This chapter presented the data analysis, and gave a comprehensive overview of the research findings. In addition, it included relevant discussions of the research findings. First and foremost, descriptive statistical analyses were used to describe the demographic characteristics of the study group. This was preceded by the t test and the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) analysis in order to test whether there were differences among training program and demographic groups.
Descriptive Statistics
Characteristics of the Sample
This section presents details concerning the background information of the participants.
The demographic section incorporates total of six factors: gender, age, education, marital status, employee position and working experience. The aim was to obtain additional information with regards to employees as well as the group tendencies connected to training. The results are presented in the table below.
All respondents are employees in the St. Lucia Air and Sea Port Authority. A total of 161 questionnaires (81%) out of the 200 dispatched were collected. During the preliminary stages of analysis, questionnaires in which respondents either did not answer every question or chose multiple answers were discarded. As a result, two were discarded and a total of 159 questionnaires out of the total number collected were deemed fit and valid to be analyzed, representing a response rate of 79.5%.
Of the total number of respondents who participated 90 (56%) were male and 69 (43.4%) were female. With regards to age distribution, majority of respondents fell in the age category of 30-35 and 36 and above (31%, 36%). Also majority of the respondents were single, 95(59.7%) were married and 64 (40.3%) were single. In reference to respondent‟s education, more than half of the participants had an associate‟s degree (82%, 51.6%) This was followed by high school graduates (43) and people with bachelor‟s degree (25). Respondents with master‟s degree represented the smallest number of respondents. With regards to respondent‟s levels in the
32
organization, 50% of them were working with administration whereas are in remainder worked as low level staff (49.7%). Finally, pertaining to the number of years respondents has as work experience, the majority of the respondents have had a period of 5 to 10 years (48.4%) while only 25% served a period above 1-5 years.
Table 4.1
Demographic Characteristics of the Study Sample (N=159)
Demographics N %
Associates Degree 82 51.6
Bachelor‟s Degree 25 15.7
Masters 9 5.7
Employee Level Administrative 80 50.3
Low Level Employees 79 49.7
Work Experience 1year -5years 40 25.1
5years-10years 77 48.4
10years-15years 20 12.6
15years and over 22 13.8
Descriptive Statistics for the Questionnaire
A total of 28 questions were asked to respondents. The first 17 questions were in relation to the employee‟s job and the next eleven (11) of these questions were asked about training offered by the organization. The respondents were asked to select their responses by choosing the number that best applied to them. The options were presented on a 5 point Likert scale with 1= strongly dissatisfied, 2= dissatisfied, 3= neutral, 4= satisfied and 5= highly satisfied. The questions asked based on the training programs observed that mean scores ranged between 3.26 (SD=1.26) and 3.
89 (SD= .897). This suggests that the respondent‟s scores on average were between neutral and satisfied with the statements of the items. The question with the highest mean score asked
33
“Applying training to your own work” (Q18). “Assessing the needs of employees” (Q27) had the lowest mean score.
Seventeen questions were asked in relation employee‟s job and their job performance.
“Getting along with your colleagues” had the highest mean of 4.19 (SD=.807). The question with the lowest mean score of 3.33 (SD=1.26) asked “Supervisors undertaking keen interest in
employees concerns”.
Table 4.2
Descriptive Statistics for Questionnaire Items on Job Satisfaction
Items Frequency Mean Std.
Deviation Q1. Establishing a relationship with
customers
159 4.08 .795
Q2. Doing paperwork and/or routine data for job
159 3.84 .991
Q3. Appraising your own performance 159 3.95 .980 Q4. Getting on with your colleagues 159 4.19 .807
Q5. Introducing new ideas at work 159 3.64 1.121
Q6. Providing feedback to colleagues 159 3.80 1.054 Q7. Giving information to managers
and/or supervisors
159 3.82 1.022
Q8. Planning and organizing activities in the organization
159 3.42 1.115
Q9. Organizing your own time effectively
Q12. Making do with limited resources 159 3.55 1.106 Q13. Collecting and collating relevant
information from all parties
159 3.50 1.073
Q14. Working as a member of a team 159 3.91 .877
Q15. Accessing resources used (e.g.
time, money, Information,
Q17. Personally coping with change in the organization
159 3.96 .930
34 Table 4.3
Descriptive Statistics on Questionnaire Items for Training
Items Frequency Mean Std. Deviation
Q18. Getting involve in
Q22. Evaluating training 159 3.62 1.004
Q23. Evaluating new
Score Differences among the Demographic Groups
In the analysis using the one way ANOVA, the principal objective of running this model was to test whether there were any differences in scores among the selected demographic items namely, gender, age, education, marital status, work experience, employee level and with particular reference to training items. The results were very interesting and are displayed in the different table below. It showed that gender, age, marital status, employee experience has no difference with training. However, the results showed the other remaining demographic items namely educational level and some of employees work experience has a significant difference with training.
35 Table 4.4
One - Way ANOVA Analysis of Gender on Training
ANOVA
Within Groups 2777.803 157 17.693
Total 2793.975 158
As indicated in Table 4.4 gender difference with regards to training was not significant.
All the values are above the significant range. Therefore gender is not a determinant factor in regards to training.
36 Table 4.5
One Way ANOVA Analysis of Age on Training
ANOVA
Within Groups 2394.402 126 19.003
Total 2793.975 158
Also age has no significant difference with regards to training as can be seen by the figures stated above. Therefore, age is not a determinant or contributing factors to employees training.
37 Table 4.6
One Way ANOVA Analysis of Marital Status on Training
ANOVA
Within Groups 2793.849 157 17.795
Total 2793.975 158
The same can be said about marital status since all the figures show there is no significant difference with regards to training except for Q3 which has a significant different of (F = 4.116; p
= 0.044). Q23 reads „evaluating new training programs‟, which means that marital status have partial influence on evaluation of training.
38 Table 4.7
One Way ANOVA Analysis of Education on Training
ANOVA
Within Groups 2638.456 155 17.022
Total 2793.975 158
This table indicates that education level of employees definitely has a significant difference on training. This therefore indicates that employee‟s level of education influences education. All the figures are in the range of significant. According to Merriam and Leahy (2005), the
effectiveness of training programs can be assessed in terms of knowledge acquired.
39 Table 4.8
One Way ANOVA Analysis for Work Experience on Training
ANOVA
Within Groups 2607.652 136 19.174
Total 2793.975 158
When it comes to work experience a few items bore no significance to training however some items such as items number 23, 25, 27 and 28 indicate there is significance. The questions items are Q23, evaluating new training methods, Q25 designing effective training activities, Q 27, evaluating needs of the organization and Q28, assessing the needs of employees.
40 Table 4. 9
One Way ANOVA Analysis of Employee Level on Training
ANOVA
Within Groups 2771.323 157 17.652
Total 2793.975 158
Employee level has no significance on training. All the figures show there is no significant difference with regards to training except for Q23 which has a significant different of (F
4.680; .032*). Q23 reads „evaluating new training programs‟, which means that marital status does have some influence on evaluation of training.
41
The Training Program Developing Process at SLASPA
Training is seen as an integral part of SLASPA‟s organization performance. SLASPA provides employees with the knowledge and skills to perform their jobs effectively. One of the ways training programs are developed is by using a triggering event. The company recognizes that the organizations actual performance is less than what they expect. The managers report it to the human resource department which in turn conducts an analysis of the situation within this
department to decide whether or not it is necessary to have training or some other form of action to boost up employee performance. In the event that the analysis yield that training is required, the department decides to either design a training program if they have the skilled individuals to conduct he training or outsource their training. Another way that SLASPA determines how it conducts its training is by allowing departments to determine the different areas that they have the greater need for training. By determining the departments that need the training and affected employees they figure out which employees need which training.
SLASPA also follows a ten step approach to develop performance base training. The first four steps constitute the task analysis that is necessary to design and develop relevant, useful training materials.
1. Defining the target population for training.
2. List the tasks to be performed by the target population on the job.
3. List the skills and knowledge needed to do the tasks.
4. Select the skills and knowledge to be taught. (These make up the “training objectives.”)
5. Organize the selected skills and knowledge into suitable teaching units (modules) and develop the training design (including brief outlines of module content and planned training methods).
6. Draft expanded outlines of modules, including instructional objectives, main body of text, and descriptions of training methods, examples and exercises.
7. Experts provide realistic examples and information for use in exercises.
8. Draft the complete modules, facilitator guidelines, and course director guidelines.
42 9. Field-test the training materials.
10. Revise and finalize training materials based on the field test.
SLASPA like any organization exposes all employees to a number of training workshops and training programs on both a long term and short term basis, on the job and job instruction training. (Refer to Appendix C). SLASPA uses a variety of training methods to administer their training programs. Some of the training is in house training whereas others are organized for the whole department or divisions. Some take place on the job where as others are off the job. On the job training takes place sometimes at the trainee‟s regular work-Station (desk, machine, etc). Most SLASPA employees receive at least some training and coaching on the job. Sometimes the training is conducted by an assigned trainer; whereas other times it may be conducted by the supervisor or even an experienced employee.
Another approach that SLASPA uses quite often is the Job instruction approach. This uses the trainers to train employees while they are working on an assigned job. Employees are given handouts, training manuals and are given practice time and follow ups to the training. Other
methods use for conducting training programs or workshops is through lectures, training space and discussions. SLASPA engage in audiovisual training for top management and supervisors.
Training programs are delivered to employees at all ranks at SLASPA from top
management to low level employees. Some of the employees are port police, marketing personnel, maritime, accounts, engineering, operations, internal audit, human resource, information systems, and marine. Refer to Appendix C.
43
The Training Programs and Workshops at SLASPA
SLASPA offers many training programs to employees at all levels of the organization.
Some of these training programs are listed in Appendix C using graphs. However these training programs are place in a table below as mentioned in Appendix C.
Table 4.10
Training Programs at SLASPA List of Training Programs offered to Managers
List of Training Programs offered to Employees
Administrative Professional Workshops, Court Prosecutor Training, New Court Procedures, Firearms, Project
first aid, supervisory management techniques, customer service, credit card, radio
communications, shipping legislation, defibrillator training, E-Learning, Microsoft Excel, Customer Service, AIS Program me, Airport Safety, Port Operation, Basics Training & Development, Coaching &
Mentoring Workshops, Microsoft Office, Firearms
The Employees Training Needs at SLASPA
The last section of the questionnaire indicated which areas do employees feel there is a need for training. The list of areas is listed in table 4.7. This table shows a list of areas that
respondents have stated that the required further training to be more capable of performing on their job. From the list below majority one of the most popular responses was Airport safety and control.
The second was court procedural matters and lastly air traffic control.
44 Table 4.11
List of Specific Training Needs Identified by Respondents
Discussions
In terms of the findings, demographic data was first determined. It showed that there were more males, 90 (56%) than females 69 (43.4%) who answered the questionnaire. The range in relation to age was pretty wide; the youngest respondent was 19 years old, and the oldest 55 years.
Looking at the age range one can say that SLASPA encompassed a population of young employees.
Majority of which are around 33 years old due to the fact that the mean age is 33.79 (SD= 7.748).
Majority of the respondents were single (60%) with only a high school education or associate‟s degree (40.3%, 52%). The mean score for work experience is 9.08 (SD= 5. 430).
Training needs identified by respondents Court Procedure
45
Therefore this means that the populations of employees of this organization are still very young in terms of experience. Younger employees are especially hungry both to learn and to receive affirmation that they are doing a good job. They are generally much more motivated by incremental education and acknowledgement than they are by a modest raise in salary.
In terms of respondents‟ responses when it came to training programs, the responses ranged from neutral to satisfactory. This indicates that there may still be lots of room for improvement.
Also, the fact that the item that got the lowest rating was assessing the needs for employees. This mean that employees are not satisfied with the way how their training is being assessed. This was the basic purpose of this study and this has now proven that something ought to be done by the relevant individuals to help salvage this problem. Another surprising indication from the analysis reveals that employees were dissatisfied with the fact that supervisors do not take a keen interest in their concerns. Unsatisfied employees and employees who have no confidence in their organization is certainly not a good recipe in an organization.
The results were very interesting. It revealed that gender has no significant difference to training. This result is not surprising since it does not matter what sex one is, although some studies do say that gender do have a significant difference to training. One could argue that it depends on the type of training. Age has no significance to training. This is not surprising, due to the face that regardless of what age an individual is, there is still need for improvement and need to learn more. There is a saying which goes; one is never too old to learn. Marital status also reveals that there is no significant difference to training. Whether an individual is married or single, they do have the need for training. Therefore these results seem to be pretty accurate.
As for education, it shows that it has great significance to training, which is very true. An individual‟s education can influence how they learn and also what type of training method they require. As for working experience, it also shows that it has a little significance to training. This means that depending on the number of years of work experience one has, it can determine their attitude towards training. Meaning if an employee has been in an organization for twenty four years, as with one of the employees, they can feel that they know all there is to know about their job. According to Blanchard and Thacker (2010), many trainees feel anxious when they enter training. Most arrive at training with an elaborate and highly cognitive structure. They already feel that they know about themselves, their work, their company, and many other things.
46
Lastly the results revealed that an employee‟s employment level has no significance to training due to the fact that regardless an employee is a manager or a maintenance worker; there is still the need for training. All in all the results were satisfactory.
47