Comparison with industry medians

The results are presented in tables 12-15 in the following pages. The first column shows the firms’ position in the 2011 Best medium size companies to work for rank-ing. The second column shows each firm’s EBIT (or ROI), and the third column the respective industry median. These are presented separately for each year from 2011 until 2015. Below the company and industry medians are the calculated means of the firms’ and their respective industries’ EBIT or ROI for each year. These are followed by standard deviations and the (one-tailed) paired sample t-test p-values.

The paired sample t-test has two competing hypotheses, the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis H0 assumes that the mean differ-ence between companyEBIT and industryEBIT (or companyROI and industryROI)

is zero, i.e. that firm profitability is less or equal to industry profitability. The alterna-tive hypothesis H1 assumes that the difference is not zero, i.e. that firm profitability is higher than industry profitability.

H0: CompanyEBIT ≤ IndustryEBIT or CompanyROI ≤ IndustryROI H1: CompanyEBIT > IndustryEBIT or CompanyROI > IndustryROI

The p-value of the paired sample t-test gives the probability for observing results that would verify the null hypothesis. Thus, the lower the p-value the lower the pos-sibility for the null hypothesis to be valid. The commonly used cutoff point of 5%

(0,05) is used to determine the statistical significance of the results. Therefore, if the p-value is less than 5% (0,05), the null hypothesis is rejected and thus company EBIT or ROI is statistically significantly higher than industry EBIT or ROI.

The tables 12 and 13 below show the results for the comparison of company EBIT and industry EBIT, and company ROI and industry ROI among the top performing firms in Great Place to Work’s ranking. As a reminder, according to the general rat-ings for EBIT and ROI (Yritystutkimus Ry 2015) an EBIT more than 10 is good, between 5-10 is average and less than 5 is bad. Respectively a ROI more than 15 is excellent, 10-15 good, 6-10 satisfying, 3-6 passable, and less than 3 bad.

Table 12. Company EBIT vs. industry EBIT among the top firms

Table 13. Company ROI vs. industry ROI among the top firms

As can be seen from table 12, the company EBIT mean is higher than the industry EBIT mean for each year from 2011 until 2015 among the top performing firms. In 2011 company EBIT mean is 11,36 whereas industry EBIT mean is only 4,56. In 2012, the same figures are 5,48 and 4,69 respectively, in 2013 10,49 and 3,91, in 2014 9,56 and 3,76, and lastly in 2015 8,80 and 4,40. The differences between the means are statistically significant for years 2011, 2013 and 2014 due to less than 0,05 p-values during those years. In relation to the EBIT general ratings the com-pany EBIT means are good (the highest grade) in 2011 and 2013, and average in 2012, 2014 and 2015.

The company ROI mean is also higher than industry ROI mean for each year from 2011 until 2015 among the top performing firms (see table 13). In 2011 company

Rank ^CompanyEBIT2011

Mean 11,36 4,56 Mean 5,48 4,69 Mean 10,49 3,91 Mean 9,56 3,76 Mean 8,80 4,40

Std dev 8,00 2,89 Std dev 21,14 3,18 Std dev 6,88 2,95 Std dev 8,40 3,11 Std dev 8,25 3,41

p-value 0,0167 p-value 0,4541 p-value 0,0136 p-value 0,0321 p-value 0,0532

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Mean 55,08 5,53 Mean 52,03 5,87 Mean 61,53 3,68 Mean 45,67 3,23 Mean 33,41 4,33

Std dev 61,41 3,20 Std dev 93,67 3,55 Std dev 57,13 3,23 Std dev 34,48 3,05 Std dev 29,36 3,11

p-value 0,0151 p-value 0,0807 p-value 0,0062 p-value 0,0021 p-value 0,0067

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

ROI mean is 55,08 whereas industry ROI mean is only 5,53. In 2012 the same fig-ures are 52,03 and 5,87 respectively, in 2013 61,53 and 3,68, in 2014 45,67 and 3,23, and lastly in 2015 33,41 and 4,33. The differences are statistically significant for all years except 2012 due to less than 0,05 p-values. In relation to the ROI gen-eral ratings the company ROI means are excellent (the highest grade) each year between 2011-2015.

The tables 14 and 15 below show the results for the comparison of company EBIT and industry EBIT, and company ROI and industry ROI among the bottom perform-ing firms in Great Place to Work’s rankperform-ing.

Table 14. Company EBIT vs. industry EBIT among bottom firms

Table 15. Company ROI vs. industry ROI among bottom firms

Among the bottom performers of Great Place to Work’s ranking the company EBIT mean is higher than the industry EBIT mean in 2011, 2012 and 2015 but lower in

Rank ^CompanyEBIT2011

Mean 5,74 4,88 Mean 4,89 4,34 Mean 3,33 3,37 Mean 1,92 3,98 Mean 6,16 3,74

Std dev 5,80 2,97 Std dev 5,28 4,46 Std dev 6,83 1,76 Std dev 9,96 2,31 Std dev 7,64 1,70

p-value 0,2426 p-value 0,3169 p-value 0,4935 p-value 0,2526 p-value 0,1873

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Mean 31,89 8,48 Mean 21,54 7,37 Mean 19,21 5,88 Mean 22,30 5,99 Mean 50,37 4,71

Std dev 29,76 4,78 Std dev 18,20 6,07 Std dev 41,00 5,62 Std dev 38,78 6,91 Std dev 86,37 5,08

p-value 0,0249 p-value 0,0201 p-value 0,1731 p-value 0,1237 p-value 0,1080

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2013 and 2014 (see table 14). In 2011 the company EBIT mean is 5,74 whereas the industry EBIT mean is 4,88. In 2012 the same figures are 4,89 and 4,34 respectively, and in 2015 6,16 and 3,74. In 2013 and 2014, on the contrary, the company EBIT’s are lower than the industry EBIT’s by 3,33 to 3,37 in 2013 and 1,92 to 3,98 in 2014.

None of the differences are statistically significant due to higher than 0,05 p-values.

In relation to the EBIT general ratings the company EBIT means are average in 2011 and 2015, and bad in 2012, 2013 and 2014.

Regarding ROI, the company ROI mean is higher than industry ROI mean for each year from 2011 until 2015 among the bottom performers of Great Place to Work’s ranking (see table 15). In 2011 company ROI mean is 31,89 whereas the industry ROI mean is only 8,48. In 2012 the figures are 21,54 and 7,37 respectively, in 2013 19,21 and 5,88, in 2014 22,30 and 5,99, and lastly in 2015 50,37 and 4,71. However, the differences are statistically significant only during years 2011 and 2012 due to less than 0,05 p-values for those years (0,0249 and 0,0201 respectively). In relation to the ROI general ratings the company ROI means are excellent each year between 2011-2015.