The following are the objectives:-
1. To study the changes in efficiency in employees before and after work from home/
hybrid culture.
2. To identify the distraction level of employee while WFH.
3. To study the job satisfaction of employees in WFH facility.
4. To study the impact of hybrid/work from home in employees’ personal as well as
professional life.
5. To study the impact of office general cost incurred and employees work from home
6. To study the impact of genders working from home.
New Final
1. H0: There is no significant impact of WFH on employee efficiency and
effectiveness in work.
2. H0: There is no relationship between WFH and distraction of Employees in
organization.
3. H0: There is no significant impact of WFH on job satisfaction.
4. H0: There is no significant impact of WFH on employee’s work life balance.
5. H0: There is no significant impact of office cost incurred and work from home
arrangements
6. H0: There is no gender difficulties in working from home.
1. H0: There is no significant impact of WFH on employee efficiency and effectiveness
in work.
Table 1: ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 9.747 3 3.249 2.064 .105
Within Groups 470.728 299 1.574
Total 480.475 302
Based on the provided ANOVA results, we evaluated the hypothesis:
The standard significance level of 0.05 is exceeded by the p-value of 0.105.
Consequently, we are unable to reject the null hypothesis (H₀). This indicates that there
are no statistically significant differences in employee effectiveness and efficiency across
the groups (e.g., different WFH arrangements) based on the data provided.
WFH arrangements do not significantly affect employee effectiveness and efficiency,
according to the investigation. The F-statistic of 2.064 shows that there are some
differences between the groups, but not enough to be considered statistically significant.
Consequently, the results indicate that, in the circumstances investigated in this study,
WFH practices have little impact on employee performance in terms of efficacy and
efficiency.
So here we accept the null hypothesis which provides the information that there is no
significant impact of WFH on employee efficiency and effectiveness in work.
2. H0: There is no relationship between WFH and distraction of Employees in
organization.
Table 2: How often do you experience distractions while working from home? *
How many days do you work from home per week? (if not working from home,
pls choose others) Cross tabulation
How many days do you work from home per week? (if not
working from home, pls choose others)
Permanent work
2 3 from home No WFH Total
How often do Rarely 18 11 21 14 64
you experience Sometimes 14 15 14 10 53
distractions Neutral 37 34 10 12 93
while working Many 28 24 2 11 65
from home? times
Frequently/ 10 6 2 10 28
extreme
Total 107 90 49 57 303
Table 3: Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 41.241a 12 .000
Likelihood Ratio 42.134 12 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 4.419 1 .036
N of Valid Cases 303
a. 1 cells (5.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 4.53.
We may examine the connection between the frequency of distractions that
employees encounter when working from home (WFH) and the number of days they
work remotely using the cross-tabulation data and the Chi-Square test results.
According to the number of days they work remotely each week, the cross-tabulation
(Table 2) shows how frequently employees encounter distractions when working from
home. Two days, three days, permanent work from home, and no work from home are
among the categories. There were 303 responders in all for this analysis.
We can see from the data that the majority of respondents (93 respondents) report
having "Neutral" distractions, which denotes a moderate level of distraction that is
neither very high nor low. On the other hand, 65 respondents said they were distracted
"Many times," indicating that a sizable percentage of workers have a difficult time
focusing when working from home.
A Pearson Chi-Square value of 41.241 with 12 degrees of freedom and an Asymptotic
Significance (p-value) of 0.000 are revealed by the Chi-Square test findings (Table 3).
The null hypothesis (H0), which claimed there was no connection between WFH and
employee distractions, may be rejected because this p-value is much below the
traditional cutoff point of 0.05. Therefore, we draw the conclusion that there is a
substantial correlation between the number of days that workers spend working from
home and the degree of distractions they encounter.
So here we reject the null hypothesis which provides the information that there is no
relationship between WFH and distraction of Employees in organization.
3. H0: There is no significant impact of WFH on job satisfaction.
Table 4: ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 2.927 3 .976 .860 .462
Within Groups 339.120 299 1.134
Total 342.046 302
We will assess the variations in job satisfaction scores between several groups
according to their WFH status in order to examine the effect of working from home
(WFH) on job satisfaction using the supplied ANOVA table (Table 4). According to
the null hypothesis (H0), WFH has no discernible effect on job satisfaction.
With three degrees of freedom, the analysis reveals that the total of squares between
groups is 2.927, yielding a mean square of 0.976. On the other hand, with 299 degrees
of freedom, the within-group sum of squares is much higher at 339.120, resulting in a
mean square of 1.134. The variation between the groups is compared to the variance
within the groups using the F-statistic, which is 0.860 derived from these numbers.
The related p-value (Sig.) is 0.462, which means that there is no statistically
significant difference in the work satisfaction levels of the different WFH groups.
We are unable to reject the null hypothesis because this p-value is higher than the
standard alpha threshold of 0.05. According to this result, differences in job
satisfaction are not substantially impacted by the number of days that workers work
from home. This suggests that other elements, like the workplace culture, individual
circumstances, and organisational support, may be more important in determining
overall job satisfaction. Therefore, rather of concentrating only on WFH
arrangements, organisations should work to enhance these other factors in order to
increase employee happiness.
So here we accept the null hypothesis which provides the information that there is no
significant impact of WFH on job satisfaction.
4. H0: There is no significant impact of WFH on employee’s work life balance.
Table 5: ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 3.226 3 1.075 4.460 .004
Within Groups 72.088 299 .241
Total 75.314 302
The ANOVA results provided in Table 5 are used to evaluate the impact of working
from home (WFH) on employees' work-life balance, with the null hypothesis (H0)
asserting that there is no significant impact of WFH on this aspect of employee well-
being.
The impact of working from home (WFH) on employees' work-life balance is
evaluated using the ANOVA results shown in Table 5, with the null hypothesis (H0)
stating that there is no significant effect. With three degrees of freedom, the analysis
shows that the sum of squares between groups is 3.226, providing a mean square of
1.075. The within-group sum of squares, on the other hand, is substantially higher at
72.088 with 299 degrees of freedom, resulting in a mean square of 0.241. Indicating
the ratio of variance across groups to variance within groups, the computed F-statistic
is 4.460.
Importantly, the corresponding p-value (Sig.) is 0.004, much below the conventional
alpha threshold of 0.05. We may reject the null hypothesis because of this significant
p-value, which shows that WFH has a statistically significant effect on workers' work-
life balance. The results imply that individuals' capacity to successfully balance their
personal and professional obligations is influenced by the extent to which they work
from home. In order to improve employee productivity and well-being by addressing
the elements that contribute to a healthy work-life balance, organisations should take
these observations into account when optimizing their remote work rules.
So here we reject the null hypothesis which provides the information that there is no
significant impact of WFH on employee’s work life balance.
5. H0: There is no significant impact of office cost incurred and work from home
arrangements.
Table 6: ANOVA
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
Do you think WFH Between Groups 1.368 3 .456 3.556 .015
lower utility bills for Within Groups 38.342 299 .128
office (electricity, water, Total 39.710 302
etc.) for the company?
Do you think WFH Between Groups 2.131 3 .710 3.743 .012
reduce the cost of office Within Groups 56.747 299 .190
equipment and Total 58.878 302
maintenance?
Do you think WFH Between Groups 1.143 3 .381 2.853 .038
decrease the cost of Within Groups 39.933 299 .134
office supplies and Total 41.076 302
materials?
The ANOVA results presented in Table 6 examine the relationship between office
costs incurred and work-from-home (WFH) arrangements, focusing on three key
areas: utility bills, office equipment and maintenance, and office supplies and
materials. Each of these areas is analysed to test the null hypothesis (H0) that there is
no significant impact of WFH on the associated office costs.
Utility Bills: The investigation of whether WFH reduces office utility bills shows a
mean square of 0.456 based on a sum of squares between groups of 1.368 with three
degrees of freedom. With 299 degrees of freedom, the within-group sum of squares is
38.342, yielding a mean square of 0.128. This analysis's p-value (Sig.) is 0.015 and its
F-statistic is 3.556. We reject the null hypothesis since the p-value is less than the
alpha level of 0.05, indicating that WFH arrangements have a substantial effect on the
company's utility expenses.
Office Maintenance and Equipment: The second analysis looks at whether WFH
lowers office maintenance and equipment expenses. In this case, the mean square is
0.710, with the sum of squares between groups being 2.131. With a mean square of
0.190, the within-group sum of squares is still higher at 56.747. For this region, the
computed F-statistic is 3.743 and the p-value is 0.012. We are able to reject the null
hypothesis because this p-value is likewise below the alpha criterion of 0.05.
Therefore, we draw the conclusion that WFH arrangements significantly lower the
expenses of office supplies and upkeep.
Office Supplies and Materials: Whether WFH lowers the cost of office supplies and
materials are examined in the final analysis. While the sum of squares within groups
is 39.933 with a mean square of 0.134, the sum of squares across groups is 1.143 with
a mean square of 0.381. Here, the corresponding p-value is 0.038 and the F-statistic is
2.853. We reject the null hypothesis since the p-value is less than 0.05 once more,
suggesting that WFH arrangements have a significant impact on office supply and
material costs.
All things considered, the ANOVA studies show that WFH arrangements have a
statistically significant effect on a number of office expenses that businesses incur.
WFH is specifically linked to cheaper utility bills, lower maintenance and equipment
costs for offices, and lower prices for office supplies and materials. These results
imply that implementing WFH policies can be financially advantageous for
organisations since they can result in significant cost savings in a number of areas.
Therefore, while choosing their work environments, companies might want to take
into account the wider financial effects of flexible working arrangements.
So here we reject the null hypothesis which provides the information that there is no
significant impact of office cost incurred and work from home arrangements.
6. H0: There is no gender difficulty in working from home.
Table 7: Gender * How many days do you work from home per week? (if not
working from home, pls choose others) Cross tabulation
How many days do you work from home per week? (if not working
from home, pls choose others)
Permanent
work from
2 3 home No WFH Total
Gender Male 61 43 25 28 157
Female 46 46 24 29 145
Others 0 1 0 0 1
Total 107 90 49 57 303
Table 8: Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 4.143 6 .657
Likelihood Ratio 4.208 6 .649
Linear-by-Linear .812 1 .368
Association
N of Valid Cases 303
a. 4 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .16.
The data presented in Tables 7 and 8 analyze the relationship between gender and the
difficulties encountered while working from home (WFH). The null hypothesis (H0)
states that there is no significant difference in WFH difficulties based on gender.
The cross-tabulation of gender versus the weekly number of days worked from home
is displayed in Table 7. There were 303 responders in all, 157 of whom were men,
145 of whom were women, and 1 who identified as "others." According to the
distribution, 61 men work from home two days a week, 43 three days a week, 25
works from home permanently, and 28 do not. With 46 working from home two days,
46 working from home three days, 24 working from home permanently, and 29 not
working from home, the distribution of females is comparatively even. The one
person who identifies as "others" barely affects the analysis as a whole.
The Chi-Square test findings, which evaluate the independence of the variables—
gender and the frequency of WFH—is shown in Table 8. With six degrees of
freedom, the Pearson Chi-Square value is 4.143, yielding a p-value (Asymptotic
Significance) of 0.657. We are unable to reject the null hypothesis because this p-
value is far more than the conventional alpha threshold of 0.05. This finding is further
supported by the likelihood ratio and the linear-by-linear association values, both of
which have p-values over the threshold, suggesting that there is no significant
correlation between gender and WFH issues.
The lack of significant results in the Chi-Square tests implies that there is no
substantial difference in the difficulties that people of different genders confront when
working from home. This result suggests that gender is not a significant factor in
determining the prevalence of WFH or the related challenges faced by workers.
Instead of creating solutions based on gender-specific problems, organisations may
use this information to make sure that their WFH policies are inclusive and address
the common obstacles experienced by all employees, regardless of gender.
So here we accept the null hypothesis which provides the information that there is no
gender difficulty in working from home.
Table 9: Result of Hypothesis
Sr. No Hypothesis Result
H0: There is no significant impact of WFH on employee efficiency
1 Accept
and effectiveness in work.
H0: There is no relationship between WFH and distraction of
2 Accept
Employees in organization.
3 H0: There is no significant impact of WFH on job satisfaction. Reject
H0: There is no significant impact of WFH on employee’s work life
4 Reject
balance.
H0: There is no significant impact of office cost incurred and work
5 Reject
from home arrangements
6 H0: There is no gender difficulty in working from home. Accept
