Regression Analysis

Hypothesis 5
Ho = Involvement in decision making has no association with Organizational performance
H1 = Involvement in decision making is associated with Organizational performance

Org_ performance = + 1(Job_satisfactoin) + 2 (

ANOVAa
Model

Sum of Squares
Regression

df

Mean Square

2.020

2.020

Residual

176.673

50

3.533

Total

178.692

51

Sig.
.453b

.572

a. Dependent Variable: Performance_Increase

b. Predictors: (Constant), Involvement in Decisions

Coefficientsa
Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Sig.

Coefficients
B
(Constant)

Involvement in Decisions

Std. Error

Beta

5.700

1.189

.345

.457

4.795

.000

.756

.453

.106

a. Dependent Variable: Performance_Increase

Ho = Job satisfaction has no association with Organizational performance

H1 = Job satisfaction is associated with Organizational performance

ANOVAa
Model

Sum of Squares
Regression

df

Mean Square

2.793

2.793

Residual

175.899

50

3.518

Total

178.692

51

Sig.
.377b

.794

a. Dependent Variable: Performance_Increase

b. Predictors: (Constant), Job satisfaction

Coefficientsa
Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Sig.

Coefficients
B
(Constant)

Job satisfaction

Std. Error
5.246

1.516

.427

.479

a. Dependent Variable: Performance_Increase

pg.

Beta

.125

3.461

.001

.891

.377

Ho = Empowerment has no association with Organizational performance

H1 = Empowerment is associated with Organizational performance

ANOVAa
Model

Sum of Squares
Regression

df

Mean Square

4.232

4.232

Residual

174.460

50

3.489

Total

178.692

51

Sig.
.276b

1.213

a. Dependent Variable: Performance_Increase

b. Predictors: (Constant), Empowerment

Coefficientsa
Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Sig.

Coefficients
B
(Constant)

Empowerment

Std. Error

Beta

5.221

1.258

.449

.408

.154

4.149

.000

1.101

.276

a. Dependent Variable: Performance_Increase

Ho = Employee promotion has no association with Organizational performance

H1 = Employee promotion is associated with Organizational performance

ANOVAa
Model

Sum of Squares
Regression

df

Mean Square

17.733

17.733

Residual

160.959

50

3.219

Total

178.692

51

Sig.

5.509

.023b

a. Dependent Variable: Performance_Increase

b. Predictors: (Constant), Employee

Coefficientsa
Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Sig.

Coefficients
B
1

Std. Error

Beta

(Constant)

3.369

1.389

Employee

1.036

.441

.315

2.425

.019

2.347

.023

a. Dependent Variable: Performance_Increase

Ho = Increase Professional standing has no association with Organizational performance

H1 = Increase Professional standing is associated with Organizational performance

ANOVAa
Model

Sum of Squares
Regression

25.451

Residual

153.242

50

3.065

Total

178.692

51

b. Predictors: (Constant), Professional standing

Mean Square

25.451

a. Dependent Variable: Performance_Increase

pg.

df

F
8.304

Sig.
.006b

Coefficientsa
Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Sig.

Coefficients
B
1

Std. Error

Beta

(Constant)

2.930

1.289

Professional standing

1.054

.366

.377

2.273

.027

2.882

.006

a. Dependent Variable: Performance_Increase

ANOVAa
Model

Sum of Squares
Regression

df

Mean Square

5.436

1.087

Residual

117.871

46

2.562

Total

123.308

51

Sig.
.424

.829b

a. Dependent Variable: Performance_Increase

b. Predictors: (Constant), Professional standing, Involvement in Decisions, Empowerment, Job
satisfactino, Employee

pg.

Final tables
Coefficientsa
Model

Unstandardized

Standardized

Coefficients

Coefficients

(Constant)

Std. Error

Sig. 90.0% Confidence Interval

for B

Beta

3.928

2.275

.193

.392

.105

Empowerment

Lower

Upper

Bound

Bound

1.727 .091

.110

7.746

.072

.492 .625

-.465

.851

.432

.037

.244 .809

-.620

.830

.217

.365

.090

.596 .554

-.395

.830

Employee

.149

.427

.055

.349 .728

-.568

.866

Professional standing

.295

.365

.127

.808 .423

-.317

.907

Involvement in
Decisions
1 Job satisfaction

a. Dependent Variable: Performance_Increase

Hypothesis regarding HRIS and components

HRIS & BPR

ANOVAa
Model

Sum of Squares
Regression

df

Mean Square

6.418

6.418

Residual

44.255

50

.885

Total

50.673

51

Sig.
.010b

7.252

a. Dependent Variable: What is the degree(extent) of using HRIS in making SHRM decisions
b. Predictors: (Constant), What is the extent of application HRIS in making Business Process
reengineering decision

Coefficientsa
Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Sig.

Coefficients
B
(Constant)

Std. Error
2.606

.458

.314

.116

Beta
5.690

.000

2.693

.010

What is the extent of

1

application HRIS in making

Business Process

.356

reengineering decision
a. Dependent Variable: What is the degree(extent) of using HRIS in making SHRM decisions

Recruitment & Selection

ANOVAa

pg.

Model

Sum of Squares
Regression

df

Mean Square

6.031

6.031

Residual

44.642

50

.893

Total

50.673

51

Sig.
.012b

6.755

a. Dependent Variable: What is the degree(extent) of using HRIS in making SHRM decisions
b. Predictors: (Constant), What is the extent of applicaiotn HRIS in Recruitment & Selection

Coefficientsa
Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Sig.

Coefficients
B
(Constant)

Std. Error
-.067

1.489

.808

.311

Beta
-.045

.964

2.599

.012

What is the extent of

application HRIS in

.345

Recruitment & Selection

a. Dependent Variable: What is the degree(extent) of using HRIS in making SHRM decisions

Collinearity98
Collinearity between variables is always present. A problem occurs if the degree of collinearity
is high enough to bias the estimates.
Note: Collinearity means that two or more of the independent/explanatory variables in a
regression have a linear relationship. This causes a problem in the interpretation of the
regression results. If the variables have a close linear relationship, then the estimated regression
coefficients and T-statistics may not be able to properly isolate the unique effect/role of each
variable and the confidence with which we can presume these effects to be true. The close
relationship of the variables makes this isolation difficult.

ANOVAa
Model

Sum of Squares
Regression

df

Mean Square

5.436

1.087

Residual

117.871

46

2.562

Total

123.308

51

Sig.
.424

a. Dependent Variable: Performance_Increase

b. Predictors: (Constant), Professional standing, Involvement in Decisions, Empowerment, Job satisfactino,
Employee

Summary measures for testing and detecting collinearity include:

Running bivariate and partial correlations (see section 5.3). A bivariate or partial
correlation coefficient greater than 0.8 (in absolute terms) between two variables indicates
the presence of significant collinearity between them.
Collinearity is indicated if the R-square is high (greater than 0.75 99) and only a few Tvalues
are significant.
In section 7.1, we asked SPSS for "Collinearity diagnostics" under the regression option
"statistics." Here we analyze the table that is produced. Significant collinearity is present if
the condition index is >10. If the condition index is greater than 30, then severe collinearity
is indicated (see next table). Check your textbook for more on collinearity diagnostics.

pg.

.829b

pg.

Model Summary
Model

.210a

R Square

.044

Adjusted R

Std. Error of the

Square

Estimate

-.060

1.60076

a. Predictors: (Constant), Professional standing, Involvement in

Decisions, Empowerment, Job satisfactino, Employee

pg.

Regression

Notes
Output Created

10-NOV-2014 01:13:35

Comments
C:\Users\danish\Downloads\Doc

Data

Input

uments\Non financial.sav

Active Dataset

DataSet2

Filter

<none>

Weight

<none>

Split File

<none>

N of Rows in Working Data File

52
User-defined missing values are

Definition of Missing

treated as missing.

Missing Value Handling

Statistics are based on cases

Cases Used

with no missing values for any

variable used.
REGRESSION
/MISSING LISTWISE
/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS
CI(95) R ANOVA
/CRITERIA=PIN(.05)
POUT(.10)

Syntax

/NOORIGIN
/DEPENDENT
Performance_Increase
/METHOD=ENTER Involvement
Job_satisfaction Empowerment
Employee_promotions
Professional_standing.

Resources

Processor Time

00:00:00.02

Elapsed Time

00:00:00.02

Memory Required

2732 bytes

Additional Memory Required for

Residual Plots

0 bytes

[DataSet2] C:\Users\danish\Downloads\Documents\Non financial.sav

Variables Entered/Removeda
Model

Variables Entered

Variables
Removed

pg.

Method

Professional
standing,
Involvement in
1

Decisions,

. Enter

Empowerment,
Job satisfactino,
Employeeb
a. Dependent Variable: Performance_Increase
b. All requested variables entered.

Model Summary
Model

R Square

.210

Adjusted R

Std. Error of the

Square

Estimate

.044

-.060

1.60076

a. Predictors: (Constant), Professional standing, Involvement in Decisions,

Empowerment, Job satisfactino, Employee

ANOVAa
Model

Sum of Squares
Regression

df

Mean Square

5.436

1.087

Residual

117.871

46

2.562

Total

123.308

51

Sig.
.829b

.424

a. Dependent Variable: Performance_Increase

b. Predictors: (Constant), Professional standing, Involvement in Decisions, Empowerment, Job satisfactino,
Employee

Coefficientsa
Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Sig.

95.0

Coefficients
B
(Constant)

3.928

2.275

Involvement in Decisions

.193

.392

Job satisfactino

.105

Empowerment

Beta

Lowe
1.727

.091

.072

.492

.625

.432

.037

.244

.809

.217

.365

.090

.596

.554

Employee

.149

.427

.055

.349

.728

Professional standing

.295

.365

.127

.808

.423

a. Dependent Variable: Performance_Increase

pg.

Std. Error

Model Summary
Model

R Square

.210a

Adjusted R

Std. Error of the

Square

Estimate

.044

-.060

1.60076

a. Predictors: (Constant), Professional standing, Involvement in

Decisions, Empowerment, Job satisfactino, Employee

ANOVAa
Model

Sum of Squares
Regression

df

Mean Square

5.436

1.087

Residual

117.871

46

2.562

Total

123.308

51

Sig.
.424

.829b

a. Dependent Variable: Performance_Increase

b. Predictors: (Constant), Professional standing, Involvement in Decisions, Empowerment, Job
satisfactino, Employee

Coefficientsa
Model

Unstandardized

Standardized

Coefficients

Coefficients

(Constant)

Std. Error

3.928

2.275

.193

.392

.105

Empowerment

Sig. 95.0% Confidence Interval

for B

Beta

Lower

Upper

Bound

Bound

1.727 .091

-.650

8.506

.072

.492 .625

-.597

.983

.432

.037

.244 .809

-.764

.975

.217

.365

.090

.596 .554

-.517

.952

Employee

.149

.427

.055

.349 .728

-.710

1.009

Professional standing

.295

.365

.127

.808 .423

-.439

1.029

Involvement in
Decisions
1 Job satisfactino

a. Dependent Variable: Performance_Increase

Model Summary
Model

.210a

R Square

.044

Adjusted R

Std. Error of the

Square

Estimate

-.060

1.60076

a. Predictors: (Constant), Professional standing, Involvement in

Decisions, Empowerment, Job satisfactino, Employee

pg.

10

Coefficientsa
Model

Unstandardized

Standardized

Coefficients

Coefficients

B
(Constant)

Std. Error

Sig. Collinearity Statistics

Beta

Tolerance

VIF

3.928

2.275

.193

.392

.072

.492 .625

.984

1.016

.105

.432

.037

.244 .809

.897

1.115

Empowerment

.217

.365

.090

.596 .554

.918

1.090

Employee

.149

.427

.055

.349 .728

.850

1.176

Professional standing

.295

.365

.127

.808 .423

.840

1.190

Involvement in
Decisions
1 Job satisfactino

a. Dependent Variable: Performance_Increase

pg.

11

1.727 .091