Demographic Profile

This part of the study deals with demographic information covered by the survey. Descriptive
statistics include frequency distribution, percentile description, cumulative percentage, mean,
standard deviation and skewness of all demographic variables as gender, age, education level,
nature of job and length of service shown in following tables.

Table 1
Gender Distribution of the Respondents (N= 622)

Category Frequency Percentage Cumulative

Percentage

Male 383 61.6 61.6

Female 239 38.4 100

Table 1 signifies the demographic statistics with respect to gender of respondents in terms of
frequency distribution, percentage, and cumulative percentage. Table 1 shows that out of 622
respondents, 61.6% (383) were male and 38.4% (239) were female.

Table 2
Age Distribution of the Respondents (N= 622)

Age Frequency Percentage Cumulative

Percentage
Up to 25 277 44.5 44.5

26 to 45 309 49.7 94.2

46 to 55 33 5.30 99.5

56 + 3 0.5 100

Table 2 indicates the distribution of respondents with respect to age. Survey accounted for
44.5% (277) respondents who had their age up to 25 years. Moreover, 49.7% (309) respondents
were between the age group 26 to 45, 5.30% (33) respondents were between the age group 46
to 55 and remaining 0.5% (3) respondents were more than 56 years of age. Results signify that
majority of respondents are between the age group of 26 to 45.
Table 3
Distribution of the Respondents with respect to their education

Education Level Frequency Percentage Cumulative

Percentage

Bachelors 264 42.4 42.4

Masters 349 56.1 98.5

PhD 9 1.5 100

Table 3 demonstrates the demographic characteristics of survey participants in terms of their

educational level. It is evident from Table 3 that 42.4% (264) of the respondents possessed the
bachelor degree, 56.1% (349) participants hold the master's degree whereas only 1.5% (9) of
the respondents got their Ph.D. degree. The analysis further implies that majority of participants
hold a masters degree.
Descriptive Analysis and Data Normality
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics & Normality Test
Variables Mean S.D Skewness Kurtosis

Surface Acting 2.35 1.00 .90 -.51

Deep Acting 3.37 1.15 -.57 -1.18

Display of Genuine Emotion 3.57 1.00 -.71 -.58

Leaders’ Job Satisfaction 3.45 1.25 -.65 -1.20

Leaders’ Emotional Exhaustion 2.61 1.17 .31 -1.38

Emotional Intelligence 2.65 1.38 .41 -1.63

Perceived Transformational 3.02 .83 -.48 -1.16

Leadership

Followers’ Emotional 3.50 1.24 -.65 -1.25

Engagement

Followers’ Job Satisfaction 3.43 1.27 -.65 -1.20

Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics of the study variables. It shows the mean values and
standard deviations of all under study variables with an acceptable range of skewness and
kurtosis. Mean values of surface acting, deep acting, and display of genuine emotions are 2.35,
3.37, 3.57 respectively and standard deviation values predict that deep acting is less reliable
rather than deep acting and display of genuine emotions because its standard deviation is 1.18
which is more than others. Similarly, mean values for leaders’ job satisfaction, leaders’
emotional exhaustion, emotional intelligence, perceived transformational leadership,
followers’ emotional engagement, followers’ job satisfaction are 3.45, 2.61, 2.65, 3.02, 3.50
and 3.43 respectively. Perceived transformational leadership is more reliable as its standard
deviation value is comparatively low than other values. Table 4 also demonstrates skewness
and kurtosis values which are in acceptable range.
Data Normality Test

At first, data were analyzed for missing values and other typing errors were also analyzed so
that errors could rectify. Value of the data assessed by analyzing normality. Normality was
examined through skewness, kurtosis, and histograms (Munro, 2005). Scores of surface acting,
deep acting, and display of genuine emotions, leaders’ job satisfaction, leaders’ emotional
exhaustion, emotional intelligence, perceived transformational leadership, followers’
emotional engagement, followers’ job satisfaction were normally distributed and were well in
range -2 to +2 more over z scores of both skewness and kurtosis were well in the range of +1.96
and -1.96 hence findings indicated normality of the data. As George and Mallery (2010)
proposed that values for skewness and kurtosis between -2 to +2 are acceptable to prove the
normal distribution.

Instruments Reliability

Table 5
Alpha Reliability Coefficients of All Scales (N= 311 )

Variables No. of Items Alpha Coefficient

Surface Acting 7 0.86

Deep Acting 4 0.88

Display of Genuine Emotion 8 0.88

Leaders’ Emotional Exhaustion 6 0.89

Leaders’ Job Satisfaction 3 0.92

Emotional Intelligence 16 0.89

Perceived Transformational Leadership 20 0.92

Followers’ Emotional Engagement 4 0.93

Followers’ Job Satisfaction 3 0.92

A reliable instrument is that which provide the same measurement when we measure the
unchanged object repeatedly. Reliability implies inter-item consistency of scale. Reliability of
instruments assessed by calculating the alpha coefficients and inter-item correlation of
understudy variables. Table 5 indicates the reliability analysis by using Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients. This reliability is corresponding to set up reputation and eminence of the used
scales. These values explained that scales are properly premeditated. Reliability analysis for
the instruments included in current study shows that scales used in this study are highly reliable
as all the constructs and alpha values fulfilled the criteria of the minimum acceptance level of
the alpha score that was 0.70.

Table 6
Correlation Matrix

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 Surface Acting 1

2 Deep Acting -.252** 1

3 Display of Genuine -.279** .664** 1

Emotion

4 Leaders’ Emotional .570** -.364** -.390** 1

Exhaustion

5 Leaders’ Job Satisfaction -.530** .500** .537** -.681** 1

6 Emotional Intelligence -.103 .289** .223** -.146** .365** 1

7 Perceived Transformational -.281** .313** .300** -.469** .580** .225** 1

Leadership

8 Followers’ Emotional -.526** .528** .563** -.593** .570** .356** .593** 1

Engagement

9 Followers’ Job Satisfaction -.531** .502** .548** -.540** .582** .375** .588** .600** 1

**P<0.05

Table 6 signifies the correlation between under study variables. This correlation matrix
identifies that surface acting has highly significant positive correlation with leaders’ emotional
exhaustion (r=0.57, p<.05). Similarly, surface acting has highly significant negative correlation
with leaders’ job satisfaction (r= -0.53, p<.05), perceived transformational leadership (r= -0.28,
p<.05), followers’ emotional engagement (r= -0.52, p<.05) and followers’ job satisfaction (r=
-0.53, p<.05).