Chapter 4

Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data

This presents the results of the collected data, the corresponding analysis and
interpretation in tabulated form. In part I Demographic Profile the tables will present the
computed mean, standard deviation, frequency and percentage of the corresponding
question, in part II Hypercompetition and Employees Morale indicators the tabular data
will present the standard deviation, frequency, arithmetic weighted mean, grand
arithmetic weighted mean and its corresponding descriptive rating.

PART I: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

Table 1
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents by Age
Age
Frequency
Percentage
18-24 years old
2
4%
25-34 years old
20
40%
35-44 years old
15
30%
45-54 years old
9
18%
55 and above
4
8%
Total
50
100%
Table 1 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of employees age
bracket. It shows that 20 or 40% of the employees belongs to 25-34 age bracket, 15 or
30% belongs to 35-44 age bracket, 9 or 18% belongs to 45-54 age bracket, 4 or 8%
belongs to 55 and above and only 2 or 4% belongs to 18-24 age brackets.

Figure 4.Graphical Presentation of Respondents Age

Table 2
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents Gender
GENDER
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
Male
17
34%
Female
33
66%
Total
50
100%
Table 2 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents in
terms of their gender. It shows that 33 or 66% of respondents are female and only 17
or 34% who participated in the survey are male.

Figure 5.Graphical Presentation of Respondents Gender

Table 3
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents Civil Status
CIVIL STATUS
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
SINGLE
17
34%
MARRIED
31
62%
WIDOWED
1
2%
SEPARATE
1
2%
TOTAL
50
100%
The table 3 shows the frequency and percentage of distribution of the
respondents in terms of their civil status. It shows that 31 or 62% of respondents are
married, 17 or 34% of respondents are single and the respondents of widowed and
separate are 1 or 2%.

Figure 6.Graphical Presentation of Respondents Civil Status

Table 4
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents Employment Status
EMPLOYMENT STATUS
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
REGULAR
49
98%
PROBATIONARY
1
2%
CONTRACTUAL
0
0%
TOTAL
50
100%

The table 4 shows the frequency and percentage of distribution of the

respondents in terms of their Employment Status. It shows that 49 or 98% of
respondents are regular, 1 or 2% of respondents is Probationary, and 0 or 0% of
respondents is Contractual.

Figure 7.Graphical Presentation of Respondents Employment Status.

Table 5
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents Length of Service
Length of Service
Frequencies
Percentage
1 YEAR AND BELOW
3
6%
2-4 YEARS
16
32%
5-6 YEARS
15
30%
7 YEARS AND ABOVE
16
32%
TOTAL
50
100%
The table 5 shows the frequency and percentage of distribution of the
respondents in terms of their Length of Service. It shows that 16 or 32% of respondents
are 2-4 years, 16 or 32% of respondents are 7 years and above, 15 or 30% of
respondents are 5-6 years and 3 or 6% of respondents are 1 year and below.

Figure 8.Graphical Presentation of Respondents Length of Service

PART II. ASSESSMENT ON THE COMPANYS HYPERCOMPETITION

Table 6
Hypercompetition in terms of Innovation

Table 6 illustrates the effects of the hypercompetition in terms of innovation; Item

no. 3, The company provides effective service performance and delivery capability
with the highest arithmetic weighted mean of 4 with an interpreted qualitatively as
agree. In item no. 1, The company is accessible safely and reliably from connected
devices, item no. 2, The company analyzes customers characteristics to define and
prioritize the relationship approach for different customers, based on customer value to

the bank., item no. 6, The company provides automated and integrated back-office
systems that enable it to outsource or offshore routine administrative and customer
service functions., and item no. 7, The company shifts manual transaction servicing,
especially cash management, from tellers to self-service ATMs and online. Has a
weighted mean of 3.9 with an interpreted qualitatively as uncertain. Moreover, item no.
5, The Company empowers staff with tools that help resolve customers' problems and
item no. 10,The Company provides social media interactions to increase customer
relationship has weighted mean of 3.8 with an interpreted qualitatively as uncertain.
Item no. 8, The company develops stand-alone payment services and item no. 9. The
company exerts effort to increase the effectiveness of cross-selling, enhancing the ratio
of products/services per customer as well as customer lock in has weighted mean of
3.7 with an interpreted qualitatively as uncertain. And item no. 4, The Company
identifies underused channels by products and services to expand opportunities for
cross- and up-selling has the lowest arithmetic weighted mean of 3.6 with an
interpareted quantitatively as uncertain. The grand arithmetic weighted mean is 3.8
with a qualitatively interpretation of uncertain which means that the respondents are
uncertain on the effect of hypercompetition towards the companys innovation. As many
authors argue, it is important for organizations to innovate (Hamel and Prahalad 1998,
Tidd and Bessant 2005, Mulgan and Albury 2003). Therefore, scholars and practitioners
have studied how innovation can actually be managed. Hansen and Birkinshaw (2007)
define innovation management as the active and conscious organization, control and
execution of activities that lead to innovation. A similar definition is used by Jacobs and
Snijder (2008): the management of the innovation process. The innovation process is

defined as the development and selection of ideas for innovation and the transformation
of these ideas into the innovation (Jacobs and Snijders 2008). To emphasize the
uncertain character of this innovation process, other authors use the innovation journey
(Van der Ven 1999). Andrew and Sirkin (2006) argue that the management of an
innovation project is essentially like any other business projects, though it comes with
more risk and uncertainty

Table 7
Hypercompetition in terms of Competitive Escalation

Table 7 illustrates the effect of hypercompetition in terms of competitive

escalation; item no. 1, The company supports the growth of technology by upgrading
branch processes and platforms to automate in-branch activities, eliminate paper, allow
straight through processing, and enrich customer interactions that can be adopted by
other banks and non-bank providers with the highest arithmetic weighted mean of 4.1
with an interpreted qualitatively as agree. Item no. 7, The

Company

delivers

product/services with required capabilities promptly has an arithmetic weighted mean

of 4 with an interpreted qualitatively as agree. Item no. 5, The company transforms the
retail front office workforce through training and cultural shifts to attain service culture
that is part of the growth of technology has an arithmetic weighted mean of 3.9 with an

interpreted qualitatively as uncertain. Item no. 4, The company provides a range of

competitive and high quality services by ensuring the best interest of the clients or
stakeholders has an arithmetic weighted mean of 3.7 with an interpreted qualitatively
as uncertain. Item no. 2, The new and existing products of the company were
delivered at a lower cost yet efficient ways, item no. 3, The company ensure that their
employees know the value of being competitive and they understand the need to keep
up on their competitors, and item no. 6, The company implements an appropriate
sourcing strategy to enable scale has the lowest arithmetic weighted mean of 3.6 with
an interpreted qualitatively as uncertain. The grand arithmetic weighted mean is 3.7
with a qualitative interpretation of uncertain which means that the respondents are
uncertain of the effect of hypercompetition in terms of the companys competitive
escalation. This supports the findings of Woods and Patterson (2001) as they describe
the process of escalation in technical terms, is a cascade of effects in the monitored
process. In this sense growing the business without understanding the competitors is
risky. Competition exists in every successful market, and every organization must be
able to employ the strongest competition strategies to make the most of the business.
Market research should provide evidence of the competitors' prices and the price
customers are willing to pay for the products and services. It is vital to set the prices at a
level that ensures the business remains profitable yet prevents the customers from
looking elsewhere. Everyone in the organization should know exactly where, why and
how the company and product or service is superior to every other competitor in the
market. If you are not clearly superior to your competitors somewhere and somehow, in
a market-specific area, then all that you can hope for is survival.

Table 8
Hypercompetition in terms of Customer Power

Table 8 illustrates the effect of hypercompetition towards customer power; item

no. 1, Customers have access to information about a company and its products from a
multitude of sources has the highest arithmetic weighted mean of 4 and is interpreted
qualitatively as agree. Item no. 2, Customers can find competing products more
easily, and item no. 3,Customers can acquire products/services from anywhere,
regardless of physical location has both an arithmetic weighted mean of 3.9 and is
interpreted qualitatively as uncertain. Item no. 5,Customers can connect directly with
providers to buy goods and services has an arithmetic weighted mean of 3.8 and is
interpreted qualitatively as uncertain. And item no. 4, Potential customers can find out
if a company has mistreated former customers by consulting and collaborating with

them through the Internet has the lowest arithmetic weighted mean of 3.7 and is
interpreted qualitatively as uncertain. The grand weighted mean is 3.8 and is
interpreted qualitatively as uncertain which means that the respondents are uncertain
on the effect of hypercompetition in terms of customer power. Therefore, as customer
become extraordinarily demanding and have ever-heightened high expectations, they
are able to ignore, resist, and adapt even the smartest marketing strategy (DenegriKnott, Zwick , et-al Schroeder, 2006), invoking such sentiments as customers are too
smart to be fooled consumers see through bad marketing the customer is king or the
customer is always right. They also have the ability to control their own choices,
including more buying choices as competition in the market returns power returns to the
consumers (Peppard, 2000). Customers with greater bargaining power are more likely
to change providers when they are not satisfied while customers with little bargaining
power are more likely to stay with the current provider even if they are not perfectly
satisfied.

Table 9
Hypercompetition in terms of Value Proposition

Table 9 illustrates the effect of hypercompetition towards value proposition; item

no. 1, The employees explain how the product/service solves customers problems,
and item no. 5. The employees communicate to the customers the concrete results of
purchasing and using the products and/or services has both the highest arithmetic
weighted mean of 4 and is interpreted qualitatively as agree. Item no. 2, The customer
can rely at the company as they explore new ventures through using their products has
an arithmetic weighted mean of 3.9 and is interpreted qualitatively as uncertain. Item
no. 4, The employees assess the importance of pricing in the buying decision, and
developing price elasticity for key products has an arithmetic weighted mean of 3.7 and
is interpreted qualitatively as uncertain. And item no. 3, The company helps reduce the

cost, risks in the customers payment cycles and accelerate cash flow has the lowest
arithmetic weighted mean of 3.6 and is interpreted qualitatively as uncertain. The grand
weighted mean is 3.86 and is interpreted qualitatively as uncertain which means that
the respondents are uncertain on the effect of hypercompetition in terms of value
proposition. This supports the finding of Kar (2006) that states the ability of a company
to provide a superior value for its customers is regarded as one of the most successful
competitive strategies. Steven (2009) states that the entire purpose of the value
proposition is to focus on the sole benefit of the client. He explained why companies use
the value proposition, namely to distinguish the product from competitors, to provide a
better lead, to introduce the product or the service more quickly to the market and
enable sales professionals to take the lead. Steven stresses that customers are the
lifeblood of the organization; therefore, competitive differentiation stems from the
perceived customer value, while customers desire to be with those they trust. Walker
(2008) explained the primary means of creating value or being different from
competitors. Companies used to focus on the actual product or service they provided.
However, to create value, they should focus on the features and functionality of
products or services. To identify them, they should identify the term value from the
customer prospective.

PART III: EMPLOYEES MORALE INDICATORS

Table 10
Assessment of Employees Morale in terms of Employees Relationship

2 1 TOTAL AWM SD

EMPLOYEES
RELATIONSHIPS
1.The
company
encourages employee
involvement
and
12 26 11 1
participation in setting
organizational
objective
2.
Harmonious
relations
between
employer
and 1
22 14 1
employee
lead
to 3
organizational
commitment.
3.
The
company
fosters an environment
1
where
diverse
19 16 2
3
individuals can work
together effectively.
4. Employees share
and exchange ideas 8 22 17 3
and information
5.
The
company
establishes
and
administers a system
1
for
timely
and
19 20 1
0
satisfactory redressal
of
employees
grievances.
Grand Weighted Mean

50

50

3.9

0.8 UNCERTAIN

50

3.9

0.9 UNCERTAIN

50

3.8

0.8 UNCERTAIN

50

3.8

0.8 UNCERTAIN

3.84

0.7

DR

AGREE

UNCERTAIN

Table 10 illustrates the effect of hypercompetition in employees morale in terms

of employees relationship; item no. 1, The company encourages employee
involvement and participation in setting organizational objective has the highest
arithmetic weighted mean of 4 and is interpreted qualitatively as agree. Item no. 2,
Harmonious relations between employer and employee lead to organizational

commitment, and item no. 3, The company fosters an environment where diverse
individuals can work together effectively has both an arithmetic weighted mean of 3.9
and is interpreted qualitatively as uncertain. Item no. 4, Employees share and
exchange ideas and information, and item no. 5. The company establishes and
administers a system for timely and satisfactory redressal of employees grievances
has both the lowest arithmetic weighted mean of 3.8 and is interpreted qualitatively as
uncertain. The grand weighted mean is 3.84 and is interpreted qualitatively as
uncertain which means that the respondents are uncertain on the effect of
hypercompetition in terms of employees relationship. Therefore, a study in the early 70s
the relationship between employers and employees in work place was more of a
collective relationship which involves collective bargaining where representatives of
both employer and employees meet to negotiate on matters relating to pay, terms of
employment and working conditions, representatives of employees are known as trade
union (Henderson, 2008). Organizations were encouraged to recognize and work with
trade unions so as to improve the employment rights of workers through collective
bargaining (Marchington& Wilkinson, 2005).

Table 11
5 4 3 2 1 TOTAL AWM SD
DR
CORPORATE
COMMUNICATION
1. Company provides
periodic
status
2
updates to keep
18 11 1 0
50
4.14 0.83
AGREE
0
everyone on track
and focused.
2.
Company
maintains
open 1
22 11 4 0
50
3.88 0.9 UNCERTAIN
channels
of 3
communication.
3.
Company
maintains
open 1
19 11 4 0
50
3.94 0.93 UNCERTAIN
channels
of 6
communication.
4. The company
takes time to explain
to new employees 1
22 15 1 0
50
3.9 0.79 UNCERTAIN
the
norms
and 2
culture
of
your
department.
5.
Employees
provides
a
suggestion program
7 22 15 1 0
50
3.4 0.85
to allow employees
UNCERTAIN
to communicate their
concerns.
Grand Weighted Mean
3.85
UNCERTAIN
Assessment of Employees Morale in terms of Corporate Communication

Table 11 illustrates the effect of hypercompetition to corporate communication;

item no. 1, Company provides periodic status updates to keep everyone on track and
focused has the highest arithmetic weighted mean of 4.14 and is interpreted
qualitatively as agree. Item no. 3, Company maintains open channels of
communication has an arithmetic weighted mean of 3.94 and is interpreted qualitatively

as agree. Item no. 4, The company takes time to explain to new employees the norms
and culture of your department has an arithmetic weighted mean of 3.9 and is
interpreted qualitatively as uncertain. Item no. 2, Company maintains open channels
of communication has an arithmetic weighted mean of 3.88 and is interpreted
qualitatively as uncertain. And item no. 5, Employees provides a suggestion program to
allow employees to communicate their concerns has an arithmetic weighted mean of
3.4 and is interpreted qualitatively as uncertain. The grand arithmetic weighted mean is
3.85 and is interpreted qualitatively as uncertain which means that the respondents are
uncertain on the effect of hypercompetition in terms of corporate communication.
Therefore, the contribution of corporate communication is far from being fully
understood as Cornelissen (2004) explains. Poor communication can affect work
production because employees might not receive adequate information to complete a
task. A co-worker might forget to mention pertinent information, which can delay
completion of a project or result in errors. In addition, poor communication at work might
lead to unclear job descriptions and frustration among team members which may feel
them uncertain on their morale because communication is vital in the workplace, it's
imperative for employees and management to develop clear communication skills.
Vague directions do not clearly define an employee's role, and employees might
misinterpret what's expected of them.

Table 12
Assessment of Employees Morale in terms of Appreciation and Recognition

TOTAL

AWM

SD

APPRECIATION
AND
RECOGNITION
1. The company
recognizes
and
appreciates
the 11 24 13 2 0
50
3.88 0.8
value of employees
effort.
2. The company
offers reward for
employees
hard
12 20 16 2 0
50
3.84 0.84
work
and
commitment to the
company.
3. The company
acknowledges
individual
achievements
by
10 18 18 4 0
50
3.68 0.89
using
employees
names
when
preparing
status
reports.
4. The company
gives
credits/rewards for
attendance,
punctuality,
8 22 15 5 0
50
3.66 0.87
teamwork
to
employees
who
reach certain point
goals.
5. The company
allows staff to vote
for top manager,
9 14 17 7 3
50
3.38 1.12
supervisor,
employee and rookie
of the year.
Grand Weighted Mean
3.68
Table 12 illustrates the effect of hypercompetition in terms of

DR

UNCERTAIN

UNCERTAIN

UNCERTAIN

UNCERTAIN

UNCERTAIN

UNCERTAIN
appreciation and

recognition; item no. 1, The company recognizes and appreciates the value of
employees effort, has the highest arithmetic weighted mean of 3.88 and is interpreted
qualitatively as uncertain. Item no. 2, The company offers reward for employees hard
work and commitment to the company, has an arithmetic weighted mean of 3.84 and is
interpreted qualitatively as uncertain. Item no. 3, The company acknowledges
individual achievements by using employees names when preparing status reports,
has an arithmetic weighted mean of 3.68 and is interpreted qualitatively as uncertain.
Item no. 4, The company gives credits/rewards for attendance, punctuality, teamwork
to employees who reach certain point goals, has an arithmetic weighted mean of 3.66
and is interpreted qualitatively as uncertain. And item no. 5, The company allows staff
to vote for top manager, supervisor, employee and rookie of the year, has the lowest
arithmetic weighted mean of 3.38 and is interpreted qualitatively as uncertain. The
grand weighted mean is 3.68 and is interpreted qualitatively as uncertain which means
that the respondents are uncertain on the effect of hypercompetition in terms of
appreciation and recognition of employees. To justify the above data, according to
Harrison

(2013),

employee

recognition

is

the

timely,

informal

or

formal

acknowledgement of a persons or teams behavior, effort or business result that

supports the organizations goals and values, and which has clearly been beyond
normal expectations. To be really effective in your job, you need to understand the
psychology of praising others for their good work, to apply the principles of employee
recognition yourself and to encourage others to initiate it in their working relationships.
Appreciation is a fundamental human need. Employees respond to appreciation
expressed through recognition of their good work because it confirms their work is

valued. When employees and their work are valued, their satisfaction and productivity
rises, and they are motivated to maintain or improve their good work. Praise and
recognition are essential to an outstanding workplace. People want to be respected and
valued for their contribution. Everyone feels the need to be recognized as an individual
or member of a group and to feel a sense of achievement for work well done or even for
a valiant effort. Everyone wants a pat on the back to make them feel good.
Table 13
Assessment of Employees Morale in terms of Employees Engagement

Table 13 illustrates the effect of hypercompetition in employees engagement;

item no. 5, Employees always keep going even though the going gets tough, has the
highest arithmetic weighted mean of 4.02 and is interpreted qualitatively as agree. Item
no. 2, Employees are willing to take on new tasks as needed, has an arithmetic
weighted mean of 3.94 and is interpreted qualitatively as uncertain. Item no. 1,
Employees are willingly accepts change, has an arithmetic weighted mean of 3.9 and

is interpreted qualitatively as uncertain. Item no. 3, Employees take the initiative to

help other employees when the need arises, has an arithmetic weighted mean of 3.84
and is interpreted qualitatively as uncertain. And item no. 4, Employees proactively
identify future challenges and opportunities, has the lowest arithmetic weighted mean
of 3.74 and is interpreted qualitatively as uncertain. The grand weighted mean is 3.88
and is interpreted qualitatively as uncertain which means that the respondents are
uncertain on the effect of hypercompetition in terms of employees engagement. This
supports the finding of Kahns (1990) in terms of definition of engagement, employees
feel obliged to bring themselves more deeply into their role performances as repayment
for the resources they receive from their organisation. When the organisation fails to
provide these resources, individuals are more likely to withdraw and disengage
themselves from their roles.

Table 14
CORRELATION DATA OF THE VARIABLE INDICATORS

As demonstrated in the table, Hypercompetition indicators the innovation has a

high relationship to Employees Engagement with a correlation value of .710,
Innovation has a moderate relationship to Corporate Communication with a
correlation value of .468, Innovation has an extremely low relationship to
Appreciation and Recognition with a correlation value of .114, Innovation has a low
relationship to Employees Engagement with a correlation value of .262, Competitive
Escalation has an extremely low relationship to Employees Relationship with a
correlation value of .065, Competitive Escalation has a moderate relationship to
Corporate Communication with a correlation value of .584, Competitive Escalation
has a high relationship to Appreciation and Recognition with a correlation value of .
717, Competitive Escalation has a

moderate relationship

to Employees

Engagement with a correlation value of .598, Customer Power has a low

relationship to Employees Relationship with a correlation value of .273, Customer
Power has a high relationship to Corporate Communication with a correlation value
of .656, Customer Power has a moderate relationship to Appreciation and
Recognition with a correlation value of .591, Customer Power has a moderate
relationship to Employees Engagement with a correlation value of .552, Value
Proposition has a low relationship to Employees Relationship with a correlation
value of .298, Value Proposition has high relationship to Corporate Communication
with a correlation value of .601, Value Proposition has a high relationship to
Appreciation and Recognition with a correlation value of .627 and Value Proposition
has a high relationship to Employees Engagement with a correlation value of .643.

Employees Morale indicators the Employees Relationship has a high

relationship to Innovation with a correlation value of .710, Employees Relationship has
an extremely low relationship to Competitive Escalation with a correlation value of .
065, Employees Relationship has a low relationship to Customer Power with a
correlation value of .273, Employees Relationship has a low relationship to Value
Proposition with a correlation value of .298, Corporate Communication has a moderate
relationship to Innovation with a correlation value of .468, Corporate Communication
has a moderate relationship to Competitive Escalation with a correlation value of .584,
Corporate Communication has a high relationship to Customer Power with a
correlation value of .656, Corporate Communication has a high relationship to Value
Proposition with a correlation value of .601, Appreciation and Recognition has an
extremely low relationship to Innovation with a correlation value of .114, Appreciation
and Recognition has a high relationship to Competitive Escalation with a correlation
value of .717, Appreciation and Recognition has a moderate relationship to Customer
Power with a correlation value of .591, Appreciation and Recognition has a high
relationship to Value Proposition with a correlation value of .627, Employees
Engagement has a low relationship to Innovation with a correlation value of .262,
Employees Engagement has a moderate relationship to Competitive Escalation with a
correlation value of .598, Employees Engagement has a moderate relationship to
Customer Power with a correlation value of .552, and Employees Engagement has a
low relationship to Value Proposition with a correlation value of .643.
To justify the data, changes in Management Employees can become accustomed to the
practices and methods of a particular manager, and when there is a change in

management that can have an effect on morale. It can also depend on the
circumstances that caused the change. If a manager was perceived to be effective and
appreciated by employees, then letting that manager go without explanation can have a
negative effect on morale. Try to offer an explanation to employees on why a manager
is no longer with the company, and then encourage the staff to move on with the
manager's replacement. If there is no explanation, then rumors can make it difficult for
the incoming replacement to implement his ideas and plans because speculation as to
the fate of the outgoing manager has altered employee focus. Employee Opportunity
Employee morale is impacted by the opportunities and recognition that the company
offers, according to Human Nature at Work. If an employee can be recognized for their
efforts through a promotion or raise, then the rest of the employee population sees that
the company does reward hard work. Morale can be negatively impacted if employees
feel that the company offers no career path with advancement, and if the company does
not offer some kind of reward for employee loyalty and dedication. (Schuler, A. J., 2003)

Table 15

CORRELATION DATA OF HYPERCOMPETITION AND EMPLOYEES MORALE

HYPERCOMPETITION

EMPLOYEES MORALE

.822**

Pearson Correlation
HYPERCOMPETITION Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N
Pearson Correlation
EMPLOYEES MORALE Sig. (2-tailed)

50

50

.822**

.000

50

50

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The table 15 shows the Pearson Correlation between the hypercompetition and
employees morale. Hypercompetition has a very high relationship to employees
morale with a correlation value of .822. Therefore, hypercompetition has a significant
effect to employees morale.

Table 16
T-TEST OF HYPERCOMPETITION AND EMPLOYEES MORALE OF TWO (2) COMPANIES

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference

Mean
Pair

hyppsb -

hyppt

Pair

morpsb -

morpt

Std.

Std. Error

Deviation

Mean

.56493

.11299

Lower
.61037

84356
.

Sig. (2t

df

tailed)

Upper
1.07675 7.46 2

.000

6 4
.56862

78000

.11372

.54528

1.01472 6.85 2

.000

9 4

In the table above, the Independent Variable which is hypercompetition has a

mean equivalent to 0.843 with a computed t value of 7.466 which is greater (>) than the
tabular value of 2.064 at a level of significance of 0.05 and degree of freedom of 24,
therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. As a conclusion, there is a significant
difference on the assessment of hypercompetition as made by bank-employeerespondents of PSBank and Philtrust.
In the Dependent Variable which is employees morale has a mean equivalent
to.780. With a computed t value of 6.859 which is greater (>) than the tabular value of
2.064 at a level of significance of 0.05 and degree of freedom of 24, therefore, the null
hypothesis was rejected. As a conclusion, there is a significant difference on the
assessment of employees morale as made by bank-employee- respondents of PSBank
and Philtrust.

The finding showed that, if employees feel that company management is

competent, then the morale of the company remains high as employee expectations of
company success remain intact. When management proves to be incompetent, then the

entire organization can suffer from a drop in morale that can be counter-productive
(Root III, n.d.). Psychology expert Schuler (2003) recommends offering employees
ways to voice their anonymous opinions on management's performance, such as an
employee suggestion box, and then utilizing the feedback to make changes that can
retain employee confidence in management.