0% 14.3% 20.9% 16.3% .0% 4.7% 20.9% Male 19.0 3.0 12.0 34.0 55.9% 8.8% 35.3% 100.0% 73.1% 100.0% 85.7% 79.1% 44.2% 7.0% 27.9% 79.1% Total 26.0 3.0 14.0 43.0 60.5% 7.0% 32.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 60.5% 7.0% 32.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.73 2 .42 Likelihood Ratio 2.35 2 .31 N of Valid Cases 43

Gender * QW7 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Gender 0-2 2-4 Total Female 9.0 .0 9.0

220

Gender 0-2 2-4 Total 100.0% .0% 100.0% 31.0% .0% 20.9% 20.9% .0% 20.9% Male 20.0 14.0 34.0 58.8% 41.2% 100.0% 69.0% 100.0% 79.1% 46.5% 32.6% 79.1% Total 29.0 14.0 43.0 67.4% 32.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 67.4% 32.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1- sided) sided) sided) Pearson Chi-Square 5.49 1 .02 Likelihood Ratio 8.20 1 .00 Fisher's Exact Test 1.00 .02 Continuity 3.78 1 .05 Correction N of Valid Cases 43

Gender * QW8 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Gender Strongly agree Agree Somewhat agree Total Female 4.0 2.0 3.0 9.0 44.4% 22.2% 33.3% 100.0% 14.8% 40.0% 27.3% 20.9% 9.3% 4.7% 7.0% 20.9% Male 23.0 3.0 8.0 34.0 67.6% 8.8% 23.5% 100.0% 85.2% 60.0% 72.7% 79.1% 53.5% 7.0% 18.6% 79.1% Total 27.0 5.0 11.0 43.0 62.8% 11.6% 25.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 62.8% 11.6% 25.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.98 2 .37 Likelihood Ratio 1.85 2 .40 N of Valid Cases 43

Gender * QW9 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Gender Sufficient To be extended Do not know Total Female 7.0 2.0 .0 9.0 77.8% 22.2% .0% 100.0% 22.6% 28.6% .0% 20.9% 16.3% 4.7% .0% 20.9%

221

Gender Sufficient To be extended Do not know Total Male 24.0 5.0 5.0 34.0 70.6% 14.7% 14.7% 100.0% 77.4% 71.4% 100.0% 79.1% 55.8% 11.6% 11.6% 79.1% Total 31.0 7.0 5.0 43.0 72.1% 16.3% 11.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 72.1% 16.3% 11.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.62 2 .44 Likelihood Ratio 2.63 2 .27 N of Valid Cases 43

Gender * QW10 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Gender Promotion More Consider a request Job rotation or change Total responsibility for transfer of department Female .0 6.0 2.0 1.0 9.0 .0% 66.7% 22.2% 11.1% 100.0% .0% 25.0% 66.7% 12.5% 20.9% .0% 14.0% 4.7% 2.3% 20.9% Male 8.0 18.0 1.0 7.0 34.0 23.5% 52.9% 2.9% 20.6% 100.0% 100.0% 75.0% 33.3% 87.5% 79.1% 18.6% 41.9% 2.3% 16.3% 79.1% Total 8.0 24.0 3.0 8.0 43.0 18.6% 55.8% 7.0% 18.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 18.6% 55.8% 7.0% 18.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 6.49 3 .09 Likelihood Ratio 7.28 3 .06 N of Valid Cases 43

Gender * QW11 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Gender They are very Not that useful but They are not that They are least Total much useful should be much useful but useful but should and improve conducted for help the be conducted as the efficiency whatever employee in company policy improvement they diverting his requires the bring in attention and trainings to be relaxing conducted Female 7.0 2.0 .0 .0 9.0 77.8% 22.2% .0% .0% 100.0% 21.9% 28.6% .0% .0% 20.9% 16.3% 4.7% .0% .0% 20.9%

222

Gender They are very Not that useful but They are not that They are least Total much useful should be much useful but useful but should and improve conducted for help the be conducted as the efficiency whatever employee in company policy improvement they diverting his requires the bring in attention and trainings to be relaxing conducted Male 25.0 5.0 3.0 1.0 34.0 73.5% 14.7% 8.8% 2.9% 100.0% 78.1% 71.4% 100.0% 100.0% 79.1% 58.1% 11.6% 7.0% 2.3% 79.1% Total 32.0 7.0 3.0 1.0 43.0 74.4% 16.3% 7.0% 2.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 74.4% 16.3% 7.0% 2.3% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.32 3 .72 Likelihood Ratio 2.12 3 .55 N of Valid Cases 43

Gender * QW12 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Gender Yes No Total Female .0 9.0 9.0 .0% 100.0% 100.0% .0% 23.7% 20.9% .0% 20.9% 20.9% Male 5.0 29.0 34.0 14.7% 85.3% 100.0% 100.0% 76.3% 79.1% 11.6% 67.4% 79.1% Total 5.0 38.0 43.0 11.6% 88.4% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 11.6% 88.4% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1- sided) sided) sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.50 1 .22 Likelihood Ratio 2.52 1 .11 Fisher's Exact Test 1.00 .29 Continuity .41 1 .52 Correction N of Valid Cases 43

Gender * QW13 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Gender Managers Skilled All are given equal There is a different Total workers preference criterion for that

223

Gender Managers Skilled All are given equal There is a different Total workers preference criterion for that Female 4.0 4.0 1.0 .0 9.0 44.4% 44.4% 11.1% .0% 100.0% 28.6% 17.4% 25.0% .0% 20.9% 9.3% 9.3% 2.3% .0% 20.9% Male 10.0 19.0 3.0 2.0 34.0 29.4% 55.9% 8.8% 5.9% 100.0% 71.4% 82.6% 75.0% 100.0% 79.1% 23.3% 44.2% 7.0% 4.7% 79.1% Total 14.0 23.0 4.0 2.0 43.0 32.6% 53.5% 9.3% 4.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 32.6% 53.5% 9.3% 4.7% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.24 3 .74 Likelihood Ratio 1.62 3 .66 N of Valid Cases 43

Gender * QW14 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Gender Yes and I gave Yes but I did not give No, they never ask for Total feedback feedback feedback Female 2.0 1.0 6.0 9.0 22.2% 11.1% 66.7% 100.0% 11.8% 16.7% 30.0% 20.9% 4.7% 2.3% 14.0% 20.9% Male 15.0 5.0 14.0 34.0 44.1% 14.7% 41.2% 100.0% 88.2% 83.3% 70.0% 79.1% 34.9% 11.6% 32.6% 79.1% Total 17.0 6.0 20.0 43.0 39.5% 14.0% 46.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 39.5% 14.0% 46.5% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.92 2 .38 Likelihood Ratio 1.96 2 .37 N of Valid Cases 43

Designation * QEHW1 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation < 10 years 10 to 20 years > 20 years Total Worker 5.0 15.0 23.0 43.0 11.6% 34.9% 53.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 11.6% 34.9% 53.5% 100.0% Total 5.0 15.0 23.0 43.0

224

Designation < 10 years 10 to 20 years > 20 years Total 11.6% 34.9% 53.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 11.6% 34.9% 53.5% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 43

Designation * QW2 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Yes No Total Worker 24.0 19.0 43.0 55.8% 44.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 55.8% 44.2% 100.0% Total 24.0 19.0 43.0 55.8% 44.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 55.8% 44.2% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 43

Designation * QW3 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Yes No Total Worker 28.0 15.0 43.0 65.1% 34.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 65.1% 34.9% 100.0% Total 28.0 15.0 43.0 65.1% 34.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 65.1% 34.9% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 43

Designation * QW4 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Very much I can perform as well without To some Total essential training extent Worker 27.0 13.0 3.0 43.0 62.8% 30.2% 7.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 62.8% 30.2% 7.0% 100.0% Total 27.0 13.0 3.0 43.0 62.8% 30.2% 7.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 62.8% 30.2% 7.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests.

225

Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 43

Designation * QW5 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Short term (2 to 3 1 to 2 Long term (more than 2 Total days) weeks weeks) Worker 10.0 25.0 8.0 43.0 23.3% 58.1% 18.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 23.3% 58.1% 18.6% 100.0% Total 10.0 25.0 8.0 43.0 23.3% 58.1% 18.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 23.3% 58.1% 18.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 43

Designation * QW6 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation On the job training Away from work Combination of both Total Worker 26.0 3.0 14.0 43.0 60.5% 7.0% 32.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 60.5% 7.0% 32.6% 100.0% Total 26.0 3.0 14.0 43.0 60.5% 7.0% 32.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 60.5% 7.0% 32.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 43

Designation * QW7 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation 0-2 2-4 Total Worker 29.0 14.0 43.0 67.4% 32.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 67.4% 32.6% 100.0% Total 29.0 14.0 43.0 67.4% 32.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 67.4% 32.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 43

Designation * QW8 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Strongly agree Agree Somewhat agree Total

226

Designation Strongly agree Agree Somewhat agree Total Worker 27.0 5.0 11.0 43.0 62.8% 11.6% 25.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 62.8% 11.6% 25.6% 100.0% Total 27.0 5.0 11.0 43.0 62.8% 11.6% 25.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 62.8% 11.6% 25.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 43

Designation * QW9 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Sufficient To be extended Do not know Total Worker 31.0 7.0 5.0 43.0 72.1% 16.3% 11.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 72.1% 16.3% 11.6% 100.0% Total 31.0 7.0 5.0 43.0 72.1% 16.3% 11.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 72.1% 16.3% 11.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 43

Designation * QW10 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Promotion More Consider a Job rotation or Total responsibility request for change of transfer department Worker 8.0 24.0 3.0 8.0 43.0 18.6% 55.8% 7.0% 18.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 18.6% 55.8% 7.0% 18.6% 100.0% Total 8.0 24.0 3.0 8.0 43.0 18.6% 55.8% 7.0% 18.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 18.6% 55.8% 7.0% 18.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 43

Designation * QW11 [count, row %, column %, total %].

227

Designation They are Not that useful They are not They are least Total very much but should be that much useful but should useful and conducted for useful but help be conducted as improve the whatever the employee company policy efficiency improvement they in diverting his requires the bring in attention and trainings to be relaxing conducted Worker 32.0 7.0 3.0 1.0 43.0 74.4% 16.3% 7.0% 2.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 74.4% 16.3% 7.0% 2.3% 100.0% Total 32.0 7.0 3.0 1.0 43.0 74.4% 16.3% 7.0% 2.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 74.4% 16.3% 7.0% 2.3% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 43

Designation * QW12 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Yes No Total Worker 5.0 38.0 43.0 11.6% 88.4% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 11.6% 88.4% 100.0% Total 5.0 38.0 43.0 11.6% 88.4% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 11.6% 88.4% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 43

Designation * QW13 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Managers Skilled All are given equal There is a different Total workers preference criterion for that Worker 14.0 23.0 4.0 2.0 43.0 32.6% 53.5% 9.3% 4.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 32.6% 53.5% 9.3% 4.7% 100.0% Total 14.0 23.0 4.0 2.0 43.0 32.6% 53.5% 9.3% 4.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 32.6% 53.5% 9.3% 4.7% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 43

228

Designation * QW14 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Designation Yes and I gave Yes but I did not give No, they never ask for Total feedback feedback feedback Worker 17.0 6.0 20.0 43.0 39.5% 14.0% 46.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 39.5% 14.0% 46.5% 100.0% Total 17.0 6.0 20.0 43.0 39.5% 14.0% 46.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 39.5% 14.0% 46.5% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 43

Department * QEHW1 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department < 10 years 10 to 20 years > 20 years Total P & I Wing 1.0 6.0 1.0 8.0 12.5% 75.0% 12.5% 100.0% 20.0% 40.0% 4.3% 18.6% 2.3% 14.0% 2.3% 18.6% Plant & Production 4.0 9.0 22.0 35.0 11.4% 25.7% 62.9% 100.0% 80.0% 60.0% 95.7% 81.4% 9.3% 20.9% 51.2% 81.4% Total 5.0 15.0 23.0 43.0 11.6% 34.9% 53.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 11.6% 34.9% 53.5% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 7.63 2 .02 Likelihood Ratio 7.90 2 .02 N of Valid Cases 43

Department * QW2 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department Yes No Total P & I Wing 7.0 1.0 8.0 87.5% 12.5% 100.0% 29.2% 5.3% 18.6% 16.3% 2.3% 18.6% Plant & Production 17.0 18.0 35.0 48.6% 51.4% 100.0% 70.8% 94.7% 81.4% 39.5% 41.9% 81.4% Total 24.0 19.0 43.0 55.8% 44.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

229

Department Yes No Total 55.8% 44.2% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1- sided) sided) sided) Pearson Chi-Square 4.00 1 .05 Likelihood Ratio 4.51 1 .03 Fisher's Exact Test 1.00 .05 Continuity 2.58 1 .11 Correction N of Valid Cases 43

Department * QW3 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department Yes No Total P & I Wing 7.0 1.0 8.0 87.5% 12.5% 100.0% 25.0% 6.7% 18.6% 16.3% 2.3% 18.6% Plant & Production 21.0 14.0 35.0 60.0% 40.0% 100.0% 75.0% 93.3% 81.4% 48.8% 32.6% 81.4% Total 28.0 15.0 43.0 65.1% 34.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 65.1% 34.9% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1- sided) sided) sided) Pearson Chi-Square 2.17 1 .14 Likelihood Ratio 2.48 1 .12 Fisher's Exact Test 1.00 .14 Continuity 1.13 1 .29 Correction N of Valid Cases 43

Department * QW4 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department Very much I can perform as well without To some Total essential training extent P & I Wing 4.0 3.0 1.0 8.0 50.0% 37.5% 12.5% 100.0% 14.8% 23.1% 33.3% 18.6% 9.3% 7.0% 2.3% 18.6% Plant & 23.0 10.0 2.0 35.0 Production 65.7% 28.6% 5.7% 100.0% 85.2% 76.9% 66.7% 81.4% 53.5% 23.3% 4.7% 81.4%

230

Department Very much I can perform as well without To some Total essential training extent Total 27.0 13.0 3.0 43.0 62.8% 30.2% 7.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 62.8% 30.2% 7.0% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square .86 2 .65 Likelihood Ratio .80 2 .67 N of Valid Cases 43

Department * QW5 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department Short term (2 to 3 1 to 2 Long term (more than 2 Total days) weeks weeks) P & I Wing 2.0 6.0 .0 8.0 25.0% 75.0% .0% 100.0% 20.0% 24.0% .0% 18.6% 4.7% 14.0% .0% 18.6% Plant & 8.0 19.0 8.0 35.0 Production 22.9% 54.3% 22.9% 100.0% 80.0% 76.0% 100.0% 81.4% 18.6% 44.2% 18.6% 81.4% Total 10.0 25.0 8.0 43.0 23.3% 58.1% 18.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 23.3% 58.1% 18.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 2.32 2 .31 Likelihood Ratio 3.76 2 .15 N of Valid Cases 43

Department * QW6 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department On the job training Away from work Combination of both Total P & I Wing 2.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 100.0% 7.7% 66.7% 28.6% 18.6% 4.7% 4.7% 9.3% 18.6% Plant & Production 24.0 1.0 10.0 35.0 68.6% 2.9% 28.6% 100.0% 92.3% 33.3% 71.4% 81.4% 55.8% 2.3% 23.3% 81.4% Total 26.0 3.0 14.0 43.0 60.5% 7.0% 32.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 60.5% 7.0% 32.6% 100.0%

231

Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 7.54 2 .02 Likelihood Ratio 6.65 2 .04 N of Valid Cases 43

Department * QW7 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department 0-2 2-4 Total P & I Wing 8.0 .0 8.0 100.0% .0% 100.0% 27.6% .0% 18.6% 18.6% .0% 18.6% Plant & Production 21.0 14.0 35.0 60.0% 40.0% 100.0% 72.4% 100.0% 81.4% 48.8% 32.6% 81.4% Total 29.0 14.0 43.0 67.4% 32.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 67.4% 32.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1- sided) sided) sided) Pearson Chi-Square 4.74 1 .03 Likelihood Ratio 7.16 1 .01 Fisher's Exact Test 1.00 .03 Continuity 3.10 1 .08 Correction N of Valid Cases 43

Department * QW8 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department Strongly agree Agree Somewhat agree Total P & I Wing 2.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 100.0% 7.4% 40.0% 36.4% 18.6% 4.7% 4.7% 9.3% 18.6% Plant & Production 25.0 3.0 7.0 35.0 71.4% 8.6% 20.0% 100.0% 92.6% 60.0% 63.6% 81.4% 58.1% 7.0% 16.3% 81.4% Total 27.0 5.0 11.0 43.0 62.8% 11.6% 25.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 62.8% 11.6% 25.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 6.04 2 .05 Likelihood Ratio 5.91 2 .05

232

Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) N of Valid Cases 43

Department * QW9 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department Sufficient To be extended Do not know Total P & I Wing 4.0 3.0 1.0 8.0 50.0% 37.5% 12.5% 100.0% 12.9% 42.9% 20.0% 18.6% 9.3% 7.0% 2.3% 18.6% Plant & Production 27.0 4.0 4.0 35.0 77.1% 11.4% 11.4% 100.0% 87.1% 57.1% 80.0% 81.4% 62.8% 9.3% 9.3% 81.4% Total 31.0 7.0 5.0 43.0 72.1% 16.3% 11.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 72.1% 16.3% 11.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 3.39 2 .18 Likelihood Ratio 2.91 2 .23 N of Valid Cases 43

Department * QW10 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department Promotion More Consider a Job rotation or Total responsibility request for change of transfer department P & I Wing 1.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 8.0 12.5% 37.5% 12.5% 37.5% 100.0% 12.5% 12.5% 33.3% 37.5% 18.6% 2.3% 7.0% 2.3% 7.0% 18.6% Plant & 7.0 21.0 2.0 5.0 35.0 Production 20.0% 60.0% 5.7% 14.3% 100.0% 87.5% 87.5% 66.7% 62.5% 81.4% 16.3% 48.8% 4.7% 11.6% 81.4% Total 8.0 24.0 3.0 8.0 43.0 18.6% 55.8% 7.0% 18.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 18.6% 55.8% 7.0% 18.6% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 3.10 3 .38 Likelihood Ratio 2.80 3 .42 N of Valid Cases 43

Department * QW11 [count, row %, column %, total %].

233

Department They are Not that useful They are not They are least Total very much but should be that much useful but should useful and conducted for useful but help be conducted as improve the whatever the employee company policy efficiency improvement in diverting his requires the they bring in attention and trainings to be relaxing conducted P & I Wing 5.0 2.0 1.0 .0 8.0 62.5% 25.0% 12.5% .0% 100.0% 15.6% 28.6% 33.3% .0% 18.6% 11.6% 4.7% 2.3% .0% 18.6% Plant & 27.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 35.0 Production 77.1% 14.3% 5.7% 2.9% 100.0% 84.4% 71.4% 66.7% 100.0% 81.4% 62.8% 11.6% 4.7% 2.3% 81.4% Total 32.0 7.0 3.0 1.0 43.0 74.4% 16.3% 7.0% 2.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 74.4% 16.3% 7.0% 2.3% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.31 3 .73 Likelihood Ratio 1.39 3 .71 N of Valid Cases 43

Department * QW12 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department Yes No Total P & I Wing .0 8.0 8.0 .0% 100.0% 100.0% .0% 21.1% 18.6% .0% 18.6% 18.6% Plant & Production 5.0 30.0 35.0 14.3% 85.7% 100.0% 100.0% 78.9% 81.4% 11.6% 69.8% 81.4% Total 5.0 38.0 43.0 11.6% 88.4% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 11.6% 88.4% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1- sided) sided) sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.29 1 .26 Likelihood Ratio 2.20 1 .14 Fisher's Exact Test 1.00 .34 Continuity .28 1 .60 Correction

234

Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1- sided) sided) sided) N of Valid Cases 43

Department * QW13 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department Managers Skilled All are given equal There is a different Total workers preference criterion for that P & I Wing 1.0 5.0 2.0 .0 8.0 12.5% 62.5% 25.0% .0% 100.0% 7.1% 21.7% 50.0% .0% 18.6% 2.3% 11.6% 4.7% .0% 18.6% Plant & 13.0 18.0 2.0 2.0 35.0 Production 37.1% 51.4% 5.7% 5.7% 100.0% 92.9% 78.3% 50.0% 100.0% 81.4% 30.2% 41.9% 4.7% 4.7% 81.4% Total 14.0 23.0 4.0 2.0 43.0 32.6% 53.5% 9.3% 4.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 32.6% 53.5% 9.3% 4.7% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 4.42 3 .22 Likelihood Ratio 4.48 3 .21 N of Valid Cases 43

Department * QW14 [count, row %, column %, total %]. Department Yes and I gave Yes but I did not give No, they never ask for Total feedback feedback feedback P & I Wing .0 1.0 7.0 8.0 .0% 12.5% 87.5% 100.0% .0% 16.7% 35.0% 18.6% .0% 2.3% 16.3% 18.6% Plant & 17.0 5.0 13.0 35.0 Production 48.6% 14.3% 37.1% 100.0% 100.0% 83.3% 65.0% 81.4% 39.5% 11.6% 30.2% 81.4% Total 17.0 6.0 20.0 43.0 39.5% 14.0% 46.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 39.5% 14.0% 46.5% 100.0% Chi-square tests. Statistic Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 7.45 2 .02 Likelihood Ratio 10.01 2 .01 N of Valid Cases 43

235

12. Appendix III – Bibliography

12.0 Books ...... 237 12.1 Journals ...... 238 12.2 Webliography ...... 240

236

Chapter 12 Appendix III – Bibliography

12.0 Books 1. F. Brajesh Jha (2000), ―Towards Globalizing Indian Dairy Sector‖, Agricultural Situation in India, September, 2000.

2. Chattopadhyay B.C, ―Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fishery‖ Rural Development Planning in India, S.Chand & company Ltd. Ramnagar, New Delhi - 110055, first Published 1985.

3. Chateerjee, A.K. and Acharya. R.M., ―dairy Industry in India — A profile; Dairy India, New Delhi, Rekha Printers, 1987.

4. Mirza S. Saiyd Dain, ―Human Resource Management‖, Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi, 2nd Reprint, 2002.

5. Five year plan 1978 - 83, Andhra Pradesh, Draft on livestock, Agriculture Department of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

6. Jayachandran s ―Marketing Management‖ Excel Books, New Delhi, 2006.

7. MAMORIA C.B., ―Principles and practice of marketing in India‖, Kitab Mahal, (W.D) pvt.Ltd, Allahabad. 1978.

8. Center for distance education, Acharya Nagarjuna University , Nagarjuna Nagar , ―Perspectives of Management‖, 2004.

9. Meera Vashisht, ―Introduction to Food, Nutrition and Food processing - White Revolution Indian Dairy Industry‖ Anmol publications pvt.Ltd. New Delhi- 110002.

237

10. Philip Koteler, MANAGEMENT Analysis, Planning, and Control second & Fifth Editions, Prentice Hall of India private Limited, New Delhi- 110001, 1984.

11. Rama Swamy, T . ―Principles of Management‖, Himalaya Publishing House, Reprint,2007.

12. Virendra P. Singh, (2000), ―Milk Production during Operation Flood Programme in India‖, Agricultural Situation in India,February

12.1 Journals

1. Bandhopadhyay M.K, (1996) ―Amul and Himul Dairy Initiatives- A contrast‖, Cooperative Perspective, January-June.

2. Bhalla, G.S. Peter Hazell and John Kerr (1999), ―Prospects for India‘s Cereal Supply arid Demand to 2020‖, Food Agriculture and the Environment Discussion Paper 29, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington.

3. David Avery Vose, Market structure, conduct and performance at the Midwest Dairy Industry ―, published PhD thesis, Madison University at Wisconsin, 1966.

4. Dr. Samwe Kakuko lopoyetum and Mr. p. Selvamani ―Dairying cooperative Marketing in new Economic Environment‖ Kisan world. vol.32.No.7.

5. Girdhari D.G, ―Dairy Marketing ―, Indian Journal of MarketinL Vol.XI1, No. 11, 1989.

6. Gupta Raghuraj, ―Optimizing Milk Production. ―Indian journal of Rural Development, vol. XXXIII,No 11,1975.

238

7. Jayachandra K,‖Dairying in Drought- prone Areas - A study‖, Yojana, Vol.34, No.4, March, 1990.

8. Manieka Vasagam Pillai, N, ―A study on Resource use Efficiency in Milk Production in Prambikulam Aliyar Project Region, Tamil Nadu. and Dissertation submitted to the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatire. 1976.

9. Milk Procurement and Technical Inputs Manual, National Development Board Dairy, Anand, 1985.

10. Muranjan, S ―Factors Responsible for Increased Procurement of Milk in Maharastra, Artha vijnana, Vol.29, No.4, December, 1977.

11. Pratap, S. Birthal, et.al, (1999), ―Policy Paper, National Center for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research‖, New Delhi, March.

12. ―Production and Utilization Pattern of Milk at the Rural Producers Level: An Analysis across the States‖ Monthly Public Opinion Surveys, Vol XLVI no. 11, August, 2001.

13. Ramesh Kolli and A.C. Kulsestha, (1997) ―Contribution of Livestock to National Income‖, Dairy India.

14. Sinha, Ramakanti, ―Intensive cattle development programme in Bihar; An economic study with special reference to intensive cattle development Block Barohni, BeguSavar, Patna. 1980.

15. The Hindu Survey of Indian Agriculture. (2004).

16. World Focus on Indian Dairying‖, Dairy India, 2007.

239

17. Shaik N.A., Liquid Milk Marketing, Indian Dairyman, vol.40, No.5, 1988.

18. Kumar, A. and Shanthan, S.R. ―Utilisation of General Management Training at shop floor: A case study‖, Indian Journal of Training and Development, I993, 23(4), pp. 56-59.

19. 6. Jay Chandra K, ―Dairying in Drought- prone Areas - A studv‘, Yojana, Vol.34, No.4, March, 1990, Pp.27-29.

12.2 Webliography

1. http://www.fao.org/ag/AGA/publication/mpuide/mpuide6.htm 2. http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Dairy product 3. http://www.nddb.org 4. http://www.ifcnnetwork.org 5. http://dahd.nic.in

240

13 Appendix IV – Copies of Literature

241