Presiding Officer Training module 2024 lok sabha elections
Employee satisfaction at LIC
1. Page 1
2015-16
DEPARTMENT OF MBA
G.M.(AUTO.)COLLEGE,SAMBALPUR
Research methodology
Topic - Employee satisfaction of LIC.
Submittedby-
K Renuka Patnaik
2nd Sem.
2. Page 2
Date:- 10/04/15
INTRODUCTION
Insurance is a social device where uncertain risks of individuals may be combined
in a group and thus made more certain, small periodic contributions by the individuals
provide a found out of which those who suffer losses may be reimburse.
Life Insurance in its modern form came to India from England in the year 1818.
Oriental Life Insurance Company started by Europeans in Calcutta was the first life
insurance company on Indian Soil. All the insurance companies established during that
period were brought up with the purpose of looking after the needs of European
community and Indian natives were not being insured by these companies. However,
later with the efforts of eminent people like Babu Muttylal Seal, the foreign life insurance
companies started insuring Indian lives. The Parliament of India passed the Life
Insurance Corporation Act on the 19th of June 1956, and the Life Insurance Corporation
of India was created on 1st September, 1956. Its headquarter is in Mumbai. Today LIC
functions with 2048 fully computerized branch offices, 109 divisional offices, 8 zonal
offices, 992 satellite offices and the corporate office.
LIC's slogan yogakshemam vahamyaham is in Sanskrit language which translates
in English as "Your welfare is our responsibility". This is derived from ancient Hindu
text, the Bhagavad Gita's 9th chapter, 22nd verse. The slogan can be seen in the logo,
written in Devanagari script. LIC offers a variety of insurance products to its customers
such as insurance plans, pension plans, special plans and group schemes. Its mission is
to explore and enhance the quality of life of people through financial security by
providing products and services of aspired attributes with competitive returns, and by
rendering resources for economic development.
3. Page 3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
EMMANUEL SAVIO , Roll No. 8246 student of St. Andrews College, Bandra,
in the Third year Bachelor of commerce in Banking and Insurance (Semester VI) , has
completed the research report on the topic of “INSURANCE (LIC): Market Research” in
the academic year 2011-2012.
Its research objectives were :-
1. To give the brief background of the sector and proceeds to highlight the short comings
of the existing setup and players.
2. The benefits of liberalized sector are enumerated.
3. The report also tries to identify the market potential for insurance products and the
strategy that can be employed to exploit the same.
4. The stress is also given on knowing the awareness level of general public.
During this research, Descriptive and Exploratory approach was taken into
consideration because of the availability of relevant information to describe the
relationships between the marketing problem and the available information.
Arul Minash Rajkumar, Research Scholar, Sathyabama University,
Chennai 600 119, has completed the research report on the topic of
“INSURANCE (LIC): Customer Satisfaction” in the academic year 2011-2012.
This project was undertaken with the purpose to take a survey in the market,
various insurance policy holder with the special reference to MaxNewYork Life Insurance
with an aim to analysis what the customer has in mind for taking a particular insurance
policy for a reason from a particular company, influencing factors to take insurance
policies, awareness of various promotional packages, policies offered by the insurance
companies, evaluation of various services of offered by the company as well as the agent.
Objectives Of his Study :-
To find the level of customer satisfaction of various life insurance policies offered
by Max New York Life insurance.
4. Page 4
To find out the socio economic profile of the Insurance Investors.
To identify the customer preference towards life insurance policies of
MaxNewYork Life Insurance.
To analyze the strength and weakness of the life insurance policies of
MaxNewYork Life Insurance.
To study the various factors that influences the customer to choose life insurance
policy.
For this research study the following statistical tools are used to find out the results of
the study:-
1. Simple percentage analysis
2. Chi-Square Test Analysis
3. Spearman’s Rank correlation
4. Yule’s coefficient of association
5. Page 5
RESEARCH DESIGN
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
Here the research objective is to measure the satisfaction level of the employees of
LIC.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
To conduct the market research first of all it is necessary to create a research
design. A research design is basically a blue print of how a research is to be conducted.
It is the conceptual structure within which research is conducted.
Basically there are 3 types of approaches used during any research:
1. Exploratory
2. Descriptive
3. Hypothesis testing.
During this research Hypothesis testing approach is taken into consideration.
TYPES OF DATA USED:
Both primary and secondary data is used in the research.
SECONDARY DATA:
Secondary data is one which already exists and is collected from the published
sources. The source from which secondary data was collected Internet.
PRIMARY DATA:
The primary sources of data refer to the first hand Information. Primary data is
collected during the survey with the help of Questionnaires
SCALING TECHNIQUES:
It uses both Nominal and Interval scales.
- Question number one of the Questionnaire uses nominal scale .
6. Page 6
[ Q-IDO1-Please tell usyour age:
Lessthan 15 years 01(TERMINATE) 26-35Years 03
15-25 Years 02 more than 35 years 04 ]
- Whereas the rest of the questions from 3-10 uses interval scale.
STATISTICAL METHODS:
Parametric Inferential Statistical procedure such as t-tests has been used in this
research. It can be used to determine if two sets of data are significantly different from
each other. Basically, calculation of the t-test concerns differences between the groups
compared to within-group differences. The calculation of the t-test focuses on
determining whether the groups in the sample score more like each other compared to
the comparison group or that there is no difference in dependent measure scores within
or between groups. Levels of significance refer to the probability of accepting or rejecting
a null hypothesis. A null hypothesis means there is no difference between compared
groups. Basically, the level of significance is the chance of an error occurring in the
rejection of the null hypothesis.
8. Page 8
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
ID04 ID05
Mean 3.95 4.3
Variance 0.794068 0.823728814
Observations 60 60
Pearson Correlation 0.458956
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 59
t Stat -2.89757
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.002635
t Critical one-tail 1.671093
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.00527
t Critical two-tail 2.000995
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
ID03 ID04
Mean 4.45 3.95
Variance 0.760169 0.794067797
Observations 60 60
Pearson Correlation 0.618468
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 59
t Stat 5.02849
P(T<=t) one-tail 2.46E-06
t Critical one-tail 1.671093
P(T<=t) two-tail 4.91E-06
t Critical two-tail 2.000995
T-test
𝐻0: Average Satisfaction basis infrastructure
= Average Satisfactionbasis pay scale.
𝐻1: Average Satisfaction basis infrastructure
≠ Average Satisfaction basis pay scale.
𝐻0 : Average Satisfaction basis pay scale =
Average Satisfaction basis work schedule.
𝐻1 : Average Satisfaction basis pay scale ≠
Average Satisfaction basis work schedule.
Since the two tailed P value is more than
0.05 the null hypothesis is accepted.
Since the two tailed P value is less than
0.05 the null hypothesis is rejected.
9. Page 9
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
ID05 ID06
Mean 4.3 4.083333333
Variance 0.823729 0.959039548
Observations 60 60
Pearson Correlation 0.467201
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 59
t Stat 1.719848
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.045351
t Critical one-tail 1.671093
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.090702
t Critical two-tail 2.000995
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
ID06 ID07
Mean 4.083333 2.7
Variance 0.95904 1.53559322
Observations 60 60
Pearson Correlation 0.384082
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 59
t Stat 8.572397
P(T<=t) one-tail 2.97E-12
t Critical one-tail 1.671093
P(T<=t) two-tail 5.93E-12
t Critical two-tail 2.000995
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
ID07 ID08
Mean 2.7 3.883333333
Variance 1.535593 0.952259887
Observations 60 60
Pearson Correlation 0.40507
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 59
t Stat -7.4637
P(T<=t) one-tail 2.22E-10
t Critical one-tail 1.671093
P(T<=t) two-tail 4.43E-10
t Critical two-tail 2.000995
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
ID08 ID09
Mean 3.883333333 3.25
Variance 0.952259887 1.75
Observations 60 60
Pearson Correlation 0.390605351
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 59
t Stat 3.769456973
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000190267
t Critical one-tail 1.671093033
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000380535
t Critical two-tail 2.000995361
𝐻0: Average Satisfaction basis work schedule
= Average Satisfaction basis safety &
security.
𝐻1: Average Satisfaction basis work schedule
≠ Average Satisfaction basis safety &
security.
𝐻0 : Average Satisfaction basis safety &
security = Average Satisfaction basis canteen
facilities.
𝐻1 : Average Satisfaction basis safety &
security ≠ Average Satisfaction basis canteen
facilities.
Since the two tailed P value is more than
0.05 the null hypothesis is accepted.
Since the two tailed P value is more than
0.05 the null hypothesis is accepted.
𝐻0 : Average Satisfaction basis canteen
facilities = Average Satisfaction basis
cleanlinessmaintained.
𝐻1 : Average Satisfaction basis canteen
facilities ≠ Average Satisfaction basis
cleanlinessmaintained.
𝐻0 : Average Satisfaction basis cleanliness
maintained = Average Satisfaction basis
increments and bonus provided.
𝐻1 : Average Satisfaction basis cleanliness
maintained ≠ Average Satisfaction basis
increments and bonus provided.
Since the two tailed P value is more than
0.05 the null hypothesis is accepted.
Since the two tailed P value is less than
0.05 the null hypothesis is rejected.
10. Page 10
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
ID09 ID10
Mean 3.25 3.75
Variance 1.75 1.105932203
Observations 60 60
Pearson Correlation 0.459919
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 59
t Stat -3.08482
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.001549
t Critical one-tail 1.671093
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.003098
t Critical two-tail 2.000995
𝐻0 : Average Satisfaction basis increments and bonus provided = Average Satisfaction basis
training programs provided.
𝐻1 : Average Satisfaction basis increments and bonus provided ≠ Average Satisfaction basis
training programs provided.
Since the two tailed P value is less than
0.05 the null hypothesis is rejected.
11. Page 11
CONCLUSION
After studying the overall situation in the LIC we come to the conclusion that:
i) Above 80% of employees are more than 35 years old and are married.
ii) Majority of employees are extremely satisfied with the infrastructure and
working hours of LIC and almost all are extremely dissatisfied with the canteen
facilities provided.
iii) Majority of employees are somewhat satisfied with the pay scale, safety and
security, cleanliness, increments and trainings provided.
iv) Average satisfaction level of employees on the basis of infrastructure is equal to
average satisfaction level of employees on the basis of pay scale.
v) Average satisfaction level of employees on the basis of pay scale is not equal to
average satisfaction level of employees on the basis of work schedule.
vi) Average satisfaction level of employees on the basis of work schedule is equal to
average satisfaction level of employees on the basis of safety & security
provided.
vii) Average satisfaction level of employees on the basis of safety & security is equal
to average satisfaction level of employees on the basis of canteen facilities.
viii) Average satisfaction level of employees on the basis of canteen facilities is equal
to average satisfaction level of employees on the basis of cleanliness
maintained.
ix) Average satisfaction level of employees on the basis of cleanliness maintained is
not equal to average satisfaction level of employees on the basis of increments
and bonus provided.
x) Average satisfaction level of employees on the basis of increments and bonus
provided is not equal to average satisfaction level of employees on the basis of
training programs provided.
