INFERENTIAL STATISTICS

Inferential statistics is a component of statistics that allows managers to understand the broader population picture of a random variable based on the sample evidence (Wegner, 2012). This kind of statistics allows the researcher to draw conclusions from data that might not be immediately obvious. The following sub-sections present the results of data collected in the study using a single sample t-test to determine the statistical significance of the variables, Cohen’s d effect size measure to provide the practical significance of the variables, correlation to show the relationships between the dimensions of resilience and analysis of variance (ANOVA) to highlight the influencing factor between the selected demographic information and the dimensions of resilience.

117 | P a g e

4.4.1 Single sample t-test

Single sample t-test is a statistical measure used to test the mean value of a distribution (Wegner, 2012). In other words, it determines whether the sample used for the study comes from a defined population by comparing an average to a specified constant value. Table 4-55 below illustrates the results of the single sample t-test for the study.

Dimensions of resilience Mean Reference Constant

t-value df p

PEOPLE 3.40 3 11.97 200 0.0000

Basic human needs 3.54 3 15.49 200 0.0000

Diverse livelihood & employment 3.37 3 9.26 200 0.0000

Adequate safeguards 3.20 3 4.63 200 0.0000

ORGANISATION 3.22 3 3.86 200 0.0002

Collective identity & mutual support 3.54 3 8.15 200 0.0000 Social stability & security 2.88 3 -2.03 200 0.0441

Economic security 3.11 3 1.79 200 0.0743

PLACE 3.22 3 4.37 200 0.0000

Reduced physical exposure 3.32 3 5.56 200 0.0000

Continuity of critical services 3.26 3 4.87 200 0.0000 Reliable communication & mobility 3.06 3 0.98 200 0.3269

KNOWLEDGE 3.36 3 6.62 200 0.0000

Effective leadership & management 3.36 3 5.92 200 0.0000

Empowered stakeholders 3.09 3 1.58 200 0.1152

Integrated development planning 3.91 3 14.13 200 0.0000 Table 4-55: Single sample t-test

The single sample t-test illustrated above shows that the researcher conducted tests on the variables to compare their respective mean scores to a constant value 3.0. The value 3.0 is derived from the 5-point rating scale used in the study and acts as a point of reference. The sample population (n), the standard deviation and standard error values used for the test are shown in section 4.4.2 Table 4-6 . The test’s statistical significance is set at 5% level (p<0.05). The results show that all the variables indicate that the mean is significantly greater than 3 except for the variable on social stability under the dimension Organisation with a mean value of 2.88 as discussed in section 4.4.2 Table 4-6. With most of the variables mean scores being significantly greater than 3.0, this indicates to the researcher that NMBM has a high level of resilience as rated by the target population.

118 | P a g e

The p-values of most of the variables in the test are less than the level of significance 0.05 except for the variables of economic security (0.07), reliable communication and mobility (0.33) and empowered stakeholders (0.12). A larger p-value (p> 0.05) is statistically insignificant to 3.0 indicating to the researcher there is an average level of resilience pertaining the variables with p-values greater than 0.05.

4.4.2 Cohen’s d Effect size measure – practically significant

Having determined the statistical significance of the variables using the single sample t- test, the researcher would further require an understanding of the extent of impact on an intervention required by management on the variables that are deemed significant. Hence the use of Cohen’s d effect size measure to determine the practical significance of the variables.

Dimensions of resilience Mean Reference Constant t- value df p Cohen's d Practical signif. PEOPLE 3.40 3 11.97 200 0.0000 0.84 Large

Basic human needs 3.54 3 15.49 200 0.0000 1.09 Large Diverse livelihood & employment 3.37 3 9.26 200 0.0000 0.65 Medium Adequate safeguards 3.20 3 4.63 200 0.0000 0.33 Small

ORGANISATION 3.22 3 3.86 200 0.0002 0.27 Small

Collective identity & mutual

support 3.53 3 8.15 200 0.0000 0.57 Medium

Social stability & security 2.88 3 -2.03 200 0.0441 0.14 Small Economic security 3.11 3 1.79 200 0.0743 0.13 Small

PLACE 3.22 3 4.37 200 0.0000 0.31 Small

Reduced physical exposure 3.32 3 5.56 200 0.0000 0.39 Small Continuity of critical services 3.26 3 4.87 200 0.0000 0.34 Small Reliable communication &

mobility 3.06 3 0.98 200 0.3269 0.07 Small

KNOWLEDGE 3.36 3 6.62 200 0.0000 0.47 Small

Effective leadership &

management 3.36 3 5.92 200 0.0000 0.42 Small

Empowered stakeholders 3.09 3 1.58 200 0.1152 0.11 Small Integrated development planning 3.91 3 14.13 200 0.0000 1.00 Large Table 4-56: Cohen’s d effect size measure

The values of practical significance are categorised as Cohen’s d value <0.5 labelled as small, 0.5 to 0.79 is medium and >0.80 large. For the dimension People the mean value

119 | P a g e

is 3.40 indicating a greater difference from 3.0 compared to other dimensions mean values. This means that the dimension People is statistically significant with a large practical significance. The researcher can highlight that the variables under the dimension People indicates a high level of resilience in NMBM. In terms of the three other dimensions Organisation, Place and Knowledge, their mean values are statistically significant but only slightly above 3.0 hence a small practical significance. Cohen’s d value termed small indicates weak level of resilience unlike the large which indicates strong levels of resilience in NMBM.

4.4.3 Correlation between the variables

Correlation is a statistical measure that tells a researcher the relationships between variables to understand whether the relationship is positive or negative and determine the strength of the relationship (Wegner, 2012). The results in Table 4.52 below show the correlation coefficients (r) of the four main dimensions. As a rule of thumb, the closer the coefficients are to +1.0 and -1.0, the greater is the strength of the relationship between the variables (Wegner, 2012). It can be observed that all the four main dimensions of resilience are strongly related as all their coefficient values are greater than 0.5. This could mean that if a respondent perceived a high level of resilience in the dimension people, they also rated the other dimension of organisation, place and knowledge highly indicating a strong relationship amongst them. Therefore, the researcher is able to state that the level of resilience in NMBM measured by the four dimensions is strongly related as rated by the target population.

Dimensions of resilience PEOPLE ORGANISATION PLACE KNOWLEDGE

PEOPLE 1.00

ORGANISATION 0.79 1.00

PLACE 0.74 0.89 1.00

KNOWLEDGE 0.70 0.86 0.86 1.00

Table 4-57: Correlations among the four main dimensions Marked correlations (in bold) are significant at p < .05

120 | P a g e

4.4.4 ANOVA between demographics and dimensions

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used in cases where there are more than two groups to test if the mean values of the variables are equal. For the study, the two demographic variables selected for comparison are management level and the number of years worked in the institution. This is because these demographic variables bear a greater meaning in terms of the knowledge and understanding of the institution.

4.4.4.1 Management level and the dimension Knowledge

Based on the ANOVA test conducted, there is statistical significant difference on the dimension Knowledge as indicated by the F-value 3.21 and p-value 0.02 unlike the other dimensions in Table 4-58 below.

Dimensions of resilience F p

PEOPLE 1.22 0.3044

ORGANISATION 2.50 0.0611

PLACE 2.09 0.1033

KNOWLEDGE 3.21 0.0242 Statistically significant differences

Table 4-58: ANOVA - Knowledge

Marked effects are significant at p < .05000

Using as a post hoc test, the tukey HSD test in Table 4-59 below indicates where significant differences are by comparing all the groups with each other and showing which group differs. The results indicate that the middle level management (Mean = 3.19) and lower level management (Mean=3.59) differ significantly as shown by their mean scores. The Cohen’s d value of 0.56 indicates that the difference highlighted is of medium practical significance. Meaning that the lower level management rated the level resilience in terms of the dimension knowledge higher compared to the middle level management. The other three dimensions People, Organisation and Place had no significant differences in management level ratings.

121 | P a g e

Mean {1} {2} {3} {4}

Top level management {1} 3.24

Middle level management {2} 3.19 0.9883 0.56 (M) Lower level management {3} 3.59 0.1422 0.0244

Operational/Technical {4} 3.46 0.5770 0.2662 0.8124 Table 4-59: Tukey HSD test; Variable: Knowledge

Marked differences are significant at p < .05000

4.4.4.2 Years of work and the dimensions Place and Knowledge

Dimensions of resilience F p

PEOPLE 1.44 0.2390

ORGANISATION 2.05 0.1313

PLACE 8.02 0.0004 Statistically significant differences

KNOWLEDGE 8.57 0.0003 Statistically significant differences Table 4-60: ANOVA with Place and Knowledge dimensions of resilience

Marked effects in bold are significant at p < .05000

Table 4-60 above shows significant differences between the dimensions place and knowledge in relation to the number of years worked in the institution.

For the dimension Place, the mean score of the first category is 3.38 in comparison to the mean of the third category with 2.90. This shows that the first (1) category Up to 10 years differs significantly with the third (3) category of 21+ years and has a medium practical significance of 0.73 Cohen’s d value score. The second (2) category 11-20 years also differs significantly with the third group of 21 years and more. It has small practical significance with Cohen’s d value of 0.44. An interesting value to note is the mean score of the third category 21 years and above (Mean = 2.90) as it differs significantly in comparison to the other two categories. The mean score shown is the lowest in the three categories indicating that the employees who have worked in the institution for more than 21 years rated NMBM’s resilience in terms the variable Place low. The explanation could be that this category of employees has an in-depth knowledge of the status quo in the institution therefore giving a more informed rating.

122 | P a g e

Dimensions of resilience Mean {1} {2} {3}

Up to 10 years {1} 3.38 0.73 (M)

11 - 20 years {2} 3.24 0.4850 0.44 (S)

21+ years {3} 2.90 0.0002 0.0311

Table 4-61: Tukey HSD test; Variable: Place

Marked differences in bold are significant at p < .05000

The table 4-62 below shows a similar pattern to Table 4-61 above. Values of categories with statistical significant differences are highlighted in bold. The practical significance of category one and two is rated medium. Further to this, the results show that employees who have worked in the institution for more than 21 years rate NMBM’s level of resilience low in terms of the variable knowledge. This variable indicates the level of resilience in terms of the knowledge inherent in leadership and strategy in NMBM of leader.

Number of years worked Mean {1} {2} {3}

Up to 10 years {1} 3.50 0.71 (M)

11 - 20 years {2} 3.46 0.9357 0.59 (M)

21+ years {3} 2.99 0.0002 0.0038

Table 4-62: Tukey HSD test; Variable: Knowledge Marked differences in bold are significant at p < .05000