DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
4.0 Introduction
The main objective of this study was to explore the relationship between group dynamics and performance of youth owned enterprises in Kotido district. The researcher presents the findings of the study in this chapter using graphs, descriptive statistics, and frequencies. Thus the findings are related to the response rate; results related to background information of respondents and enterprises; the relationship between communication and performance; the relationship between cohesion and performance and the relationship between membership and performance of youth owned enterprises. In addition, extracts from linear regression model out puts were used to test the hypothesis in determining relationship level of significance between the independent variables (communication, cohesion, and membership) and dependent variable (performance of youth owned enterprises).
4.1 Response rate
The response rate for this research was computed to determine the representativeness of the study population from which the sample was selected
Table 4.1: Response rate
| Category of respondents | Targeted sample | Actual sample | % age of response |
| District & Sub County staff | 3 | 3 | 100% |
| Non governmental organization staff | 2 | 2 | 100% |
| Youth group members | 197 | 155 | 78% |
| Total | 202 | 170 | 89% |
Source: Primary data (2021)
The researcher expected to reach of a sample of 3 staff from the government sector was expected to be reached through key informant in-depth interviews, however, this study managed to reach 3 staff, representing 100% response rate, it also intended to reach 2 non-governmental organisation staff and it reached 2 representing 100%, and finally for the questionnaires the study aimed at reaching 197 respondents, but was able to reach only 155 representing 78% Considering the mixed method approach employed by this study, the overall response rate was 89%.
A 100% response rate was not achieved mainly due to insecurity in Kotido and also due to the fact that some groups could not be traced, Key informants were also not reached due to their busy working schedules. Options could have been to email questionnaires, but this was not possible given the fact that the population was illiterate and could to access emails. The research team also found out that some groups had closed businesses but could not ascertain how many they were due to the insecurity in the area.
Generally, the response rate in Table 4.1 was 89%. According to Weaver, Beebe and Rockwood (2019), a response rate above or equal to 66.7% is acceptable to reflect the generalizability of the findings to the targeted population. Because of this inference, the sample that participated in the study was assumed sufficient. Considering Omona, (2013) the response rate was good and therefore the study could be conducted since the response rate was above 70%, while the response rate for interview respondents is 100%. The data therefore still remained representative of the population with a new calculated margin of error being 10% as opposed to the original 5%.
4.2 Descriptive analysis
This section presents the analysis of respondents of the study;
- Background information
This section presents analysis of the study;
4.2.3 Demographic Information of Respondents
Demographics information is vital to ensure that the samples participating in the study have a distribution similar to the population from which the participants are based on their characteristics. This determines the accuracy and representativeness of the information from the sample of the population.
In this section, participants were asked about their age, gender, type of enterprise and source of fund for their enterprises.
Table 4.2: Respondents’ age, sex type of business, sources of business funds, date of registration
| Variable | Category | Frequency | Percentage |
| Q.1 Gender | Male | 95 | 61 |
| Female | 60 | 39 | |
| Q.2 Age | Below 18 years | 3 | 2 |
| From 18 to below 25 years | 96 | 62 | |
| From 25 to 35 years | 56 | 36 | |
| Q.3 a Date of registration | 2012 to 2015 | 19 | 12.5 |
| 2016 to 2018 | 44 | 27.9 | |
| 2019 above | 92 | 59.6 | |
| Q.3 b Type of enterprises | Animal selling and buying | 54 | 35 |
| Cereal banking, or agriculture | 29 | 19 | |
| Small retailing business e.g shop. | 72 | 46 | |
| Q. 3 c. Sources of funds | Government, e.g Youth Livelihood Fund | 82 | 52.9 |
| Non govenmental orgnaisations | 33 | 21.2 | |
| others | 40 | 26 |
Source: Field primary (2022)
Sex of respondents: The findings in the study indicates that majority of the respondents in the study were male 95 (62.3%) while only 60(38.7%) were female. this finding therefore shows that both gender participated in the study. In this study therefore, this implied that all the gender was represented and therefore, the study is not biased.
Age of respondents: The study revealed that 36% of the group members were between the ages of 25 to 35 years, 62% were between the ages of 18 to 25 years, and then 2% were below 18 years. This implied that the majority of the group members were between the ages of 18 to 25 years, justifying the fact that the group enterprises are youth owned, and the Uganda constitution posits that youth range from the ages of 18 to 35 years.
Date of registration: 12.5% of youth group enterprises were registered with the ministry of labour, gender and social development office in Kotido district between 2012 and 2015, 27.9% between 2016 and 2018, and 59.6% from 2019 onwards. This implied that the majority of the youth owned groups were registered with the district gender and social development office from the year 2019 and above.
Type of enterprise: results showed that, 35% stated that their groups were in agriculture for the purpose of selling and buying of animals, 19% in cereal banking, then 46% for small retailing business like shops. This meant that the youth enterprises were embracing the concept of turning their agricultural activities into commercial activities to give their enterprises a going concern to help them earn an income.
Sources of funds: 21% stated that they got their funding from non-governmental organizations, 53% stated that they got their funds from government, youth livelihood fund, and 26% stated that they got their funds from other sources. This implied that most of the youth owned enterprises got their funding from government, and youth livelihood fund. However, among a moderate number of respondents that pointed out getting funding from other source, all of them pointed out that they got it from Village savings and loan Association (VSLA).
- Empirical results on each of the variables in this study
Empirical findings as per objectives of the study were presented in tables. Respondents were presented with items and requested to either agree or disagree basing on a five Likert scale of; Strongly Agree(SA), Agree(A), Neutral (N), Disagree(D) , Strongly Disagreed(SD). SA+A= Agreed, SD+D= Disagreed, N=Undecided/neutral. The study grouped SA and A to mean agreed, SD and D to mean disagree, and N to mean respondents who were undecided. Percentages, Mean and standard deviation were used to interpret empirical results. The mean above 3 implied that majority agreed, and that below 3 means disagreed while 3 imply undecided/neutral.
4.3.1 Descriptive results about communication and performance of youth owned enterprises Group.
Table 4.3: Relationship between communication and performance of youth owned enterprises
| N | SD | D | NS | A | SA | Mean | |
| I sometimes communicate to my group members because of certain identities (sex, age, affiliations) | 104 | 12(11.5%) | 62 (59.6%) | 1(1.0%) | 19(18.3%) | 10(9.6%) | 2.5 |
| I often communicate with other group members regularly (meaning every week)? | 104 | – | – | 2(1.9%) | 71 (68.3%) | 31 (29.8) | 4.2 |
| Members of our group communicate freely | 103 | – | – | 3(2.9%) | 64(61.5%) | 1(1.0%) | 4.1 |
| Valid N (listwise) | 100 |
Source: Primary Data
| Relationship between communication and performance of youth owned enterprises. | Mean | Std. Deviation |
| I sometimes communicate to my group members because of certain identities (sex, age, affiliations) | 4.32 | .528 |
| I often communicate with other group members regularly (meaning every week)? | 2.33 | 1.458 |
| Members of our group communicate freely | 3.87 | 1.002 |
Frequency of communication among group members: Findings of the study in relation to whether respondents often communicate with other group members regularly (meaning every week), the results of mean value of 2.33 indicated that majority of the respondents disagreed. In a nutshell indicating that groups’ members do not often communicate regularly.
On finding whether Members of the group communicate freely, the results from the mean value of 3.87 indicated that majority of the respondents strongly agreed that members communicate freely.
Frequency of respondents’ communication with other group members. The figure 11 shows whether respondents often communicate with other group members regularly (meaning weekly). 39% (41) strongly disagreed to the statement that they often communicated with other group members regularly, 31% (32) disagreed to the statement, then 17% (18) agreed and 13% (13) strongly agreed. This implied that since most of the respondents strongly disagreed and disagreed to the statement 39% and 31% respectively, it was evident that respondents did not communicate with other group members regularly on a weekly basis.
The information got from interviews showed some of the leaders saying that communication among group members with other youth groups creates good relationship, in-terms of sharing ideas. The interview guide information added that communication shared among groups was to allow inform member about the fines and laws on the loans accessed and loan payment periods.
This therefore meant that since group members barely communicate with other group members, the flow of vital information about loan repayments, laws that govern loan repayment, and sharing of new ideas to run the youth enterprises was limited, thus affecting the performance of the group.
Communication among group members: when respondents were asked whether the communicated freely with members in their same groups, 66.3% agreed that they communicated freely, 19.2% strongly agreed, 4.8% were not sure, 1.9% disagreed, and 7.7% strongly disagreed. This meant that the youth communicated amongst themselves in their groups since most of the respondents agreed to the statement.
In the information from the interviews, top officials pointed out that communication among members usually helps them to solve internal issues/challenges, and creates unity among individual group members.
This meant that since the youth group members communicated freely among themselves in their groups, challenges and issues are solved, and unity among the members is achieved
- Descriptive results about cohesion and performance of youth owned enterprises
Relationship between cohesion and performance of youth owned enterprises
| N | SD | D | NS | A | SA | Mean | |
| I engage in setting up goals and agree on them with the rest of group | 104 | 12(11.5%) | 62 (59.6%) | 1(1.0%) | 19(18.3%) | 10(9.6%) | 2.5 |
| I abide by the group norms/rules | 104 | – | – | 2(1.9%) | 71 (68.3%) | 31 (29.8) | 4.2 |
| I feel being part of the group | 103 | – | – | 3(2.9%) | 64(61.5%) | 1(1.0%) | 4.1 |
| Valid N (listwise) | 100 |
| Relationship between cohesion and performance of youth owned enterprises | Mean | Std. Deviation |
| I engage in setting up goals and agree on them with the rest of group | 2.55 | 1.198 |
| I often interact with members of my group | 2.29 | .590 |
| I abide by the group norms/rules | 4.28 | .492 |
Source: Primary Data
Findings from the study revealed that the mean value was 2.55 indicating majority of the respondents disagreed with the statement that they engage in setting up goals and agree on them with the rest of group. This could imply that during decision making some members dominate the decision-making process.
According to the study results mean value of 2.29 indicated that majority of the respondents disagreed with the findings that they often interact with members of their group. It is therefore fair to say that members do not interact with the members of their group.
The results of the study further indicates that regarding the statement of I abide by the group norms/rules majority of the respondents strongly agreed, this was indicated by the mean value of 4.28 , in a nutshell indicating that members in the group follow rules and regulations.
According to the findings in the study majority 4.32 strongly agreed with the fact that they feel being part of the group, which therefore indicates that members are united and feel valued in their different groups.
.3.2 Group cohesion and performance of youth owned enterprises.
This section presents hypothesis tests between cohesion and performance of youth owned enterprises.
This section provides a descriptive statistics table providing information about cohesiveness
| N | SD | D | NS | A | SA | Mean | |
| I engage in setting up goals and agree on them with the rest of group | 104 | 12(11.5%) | 62 (59.6%) | 1(1.0%) | 19(18.3%) | 10(9.6%) | 2.5 |
| I abide by the group norms/rules | 104 | – | – | 2(1.9%) | 71 (68.3%) | 31 (29.8) | 4.2 |
| I feel being part of the group | 103 | – | – | 3(2.9%) | 64(61.5%) | 1(1.0%) | 4.1 |
| Valid N (listwise) | 100 |
Source: field primary data
The descriptive statistics table 4.5 showed that respondents 62(59.6%) disagreed that they engaged in setting up goals and agreed on them with the rest of the group with a mean of 2.5. The table 4.5 also showed that respondents agreed 71(68.3%) that they abide by the group norms/rules with a mean of 4.2. Respondents further agreed 64(61.5%) that they felt like they were part of their groups, feeling comfortable in participating in the group, with a mean of 4.1
According to the information got from the interviews, the leaders and district heads stated that abiding by the rules/norms; vision and mission were done through coordination among members to support the groups in realizing their objectives.
The interviews also pointed out that through following rules/norms, the youth can be mobilized, and this was done through community sensitization.
This information about cohesiveness showed that the youth in the youth owned enterprises abide by the group enterprise norms/rules, and are also made to feel comfortable being part of their groups. Following the group rules and comfort members of the groups feel, means that the youth group enterprises are run according to set guidelines. However, respondents disagreed that they engaged in setting up goals for the youth group enterprises.
Frequency of interaction with group members: considering how often respondents interact with members of their team. 2% of the respondents stated that they interacted with members of their teams daily, 69% stated weekly, 24% stated monthly, 4% stated quarterly, and 1% stated yearly. This implied that most of the respondents interacted with members of their teams on a weekly basis.
Descriptive results about membership and performance of youth owned enterprises
4.3.3 Membership and performance of youth owned enterprises.
This section provides information about membership of the respondents.
Source: field primary data
Table 4.8 showed that respondents agreed 67(64.4%) with a mean of 4.2 that membership to their groups was restricted. Respondents also agreed 67(64.4%) with a mean of 4.3 that they understood requirements for entry to their group. Respondents strongly disagreed 75(72.1%) with a mean of 1.6 that they understood requirements for exit from their groups.
One of the interviewed respondents said that “strict adherence to group entry requirements ensures that only validated group members join the group enterprises”.
Another respondent said that “adherence to group rules enables the group to achieve its objectives, and can attract investors”.
This implied that most of the respondents agreed that they understood requirements for entry to their group, and that that they understood requirements for entry to their group enterprises. However, respondents disagreed that they understood requirements for exit from the group.
The interview information pointed out that some group members exit groups without understanding exit requirements, and in the end, when group members exit the groups, the savings funds and social funds are affected, and this also affects the group’s activities derailing their progress to improving the enterprise’s performance.
This could mean that respondents rush to enter the groups for the search of daily income businesses, but do not read both rules for entry and exit. This affects performance of the group since the youth do not fully understand the objectives of the group.
- Inferential analysis – multiple regression
Pearson correlation was used in establishing the relationship between the independent variables and dependent variables, and regressions (model summary) were run to establish the variance (contribution) of the IV on the DV.
4.7 Inferential Statistics
In this section, analysis of data on the three null hypotheses is done and accordingly interpreted:
- Inferential results about communication and performance of youth owned enterprises.
Considering the first objective, the null hypothesis tests between communication and performance of youth owned enterprises can be seen as below
Model summary Table 4.3 provides the R and R2 (R-squared) values, where the R value represents a simple correlation of 0.221; this indicates a lower correlation between communication and performance in youth-owned firms. The R2 value shows how much the performance of youth-owned businesses varies, which can be explained by the communication variable under group dynamics. From Table 4.3, it can be seen that the coefficient of determination is 0.049, that is, about 4.9% of the changes in the performance of young enterprises are explained by communication, and the remaining 51% are explained by other factors.
Table 4.4 is an Anova table, shows a whether the hypothesis test between communication and performance of youth owned businesses. The Anova table information revealed that at p-value of 0.024, the null hypothesis was rejected. With an alpha of P=.05 level significance acceptance level, there is enough evidence to conclude that there is a statistically significant relationship between communication and performance of youth owned businesses. The meant that communication predicts the performance of youth owned enterprises
- Inferential results about cohesion and performance of youth owned enterprises
Considering the first objective, the null hypothesis (HO), this section presents hypothesis tests between cohesion and performance of youth owned enterprises.
The model summary table 4.6 provided the R and R2 values where the R value represents a simple correlation of 0.359, indicating that there is a high degree correlation between cohesion and performance of youth owned enterprises. The R2 value indicated how much variation in performance of youth owned enterprises that could be explained by the cohesion variable under group dynamics. From the table 4.6, the coefficient of determination was 0.129, meaning that about 12.9% of the variation in performance of youth owned enterprises was explained by cohesion, and the remaining 87.1% was explained by other factors.
Table 4.7 is an Anova table, shows a whether the hypothesis test between cohesion and performance of youth owned businesses. The Anova table information revealed that at p-value of 0.000, the null hypothesis was rejected. With an alpha of P=.05 level significance acceptance level, there is enough evidence to conclude that there is a statistically significant relationship between cohesion and performance of youth owned businesses. The meant that cohesion predicts the performance of youth owned enterprises.
4.7.3 Inferential results about membership and performance of youth owned enterprises
Considering the first objective, the null hypothesis (HO), membership and performance is discussed.
4.3.4 Performance of youth owned enterprises
This section provides information about the dependent variable performance of youth owned enterprises using a descriptive statistics table.
Source: field primary data
The descriptive statistics table 4.11 showed that respondents agreed 66(63.5%) that their group budgets and expenditures information are shared with group members weekly with a mean of 4.1. the table also showed that respondents 61(58.7%) strongly disagreed to the statement that they felt their group finances were utilized appropriately, with a mean of 1.9. Respondents also strongly disagreed 57(54.8%) that group planned tasks were completed in time, with a mean of 1.8. Finally, respondents agreed 60(57.7%) that they were satisfied with their group, for-example with work and achievements (mean=4.3).
Information from the interview differed from this statement and leaders stated that youth members communicated to them saying that they were not satisfied with what their groups do, and the members gave a reason stating that they did not think that their individual group members were transparent with them on finances received to help their groups. The information from the interviews also pointed out that there were some misunderstandings among group members.
This implied that group budgets and expenditure information were shared with group members, and that group members were satisfied with their groups’ achievements and work. But the information also implied that the group members did not feel that their group finances were utilized properly. The information from the respondents added that group planned tasks were not completed in time.
This view was also justified but some leaders when they were interviewed, and they noted that the groups did not complete their planned groups in time, and they provided a reason that the tasks were not completed because youth group members had inadequate resources (financing), and limited guidance from relevant stakeholders.
This means that failing to complete tasks intime, the limited transparency between group leaders and members, and the misunderstandings among members in the groups derailed the performance of youth owned enterprises.
Table 4.11: Inferential statistics for membership and performance of youth owned enterprises
| ANOVAa | ||||||
| Model | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
| 1 | Regression | 76.015 | 1 | 76.015 | 18.799 | .000b |
| Residual | 412.447 | 102 | 4.044 | |||
| Total | 488.462 | 103 | ||||
| a. Dependent Variable: PERFORMANCE | ||||||
| b. Predictors: (Constant), Membership | ||||||
Regression analysis of the of the relationship between communication and performance
| Coefficientsa | ||||||
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 10.285 | .875 | 11.756 | .000 | |
| COMMUNICATION | .314 | .137 | .221 | 2.290 | .024 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: PERFORMANCE | ||||||
Regression analysis of the relationship between cohesion and performance
| Coefficientsa | ||||||
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 7.171 | 1.286 | 5.575 | .000 | |
| COHENSION | .379 | .095 | .367 | 3.982 | .000 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: PERFORMANCE | ||||||
Regression analysis between membership and performance
| Coefficientsa | ||||||
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 4.494 | 1.795 | 2.504 | .014 | |
| Membership | .465 | .107 | .394 | 4.336 | .000 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: PERFORMANCE | ||||||
- Verification of hypothesis
Findings on relationship between communication and performance
| Model Summary | ||||
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate |
| 1 | .221a | .049 | .040 | 2.134 |
| a. Predictors: (Constant), COMMUNICATION | ||||
ANOVA
| Coefficientsa | ||||||
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 10.285 | .875 | 11.756 | .000 | |
| COMMUNICATION | .314 | .137 | .221 | 2.290 | .024 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: PERFORMANCE | ||||||
| Coefficientsa | ||||||
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 10.285 | .875 | 11.756 | .000 | |
| COMMUNICATION | .314 | .137 | .221 | 2.290 | .024 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: PERFORMANCE
| ||||||
R-squared analysis of the relationship between Cohesion and performance
| Model Summary | ||||
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate |
| 1 | .367a | .135 | .126 | 2.036 |
| a. Predictors: (Constant), COHENSION | ||||
4.3 Correlation analysis of the relationship between cohesion and performance
| Correlations | |||
| PERFORMANCE | COHENSION | ||
| PERFORMANCE | Pearson Correlation | 1 | .367** |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | ||
| N | 104 | 104 | |
| COHENSION | Pearson Correlation | .367** | 1 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | ||
| N | 104 | 104 | |
| **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). | |||
4.4 Relationship between Membership and performance
| Correlations | |||
| PERFORMANCE | Membership | ||
| PERFORMANCE | Pearson Correlation | 1 | .394** |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | ||
| N | 104 | 104 | |
| Membership | Pearson Correlation | .394** | 1 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | ||
| N | 104 | 104 | |
| **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). | |||
Regression analysis
| Model Summary | ||||
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate |
| 1 | .394a | .156 | .147 | 2.011 |
| a. Predictors: (Constant), Membership | ||||
Membership and perfomance
This section presents hypothesis tests between membership and performance of youth owned enterprises.
Table 4: Correlation analysis of the relationship between Membership and performance
| Performance | Membership | ||
| Performance | Pearson Correlation | 1 | .394** |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | ||
| N | 167 | 167 | |
| Membership | Pearson Correlation | .394** | 1 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | ||
| N | 167 | 167 | |
| **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). | |||
According to the findings of the study the parson correlation 0.394** indicates that there is a weak significant positive relationship between membership and performance of the members in the group.
Table 4 9: Model summary
Table 4.9 Model summary
The model summary table 4.9 provided the R and R2 values where the R value represents a simple correlation of 0.234, indicating that there is a low degree of correlation between membership and performance of youth owned enterprises. The R2 value indicated how much variation in performance of youth owned enterprises that could be explained by the membership variable under group dynamics. From the table 4.9, the coefficient of determination was 0.055, meaning that about 5.5% of the variation in performance of youth owned enterprises was explained by the membership variable, and the remaining 94.5% was explained by other factors.
Table 5: Regression analysis of membership and performance
Source: primary data
According to the findings in the study the R-squared value of 0.156 indicates that there is a weak relationship between membership and performance and it further reveals that membership only affects performance by 15.6% .
Table 6: Analysis of variables (ANOVA)
| Model | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
| 1 | Regression | 76.015 | 1 | 76.015 | 18.799 | .000b |
| Residual | 412.447 | 102 | 4.044 | |||
| Total | 488.462 | 103 | ||||
| a. Dependent Variable: PERFORMANCE | ||||||
| b. Predictors: (Constant), Membership | ||||||
According to the findings in the study the P-Value 0.000<0.05 indicates that there is a significant relationship between membership and performance.
Table 18 is an Anova table, shows a whether the hypothesis test between membership and performance of youth owned businesses. The Anova table information revealed that at p-value of 0.017, the null hypothesis was rejected. With an alpha of P=.05 level significance acceptance level, there is enough evidence to conclude that there is a statistically significant relationship between membership and performance of youth owned businesses. The meant that membership predicts the performance of youth owned enterprises.
4.4 Conclusion
This chapter provided an analysis of the data from the questionnaires, and displayed it via frequency tables, descriptive statistics tables, and pie charts. This information was aided with data from the interview guides that helped in providing a wider understanding of the information in the questionnaires. In addition, the chapter provided linear regression tables that showed the variation between the group communication, cohesion, membership, and performance of youth owned enterprises. The linear regression also tested for significance between the variables to provide information about the hypothesis tests.
The next chapter five provides a summary, discussion, conclusion and recommendations of the findings in , and in addition, chapter five provides areas of further study.
References
Omona, J. (2013). Sampling in qualitative research: Improving the quality of research outcomes in higher education. Makerere Journal of Higher Education, 4(2), 169-185.
