A Study on Organization Climate in Mafoi Management Consultants Ltd

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

Organizational climate is comprised of mixture of norms, values, expectations, policies and

procedures that influence work motivation, commitment and ultimately, individual and work unit

performance. Positive climate encourages, while negative climates inhibits discretionary effort.

‘Organizational climate’ refers to the quality of working environment. If people feel that they are

valued and respected within the organization, they are more likely to contribute positively to the

achievements of the business outcomes. Creating a healthy organizational climate requires

attention to the factors which influence employee’s perceptions, including the quality of

leadership, the way in which decisions are made and whether the efforts of employees are

recognized. In fact “Climate may be thought of as the perceptions of the characteristics of an

organization”.

“Climate for an organization is somewhat like the personality for a person. Just

as every individual has a personality that makes each person unique, each organization has an

organizational climate that clearly distinguishes its personality from other organization. Every

organization is different and has a unique feeling and character beyond its structural

characteristics. Thus every organization deals with its member in a distinct way through its

policies on allocations of resources, communication pattern, reward and penalty, leadership and

decision making style, etc. The organizational policy and conviction with regard to all these and

a cluster of other related activities influence the feelings, attitudes and behavior of its members

and results in the creation of the unique organizational climate.

The content of organizational climate has varied widely and they include almost

all the important aspect of organizations such as structure, communication, leadership, Conflicts,

reward system, inter personal relationships organizational effectiveness, reasonability and so

forth. It has been pointed out that the contents of the climate constructed by various researches

overlap with many other major concepts in organizational behavior Glick, 1985. Such overlaps

seems to have promoted researchers to raise the question how the concept of climate is different

from other organizational variables, especially, structure and job satisfaction.

A Study on Organization Climate in Ma Foi 1

1.1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Organizational climate is a relative enduring characteristic of an organization which

distinguishes it from other organization: (a) and embodies members collective perceptions about

their organization with respect to such dimensions as autonomy, trust, cohesiveness, support,

recognition, innovation and fairness: (b) is produced by members interaction; (c) serves as a

basis for interpreting the situation; (d) reflects the prevalent norms, values and attitudes of the

organizations culture; and (e) acts as a source of influence for shaping behavior. (Moran and

Volkwein, 1992, p.2)

Francese (1993) who examined the effect of climate in service responsiveness; Meudell

and Gadd (1994) who studied climate and culture in short life organizations; and Vallen (1993)

who was concerned about organizational climate and service staff burnout. Organizational

climate has much to offer in terms of its ability to explain the behavior of people in the

workplace. Ashforth (1985, p. 838) put forward the view that ‘climate has the potential to

facilitate a truly integrative science of organizational behavior,

The atmosphere that employees perceive is created in their organizations by practices,

procedures and rewards… Employees observe what happens to them (and around them) and then

draw conclusions about the organization’s priorities. They then sit their own priorities

accordingly. (Schneider, 1994, p. 18)

Schneider, Brief and Guzzo (1996, p.9) argue that ‘sustainable organizational change is

most assured when both the climate – what the organizations, members experience – and the

culture – what the organizations’ members believe the organization values – change’.

EARLY FORMULATIONS OF THE CLIMATE CONSTRUCT

The concept of climate can be traced back to the work of Lewin, Lippitt and White

(1939) and a work entitled ‘Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social

climates’ (Denison, 1996; Schneider, 1990). The Lewin et. Al. (1939) study investigated the

relationship between leadership style and climate, a factor that has remained central to the


concept, Joyce and Slocum (1982) trace the concept back to the studies of Koffka (1935) on

‘behavior environment’; Lewin’s (1936) study on ‘life space’; and Murray’s (1938) work on

organizational climate. Lewin’s (1951) approach to climate was conceptualized by the

relationship between individuals, their social environment and how that is set in a framework.

Lewin expressed this in terms of simple equation:

B = f (P.E.)

In which,

B = Behavior,

E= Environment,

P = the person

It is clear from Lewin’s equation that the concept of climate takes a psychological

approach, focusing upon the individual and seeking to understand the cognitive processes and

behavior. Lewin’s conceptualization of the theory provides the underpinnings of many studies

and approaches to climate research.

THREE APPROACHES TO THE CLIMATE CONSTRUCT

James and Jones (1974) conducted a major review of the theory and research on

organizational climate ad identified climate in three separate ways that were not mutually

exclusive, (a) multiple measurement – organizational attribute approach, (b) perceptual

measurement – organizational attribute approach, and (c) the perceptual measurement –

individual attribute approach.

In the multiple measurement organizational approach James and Jones cite forehand and

Gilmer (1964) as defining organizational climate as a defining organizational climate as a “set of

characteristics that describe an organization and that (a) distinguish the organization from other

organizations (b) are relatively enduring over time, and (c) influence the behavior of people in

the organization.


Schneider and Bartlett (1968) had proposed four organizational climate dimensions,

Individual autonomy: based on the factors of the individual responsibility, agent

Interdependence, rules orientation and opportunities for exercising individual initiative.

The degree of structure imposed upon the position: based on the factors of structure,

managerial structure and the closeness of supervision.

Reward orientation: based upon the factors of reward, general satisfaction, promotional-

achievement orientation, and being profit minded and sales oriented.

Consideration, warmth and support: based upon the factors of managerial support,

nurturing of subordinates and warmth and support.

In reviewing psychological climate as a set of perceptually based, psychological attributes Jones

and James (1979) noted that the process reflected the developments that had occurred in the

conceptualization of climate and the nature of its major influences. They propose that

psychological climate:

(a) refers to the individual’s cognitively based description of the situation;

(b) involves a psychological processing of specific perceptions into more abstract depictions

of the psychologically meaningful influences in the situation;

(c) tends to be closely related to situational characteristics that have relatively direct and

immediate ties to the individual experience; and

(d) is multidimensional, with a central core of dimensions that apply across a variety of

situations(through additional dimensions might be need to better describe particular

situations. (Jones and James, 1979, p.205)


Schneider and Hall (1972) describe climate as a global perception held by individuals about

their own organizational environment.

Schneider and Snyder (1975) further clarified the approach by defining climate as a

summary perception which individuals form of (or about) an organization. For them it is a

global impression of the organization.

CHARACTERISTICS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE

The nature of organizational climate will be clear from its following characteristics:

General perception:

Organizational climate is a general expression of what the organization is. It represents

the summary perception which people have about an organization.

Quality concept:

It is an abstract and intangible concept. It is difficult to explain the components of

organizational climate in quantifiable units.

Distinct identity:

It reflects how an organization is different from other organizations. It gives a distinct

identity to the organization.

Enduring Quality:

It is built up over a period of time. It represents a relatively enduring quality of the

internal environment that is experienced by the organizational members


Multi –dimensional concept:

There are several dimensional of the concept of organizational climate such as individual

autonomy, authority structure, leadership style, pattern of communication, degree of conflict

and cooperation, etc.

DIMENSIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE

It is very difficult to measure organizational climate because it is multi – dimensional

concept. The important components that collectively represent the climate of an organization are

as discussed below:

Member Orientation:

The dominant orientation of an organization is the main concern of its members, and this

is important determinant of climate. If the dominant orientation or concern is to adhere to

established rules and regulations, the climate will be characterized by control, on other hand

if the orientation is to produce excellence, the climate will be characterized by achievements.

Interpersonal Relationship:

An organization’s interpersonal-relations are reflected in the way informal groups are

formed, and operate to satisfy the needs of members. If informal relations supplement the

formal procedures, the organization will be benefited.

Individual Freedom:

If the individuals are given sufficient freedom or autonomy to work and exercise

authority, there will be efficiency in operation. Self –control will lighten the burden of the

higher level executives.

Degree of Control:

The control system may be either rigid or flexible. If the control is rigidly followed, there

will be impersonal or bureaucratic atmosphere in the organization. The scope for self –

regulation will be the minimum.


Type of Structure:

It clarifies who is to direct whom and who is responsible to whom. It serve as the basis

for inter –personal relations between superiors and subordinates. If the authority is

centralized as the top level, the scope for participation in decision making by the

subordinates will be low. Where authority is delegated to the subordinate, there will be an

atmosphere of participative decision making.

Management Orientation (Style):

The dominant style of manager and supervisor may be task oriented or relation oriented.

If the task orientation is predominant, the leadership style will be autocratic. The

organization climate will be considerate and supportive if the managers are relation oriented

while dealing with works. The needs and aspirations of the workers will be given due

importance. This will produce team sprite in the organization.

Reward System:

The system of rewards and punishments is an important component of organizational

climate. When the reward are based on merit and productivity. There will be an atmosphere

of competition among employees for high performance. They will put more and more hard

work to develop themselves and to earn higher rewards such as increments and promotion.

Communication:

Communication is concerned with the flow of information; its direction (top- down,

bottom-up, horizontal).for instance, if organization communication is based on top-down

formal mode, the subordinates will not be able to express themselves. They may feel

frustration as management does not entertain their ideas, suggestion and reaction.

Conflict Management:

Differences among people and group in organization are not uncommon. If they are

managed effectively, there will be an atmosphere of cooperation in the organization. If they

are suppressed or not handled properly, people will be unhappy and there will be an

atmosphere of distrust and non-cooperation.


Degree of Trust:

The degree of trust or lacks of trust among various members in the organization affect the

climate. If there is mutual trust between different individuals, group, and also between

management and workers, there will be peace in the organization. The members will

cooperate with each other for attainment of organization objective.

Risk Taking:

How members respond to risk and whose help I sought in situation involving risk are

important in any organization. If individuals feel free to try new idea without any fear, they

will not hesitate in taking risk. Such an atmosphere will be conducive to innovative idea.

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE

According to Lawrence James and Allan Jones have classified the factors that

influence organizational climate into five major components:

Organizational context - mission, goals and objective, function, etc.

Organization structure - size, degree of centralization and operating procedure.

Leadership process - leadership styles, communication, decision making and

related processes.

Physical environment – employee safety, environment stresses and physical space

characteristics.

Organizational values and norms – conformity, loyalty, impersonality and

reciprocity.

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

This study is under taken to analyze the “organizational climate in Ma Foi”. It

helps in analyzing the present organizational climate followed in the company and how far

does the employees are satisfied with the present process and do they require any changes in

the present process followed which could help them in modifying and developing present

situation.


1.3 NEED FOR THE STUDY

The investigator has made the study to measure the prevailing organizational climate in

Mafoi Management Consultants Ltd. It helps the management to concentrate the area which

wants to improve for the betterment of organization.


CHAPTER II

2.1 INDUSTRY PROFILE

MANAGEMENT CONSULTING

Management consulting indicates to both the industry of, and the practice of, helping

organizations improve their performance, primarily through the analysis of existing business

problems and development of plans for improvement.

Organizations hire the services of management consultants for a number of reasons,

including gaining external (and presumably objective) advice, access to the consultants'

specialized expertise, or simply as extra temporary help during a one-time project, where the

hiring of more permanent employees is not required.

Because of their exposure to and relationships with numerous organizations, consulting

firms are also said to be aware of industry "best practices", although the transferability of such

practices from one organization to another is the subject of ridicule

Consultancies may also provide organizational change management assistance,

development of coaching skills, technology implementation, strategy development, or

operational improvement services. Management consultants generally bring their own,

proprietary methodologies or frameworks to guide the identification of problems, and to serve as

the basis for recommendations for more effective or efficient ways of performing business tasks.

HISTORY

Management consulting grew with the rise of management as a unique field of study. The

first management consulting firm was Arthur D. Little, founded in 1886 by the MIT professor of

the same name. Though Arthur D. Little later became a general management consultancy, it

originally specialized in technical research. Booz & Company was founded by Edwin G. Booz, a

graduate of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, in 1914 as a

management consultancy and the first to serve both industry and government clients.


After World War II, a number of new management consulting firms formed, most notably

Boston Consulting Group, founded in 1963, which brought a rigorous analytical approach to the

study of management and strategy. Work done at Boston Consulting Group, McKinsey, Booz &

Company, and the Harvard Business School during the 1960s and 70s developed the tools and

approaches that would define the new field of strategic management, setting the groundwork for

many consulting firms to follow. In 1983, Harvard Business School's influence on the industry

continued with the founding of Monitor Group by six professors.

One of the reasons why management consulting grew first in the USA is because of deep cultural

factors: it was accepted there, (contrary to say, Europe), that management and boards alike might

not be competent in all circumstances; therefore, buying external competency was seen as a

normal way to solve a business problem. This is referred to as a "contractual" relation to

management. By contrast, in Europe, management is connected with emotional and cultural

dimensions, where the manager is bound to be competent at all times. This is referred to as the

"pater families" pattern .Therefore seeking (and paying for) external advice was seen as

inappropriate .However, it is sometimes argued that in those days the average level of education

of the executives was significantly lower in the USA than in Europe, where managers were

Grandes Ecoles graduates (France) or "Doktor" (Germany), though this is very difficult to

quantify given the vastly differing management structures in American and European businesses.

It was only after World War II, in the wake of the development of the international trade led by

the USA, that management consulting emerged in Europe. The current trend in the market is a

clear segmentation of management consulting firms.

Another branch of management consulting is Human Resource consulting. Such firms provide

advice to their clients regarding the financial and retirement security, health, productivity, and

employment relationships of their global workforce

APPROACHES

In general, various approaches to consulting can be thought of as lying somewhere along a

continuum, with an 'expert' or prescriptive approach at one end, and a facilitative approach at the

other. In the expert approach, the consultant takes the role of expert, and provides expert advice


or assistance to the client, with, compared to the facilitative approach, less input from, and less

collaboration with, the client(s). With a facilitative approach, the consultant focuses less on

specific or technical expert knowledge, and more on the process of consultation itself. Because

of this focus on process, a facilitative approach is also often referred to as 'process consulting,'

with Edgar Schein being considered the most well-known practitioner. The consulting firms

listed above are closer toward the expert approach of this continuum.

Many consulting firms are organized in a matrix structure, where one 'axis' describes a business

function or type of consulting: for example, strategy, operations, technology, executive

leadership, process improvement, talent management, sales, etc. The second axis is an industry

focus: for example, oil and gas, retail, automotive. Together, these form a matrix, with

consultants occupying one or more 'cells' in the matrix. For example, one consultant may

specialize in operations for the retail industry, and another may focus on process improvement in

the downstream oil and gas industry.

SPECIALIZATIONS

Management consulting refers generally to the provision of business consulting services, but

there are numerous specializations, such as information technology consulting, human resource

consulting, and others, many of which overlap, and most of which are offered by the large

diversified consultancies listed below. So-called "boutique" consultancies, however, are smaller

organizations specializing in one or a few of such specializations.

CURRENT STATE OF THE INDUSTRY

Management consulting has grown quickly, with growth rates of the industry exceeding 20% in

the 1980s and 1990s. As a business service, consulting remains highly cyclical and linked to

overall economic conditions. The consulting industry shrank during the 2001-2003 period, but

has been experiencing slowly increasing growth since. In 2007, total global revenues for

management consulting are expected to exceed the $300 billion mark.


Currently, there are four main types of consulting firms:

1. Large, diversified organizations that offer a range of services, including information

technology consulting, in addition to a strategy consulting practice (e.g. Accenture,

ABeam Consulting, Capgemini, Deloitte, IBM). Some very large IT service providers

have moved into consultancy as well and are also developing strategy practices (e.g.

Wipro, Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys)

2. Medium-sized information technology consultancies that blend boutique style with some

of the same services and technologies bigger players offer their clients (e.g. IDS Scheer,

arinso).

3. Large management and strategic consulting specialists that offer primarily strategy

consulting but are not specialized in any specific industry (e.g. Bain & Company, Booz &

Company,McKinsey & Company, The Boston Consulting Group, Oliver Wyman, A.T.

Kearney, OC&C Strategy Consultants).

4. Boutique firms, often quite small, which have focused areas of consulting expertise in

specific industries, functional areas or technologies (e.g. Heidrick & Struggles, Towers

Perrin, the Avascent Group, Newton Industrial Consultants, Kaiser Associates) . Most of

the boutiques were founded by famous business theorists. Small firms with less than 50

employees are often referred to as niche consultancies (e.g. Agility Works, iProCon

HCM). If they have a unique concept and market it successfully, they often grow out of

this segment very fast or are bought by larger players interested in their knowhow.

A fifth type that is emerging is the sourcing advisory firm, that advise buyers on sourcing

choices related to insourcing, outsourcing, vendor selection, and contract negotiations. The top

10 sourcing advisors (as ranked by the Black Book of Outsourcing) were TPI, Gartner, Hackett

Group, Everest Group, PwC, Avasant, PA Consulting, and EquaTerra. Although a fast growing

sector, the largest sourcing advisory practices would likely be classified as boutiques when

considering the management consulting industry as a whole - with one of the largest players,

TPI, for example, citing 2006 revenues of less than US$150M during its acquisition by ISG.


TRENDS

Management consulting is becoming more prevalent in non-business related fields as

well. As the need for professional and specialized advice grows, other industries such as

government, quasi-government and not-for-profit agencies are turning to the same managerial

principles that have helped the private sector for years.

One important and recent change in the industry has been the spin-off or separation of the

consulting and the accounting units of the large diversified firms. For these firms, which began

business as accounting firms, management consulting was a new extension to their business. But

after a number of highly publicized scandals over accounting practices, such as the Enron

scandal, accountancies began divestiture of their management consulting units, to more easily

comply with the tighter regulatory scrutiny that followed.

RISE OF INTERNAL CORPORATE CONSULTING GROUPS

Added to these approaches are corporations that set up their own internal consulting groups,

hiring internal management consultants either from within the corporation or from external firms

employees. Many corporations have internal groups of as many as 25 to 30 full-time consultants.

Internal consulting groups are often formed around a number of practice areas, commonly

including: organizational development, process management, information technology, design

services, training, and development.

HUMAN RESOURCE CONSULTING

Human resource consulting that has emerged from management consulting, as clients'

needs have become more complex and specialized, widening the gap between HR needs and

work force capabilities, and thus accentuating the ability of HR management consulting firms to

fill this gap. While the multi-faceted nature of business sometimes causes overlap in consulting

industries (i.e., with regards to human resources, general management, and information

technology), the following are core fields around which most HR consultancies are based:


Human Capital, including remuneration (also called total rewards), employee rewards

and incentive programs, and talent acquisition and management

Health & Benefits; i.e., orchestrating optimal employee health plans with the carriers

themselves

Mergers & Acquisitions, examining fit across culture, job-type, transaction costs, etc.

Communication, including surveying employee attitudes, satisfaction, engagement, and

other employee behaviors

Retirement

Outsourcing

Services may also include legal counseling, global initiatives, investments consulting, and the

implementation of HR technologies to facilitate human capital management. The HR consulting

industry also employs more actuaries than any other in order to assist in their services.

ADVANTAGES

There are several potential benefits of internal consultants to those who employ them:

If properly managed and empowered, internal consulting groups evaluate engagement on

projects in light of the corporation's strategic and tactical objectives.

Often, the internal consultant requires less ramp up time on a project due to familiarity

with the corporation, and is able to guide a project through to implementation—-a step

that would be too costly if an external consultant were used.

Internal relationship provides opportunities to keep certain corporate information private.

It is likely that the time and materials cost of internal consultants is significantly less than

external consultants operating in the same capacity.

Note: Corporations need to be conscious of and consistent with how internal consultant costs are

accounted for on both a project and organizational level to evaluate cost effectiveness.

Internal consultants are often uniquely suited to

1. Lead external consulting project teams, or


2. Act as organizational subject matter experts ‘embedded’ with external consulting teams

under the direction of organizational management.

A group of internal consultants can closely monitor and work with external consulting firm. This

would ensure better delivery, quality, and overall operating relationship.

External firms providing consulting services have a dichotomy in priority. The health of the

external firm is in aggregate more important that the health of the client organization. (client

objectives are ultimately secondary to that of the strategic goals of the external firm)

Again assuming proper management, internal consulting groups are less likely have a dichotomy

in priority. The health of the client organization is in aggregate more important that the health of

the internal consulting group. (Put the company objectives first)

DISADVANTAGES

The internal consultant may not bring the objectivity to the consulting relationship that an

external firm can.

An internal consultant also may not bring to the table best practices from other

corporations. A way to mitigate this issue is to recruit experience into the group and/or

proactively provide diverse training to internal consultants.

Where the consulting industry is strong and consulting compensation high, it can be

difficult to recruit candidates.

It is often difficult to accurately measure the true costs and benefits of an internal

consulting group.

When financial times get tough, internal consulting groups that have not effectively

demonstrated economic value (costs vs. benefits) are likely to face size reductions or

reassignment.


2.2 COMPANY PROFILE

Ma Foi is an international HR service provider servicing world class companies across

the globe. Ma Foi which was started in 1992 has grown into a full spectrum HR services provider

for clients worldwide. It has helped generate career opportunities for more than 2, 50, 000

individuals in 36 countries and has worked for over 204 Fortune 500 organizations.

Ma Foi offers the broadest HR services portfolio ranging from Executive Search,

Staffing, Consulting and Outsourcing to Automation and Training. The organization has built a

network of offices across the country to be within reach of candidates and flex workers.

Ma Foi continues to focus on developing customized and innovative HR services,

leveraging on its unique strengths of geographical presence and end-to-end capability across all

HR service functions.

• Grown to be the largest HR service provider in India.

• Revenue grew to Rs. 7830 million (2008) as against Rs. 4311.10 million (2007) reflecting

a CAGR of 71% over the last 16 years.

• Worked for over 204 Fortune 500 organizations.

• Globally present in 13 countries through 108 offices – India, UAE (Dubai & Abu Dhabi),

Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, UK, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Oman, USA, Thailand, Hong Kong

and China.

• 1,442 core staff + 47,908 on deputation.

• 2, 35,213 placed in 36 countries, incl. 1104 in GM and above levels.

• Value / Process driven - ISO 9001:2000 Certification obtained from TUV.


MA FOI MISSION

To emerge as the most respected HR Service Provider in the world, anchored on values of

growth, dignity, transparency and diversity.

MA FOI SERVICES

Executive search

Selection

Specialist staffing

Training

Consulting

Outsourcing

Talent Transition service

Assessment

EXECUTIVE SEARCH

Our understanding of cultural sensitivities, market knowledge and powerful

networking skills enable us to provide world class talent across all industry segments. In our

executive search process, stress is laid on culture-fit as the right sync helps in longer retention

and higher business productivity.

Ma Foi Global Search also provides interim management, an exclusive service that

helps fill unexpected but immediate gaps in senior management and also helps find the best temp

leadership to manage crucial projects. We provide interim managers who possess rich leadership

experience and move into challenging roles swiftly and comfortably.

SELECTION

Ma Foi recruits one candidate every 3 working minutes. We work with over 1500

companies - Fortune 500s, large global corporations, multi nationals, small and medium

enterprises, and companies who look at establishing themselves in the emerging markets of


South and Southeast Asia. As the largest recruitment specialists in India we bring with us

expertise that helps identify the best talent for your organization.

We can find the right talent at the junior and middle management levels for your

organization. We believe that matching candidates to jobs is only possible by having deep

insights and understanding of both the candidate and the client.

SPECIALIST STAFFING

While recruiting specialists and experts for a particular project or assignment finding

candidates with the right skill and cultural fit is very critical. The right people can drive

performance and achieve desired results.

Also as organizations make efforts to be more agile and to quickly adapt to the changes

in the economy, they turn to the contingent workforce to have on-demand access to professionals

and experts. Organizations also see the opportunity to reduce benefits and retirement costs by

engaging the contingent workforce as they are cost-effective.

Spanning from senior contributor to interim executive, Ma Foi can identify the right fit

for an unfilled position.

TRAINING

Ma Foi Academy provides globally benchmarked training support to four diverse groups of

stakeholders:

college students and fresh graduates

working professionals

corporate houses

Government agencies and NGOs


We customize training modules, programs and courseware based on the need of improvement

and learning. The Academy also offers psychometric and ability tests for students, working

executives and organizations.

Our training programs and performance support tools are designed to increase productivity and

improve access to opportunities.

CONTENT WRITING

Ma Foi Academy specializes in content development. The team has created Learning Object

based content for instructor-lead delivery in life skills such as communication, motivation,

attitude and team building.

The deliverables for the instructor-led modules range from student handout and exercises,

activities and inventories, power point presentations, comprehensive trainer manual and

evaluation solutions. We also give multimedia solutions and provide content, deployment,

integration and maintenance services.

We develop customized content on:

Instructional design

Retail selling

Pharma selling

Sales training

Soft skills

Business writing

Spoken English

Cross-cultural sensitivity

CONSULTING

Ma Foi specializes in developing customized suite of HR consulting solutions based

on the operational models of your organization. With a special focus on small and medium


enterprises, we bring practical, results-driven HR practices to your business that helps retain

people, improve business productivity and performance of employees. Our end-to-end HR

solutions that are tailor made to suit every unique business need are designed to be cost efficient.

HR systems productivity solutions diagnostics

HR audit

HR policy manual design

organization structure

design

roles and responsibilities

documentation

competency mapping

assessment &

development centre

design & implementation

facilitate KRA/KPI

setting

performance management

systems

manpower rightsizing

career transition

consultative training

compensation and benefits

benchmarking survey

database ready reports

compensation structuring /

re-structuring

variable pay-plan designing

job evaluation study

compliance advisory service

employee

engagement study

employee

satisfaction study

exit diagnostics

360 degree survey

opinion survey

statistical research

study

OUTSOURCING

Ma Foi helps organizations focus on their core processes by handling all the backend

processes in an efficient and time-bound manner. We offer strategic outsourcing solutions that

give you access to intellectual capital which may not be available in-house. We help small firms

with access to the same economies of scale, efficiency, and expertise that large companies


enjoy. Our outsourcing solutions include: payroll process outsourcing and statutory compliance

outsourcing solutions.

ASSESSMENT

We offer well researched, highly standardized and renowned assessment tests that help

measure sensitivity, memory, intelligence, aptitude and personality of a candidate, employee,

student or any individual. Our Assessment Tests help in recruitment, assessing leadership skills,

identifying employees for promotion and self assessment. Ma Foi provides a comprehensive

suite of assessment tools that help employers, employees and individuals achieve greater

productivity. Our state of the art ability and personality assessment tests help evaluate sensitivity,

memory, intelligence, aptitude and personality of a person.

MA FOI GROUP COMPANIES

Ma Foi Management Consultants Ltd. (HQ India)

• Ma Foi Management Consultants FZ LLC, Dubai

• Ma Foi Consultants Europe Ltd., London

• Ma Foi Management Consultants Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Singapore

• Ma Foi Management Consultants Lanka (Private) Ltd., Colombo

• Ma Foi Malaysia Sdn Bhd, Kuala Lumpur

• Ma Foi & Partners , Muscat, Sultanate of Oman

• Ma Foi Kuwait Administrative Consultancy WLL

• Ma Foi Management Consultants LLC, Abu Dhabi

• Ma Foi Consultants USA Inc.

• Ma Foi Riyada HR Consulting WLL, Bahrain

• Ma Foi Management Consultants Hong Kong Ltd.


• Ma Foi Consultants (Thailand) Societe Anonyme

• Ma Foi Management Consultants (Shanghai) Limited

• Ma Foi Consulting Solutions Ltd., India

• Ma Foi Global Search Services Ltd., India

• Agensi Pekerjaan Select Appointments Sdn Bhd, KL

• MinVesta InfoTech Limited, India

MA FOI - STRATEGIC INTENT

1. Transition to a leading global Recruitment and HR firm specializing in cross-border

expertise movement, with deep geographical presence in Asia and market leadership in >

5 economies.

2. To consolidate market leadership in India with market share above 10% and growth rate

ahead of the market.

3. Emerge as the prime outsourcing destination for both IT and HR business processes for

the Randstad world.

4. Emerge as a leading HRO / RPO player leveraging on our unique strength of Global

Delivery Centers and end-to-end capability in Recruitment, Consulting, Automation and

Outsourcing.

5. Achieve operating margin > 8% by right product mix, productivity measures and

technology deployment.

6. Be known as an organization firmly committed to Quality and the Customer – to be the

most valuable HR & Staffing brand in the markets we operate.

7. Evolve identity as contributor to enhancing employability in multiple economies in Asia

– train half-a-million people through career skills initiative.

8. 8. Be a Company connecting deeply with the community around, anchoring CSR

efforts on Education, Employability and Micro-Enterprise.


ENDORSEMENTS

• Certified with ISO 9001: 2000 by TUV Management Service GmbH

• Certified by TUV Management Service GmbH for ISO 27001:2005 (Previously BS7799-

2: 2002 ) Certification. This is for Information Security Management System for Payroll

Processing

• Registered with Asian Development Bank & carried out World Bank funded projects

• Member of the National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM)

• Member of Confederation of Indian Industry (CII)

• Awarded Certificate for – Strong Commitment to Excel – by CII EXIM business

excellence award

• Won the ‘Ramakrishna Bajaj National Quality Award Trophy 2007’ in the services sector

• Won the ‘International Asia Pacific Quality Award’ in the large services category. This

award is administered by the Asia Pacific Quality Organization (APQO).


CHAPTER III

3.1 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

To find out the climate in the organization.

To find out the factors affecting the organizational climate

To find out the problems faced by the employees in general

To give relevant suggestion to improve the organization climate


3.2 HYPOTHESIS OF STUDY

Null Hypothesis (H0):

There is no significant relationship between the different age group, salary and experience with

organizational climate.

Alternate Hypothesis (H1):

There is a significant relationship between the different age group, salary and experience with

organizational climate.

RESEARCH DESIGN:

The study is descriptive research study. The main purpose of descriptive research

is description of the state of affairs as it exists at present. In the present study, descriptive method

is used to study the prevailing organizational climate.

3.3 DATA COLLECTION METHOD

The primary data was collected through a well structured questionnaire with

close-ended questions measures at 5-point likert type scale and suggestion questions. Secondary

data required for the project was collected from the company records and Internet.

3.4 SAMPLING PLAN:

Simple convenience sampling method is used. Sample size consists of 100

respondents.


3.5 STATISTICAL TOOLS:

Simple percentage analysis and tabulation is used to analysis the data. Bar

diagram is used to give pictorial representation to the analysis. The following test was used for

the study.

ONE WAY ANOVA TEST

PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS:

Percentage refers to a special kind of ratio. Percentage is used in making

comparison about two or more series of data. Percentage as also used to describe relationship. It

is also used to compare the relative term’s dx of two or more series of data.

Formula:

ANOVA:

The analysis of variance frequently referred to by the contraction ANOVA is a

statistical technique specially designed to test whether the means of more than two quantitative

populations are equal.

The analysis of variance technique developed by R.A. Fisher in 1920’s diversified practical

problems. Basically, it consists of classifying and cross classifying statistical results and testing

whether the means of a specified classification differ significantly. In this way it is determined

whether the given classification is important in affecting the results


Number of respondents

x 100

Total no. of respondent

.

In one way classifications the data are classified according to only one criterion. The null

hypothesis is

H0=M1=M2=M3=……….MK.

H1=M1=M2=M3=…….....MK.

To find the correlation factor:

C.F = T2

Total number of items in the given data.

To calculate the value of F:

F = Variance between Samples

Variance with in Samples

Source of

Variation

Between Samples

Within Samples

Sum of

Squares

SSC

SSE

Degree of

Freedom

V1=C-1

V2=N-C

Variance

SSC/C-1

SSE/N-C


3.6 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Opinions of employees may be biased at time.

The sample size consists of 100 among 158 employees. Finding of the study has its own

limitations.

Since Mafoi is very large organization it was not possible to cover all departments within

a period of month.


CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Table 1:

Age wise representation of the respondents

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

18-20 12 12.0 12.0 12.0

21-25 52 52.0 52.0 64.0

26-30 28 28.0 28.0 92.0

30 & Above 8 8.0 8.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 1:

Inference:

The above reveals the fact that Majority of the respondents, about 52% belong to the category of

21–25 years of age and 28% belong to the category of 18-20 years of age and 8% belong to the

category of 30& above.


Table 2:

Gender wise representation of the respondents

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Male 52 52.0 52.0 52.0

Female 48 48.0 48.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 2:

Inference:

The above reveals the fact that Majority of the respondents, about 52 %

belong to the category of male and 48% belong to the category of Female.


Table 3:

Educational Qualification wise representation of the respondents

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

HSC 5 5.0 5.0 5.0

UG 19 19.0 19.0 24.0

PG 69 69.0 69.0 93.0

Others 7 7.0 7.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 3:

Inference:

The above reveals the fact that Majority of the respondents, about 69 % belong to the

category of PG, 19% belong to the category of UG, 7% belong to the category of others and 5%

belong to the category of HSC.


Table 4:

Experience wise representation of the respondents


Percent

1 Year 30 30.0 30.0 30.0

2 Years 41 41.0 41.0 71.0

3 Years 21 21.0 21.0 92.0

3 Years & Above 8 8.0 8.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 4:

Inference:

The above reveals the fact that Majority of the respondents, about 41 %

belong to the category of 2 Years, 30% belong to the category of 1 Year, and 21% belong to the

category of 3 Years and 3 Years & above.


Table 5:

Marital Status wise representation of the respondents


Percent

Married 31 31.0 31.0 31.0

Unmarried 69 69.0 69.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 5:

Inference:

The above reveals the fact that Majority of the respondents, about 69 % belong to the category of

Unmarried, and 31% belong to the category of Married.


Table 6:

My work area is a safe working Environment


Percent

Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 1.0

Neutral 9 9.0 9.0 10.0

Agree 30 30.0 30.0 40.0

Strongly Agree 60 60.0 60.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 6:

Inference:

Nearly 60% of the respondents strongly agree with the safe working environment,

30% of the respondents agree. 9% of the respondents neutral and 1% disagreeing related to safe

working environment.


Table 7:

My working area is clean and comfortable with necessary equipments

Frequen

cy

Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Disagree 2 2.0 2.0 2.0

Neutral 8 8.0 8.0 10.0

Agree 30 30.0 30.0 40.0

Strongly Agree 60 60.0 60.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 7:

Inference:

Nearly 30% of the respondents agree with the safe working environment, 60% of the

respondents strongly agree.8% of the respondents neutral and 2% disagreeing related to working

area is clean and comfortable with necessary equipments.


Table 8:

I maintain a good balance between work and other aspects of my life

Frequen

cy


Percent

Disagree 2 2.0 2.0 2.0

Neutral 8 8.0 8.0 10.0

Agree 30 30.0 30.0 40.0

Strongly Agree 60 60.0 60.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 8:

Inference:

Nearly 60% of the respondents agree with the I maintain a good balance

between work and other aspects of my life, 30% of the respondents strongly agree, 8% of the

respondents neutral and 2% of the respondents disagreeing related to I maintain a good balance

between work and other aspects of my life.


Table 9:

I am satisfied with my working condition they are up to my expectation

Frequen

cy


Percent

Disagree 2 2.0 2.0 2.0

Neutral 8 8.0 8.0 10.0

Agree 31 31.0 31.0 41.0

Strongly Agree 59 59.0 59.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 9:

Inference:

Nearly 31% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with my working condition they are up to my

expectation, 59% of the respondents strongly agree, 8% of the respondents neutral and2% of the

respondents disagreeing related to I am satisfied with my working condition they are up to my

expectation.


Table 10:

I have the flexibility to arrange my work schedule to meet my personal/ family responsibilities


Percent

Disagree 2 2.0 2.0 2.0

Neutral 8 8.0 8.0 10.0

Agree 31 31.0 31.0 41.0

Strongly Agree 59 59.0 59.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 10:

Inference:

Nearly 31% of the respondents agree with I have the flexibility to arrange my work

schedule to meet my personal/ family responsibilities, 59% of the respondents strongly agree,

8% of the respondents neutral and2% of the respondents disagreeing related to I have the

flexibility to arrange my work schedule to meet my personal/ family responsibilities.


Table 11:

My superior gives me help and support

Frequency Percent Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 1.0

Neutral 9 9.0 9.0 10.0

Agree 60 60.0 60.0 70.0

Strongly Agree 30 30.0 30.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 11:

Inference:

Nearly 60% of the respondents agree with my superior gives me help and support,

30% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents neutral and1% of the respondents

disagreeing related to my superior gives me help and support.


Table 12:

My supervisor gives feedback on what I am doing right and where to improve

Frequency Percent Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 1.0

Neutral 9 9.0 9.0 10.0

Agree 60 60.0 60.0 70.0

Strongly Agree 30 30.0 30.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 12:

Inference:

Nearly 60% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with My supervisor gives

feedback on what I am doing right and where to improve, 30% of the respondents strongly agree,

9% of the respondents neutral and 1% of the respondents disagreeing related to My supervisor

gives feedback on what I am doing right and where to improve.


Table 13:

I am able to work in team with my co workers


Percent

Disagree 2 2.0 2.0 2.0

Neutral 8 8.0 8.0 10.0

Agree 45 45.0 45.0 55.0

Strongly Agree 45 45.0 45.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 13:

Inference:

Nearly 45% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I am able to

work in team with my co workers, 45% of the respondents strongly agree, 8% of the respondents

neutral and 3% of the respondents disagreeing related I am able to work in team with my co

workers.


Table 14:

My department communicates well with other departments in my organization


Percent

Disagree 2 2.0 2.0 2.0

Neutral 8 8.0 8.0 10.0

Agree 31 31.0 31.0 41.0

Strongly Agree 59 59.0 59.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 14:

Inference:

Nearly 31% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with My department

communicates well with other departments in my organization, 59% of the respondents strongly

agree, 8% of the respondents neutral and 2% of the respondents disagreeing related to My

department communicates well with other departments in my organization.


Table 15:

My department makes a valuable contribution to my organization


Percent

Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 1.0

Neutral 9 9.0 9.0 10.0

Agree 60 60.0 60.0 70.0

Strongly Agree 30 30.0 30.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 15:

Inference:

Nearly 60% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with My department makes a

valuable contribution to my organization, 30% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the

respondents neutral and 1% of the respondents disagreeing related My department makes a

valuable contribution to my organization.


Table 16:

My departments meet its customer requirements


Percent

Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 1.0

Neutral 9 9.0 9.0 10.0

Agree 62 62.0 62.0 72.0

Strongly Agree 28 28.0 28.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 16:

Inference:

Nearly 62% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with My department meet its

customer requirements, 28% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents neutral

and 1% of the respondents disagreeing related to My department meet its customer requirements.


Table 17:

Management pays careful attention to my suggestion


Percent

Strongly Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 1.0

Disagree 2 2.0 2.0 3.0

Neutral 9 9.0 9.0 12.0

Agree 60 60.0 60.0 72.0

Strongly Agree 28 28.0 28.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 17:

Inference:

Nearly 60% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with Management

pays careful attention to my suggestion, 30% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the

respondents neutral and 1% of the respondents disagreeing related to Management pays careful

attention to my suggestion.


Table 18:

I trust management


Percent


Disagree 3 3.0 3.0 4.0

Neutral 7 7.0 7.0 11.0

Agree 61 61.0 61.0 72.0

Strongly Agree 28 28.0 28.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 18:

Inference:

Nearly 61% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I trust

management, 28% of the respondents strongly agree, 7% of the respondents neutral and 1,3% of

the respondents no idea related to I trust management.


Table 19:

Management has a good understanding of what goes on in my department


Percent

Disagree 2 2.0 2.0 2.0

Neutral 9 9.0 9.0 11.0

Agree 61 61.0 61.0 72.0

Strongly Agree 28 28.0 28.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 19:

Inference:

Nearly 61% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with Management has

a good understanding of what goes on in my department, 28% of the respondents strongly agree,

9% of the respondents neutral and 2% of the respondents disagreeing related to Management has

a good understanding of what goes on in my department.


Table 20:

I am treated with respect by management


Percent

Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 1.0

Neutral 10 10.0 10.0 11.0

Agree 61 61.0 61.0 72.0

Strongly Agree 28 28.0 28.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 20:

Inference:

Nearly 61% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I am treated with respect by

management, 28% of the respondents strongly agree, 10% of the respondents neutral and 1% of

the respondents disagreeing related I am treated with respect by management.


Table 21:

I wish to give suggestions for the development of the organization


Percent

Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 1.0

Neutral 10 10.0 10.0 11.0

Agree 61 61.0 61.0 72.0

Strongly Agree 28 28.0 28.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 21:

Inference:

Nearly 61% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I wish to give suggestions

for the development of the organization, 28% of the respondents strongly agree, 10% of the

respondents neutral and 1% of the respondents disagreeing related to I wish to give suggestions

for the development of the organization.


Table 22:

Management Keeps my department adequately informed about what is going on in the

organization


Percent

Disagree 2 2.0 2.0 2.0

Neutral 10 10.0 10.0 12.0

Agree 60 60.0 60.0 72.0

Strongly Agree 28 28.0 28.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 22:

Inference:

Nearly 60% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with Management Keeps my

department adequately informed about what is going on in the organization, 28% of the

respondents strongly agree, 10% of the respondents neutral and 2% of the respondents

disagreeing related to Management Keeps my department adequately informed about what is

going on in the organization.


Table 23:

My organization encourages me to help in developing improved work processes


Percent

Disagree 4 4.0 4.0 4.0

Neutral 9 9.0 9.0 13.0

Agree 59 59.0 59.0 72.0

Strongly Agree 28 28.0 28.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 23:

Inference:

Nearly 59% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with My organization

encourages me to help in developing improved work processes, 28% of the respondents strongly

agree, 9% of the respondents neutral and 4% of the respondents disagreeing related to My

organization encourages me to help in developing improved work processes


Table 24:

At my organization, Management seeks the involvement of employees when making important

decisions


Percent

Disagree 2 2.0 2.0 2.0

Neutral 13 13.0 13.0 15.0

Agree 57 57.0 57.0 72.0

Strongly Agree 28 28.0 28.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 24:

Inference:

Nearly 57% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with At my organization,

Management seeks the involvement of employees when making important decisions , 28% of the

respondents strongly agree, 13% of the respondents neutral and 2% of the respondents

disagreeing related to At my organization, Management seeks the involvement of employees

when making important decisions .


Table 25:

My organization is sensitive to my individual needs


Percent

Disagree 2 2.0 2.0 2.0

Neutral 10 10.0 10.0 12.0

Agree 60 60.0 60.0 72.0

Strongly Agree 28 28.0 28.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 25:

Inference:

Nearly 60% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with My organization is

sensitive to my individual needs , 28% of the respondents strongly agree, 10% of the respondents

neutral and 2% of the respondents disagreeing related to My organization is sensitive to my

individual needs.


Table 26:

I know what is happening in other parts of my organization


Percent

Disagree 4 4.0 4.0 4.0

Neutral 9 9.0 9.0 13.0

Agree 59 59.0 59.0 72.0

Strongly Agree 28 28.0 28.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 26:

Inference:

Nearly 59% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I know what is happening

in other parts of my organization , 28% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents

neutral and 4% of the respondents disagreeing related to I know what is happening in other parts

of my organization.


Table 27:

I am recognized for my good work


Percent

Disagree 2 2.0 2.0 2.0

Neutral 8 8.0 8.0 10.0

Agree 38 38.0 38.0 48.0

Strongly Agree 52 52.0 52.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 27:

Inference:

Nearly 38% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I am recognized for my

good work , 52% of the respondents strongly agree, 8% of the respondents neutral and 2% of the

respondents disagreeing related to I am recognized for my good work.


Table 28:

I receive appropriate feedback about my performance


Percent

Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 1.0

Neutral 9 9.0 9.0 10.0

Agree 60 60.0 60.0 70.0

Strongly Agree 30 30.0 30.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 28:

Inference:

Nearly 60% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I receive appropriate feedback about

my performance, 30% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents neutral and 1%

of the respondents disagreeing related to I receive appropriate feedback about my performance.


Table 29:

My organization has realistic work expectations


Percent

Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 1.0

Neutral 9 9.0 9.0 10.0

Agree 62 62.0 62.0 72.0

Strongly Agree 28 28.0 28.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 29:

Inference:

Nearly 62% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with My organization has realistic

work expectations , 28% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents neutral and

1% of the respondents disagreeing related to My organization has realistic work expectations.


Table 30:

I am satisfied with the pay and benefit I receive


Percent


Disagree 2 2.0 2.0 3.0

Neutral 9 9.0 9.0 12.0

Agree 60 60.0 60.0 72.0

Strongly Agree 28 28.0 28.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 30:

Inference:

Nearly 60% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I am satisfied with the pay and

benefit I receive, 28% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents neutral and 2,

1% of the respondents no idea related to I am satisfied with the pay and benefit I receive.


Table 31:

Promotions are based on the performance


Percent


Disagree 3 3.0 3.0 4.0

Neutral 7 7.0 7.0 11.0

Agree 61 61.0 61.0 72.0

Strongly Agree 28 28.0 28.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 31:

Inference:

Nearly 61% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with Promotions are based on

the performance, 28% of the respondents strongly agree, 7% of the respondents neutral and 3,1%

of the respondents no idea related to Promotions are based on the performance.


Table 32:

I receive adequate training relevant to my job


Percent

Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 1.0

Neutral 9 9.0 9.0 10.0

Agree 60 60.0 60.0 70.0

Strongly Agree 30 30.0 30.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 32:

Inference:

Nearly 60% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I receive adequate training

relevant to my job, 30% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents neutral and 1%

of the respondents disagreeing related to I receive adequate training relevant to my job.


Table 33:

I have the skills I consider most important to do my job effectively


Percent

Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 1.0

Neutral 9 9.0 9.0 10.0

Agree 60 60.0 60.0 70.0

Strongly Agree 30 30.0 30.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 33:

Inference:

Nearly 60% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I have the skills I consider

most important to do my job effectively, 30% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the

respondents neutral and 1% of the respondents disagreeing related to I have the skills I consider

most important to do my job effectively.


Table 34:

Training helps me to improve my performance


Percent

Disagree 2 2.0 2.0 2.0

Neutral 8 8.0 8.0 10.0

Agree 33 33.0 33.0 43.0

Strongly Agree 57 57.0 57.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 34:

Inference:

Nearly 33% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with Training helps me to

improve my performance, 57% of the respondents strongly agree, 8% of the respondents neutral

and 2% of the respondents disagreeing related to Training helps me to improve my performance.


Table 35:

I feel stress in my job


Percent

Disagree 2 2.0 2.0 2.0

Neutral 7 7.0 7.0 9.0

Agree 39 39.0 39.0 48.0

Strongly Agree 52 52.0 52.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 35:

Inference:

Nearly 39% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I feel stress in my job, 52%

of the respondents strongly agree, 7% of the respondents neutral and 2% of the respondents

disagreeing related to I feel stress in my job.


Table 36:

My organization helps me to develop myself and my career


Percent

Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 1.0

Neutral 9 9.0 9.0 10.0

Agree 60 60.0 60.0 70.0

Strongly Agree 30 30.0 30.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 36:

Inference:

Nearly 60% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with My organization helps me

to develop myself and my career, 30% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents

neutral and 1% of the respondents disagreeing related to My organization helps me to develop

myself and my career.


Table 37:

I think my work is overloaded


Percent

Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 1.0

Neutral 9 9.0 9.0 10.0

Agree 62 62.0 62.0 72.0

Strongly Agree 28 28.0 28.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 37:

Inference:

Nearly 62% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I think my work is

overloaded, 28% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents neutral and 1% of the

respondents disagreeing related to I think my work is overloaded.


Table 38:

I am willing to put in extra effort when necessary


Percent


Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 3.0

Neutral 9 9.0 9.0 12.0

Agree 48 48.0 48.0 60.0

Strongly Agree 40 40.0 40.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 38:

Inference:

Nearly 48% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I am willing to put in extra effort when

necessary, 40% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents neutral and 1,2% of the

respondents no idea related to I am willing to put in extra effort when necessary.


Table 39:

I am proud to say I work in my organization


Percent


Disagree 3 3.0 3.0 4.0

Neutral 10 10.0 10.0 14.0

Agree 51 51.0 51.0 65.0

Strongly Agree 35 35.0 35.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 39:

Inference:

Nearly 51% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I am proud to say I work

in my organization, 35% of the respondents strongly agree, 10% of the respondents neutral and

3,1% of the respondents disagreeing related to I am proud to say I work in my organization.


Table 40:

I am loyal to my organization


Percent

Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 1.0

Neutral 9 9.0 9.0 10.0

Agree 60 60.0 60.0 70.0

Strongly Agree 30 30.0 30.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 40:

Inference:

Nearly 60% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I am loyal to my

organization, 30% of the respondents strongly agree, 9% of the respondents neutral and 1% of

the respondents disagreeing related to I am loyal to my organization.


Table 41:

I plan to spend my entire career in my organization


Percent


Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 2.0

Neutral 10 10.0 10.0 12.0

Agree 56 56.0 56.0 68.0

Strongly Agree 32 32.0 32.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 41:

Inference:

Nearly 56% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I plan to spend my entire

career in my organization, 32% of the respondents strongly agree, 10% of the respondents

neutral and 1,1% of the no idea disagreeing related to I plan to spend my entire career in my

organization.


Table 42:

I have a high working morale


Percent

Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 1.0

Neutral 10 10.0 10.0 11.0

Agree 57 57.0 57.0 68.0

Strongly Agree 32 32.0 32.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 42:

Inference:

Nearly 57% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I have a high

working morale, 32% of the respondents strongly agree, 10% of the respondents neutral and 1%

of the respondents disagreeing related to I have a high working morale.


Table 43:

I recommend my organization as the best place to work to others


Percent


Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 2.0

Neutral 10 10.0 10.0 12.0

Agree 56 56.0 56.0 68.0

Strongly Agree 32 32.0 32.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Chart 43:

Inference:

Nearly 56% of the respondents agree I am satisfied with I recommend my organization as the

best place to work to others, 32% of the respondents strongly agree,10% of the respondents

neutral and 2% of the respondents disagreeing no idea related to I recommend my organization

as the best place to work to others.


Response regarding the strength of the organisation

Team work.

New ideas, Quality, Trust, Hard work and unity.

Achieving target

Safe working environment.

Trusting employees.

Excellent working environment.

Treat everybody as equal.

Producing quality products that meet customer requirements.

Employee’s valuable contribution.

Appropriate and relevant suggestions by superior.

Response regarding areas need improvement in the organization

Mafoi should improve in their Computer Technology, like Speeds up their computer

System and OS this leads to Increase their productivity.


ONE WAY ANOVA TEST

Tabulation for Mean Work Environment Vs Gender

Table 44:

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups .327 1 .327 .838 .362

Within Groups 38.225 98 .390

Total 38.552 99

H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Gender and Work

Environment in the origination.

H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Gender and Work


Inference:

The significant value is 0.362 > 0.05.Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This

implies that there is no significant mean perception of Gender and Work Environment in the

organization.


Tabulation for Mean Work Environment Vs Age

Table 45:


Between Groups .432 3 .144 .362 .780


Total 38.552 99

H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Age and Work


H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Age and Work


Inference:

The significant value is 0.780 > 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This

implies that there is no significant mean perception of Age and Work Environment in the

organization.


Tabulation for Mean Work Environment Vs Qualification

Table 46:


Between

Groups

.093 3 .031 .077 .972


Total 38.552 99

H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Qualification and

Work Environment in the origination.

H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Qualification and Work


Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Qualification and Work Environment in

the organization.


Tabulation for Mean Work Environment Vs Experience

Table 47:


Between

Groups

1.165 3 .388 .997 .398


Total 38.552 99

H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Experience and Work


H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Experience and Work


Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Experience and Work Environment in the

organization.


Tabulation for Mean Work Environment Vs Marital Status

Table 48:


Between

Groups

.155 1 .155 .394 .531


Total 38.552 99

H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Marital Status and


H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Marital Status and


Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Marital Status and Work Environment in

the organization.


Tabulation for Mean Team Work Vs Gender

Table 49:

Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig.

Between

Groups

.435 1 .435 1.11

7

.293


Total 38.571 99

H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Gender and Team

work in the origination.

H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Gender and Team work

in the origination.

Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Gender and Team work in the

origination.


Tabulation for Mean Team Work Vs Age

Table 50:


Between Groups .435 1 .435 1.117 .293


Total 38.571 99

H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Age and Team work

in the origination.

H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Age and Team work in

the origination.

Inference:



implies that there is no significant mean perception of Age and Team work in the

origination.

Tabulation for Mean Team Work Vs Qualification

Table 51:


Between

Groups

.101 3 .034 .084 .968


Total 38.571 99


Team work in the origination.

H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Qualification and Team


Inference:



implies that there is no significant mean perception of Qualification and Team work in

the origination.

Tabulation for Mean Team Work Vs Experience

Table 52:


Between

Groups

1.030 3 .343 .878 .455


Total 38.571 99

H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Experience and Team


H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Experience and Team



Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Experience and Team work in the

origination.

Tabulation for Mean Team Work Vs Marital Status

Table 53:


Between

Groups

.196 1 .196 .50

0

.481


Total 38.571 99





Inference:



implies that there is no significant mean perception of Marital Status and Team work in

the origination.

Tabulation for Mean Management Effectiveness Vs Age

Table 54:


Between

Groups

.585 3 .195 .470 .704


Total 40.430 99

H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Age and Management

Effectiveness in the origination.

H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Age and Management

Effectiveness in the origination


Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Age and Management


Tabulation for Mean Management Effectiveness Vs Gender

Table 55:


Between

Groups

.231 1 .231 .563 .455


Total 40.430 99

H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Gender and

Management Effectiveness in the origination.

H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Gender and

Management Effectiveness in the origination


Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Gender and Management


Tabulation for Mean Management Effectiveness Vs Qualification

Table 56:


Between

Groups

.024 3 .008 .019 .996


Total 40.430 99




H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Qualification and


Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Qualification and Management


Tabulation for Mean Management Effectiveness Vs Experience

Table 57:


Between

Groups

.981 3 .327 .79

6

.499


Total 40.430 99

H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Experience and



H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Experience and


Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Experience and Management


Tabulation for Mean Management Effectiveness Vs Marital Status

Table 58:


Between

Groups

.216 1 .216 .527 .470


Total 40.430 99






Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Marital Status and Management


Tabulation for Mean Involvement Vs Age

Table 59:


Between

Groups

.286 3 .095 .247 .863


Total 37.390 99


H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Age and Involvement

in the origination.

H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Age and Involvement in

the origination

Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Age and Involvement in the

origination.

Tabulation for Mean Involvement Vs Gender

Table 60:


Between

Groups

.093 1 .093 .24

3

.623


Total 37.390 99


H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Gender and

Involvement in the origination.

H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Gender and

Involvement in the origination

Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Gender and Involvement in the

origination.

Tabulation for Mean Involvement Vs Qualification

Table 61:


Between

Groups

.123 3 .041 .106 .957


Total 37.390 99






Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Qualification and Involvement in

the origination.

Tabulation for Mean Involvement Vs Experience

Table 62:


Between Groups 1.663 3 .554 1.490 .222



Total 37.390 99



H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Experience and


Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Experience and Involvement in the

origination.

Tabulation for Mean Involvement Vs Marital Status

Table 63:



Between

Groups

.058 1 .058 .151 .698


Total 37.390 99





Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Marital Status and Involvement in

the origination.

Tabulation for Mean Reward and Recognition Vs Age

Table 64:



Between Groups 1.580 3 .527 1.357 .261


Total 38.830 99

H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Age and Reward and

Recognition in the origination.

H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Age and Reward and

Recognition in the origination

Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Age and Reward and Recognition

in the origination.

Tabulation for Mean Reward and Recognition Vs Gender

Table 65:



Between Groups .804 1 .804 2.072 .153


Total 38.830 99

H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Gender and Reward

and Recognition in the origination.

H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Gender and Reward and

Recognition in the origination

Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Gender and Reward and


Tabulation for Mean Reward and Recognition Vs Qualification

Table 66:



Between

Groups

.262 3 .087 .217 .884


Total 38.830 99


Reward and Recognition in the origination.


Reward and Recognition in the origination

Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Qualification and Reward and


Tabulation for Mean Reward and Recognition Vs Experience


Table 67:


Between

Groups

1.163 3 .388 .988 .402


Total 38.830 99



H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Experience and Reward

and Recognition in the origination

Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Experience and Reward and



Tabulation for Mean Reward and Recognition Vs Marital Status

Table 68:


Between

Groups

.078 1 .078 .197 .658


Total 38.830 99




Reward and Recognition in the origination

Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Marital Status and Reward and



Tabulation for Mean Competency Vs Age

Table 69:


Between Groups 1.891 3 .630 1.446 .234


Total 43.743 99

H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Age and Mean

Competency in the origination.

H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Age and Mean


Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Age and Mean Competency in the

origination.


Tabulation for Mean Competency Vs Gender

Table 70:


Between Groups .836 1 .836 1.908 .170


Total 43.743 99

H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Gender and Mean


H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Gender and Mean


Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Gender and Mean Competency in

the origination.


Tabulation for Mean Competency Vs Qualification

Table 71:


Between

Groups

.410 3 .137 .303 .823


Total 43.743 99


Mean Competency in the origination.

H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Qualification and Mean


Inference:

The significant value is 0.823> 0.05 .Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This

implies that there is no significant mean perception of Qualification and Mean



Tabulation for Mean Competency Vs Experience

Table 72:


Between Groups 2.074 3 .691 1.593 .196


Total 43.743 99

H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Experience and Mean


H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Experience and Mean


Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Experience and Mean Competency

in the origination.


Tabulation for Mean Competency Vs Marital Status

Table 73:


Between Groups .684 1 .684 1.557 .215


Total 43.743 99





Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Marital Status and Mean



Tabulation for Mean Commitment Vs Age

Table 74:


Between Groups 2.435 3 .812 2.107 .104


Total 39.418 99

H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Age and Mean

Commitment in the origination.

H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Age and Mean


Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Age and Mean Commitment in the

origination.


Tabulation for Mean Commitment Vs Gender

Table 75:


Between Groups 1.120 1 1.120 2.865 .094


Total 39.418 99

H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Gender and Mean


H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Gender and Mean


Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Gender and Mean Commitment in

the origination.


Tabulation for Mean Commitment Vs Qualification

Table 76:


Between

Groups

.237 3 .079 .193 .901


Total 39.418 99


Mean Commitment in the origination.

H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Qualification and Mean


Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Qualification and Mean



Tabulation for Mean Commitment Vs Experience

Table 77:


Between Groups 1.733 3 .578 1.472 .227


Total 39.418 99

H0: There is no significant difference between mean perception of Experience and Mean


H1: There is a significant difference between mean perception of Experience and Mean


Inference:


implies that there is no significant mean perception of Experience and Mean



Tabulation for Mean Commitment Vs Marital Status

Table 78:


Between

Groups

.298 1 .298 .748 .389


Total 39.418 99





Inference:



implies that there is no significant mean perception of Marital Status and Mean


CHAPTER V

5.1 FINDINGS

Majority of the respondents, about 52% belong to the category of 21–25 years of age and

28% belong to the category of 18-20 years of age and 8% belong to the category of 30&

above.

Majority of the respondents, about 52 % belong to the category of male and 48% belong

to the category of Female.

Majority of the respondents, about 69 % belong to the category of PG, 19% belong to the

category of UG, 7% belong to the category of others and 5% belong to the category of

HSC.

Majority of the respondents, about 41 % belong to the category of 2 Years, 30% belong

to the category of 1 Year, 21% belong to the category of 3 Years and 3 Years & above.

Majority of the respondents, about 69 % belong to the category of Unmarried, 31%

belong to the category of Married.

60% of the respondents reveal that they are working with the safe working environment.

60% of the respondents reveal that their working area is clean and comfortable with

necessary equipments.

59% of the respondents reveal that they can flexibility to arrange my work schedule to

meet their personal/ family responsibilities.

60% of the respondents reveal that their superior gives help and support.


60% of the respondents reveal that they are satisfied with supervisor gives feedback on

what they’re doing right and where to improve.

45% of the respondents reveal that they were able to work in team with my co workers.

59% of the respondents strongly reveal that their department communicates well with

other departments in my organization.

57% of the respondents reveal that Training helps me to improve my performance.

52% of the respondents reveal that I feel stress in my job.

60% of the respondents reveal that I am satisfied with My organization helps me to

develop myself and my career

62% of the respondents reveal that I am satisfied with I think my work is overloaded.

48% of the respondents reveal that I am satisfied with I am willing to put in extra effort

when necessary.

57% of the respondents reveal that Training helps me to improve my performance.

52% of the respondents reveal that I feel stress in my job.

60% of the respondents reveal that I am satisfied with My organization helps me to

develop myself and my career

62% of the respondents reveal that I am satisfied with I think my work is overloaded.

48% of the respondents reveal that I am satisfied with I am willing to put in extra effort

when necessary.

From the study it is clear that there is no significant difference between mean perception

of Age, Gender, Qualification, Experience Marital Status and Work Environment in the

organization.


of Age, Gender, Qualification, Experience Marital Status and Team work in the

origination.


of Age, Gender, Qualification, Experience Marital Status and Management Effectiveness

in the origination.


of Age, Gender, Qualification, Experience Marital Status and Involvement in the

origination.



of Age, Gender, Qualification, Experience Marital Status and Reward and Recognition in

the origination.


of Age, Gender, Qualification, Experience Marital Status and Mean Competency in the

origination.


of Age, Gender, Qualification, Experience Marital Status and Mean Commitment in the

origination.

5.2 SUGGESTIONS

The management provides sufficient training to employees. A few measures can be

taken to develop and organize the training program.

The employees’ works are been recognized by the management and appreciated. It

can be maintained in such a way that the employees morale will be improved.

Need to improve the environment of the working condition.

A few measures can be taken to revise regarding pay and benefits.

Team performance must be highly encouraged and recognized.

Employees have a high trust in management. It can be maintained in such a way

employee’s involvement and commitment will increase.


Employees are willing to give suggestions for the development of the organization.

The suggestions given by the employee must be duly responded.

Create a congenial work atmosphere and pleasing surroundings, and arrange for better

job facilities by having better tools and appliance. These will improve working

capacity; develop enthusiasm, and a sense of loyalty towards the Organization.

5.3 CONCLUSION

Climate is the atmosphere of the organization, a “relatively enduring quality of the

internal environment of an organization, which is experienced by its members and influences

their behavior.” Organizational climate may affect quality of service and employee’s

commitment and involvement towards the organization. Climate dimensions in one way or other

affect the level of organizational climate. It is need to be taken into account while evaluating the

organizational effectiveness.

Climate surveys are studies of employees' perceptions and perspectives of an

organization. The surveys address attitudes and concerns that help the organization work with

employees to instill positive changes. In general, they are aimed at all aspects of the employees'

jobs. The study analyzes everything from an employee's workload to their relationships with

coworkers and superiors to their salary to company policies.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Articles

Koys, Daniel J. and Thomas A DeCotiis, 1991, “Inductive Measures of Psychological

Climate”,Human Relations, Vol. 44, No. 3., pp. 265-285.

Poole, Marshall Scott, 1985, “Communication and Organizational Climate: Review,

Critique, and a New Perspective,” Robert D. McPhee and Phillip K. Tompkins (eds)

Organizational Communications: Traditional themes and New Directions, Sage

Publications.

Cameron, Kim S. and Sarah J. Freeman, 1991, “Cultural Congruence, Strength, and

Type: Relationships to Effectiveness”, Research in Organizational Change and

Development, Vol. 5, p. 23-58.

Books

Kotari C.R,2nd edition (2003) “Research Methodology,” Guptha K.K, PP-68,117,277.

Pattannayak Biswajeet 3rd edition (2005) “Human Resource management”.

Stephen P.Robbins and Timothy A. Judge 13th edition (2009) “Organizational Behavior”.

Websites

www.ebsco.com

www.sciencedirect.com


http://www.sciencedirect.com/

http://www.ebsco.com/

www.hr-survey.com

www.citehr.com

APPENDIX

QUESTIONNAIRE

Organizational Climate Survey

Dear Sir /madam

I am Kirubakaran I, Doing my Master in Business administration (MBA) at Karunya University

Coimbatore. As part of my curriculum, I have taken up a project at Ma Foi Management

Consultants Ltd on, “A Study on organization Climate” Please takes some time to fill the

Questionnaires.

PERSONAL DETAILS :

NAME :

GENDER : Male Female

AGE : 18-20 21-25 26-30 30&above

QUALIFICATION: HSE UG PG Others

EXPERIENCE : 1 year 2 years 3years 3 years above


http://www.citehr.com/

http://www.hr-survey.com/

MONTHLY INCOME: below 3000 3000-5000 5000- 8000

8000 & above

MARITAL STATUS: Married Unmarried

NUMBER OF DEPENDANTS: 1 2 3 4 & above


Please tick mark the relevant answer as provided against each question.

Environment Stro

ngly

D

isag

ree

Dis

agre

eN

eutr

alA

gree

Stro

ngly

A

gree

1. My work area is a safe working environment.

2. My work area is clean and comfortable with necessary equipments.

3. I maintain a good balance between work and other aspects of my life.

4. I am satisfied with my working conditions they are up to my expectation.5. I have the flexibility to arrange my work schedule to meet my personal/family responsibilities.Team Work

6. My superior gives me help and support.

7. My supervisor gives feedback on what I am doing right and where to improve.

8. I am able to work in team with my co-workers.

9. My department communicates well with other departments in my organization.

10. My department makes a valuable contribution to my organization.

11. My department meets its customer requirements.

Management Effectiveness

12. Management pays careful attention to my suggestion.

13. I trust management.

14. Management has a good understanding of what goes on in my department.15. I am treated with respect by management.

16. I wish to give suggestions for the development of the organization.


Involvement

Stro

ngly

D

isag

ree

Dis

agre

eN

eutr

alA

gree

Stro

ngly

A

gree

17. Management keeps my department adequately informed about what is going on in the organization.18. My organization encourages me to help in developing improved work processes.

19. At my organization, management seeks the involvement of employees when making important decisions.20. My organization is sensitive to my individual needs.

21. I know what is happening in other parts of my organization.

Reward and Recognition

22. I am recognized for my good work.

23. I receive appropriate feedback about my performance.

24. My organization has realistic work expectations.

25. I am satisfied with the pay and benefit I receive

26. Promotions are based on the performance.

Competency

27. I receive adequate training relevant to my job.

28. I have the skills I consider most important to do my job effectively.29. Training helps me to improve my performance.

30. I feel stress in my job.

31. My organization helps me to develop myself and my career.

32. I think my work is overloaded.

Commitment

33. I am willing to put in extra effort when necessary.

34. I am proud to say I work in my organization.


35. I am loyal to my organization.

36. I plan to spend my entire career in my organization.

37. I have a high working morale.

38. I recommend my organization as the best place to work to others.

39. What are the greatest strengths of your organization?

40. What are the areas that need the most improvement in your organization?

Thank You for your cooperation


A Study on Organization Climate in Mafoi Management Consultants Ltd

Documents

organization climate

study organizational

concept of climate

unique organizational

healthy organizational

effect of climate

climate construct

positive climate