| Literature DB >> 21170231 |
Hasmukh Adhia1, Hr Nagendra, B Mahadevan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Organizational performance can be attributed to a number of factors. However, there are certain organizational factors, the presence or absence of which can determine the success or failure of the organization. There are different ways in which organizations try to improve their performance by working on such factors. In the research presented in this article, an attempt is made to find out whether adoption of the Yoga Way of Life by managers can have a positive impact on such organizational performance indicators. AIMS: To measure effect of yoga way of life on five different indicators through an empirical study.Entities:
Keywords: Yoga way of life; affective organizational commitment; goal orientation; job involvement; job satisfaction; organizational citizenship behavior
Year: 2010 PMID: 21170231 PMCID: PMC2997233 DOI: 10.4103/0973-6131.72631
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Yoga ISSN: 0973-6131
Profile of sample-age wise age2* group crosstabulation
| Group | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Yoga | 2 Physical | Total | ||||
| Age 2 | 1.00 | 21-50 | Count | 24 | 26 | 50 |
| % within group | 80.0 | 86.7 | 83.3 | |||
| 2.00 | 51 and above | Count | 6 | 4 | 10 | |
| % wthin group | 20.0 | 13.3 | 16.7 | |||
| Total | Count | 30 | 30 | 60 | ||
| % within group | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |||
Table interpretation: The age profile of yoga group and the control group is almost similar
Profile of sample-level of management group crosstabulation
| Group | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Yoga | 2 Physical | ||||
| Level of management | I line level | Count | 17 | 19 | 36 |
| % within group | 56.7 | 63.3 | 60.0 | ||
| M middle level | Count | 7 | 6 | 13 | |
| % within group | 23.3 | 20.0 | 21.7% | ||
| T top level | Count | 6 | 5 | 11 | |
| % withn group | 20 | 16.7 | 18.3 | ||
| Total | Count | 30 | 30 | 60 | |
| % within group | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
Table interpretation: The level-wise division of both the groups is almost homogenous
Figure 1A schematic representation of the study plan
Comparison of indicators at baseline between yoga and physical exercise groups
| Group | N | Mean | Std. deviation | Significance of independent samples |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 physical exercise | 30 | 5.6131 | .56774 | |
| Pre AOC | ||||
| 1 yoga | 30 | 4.5667 | 1.21047 | .067 |
| 2 physical exercise | 30 | 5.0875 | .93319 | |
| Pre JI | 30 | 5.1442 | .73501 | .233 |
| 1 yoga | ||||
| 2 physical exercise | 30 | 5.3452 | .54101 | |
| Pre GO | 30 | 4.8000 | 1.23770 | .146 |
| 1 yoga | ||||
| 2 physical exercise | 30 | 5.2917 | 1.34722 | |
| Pre OCB | 30 | 5.4033 | .93973 | .082 |
| 1 yoga | ||||
| 2 physical exercise | 30 | 5.7800 | .68752 | |
| Pre JS | 30 | 4.9677 | .98603 | .234 |
| 1 yoga | ||||
| 2 physical exercise | 30 | 5.2630 | .91554 | |
Table interpretation: It is seen from the significance column in the above table that at Baseline there is no difference in the mean score of any indicator between the two groups at baseline
Post intervention paired comparison to see improvement/deterioration in each indicator separately for yoga and physical exercise groups
| Yoga group | Mean | N | Std. deviation | Mean difference | Sig. (2-tailed) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre AOC | 4.5667 | 30 | 1.21047 | -.5911 | -2.239 | .033 |
| Post AOC | 5.1577 | 30 | 1.19700 | |||
| Pre JI | 5.1442 | 30 | .73501 | -.2301 | -1.335 | .192 |
| Post JI | 5.3744 | 30 | .55607 | |||
| Pre GO | 4.8000 | 30 | 1.23770 | -1.1417 | -4.672 | .000 |
| Post GO | 5.9417 | 30 | .81654 | |||
| Pre OCB | 5.4033 | 30 | .93973 | -.7052 | -2.784 | .009 |
| Post OCB | 6.1085 | 30 | .83496 | |||
| Pre JS | 4.9677 | 30 | .98603 | -.7693 | -3.477 | .002 |
| Post JS | 5.7370 | 30 | .76047 |
Table Interpretation: For the yoga group the change in the post-intervention score over the pre-intervention score is significant for all the Indicators except JI. Significant improvement is observed in AOC (Increase), GO (Increase), OCB (Increase), JS (Increase)
Physical exercise group
| Mean | N | Std. deviation | Mean difference | Sig. (2-tailed) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre AOC | 5.0875 | 30 | .93319 | .3792 | 1.621 | .116 |
| Post AOC | 4.7083 | 30 | 1.02361 | |||
| Pre JI | 5.3452 | 30 | .54101 | -.0600 | -.336 | .739 |
| Post JI | 5.4051 | 30 | .78653 | |||
| Pre GO | 5.2917 | 30 | 1.34722 | -.4667 | -1.623 | .116 |
| Post GO | 5.7583 | 30 | .77538 | |||
| Pre OCB | 5.7800 | 30 | .68752 | -.0567 | -.329 | .744 |
| Post OCB | 5.8367 | 30 | .55739 | |||
| Pre JS | 5.2630 | 30 | .91554 | -.2481 | -1.364 | .183 |
| Post JS | 5.5111 | 30 | .65676 |
Table interpretation: For the yoga group the change in the post-intervention score over the pre-intervention score is significant for all the indicators except JI. Significant improvement is observed in AOC (Increase), GO (Increase), OCB (Increase), JS (Increase)
Post-intervention mean scores comparison between two groups
| Group | N | Mean | Std. deviation | Significance of independent samples |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average post AOC | ||||
| 1 yoga | 30 | 5.1577 | 1.19700 | .124 |
| 2 physical exercise | 30 | 4.7083 | 1.02361 | |
| Average post JI | ||||
| 1 yoga | 30 | 5.3744 | .55607 | .862 |
| 2 physical exercise | 30 | 5.4051 | .78653 | |
| Average post GO | ||||
| 1 yoga | 30 | 5.9417 | .81654 | .376 |
| 2 physical exercise | 30 | 5.7583 | .77538 | |
| Average post OCB | ||||
| 1 yoga | 30 | 6.1085 | .83496 | .143 |
| 2 physical exercise | 30 | 5.8367 | .55739 | |
| Average post JS | ||||
| 1 yoga | 30 | 5.7370 | .76047 | .223 |
| 2 physical exercise | 30 | 5.5111 | .65676 | |
Table interpretation: There is no significant difference between the two groups post the experiment
Correlations
| Average post AOC | Average post JI | Average post GO | Average post OCB | Average post JS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pearson correlation | 1 | .334( | .367( | .373( | .349( |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .009 | .004 | .003 | .006 | |
| N | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 |
| Pearson correlation | .334( | 1 | .335( | .422( | .248 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .009 | .009 | .001 | .056 | |
| N | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 |
| Pearson correlation | .367( | .335( | 1 | .452( | .536( |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .004 | .009 | .000 | .000 | |
| N | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 |
| Pearson correlation | .373( | .422( | .452( | 1 | .517( |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .003 | .001 | .000 | .000 | |
| N | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 |
| Pearson correlation | .349( | .248 | .536( | .517( | 1 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .006 | .056 | .000 | .000 | |
| N | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 |
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)