This chapter will include three sections. First, it presents sample characteristics of the respondents. Second, it also presents descriptive statistics of the result which consists of the mean and standard deviation of every item. Third, it follows by the result for pilot test in terms of validity and reliability test as well as PLS analysis.
Sample Characteristics
Two-hundred-twenty-nine questionnaires were distributed among the employees of YCAB Foundation. A total of 152 questionnaires were gathered and validated, this shows the response rate of 66.4%.
The characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 4.1, which is divided into categories of gender, age, education. Majority of the respondents were female with percentage of 58.6%, in contrast to the male respondents which percentage is 41.4%. This is a typical characteristic of NGOs where the staffs working in YCAB Foundation are mostly females. Moreover in terms of age, there are higher percentage of respondents whose age are 21-30 year old (49.3%), which followed by respondents below 20 years old (29.6%), then respondents within 31-40 years old (18.4%), and only 2.6% respondents who are above 40.
This sample can be considered to represent the population in YCAB Foundation as most employees are in their youths. Regarding their education level, majority possess bachelor’s degree (68.4%), some respondents hold high school diploma (29.6%), and only 2.0% are graduated from master degree level. Furthermore, since all of the respondents are employees of YCAB Foundation, therefore the type of team they are in is long term team which also represents their own department.
42 Table 4.1
Sample Characteristics Based on Demographic Variables (N=152)
Variable Entries Percentage
Gender Male 63 41.4%
Female 89 58.6%
Age Below 20 45 29.6%
21-30 years old 75 49.3%
31-40 years old 28 18.4%
Above 40 4 2.6%
Education High School 45 29.6%
Bachelor’s Degree 104 68.4%
Master’s Degree 3 2.0%
Descriptive Statistics Analysis
The following section offers a summary of the responses gathered for the research.
The tables reflect the mean and standard deviation of every item. All variables used 5-point-Likert scale measurement, ranged from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5).
However, only those items that were not dropped from analysis would be further elaborated.
Team Characteristics
Table 4.2 to table 4.4 represent the team characteristics mean and standard deviation.
In regards to context factor, the respondents showed high agreement in TC-CT3 (M=4.11), which represents “Team members share their experience and expertise in ways that enhance team productivity and development”. The second highest is TC-CT4 (M=4.06), which represents “Team members generally treat one another with respect”. This indicates that the majority of respondents agrees and feels a higher degree of trust with their team members. On other hand, the lowest score is TC-A3 (M=3.51) which represent “YCAB Foundation key work systems and methods are fully integrated with demonstrated performance sufficient to meet team needs”. This indicates that the respondents believe that the resource in YCAB Foundation especially the work system and methods sometimes do not sufficient for the team’s needs.
In regards to composition factor, the respondents showed high agreement in TC-P3 (M=4.21) and TC-D3 (M=4.18), which represents “There is a positive attitude within the
43
team” and “Team members enjoy doing jobs with another member from different professional backgrounds and/or work experiences” respectively. This indicates that the majority of respondents agrees with the statements and believes in positive personality of their team members. On other hand, the lowest score is TC-AR5 (M=3.46), which represent
“There is little overlap or conflict about roles in this team”. This indicates that the respondents believe that sometimes the allocation of roles can result in conflicts within their teams.
In regards to process factor, the respondents showed high agreement in TC-SL4 (M=4.24) and TC-SL5 (M=4.15), which represents “We hold ourselves mutually accountable for the success of our team” and “We are all held accountable by the team for performing our tasks” respectively. This indicates that the majority of respondents agree that they are responsible for their tasks and their team success. On other hand, the lowest score is TC-CP3 (M=3.41), which represent “This team has translated team charter and larger team goals into specific shorter team objectives”. This indicates that the respondents believe that this situation only happen at times within their team.
Table 4.2
Team Characteristics - Context by Mean and Standard Deviation
No Constructs Items Mean SD Note. *items are dropped in further analysis
44 Table 4.3
Team Characteristics - Composition by Mean and Standard Deviation
No Constructs Items Mean SD Note. *items are dropped in further analysis
Table 4.4
Team Characteristics - Process by Mean and Standard Deviation
No Constructs Items Mean SD
45 Note. *items are dropped in further analysis
Team Effectiveness
In relation to team effectiveness, item TE-MS2 (M=3.99) and TE-MS3 (M=3.96) have the highest mean. They represent “I am pleased with the way my team members and I work together” and “I am satisfied with my present team members” respectively. This signifies that team members are satisfied with their teamwork. On the other hand, item TE-MS5 (M=3.38), which represents “Team members would be very happy to spend the rest of their careers in this team” have the lowest mean. This signifies that many respondents believe they will change team in future.
Table 4.5
Team Effectiveness by Mean and Standard Deviation
No Constructs Items Mean SD productivity” and “YCAB Foundation has a high service quality” respectively. This indicates that the respondents agree that their productivity and service quality are good. On the other hand, they also believe that their “Financial flexibility” needs to be improved, since item OP-FP1 (M=3.22) has the lowest mean.
46 Table 4.6
Organizational Performance by Mean and Standard Deviation
No Constructs Items Mean SD Note. *items are dropped in further analysis
Organizational Survival and Competitiveness
In relation to organizational survival and compeittiveness, item SC-O3 (M=3.87) and SC-EM1 (M=3.81) have the highest mean. They represent “YCAB Foundation is highly dynamic” and “YCAB Foundation supports the recruitment and retention of employees with key knowledge” respectively. This suggests that for YCAB Foundation employees, majority agree that these two points are the key of survival of their organization. On the other hand, item SC-EM2 and SC-EN1 (M=3.63), which represents “YCAB Foundation adequately supports employee learning” and “YCAB Foundation has the ability to easily adapt to the environment's capacity” have the lowest mean. This signifies the average of employees consider both statements are the least thing for the survival of the organization.
Table 4.7
Organizational Survival and Competitiveness by Mean and Standard Deviation
No Constructs Items Mean SD
47
Pilot Study
As been mentioned earlier, pilot study was conducted in advance before gathering whole data for the main investigation. This is in order to test whether the instrument is valid and the measurement is reliable for further used. Thirty-two samples were collected to undergo the pilot study. In here, four sections will be further elaborated. First is the validity test of the pilot study. Second, it follows by the reliability test. Third, from these two results, the dropped items from the questionnaire are identified. Fourth, the pilot data is also analyzed by using PLS and the result will be presented.
Validity Test
KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity.
Before conducting the factor analysis, the sample data have to go through KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Table 4.8 shows the result of both tests before dropping items.
Before dropping items, team characteristics construct has to be divided into three dimensions, context, composition, and process, in order to attain the KMO results. Based on table 4.8, team characteristics constructs have low numbers of KMO values, which are .604, .541, and .520. From these results, dropping items from team characteristics dimensions are expected, as the KMO results were below .70. Furthermore, for the other three constructs, team effectiveness, organizational performance, and organizational survival and competitiveness, the KMO values are above the acceptable value of .70. However, there is still also a probability to drop items within these constructs in further tests. Beside KMO values, table 4.8 also mentioned about Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity results before dropping of items. All of them indicated that the data can be used for further analysis as the p-values of all constructs are less than .001.
The data are then undergone EFA factor analysis test where items are being considered for dropping. However, before dropping items, reliability test has to be taken into considerations too. Then after dropping several items, the samples are then being tested again for KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. This is to ensure that the value follows the requirement of the tests so that the data can be useful for further analysis and data gathering.
Table 4.9 shows the KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity values after dropping items. It can be seen that after dropping items, team characteristics construct can be cintegrated, and the KMO value is now acceptable, .728, for main investigation. The organizational performance construct KMO value also rise up after dropping an item, from .772 to .778, with higher
48
variance explained too. Overall, all of the values show that they satisfy the entire minimum requirement for conducting factor analyses.
Table 4.8
KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Values (Pilot Test-Before Dropping Items)
Constructs Number of Items KMO Variance Explained Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
TC Context 20 .604 70.81% 494.123***
TC
Composition 20 .541 71.85% 503.312***
TC Process 20 .520 71.43% 570.307***
TE 10 .792 70.24% 223.812***
OP 9 .772 79.75% 173.129***
SC 9 .752 79.69% 178.477***
Note. *** p < .001
TC= Team Characteristics; TE= Team Effectiveness; OP= Organizational Performances;
SC= Organizational Survival and Competitiveness
Table 4.9
KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Values (Pilot Test-After Dropping Items)
Constructs Number of Items KMO Variance Explained Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
TC 38 .728 74.15% 260.139***
TC Context 12 .689 82.70% 299.457***
TC
Composition 14 .721 75.53% 278.818***
TC Process 12 .763 80.43% 265.678***
TE 10 .792 70.24% 223.812***
OP 8 .778 83.34% 164.764***
SC 9 .752 79.69% 178.477***
Note. *** p < .001
TC= Team Characteristics; TE= Team Effectiveness; OP= Organizational Performances;
SC= Organizational Survival and Competitiveness
Factor Loadings EFA.
Factor analysis of EFA is conducted to in order to validate the instrument used for this study. According to Kerlinger (1986), if the factor loading is below .40, the item is then can be deleted from further analysis. Table 4.10 shows the factor loadings are all above .40 after dropping the items. This indicates that the items retained will be used for the main investigation and analysis.
49 Table 4.10
EFA: Factor Loadings (Pilot Test, N=32)
Items Loadings Items Loadings Items Loadings
TC-A1 .663 TC-AR1 .821 TE-TP1 .891
TC-A2 .712 TC-AR2 .785 TE-TP2 .782
TC-A3 .780 TC-AR3 .813 TE-TP3 .839
TC-A4 dropped TC-AR4 .903 TE-TP4 .809
TC-A5 dropped TC-AR5 .818 TE-TP5 .900
TC-L1 .763 TC-D1 .777 TE-MS1 .635
TC-L2 .658 TC-D2 .762 TE-MS2 .688
TC-L3 .859 TC-D3 .661 TE-MS3 .780
TC-L4* dropped TC-D4 dropped TE-MS4 .831
TC-L5 dropped TC-D5 dropped TE-MS5 .682
TC-CT1* dropped TC-CP1 .691 OP-I1 .874
TC-CT2* dropped TC-CP2 .429 OP-I2 .794
TC-CT3 .897 TC-CP3 .792 OP-I3 .762
TC-CT4 .801 TC-CP4 dropped OP-FP1 .827
TC-CT5 .915 TC-CP5 dropped OP-FP2 dropped
TC-RS1 .536 TC-TE1 dropped OP-FP3 .693
TC-RS2 .763 TC-TE2 .851 OP-CS1 .886
TC-RS3 .791 TC-TE3 .830 OP-CS2 .836
TC-RS4 dropped TC-TE4 .838 OP-CS3 .778
TC-RS5 dropped TC-TE5 dropped
TC-AM1 dropped TC-CL1 dropped SC-EM1 .579
TC-AM2 .517 TC-CL2 dropped SC-EM2 .884
TC-AM3 .851 TC-CL3 .798 SC-O1 .653
TC-AM4 .846 TC-CL4 .880 SC-O2 .885
TC-AM5 dropped TC-CL5 .737 SC-O3 .867
TC-P1* dropped TC-SL1 dropped SC-O4 .699
TC-P2 .768 TC-SL2 dropped SC-EN1 .661
TC-P3 .788 TC-SL3 .675 SC-EN2 .699
TC-P4 .813 TC-SL4 .454 SC-EN3 .832
TC-P5 dropped TC-SL5 .497
Note. Items < .40 will be dropped from further analysis.
* items are dropped as to improve the reliability values.
TC= Team Characteristics; TE= Team Effectiveness; OP= Organizational Performances;
SC= Organizational Survival and Competitiveness
50
Reliability Test
After establishing the construct validation, construct reliability is necessary in order to justify the consistency of the variables in the instrument and also to further refine the scales.
Table 4.11 illustrates the reliability of scales by using Cronbach’s Alpha values before and after dropping the items. It is noticed that the value of team characteristics becomes lower after dropping the items, from .963 to .952. This condition also happened within variables of abilities of members (.750 to .719), diversity (.725 to .710), common purposes & specific goals (.730 to .675), and social loafing (.863 to .854). This is because many items from those variables were being dropped because items do not meet the required number of factor loadings. Therefore, there is a probability of dropping items that have high reliability values but not necessarily acceptable for validity test. These cases will automatically decrease the reliability values of team characteristics overall.
The result also shows that most values after dropping the items are above .70. This indicates that the items fulfilled the requirement of reliability test. However, some items such as common purpose & specific goals (.675), financial performance (.681), and employee (.699) have Cronbach’s alpha value below .70. These items and variables however are retained as it is still in acceptable threshold which is above .60. Thus the questionnaires are still suitable for the next step of main investigation.
51 Table 4.11
Reliability Test (Pilot Test, N=32)
Constructs Variables
Before Dropping Items After Dropping Items No. of
52
Dropped Items
After completing, the construct validity and reliability tests, some items were dropped from the instrument. Table 4.12 is the summary of the items that were dropped and the reasons for dropping them. According to Bartee, Grandjean, & Beiber (2004), this may indicate that the item was measuring something different from what other items measured and did not belong in the same scale with the others.
Table 4.12
Reasons for Dropping Items No. Items
Dropped Reasons
1 TC-A4 Construct validity value do not meet requirement and improve reliability value of adequate resources from .728 to .753.
2 TC-A5 Construct validity value do not meet requirement and improve reliability value of adequate resources from .728 to .753.
3 TC-L4 Improve reliability value of leadership from .764 to .887.
4 TC-L5 Construct validity value do not meet requirement.
5 TC-CT1 Improve reliability value of climate of trust from .880 to .902.
6 TC-CT2 Improve reliability value of climate of trust from .880 to .902.
7 TC-RS4 Construct validity value do not meet requirement and to improve reliability value of reward systems from .818 to .882.
8 TC-RS5 Construct validity value do not meet requirement and to improve reliability value of reward systems from .818 to .882.
9 TC-AM1 Construct validity value do not meet requirement.
10 TC-AM5 Construct validity value do not meet requirement and to improve reliability value of ability of members from .750 to .786. However, since TC-AM1 was also dropped, the reliability value decreased to .719.
11 TC-P1 Improve reliability value of personality from .756 to .814.
12 TC-P5 Construct validity value do not meet requirement.
13 TC-D4 Construct validity value do not meet requirement.
14 TC-D5 Construct validity value do not meet requirement.
15 TC-CP4 Construct validity value do not meet requirement.
16 TC-CP5 Construct validity value do not meet requirement.
17 TC-TE1 Construct validity value do not meet requirement and to improve reliability value of team efficacy from .716 to .816.
18 TC-TE5 Construct validity value do not meet requirement and to improve reliability value of team efficacy from .716 to .816.
19 TC-CL1 Construct validity value do not meet requirement and to improve reliability value of conflict levels from .778 to .811.
20 TC-CL2 Construct validity value do not meet requirement and to improve reliability value of conflict levels from .778 to .811.
21 TC-SL1 Construct validity value do not meet requirement.
22 TC-SL2 Construct validity value do not meet requirement.
23 OP-FP2 Construct validity value do not meet requirement and to improve reliability value of financial performance from .484 to .681.
53
PLS Result for Pilot Study
The pilot data was tested by computing path analysis. Bootstrapping procedure using 40 random resampling of the original pilot study data was conducted to examine the t-value and therefore testing the significance of path coefficient. Table 4.13 showed the result for the PLS testing for pilot study.
The results showed that team characteristics has a positive and significant influence on team effectiveness (ß = .787, t = 14.204, p < .001). Thus null hypothesis 1 was rejected.
Team effectiveness also has positive and significant effect towards organizational performance (ß = .585, t = 4.110, p < .001), as well as towards organizational survival and competitiveness (ß = .585, t = 3.897, p < .001), therefore null hypotheses 2 and 3 were rejected. The result also shows that organizational performance has positive and significant effect on organizational survival and competitiveness (ß = .387, t = 3.481, p < .001), therefore null hypothesis 4 was also rejected. The results show all of them have positive influences that rejected the null hypotheses.
The result also implies that team characteristics has the highest path coefficient in the TEPS Model is between team characteristics and team effectiveness (ß = .787). This showed that team characteristics are the key factor to the team effectiveness, organizational performance, and organizational survival and competitiveness.
Moreover, from figure 4.1, the PLS result also entail that the structural model of this pilot study as whole explained 62%, 32%, and 73% of the variance in team characteristics, team effectiveness, organizational performance, and organizational survival and competitiveness respectively.
Within team characteristics variable, the dominant factor of the team characteristics in terms of context is climate of trust. It followed by adequate resources, reward system, and leadership. In terms of composition, the dominant factor is personality. It followed by allocating roles, abilities of members, and diversity. In terms of process, the dominant factor is social loafing. It followed by common purposes and specific goals, conflict levels and team efficacy.
Within team effectiveness variable, member satisfaction has the highest value, which followed by team productivity. Within organizational performance variable, customer satisfaction is the dominant factor, which followed by innovativeness and financial performance. Within organizational survival and competitiveness, the dominant factors are
54
employees with key knowledge, innovation capability, and good working environment within dimensions of employee, organization, and environment respectively.
Table 4.13
PLS Path Analysis Result (Pilot Study, N=32)
Note. *** p < .001
Table 4.14
PLS Loadings (Pilot Study, N=32)
Items Loadings Items Loadings Items Loadings Items Loadings
TC-A .694 TC-AR .710 TE-TP .837 SC1 .834
TC-L .640 TC-D .598 TE-MS .858 SC2 .610
TC-CT .764 TC-CP .715 SC3 .821
TC-RS .645 TC-TE .444 OP-I .822 SC4 .740
TC-AM .648 TC-CL .699 OP-FP .813 SC5 .766
TC-P .774 TC-SL .868 OP-CS .838 SC6 .782
SC7 .709
SC8 .791
SC9 .719
Path Hypothesis β-path Adj.
t-value Sig. Direction Null Hypotheses
TC TE H1 .787 14.204 *** + Rejected
TE OP H2 .585 4.110 *** + Rejected
TE SC H3 .490 3.897 *** + Rejected
OP SC H4 .467 3.999 *** + Rejected
55 Figure 4.1 PLS structural model (pilot study, N=32).
Note: * p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .001
Climate of trust .764*** (11.858) Reward systems .645*** (5.107)
Organizational Survival and Competitiveness (SC) R2 = 73%
Employee
Employees with key knowledge .834*** (15.430) Employees learning and update speed
.610*** (7.108)
Organization Innovation capability .821*** (11.890)
Flexible organizational structure .740*** (5.787) Dynamic organization .766*** (9.983)
Excellent and distinctive culture and value system .782*** (9.106)
Environment
Adapt to environmental capacity .709*** (8.959) Good working environment .791*** (12.730) Good relationships of consumers, suppliers and partners .719*** (8.999)
56
57