O R GAN I ZATI O NAL
B E H AV I O U R
Impact Of Organizational Commitment On Turnover Intentions Of Employees. A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course of Master In Business Administration at National University Of Modern Languages to Miss Sehar by
Syed Muhammad Irfan Ayub
National University Of Modern Languages 2008
DEDICATION
We dedicate this research paper to our Honorable Teacher, Miss Sehar, for her guidance in each and every step of this research paper. We also dedicate this research paper to our loving Parents whose prayers are source of determination and motivation for us.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT "EDUCATION HAS MADE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND MEN THEN MEN HAVE MADE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAN AND BRUTE". In order for a our humble gratitude and all thanks to Almighty Allah, who has been so kind in conferring His blessings upon us and providing us the energy , courage, quest and sanity to discharge our responsibilities, to successful accomplish our uphill tasks and enabling us to write this research paper. Also our special thanks to Respected Teacher Miss.Sehar whose guidance was always with us and who always motivated us to work hard. We not only learned courses with him but also the way to be disciplined and sincere with the profession. The development of this project has enabled us to get the practical experience, which will prove to be very beneficial in our forthcoming practical lives InshaAllah. Once again we thank you Madam to be there to inspire our future. Syed Muhammad Irfan Ayub
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE # Dedication
I
Acknowledgement
II
Table of contents
III
CHAPTER 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10
#1
Introduction of the Topic Problem Statement Scope of the Study Significance of the Study Introduction of organization Organization's Vision Organization's Mission Statement Basic purpose of Organization Objectives of Organization Detail of Departments
CHAPTER # 2 Literature Review
CHAPTER # 3 Nature of Study Type of Research Theoretical Framework Schematic Diagram Hypothesis Development Types of Data Sources of Data Description of Population Sample Size Instrument Description used for data collection Sampling Type Tools and Techniques
CHAPTER # 4 Discussion of Results
CHAPTER # 5 References Annexure
Impact Of Organizational Commitment On Turnover Intentions Of Employees Syed Muhammad Irfan Ayub
Abstract:
It has been identified multidimensional set of HR practices likely to increase retention among employees and considered citizenship behaviors as well organizational citizenship behaviour.organization politics, feedback system, autonomy, goal clarity & supervisory relationship organizational commitment as key antecedents of turnover intentions. A questionnaire was developed and sent to the Employees of First Micro finance Bank and Askari Bank. By the trust in management one can easily finds job related behavior and attitude like productivity, job satisfaction, and absenteeism and turnover rate. Data was collected after the distribution of questionnaires. This study further explores correlation between independent variable (organizational citizenship behaviour.organization politics, feedback system,autonomy,goal clarity & supervisory relationship) and dependent variables(organizational commitment & turnovers) through trust in management as moderating variable of research Data from 61 respondents were used to validate the measures and test our research model. We present and discuss the results and make a series of recommendations for bank employees and HR executives.
Paper Type: Research Paper Methodology: Questionnaires Statistical Tools: Correlation, Regression
Introduction. Before 5 to 6 years it was only thought that banks are only meant for depositing and withdrawal purpose, but now banks are providing facilities from home financing to the products of daily use.
It means that there has been a positive development occurred in the services provided by the banks. Banks are basically considered as customer-oriented organizations and to provide best of their services, they tries up to maximum extent to capitalize their human resource. Trust in organizational management has got very key role in the efficiency and productivity of an organization, “A positive expectation that another will not act opportunistically or “will act benevolently towards others”. As if there is an environment like each and every thought, idea or performance is appreciated then it will lead to high trust of employees with management. One significant way, in which HR managers can have an impact, is by instilling trust and confidence in the organization. Banking sector in Pakistan has been flourished since last 5 years at it has lot of competitors. So each bank tries to retain market share in form of customers but also snatch from their competitors. Potential employees operating in that organization who put maximum of trust on the organizational growth can only do this thing. “Organizations move away from supervisory based, closely monitored style of control to greater employee empowerment and changing organizational structures such as “self-directed teams” .
But since few months backs recession has been started in every industry due to economic conditions prevailing in Pakistan. Due to these reason turnover rate has been increasing up to huge extent. Other factor such as proper feedback, clear goal and supervisory relationship along with organizational citizenship behavior & politics with in organization are inversely related to organizational commitment and ultimately affects turnover intentions with in organization. Turnover is a complex construct which has generated a large body of literature and theory building both in sales (Futrell and Parasuraman 1984; Doran et al 1991) and non-sales (Blau 1993; Huselid and Day 1991; Mobley et al 1979; Steers and Mowday 1981; Judge 1993;Porter and Steers 1973) disciplines. Intention to leave, however, is acknowledged as thestrongest predictor of actual turnover (Wunder et al 1982; Good et al 1988; Wotruba and Tyagi 1991; Brodie 1995). In this paper trust in management is defined through the literature review, which is followed up, by the purpose and the significance of study. Dependent & independent variables are identified. Before methodology hypothesis are made. The results are discussed.
Problem Statement In organizations, despite of better opportunities and healthy pay structure potential employees leaves organization. This is problem statement that why employees quit even if organization is paying handsome salaries & better growth oriented opportunities. So this research will be helpful in knowing about this problem.
Scope Of Study. The objective of this study is to measure the impact of measurable factors on immeasurable factors. It means impact of autonomy, goal clarity, feedback, organizational citizenship behavior, supervisory relationship, and organizational politics on the turnover intentions through trust of employees on management and organizational commitment in the banking sector of Pakistan. This study also highlights the importance of HR manager, their role and proper implementation of HR practices.
Significance Of Study. This research is important in the sense that it can assist HR managers to imply the efforts or strategies that can increase the motivation and trust of employees on organization management. As for as basic HR practices are concerned they have key role but also proper communication channel between employees and organization, empowerment and helping employees is vital.
Managers are important role players in maintaining the better environment, which can increase trust on management so that they will give positive and maximum feedback and to realize their employees that each is playing specific & important role to the organization.
Introduction Of Organizations:
Askari Bank Limited Type Founded
Private October 09, 1991
Headquarters Rawalpindi, Pakistan Lt. Gen. Waseem Ahmed Ashraf, Chairman Key people
& CEO M. R. Mehkari (Acting)
Industry
Money Center Banks
Products
Banking
Revenue
▲Rs 5.453 billion PKR (2005)
Net income
▲Rs 2.022 billion PKR (2005)
Total assets
Rs. 145.1 billion PKR (2005)
Employees
2,754 (2005)
Website
www.askaribank.com.pk
Askari Bank Ltd (formerly Askari Commercial Bank) was incorporated in Pakistan on October 9, 1991, as a Public Limited Company. It started its operations during April 1 1992. The bank principally deals with mainly banking, as defined in the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962. The Bank is listed on the Karachi, Lahore & Islamabad Stock Exchanges and its shares are currently the highest quoted from among the new private sector banks in Pakistan. Askari Bank has expanded into a nation wide presence of 136 branches, and an offshore banking Unit in Bahrain. A shared network of over 1,100 online ATM covering all major cities in Pakistan supports the delivery channels for customer service. As on December 31, 2005, the bank had equity of PKR 8.6 billion and total assets of PKR 145.1 billion, with over 600,000 banking customers, serviced by our 2,754 employees.
Vision
To be the Bank of first Choice in the Region
The Mission To be the leading private sector bank in Pakistan with an international presence, delivering quality service through innovative technology and effective human resource management, in a modern and progressive organizational culture of meritocracy, maintaining high ethical and professional standards, while providing enhanced value to all our stakeholders, and contributing to society. The intrinsic values, which are the corner stones of our corporate behavior, are Commitment, Integrity, Fairness, Teamwork and Service. Corporate Philosophy
Inspiring Relationships From knowing our customers requirements to understanding employee needs, from utilizing modern technology to making responsible social contributions, from enhancing stake-holders value to practicing corporate ethics. We are continuously and consistently striving to address newer challenges with a single motivation: “the power to inspire and be inspired” An important player in Pakistan’s financial services industry, Askari Bank is now leading the way to the most modern and dynamic banking in the country. Incorporated in October 1991, Askari Bank commenced its operations in April 1992, and has since expanded into a nation wide presence of 75 branches, connected online and supported by a network of ATMs. Askari Bank also has an Offshore Banking Unit in Bahrain. Askari Bank continues its success in competition. Recently we have been given the “Best Retail Bank in Pakistan” by The Asian Banker. We have also received the Corporate Excellence Award for the financial sector from the Management Association of Pakistan (MAP) for the years 2002 and 2003. We have been given “The Best Bank in Pakistan” award by Global Finance magazine twice i.e. for the years 2001 and 2002. We have been given the “Best Consumer Internet Bank” award by Global Finance magazine for the years 2002 and 2003. Bank won the Euro money and Asia money awards as early as 1994, 1996 and 1997. We have A1+, the highest possible credit rating, for short-term obligations, and our long-term rating stands at AA+. We won the prestigious “Best Presented Annual Accounts” award from the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Pakistan (ICAP), and The Institute of Cost and Management Accountants in Pakistan (ICAMP), for the Services Sector, for the years 2000, 2001and 2002. We have also received ranking prizes during the last six years from the South Asian Federation of Accountants (SAFA) for “The Best Presented Annual Accounts” for the financial sector, in the SAARC region
Products Over the years, Askari Bank has proven its strength as a leading banking sector entity with ever-increasing commitment to its clients, through a strategic investment in electronic technology. Askari Bank achieved the following firsts in Pakistani banking: i) The first Pakistani bank to offer on-line real-time banking on a country-wide basis ii) The first Pakistani bank with nation-wide network of ATMs iii) The first bank in Pakistan, foreign or local, to introduce Internet banking in the country iv) The first bank in Pakistan, together with ABN-Amro, to develop an inter-bank switch for the ATMs Askari Bank offers the following retail products to serve the needs of the consumer market: • • • • • • • • • • • •
Askari Bank’s Value Plus – Rupee Deposit Account Askari Bank’s Personal Finance – Loans Scheme ASKAR – Auto Loans Askari i-Net Banking – Internet Banking solutions Askari MasterCard – Credit Card facility Askari Travellers Cheques – Rupee Travellers Cheques ASKCARD –Debit Card ASKPOWER – Prepaid Card Askari Bank’s Mortgage Finance – Home Loans Askari Bank’s Business Finance – Business Loans SmartCash – Running Finance Facility for Consumers Askari Kissan – Agri Finance Programme
Corporate citizen Our role as a corporate citizen is as important to us as the products and services we offer.Askari Bank has made generous contributions in the areas of sports, culture, poverty alleviation,women & child care, health & medical sciences, education, human development and scientific research.We have sponsored international squash tournaments where professionals from all over the world participated. Askari Bank has also sponsored various other sports tournaments, including Golf at both amateur and professional levels. The Bank has contributed towards social awareness programs for AIDS,water conservation and blindness, and has promoted the Country’s cause on international forum by co-sponsoring the first interactive electronic encyclopedia on Pakistan.
Areas Of Operation
Locations of Askari Commercial Bank Ltd branches in Pakistan
Services Askari Bank offers a wide range of services to its customers and recognizes the importance of efficient business delivery and providing timely solutions. • • • • • • • • • • •
Corporate & Investment Banking Personal Banking Mortgage Finance Business Finance ASKCAR - Car Finance ASKCARD Travellers Cheques AskPower AskSmart Value Plus Profit / Markup Rates on Retail Products
Internet banking Askari Bank has also introduced online banking. Customers are able to view their bank information and use their accounts for money transfer and use other features.
Board of directors • • • • • • • • • • • •
Lt. Gen. Waseem Ahmed Ashraf - Chairman Lt. Gen. (R) Zarrar Azim - Chairman Executive Committee Mr. M.Rafiq Mehkari - President & Chief Executive Brig (R) Muhammad Shiraz Baig - Director Brig (R) Asmat Ullah Khan Niazi - Director Brig (R) Muhammad Bashir Baz - Director Brig (R) Shaukat Mahmood Chaudhari - Director Mr. Zafar Alam Khan Sumbal - Director Mr. Kashif Mateen Ansari - Director Mr. Muhammad Najam Ali - Director Mr. Muhammad Afzal Munif - Director Mr. Tariq Iqbal Khan - Director (NIT Nominee)
Brief History The First MicrofinanceBank Ltd (FMFB) is the result of the transformation of the micro finance program of the Aga Khan Rural Support Program (AKRSP), with more than twenty years of experience, into a separate, specialized micro finance bank. In 1996, the AKRSP started to streamline its micro finance program separately, with the objective of creating a separate entity, capable of mobilizing savings. FMFB has benefited from the long experience and transfer of key employees and technologies from AKRSP. The First MicrofinanceBank Ltd was established as a non-listed public limited company under the provisions of the Companies’ Ordinance in November 2001 and licensed as a Micro finance Institution (MFI) under the provisions of the Micro finance Institutions Ordinance 2001 in January 2002. The main shareholders are the AKRSP (45.5%), the Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development (30.30%) and the IFC (24.2%). FMFB formally started operations in February 2002, taking deposits through its first branch in July 2002.
Methodology FMFB offers a full range of financial products, such as deposits and loans but also transfer of funds. It provides different loan products, adapted to its diverse clientele, in urban and rural regions. 1 21. Business Group Loan Solidarity group lending, Rs.5,000-50,000, 15% annual interest rate. 1 22. Business Committee Loan Larger solidarity groups, Rs.3,000-50,000, 12% annual interest rate. 1 23. Individual Loan Micro enterprises. Rs.5,000-100,000, 16% annual interest rate 1 24. Group Loan Village banking methodology, rural areas, 10% annual interest rate 1 25. Urban Group Loan
Solidarity groups, 3-10 borrowers, Rs.3,000-50,000, 15% annual interest rate 1 26. House Improvement Loan Rural areas, 5 or more borrowers in village or women organizations, Rs.1,50050,000, 15% annual interest rate 17. Employee loan scheme. Low-income employees. Rs.5,000-40,000, 10% annual interest rate FMFB offers current accounts, savings accounts and fixed term deposits (1 month - 2 years) with interest rates varying from 1 to 3%. Only Rs.5 is required to open a saving account. FMFB also proposes additional services, such as cheques operations, micro insurance (with loan and life coverage) and wire transfers.
Area of Operations FMFB currently operates 21 branches, 7 being in the major urban centres of Rawalpindi, Karachi, Lahore, Hyderabad and Gwadar, and 14 in rural Northern areas.
Clients Four of FMFB clients were part of the sixteen microentrepreneurs rewarded at the Pakistan's Global Microentrepreneurship Awards organised in Karachi in November 2004.The ceremony was held First Microfinance Bank Ltd – Pakistan Banking with the Poor the Karachi Stock Exchange, symbolically opened by the overall winner, a lady entrepreneur and FMFB client. Active clients Active savers* Active borrowers Gender 14,296 14,296 6,500 n/a As of June 2004
Poverty Focus The target clientele of FMFB is the poor and underprivileged, especially women. Average outstanding loan size (US$)
Average outstanding loan size / GNP per capita
Average deposit size (US$)
346
75%
1,254
As of June 2004
Distinctive Features FMFB is the only licensed private microfinance bank in Pakistan, built on a strong team of managers, and its adhesion to international best practices. FMFB has a strong MIS and focus on sustainability. It offers domestic transfers of funds between branches.
Innovations FMFB plans to sell government securities to assist the poor to access high yield, low risk government bonds, and optimise their savings. It also plans to start mobile banking
operations in 2004, with field officers provided with cars. It currently collaborates with the Citigroup Foundation on an urban credit and health program, with prominent doctors speaking in poor villages in order to raise awareness on health issues, while free outpatient healthcare is provided to bank clients at the Aga Khan University.
Financial results FMFB made a US$300,000 profit over the first six months of 2004, a significant increase from US$38,000 for the full year of 2003. It received a rating grade of A+/A-1+ from JCR-VIS Credit Rating Company, in June 2004. According to this rating agency, profitability of the bank is still constrained by high operating costs and low yield of invested government bonds. Loan Portfolio (US$)
Portfolio at risk
2,145,000
3.46%
Savings Deposits (US$) 8,150,000
OSS / FSS 105% / 77%*
As of June 2004
Challenges and development plans FMFB’s objective is to reach Rs500 million in deposits and Rs300 million in credit by the end of 2004. FMFB has to satisfy the high expectations on its performance and growth of outreach from the financial and political community, while working in difficult environments. FMFB projects to reach 33,500 clients at the end of 2004 and become a reference for other similar institutions in the region (Central Asia, Afghanistan). It plans to have thirty branches by 2005, and provide training and IT solutions to other microfinance providers in Pakistan and internationally. FMFB also plans to develop women-specific products and serve small enterprises.
Inclusion in financial Sector FMFB is regulated by the central bank of Pakistan and achieved a rating of A1+, highest rating over a short-term perspective, and A+ over the medium and long term. Savings not reinvested in credit to clients are invested in government securities. Sources: 1• JCR-VIS Credit Rating Company Ltd, FMFB Rating Report, September 2003 2• The First MicrofinanceBank Ltd. brochure and web site in construction. 3• “The First MicrofinanceBank Ltd., on the path to alleviating poverty” document, February 2004. 4• First Microfinance Bank profile. Mixmarket
CHAPTER # 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Independent Level Variables Autonomy There are different viewpoints about the autonomy. Some of them are mentioned as , The extent to which a profession is successful has been associated with its right to perform certain work activities, and to stipulate the conditions under which the work will be performed. (Pawalko 1988,p.26). Self regulation among professionals in term of work processes and methods has been associated with high levels of performance, motivation, job satisfaction and levels of turnover and absenteeism (Spector 1986) Autonomy may be stated as power over oneself, the ability to resist demand of others, and to engage in action without the permission of others (Marwell, 1966:39) Autonomy is a protean concept, which means different things to different people,and occasionally appears to change its meaning in the course of a single argument.(Chrisman John, 1988) Employees are when given more autonomy it boosts confidence and self esteem which finally results in the building trust on management. Autonomy allowed the people to make the mistakes in their work and correct them without drawing the attention of their supervisors and co workers (cf, Hughes, 1958) Melhem (2003) defined Autonomy as “An employee’s perception that she or he uses his capability of discretion and freedom when dealing with customers. It reflects the degree of confidence among employees”.
H1.Autonomy to employees increases trust on management & ultimately organizational commitment H0.There is direct relationship between autonomy and turnovers
Feedback Feedback plays a determinative role in how employees of organization perceive their work environment and it effects their perception of their employers evaluation and reward system. In simple words, telling employees that how well they are performing in the organization. Employees desire and actively seek feedback about their performance from their supervisor, co-workers and work itself. (Ashford et al, 1975) Results of Ardalan et al., (1994) supported the assumption that allowing employee’s discretion (leeway or choice) in decision making and providing them with outcome feedback results in higher quality decisions. When managers provide feedback to key workers, they should avoid prompting defensive reactions from key workers, such as excuse making (. Snyder & Higgins 1988), or negative reactions brought about by the form in which feedback is provided (Frey 1978). Kim & Hamner (1976) found that when evaluative and non-evaluative feedback was added to goal setting, greater improvement in the performance occurred. Feedback is necessary for the effectiveness of goal setting program (Latham & Yukl 1975). Supervisory feedback is a useful mechanism for controlling sales people performance (Teas 1983:Tyagi 1985;Walker, Churchill and Ford 1977). The extent and depth of two-way flow of information provides a solid basis for trusting management and create perceptions. Degree to which employees receive information that reveals that how well they are performing on the job (Sims et al., 1979). According to Kluger and Denisi (1996), Actions taken by the external agent to provide regarding some aspects of one s task performance. Many critical decisions become easy by the feedback system Performance appraisal is the critical element in translating individual performance into pay decision in the merit base pay system. (Lawler ,1990) Feedback back can also be observed in the scenario of incentives, pays, or may be in the form of extrinsic and intrinsic rewards. Greater rewards from the work increase job satisfaction and, in turn, increase employee motivation to achieve new production goals (Miller & Monge 1986;Hamner 1988)
H1.Proper feedback system enhances employees trust on management & reduces turnovers H0.There is no relation between organizational commitment & feedback
Goal Clarity Another independent variable of this study is goal clarity, which plays very vital role as for as trust building is concerned. The role clarity has the direct impact on the job satisfaction.A mental image or other endpoint representation associated with affect towards which action may be directed (Pervin,Lawrence.A (1989). If there s no goal clarity among the employees then there will be lack of active participation from the employees side. Degree to which an organization goals and means for achieving those goals are clearly understood by employees (Gordon & Cummins, 1977) Increased goal clarity results in job satisfaction, which in turn implies a critical, need for thorough understanding of communication media as well as ability in oral and written communication skills in order for an administrator to be successful. Maher & Piersol (1970) ‘‘Lack of goal clarity increases the probability that a person will be dissatisfied with his job, will experience psychological stress(job tension),will seek opportunities for improving clarity and satisfaction, will be less innovative, and will generally lack of job interest.’’(Cohen A, 1955) Lack of clarity on the part of an employee regarding his own job or the overall mission of his location will have significant negative consequences (Maher & Piersol (1970). Formal procedures and documentation, whereas others are less formal. When a more formal approach is used, each planning step is clearly defined as prescribed by Ulrich (1987) and others (e.g. Schuler and Jackson, 1987). Within the different phases, specific planning techniques or models are used, such as Markov analysis (Reid and Taylor, 1989), futures analysis (Ducker, 1980) and current-situation analysis (Walker, 1990). Researchers have frequently correlated financial data about fir performance with the utilization of various practices (d’Arcimoles, 1997; Delery and Doty, 1996; Huselid, 1995; Nkomo, 1987).
More specifically, the researchers develop and test a theoretical model that specifies the relationships between in- and extra-role performance and satisfaction, commitment, role perceptions, and turnover. (Scott B. MacKenzie; Philip M. Podsakoff; Michael Ahearne)
H1.Goal clarity enhances commitment H0.Commitment is negatively influenced by goal clarity
Supervisory Relationship. Satisfaction with the supervisor, on the other hand, should be an important predictor of how highly the employee values membership in the organization.Since supervisors create much of the work environment of their subordinates(Oldham, 1976), they might be described as representing the organization to subordinates and as mediating the trust and dependability which employeesattribute to the organization (Kerr et al., 1974). It follows, then, that satisfaction with supervision could be expected to positively relate to organizational commitment. In work organizations, relationships of varying quality evolve through these sets of coupled behaviors, in which one party offers resources that are valued by the other party, who then reciprocates (or declines to reciprocate) by offering (or withholding) resources of his or her own (Graen & Scandura, 1987). The tendency for supervisors to respond in a socially desirable manner to the latter type of question (Graen & Scandura, 1987; Scandura et al., 1986), this measurement scheme captures only the supervisor’s contribution to the mutual relationship. That is, both subordinate and supervisor items are evaluating the same thing: the supervisor’s communication of performance expectations to the subordinate. Other than the final summary item, the other scale items follow a similar pattern of one-sided assessment. What is missing with this approach is insight into how the supervisor views the subordinate’s contribution to their relationship. Becker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gilbert (1996) also explored whether commitment to the supervisor or to the organization had the greatest impact on the performance ratings that supervisors gave to newly hired employees. Supervisors are able to influence subordinates to comply with their wishes on the basis of their authority, control over rewards, control over punishments, and control over information (French & Raven, 1959). Coworkers and subordinates, on the other hand, have fewer avenues for influencing others. H1.Commitment increase with positive and healthy supervisory relations H0.There is no impact of supervisor on sub ordinate commitment
Organizational Politics. Kacmar and Baron (1999) offered the following definition: “organizational politics involves actions by individuals, which are directed toward the goal of furthering their own self-interests without regard for the well-being of others or their organization” (p. 4). There is a growing acknowledgment that politics play a prominent role in organizational policies and processes (Ferris & Kacmar, 1992; Frost, 1987; Gandz & Murray, 1980; Gioia & Longenecker, 1994; Longenecker, Sims, & Gioia, 1987; Parker, Dipboye, & Jackson, 1995; Pfeffer, 1981; Tziner, Latham, Price, & Haccoun, 1996) and likely influence several important work-related attitudes and behaviors (Kacmar & Carlson, 1997). For example, organizational politics perceptions have been found to be related to increased job anxiety (Anderson, 1994; Cropanzano, Howes, Grandey, & Toth, 1997; Ferris et al., 1996a; Ferris et al., 1996b), reduced job satisfaction (Anderson; Cropanzano et al., 1997; Ferris et al., 1996a; Ferris et al., 1996b; Ferris & Kacmar, 1992; Nye & Witt, 1993; Parker et al., 1995), reduced satisfaction with supervisor (Drory, 1993; Ferris et al., 1996b), and increased intent to turnover (Anderson, 1994; Cropanzano et al., 1997). Research suggests that individuals who perceive high levels of organizational politics also are likely to enact political behavior themselves (Ferris, Harrell-Cook, & Dulebohn, 2000), thereby creating a self-perpetuating cycle. Organizational politics perceptions are likely to result in differing responses to organizational policies and practices depending on whether politics are viewed as an opportunity or a threat. Research suggests that many employees feel uncomfortable and unqualified when it comes to providing performance ratings for their supervisors and peers (Bettenhausen & Fedor, 1997). Unfortunately, these are exactly the types of situations (i.e., uncertain, ambiguous) in which political behavior is most likely to occur (Ferris et al., 1989). Bridges and Nelson (1989; Nelson and Bridges 1999) argue that the process of generating inequality in organizations is one of organizational politics. In such a model various groups within organizations struggle to capture organizational resources. According to (Bridges and Nelson 1989; Nelson and Bridges 1999) these groups can be any socially defined groups within organizations. Tilly (1998) . Organizational politics has been defined in various ways. The earliest comprehensive definition was provided by Mays and Allen (1977) which is as: “Organizational politics is the management of influence to obtain ends not sanctioned by the organization or to obtain sanctioned ends through non-sanctioned influence means.”
Pfeffer (1981) has emphasized on interdependence and consensus of organizational members within an organization. As interdependence increases the need and opportunity for exerting influence will also increase. The consensus in decision making process and interdependence interact to effect political activity. But importance of decision to justify political activity and uncertainty about it are the crucial factors. This is more obvious in the hierarchy of public sector organizations. Gandz and Murray (1980) proposed that public sector employees would perceive their organizations more political as compared to private sector employees. Although they did not have empirical support to prove this notion but later studies (e. g. vigoda) reported the difference in perceptions of public sector and private sector employees. H1.Organizational politics is responsible for the turnovers H0.Organizational politics increases organizational commitment
Procedural Justice. The concept of procedural justice originates in the organizational literature and is concerned with the perceived fairness of procedures used in making decisions. The research of Adams (1965) and Meyer et al. (1989) has shown that employees who have the perception that they are treated negatively by the organization are more likely to have a lower level of affective commitment towards the organization. Procedural justice relates to the perceived equity of the means used to determine mandates assignments, compensation conditions as well as evaluation and promotion criteria (Folger 1977). According to Tyler and Smith (1998), people’s behavior is strongly linked to views about justice and injustice, with perceptions of justice strongly related to feelings of anger
1(Montada & Schneider, 1989), self-worth, and self-concept. Procedural justice concerns the perceived fairness of the procedures involved in decision making and the perceived treatment one receives from the decision maker. Procedural justice judgments have been demonstrated to have an important influence on people’s evaluations of group authorities, institutions, and rules (Tyler & Lind, 1992). In fact, there is evidence to show that people who feel they have been treated fairly by an organization are more inclined to accept its decisions and follow its directions (Lind & Tyler, 1988). It has also been found that people are most likely to challenge a situation collectively when they believe that the procedures are unfair and that they personally suffered because of the injustice (Tyler & Smith, 1998). The ‘group value approach’ in the procedural justice literature highlights the importance of relational issues such as an authority’s trustworthiness, interpersonal respect, and neutrality in its dealings with others (Tyler, 1989; 1994; 1997; Tyler & Smith, 1998). People are also influenced by judgments of the neutrality of decision-making procedures. Neutrality includes assessments of honesty, impartiality, and the use of fact, not personal opinions, in decision-making. People basically seek a level playing field in which no one is unfairly advantaged. As people are seldom in the position to know the correct outcome, they focus on the evidence that the procedures are even-handed. The provision of information about procedures and explanations for decisions is also seen as particularly important for people’s perceptions of fairness and decision acceptance (Greenberg, 1993a; 1993b). Organizational researchers such as Thibaut and Walker (1975) and Gilliland (1993) contend that procedures are perceived to be ‘more fair’ when affected individuals have an opportunity to either influence the decision process or offer input. Gilliland (1993) also states that perceptions of procedural justice are influenced by the extent to which procedural rules are satisfied or violated. Procedural rules, listed by Leventhal (1980), suggest that in order to be fair decisions should be made consistently; without personal biases; with as much accurate information as possible; with interest of affected individuals represented in a way that is compatible with their ethical values, and with an outcome that can be modified. Other justice researchers have suggested additional rules such as the importance of two-way communication (Greenberg 1986). Kumar (1996) states that procedural justice describes the fairness of a party’s procedures and policies for dealing with its vulnerable partners and refers to the fairness of the means used to determine the outcomes in the relationship. Maxell et al (1999) suggest that the whether judges the fairness of the process used in negotiations or not the process used by one party demonstrates a concern for the other party. They state that a concern for social utility has implications for negotiations as it can reduce the conflict between partners and facilitate the negotiation process. When negotiators have a
concern for the other party, they tend to exhibit more co-coordinating behavior as opposed to the use of competitive behaviors. These co-coordinating behaviors tend to expedite the negotiation process and increase the possibility of mutual satisfactory win-win agreement. The perception of injustice is suggested to have relationship to many organizational and personal level outcomes like positive relation to personnel turnover, negative relationship with pay and job satisfaction, trust in supervisors and organizational commitment.
H1. Fair Procedural Justice increases trust in management & ultimately reduces turnovers as commitment increases H0. There is no impact of procedural justice on trust on management
Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is referred as set of discretionary workplace behaviors that exceed one’s basic job requirements It is defined as an employee’s willingness to go above and beyond the prescribed roles which they have been assigned (Organ 1990).Organ and Ryan (1995) and Chen et al. (1998) also identified a positive link between organizational citizenship behavior and organizational commitment. However, a meta-analysis conducted by Organ and Ryan (1995) asserted that only affective commitment was related to organizational citizenship behavior. Work behaviours like organizational citizenship behaviours are receiving more attention as they contribute to effective functioning of organization. Organizational citizenship behaviours are the kind that are beyond the traditional measures of job performance and can be conceptualized as positive organizationally relevant behaviours of individual organization members (Van Dyne et al., 1994). Organ (1988:4) defined organizational citizenship behaviour as “individual behaviour that is discretionary, nor directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization. By discretionary, we mean that the behaviour is not enforceable requirement of the role or the job description, that is, the clearly specifiable terms of the person’s employment contract with the organization; the behaviour is rather a matter of personal choice, such that its omission is nor generally understood as punishable.” Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) was introduced by Smith, Organ and Near, (1983), which defined OCB as discretionary individual behavior, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, which, in the aggregate, promotes the effective functioning of the organization Penner, et al. (1997) explored the impact of personality and motivation on OCB. Organizational Citizenship Behavior are willingness to take steps to prevent problems with other employees, and obeying organization rules, regulations and procedures even when no one is watching (Chompookum & Derr, 2004). Research of OCB has been extensive since its introduction nearly twenty years back (Bateman & Organ, 1983). MacKensie, Podsakoff, and Praine (1999) stated several dimensions of OCB such as, ‘helping’ behaviors by employees (e.g. supportive actions to assist others and going beyond the requirements of the job); ‘sportsmanship’ (tolerating the work environment without excessive complaining); and ‘civic duty’ (constructive involvement in the processes of the organization beyond the requirement of the job). Different kinds of personalities may display different degrees of OCB because individuals tend to differ in their levels of pro social behavior, and it was reasoned that some employees would naturally be willing to go the extra mile and help co-workers or organizations whereas others would not (Konovsky & Organ, 1996;Chompookum & Derr, 2004). There is consensus in this particular field that OCB addresses silent behaviors for organizational enterprises (Barbuto, Brown, Wilhite, & Wheeler, 2001). Successful organizations have subordinates who go beyond their formal job responsibilities and freely give of their time and energy to succeed at the assigned job. Such altruism is neither prescribed nor required; yet it contributes to the smooth functioning of the organization. OCB is desirable from the organizational point of view because such behavior is thought to increase the available resources and decrease the need for costly mechanism of control (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff & Mackenzie, 1997). Kelley and Hoffman (1997) claimed that OCB could improve the performance of an organization. They pointed out that a positive relationship exists between OCB and customer loyalty for service-oriented organizations. OCB is viewed as a critical factor, which influences the quality of, provided service by the
employees and also customer satisfaction (Yoon & Suh, 2003; Castro, Armario, & Ruiz, 2004). This satisfaction induces the customers to be loyal. Thus, it can be concluded that OCB can aid to serve the best interests of the organization. Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) defined OCB as individual contributions in the workplace beyond role requirement and contractually rewarded job achievements. Organizational citizenship behavior was defined initially as constructive or cooperative gestures that are neither mandatory, nor directly or contractually compensated for by formal organizational reward systems (Organ & Konovsky, 1989; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). More recent work in the area has redefined the construct along the lines of what Borman and Motowidlo (1993) refer to as contextual performance or what Borman and colleagues currently call citizenship performance (Borman, Penner, Allen, & Motowidlo, 2001). According to Borman and Motowidlo (1993), citizenship performance‘‘shapes the organizational, social, and psychological context that serves as the critical catalyst for task activities and processes’’ (p. 71), and includes behaviors such as helping others with their jobs, supporting the organization,and volunteering for additional work or responsibility. Good citizenship behavior has been analyzed in the general social context of obedience, loyalty, or voice tendencies (Hirschman, 1970; Marshall, 1950). Organ and his colleagues identified this contributing extra-role behavior as the “good soldier syndrome” in the workplace (Organ, 1988; Smith, Organ & Near, 1983 H1.OCB increases trust in management & directly influences organizational commitment. H0.Turnovers & OCB is unassociated
Moderating variable Trust In Management. Every person has own perception regarding different aspects of life ,Different professional has described trust in management in different ways,Views points of some of them are discussed as :Robert Bruce Shaw (1997) defined trust to mean: Belief that those on whom we depend will meet our expectations of them.
According to the Advanced Learner Dictionary trust is basically, confidence on the reality or authentication of quality of person or object may also be a true statement. The sharing of information on such things as financial performance, strategy, and operational measures conveys to the organization’s people that they are trusted. (Pfeffer and Veiga, 1999). Trust is just like the base in construction of the building if base is weak then the building will definitely be weak, same is the case with the trust un any organization. Trust in management can be manifested in the employees behavior and attitudes.(Whiney 1994;Kramar and Taylor 1995) It explores how much an organization value innovation and how likely it will be
adaptive to new opportunities(Elgamal,1998:Gordon & Commins,1979) Yoon et al. (2001), refers to managers’ concern and support for staff work and represents the degree to which they create a facilitative climate of support, trust, and helpfulness. An atmosphere wher trustful communication and collaboration can take place may be an important foundation for achieving organizational change goals. (Bocchino,1993:Dutton,1992:Weisbord,1992).In simple words it can be said that in order to build trust their should be proper communication, goal clarity and autonomy to employees in an organization.
Dependent Variables Organizational Commitment Porter, Steers, Mowday and Boulian (1974) defined organizational commitment as the relative strength of an individual’s identification and involvement with a particular organization.The determination and prediction of employees' commitment to their organization has potential for becoming important to the study of organizational behaviour in several different respects. Such a position has support in the conceptualizations of organizational commitment proposed by Salancik (1977), Steers (1977), and Schein (1970), which suggest that commitment represents a useful indicator of organizational effectiveness as well as an important variable in shaping employee attitudes and beliefs. organizational commitment is a psychological state that categorizes the employee’s relationship with the organization, it is understood as a commitment to the entire organization. Three components of commitment have been identified, each of which ties the employee to their organization but the nature of the ‘psychological-bonding’ is different. Affective commitment (AC) ties people through their emotional attachment, involvement, and identification with the organization. Continuance commitment (CC) depends on employees’ awareness of the costs of leaving the organization. Normative commitment (NC) rests on employees’ obligatory feelings towards coworkers or management. single construct (Meyer and Allen 1984). The affective component is closely aligned with the Porter et al. (1974) OCQ scale (Randall,
Fedor, and Longenecker 1990). The other two components proposed by Allen and Meyer (1990; Meyer and Allen 1984, 1991) are continuance commitment and normative commitment (called "moral" commitment by Jaros et al. 1993). Organizational commitment (henceforth commitment) refers to an individual’s emotional attachment to and involvement in an employing organization. Recent meta-analytic evidence has reported commitment to predict a wide range of job attitudes, turnover intention, and citizenship behaviors (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Meyer et al., 2002). Studies by Steers (1977), and Stevens et al. (1978) emphasized the importance of job characteristics such as feedback, task identity, and the nature of social interaction in the prediction of organizational commitment. Tang et al’s (2000) study confirmed the link between commitment and actual turnover and Griffeth et al’s (2000) analysis showed that organizational commitment was a better predictor of turnover than overall job satisfaction. Organizational commitment (OC) has for many years been identified as a central construct in understanding the relationship between the employee and the employer (c.f. Allen & Meyer 1996; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch & Topolnytsky, 2002 Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979). Organizational citizenship behavior as noted above is one example of discretionary behavior which has been identified as being linked to OC. OCB is taken to be a positive outcome of a committed workforce, characterized by voluntary extrarole contributions of employees that are not recognized by the formal organizational reward system (Organ, 1988). This paper focuses on the links between OC and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) as a form of discretionary extra-role behavior. general relationships between OC and OCB are relatively well documented,(Meyer et al., 2002) there remain issues meriting further investigation. First, the crosscultural applicability of the constructs both of OC and OCB remains open to debate. The structural invariance of OC in different cultures has been a focus of a number of studies in recent years (c.f. Vandenberghe, 2003), typically presenting culture-specific analyses. Underpinning much of the writing on organizational commitment is an assumption that higher levels of commitment will result in more positive outcomes for the organization (Meyer et al., 2002). This construct has been linked to important outcomes such as performance and turnover (Hom and Griffeth 1995).Commitment should lead to improved relationships and performance. Mathieu and Zajac (1990) identify job performance, perception of alternatives, intention to search or leave, and turnover as outcomes influenced by OC. Many OC studies focus on intent to leave and turnover as the primary outcomes ( Whitener and Walz 1993; Jaros et al. 1993). All of these proposed outcomes are important to organizations. Meyer & Allen (1997) refer to Morrow & McElroy's (1993) statement that organizational commitment is the most maturely developed of all the work commitment constructs. Loui (1995), found that commitment was significantly related to trust, job involvement, and job satisfaction. Angle & Perry (1981) uncovered a relationship between commitment and turnover. Wiener & Vardi (1980) reported positive correlations between commitment and job performance. employees, Becker (1992) examined whether employees’ commitment to different constituencies or to the overall organization were better predictors of job satisfaction, intention to quit, and pro-social behavior. Jermier & Berkes (1979) discovered that employees who were allowed to participate in decision-making had higher levels of commitment to the organization. DeCotiis & Summers (1987) found that when employees were treated with consideration, they displayed greater levels of commitment. Bycio, Hackett, & Allen (1995) reported positive correlations between the leadership behaviors of charisma, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and contingent
reward and affective, continuance, and normative commitment. Organizational commitment has been defined as a psychological state that binds an employee to an organization, thereby reducing the incidence of turnover (Allen & Meyer, 1990), and as a mindset that takes different forms and binds an individual to a course of action that is of relevance to a particular target (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Organizational commitment is the extent of an individual's commitment to an organization. The term organizational commitment, for example, is not a unitary and well defined concept. Angle and Perry (1981) summarized the term commitment with a definition comprehensively based on many previous relevant studies: The term "commitment" has been used, for example, to describe such diverse phenomena as the willingness of social actors to give their energy and loyalty to social systems (Kantar, 1968). Some studies even explore the relationship between organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness. Surveying fixed-route bus services, Angle and Perry (1981) studied organizational commitment as an independent variable to explain multiple dimensions of organizational effectiveness (i.e., adaptability, turnover, and tardiness rate). Factors affecting individual commitment include motivation, awareness, and flexibility, information and guidance available as well as perceived benefits from learning. Despite the multiplicity of meanings and apparent ambiguity of the concept of organizational commitment, it has been argued that organizational commitment is a better measurement of human behavior in organizations than some other related measures including job satisfaction and job involvement (Crewson, 1997; Steers & Porter, 1983). Crewson (1997) recently presented a comprehensive and summative definition of organizational commitment that included an "individual's identification with and involvement in a particular organization" (p. 507). He also summarized that organizational commitment "has been operational zed as a combination of three distinct factors: a strong belief and acceptance of the organization's goals and values, eagerness to work hard for the organization, and a desire to remain a member of the organization”.
Turnover Intentions. Organizational commitment and job involvement have been major themes in the organizational literature, especially with regard to the prediction of organizational outcomes, such as turnover. One conceptual refinement has been the focusing on other work-related attitudes,such as job involvement (Kanungo, 1979) and organizational commitment (Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979), as predictors of turnover. Organizations invest a lot on their employees in terms of induction and training, developing, maintaining and retaining them in their organization. Employee turnover is one of the most studied topics in organizational psychology (Mitra, Jenkins, & Gupta, 1992) and is of interest to other professionals, including personnel researchers, and managers of organizations (Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, and Meglino, 1979). The term “turnover” is defined by Price (1977) as: the ratio of the number of organizational members who have left during the period being considered divided by the average number of people in that organization during the period. For the purpose of this research, ‘turnover intention’ is defined as an employee’s decision to leave an organization voluntarily (Dougherty, Bluedorn & Keon, 1985; Mobley, 1977). A number of empirical studies confirm the important role of organizational commitment in the turnover process for IT personnel (Igbaria & Greenhaus 1992; Igbaria and Guimaraes 1999). Sommers (1995) and Chen et al. (1998) also found negative relationships between both types of commitment and turnover intentions. Certain consequences are there which affects organization when an employee leaves an organization An employee’s exit from an organization is a direct cost, in the form of having to select, recruit, and train a new employee (Dalton, Todor, & Krackhardt 1982; Staw, 1980). The exiting of employees also has indirect cost implications that include reduced morale, pressure on the remaining staff, costs of learning, and the loss of social capital (Des & Shaw, 2001). One of the main consequences for organizations that have a high turnover is the financial cost. The total costs of employee turnover are hard to measure, in particular the effects on the organization’s culture, employee morale, and social capital or loss of organizational memory (Des & Shaw 2001). The cost of losing a high performer who has a high degree of knowledge, skills and abilities, or an employee, who is employed in an area where there is a labor market shortage, can be substantial to the organizations performance, productivity, and service delivery. Dalton (1979) have estimated the cost of turnover to an organization has been on average one to one and a half times the employee’s salary. It is widely believed that a significant amount of turnover adversely influences organizational effectiveness and disrupts performance and productivity (Horn and Kinichi, 2001). Previous study revealed a negative relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intentions and an even stronger association between organizational citizenship behavior and actual turnover. Chen et al. (1998) argue that a high level of organizational citizenship behavior “reflect employees’ true willingness regarding how much they want to be involved in, or how much they like to be distant from, the organization”. There are several reasons why people quit from one organization to another or why people leave organization. The experience of job related stress (job stress), the range factors that lead to job related stress (stressors), lack of commitment in the organization; and job dissatisfaction make employees to quit Firth et al. (2004). Many researchers argue that high turnover rates might have negative effects on the profitability of organizations if not managed
properly (Hogan, 1992; Wasmuth and Davis, 1993; Barrows,1990). Hogan 1992, nearly twenty years ago the direct and indirect cost of a single line employee quitting was between $ 1400 and $4000. If roles of employees are not clearly spelled out by management/ supervisors, this would accelerate the degree of employees quitting their jobs due to lack of role clarity. a high labor turnover may mean poor personnel policies, poor recruitment policies, poor supervisory practices, poor grievance procedures, or lack of motivation. Job involvement has also been found to be negatively related to turnover intentions. (Blat and Boal, 1989). Job satisfaction, career satisfaction, and organizational commitment reflect a positive attitude towards the organization, thus having a direct influence on employee turnover intentions. Job satisfaction, job involvement and organizational commitment are considered to be related but distinguishable attitudes. Empirical support for the notion that turnover likelihood is negatively associated with job involvement and organizational commitment is evident from the literature (Brown, 1996, and Mathieu & Zajac, 1990, for meta-analysis results), a second conceptual refinement suggests that these two constructs interact in the prediction of employee withdrawal behavior (Blau & Boal, 1987).In their conceptual model linking job involvement and organizational commitment to turnover, Blau and Boal (1987) proposed that, beyond the main effect of the two job attitudes on turnover, job involvement and organizational commitment would also interact in their relationships with turnover. With regard to the former, analyses consistently indicate significant correlations between OC and turnover intention (cf. Randall, 1990). Cotton and Tuttle (1986) found commitment, salary age, sex, organizational tenure, educational attainment, perceptions of job mobility, met expectations, work-group cohesion, opportunities for advancement, and job performance to be highly related to turnover. If these omitted variables are in turn correlated with organizational commitment and job involvement the effects of organizational commitment and job involvement on turnover will be confounded.
CHAPTER # 3 METHODOLOGY
Nature of Study This is causal type of study due to fact that interdependence of different variables on one variable is checked. Type Of Research Dependence of turnover (Dependent variable) on feedback, autonomy, organizational citizenship behavior, goal clarity & organizational politics through trust on management and organizational commitment. So this is Causal Research Theoretical Framework: IDENTIFICATION OF VARIBLES •
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES.
Procedural Justice, Organizational Politics Autonomy ,Feedback Goal Clarity Supervisory Relationship, Organizational Citizenship Behavior •
DEPENDENT VARIABLES.
Organizational commitment & Turnover intentions. •
MODERATING VARIABLE.
Trust in management
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
Procedural Justice Organizational Politics Autonomy
Trust In Management Organizational Commitment
Feedback Goal Clarity Supervisory Relationship Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Hypothesis Development h 1.Fair Procedural Justice increases trust in management & ultimately reduces turnovers as commitment increases h 2.There is no impact of procedural justice on trust on management h 3.Organizational politics is responsible for the trust factor h 4.Organizational politics decreases trust and commitment h 5.Trust increase with positive and healthy supervisory relations h 6.There is no impact of supervisor on sub ordinate commitment h7. Proper feedback system enhances employees trust on management & reduces turnovers h 8.There is no relation between organizational commitment & feedback h 9.Autonomy to employees increases trust on management & ultimately organizational commitment h 10.There is direct relationship between autonomy and turnovers h11. Goal clarity enhances trust h12. Trust is negatively influenced by goal clarity h13. OCB increases trust in management & directly influences organizational commitment. h14. Turnovers & OCB is unassociated.
Types of Data Primary data is used for research purpose because no such research was conducted in Pakistan specially on Banking Sector.
Sources of Data Data is collected through the different branches of The First Micro finance Bank & Askari Bank Ltd. The reason for selecting two different banks Askari Bank (deals in consumer & corporate banking) & The First Micro finance Bank (deals in micro financing in remote areas or general banking) of different nature in their operations is to expand the scope of studies.
Description of Population Different employee of different hierarchal level were targeted for research data as turnover is not specific to any level in organization.
Sample Size 70 were the total population size to collect data but complete data is collected through 61 employees. So tools applied on data of 61.
Instrument Description used for data collection Questionnaires was developed by keeping in view literature review supporting different variables and also through secondary data such as research papers journal and articles Sampling Type. Judgmental based non-probability sampling technique is used. As only bank operational staff was being selected.
CHAPTER # 4 RESULTS & DISCUSSION Overall Correlation Results Table 1.1 OVERALL CORRELATION 1.Goal Clarity 2.Feedback 3.Organizational Citizenship Behavior 4.Supervisory Relation 5.Procedural Justice 6.Organizational Politics 7.Autonomy 8.Trust in Management 9.Organizational Commitment 10.Turnover
1.GC 2.FB 3.OCB 4.SupRel 5.ProJus 6.OP 7.Aut 8.TIM 9.OC 10.TO 1.000 0.273 1.000 0.622 -0.099 0.228 0.138 -0.495 0.645 0.004 -0.196
0.304 1.000 0.003 0.097 0.477 0.291 -0.089 0.356 -0.063 -0.266 0.358 0.504 0.363 0.097 0.045 -0.005
1.000 0.343 0.356 0.036 0.118 0.026 0.385
1.000 0.199 -0.170 0.342 0.218 0.217
1.000 -0.211 0.228 0.009 0.224
1.000 -0.459 1.000 -0.104 0.186 1.000 0.169 -0.250 0.246 1.000
Above-mentioned table 1.1 depicts overall correlation trend that are explained further: Table shows the correlation between the variables especially between dependent & independent variables 0.622 is the value of correlation between the goal clarity & OCB .If the goals are clearer to the employees then citizenship behavior will boost up. Strong positive correlation exists between goal clarity & OCB. Correlation value between feedback & OCB is 0.304, it means feedback to employees will definitely positively effects .Obvert interesting information that is got through this research is that there exists negative correlation between goal clarity & supervisory relation but not intense in nature .Value is –0.099 It is due to fact that when goals are clear to the employees then they will not shows affiliation towards their supervisor because they knows whole strategy through which goals are to be achieved. Procedural justice in organization will ultimately result in the positive & fair feedback to employees. Value got through the research is 0.477 so it shows that the procedural justice that exists with in an organization directly influences feedback system, & makes it effective. So they are highly correlated .0.343 is the correlation value between the procedural justice & supervisory relations. Means positive correlation exists .It interprets that if that is proper procedural justice in an organization then employees will have positive attitude towards their supervisors. Inverse is the case with the autonomy & goal clarity, value is –0.495 means highly negative correlation .Due to that if autonomy is high that employees wants to perform its duty on its own then goal clarity decreases because affiliation with supervisor reduces ultimately less goal clarity of employees.
0.356 is the correlation value organizational politics, OCB & supervisory relations. If there is positive politics in organizations for the benefit of employees then citizenship behavior & employees affiliation towards employees & dependability will show an upward trend. -0.211 is the value of correlation between organizational politics & autonomy .As negative sign gives clear picture that there exists inverse relation that if politics in organization increases then ultimately autonomy level among employees will reduce that employees would not be able to perform their task on their own or as per their desire. There exists very high positive correlation between goal clarity (independent variable) & trust in management (moderating variable) and the value is 0.645.t means if management wants to increase trust level on employees than goal to them should be clear that would ultimately result in trustworthiness. In this case h 11 is accepted & h 12 is rejected 0.358 & 0.504 are values of correlation with trust on management on feedback & OCB respectively. It means that feedback is positively correlated with trust. So h 7 & h 13 are accepted and h 8 & h 14 are rejected, Supervisory relation effects trust in management but not highly correlated, as value is 0.118.now as a result h 6 accepted & h5 rejected. 0.342 it is the value correlation between procedural justice & trust in management. More justice in organization more will be employee’s trust. So it is positive correlation. We will accept h1 & reject h2 0.228 is the value of correlation between organization politics & trust in management .As more favorable politics for employees more trust on management and vise versa. There exists a positive correlation between these two variables.Here h3 is accepted and h4 is rejected. By this research we got value of correlation between trust in management & autonomy - ----0.459 Inverse relation exists between them is due to reason that employees having more autonomy will have less affiliation with the supervisors regarding duties or work so lesser trust in management and vise versa. So h9 is rejected and h10 is accepted. As for as commitment is concerned Affective, normative & continuance commitment as overall is discussed in this paper so impact of goal commitment on organizational commitment is very low as the value is 0.004 Effective feedback direct and positively influences organizational commitment of employees that s why its value is 0.363.More will be feedback more will be organizational commitment. On the other hand OCB, supervisory relations & organization politics have negligible relation with the trust in management, as their values are 0.097, 0.026 & 0.009 respectively. 0.218 is value of correlation between procedural justice and trust in management so their exists positive correlation between them. Weak negative correlation exists between autonomy and organizational commitment & value is -0.104. Weak positive correlation exists between trust and organizational commitment 0.186.Goal clarity & turnover have correlation value of -0.196.It means weak negative correlation is there. Feedback & OCB have correlation value of 0.045 & -0.005 with trust in management. Feedback is positively correlated and OCB is negatively related but both are negligible in nature. 0.385 is correlation value between supervisory relation and turnover. It suggests that if supervisory relations are not healthy then turnover will be high in organizations. 0.217 & 0.224 are values of correlations with procedural justice
and organizational politics with turnover. Both values shows positive correlation but not very strong in nature. Autonomy & turnover has correlation value of 0.169 means positive but weak nature of relation. Obvious results have been obtained that trust in management & turnover has negative correlation & value is –0.250 that if trust factor is keep on increasing then turnover rates will be high in organization & vise versa. All three types of commitments are discussed as overall that s why correlation value between commitment & turnover is 0.246 that means direct positive correlation. There are other things employees would like to try outside this organization even still if they are committed or employees use current organization as a stepping stone to other opportunities that why turnover increases.
Results On Basis Of Gender Table 1.2 MALE CORRELATION
1.GC 1.Goal Clarity 1.000 2.Feedback 0.195 3.Organizational citizenship Behavior 0.629 4.Supervisory Relation -0.123 5.Procedural Justice 0.226 6.Organizational Politics 0.303 7.Autonomy -0.499 8.Trust in Management 0.572 9.Organizational Commitment -0.049 10.Turnover -0.122
2.FB 3.OCB 4.SupRel 5.ProJus 6.OP 7.Aut 8.TIM 9.OC 10.TO 1.000 0.287 0.035 0.506 -0.244 -0.028 0.309 0.454 0.125
1.000 0.158 0.440 0.435 -0.383 0.523 0.213 0.048
1.000 0.237 0.420 -0.128 0.184 0.190 0.248
1.000 0.148 1.000 -0.258 -0.350 1.000 0.337 0.279 -0.426 1.000 0.485 0.091 -0.031 0.387 1.000 0.222 0.258 0.040 -0.070 0.260 1.000
Table 1.2 shows correlation trend in males .It shows that there is very high positive correlation between goal clarity & OCB as their value is 0.629 .It shows that if goals are more clear to employees then there will be high positive trend of citizenship behavior. Feedback also affects OCB positively but not intensely. Their value is 0.287 Its interesting to see that value of correlation between goal clarity & supervisory relation in males is - 0.123, means their exists negative correlation . 0.226 is value of correlation goal clarity & procedural justice. Simply more justice more will be goal clarity. As if there is proper procedural justice in an organization then ultimately feedback system will be fair, value got through research is 0.506 means highly correlated in males. Same is the case with the OCB & procedural justice; value is 0.440.High positive correlation exists between procedural justice & OCB. Positive correlation between goal clarity & organizational politics and value is 0.303.Their exists negative correlation between organization politics & feedback. It is due to reason that if Personal favorites are awarded with better raises in salary and promotions then politics level is high and feedback will be ultimately negative. True value from research is – 0.244. 0.435 & 0.420 are the value of correlation between OCB & supervisory relation with organizational politics respectively. In case of correlation with autonomy and goal clarity their exists negative correlation of – 0.499 It may be due to the reason that employees having less autonomy may have positive supervisory relation will be more aware about goals as they are dependent on the supervisors and vise versa, same is the case with OCB & autonomy – 0.383, i.e. negative correlation exists. Feedback and autonomy has almost negligible correlation. More politics lesser will be autonomy, which is shown by results that value come is –0.350.
Goal clarity & OCB has direct impact on trust in management. More goal clarity & OCB more likely to have positive upward trend in the graph of trust in management as obtained values are 0.572 & 0.523. Feedback system & procedural justice also affects trust factor positively values obtained are 0.309 & 0.337 respectively. Organizational politics affects trust on management positively 0.279.As more politics in favor of employees more will be trust. As there is more autonomy factor among employees then lesser will be trust. This is due the reason that high autonomy results in less goal clarity & less clarity in goals will result in lesser & lesser trust on management. Value obtained is -0.426, which shows strong negative correlation. 0.454 & 0.485 is value that is obtained to find correlation between feedback & procedural justice with commitment factor. Feedback system directly influences commitment level of employees & fair environment lead to high commitment. Strong and positive correlation exists between trust in management & organizational commitment and value is 0.387.More trust ultimately more commitment. There is negative correlation of autonomy with commitment & politics has positive but both are negligible in nature .As their values are 0.091 & - 0.031 Relationship between goal clarity & turnover is negative i.e. more goals are clear less turnovers and value is –0.122.Feedback has weak positive correlation with turnovers. Autonomy & OCB has positive correlation values 0.040 and 0.048 with turnover but both are negligible in nature. Trust is inversely related to the turnover; simply more trust will ultimately result in lesser turnovers. Valve of correlation is –0.070. All three types of commitments are discussed as overall that s why correlation value between commitment & turnover is 0.260 that means direct positive correlation. There are other things employees would like to try outside this organization even still if they are committed or employees use current organization as a stepping stone to other opportunities that why turnover increases.
FEMALE CORRELATION Table 1.3 FEMALE CORRELATION 1.GC 1.Goal Clarity 1.000 2.Feedback 0.526 3.Organizational Citizenship Behavior 0.604 4.Supervisory Relation -0.026 5.Procedural Justice 0.243 6.Organizational Politics -0.124 7.Autonomy -0.477 8.Trust in Management 0.774 9.Organizational Commitment 0.148 10.Turnover -0.278
2.FB 3.OCB 4.SupRel 5.ProJus 6.OP 7.Aut 8.TIM 9.OC 10.TO 1.000 0.415 -0.100 0.416 0.260 -0.172 0.546 0.187 -0.193
1.000 0.049 0.062 0.263 -0.050 0.440 0.039 0.101
1.000 0.546 0.262 0.304 0.049 -0.308 0.600
1.000 0.282 1.000 -0.021 -0.012 1.000 0.376 0.165 -0.498 1.000 -0.231 -0.107 -0.277 -0.022 1.000 0.220 0.210 0.322 -0.450 0.054 1.000
Among females the correlation between feedback & goal clarity is 0.526.It is very high and positive in nature. Means more positive feedback will ultimately result in more goal clarity. Similarly, high goal clarity will ultimately result in high citizenship behavior, as its value is 0.604.Feedback plays important role in affecting the citizenship behavior positively 0.415 is the value which is obtained after the research. Positive feedback will ultimately result in higher citizenship behavior in females. Procedural justice positively affects supervisory relations if justice is there then high positive relation between supervisor & employees. As the value of correlation is 0.546. Similarly if there is procedural justice in organization than ultimately feedback system will be effective 0.416 is the value of correlation between them . Negligible relationship exists between OCB & procedural justice of value 0.062.Their exists an inverse relationship between organizational politics & goal clarity among females. -0.124 is value of correlation between goal clarity & organizational politics. It depicts that if higher politics in organization then ultimate results in least goal clarity. Strong negative correlation exists between autonomy & goal clarity, value is -0.477. Supervisory relation & autonomy has value of correlation 0.304. Means supervisory relation has direct impact on autonomy. In females also there exists very high positive correlation between goal clarity & trust in management .The value is 0.774.It means that the more goal clarity then trust in management will boosts up. Feedback system also builds trust in management; simply if there is effective feedback system then trust will automatically build up. Its value is 0.546. Same is the case with the OCB & trust in management, if higher citizenship behavior then more will be trust. 0.440 is their correlation value, which shows strong & positive trend. 0.376 is the value of correlation between procedural justice and trust. Trust is an ultimate result of procedural justice in organization. -0.498 shows strong negative correlation between autonomy & trust in management, it is due to the reason that higher autonomy leads to the less interaction with supervisor so lesser trust in management. Trust in management has negative correlation with organizational commitment but almost negligible in nature as value is -0.022.More goal clarity in female leads to lesser turnover rate, obtained value is –0.278. In females there is high positive correlation between turnover & supervisory relation, if relations are not healthy with employees then turnover rates are high in nature. 0.600 is value of correlation. Similarly negative correlation exists between trust in management & turnover. Correlation is - 0.450.Lesser the trust will ultimately result in high turnovers. Organizational commitment has 0.054 value with correlation with trust in management. It shows almost negligible in nature.
Regression Results.
Table 1.4 Trust in Management Goal Clarity Feedback Organizational Citizenship Behavior Supervisory Relation Procedural Justice Organizational Politics Autonomy R Square Adjusted R Square F
Overall
Male
Female
0.3926 0.1584 0.1169 0.2053 0.0872 0.0946 -0.1456 0.5241 0.4612 8.3370
0.3380 0.1353 0.2027 0.2809 0.0451 0.0388 -0.1062 0.4529 0.3465 4.2572
-0.3030 0.0189 0.4119 0.4829 0.0593 -0.1308 -0.0672 0.5241 0.4612 8.3370
Table 1.4 shows the values of regression or in other words interdependence of trust on other variables is obtained. As for as overall trend is concerned goal clarity affects trust in management by 39.26% but only in males trust is affected by goal clarity by 33.8% .Its interesting to see that in females value between goal clarity & trust is negative - 30.30%. Overall results shows that feedback effects trusts by 15.84% & in males its values is 13.53% but in females feedback system minor effects trust as its value is 1.89%. OCB has 11.69% of impact on trust ,but in males this dependence value is 20.27% .In females dependence value is comparatively high about 41.19%.Supervisory relations puts impacts on trust in management about 20.53% in overall data,but in males this value 28.09%.Again in case of females there is again comparatively high value of 48.29% .Procedural justice not really affects trust factor in high nature .Overall results shows 8.72% dependence but in males 4.51% and 5.93% in females. Politics affects 9.46% to trust in management and 3.88% in males but in females there is inverse relation –13.08%.Autonomy is inversely related and shows negative trend in all three i.e. –14.56,-10.62 &-6.72 in overall males and females respectively. Overall regression value is 52.41% and in males is 45.29% and in females it is also 52.41%
Table 1.5 Overall Organizational Commitment Trust in Management R Square Adjusted R Square F
0.0726 0.3452 0.3082 2.1095
Male
Female
-0.198 0.381469 0.2028 0.463 0.1496 0.4 3.8147 3.63
Table 1.5 depicts that trust effects organizational commitment by 7.26% but in males this value is negative in nature, which shows negative influence -19.8 %, and in females this value is 38.14%
Overall regression between organizational commitment & trust in management is 34.52% and in males 20.28% comparatively in females this value is very small about 4.63%
Table 1.6 Overall Male Turnover Organizational Commitment R Square Adjusted R Square F
0.2913 0.0604 0.0445 3.79
Female
0.0577 -0.1976 0.0029 0.20275 -0.064 0.1496 10.043 3.81469
Table 1.6 shows that organizational comittment affects turnovers by 29.13% but in males 5.77% again in females inverse relation exists – 19.76%. Overall regression trend is 6.04% and in males 0% regression exists but in females 20.27% dependence exists.
References. Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 67, 422-436. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252-276 Anderson, T. P. (1994). Creating measures of dysfunctional office and organizational politics: The DOOP and short for DOOP scales. Psychology, 31, 24-34. Angle, It. L., & Perry, J L. (1981) An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 1-13. Angle, H. & Perry, J. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 1-14. Barbuto, J., Brown, L., Wilhite, M., & Wheeler, D. (2001). Justify the underlying motives of organizational citizenship behaviour: A brief study of agricultural co-op workers. Becker, T. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they decisions worth making? Academy of Management Journal, 35, 232-244. Becker, T., Billings, R., Eveleth, D., & Gilbert, N. (1996). Foci and bases of employee commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 464-482. Bettenhausen, K. L., & Fedor, D. B. (1997). Peer and Upward Appraisals: A comparison of their benefits and problems. Group & Organization Management, 22, 236-263. Blau G, Boal K (1989). "Using job involvement and organizational commitment interactively to predict turnover", J. Manage. 15 (1): 115-127.
Blau, G. (1993) “Further Exploring the Relationship Between Job Search and Voluntary Individual Turnover”, Personnel Psychology, 46(2), Summer, pp.313-330. Bluedorn, A. C. (1982). A unified model of turnover from organizations. Human Relations, 35, 135-153. Brown, S. P. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 235±255. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of extrarole performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2001). Personality predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 52-69.
Bridges, William P., and Robert L. Nelson. 1989. “Markets in Hierarchies: Organizational and Market Influences on Gender Inequality in a State Pay System.” American Journal of Sociology 95: 616-658. Brodie, A.S. (1995) “Sales force Turnover in Direct Selling Organizations in the United
Kingdom and France”, Masters Thesis, Keele University. Buchanan,B (1974a) Building Organizational Commitment; The socialization of managers in work organization. Administrative Science Quarterly,22, 533-546 Bycio, P., Hackett, R., & Allen, J. (1995). Further assessments of Bass's (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468-478. Castro, C. B, Armario, E.M., & Ruiz, D.M. (2004). The influence of employee organizational citizenship behavior on customer loyalty. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 15 (1), 27-53 Chen X.P., Hui C, Sego D.J., (1998). The role of organizational citizenship behavior in turnover: Conceptualization and preliminary tests of key hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 922-931. Chompookum, D., & Derr, C. B. (2004). The effects of internal career orientations on organizational citizenship behavior in Thailand. Career Development International, 9 (4), 406-423. Cotton, J. L., & Tuttle, J. M. (1986). Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review with implications for research. Academy of Management Review, 11, 55–70 Crewson , P .(1997).Public service motivation Building Empirical evidenceof incidence and effect.Jounel of Public Administration Research and Theory,7.499-518 Cropanzano, R. S., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 159181. D’Arcimoles, C. H. 1997. `Human resource policies and company performance: a quantitative approach using longitudinal data’. Organization Studies, Vol. 18, no. 5, 857-874. Dalton, D. R., Krachkhardt, D. M., & Porter, L. W. (1982). Turnover overstated: The functional taxonomy. Academy of Management Review, 7, 117-123. Dalton, D. R., & Todor, W. D. (1979). Turnover turned over: An expanded and positive perspective. Academy of Management Review, 4, 225-235 DeCotiis, T. & Summers, T. (1987). A path analysis of a model of the antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment. Human Relations, 40, 445-470. Delery, J. E. and Doty, D. H. 1996. `Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: tests of universalistic, contingency and configurational performance predictions’. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, 802-835. Dess, G. G., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Voluntary turnover, social capital, and Organizational performance. Academy of Management Review, 26, 466-456.
Doran, L.I., Stone, V.K., Brief, A.P. and J.M. George, (1991) “Behavioural Intentions as Predictors of Job Attitudes: The Role of Economic Choice,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1), pp.40-45. Drory, A. (1993). Perceived political climate and job attitudes. Organization Studies, 14, 59-71. Ducker, P. F. 1980. Managing in Turbulent Times, New York: Harper and Row. Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Perceptions of organizational politics. Journal of Management, 18, 93-116. Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Zhou, J., & Gilmore, D. C. (1996a). Reactions of diversity groups to politics in the workplace. Journal of Management, 22, 23-44. Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Galang, M. C., Zhou, J., Kacmar, K. M., & Howard, J. L. (1996b). Perceptions of organizational politics: Prediction, stress-related implications, and outcomes. Human Relations, 49, 233-266. Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Perceptions of organizational politics. Journal of Management, 18, 93-116 Ferris, G. R., Harrell-Cook, G. & Dulebohn, J. H. (2000). Organizational politics: The nature of the relationship between politics perceptions and political behavior. In S. B. Bacharach & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations, (pp. 89-130). Stamford, CT: JAI Press Inc. Ferris, G. R., Russ, G. S., & Fandt, P. M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 143-170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Firth L, David J Mellor, Kathleen A Moore, Claude Loquet (2007). How can managers reduce employee intention to quit?, J. manage. Psychology. 19 (2): 170-187. Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and Procedural Justice: Combined Impact of «Voice»and Improvement on Experienced Inequity», Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 108-119. French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Frost, P. J. (1987). Power, politics, and influence. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 503-548). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Futrell, C. & A. Parasuraman, (1984) “The Relationship of Satisfaction and Performance to Salesforce Turnover”, Journal of Marketing, 48, Fall, pp.33-40. Gandz, J., & Murray, V. V. (1980). The experience of workplace politics. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 237-251. Gioia, D. A., & Longenecker, C. O. (1994). Delving into the dark side: The politics of executive appraisal. Organizational Dynamics, 22, 47-58. Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1 987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 175-208). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Gilliland, S. 1993. The perceived fairness of selection systems: an organisational justice perspective.
Academy of Management Review Vol. 18(4). Good, L.K., Sisler, G.F. and J.W. Gentry, (1988) “Antecedents of Turnover Intentions Among Retail Management Personnel,” Journal of Retailing, 64(3), Fall, pp.295-314. Greenberg, J. 1986. The distributive justice of organisational performance evaluations. In H Bierhoff, R Greenberg, J. (1993a). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In E. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Greenberg, J. (1993b). Stealing the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 81-103. Hirchman, A.O. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hom, P. W., & Kinichi, A. J. (2001). Toward a greater understanding of how dissatisfaction drives employee turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 975-981. Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (1995). Employee turnover. Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern College Publishing. Hogan JJ (1992). "Turnover and what to do about it", The Cornell HRA Quarterly. 33 (1):40-45. Huselid, M.A. and Nancy E. Day, (1991) “Organizational Commitment, Job Involvement, and Turnover: A Substantive and Methodological Analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(3), pp.380-391. Huselid, M. A. 1995. `The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity and corporate financial performance’. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, 635-672. Igbaria M., Greenhaus J.H., (1992). Determinants of MIS Employees’ Turnover Intentions: A Structural Equation Model. Communication of the ACM, 35(2), 35-49. Igbaria, M. Guimaraes, T., (1999). Exploring Differences in Employee Turnover Intentions and Its Determinants Among Telecommuters and Non-Telecommuters. Journal of MIS, 16(1), 147-164. Jaros, Stephen J., John M. Jermier, Jerry W. Koehler and Terry Sincich (1993), "Effects of Continuance, Affective, and Moral Commitment on the Withdrawal Process: An Evaluation of Eight Structural Equation Models," Academy of Management Journal, 36 (October), 951-995. Judge, T. (1993) “Does Affective Disposition Moderate the Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Voluntary Turnover?” Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(3), pp.395-401. Kacmar, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (1999). Organizational politics: The state of the field, links to related processes, and an agenda for future research. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Vol. 10, pp. 1-39). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc. Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (1997). Further validation of the Perceptions of Politics Scale (POPS): A multi-sample approach. Journal of Management, 23, 627-658. Kanter, R.M. (1968). Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment mechanisms in utopian communities. American Sociological Review, 33, 449-517.
Kanungo, R. N. (1979). The concepts of alienation and involvement revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 119±138. Kelley, S., & Hoffman, K.D. (1997). An investigation of positive affect, pro social behaviours and service quality. Journal of Retailing, 73, 407-427. Kerr, S., Schreisheim, C. A., Murphy, C. J. and Stogdill, R. M. (1974). 'Toward a contingency theory of leadership based upon consideration and initiating structure literature', Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12, 62-82.
Konovsky, M. A., & Organ, D. W. (1996). Dispositional and contextual determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 253-266. Kumar, N. 1996. The power of trust in manufacturer-retailer relationships. Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec. Leventhal, G. 1980. What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K.J Gergen, M.S Greenberg and R.H Willis (Eds), Social Exchange: Advances in theory and research: 27-55. New York: Plenum. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press. Longenecker, C. O., Sims, H. P., & Gioia, D. A. (1987). Behind the mask: The politics of employee appraisal. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183-193. Loui, K. (1995). Understanding employee commitment in the public organization: A study of the juvenile detention center. International Journal of Public Administration. 18(8), 1269-1295. MacKenzie, Scott B., Philip M. Podsakoff, and Richard Fetter (1991), "Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Objective Productivity as Determinants of Managerial Evaluations of Salesperson Performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (October), 123-50. and (1993), "The Impact of Organizational Citizenship Behavior on Evaluations of Salesperson Performance," Journal of Marketing, 57 (January), 70-80. MacKensie, S.B., Podsakoff, P., & Praine, J.B. (1999), Do citizenship behaviors matter more for managers than salespeople. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 396-410. Marshall, T.H. (1950). Citizenship and social class and other essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194. Maxwell S, Nye P and N Maxwell. 1999. Less pain, same gain: The effects of priming fairness in price negotiations. Vol. 16(7): 545-562. Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Meyer, J. P., Paunomen, S. V., Gellatly, I R., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (1989). Organizational commitment and job performance: It’s nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 152- 156.
Meyer, J.P. and J.N. Allen (1984), "Testing the Side Bet Theory of Organizational Commitment: Some Methodological Considerations," Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372-378. Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11(3), 299-326. Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52. Mitra, A, Jenkins, G. D., Gupta, N. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the relationship between absence and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 11-17 Mobley, W. H., Horner, S. O., & Hollingworth, A. T. (1978). An evaluation of precursors of hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 408-414. Mobley, W.H., Griffeth, H., Hand, H. and B.M. Meglino, (1979) “Review and Conceptual Analysis of the Employee Turnover Process,” Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), pp.493-522.
Morrow, P. & McElroy, J. (1993). Introduction: Understanding and managing loyalty in a multicommitment world. Journal of Business Research, 26, 1-2. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M. & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224±247. Montada, L., & Schneider, A. (1989). Justice and emotional reactions to the disadvantaged. Social Justice Research, 313-344. Nkomo, S. M. 1987. `Human resource planning and organizational performance: an exploratory analysis’. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 8, 387-392. Nye, L. G., & Witt, L. A. (1993). Dimensionality and construct validity of the perceptions of organizational politics scale (POPS). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 821-829. Parker, C. P., Dipboye, R. L., & Jackson, S. L. (1995). Perceptions of organizational politics: An investigation of antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management, 21, 891-912. Oldham, G. R. (1976). 'Motivational strategies used by supervisors: Relationships to effectiveness indicators', Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15, 309-312.
Organ,D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lenxington, MA: Lexington Books Organ D.W., (1990). The motivational Basis of Organizational Citizenship Bahavior » In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 43-72. Organ, D.W., Ryan, K. (1995). A Meta-Analytic Review of Attitudinal and Dispositional Predictors of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802. Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157-164.
Parker, C. P., Dipboye, R. L., & Jackson, S. L. (1995). Perceptions of organizational politics: An investigation of antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management, 21, 891-912
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations, Boston, MA: Pitman. Pfeffer, J. (1992). Management with power. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Podsakoff, P.M., & Mackenzie, S.B. (1997). The impact of organizational citizenship behaviour in organizational performance: review and suggestion for future research, Human Performance, 10, 133-51. Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603 - 609. Penner, L. A., Midili, A. R., & Kegelmeyer, J. (1997). Beyond job attitudes: a personality and social psychology perspective on the causes of organizational citizenship behavior. Human Performance, 10(2), 111-131. Porter, L.W. and R.M. Steers (1973) “Organizational, Work and Personal Factors in Employee Turnover and Absenteesism, Psychological Bulletin, 8(2). Price, J.L (1977). The study of turnover, 1st edition, Iowa state university press, IA pp10-25. Randall, D.M., D.B. Fedor, and C.O. Longenecker (1990), "The Behavioral Expression of Organizational Commitment," Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 210-224. Randall, D. M. (1990). The consequences of organizational commitment: Methodological investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 361–378. Reid, W. M. and Tayor, R. G. 1989. `An application of absorbing Markov analysis to human resource issues in public administration’. Review of Public Personnel Administration, Vol. 10, 67-74 Salancik, G. R. (1977). 'Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief'. In : Staw, Barry M. and Salancik, Gerald R. (Eds) New Directions in Organizational Behavior. St. Clair Press, Chicago, pp. 1-55.
Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B., & Novak, M. A. (1986). When supervisors decide not to decide autocratically: An investigation of leader-member exchange and decision influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,579-584, Schein, E. H. (1970). Organizational Psychology, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
Schuler, R. S. and Jackson, S. E. 1987. `Linking competitions strategies with human resource management practices’. Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 1, 207-219. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W. & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663. . Steers, R. M. (1977). 'Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment', Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 46-56.
Sommers M.J., (1995). Organizational Commitment, turnover and absenteeism: An examination of direct and interaction effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(1),49-58. Steers, R.M. and R.T. Mowday, (1981) “Antecedents and Outcomes of Organizational Commitment,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, March. Steers , R., & Porter ,L.(1983) Motivation & work behavior ( 3rd Ed).New York:Mc Graw-Hill
Stevens, J. M., Beyer, J. M. and Trice, H. M. (1978). 'Assessing personal, role andorganizational predictors of managerial commitment', Academy of Management Journal, 21, 380-396.
Tang T. L. P., Kim J. W. & Tang D. S. H (2000), ‘Does attitude toward money moderate the relationship between intrinsic job satisfaction and voluntary turnover?’ Human Relations, vol. 53(2), pp.213-245. Thibaut J, and L Walker. 1975. Procedural Justice: A psychological analysis, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Tilly, Charles. 1998. Durable Inequality. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Tyler, T. R., & Smith, H. J. (1998). Social justice and social movements. In D. G. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (4th ed.) Vol II. New York: Oxford University Press. Tziner, A., Latham, G. P., Price, B. S., & Haccoun, R. (1996). Development and validation of a questionnaire for measuring perceived political considerations in performance appraisal. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 179-190. Ulrich, D. 1987. `Strategic human resource planning: why and how?’ Human Resource Planning, Vol. 10, no. 1, 37-56. Vandenberghe, C. (2003). Application of the three-component model to China: Issues and perspectives. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 516-523.
Van Dyne, L.; Graham, J.W.; Deienesch, R.M. (1994). “Organzational Citizenship Behaviour: Construct Redefinition, Measurement And Validation”. Academy of Management Journal. Aug 1994. 37,4. pp.765-802. Walker, J. W. 1990. `Human resource planning, 1990 style’ . Human Resource Planning, Vol. 13, no. 4, 229-240. Wasmuth WJ, Davis SW (1983). "Managing employee turnover: why employees leave", The Cornell HRA Quarterly, pp. 11-18. Whitener, E.M. and P.M. Walz (1993), "Exchange Theory Determinants of Affective and Continuance Commitment and Turnover," Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42 (June), 265. Wiener, Y. & Vardi, Y. (1980). Relationships between job, organization, and career commitments and work outcomes: An integrative approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26, 81-96. Wotruba, T.R. & P.K. Tyagi, (1991) “Met Expectations and Turnover in Direct Selling”, Journal of Marketing, 55, July, pp.24-35. Wunder, R.S., Dougherty, T.W. and M.A. Welsh, (1982) “A Causal Model of Role Stress and Employee Turnover,” Academy of Management Proceedings, K.H. Chung (ed.), pp.297-301. Yoon, M. & Suh, J. (2003). Organizational citizenship behaviours and service quality as external effectiveness of contact employees. Journal of Business Research, 56, 597-611.
ANNEXURE Impact Of Organizational Commitment On Turnover Intentions Of Employees
Dear sir/madam Your contribution in helping us analyze “Impact Of Organizational Commitment On Turnover Intentions Of Employees” is valued highly. Completion of this information is voluntary and confidentiality is assured. No individual data will be reported. Please don’t mention your name on this questionnaire. Thank You!
Demographics Please tick (√ ) in the appropriate space for your response.
1.
Gender
(
) Male
(
) Female
2.
Age Group
( ( ( (
) 20 years or below ) 26 - 30 years ) 36 - 40 years ) 51 – 60 years
( ( ( (
) ) ) )
3.
Education
( (
) Ph.D. ) Master
( (
) MS/ M.Phil/ Post Graduation ) Bachelor/Graduation
4.
Country
(
) Pakistan
(
) Other
5.
Status
( (
) Student ) Self-employed
(
) Employed
21 - 25 years 31 - 35 years 41 - 50 years Above 60 year
Goal Clarity: Organizational goals are clear to me.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Never
Organizational goals are used to make day-to-day work decisions.
1
There are thorough plans for achieving organizational goals.
1
There is formal planning for achievement of organizational goals.
1
Feedback: To what extent do you find out, how well you are doing on the job, as you are working?
3
4
5
6
2
3
4
5
6
2
3
4
5
6
1
The opportunity to find out, how well I am doing on my job.
1
The feeling that I know weather I am doing my job well or poorly.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 Very Much
2
3
4
5
6
Very Little
7 Very Much
2
3
4
5
6
Very Little
7 Very Much
2
3
4
5
6
Very Little Very Little
7 Always
Very Little
The feedback from my supervisor, on how well I am doing
7 Always
Never
1
7 Always
Never
You receives information from your supervisor on your job performance.
Organization citizenship behavior:
2
Never
1
7 Always
7 Very Much
2
3
4
5
6
7 Very Much
I give advanced notice if I am unable to work
1
2
strongly disagree
I volunteer to do things not required by my job
1
2
strongly disagree
This organization has a great deal of personal meaning to me.
1
I helps employees those who are not my subordinates if they feel ambiguity in task.
1
Supervisory Relationship: This organization values individual excellence over team work
2
strongly disagree
This organization interferes with family life.
1
Procedural justice I received the evaluation that I deserved.
1
5 strongly agree
4
5
agree
strongly agree
1
4
2
2
4 agree
3
2
strongly disagree
5 strongly agree
4
5
agree
strongly agree
3 neutral
4
5
agree
strongly agree
4
5 strongly agree
3
4
5
strongly agree
3
strongly disagree
1
5 strongly agree
3
strongly disagree
1
4
3
neutral
5 strongly agree
agree
neutral
disagree
2
5 strongly agree
agree
strongly disagree
The evaluation reflected the quality of my Performance. An independent observer from outside the organization would have made a similar judgment about my performance I consider the evaluation to be fair
4 agree
3
disagree
2
4 agree
neutral
2
strongly disagree
5 strongly agree
3
disagree
1
4 agree
neutral
2
strongly disagree
This organization encourages outside interests.
2 disagree
disagree
strongly disagree
5 strongly agree
neutral
2
strongly disagree
4 agree
3
disagree
1 1
neutral
2
strongly disagree
Workers and managers do not get along well in this organization.
neutral
3
disagree
1
neutral
3
disagree
2
strongly disagree
neutral
3
disagree
Supervisors in this organization, care about the people 1 strongly well being disagree I am mot satisfied with my relation with boss
3
disagree
4
5 strongly agree
3
4
5
strongly agree
Organizational Politics: Organizational decisions are always transparent
1 strongly disagree
Good performance and hard work is a key to promotions and raises in salary
1
Personal favorites are awarded with better raises in salary and promotions
1
disagree disagree disagree disagree
There is always a group/persons that influences 1 disagree the formal decisions in organizations. disagree It is always better to stay with some influential group to get high raise and promotions.
1
Organizational goals should always be preferred even if they contradict with personal objectives. I always prefer to work in a situation where people are neutral in thoughts and affiliations.
1
disagree disagree disagree disagree
2 2
Autonomy: I am left on my own to do myr own work.
neutral
4
5
agree
strongly agree
3
neutral
4
agree
5 strongly
strongly agree
2
3
neutral
4
agree
5 strongly
strongly agree
2
3
neutral
4
agree
5 strongly
strongly agree
2
3
neutral
4
agree
5 strongly
strongly agree
2
3
neutral
4
agree
5 strongly
strongly agree
1 disagree disagree
3
disagree
2
3
neutral
4
agree
5 strongly
strongly agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
Very Much
I am able to act independently of my supervisor in performing my job function.
1
I am able to do my job independently of others.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Very Much
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 Very Much
7 Very Little
2
3
4
5
6
Very Much
The control I have over the pace of my work.
7 Very Little
Very Much
The opportunity for independent thought and action.
7 Very Little
Very Much
The freedom to do pretty much what I want on my job. 1
7 Very Little
7 Very Little
2
3
4
5
6
7 Very Little
Procedural Justice I often feel that I am not receiving credit for my work
1
2
strongly disagree
I m not being given projects that provide me more visibility in the company
1
I feel that I am not given the same training as other workers
1
I received the evaluation that I deserved
1
3
disagree
2
strongly disagree
neutral
2
2
4
5 strongly agree
4
neutral
3
1
2
4
3
2
4
1
2
3
3
5 strongly agree
4
strongly disagree
Trust in Management: Management treat you with respect.
5
strongly agree
3
2
5
4
strongly disagree
1
5
strongly agree
4
5
6
Never
Management follow through on its commitments.
1 1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 Never
7 Always
2
3
4
5
6
Never
Information sharing by supervisor increases your level of trust on management.
7 Always
Never
You trust your supervisor
7 Always
Never
Employees trust management.
strongly agree
strongly agree
strongly disagree
1
5
agree
strongly disagree
The evaluation reflected the quality of my performance An independent observer from outside the organization would have made a similar judgment about my performance I consider the evaluation to be fair
strongly agree
agree
3
disagree
5
agree
3
disagree
strongly disagree
4
neutral
7 Always
2
3
4
5
6
7 Always
Organizational Commitment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career in this organization I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own. I do not feel like “part of the family” at my organization I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this organization Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decide to leave my organization right now. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization I owe a great deal to my organization Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decide to leave my organization right now. I owe a great deal to my organization I would not leave my organization right now because I have a sense of obligation to the people in it. One of the few negative consequences of leaving this organization would be the scarcity of available alternative. If I had not already put so much of myself into this organization, I might consider working elsewhere.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
I plan to continue to be active in the occupation. Pursuing a career in this occupation is important to me
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5
I would feel guilty if I left my organization now. This organization deserves my loyalty.
Turnover Intention: I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this department
1 strongly disagree
I do not feel emotionally attached to this department
1
It would be hard to get a better paying job
1
strongly disagree
2 disagree
2 disagree
2
3 neutral
3 neutral
3
4
5
agree
strongly agree
4
5
agree
strongly agree
4
5
strongly disagree
It is just a matter of time before something better comes along
1 strongly disagree
If I were to leave this organization I would be 1 strongly worried about making ends meet disagree There are other things I would like to try outside this organization
1
Employees use this organization as a stepping stone to other opportunities
1
strongly disagree strongly disagree
disagree
2 disagree
2 disagree
2 disagree
2 disagree
neutral
3 neutral
3 neutral
3 neutral
3 neutral
agree
strongly agree
4
5
agree
strongly agree
4
5
agree
strongly agree
4
5
agree
strongly agree
4
5
agree
strongly agree
