4.1.

Introduction
This chapter focuses on the presentation, analysis and interpretation of the data gathered
from employees of Lideta woreda 10 public hospitals in Addis Ababa. This study's primary goal
was to evaluate variables related to employee efficiency who work in this health center. One
hundred twenty (120) questionnaires were distributed through in the health center, and 120
questionnaires were completed and retrieved efficaciously, signifying an overall 100% response
rate. Both descriptive and inferential statistics of the data were employed after data entry was
conducted using epi-data software version 4.6 and transferred to SPSS (Statistical Package for
Social Science) software version 29. For convenience and to avoid repetitions, the researcher
presents both strongly agree and agree as agree and strongly disagree and disagree as disagree.

4.2. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Employees

The demographic characteristics of the respondents are used in this subtitle to illustrate the
composition of staff members in Lideta woreda 10 public hospitals. The percentage distribution
for the research participants' gender, age, education level, experience, and position are described
in this.

1 Gender of the participant

The demographic characteristics of the respondents are used in this subtitle to illustrate the
composition of staff members in Lideta woreda 10 public hospitals. The percentage distribution
for the research participants' gender, age, experience, and position is described in this. As shown
below in the table 1; Out of the 120 participants, 68 (56.7%) were female employees and 52
(43.3%) were male employees.

Table 1:Age category of the employees working at A.A Lideta woreda 10

gender
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
 Valid male 52 43.3 43.3 43.3
female 68 56.7 56.7 100.0

Total 120 100.0 100.0

2.1.1. Age of the Participants

The participants' ages ranged from 22 to 50 years old, with a mean age of 39 and a standard
deviation of .67. More than half, or 65 employees, or 54.2%, were in the age range of (31–40),
which is the most productive and adult age group, as can be seen in the table below.

Table 2:Age category of the employees working at A.A Lideta woreda 10

age

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

Valid 21-30 age 31 25.8 25.8 25.8

31-40 age 65 54.2 54.2 80.0
41-50 age 24 20.0 20.0 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0

2.1.2. Level of Education of Employees Working at Public Hospitals

of Addis Ababa
as shown below in the table 3; 6(5%) of the 120 respondents who took part in the current survey
held master’s degree, while 36(30%) of the employees held bachelor's degrees or first degrees,
39(32.5%) of the employee hold diploma the rest of the employee that participated in the survey
which is 39(32.5%) hold certificate.

Table 3:Level of education of employees working at A.A Lideta woreda 10 health center.

education
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid master’s degree 6 5.0 5.0 5.0
 degree 36 30.0 30.0 35.0
diploma 39 32.5 32.5 67.5
certificate 39 32.5 32.5 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0

2.1.3. Work Experience of Employees

The chart below demonstrates that 38 employees, or 31.7% of the total, had work experience
ranging from one to five years, while 27 employees, or 22.5% of the total, had work experience
from six to ten years and 55 employee or 45.8% have a work experience of above ten years. This
shows almost half of the staff have a work experience of more than ten years.

Table 4:work experience of employees working at Lideta woreda 10 public hospitals in Addis
Ababa 2023

Experience
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Valid 1-5 year 38 31.7 31.7 31.7
6-10 year 27 22.5 22.5 54.2
above 10 year 55 45.8 45.8 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0

2.1.4. Position of the Employees

the figure below shows the number of employees working position that participate in this survey.
The figure shows that 67 % of the survey participant were non-managerial employees, where as
33% of the survey respondent were managerial(administrative) employees.
Figure 1:employees position working at Lideta woreda 10, A.A

4.3 . Opinion Investigation on Employees' job efficiency Characteristics

The workers' performance was evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale. The participants rate their
performance as follows: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 for Poor Performance, Fair Performance, Good
Performance, Very Good Performance, and Excellent Performance.
According to Table 6 below, the majority of participants performed well on the work
performance assessment test. It was not appropriate for any participant to react poorly to the
performance item that reads, "I effectively work with staff and I am friendly to new ideas and
Concepts. 91.7% of the respondents understand and obey the policies and procedures of the
health center. 12% of the respondent doesn’t use the resource including time and material
effectively and have a poor performance. Also 12% of the employee have poor performance on
initiating new project for the hospital benefit beside this most of the respondents have a good
overall performance.

Table 5:frequency table on Employees opinion towards training on a 5-point Likert scale

I understand and obey the policies and procedures of hospital

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Valid N 10 8.3 8.3 8.3
GP 110 91.7 91.7 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
I effectively use resources, including time and materials
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Valid P 12 10.0 10.0 10.0
N 17 14.2 14.2 24.2
 GP 91 75.8 75.8 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
I serve as many customers as possible and develop logical and
creative solutions to problem’s
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Valid P 7 5.8 5.8 5.8
N 14 11.7 11.7 17.5
GP 99 82.5 82.5 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
effectively work with staff , and i am friendly to new ideas and
concepts
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Valid N 10 8.3 8.3 8.3
GP 110 91.7 91.7 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
I actively peruse or initiate projects for the benefit of the hospital
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Valid P 12 10.0 10.0 10.0
N 12 10.0 10.0 20.0
GP 96 80.0 80.0 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0

4.4 . Opinion Investigation on Employees' Training Characteristics

Employees were asked to provide feedback on the training's features and effectiveness using a 5-
point Likert scale under this topic. On a 5-pint Likert scale, the participants expressed their
thoughts ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree (5–1). As a result, we consistently
examined their viewpoints following manipulation in addition to categorizing them prior.

The employees' correct responses to the 5-point Likert scale regarding training are displayed in
Table 4. The results show that, 81.7% of the employee agreed on the need of training programs
for their job effectiveness, while 1.7% of the employee disagree with the statement and the rest
16.7% have a neutral point of view. But the other two questions show 70% of the employee
states the health center is not providing training programs, while 5.8% of the employee disagreed
with the statement and the rest 24.2% have a neutral point of view. But 65.5% of the employee
believes they have opportunity for professional development, this shows that the employee
believes skill and professionalism is increasing while working here. but 25% of the employee
believes they have doesn’t have opportunity for professional development. In summation this
shows that even if the employee wants training programs for their job effectiveness, they are not
getting it from the center but still by working here more than have of the employee believes there
professionalism in developing.

Table 4: frequency table on Employees opinion towards training on a 5-point Likert scale

Training programs are relevant to my job effectiveness.

Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
Vali D 2 1.7 1.7 1.7
d N 20 16.7 16.7 18.3
A 98 81.7 81.7 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0

The health center provides adequate training for my job.

Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
Vali D 84 70.0 70.0 70.0
d N 29 24.2 24.2 94.2
A 7 5.8 5.8 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0

I have opportunities for professional development

Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
Vali D 30 25.0 25.0 25.0
d N 11 9.2 9.2 34.2
A 79 65.8 65.8 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0

4.5 . Opinion Investigation on Employees' motivation and incentives Characteristics

As table 5 shows Respondents were asked to provide their insights and experiences regarding
motivation and incentive mechanisms within their workplace. The table shows that 81.7% of the
respondents believes that bonuses or rewards motivate them to work hard but 81.7% of the
employee also believes that the health center doesn’t provide adequate incentives while 1.7% of
the respondent agree with the statement and 16.7% have a neutral point of view. Due to this
42.5% of the employee believes they are not motivated to work hard while 13.3% of the
employee feels motivated to work hard, the rest 34.2% of the employee have a neutral point of
view on the motivation statement. In summation more than half of the respondents believes they
are not getting enough incentives and due to that they are not motivated to work hard which
affects their job effectiveness in turn.
Table 5; frequency table on Employees opinion towards motivation and incentives on a 5-point Likert
scale

bonuses or rewards motivate me to work harder.

Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
Valid D 2 1.7 1.7 1.7
N 20 16.7 16.7 18.3
A 98 81.7 81.7 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
I am motivated to perform my job to the best of my ability.
Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
Valid SD 4 3.3 3.3 3.3
D 59 49.2 49.2 52.5
N 41 34.2 34.2 86.7
A 16 13.3 13.3 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
The health center doesn't provides adequate incentives for good
performance.
Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
Valid D 2 1.7 1.7 1.7
N 20 16.7 16.7 18.3
A 98 81.7 81.7 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
I am not satisfied with the benefits provided by the health center.
Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
Valid D 2 1.7 1.7 1.7
N 20 16.7 16.7 18.3
A 98 81.7 81.7 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
 I sometimes receives Non-monetary rewards for my achievements.
Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
Valid SD 3 2.5 2.5 2.5
D 28 23.3 23.3 25.8
N 21 17.5 17.5 43.3
A 68 56.7 56.7 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0

4.6 . Opinion Investigation on Employees' working environment Characteristics

Table 6 shows Respondents were asked to provide their insights and experiences regarding
working environment within their workplace. Below the table shows that 56.7% of the
respondents believes the physical working condition is not satisfactory while 23.3% of the
respondents doesn’t agree with the statement and the rest 20% have a neutral point of view on
this matter, also 58.3% believes the working environment have a negative impact on their
performance while the rest 23.3% of the respondents doesn’t agree with the statement and the
rest 18.3% of the respondents have a neutral point of view on the impact of the working
environment. In summation more than half of the respondents believes the working environment
of the work place is not satisfactory and have a negative impact on their effectiveness.

Table 6; frequency table on Employees opinion towards working environment on a 5-point Likert scale

The physical working conditions in my health center are not

satisfactory.
Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
Vali D 28 23.3 23.3 23.3
d N 24 20.0 20.0 43.3
A 68 56.7 56.7 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
My work environment has a negative impact my productivity.
Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
Vali D 28 23.3 23.3 23.3
d N 22 18.3 18.3 41.7
A 70 58.3 58.3 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
4.7 . Opinion Investigation on Employees' resources Characteristics

Table 7 shows Respondents were asked to provide their insights and experiences regarding
working environment within their workplace. The table shows 80.8% of the employee believes
they doesn’t have adequate resources to perform their job effectively and the technology
available at the workplaces don’t meet their standard or needs. Beside this 42.5% of the
respondents believes that the health center doesn’t timely maintenance the equipment and
resources at the workplace however 35.5% of the respondents doesn’t agree with this statement
and the rest 22.2% of respondent have a neutral point of view in this matter. In summation the
questionary shows that there is not adequate resource in the center.

Table 6:frequency table on Employees opinion towards working environment on a 5-point Likert
scale

I don't have adequate resources to perform my job effectively.

Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
Vali D 3 2.5 2.5 2.5
d N 20 16.7 16.7 19.2
A 97 80.8 80.8 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
The technology available at my workplace doesn't meets my needs.
Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
Vali D 2 1.7 1.7 1.7
d N 21 17.5 17.5 19.2
A 97 80.8 80.8 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
I don't have easy access to the materials and equipment needed for
my job.
Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
Vali D 2 1.7 1.7 1.7
d N 21 17.5 17.5 19.2
A 97 80.8 80.8 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
The health center ensures timely maintenance of equipment and
resources.
 Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
Vali D 27 22.5 22.5 22.5
d N 42 35.0 35.0 57.5
A 51 42.5 42.5 100.0

Total 120 100.0 100.0

4.8 . Opinion Investigation on Employees' Overall, Image of the

Organization
In table 8, Respondents were asked to provide their insights and experiences regarding over all
image within their workplace. The table shows 80.8% believes there is good collaboration
between colleagues at the workplace, while 30.8% have a neutral point of view on this topic. also
73.3% of the respondents’ states there is effective and clear communication within the team.
Also, more than half of the employee (51.4%) feels supported by the team members in the
workplace while 15% of the respondents don’t feel supported by their team members. In
summation more than have of the respondents believes there is a positive collaboration and
communication between the team members.

Table 7:frequency table on Employees opinion towards team and collaboration on a 5-point
Likert scale

Collaboration with colleagues is effective in my workplace

Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
Vali D 2 1.7 1.7 1.7
d N 21 17.5 17.5 19.2
A 97 80.8 80.8 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
I am proud to tell people that I work for this organization.
Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
Vali D 28 23.3 23.3 23.3
d N 21 17.5 17.5 40.8
A 71 59.2 59.2 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
In this organization, people in different departments or programs
 Try to help each other.
Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
Vali D 9 7.5 7.5 7.5
d N 23 19.2 19.2 26.7
A 88 73.3 73.3 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0

4.9Opinion Investigation on Employees over all image of the organization

In table 9, Respondents were asked to provide their insights and experiences regarding team and
collaboration within their workplace. The table shows 80.8% of the respondents believes there is
a good collaboration with in the center but 1.7% of the respondents doesn’t agree with the
statement and the rest 17.5% have a neutral point of view in this matter. Also 71% of the
respondent are proud of their organization while 23.3% of the respondent doesn’t agree with this
statement, the rest 17.5% have a neutral point of view. 88% of the respondents believes
employee in the organization help each other. In summation more than half the respondents have
a good over all image of their organization.

Table 8; frequency table on Employees opinion towards over all image of the center on a 5-point
Likert scale

Collaboration with colleagues is effective in my workplace

Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
Vali D 2 1.7 1.7 1.7
d N 21 17.5 17.5 19.2
A 97 80.8 80.8 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
I am proud to tell people that I work for this organization.
Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
Vali D 28 23.3 23.3 23.3
d N 21 17.5 17.5 40.8
A 71 59.2 59.2 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
In this organization, people in different departments or programs
Try to help each other.
 Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
Vali D 9 7.5 7.5 7.5
d N 23 19.2 19.2 26.7
A 88 73.3 73.3 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0

4.10 Opinion Investigation on Employees' stress and burnout Characteristics

In table 10, Respondents were asked to provide their insights and experiences regarding job
stress and burnout within their workplace. 77.5% of the respondents’ states that they feel burnout
due to their job and 54% of the employee feels emotionally exhausted due to the job while 48.8%
don’t agree with this statement. But 100% of the respondent states that there is no support for
their work related stress. In summation most of the respondent sates that they feel stressed due to
the job but the center or workplace doesn’t provide with support to manage this work-related
stress.

Table 9:frequency table on Employees opinion towards stress and burnout on a 5-point Likert
scale

I have experienced burnout due to my job.

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Valid A 93 77.5 77.5 77.5
SA 27 22.5 22.5 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
My job is emotionally exhausting.
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Valid SD 27 22.5 22.5 22.5
D 28 23.3 23.3 45.8
A 53 44.2 44.2 90.0
SA 12 10.0 10.0 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
Support is available to help me manage work-related stress.
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
 Valid SD 57 47.5 47.5 47.5
D 63 52.5 52.5 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0

4.11 Descriptive Statistics of Demographic characteristics and their

Influence on Employees' Work Performance

Research has shown that the sociodemographic traits of employees may have an impact on how
well they perform at work. Thus, using replies from each respondent and a variety of indicators
from the variables under consideration, the researcher aimed to investigate how the
demographics of the workforce affected their job performance at public hospitals. The
accompanying tables and narratives provide a summary and discussion of the results.

4.12 Employee’s Performance and Associated Factors

The conditions for multilinear regression analysis were completed before multilinear regression
was used. In addition to checking for homoscedasticity and multicollinearity, the data were also
examined for normality and linearity. Furthermore, as a result, the data were observed as
depicted in the figure at the index (the P-P plot of the SPSS and the Standard Residual values,
Histogram, and Skewness)

4.12.2 . Test for normality

The results of a normality test indicate whether or not the data fits a normal distribution
effectively. The graphical test method could be used to verify this normal distribution test. When
a study uses data from fewer than 100 observations and a small sample size, the normalcy
assumption becomes crucial. Although the study's observation or sample size is sufficient—more
than 100 observations—the normalcy assumption is not violated because the researcher used a
histogram to assess it.

The Normal P-P plot is used to verify that the independent and dependent variables have a linear
relationship. Using SPSS software, scatter plots of the regression residuals for each model were
created to assess whether there is a linear relationship between the dependent and independent
variables. The best way to verify the linearity assumption is to examine a scatter plot, a
histogram, or a P-P-Plot. The residuals scatter plot in figure 3 shows that the assumptions are
leaner around the

Figure 2:Normality through the P-P plot

4.12.2 . Test for homoscedastic

The term "homoscedasticity" describes the uniform distribution of errors among the variables
(Keith, 2006). This assumption is tested using statistical software scatter plots of residuals with
independent variables (Keith, 2006). Consequently, errors are uniformly distributed throughout
the independent variables, as seen in the graph below, indicating that the homoscedasticity
requirement was upheld.
 Figure 3:homoscedasticity test using scatter plot

4.13 Independent Variables and Their Association with Employees’ Efficiency

When the (p significance 2 tailed) value is less than 0.05, the correlation is considered
significant. In this study, there is a 0.000 correlation between employee performance and
training. The outcomes are noteworthy. In this study, there is a 0.000 correlation between
employee performance and motivation. The outcomes are noteworthy. The study finds a 0.000
correlation between employees' performance and their working environment. The outcomes are
noteworthy. Individual attributes have a significance level of 0.00 with regard to employees'
performance. The outcomes are noteworthy. At the level of 0.00, the organization's overall image
is substantial. Training, motivation, the work environment, supervision, individual
characteristics, and the organization's overall image are all relevant to the performance of
employees.

Table 10:Correlation of independent variables with the dependent variable (job efficiency )
Public hospitals of Lideta woreda 10.

Correlations
JE T SB WE MI WR OI M
Pearson JE 1.000
Correlation T .783 1.000
SB .800 .736 1.000
 WE .138 .236 .209 1.000
MI .757 .504 .460 .742 1.000
WR .448 .574 .388 .333 .669 1.000
OI .264 .378 .270 .903 .792 .527 1.000
M .762 .758 .779 .082 .290 .379 .173 1.000
Sig. (1- JE . <.001 <.001 .066 <.001 <.001 .002 <.001
tailed) T .000 . .000 .005 .000 .000 .000 .000
SB .000 .000 . .011 .000 .000 .001 .000
WE .066 .005 .011 . .000 .000 .000 .186
MI .000 .000 .000 .000 . .000 .000 .001
WR .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 . .000 .000
OI .002 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 . .029
M .000 .000 .000 .186 .001 .000 .029 .
N JE 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120

**: Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). TR: Training, SB: stress and burnout,
MI: Motivation and incentive , WE: Working Environment, M: management, WR: work
resource, OI: Overall Image of the organization, JE: job efficiency

4.13.3. Multicollinearity Test

Multicollinearity occurs in a regression model when one independent variable is
significantly correlated with another independent variable and one independent variable is
correlated with a linear combination of two or more independent variables (Kumar & Paul,
2004). Multicollinearity is tested using Tolerance and the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF).
According to Liu (2010), there is a serious multicollinearity issue if a variable's VIF is more
than 10. If there is a significant linear correlation between one predictor and another
predictor (or predictors), it can be found via the VIF. A tolerance number of less than 0.1
almost definitely indicates a significant collinearity issue, according to Andy (2006).

Table 11:results of multicollinearity

Model Collinearity
Statistics
Tolerance VIF
 (Constant)
T .282 3.541
SB .297 3.368
WE .132 7.580
MI .210 4.751
WR .375 2.670
OI .122 8.171
M .292 3.430

The above table 12 indicates that multicollinearity is not an issue in this study and since the
result of all variables meet the criteria, it can be concluded that the variables are correlated.

4.13.3. Model Summary

The multiple regression models consist of a table that provides the R, the R-square, and the Adjusted R-
square and the standard of error of the estimate, which can be used to determine how well a Regression
model fits the data. R Square is a key output of regression analysis.

Table 12:Model summary of Regression Analysis

Model Summary
Mod R R Adjusted R Std. Error of Durbin-
el Square Square the Estimate Watson
a
1 .866 .751 .735 0.367 0.934
a. Predictors: (Constant), M, WE, WR, SB, T, MI, OI
b. Dependent Variable: JE

The results of multiple regressions above, as shown in Table 13, demonstrate that the coefficient
of determination, i.e., adjusted R square, is 0.735, or73.5%. This translates into 73.5% diversity
in the variation of performance (knowledge production, acquisition, storage, sharing, and
application) and KM factors (organizational culture, structure, and technology). That is a factor
affecting the efficiency facet at Lideta woreda health center that has an 73.5% influence on the
organization's efficiency.

4.13.3 ANOVA Table

The p-value in the ANOVA table (0.000) indicates that accepting at least one of the components
of job efficiency at Lideta woreda 10 health center (motivation and incentive, work environment,
team collaboration, work resource, stress and burnout, training) had a significant connection with
organizational performance metrics. The P-value is less than the 0.05 level of significance. It can
be conclude that this factors strongly affect the organizational efficiency.

Table 13:Anova

ANOVAa
Model Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
1 Regression 364.032 9 40.448 4.725 <.001
b

Residual 941.559 110 8.560

Total 1305.592 119
a. Dependent Variable: JE

b. Predictors: (Constant), SB, TC, WR, WE, WLB, JS, M, MI, T

4.13.3. Coefficients
Table 4.15 Coefficients also shows that motivation and incentive, work environment, over all
image of organization, work resource, stress and burnout, training have a significant relationship
to Lideta woreda 10 employee job efficiency at a 99% confidence level, as their p-values are
0.000, which is less than the significance level of 0.05. However, work environment, over all
image of organization, and management had no significant influence on performance because
their p-values were more than 0.05 (p-values 0.4, 0.133, and 0.104 respectively). These findings
imply that training, stress and burnout, work resource, and motivation and incentive are all
positively related to employee job efficiency.
Table 14:Coefficients
Coefficients
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
B Std. Beta Tolerance VIF
Error
1 (Constant) -4.357 2.034 - .034
2.142
T .972 .266 .324 3.651 <.001 .282 3.541
SB .983 .178 .479 5.528 <.001 .297 3.368
 WE -.251 .298 -.110 -.843 .401 .132 7.580
MI -.395 .195 -.209 - .045 .210 4.751
2.028
WR .227 .194 .090 1.171 .044 .375 2.670
OI .514 .339 .204 1.514 .133 .122 8.171
M .313 .191 .143 1.639 .104 .292 3.430
a. Dependent Variable: JE

4.14. Hypothesis Testing

Finding the probability that a population parameter is likely to be true is the goal of hypothesis
testing. The value specified in the null hypothesis is tested for likelihood of truth by the
researcher. A claim that directly conflicts with the null hypothesis is known as an alternative
hypothesis (Ha). The importance of accepting or rejecting the (null) hypotheses is expressed by
the significance (sig.) value. The likelihood that the connection is one by chance is expressed as
the p-value. Consequently, it will be preferable if the p-value is smaller. According to Pallant J.
(2011), the basic guideline is to accept H0 if p >.05 and reject H0 if p <.05.

Testing results discussed as follows:

Hypothesis 1
 HO1: The work efficiency of personnel in Lideta woreda 10 health sector is unaffected by
their training.

 Ha1: work efficiency in the public hospital sector is impacted by employee training.
Given that the variable's p-value is less than 0.05, it may be concluded that training affects
work performance. Thus, we can accept the alternative hypothesis (Ha1) and reject the null
hypothesis (Ho1).

Hypothesis 2

 Ho2: Employees motivation has no effect on employees work performance in Lideta woreda
10 health sector

 Ha2: Employees motivation has effect on employees work performance in the sector of
public hospitals.
 Because the variable's p-value is less than 0.05., the preceding table also demonstrates
employee motivation for supporting their coworkers' job efficiency in public hospitals. As a
result, we can accept the alternative hypothesis (Ha2) and reject the null hypothesis (Ho2).

Hypothesis 3:

 HO3: There is no relationship between an employee's stress and burnout and their
productivity in the Lideta woreda 10 health center.

 Ha3: stress and burnout traits have an impact on how well individuals perform at work in the
public hospital sector.
This indicates that personal traits have an impact on job performance because the
variable's p-value is less than 0.05. Thus, we can accept the alternative hypothesis (Ha3)
and reject the null hypothesis (Ho3).

 HO4: There is no relationship between an employee's work resource and their efficiency in
the Lideta woreda 10 health center

 Ha4: work resources have an impact on how well individuals perform at work in the Lideta
woreda 10 health center.

This indicates that work resources have an impact on job performance because the
variable's p-value is less than 0.05. Thus, we can accept the alternative hypothesis (Ha4)
and reject the null hypothesis (Ho4).

 HO5: The work environment in the public hospital sector has no bearing on the productivity
of employees.

 Ha5: The working environment in the public hospital sector affects how well employees
perform at work.
Table 15 demonstrates that there is no relationship between the working environment
and work performance because the variable's p-value is higher than 0.05. Thus, we can
reject the alternative hypothesis (Ha5) and accept the null hypothesis (Ho5).

 HO6: Over all image of the organization has a no significant effect has effect on employees
work performance in the sector of public hospitals.

 Ha6: Over all image of the organization has a significant effect on employees work
 efficiency on Lideta woreda 10 health center.

Table 15 demonstrates that there is no relationship between the Overall image of the
organization and work efficiency because the variable's p-value is higher than 0.05. Thus, we
can reject the alternative hypothesis (Ha5) and accept the null hypothesis (Ho5).

 HO7: management has a n o significant effect on employees work efficiency in the health
sector

 Ha7: management has a significant effect on employees work efficiency in the health
sector

Table 15 demonstrates that there is no relationship between the management and work
efficiency because the variable's p-value is higher than 0.05. Thus, we can reject the
alternative hypothesis (Ha6) and accept the null hypothesis (Ho6).

Table 15:Hypothesis testing summary

No Hypothesis Tool Result

Ha1 Employees training have effect on employees Inferential Accepted

work efficiency in the sector of public hospitals. regression

Ha2 Employees motivation has effect on employees work Inferential Accepted

efficiency in the sector of public hospitals. regression

Ha3 Employee stress and burnout has effect on employees Inferential Accepted
work efficiency in the sector of public hospitals. regression

Ha4 Employee work resource has effect on employees work Inferential Accepted
efficiency in the sector of public hospitals. regression

Ha5 Work environment of the organization has effect has Inferential Rejected
effect on employees work efficiency in the sector of regression
public hospitals.

Ha6 Over all image of the organization has a significant Inferential Rejected
 effect on employees work efficiency on Lideta woreda regression
10 health center

Ha7 Management has a significant effect on employees Inferential Rejected

work efficiency in the health sector