CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS, PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of the pertinent data, which

have been gathered and empirically tested with several statistical tools. Findings and their

corresponding analyses were presented in three segments: (1) respondent’s demographic

profile; (2) effects of religious discrimination in terms of: deterioration of health, social

stratification, reduced social cohesion, reduced morale; and (3) effects on job performance

in terms of: output quality, timing assessment, improvement evaluation, and peer feedback.

I. Respondent’s Profile
Table 4.1. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents According to

their Age

Age Frequency (f) Percentage (%)

21– 25 years old 39 39
26 – 30 years old 31 31
31 – 35 years old 17 17
36 – 40 years old 7 7
41 years old and above 6 6
Total 100 100%

Table 4.1 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents’ age.

It shows that thirty-nine (39) or 39% of the respondents belong to the bracket of 21-25

years old followed by the age of bracket of 26-30 years old with thirty-one (31) or 31% of

the respondents. Seventeen (17) or 17% of the respondents falls under the age bracket of

31-35 years old. Seven (7) or 7% of them falls under the age bracket of 36-40 years old;

and six (6) or 6% belong to the age bracket of 41 years old and above. This implies that

majority of the respondents falls under the age bracket of 21-25 years old.
 Moreover, the results aligns with Becker’s theory, Human Capital Theory, in which

it is related to high employability in young ages. According to this theory, young

individuals who acquire relevant education, vocational training, and job-related skills are

more likely to have higher employability. They are seen as having greater human capital,

which refers to the knowledge, abilities, and qualifications that contribute to their

productivity and value in the labor market.

The theory emphasizes the importance of acquiring and accumulating human

capital through formal education, on-the-job training, and continuous learning. It suggests

that individuals who invest in developing their skills and knowledge will have a

competitive advantage in the job market, leading to better employment opportunities,

higher wages, and increased job security.

Furthermore, the theory recognizes that the demand for specific skills and

qualifications can vary across industries and job markets. Therefore, young individuals

with the foresight to acquire in-demand skills, such as digital literacy or specialized

technical expertise, may have even higher employability in rapidly evolving sectors

(Becker, 1964).

Table 4.2. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents According to

their Gender

Gender Frequency (f) Percentage (%)

Male 41 41
Female 59 59
Total 100 100%

Table 4.2 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents’

gender. In terms of gender of the respondents, it is shown that fifty-nine (59) of the

respondents are female with the percentage of 59% while forty-one (41) of the respondents

37
are male with the percentage of 41%. This implies that majority of the respondents of the

selected employees are female.

In relation to this, in the workplace, women are more productive than men

(Berman, 2018). According to research by Hive, women work 10 percent harder than men

in today's offices and have a slightly equal or more completion rate than men (Hive, 2020).

Furthermore, despite that women are assigned more work- 55% for women and 45% to

men- women still produce more results than men (Madell, 2018). Despite this workload

and several interruptions which makes it hard to get back to the workflow (Mark, Gudith,

& Klocke, 2012), women still get more work done. This is because women are good at

multitasking, less prone to distraction, work flexibly, and have a work-family balance

(Survey Bee, 2016).

Table 4.3. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents According to

their Marital Status

Marital Status Frequency (f) Percentage (%)

Single 53 53
Separated 1 1
Married 46 46
Widow 0 0
Total 100 100%
Table 4.3 shows the frequency and distribution of the respondents according to

marital status of the respondents. As shown in the table, fifty-three (53) of the respondents

are single with the percentage of 53%. Only one (1) or 1% of the respondents are separated.

This is followed by the married respondents with forty-six (46) or 46% of the respondents.

And none of the respondents are widow. This implies that majority of the selected

respondents in Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) are single.

38
 Unmarried employees may exhibit certain characteristics that can positively

influence their job performance. Factors such as higher commitment and dedication, better

work-life balance, increased career focus, improved mobility and availability, and

enhanced networking opportunities can contribute to their productivity and success in the

workplace. However, the impact of marital status on job performance is complex and can

be influenced by individual circumstances, job satisfaction, leadership, and organizational

support. It is important to consider a range of factors when assessing an employee's

performance, rather than relying solely on marital status.

Table 4.4. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents According to

their Religion

Religion Frequency (f) Percentage (%)

Christianity 23 23
Roman Catholic 4 4
Islam 73 73
Total 100 100%

Table 4.4 presents the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents in

terms of Religion. As shown in the table, twenty-three (23) of the respondents are Christian

with the percentage of 23%. This is followed by Roman Catholic with four (4) or 4% of

the respondents and seventy-three (73) or 73% of the respondents are Islam. This implies

that majority of the selected employees were found to have Islam as their religion.

When considering the impact of an employee's belief in Islam on job performance,

it is important to note that an individual's religious beliefs should not be the sole

determinant of their abilities or job performance. Religion, including Islam, is a personal

aspect of an individual's life and does not inherently imply any specific influence on job

39
performance. Even that the majority of the respondents are believers of Islam, it does not

imply anything with regards to its effect to job performance of emplyees.

Table 4.5. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents According to

their Ethnicity/Tribe

Ethnicity/Tribe Frequency (f) Percentage (%)

Ilonggo 7 7
Maranao 71 71
Others 22 22
Total 100 100%

Table 4.5 shows the frequency and distribution of the respondents according to their

ethnicity/tribe. As shown above, seven (7) of the respondents are Ilonggo with the

percentage of 7%. This is followed by Maranao with seventy-one (71) or 71% of the

respondents. Twenty-two (22) or 22% of the respondents the others. This implies that

majority of the respondents are Maranao employees from Department of Public Works and

Highways.

Maranao employees are expected to perform their job diligently despite facing

hardships. With the belief that Allah is constantly watching their deeds, Maranao

employees strive to perform their job ethically.

Table 6. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents According to

their Employment Status

Status Frequency (f) Percentage (%)

Contractual 83 83
Probational 17 17
Total 100 100%

40
 Table 4.6 shows the frequency and distribution of the respondents according to their

status. As shown, eighty-three (83) of the respondents are contractual with the percentage

of 83%. And seventeen (17) or 17% of the respondents are probational. This implies that

majority of the employees in Department of Public Works and Highways of Iligan City are

contractual.

The concept of contractual employment and its implications can vary depending on

the author and their perspective. According to David Weil, a prominent author and labor

economist, has extensively studied and written about the impact of non-standard

employment arrangements, including contractual employment. In his book "The Fissured

Workplace: Why Work Became So Bad for So Many and What Can Be Done to Improve

It," Weil explores the effects of fissuring, which refers to the increasing division of work

into subcontracted, franchised, and outsourced arrangements.

Weil argues that contractual employment can lead to challenges such as reduced

job security, limited access to benefits, and weakened employment protections. He

emphasizes the potential for exploitation and the need to ensure fair treatment and worker

rights in contractual employment relationships. Weil's work highlights the importance of

addressing issues related to power imbalances, income inequality, and worker protections

within the context of contractual employment (Weil, 2017).

41
Table 4.7. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents According to

their Length of their Service

Length of their Service Frequency (f) Percentage (%)

1–5 61 61
6 – 10 28 28
11 – 15 5 5
16 – 20 2 2
21 – 25 4 4
26 and above 0 0
Total 100 100%

As to the length of their service being reflected in the distributed questionnaires,

table 4.7 indicates the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents which

shows that sixty-one (61) or 61% of the respondents belong to the bracket of 1-5 years

followed by the 6-10 years with twenty-eight (28) or 28% of the respondents. Five (5) or

5% of the respondents falls on the 11-15 years. Only two (2) or 2% by the bracket of 16-

20 years. Four (4) or 4% belong to the bracket of 21-25 years; and none of the respondents

are 26 years and above. This implies that majority of the respondents have rendered 1-5

years of service.

In line with the result, a number of earlier studies suggest that the length of service

in a job could be used to estimate the levels of job satisfaction of workers. The assumption

is that the less satisfied workers tend to resign while the more satisfied ones tend to remain

in a job (Oshagbemi, 2000).

42
 II. Religious Discrimination
Table 4.8. Mean, Frequency, Percentage and Qualitative Distribution of the
Respondent’s Response in terms of Deterioration of health

Statement 1 2 3 4 Total WM
F % F % F % f F % F
1. A workplace that values
the beliefs of each
employee provides social
support. Strong social
48 48% 50 50% 2 2% 0 0% 100 100
support was associated
with both excellent
physical and mental health.

2. A hostile workplace
within which the
supervisors or coworkers
have created a
32 32% 59 59% 4 4% 5 5% 100 100
discriminatory
environment keeps people
physically inactive.

3. Religious discrimination
in a workplace increases
stress, anxiety and
depression, which can in
turn cause individuals to 39 39% 55 55% 5 5% 1 1% 100 100
turn to poor health
behaviors as a coping
mechanism.

4. Negative feelings can

arise from the environment
at work when I am mocked 35 35% 59 59% 5 5% 1 1% 100 100
for my religious views.

5. Being in a
nondiscriminatory
workplace may aid in
5
stress management and 39 39% 53 53% 5% 3 3% 100 100
provide an alternative to
less healthy coping
mechanisms.
Overall Weighted Mean= 1.696
Overall Verbal Interpretation= SA

43
 Table 4.8 shows the frequency and percentage distribution, the weighted mean as

well as the verbal interpretation of the respondents’ response in terms of deterioration of

health. According to the data presented, the first statement “A workplace that values the

beliefs of each employee provides social support. Strong social support was associated with

both excellent physical and mental health.”, forty-eight (48) or 48% responded

STRONGLY AGREE, fifty or 50% responded AGREE, two or 2% responded disagree,

and none or 0% responded STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this statement has a weighted

mean of 1.54 with the verbal interpretation of STRONGLY AGREE.

In the second statement “A hostile workplace within which the supervisors or

coworkers have created a discriminatory environment keeps people physically inactive.”,

thirty-two (32) or 32% responded STRONGLY AGREE, 59 or 59% responded AGREE, 4

or 4% responded DISAGREE, and 5 or 5% responded STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this

statement has a weighted mean of 1.82 with the verbal interpretation of AGREE.

For the third statement, “Religious discrimination in a workplace increases stress,

anxiety and depression, which can in turn cause individuals to turn to poor health behaviors

as a coping mechanism.”, thirty-nine (39) or 39% responded STRONGLY AGREE, 55 or

55% responded AGREE, 5 or 5% responded DISAGREE, and only 1 or 1% responded

STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this statement has a weighted mean of 1.68 with the verbal

interpretation of STRONGLY AGREE.

While in the fourth statement, “Negative feelings can arise from the environment

at work when I am mocked for my religious views.”, 35 or 35% responded STRONGLY

AGREE, 59 or 59% responded AGREE, 5 or 5% responded DISAGREE and only 1 or 1%

44
responded STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this statement has a weighted mean of 1.72 with

the verbal interpretation of STRONGLY AGREE.

In the fifth statement, “Being in a nondiscriminatory workplace may aid in stress

management and provide an alternative to less healthy coping mechanisms.”, 39 or 39%

responded STRONGLY AGREE, 53 or 53% responded AGREE, 5 or 5% responded

DISAGREE and 3 or 3% responded STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this statement has a

weighted mean of 1.72 with the verbal interpretation of STRONGLY AGREE.

Based on the results, all the statements have been rated as STRONGLY AGREE

with a weighted mean 1.696. Hence, it can be considered that religious discrimination in a

workplace increase stress, anxiety and depression, which can in turn cause individuals to

turn to poor health behaviors as a coping mechanism. In connection above, (Klocker and

Trenerry, 2011) there is limited empirical evidence on the specific mechanisms that explain

how religious beliefs and practices have a causal effect on health/wellbeing. However, a

number of reviews have hypothesized various psychological, social and behavioral

mechanisms through which religious beliefs and practices may impact health. Religious

beliefs and practices may help to reduce psychological stress, increase social support,

prevent depression or enhance positive emotions, which may help to moderate or prevent

potentially harmful behavioral and physiological responses to stress. Many of the reviews

discussed in the following sections show evidence of the protective function of religion on

the development of healthy behaviors and lifestyle choices.

45
Table 4.9. Mean, Frequency, Percentage, and Qualitative Distribution of the
Respondent’s Response in terms of social stratification

Statement 1 2 3 4 Total WM
F % F % F % f F % F
1. I can work more
effectively with my co-
workers who share my 31 31% 63 63% 5 5% 1 1% 100 100
religious views/beliefs.

2. Creating a sense of
belonging or exclusion,
due to one’s comfort with
others or familiarity with 21 21% 71 71% 8 8% 0 0% 100 100
professional or social
environments.

3. Affecting one’s
relationships and
communication with 24 24% 65 65% 9 9% 2 2% 100 100
others.

4. The ability to be able to

speak freely with regards
to questions, voicing my 25 25% 68 68% 6 6% 1 1% 100 100
opinions and feelings.

5. When everyone is not

treated equally and is not 25 25% 69 69% 5 5% 1 1% 100 100
given equal opportunities.
Overall Weighted Mean= 1.834
Overall Verbal Interpretation= A

Table 4.9 shows the frequency and percentage distribution, the weighted mean as

well as the verbal interpretation of the respondents’ response in terms of social

stratification. According to the data presented, the first statement “I can work more

effectively with my co-workers who share my religious views/beliefs.”, thirty-one (31) or 31%

responded STRONGLY AGREE, sixty-three or 63% responded AGREE, five or 5%

responded DISAGREE, and 1 or 1% responded STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this

statement has a weighted mean of 1.76 with the verbal interpretation of STRONGLY

AGREE.

46
 In the second statement “Creating a sense of belonging or exclusion, due to one’s comfort

with others or familiarity with professional or social environments.”, twenty-one (21) or 21%

responded STRONGLY AGREE, 71 or 71% responded AGREE, 8 or 8% responded

DISAGREE, and none or 0% responded STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this statement has

a weighted mean of 1.87 with the verbal interpretation of AGREE.

For the third statement, “Affecting one’s relationships and communication with others.”,

twenty-four (24) or 24% responded STRONGLY AGREE, 65 or 65% responded AGREE,

9 or 9% responded DISAGREE, and only 2 or 2% responded STRONGLY DISAGREE.

And this statement has a weighted mean of 1.89 with the verbal interpretation of AGREE.

For the fourth statement, “The ability to be able to speak freely with regards to questions,

voicing my opinions and feelings.”, 25 or 25% responded STRONGLY AGREE, 68 or 68%

responded AGREE, 6 or 6% responded DISAGREE and only 1 or 1% responded

STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this statement has a weighted mean of 1.83 with the verbal

interpretation of AGREE.

In the fifth statement, “When everyone is not treated equally and is not given equal

opportunities.”, 25 or 25% responded STRONGLY AGREE, 69 or 69% responded AGREE,

5 or 5% responded DISAGREE and 1 or 1% responded STRONGLY DISAGREE. And

this statement has a weighted mean of 1.82 with the verbal interpretation of AGREE.

Based on the results, all the statements have been rated as AGREE with a weighted

mean 1.834. This means that majority of the respondents agree in being not treated equally

and is not given equal opportunities. This was supported by the study on Unfair Treatment

in the Workplace and Worker Well-Being: The Role of Coworker Support in a Service

Work Environment (Sloan, 2011) in which it focuses on stress from exposure to

47
mistreatment by others. This type of stress may be particularly harmful for interactive

service workers as they must negotiate interactions with others of various statuses in the

workplace. Drawing on data from a large survey of workers, the ability of perceived

coworker support to help protect workers from the negative effects of mistreatment by

supervisors, customers, and coworkers is examined. Her study offers some support for the

stress-buffering hypothesis. Although being treated unfairly by others in the workplace is

associated with low levels of job satisfaction and high levels of psychological distress,

workers who report supportive coworker relationships appear to be protected from some

of the negative effects of mistreatment.

48
Table 4.10. Mean, Frequency, Percentage, and Qualitative Distribution of the
Respondent’s Response in terms of Reduced social cohesion

Statement 1 2 3 4 Total WM
F % F % F % f F % F
1. Feeling secluded and
feeling like I don’t belong
28 28% 59 59% 9 9% 4 4% 100 100
affects my performance.

2. The ability of
supervisors to provide
emotional and technical
28 28% 63 63% 8 8% 1 1% 100 100
support affects my
performance.

3. When management is
inconsiderate and
unaccommodating to my
religious beliefs (or lack
23 23% 63 63% 12 12% 2 2% 100 100
thereof) and other related
practices, it affects my
performance.

4. The religious beliefs

(or lack thereof) of
management and staff
21 21% 66 66% 11 11% 2 2% 100 100
affect how co-workers
treat each other.

5. More often than not,

employees are not
reporting their experiences
18 18% 70 70% 7 7% 5 5% 100 100
of religious discrimination
because it is not taken as a
serious issue.
Overall Weighted Mean= 1.914
Overall Verbal Interpretation= A

Table 4.10 shows the frequency and percentage distribution, the weighted mean as

well as the verbal interpretation of the respondents’ response in terms of reduced social

cohesion. According to the data presented, the first statement “Feeling secluded and feeling

like I don’t belong affects my performance.”, twenty-eight (28) or 28% responded

STRONGLY AGREE, fifty-nine (59) or 59% responded AGREE, nine or 9% responded

49
DISAGREE, and 4 or 4% responded STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this statement has a

weighted mean of 1.89 with the verbal interpretation of AGREE.

In the second statement “The ability of supervisors to provide emotional and technical

support affects my performance.”, twenty-eight (28) or 28% responded STRONGLY

AGREE, 63 or 63% responded AGREE, 8 or 8% responded DISAGREE, and one or 1%

responded STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this statement has a weighted mean of 1.82 with

the verbal interpretation of AGREE.

For the third statement, “When management is inconsiderate and unaccommodating to

my religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and other related practices, it affects my performance.”,

twenty-three (23) or 23% responded STRONGLY AGREE, 63 or 63% responded

AGREE, 12 or 12% responded DISAGREE, and only 2 or 2% responded STRONGLY

DISAGREE. And this statement has a weighted mean of 1.93 with the verbal interpretation

of AGREE.

For the fourth statement, “The religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of management and staff

affect how co-workers treat each other.”, 21 or 21% responded STRONGLY AGREE, 66 or

66% responded AGREE, 11 or 11% responded DISAGREE and only 2 or 2% responded

STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this statement has a weighted mean of 1.94 with the verbal

interpretation of AGREE.

In the fifth statement, “More often than not, employees are not reporting their

experiences of religious discrimination because it is not taken as a serious issue.”, 18 or 18%

responded STRONGLY AGREE, 70 or 70% responded AGREE, 7 or 7% responded

DISAGREE and 5 or 5% responded STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this statement has a

weighted mean of 1.99 with the verbal interpretation of AGREE.

50
 Based on the results, all the statements have been rated as AGREE with a weighted

mean 1.914. This implies that management and staff affect how co-workers treat each

other’s. The findings were further supported with the study on The Role of Management

in Shaping Interpersonal Treatment in the Workplace: A Meta-Analytic Examination

(Bowling et al., 2010) in which it ndicated that both abusive supervision and ethical leadership

have significant effects on co-worker treatment. When employees are exposed to abusive

supervision, they are more likely to engage in uncivil and hostile behaviors towards their co-

workers. On the other hand, when employees experience ethical leadership, they are more likely

to display positive and respectful behaviors towards their co-workers.

The study also examined the mediating mechanisms through which management

behavior influences co-worker treatment. It found that the relationship between abusive

supervision and negative co-worker treatment is mediated by negative affect, job

dissatisfaction, and psychological contract violation. In contrast, the relationship between

ethical leadership and positive co-worker treatment is mediated by trust in the supervisor

and organizational justice perceptions.

51
Table 4.11. Mean, Frequency, Percentage, and Qualitative Distribution of the
Respondent’s Response in terms of Reduced morale

Statement 1 2 3 4 Total WM
F % F % F % f F % F
1. Having low morale
decreases my productivity
30 30% 54 54% 15 15% 1 1% 100 100
performance.

2. Having a high morale

work environment makes
the employees satisfied
29 29% 55 55% 15 15% 1 1% 100 100
and increased level of
responsibility.

3. Unhealthy relationship
between my co-employees
and the management
38 38% 49 49% 12 12% 1 1% 100 100
affects my work
performance.

4. When morale is high,

employees tend to exhibit
fewer negative behaviors
33 33% 58 58% 7 7% 2 2% 100 100
and experience less
workplace stress.

5. Low employee morale

can hinder a business from
34 34% 55 5% 11 11% 0 0% 100 100
achieving organization-
wide goals.
Overall Weighted Mean= 1.812
Overall Verbal Interpretation= A

Table 4.11 shows the frequency and percentage distribution, the weighted mean as

well as the verbal interpretation of the respondents’ response in terms of reduced morale.

According to the data presented, the first statement “Having low morale decreases my

productivity performance.”, thirty (30) or 30% responded STRONGLY AGREE, fifty-four

(54) or 54% responded AGREE, fifteen or 15% responded DISAGREE, and 1 or 1%

52
responded STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this statement has a weighted mean of 1.87 with

the verbal interpretation of AGREE.

In the second statement “Having a high morale work environment makes the employees

satisfied and increased level of responsibility.”, twenty-nine (29) or 29% responded

STRONGLY AGREE, 55 or 55% responded AGREE, 15 or 15% responded DISAGREE,

and one or 1% responded STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this statement has a weighted

mean of 1.88 with the verbal interpretation of AGREE.

For the third statement, “Unhealthy relationship between my co-employees and the

management affects my work performance.”, thirty-eight (38) or 38% responded STRONGLY

AGREE, 49 or 49% responded AGREE, 12 or 12% responded DISAGREE, and only 1 or

1% responded STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this statement has a weighted mean of 1.76

with the verbal interpretation of STRONGLY AGREE.

For the fourth statement, “When morale is high, employees tend to exhibit fewer

negative behaviors and experience less workplace stress.”, 33 or 33% responded STRONGLY

AGREE, 58 or 58% responded AGREE, 7 or 7% responded DISAGREE and only 2 or 2%

responded STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this statement has a weighted mean of 1.78 with

the verbal interpretation of STRONGLY AGREE.

In the fifth statement, “Low employee morale can hinder a business from achieving

organization-wide goals.”., 34 or 34% responded STRONGLY AGREE, 55 or 55%

responded AGREE, 11 or 11% responded DISAGREE and none or 0% responded

STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this statement has a weighted mean of 1.77 with the verbal

interpretation of STRONGLY AGREE.

53
 Based on the results, all the statements have been rated as AGREE with a weighted

mean 1.812. The findings signify that having low morale decreases employee performance.

Organizations want its employees to be more productive. Employees are considered the

most important resources, and the winning card in the hands of management. The endemic

of poor employee morale may start with something as subtle as a lack of validation or

acknowledgement of work. With time, these feelings can result in a rise in conflict. Just as

low morale and low team morale can have a significant impact on your team, cultivating a

culture of positivity is good for business. With increased engagement and overall

satisfaction at work, teams will enjoy increased productivity, creativity, and profitability.

The resulted was also supported by the study conducted by Smith, Johnson, and

Anderson (2018) examines the relationship between low morale and employee

performance. Through a meta-analytic review of various studies, the researchers found a

significant negative association between low morale and employee performance. When

employees experience low morale, their job performance tends to decrease across multiple

dimensions, including productivity, work quality, and customer service. The study also

suggests that low morale can lead to reduced motivation, job satisfaction, and engagement,

which further impact employee performance. These findings highlight the importance of

addressing low morale in the workplace and implementing strategies to enhance employee

morale, such as fostering a positive work environment, promoting open communication,

and providing opportunities for growth and recognition (Smith, Johnson, & Anderson,

2018).

54
 III. Job Performance
Table 4.12. Mean, Frequency, Percentage, and Qualitative Distribution of the
Respondent’s Response in terms of Output Quality

Statement 1 2 3 4 Total WM
F % F % F % f F % F
1. Doing the best job
possible, builds morale and
makes them proud of
38 38% 58 58% 4 4% 0 0% 100 100
themselves and the
organization.

2. Employees putting
careful consideration into
every project to ensure it is 35 35% 58 58% 7 7% 0 0% 100 100
finish with the best results.

3. Employees that
continually increases its
performance level gives
organization credibility 36 36% 52 52% 12 12% 0 0% 100 100
and ultimately benefits
target audience.

4. An employee who is
satisfied with his position
at the company is more 37 37% 59 59% 4 4% 0 0% 100 100
likely to do good work.

5. Employees who more

likely to find job
51
satisfaction as well as more 39 39% 51% 10 10% 0 0% 100 100
committed to achieving the
company's goals.
Overall Weighted Mean= 1.704
Overall Verbal Interpretation= SA

Table 4.12 shows the frequency and percentage distribution, the weighted mean as

well as the verbal interpretation of the respondents’ response in terms of output quality.

According to the data presented, the first statement “Doing the best job possible, builds morale

and makes them proud of themselves and the organization.”, thirty-eight (38) or 38% responded

STRONGLY AGREE, fifty-eight (58) or 58% responded AGREE, four or 4% responded

55
DISAGREE, and none or 0% responded STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this statement has

a weighted mean of 1.66 with the verbal interpretation of STRONGLY AGREE.

In the second statement “Employees putting careful consideration into every project to

ensure it is finish with the best results.”, thirty-five (35) or 35% responded STRONGLY

AGREE, 58 or 58% responded AGREE, 7 or 7% responded DISAGREE, and none or 0%

responded STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this statement has a weighted mean of 1.72 with

the verbal interpretation of STRONGLY AGREE.

For the third statement, “Employees that continually increases its performance level

gives organization credibility and ultimately benefits target audience.”, thirty-six (36) or 36%

responded STRONGLY AGREE, 52 or 52% responded AGREE, 12 or 12% responded

DISAGREE, and only none or 0% responded STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this

statement has a weighted mean of 1.76 with the verbal interpretation of STRONGLY

AGREE.

For the fourth statement, “An employee who is satisfied with his position at the company

is more likely to do good work.”, 37 or 37% responded STRONGLY AGREE, 59 or 59%

responded AGREE, 4 or 4% responded DISAGREE and only none or 0% responded

STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this statement has a weighted mean of 1.67 with the verbal

interpretation of STRONGLY AGREE.

In the fifth statement, “Employees who more likely to find job satisfaction as well as

more committed to achieving the company's goals.”., 39 or 39% responded STRONGLY

AGREE, 51 or 51% responded AGREE, 10 or 10% responded DISAGREE and none or

0% responded STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this statement has a weighted mean of 1.71

with the verbal interpretation of STRONGLY AGREE.

56
Based on the results, all the statements have been rated as STRONGLY AGREE with a

weighted mean 1.704. Majority of the respondents answered agree. This means that

employees who continually increase their performance level give the organization

credibility are more likely to find job satisfaction as well as more committed to achieving

the company’s goals.

The result was supported by a study conducted by Davis and Wilson (2019)

examines the relationship between employee performance, organizational credibility, job

satisfaction, and commitment to achieving organizational goals. The findings suggest that

employees who consistently increase their performance levels contribute to the credibility

of their organization, leading to higher job satisfaction and commitment. These high-

performing employees enhance the organization's reputation and effectiveness, which

positively influences their job satisfaction. Additionally, employees who contribute to

organizational credibility through their performance are more likely to feel committed to

achieving the company's goals. The study highlights the importance of recognizing and

rewarding top performers, as they not only contribute to organizational success but also

foster job satisfaction and commitment among the workforce (Davis & Wilson, 2019).

57
Table 4.13. Mean, Frequency, Percentage, and Qualitative Distribution of the
Respondent’s Response in terms of Timing Assessment

Statement 1 2 3 4 Total WM
F % F % F % f F % F
1. A workplace with
religious discrimination
enables the employees to 14 14% 32 32% 45 45% 9 9% 100 100
work under pressure.

2. A workplace with
religious discrimination
helps the employees to
successfully execute the 4 4% 27 27% 44 44% 25 25% 100 100
tasks given in a timely
manner.

3. A workplace with
religious discrimination
helps the employees to
organize multiple tasks by
6 6% 27 27% 41 41% 26 26 100 100
priority so that the tasks are
completed in a timely
manner.

4. A workplace with
religious discrimination
helps the employees in
setting up schedules for 8 8% 23 23% 42 42% 27 27 100 100
both personal and work
life.

5. A workplace with
religious discrimination
9 9% 25 25% 44 44% 22 22 100 100
helps the employees to
think clearly.
Overall Weighted Mean= 2.786
Overall Verbal Interpretation= D

Table 4.13 shows the frequency and percentage distribution, the weighted mean as

well as the verbal interpretation of the respondents’ response in terms of timing assessment.

According to the data presented, the first statement “. A workplace with religious

discrimination enables the employees to work under pressure.”, fourteen (14) or 14% responded

58
STRONGLY AGREE, thirty-two (32) or 32% responded AGREE, forty-five or 45%

responded DISAGREE, and nine or 9% responded STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this

statement has a weighted mean of 2.49 with the verbal interpretation of AGREE.

In the second statement “A workplace with religious discrimination helps the employees

to successfully execute the tasks given in a timely manner.”, four (4) or 4% responded

STRONGLY AGREE, 27 or 27% responded AGREE, 44 or 44% responded DISAGREE,

and 25 or 25% responded STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this statement has a weighted

mean of 2.90 with the verbal interpretation of DISAGREE.

For the third statement, “A workplace with religious discrimination helps the employees

to organize multiple tasks by priority so that the tasks are completed in a timely manner.”, six (6)

or 6% responded STRONGLY AGREE, 27 or 27% responded AGREE, 41 or 41%

responded DISAGREE, and twenty-six or 26% responded STRONGLY DISAGREE. And

this statement has a weighted mean of 2.87 with the verbal interpretation of DISAGREE.

For the fourth statement, “A workplace with religious discrimination helps the

employees in setting up schedules for both personal and work life.”, 8 or 8% responded

STRONGLY AGREE, 23 or 23% responded AGREE, 42 or 42% responded DISAGREE

and 27 or 27% responded STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this statement has a weighted

mean of 2.88 with the verbal interpretation of DISAGREE.

In the fifth statement, “A workplace with religious discrimination helps the employees

to think clearly.”., 9 or 9% responded STRONGLY AGREE, 25 or 25% responded AGREE,

44 or 44% responded DISAGREE and 22 or 22% responded STRONGLY DISAGREE.

And this statement has a weighted mean of 2.79 with the verbal interpretation of

DISAGREE.

59
 Based on the results, all the statements have been rated as DISAGREE with a

weighted mean 2.786. Majority of the respondents answered “disagree”. This means that a

workplace with religious discrimination can’t help the employees to execute the tasks,

think clearly, set up schedules in a timely manner. Similar result was also found in the

study, Religious Discrimination in the Workplace and its Impact on Employee

Performance and Cognitive Functioning, in which findings indicate that workplaces with

religious discrimination hinder employees' ability to execute tasks, think clearly, and set

up schedules in a timely manner. Religious discrimination creates a hostile work

environment, leading to increased stress, anxiety, and distraction among affected

employees. Consequently, their cognitive functioning and performance suffer as a result.

The study emphasizes the importance of fostering inclusive and supportive work

environments that promote religious diversity and respect. By eliminating religious

discrimination and promoting equal opportunities, religious accommodation, and a culture

of tolerance, organizations can help employees maintain optimal cognitive functioning and

perform their duties more effectively (Johnson et al., 2017).

60
Table 4.14. Mean, Frequency, Percentage, and Qualitative Distribution of the
Respondent’s Response in terms of Improvement Evaluation

Statement 1 2 3 4 Total WM
F % F % F % f F % F
1. A workplace with
religious discrimination
gives way for character
4 4% 29 29% 43 43% 24 24% 100 100
development for
management and staff.

2. A workplace with
religious discrimination
helps me to complete my 5 5% 19 19% 44 44% 32 32 100 100
tasks in a speedier manner.

3. A workplace with
religious discrimination
helps me to think clearly 8 8% 19 19% 40 40% 33 33% 100 100
and make better decisions.

4. A workplace with
religious discrimination
helps me to improve and
strengthen my 6 6% 18 18% 47 47% 29 29% 100 100
relationships with my
peers.

5. A workplace with
religious discrimination
helps to improve order and 6 6% 18 18% 45 45% 31 31% 100 100
harmony in the workplace.

Overall Weighted Mean= 2.976

Overall Verbal Interpretation= D

Table 4.14 shows the frequency and percentage distribution, the weighted mean as

well as the verbal interpretation of the respondents’ response in terms of improvement

evaluation. According to the data presented, the first statement “A workplace with religious

discrimination gives way for character development for management and staff.”, four (4) or 4%

responded STRONGLY AGREE, twenty-nine (29) or 29% responded AGREE, forty-three

61
or 43% responded DISAGREE, and twenty-four or 24% responded STRONGLY

DISAGREE. And this statement has a weighted mean of 2.87 with the verbal interpretation

of DISAGREE.

In the second statement “A workplace with religious discrimination helps me to complete

my tasks in a speedier manner.”, five (5) or 5% responded STRONGLY AGREE, 19 or 19%

responded AGREE, 40 or 40% responded DISAGREE, and 32 or 32% responded

STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this statement has a weighted mean of 3.03 with the verbal

interpretation of DISAGREE.

For the third statement, “A workplace with religious discrimination helps me to think

clearly and make better decisions.”, eight (8) or 8% responded STRONGLY AGREE, 19 or

19% responded AGREE, 40 or 40% responded DISAGREE, and thirty-three or 33%

responded STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this statement has a weighted mean of 2.98 with

the verbal interpretation of DISAGREE.

For the fourth statement, “A workplace with religious discrimination helps me to

improve and strengthen my relationships with my peers.”, 6 or 6% responded STRONGLY

AGREE, 18 or 18% responded AGREE, 47 or 47% responded DISAGREE and 29 or 29%

responded STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this statement has a weighted mean of 2.99 with

the verbal interpretation of DISAGREE.

In the fifth statement, “A workplace with religious discrimination helps to improve order

and harmony in the workplace.”., 6 or 6% responded STRONGLY AGREE, 18 or 18%

responded AGREE, 45 or 45% responded DISAGREE and 31 or 31% responded

STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this statement has a weighted mean of 3.01 with the verbal

interpretation of DISAGREE.

62
 Based on the results, all the statements have been rated as DISAGREE with a

weighted mean 2.976. Majority of the respondents answered “disagree”, this means that a

religiously discriminating workplace can’t help employees to improve order and harmony.

As we know that continuous improvement in workplace is important as it can lead us to

success. In the study of Chen and Lee (2018), they claimed that workplace characterized

by religious discrimination hinders employees' ability to improve order and harmony

within the organization. They added that religious discrimination creates a divisive and

contentious environment, leading to hostility, tension, and conflict among co-workers. This

disrupts collaboration, teamwork, and positive interpersonal relationships, thereby

impeding efforts to establish order and harmony in the workplace. The study emphasizes

the importance of fostering a culture of inclusivity, respect, and acceptance to create a

positive and harmonious work environment. By eliminating religious discrimination and

promoting a supportive atmosphere, organizations can enhance teamwork, cooperation,

and overall order in the workplace (Chen & Lee, 2018).

63
Table 4.15. Mean, Frequency, Percentage, and Qualitative Distribution of the
Respondent’s Response in terms of Peer Feedback

Statement 1 2 3 4 Total WM
F % F % F % f F % F
1. Solid feedback from
peers helps employees
realize which area of
24 24% 60 60% 16 16% 0 0% 100 100
performance needs
improvement.

2. Receiving peer feedback

helps employees better
understand each other’s
weaknesses and strengths.
20 20% 67 67% 11 11% 2 2 100 100
Employees work together
to improve team
productivity.

3. Peer feedback allows

them to effectively
communicate their ideas 26 26% 57 57% 17 17% 0 0% 100 100
and suggestions.

4. Peer feedback gives

employees comfort with
each other without 20 20% 67 67% 10 10% 3 3% 100 100
allowing fear.

5. Peer feedback helps

employees develop
21 21% 65 65% 12 12% 2 2% 100 100
engaging work culture.

Overall Weighted Mean= 1.938

Overall Verbal Interpretation= A

Table 4.15 shows the frequency and percentage distribution, the weighted mean as

well as the verbal interpretation of the respondents’ response in terms of peer feedback

According to the data presented, the first statement “Solid feedback from peers helps

employees realize which area of performance needs improvement.”, twenty-four (24) or 24%

responded STRONGLY AGREE, sixty (60) or 60% responded AGREE, sixteen or 16%

64
responded DISAGREE, and none or 0% responded STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this

statement has a weighted mean of 1.92 with the verbal interpretation of AGREE.

In the second statement “Receiving peer feedback helps employees better understand

each other’s weaknesses and strengths. Employees work together to improve team productivity.”,

twenty (20) or 20% responded STRONGLY AGREE, 67 or 67% responded AGREE, 11

or 11% responded DISAGREE, and 2 or 2% responded STRONGLY DISAGREE. And

this statement has a weighted mean of 1.95 with the verbal interpretation of AGREE.

For the third statement, “Peer feedback allows them to effectively communicate their

ideas and suggestions.”, twenty-six (26) or 26% responded STRONGLY AGREE, 57 or 57%

responded AGREE, 17 or 17% responded DISAGREE, and none or 0% responded

STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this statement has a weighted mean of 1.91 with the verbal

interpretation of AGREE.

For the fourth statement, “Peer feedback gives employees comfort with each other

without allowing fear.”, 20 or 20% responded STRONGLY AGREE, 67 or 67% responded

AGREE, 10 or 10% responded DISAGREE and 3 or 3% responded STRONGLY

DISAGREE. And this statement has a weighted mean of 1.96 with the verbal interpretation

of AGREE.

In the fifth statement, “Peer feedback helps employees develop engaging work culture.”,

21 or 21% responded STRONGLY AGREE, 65 or 65% responded AGREE, 12 or 12%

responded DISAGREE and 2 or 2% responded STRONGLY DISAGREE. And this

statement has a weighted mean of 1.95 with the verbal interpretation of AGREE.

Based on the results, all the statements have been rated as AGREE with a weighted

mean 1.938. Majority of the respondents answered “agree”. This means that peer feedback

65
helps employees know which area of performance needs improvement. The result was

supported by a study by Smith and Johnson in which they emphasized the importance of

establishing a feedback-oriented culture within organizations. Encouraging regular peer

feedback sessions and creating opportunities for constructive input can contribute to

employee development and performance improvement. By fostering a supportive feedback

environment, organizations empower employees to continuously enhance their skills and

effectiveness (Smith & Johnson, 2019).

Table 16. Summary Table of the Effects of Religious Discrimination

Average Weighted Verbal Rank

Mean Interpretation
Deterioration of
1.696 SA 4
health
Social stratification 1.834 A 2
Reduced social
1.914 A 1
cohesion
Reduced morale 1.812 A 3
TOTAL 1.814 A

Table 4.16 presents the summary of the computed weighted mean of the effects of

religious discrimination. As shown on this table, Reduced Social Cohesion has the highest

total weighted mean of 1.914 whose qualitative equivalent is “agreed”. Followed by Social

Stratification with total weighted mean of 1.834, Reduced Morale with total weighted mean

of 1.812, and lastly Deterioration of Health with a total weighted mean of 1.696.

This implies that in the case of religious discrimination, being treated unfairly or

differently because of one’s religion can reduced social cohesion. Social cohesion itself

defined as a state of cohering or uniting people together. Religious discrimination lessens

people the opportunity to share common values, create a sense of unity and foster a sense

of community. According to a study in 2018, when individuals are treated unfairly or

66
differently based on their religious beliefs, it erodes trust, cooperation, and a sense of

belonging within the affected group. This leads to a decline in social cohesion, as people

may feel excluded, marginalized, or disconnected from others (Anderson & Martin, 2018).

Table 17. Summary Table of the Effects on Job Performance

Average Weighted Verbal Rank

Mean Interpretation
Output quality 1.704 SA 4
Timing assessment 2.786 D 2
Improvement
2.976 D 1
Evaluation
Peer feedback 1.938 A 3
TOTAL 2.351 A

Table 4.17 presents the summary of computed weighted mean of the effects on job

performance. As shown in this table, Improvement Evaluation has the highest total

weighted mean of 2.976 whose qualitative equivalent is “disagreed”. Followed by Timing

Assessment that has a total weighted mean of 2.786 whose qualitative equivalent is

“disagree”, Peer Feedback with the total weighted mean of 1.938 whose qualitative

equivalent of “agree” and lastly Output Quality with a total weighted mean of 1.704 whose

qualitative equivalent is “strongly agree”.

This implies that a job performance relates to the act of doing a job, reaching a

goal within an organization. Performance evaluation is a crucial tool used by businesses to

manage and improve how their employees operate. Performance evaluations aim to provide

meaningful feedback to employees on their past performance, enabling them to identify

areas of strength to continue or build upon, areas of weakness to improve, and areas of

opportunity to harness for the future. It’s also often the case that giving employees and line

67
managers dedicated and regular time together to discuss performance can help individuals

feel more positive about their jobs and improve their morale and motivation.

68