Organisational Commitment Study Research Methodology

Organisational committal field of operation Research Methodology accede of Contents (Jump to)Research Methodology establishmentResearch Design warningPopulationSample SelectionSample SizeProceduresMeasuring InstrumentGathering of DataOrganisational Commitment problem Satisfaction project descriptive major power and Job in superior general extend in General humans Resource Management Practices (HRM) institutionalise in Management derangement Intention derangementstatistical Methods succinctResultsConclusionResearch MethodologyIntroductionThis chapter addresses the research methodology use in the employment of Organisational Commitment, its antecedents and consequences as attractd in the first off chapter. The first section of this chapter after the introduction presents the research design. Sample and cosmos atomic enactment 18 presented in the second section. The third section looks at measuring instrumentation, reliability, asperity and scoring techniques. The third secti on looks at data gathering procedures. The quaternary section describes methods for statistical analysis. The last section summarises this chapter.Research DesignThis select utilize a relational research design to coiffe the kinship among antecedents and consequences of organisational commitment. Research into organisational commitment is largely dependent on the perceptions of employees and employers. Perceptions ar gener entirelyy acquired through subjective self-reports or opinion. A design ground on analyses is therefore appropriate. Relational mountains empirically examine the kinds between ii or more variables, constructs, and/or factors. Descriptive surveys be primarily use to provide personal and demographic cultivation. Correlation studies ar use to throwaway relationships check consistency of those relationships and to make predictions. This allows the researcher to test hypotheses by cocksure or refuting their predictions which is consistent with Grounded Theory and the formation of theoretical frame controls. It follows that predictive stiffness is most often achieved by statistical methods such as correlativity and regression (Sa chthonics et al, 2009).SamplePopulationThe population of the study is all early(prenominal) and present employees of comp both X.Sample SelectionGiven that this company is a bitty specialised Information Technology consulting company with a small population (n = 25) all employees were approached to participate. Electronic survey links were sent to the whole population and 100% response rate was achieved where all of the respondents completed all of the surveys.Sample SizeSample size of it determines statistical significance in a relationship. The central limit theory dictates that the larger the absolute size of the taste the closer the more likely it is to get hold of a usual statistical distribution. It has also been shown that the minimum smack size of 30 will suffer a normal distribution or near normal distribution (Stutely, 2003).DeVaus (2002) provides this formula to calculate minimum ingest sizeWhere is the minimum sample size needed is the symmetricalness belonging to the specified category is the proportion not belonging to the specified category is the z value like to the level of confidence required (see evade A2.1) is the rim of error requiredTable 1 Confidence Levels and associated z valuesThis formula is used for small populationsWhere is the adjusted minimum sample size is the minimum sample size (as calculated supra) is the total populationSaunders et al. (2009) advise that, in cases where the population is less than thirty, data should be collected from the entire population. There are limitations associated with minimum size. In particular the margin of error cannot be little than the reciprocal of the population. It follows that in order to achieve a 5% margin of error the minimum sample size required is calculated sowhere is the sample size Applying the DeVaus (2002) formulae to the sample in this study requires the whole population if a confidence reposeval of 95% and 5% error is to be achieved.ProceduresThe researcher requested permission from the Managing Director of the organisation to conduct interviews and dispense surveys among the employees. In addition permission was granted to access human resource management records and employer/employee correspondence where legal, relevant and appropriate to the study. The researcher is an employee of the organisation with promiscuous access to the employees which urged the ease of data gathering and clarification where necessary. Most of the convocation are in possession of post graduate degrees and a number have a Masters level qualification which further facilitated the attend as the group all have a deep pinch and appreciation for the process.An employee meeting was called in the presence of the Managing Director where it was explained that the participation in the study was optional or voluntary, anonymous, and that the information would be treated confidentially. In order to avoid any peer group pressure, no treatment was entertained in the group information session and employees were invited to discuss any interest or concerns directly with the researcher in private. It is interesting to strike off that all employees wanted to participate and most had no desire to go forward anonymous inviting the researcher to discuss any aspect of their responses with them.Three approaches were used during the gathering of data Online Surveys Interviews and Analysis of Human Resource records and employee correspondence.Surveys are a popular, economical and convenient way to collect standardised data which facilitate easy comparisons (Saunders et al., 2009).Unstructured interviews were conducted to determine aspects of the organisations Human Resource Management practices determine reasons for Turnover with ex-employees where exit interviews or deta iled resignation explanations were not on hand(predicate) or unclear determine impressions of Turnover survivors for perceptions about Turnover reasons.Human Resource records were used to determine biographical data such as pay grade age tenure absenteeism education and vacation habitsTurnover reasons were collected from exit interviews and employee correspondence.Measuring InstrumentThis study aims to determine the relationship between prove, Turnover, Turnover Intention, Organisational Commitment, HRM practices and Job Satisfaction. The following instruments were used in surveys to mensuration the variablesOrganisational Commitment Allen and Meyer (1990)Job Satisfaction Brodke et al.s (2009) Revised Job Descriptive Index (JDI) questionnaire found on the original of Smith et al. (1969)Job Stress Stress in General (SIG) questionnaire of Brodke et al. (2009)Management Trust Trust in Management (TIM) Brodke et al. (2009)Turnover Intention three point questionnaire baed on Sjberg a nd Sverke (2000)Gathering of DataThe online surveys were created in Google Forms using the organisations internal infrastructure which is hosted on Google Apps. Google Forms is part of the Google Apps suite and facilitates the creation, distribution, and collation of survey data electronically. The surveys were distributed from the facility in Google Forms by way of a link in an email. The anonymous survey responses are automatically collected and stored on Google Drive where the information is do available in a tabular format (Microsoft Excel).Organisational CommitmentOrganisational Commitment was heedful using the Organisational Commitment Scales (OCS) true by Meyer and Allen (1997). The reliability of the OCS has been show in numerous studies over the last two decades. The reliability of each(prenominal) of the scales can be seen through Cronbachs important of between 0.77 and 0.88 for emotional commitment 0.65 and 0.86 for normative commitment and 0.69 and 0.84 for continu ance commitment (Fields, 2002).The OCS is comprised of 22 spots prized on a 7 point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).Job SatisfactionThe Job Descriptive Index (JDI) was painstakingly developed by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin and published in their book, Satisfaction in Work and loneliness (1969). Patricia Cain Smith (1917-2007) relocated from Cornell to Bowling Green State University in the mid-1960s deliverance the JDI Research Group with her. The group has operated since 1959 with different members and is one of the longest cartroad research groups in the field. They make their family of scales available free of charge to researchers. The scales complicate the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) including the Job in General (JIG) Stress in General (SIG) and Trust in Management (TIM).These scales consist of phrases and adjectives that describe facets of the chew over or the employment overall. Participants select Yes, No or ? in response to each give voice or phrase. Yes performer the excogitate or phrase describes the job. No means the word or phrase does not describe the job. ? means that the respondent is unsure or cannot decide. The scales are scored 3, 0, 1.5 for Yes, No, and ? respectively.The 2009 revision of the JDI, JIG, SIG and TIM are utilised in this study.Job Descriptive Index and Job in GeneralThe Job Descriptive Index (JDI) and Job in General (JIG) are self-report fliers of job contentment. The JDI measures satisfaction with five facets of the job attitudes towards co-workers, the work itself, promotion opportunities, remuneration and supervision. The JIG scale measures overall satisfaction with the job (Brodke et al., 2009).There have been two major updates to the JDI since it was introduced by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin in 1969. The first update was made in 1985 (Smith et al., 1987) and the second was made in 1997 (Kihm, Smith, Irwin, 1997). The JDI Research Group (Bowling Green State University, OH, U SA) then updated the JDI family of scales in 2009.Table 2 Correlations among the JDI facets (Brodke et al., 2009)* lists correlations among the JDI scales which demonstrates that each of the JDI facets and the JIG measures a distinct aspect of job satisfaction and no facet correlates higher(prenominal)er than 0.50 with any other facet. Cronbach coefficients above 0.80 or higher are considered to have high levels of reliability.Table 2 Correlations among the JDI facets (Brodke et al., 2009)*Table 3 Validity Coefficients Pearson Correlations (Brodke et al., 2009) shows the correlations of the JDI facets with SIG and the individual(a) item measure of boilers suit Job Satisfaction Considering everything, how would you rate your overall satisfaction with your job? rated on a five point scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). Brodke et al. (2009) have shown that the JIG scale is a good predictor of Turnover Intention.Table 3 Validity Coefficients Pearson Correlation s (Brodke et al., 2009)*Stress in GeneralThe relationships between study stress and negative personal and organisational outcomes are well documented. Stressors and Strains are definitive concepts related to stress. Stressors precede the experience of stress and strains are the outcomes of the stress experience.The SIG is a measure of the experience of work stress, which emerges between the initial existence of work stressors and the final resulting physical and psychological strains (Brodke et al. 2009).This is the stress that is experienced as a result of work stressors prior to the acknowledgement of the strain. The SIG is thus a good measure of Job Dissatisfaction and predictor of Turnover Intentions.The 2009 revision used in this study is based on the SIG scale developed by Stanton et al. (2001). Brodke et al. (2009) showed that this SIG scale shows a reliability coefficient of 0.79. Furthermore the scale correlates positively and significantly with the Faces stress measure (r = 0.54, p Human Resource Management Practices (HRM)The Managing Director and a team up manager were interviewed about all aspects of their interaction from recruitment to exit. Marketing hearty was collected and analysed. The JDI facets that measures Opportunities for Promotion and Supervision are also used in assessing perceptions of HRM practices.Trust in ManagementTrust in Management (TIM) self-report survey consists of twelve phrases and adjectives describing characteristics of senior management or executives. Participants select Yes, No or ? in response to each word or phrase. Yes means the word or phrase describes the manager or executive. No means the word or phrase does not describe the manager or executive. ? means that the respondent is unsure or cannot decide. The scales are scored 3, 0, 1.5 for Yes, No, and ? respectively.The TIM is considered a single scale and is composed of four dimensions Ability, Benevolence, Consistency, and Integrity. Table 4 Cronbachs alph as and correlations among the TIM compendium scores and the TIM dimensions (Brodke et al., 2009) shows how the dimensions of the TIM scale are correlated.Table 4 Cronbachs alphas and correlations among the TIM heavyset scores and the TIM dimensions (Brodke et al., 2009)*Table 5 Validity Coefficients with Selected Outcome Measures Pearson Correlations (Brodke et al., 2009) shows the Pearson correlations with JDI facets. Brodke et al. (2009) contend that the TIM dimensions are distinct although highly correlated.Table 5 Validity Coefficients with Selected Outcome Measures Pearson Correlations (Brodke et al., 2009)*Turnover IntentionThis study makes use of Sjberg and Sverkes (2000) three item Turnover Intention scale which measures the strength of the respondents innovation to leave their current job. The scale is scored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A high score indicates a higher degree of Turnover Intention. Nswall et al. (2006) showed the Cronbach alpha coefficients for this scale to lie between 0,76 and 0,87.TurnoverActual turnover information is derived from Human Resource records including ex-employee correspondence in the form of letters of resignation.Statistical MethodsData analysis was conducted using an installation of the statistical programming diction R through the web based front-end R-Studio on a virtual(prenominal) Amazon Web Services Machine Image (R version 3.0.1, nickname Good Sport, 2013-05-16). R is a GNU project which is free under the GNU General Public License.The researcher considered the following tests given the nature of the studyDescriptive Statistics are used to describe the location, shape, and dispersion of the sample data collectedInferential Statistics to calculate the strength and direction of the relationships between the research variablesRegression tests were used to examine cause-effect relationships between the research variables abridgmentData was primarily derived from the perceptions and e xperiences of employees. Statistical analysis was performed on the data in order to yield empirical evidence and to gain an understanding of the inter relationships between the antecedents and consequences of Organisational Commitment. Online surveys were conducted using various scales. Secondary data were collected from sources such as informal interviews and company HR records and policies. Data analyses are based on quantitative methods through a statistical analysis in order to answer the research questions posed.