Purpose of using T-test

An independent sample t-test was used. It is appropriate as it tells the researcher whether there is a statistically significant difference in the mean scores for the two groups (i.e. whether FOC’s and LOC’s differ significantly in terms of their QM dimension scores).

The purpose of running the t-test was to validate whether the research objective achieved:

• To assess if there is a difference between locally owned companies and FOC’s in relationship to quality management and productivity.

In order to achieve this research objective, the research question below was used:

• What relationship exists between quality initiatives and the productivity of FOC’s and Locally owned companies?

It was necessary to validate the results of the t-test and also to check whether differences exist between FOC’s and LOC’s in terms of the following: leadership, management commitment, organizational communication, management style, training, empowerment, motivation, teamwork, award/reward, innovation and customer focus.

The outcome of the t-tests is illustrated in Table 4.42. The result suggest that, there are significant differences between all selected QM dimensions and type of

147

ownership. For example, in terms of leadership the test result produced t-value=9.734, mean difference=2.457, Eta=0.26 and a significance level of 0.000.

Since the p-value (0.000) is less than alpha, 0.05, we conclude that there is a significant difference in leadership style between FOC’s and LOC’s, although the eta value 0.26 suggests that there is a small size effect between both groups.

Table 4.42 Association between elements of QM and ownership status

Variable Name Sig.value Sig.(2tailed) t.value Mean diff Eta squared

Effect of size

Leadership 0.000 0.000 9.734 2.457 0.26 Small

Management commitment

0.000 0.000 10.290 2.600 0.28 Small

Organisation communication

0.003 0.000 8.811 2.039 0.22 Small

Management style

0.001 0.000 12.131 4.271 0.35 Medium

Training 0.000 0.000 18.330 9.217 0.55 Large

Empowerment 0.000 0.000 14.497 4.429 0.44 Large

Motivation 0.047 0.000 12.477 3.167 0.37 Medium

Teamwork 0.000 0.000 16.440 6.694 0.50 Large

Award/reward 0.000 0.000 18.865 5.557 0.57 Large

Innovation 0.000 0.000 17.833 7.058 0.54 Large

Customer focus 0.000 0.000 11.588 3.594 0.33 Medium

Notes: The practices in bold & italics represent those practices where there is a big difference between FOC’s &

LOC’s in terms of QM elements.

The test was similarly used for management commitments, producing a t-value=10.290, mean difference=2.600, Eta=0.28 and significance level of 0.000.

Since the p-value (0.000) is less than alpha 0.05, we conclude there is a significant difference in management commitment between FOC’s and LOC’s, although the eta value 0.28 suggests that there is small size effect between both groups.

The results of the t-test for organizational communication produced t-value =8.811, mean difference=2.039, Eta=0.22 and significance level of 0.000. Since p-value (0.000) is less than alpha 0.05, we conclude there is significant difference in organizational communication between FOC’s and LOC’s, although the eta value 0.22 suggests that there is small size effect between both groups.

148

A statistical test was also done to ascertain the significance difference between the management style of FOCs and LOCs. The outcome of the test produced t-value

=12.131, mean difference=4.271, Eta=0.35 and significance level of 0.000. Since p-value (0.000) is less than (<) alpha 0.05, we conclude there is significant difference in management commitment between FOC’s and LOC’s. Although the eta value 0.35 suggests that there is medium size effect between both groups.

In terms of QM training of FOC’s and LOC’s, the t-test was used to ascertain the significance difference in terms of its efficiency. The results of the t-test also produced t-value =18.330, mean difference=9.217, Eta=0.55 and significance level of 0.000. Since p-value (0.000) is less than (<) alpha 0.05, we conclude, there is significant difference in terms of QM element training between FOC’s and LOC’s.

Although the eta value 0.55 suggests that, there is large size effect between both groups in terms of QM training

To investigate the level of empowerment in the sample manufacturing companies, the study used t-test. The results of the t-test also produced t-value =14.497 mean difference=4.429, Eta=0.44 and significance level of 0.000. Since p-value (0.000) is less than (<) alpha 0.05, we conclude there is significant difference between FOC’s and LOC’s in terms of QM element empowerment. Similarly, the eta value 0.44 suggests that there is relatively large size effect between both groups in terms of empowerment between FOCs and LOCs.

In addition, the t-test was also used to find out how far each group of companies is meeting the motivational needs of their employees. The evidence that was gathered suggests that FOC’s have higher motivational incentives than LOC’s. The results of the t-test produced t-value=12.477, mean difference=3.167, Eta=0.37 and

149

significance level of 0.000. Since p-value (0.000) is less than alpha 0.05, we conclude there is a significant difference in motivation between FOC’s and LOC’s, although the eta value 0.37 suggests that there is medium size effect between both groups of companies.

To explore the level of teamwork in both FOCs and LOCs, the study used t-test. The results of the t-test provided evidence which tend to suggest that FOC’s have greater team work than LOC’s. The t-test produced t-value =16.440 mean difference=6.694, Eta=0.50 and significance level of 0.000. Since p-value (0.000) is less than (<) alpha 0.05, we conclude there is significant difference in teamwork between FOC’s and LOC’s. The eta value 0.50 suggests that there is large size effect between both groups in terms of teamwork between FOC’s and LOC’s.

For award/reward, innovation and customer focus the t-test produced t-values 18.865, 17.833 and 11.588 respectively. For the mean difference for award/reward, innovation and customer focus the data produce 5.557, 7.058 and 3.594 respectively. The Eta was also given as 0.57, 0.54 and 0.33 respectively with all having p-value of 0.000. Since the p value (0.000) is less than (<) alpha (0.05) we conclude that there is significance difference between the two groups. The evidence in the data suggests that there is significance difference between FOC’s and LOC’s in terms of their award/reward scheme, innovation and customer focus. Although the eta value suggests that there are large size effects for award/reward and innovation, however, in terms of customer focus the size effect can be classified as medium.

The above size effect statistics further suggest that each element of QM has a significant size effect on the study companies (see table 4.42). It may be concluded that there is a positive relationship between the elements of QM and foreign owned

150

companies, specifically in areas such as training, empowerment, teamwork, award incentives and innovation. The reason may be that FOC’s are resource rich and have been practising QM for a long time in their parent companies.