Federal Employee Survey 2018 Data Set Final Report Essay
Total Length: 3051 words ( 10 double-spaced pages)
Total Sources: 5
Page 1 of 10
A PHP Error was encountered
Severity: Warning
Message: strpos(): Offset not contained in string
Filename: topic/index.php
Line Number: 150
i) Part 1: Descriptive Variables Frequency Tables for Demographic VariablesTable 1.Variable 1: Agency where one WorksAGENCYFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidAF333515.65.65.6AG433527.27.212.8AM1837.3.313.1AR7000511.711.724.8BG526.1.124.9BO338.1.125.0CM207253.53.528.5CT476.1.128.5CU633.1.128.6DD308775.25.233.8DJ309785.25.239.0DL80751.41.440.3DN86241.41.441.8DR1115.2.242.0ED2592.4.442.4EE1379.2.242.6EP79721.31.344.0FC594.1.144.1FQ470.1.144.1FT638.1.144.2GS71571.21.245.4HE430297.27.252.6HF412.1.152.7HS7389912.412.465.1HU4628.8.865.8IB829.1.166.0IN282904.74.770.7KS326.1.170.8NF940.2.270.9NL859.1.171.1NN115681.91.973.0NQ1743.3.373.3NU2308.4.473.7NV478828.08.081.7OM3069.5.582.2RR413.1.182.3SB1543.3.382.5SE3394.6.683.1SK355.1.183.1SN520.1.183.2ST72281.21.284.4SZ263184.44.488.8TD215523.63.692.4TR420277.07.099.5XX3157.5.5100.0Total598003100.0100.0The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) accounted for the greatest number of participants among the 85 participating agencies, at 12.4 percent, followed by the Department of Agriculture at 11.7 percent. The Department of Commerce accounted for 7 percent of participants in the survey.Table 2.Variable 2: SexDSEXFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValid7910013.213.213.2Male29301449.049.062.2Female22588937.837.8100.0Total598003100.0100.049 percent of the survey participants were male, 37.8 percent were female, and 13.2 percent preferred did not indicate their gender.Table 3.Variable 3: Education LevelDEDUCFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidNo degree7738012.912.912.9Doctorate14916324.924.937.9Bachelor’s18297930.630.668.5Master’s18848131.531.5100.0Total598003100.0100.024.9 percent of participants had a Doctorate degree, 31.5 percent had a master’s degree, 30 percent had a Bachelor’s degree, and 12.9 percent had some college education with no degree.Table 4Variable 4: Tenure in the Federal AgencyDFEDTENFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValid1-3 years7307612.212.212.26 -10years22171237.137.149.311-20 years16263427.227.276.54 -5 years14058123.523.5100.0Total598003100.0100.037 percent of participants have been with the federal government for 6 to 10 years, 27 percent for 11 to 20 years, 23 percent for 4 to 5 years, and 12 percent for 1 to 3 years.Table 5Variable 5: Supervisory StatusDSUPERFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidTeam Leader6396210.710.710.7Non-Supervisor43278172.472.483.1Supervisor10126016.916.9100.0Total598003100.0100.072 percent of the participating employees were of a non-supervisor status, 10. 7 percent were team leaders, while 16.9 percent identified themselves as being of supervisor status.Table 6Variable 6: RaceDMINORITYFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidHispanic8731714.614.614.6Other16809928.128.142.7White34258757.357.3100.0Total598003100.0100.057.3 percent of participating employees identified as non-Hispanic white, 14.6 percent identified as Latino or Hispanic, and 28.1 percent identified as others.Table 7Variable 7: Intention to Leave over the Next YearDLEAVINGFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidYes-other301655.05.05.0No38264664.064.069.0Yes -110035416.816.885.8Yes - 2222983.73.789.5Yes- retire6254010.510.5100.0Total598003100.0100.064 percent of participating employees indicated that they were not planning to leave their current agency within the next year. 16.8 percent indicated that they were planning to leave to take up another job within the federal government, 3.7 percent to take up a job outside the federal government, 10.5 percent to retire, and 5 percent indicated that they were planning to leave for undisclosed reasons.ii) Part 2: Frequency Analysis and Descriptive Statistics for Explanatory VariablesTable 1.Q2 Frequency Analysis: Employees have enough information to do their job wellFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidStrongly Disagree (1)199913.33.43.4Disagree (2)6332310.610.614.0Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)8347014.014.028.0Agree (4)30178650.550.878.8Strongly Agree (5)12604821.121.2100.0Total59461899.4100.0MissingSystem3385.6Total598003100.0Table 2Q2 Descriptive Statistics: Employees have enough information to do their job wellNValid594618Missing3385Mean3.76Median4.00Mode4Std. Deviation1.011Skewness-.901Std. Error of Skewness.003Kurtosis.363Std. Error of Kurtosis.006Figure 1.Bar chart for Q2: Employees have enough information to do their job wellInterpretation:Approximately 72 percent of employees at least agree that they have enough information to do their job well. Most (over 50%) of employees agree, while 22 percent strongly agree, that they have sufficient information to do their jobs well. Only 3 percent believe that they face very severe information challenges that make them completely unable to carry out their jobs effectively.Table 3.Q7 Frequency Analysis: When needed, employees are willing to put in the extra effort to get a job doneFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidStrongly Disagree4095.7.7.7Disagree4134.7.71.4Neither Agree nor Disagree153332.62.64.0Agree18804231.431.635.5Strongly Agree38418564.264.5100.0Total59578999.6100.0MissingSystem2214.4Total598003100.0Table 4.Q7 Descriptive Statistics: When needed, employees are willing to put in the extra effort to get a job doneNValid595789Missing2214Mean4.58Median5.00Mode5Std. Deviation.647Skewness-2.053Std. Error of Skewness.003Kurtosis6.497Std. Error of Kurtosis.006Figure 2.Bar chart for Q7: When needed, employees are willing to put in the extra effort to get a job doneInterpretation:A majority (64 percent) of employees strongly agree that they put in extra work whenever necessary to get a job done. Approximately 96 percent either agree or strongly agree that they are often willing to put in extra work to get a job done at the workplace. Only less than 1 percent report that they would not go the extra mile when needed to get a job done, while 2 percent are indifferent.Table 5.Q20 Frequency Analysis: The people I work with cooperate to get the job doneFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidStrongly Disagree175192.92.92.9Disagree443987.47.410.4Neither Agree nor Disagree7039211.811.822.2Agree27119845.445.567.7Strongly Agree19250332.232.3100.0Total59601099.7100.0MissingSystem1993.3Total598003100.0Table 6.Q20 Descriptive Statistics : The people I work with cooperate to get the job doneNValid596010Missing1993Mean3.97Median4.00Mode4Std. Deviation1.001Skewness-1.083Std. Error of Skewness.003Kurtosis.847Std. Error of Kurtosis.006Figure 3.Bar chart for Q20: The people I work with cooperate to get the job doneInterpretation:Approximately 78 percent of employees either agree or strongly agree that their colleagues at work cooperate to get the job done. 3 percent strongly agree that their colleagues are uncooperative, while 11 percent are indifferent.Table 7.Q26 Frequency Analysis: Employees in my work unit share job knowledge with each other.FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidStrongly Disagree250284.24.24.2Disagree382176.46.410.7Neither Agree nor Disagree7186412.012.122.8Agree29571849.549.972.7Strongly Agree16218427.127.3100.0Total59301199.2100.0MissingSystem4992.8Total598003100.0Table 8.Q26 Descriptive Statistics: Employees in my work unit share job knowledge with each other.NValid593011Missing4992Mean3.90Median4.00Mode4Std. Deviation1.011Skewness-1.148Std. Error of Skewness.003Kurtosis1.110Std. Error of Kurtosis.006Figure 4.Bar Chart for Q26: Employees in my work unit share job knowledge with each otherInterpretation77 percent of employees either agree or strongly agree that employees in their unit share job knowledge with each other for the benefit of the organization. Only 6 percent disagree and 4 percent strongly disagree with this statement. The skewness value of -1.148 indicates that the data is slightly negatively or left-skewed, implying that as shown in the graph, a greater number of values are concentrated on the right side of the graph, representing a non-normal distribution. At the same time, the positive kurtosis value of 1.11 points to a leptokurtic distribution, indicating that the distribution of responses is more peaked than that of a normal distribution.Table 9.Q28 Frequency Analysis: How would you rate the overall quality of work done by your work unit?FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidVery Poor4778.8.8.8Poor114061.91.92.7Fair7146712.012.014.7Good24133940.440.655.3Very Good26588044.544.7100.0Total59487099.5100.0MissingSystem3133.5Total598003100.0Table 10.Q28 Descriptive Statistics: How would you rate the overall quality of work done by your work unit?NValid594870Missing3133Mean4.26Median4.00Mode5Std. Deviation.804Skewness-1.106Std. Error of Skewness.003Kurtosis1.445Std. Error of Kurtosis.006Figure 5.Bar Chart for Q28: How would you rate the overall quality of work done by your work unit?Interpretation40 percent of employees rate the quality of work done by their units as good, but the majority of employees (44.7 percent) rate it as very good. 12 percent rate the quality of their work as fair, and only 0.8 percent believe that the work output of their units is very poor. The skewness measure of -1.106 is less than the -1 standard for normality, indicating that the distribution of responses is slightly left-skewed and more responses lie on the right side of the graph (the good and very good options). At the same time, the kurtosis value of 1.445 points to a leptokurtic distribution, indicating that the distribution of responses is more peaked than that of a…
[…… parts of this paper are missing, click here to view the entire document ]
…more peaked than that of a normal distribution.Table 15.Q36 Frequency Analysis: My organization has prepared employees for potential security threats.FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidStrongly Disagree162872.72.82.8Disagree289644.85.07.8Neither Agree nor Disagree7204812.012.420.2Agree31717453.054.674.8Strongly Agree14629224.525.2100.0Total58076597.1100.0MissingSystem172382.9Total598003100.0Table 16.Q36 Descriptive Statistics: My organization has prepared employees for potential security threats.NValid580765Missing17238Mean3.94Median4.00Mode4Std. Deviation.908Skewness-1.188Std. Error of Skewness.003Kurtosis1.750Std. Error of Kurtosis.006Figure 8.Bar Chart for Q36: My organization has prepared employees for potential security threats.InterpretationOver 50 percent of employees agree that their organization have prepared employees for potential security threats, while 25 percent strongly agree. 7.8 percent either disagree or strongly disagree that their organizations have effectively prepared their employees for potential security threats, while 12 percent are indifferent. Responses are slightly left skewed from the skewness value of -1.188, while the value of kurtosis of 1.75 indicates that distribution is peaked or leptokurtic.Table 17.Q42: Frequency Analysis: My supervisor supports my need to balance work and other life issues.FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidStrongly Disagree237494.04.14.1Disagree244784.14.28.3Neither Agree nor Disagree513498.68.817.1Agree21557636.037.054.1Strongly Agree26771544.845.9100.0Total58286797.5100.0MissingSystem151362.5Total598003100.0Table 18.Q42 Descriptive Statistics: My supervisor supports my need to balance work and other life issues.NValid582867Missing15136Mean4.16Median4.00Mode5Std. Deviation1.027Skewness-1.469Std. Error of Skewness.003Kurtosis1.850Std. Error of Kurtosis.006Figure 9.Bar Chart for Q42: My supervisor supports my need to balance work and other life issues.Interpretation45 percent of employees strongly agree that their supervisors respect the need for proper work-life balance. 37 percent merely agree that their supervisors respect work-life balance issues. 8 percent of employees either disagree or strongly disagree, and believe that their supervisors do not pay attention to work-life balance issues, while another 8 percent are indifferent about the subject matter. The negative value of skewness in excess of the -1 standard for normality points to a non-normal distribution that is left skewed. This is further supported by the fact that the mode is higher than the mean and median, a feature of a negatively-skewed distribution. The value of kurtosis of 1.85 also point to non-normality, with a positive value of kurtosis indicating that distribution is peaked or leptokurtic.Table 19.Q43: Frequency Analysis: My supervisor provides me with opportunities to demonstrate my leadership skills.FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidStrongly Disagree338295.75.85.8Disagree458787.77.913.7Neither Agree nor Disagree8767514.715.028.7Agree20920535.035.964.6Strongly Agree20602034.535.4100.0Total58260797.4100.0MissingSystem153962.6Total598003100.0Table 20.Q43 Descriptive Statistics: My supervisor provides me with opportunities to demonstrate my leadership skills.NValid582607Missing15396Mean3.87Median4.00Mode4Std. Deviation1.151Skewness-.971Std. Error of Skewness.003Kurtosis.174Std. Error of Kurtosis.006Figure 10.Bar Chart for Q43: My supervisor provides me with opportunities to demonstrate my leadership skills.Interpretation35 percent of employees strongly agree that their supervisors provide ample opportunity for them to demonstrate their leadership skills, while another 35 percent only merely agree with this statement. 7.9 percent of employees disagree with this statement, while 5.8 percent strongly disagree, indicating that their employers either rarely or never allow them to practice their leadership skills. 15 percent of employees are indifferent about their supervisors’ behavior in allowing them to practice leadership. On the normality of the distribution, if the value for skewness is between -1 and 1, then the distribution is within the range of normality (Hair et al., 2022). In this case, the skewness value is -0.97, indicating that the data is nearly symmetrical. The value of kurtosis is .174, which is less than 1, indicating a mesokurtic distribution (synonymous with a normal distribution). Thus, this variable…
Stuck Writing Your "Federal Employee Survey 2018 Data Set Final Report" Essay?
"Federal Employee Survey 2018 Data Set Final Report" (2023, April 09) Retrieved July 8, 2025, from https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/federal-employee-survey-2018-data-set-final-2178274
Latest MLA Format (8th edition)
Copy Reference
"Federal Employee Survey 2018 Data Set Final Report" 09 April 2023. Web.8 July. 2025. < https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/federal-employee-survey-2018-data-set-final-2178274>
Latest Chicago Format (16th edition)
Copy Reference
"Federal Employee Survey 2018 Data Set Final Report", 09 April 2023, Accessed.8 July. 2025, https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/federal-employee-survey-2018-data-set-final-2178274
