This chapter presents the main findings of the research concerning descriptive statistics. The chapter is divided into four sections. The first section reports the characteristics of the sample in order to give the reader a better understanding from where the data originated. The second section presents the study’s descriptive statistics. The third section reports the correlation among items while the fourth section offers the validity and reliability measures of the instrument. Finally, results and their implications are discussed.
Sample Characteristics
300 electronic questionnaires were distributed among the employees of Ficohsa Financial Institution. A total of 254 questionnaires were collected and validated, this corresponds to a response rate of 84%.
The characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 4.1 in terms of gender, age, seniority and education level. The majority of respondents were female (60.6%) in contrast to male (39.4%). Most of the respondents are between 21 to 30 years old (72.4%); while 4.7%
are under 20 years old, 20.9% are between the ages of 31 and 40 and only a 2% are older than 41.
Regarding the length of time with the company, results indicate the majority of the employees have worked with Ficohsa for less than one year (48%). 36.2% have been working for a period of 2-3 years, while 15.7% have been working for a period of 4-6 years. No respondent has been with the organization for more than 7 years.
Concerning participant’s education level, 70.5% of respondents hold a high school diploma, 25.2% have a bachelor’s degree while only 3.9% have obtained a master’s degree.
None of the employees that participated in this study hold a Ph.D. degree.
36 Table 4.1
Characteristics of Sample Population Based on Demographic Variables
Variable Entries Percentage (%)
Seniority (years) Less than 1 year 2-3 years
The following tables reflect the minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation for each of the question of the research instrument. All variables were measured on a 5 point Likert-type scale.
SPSS Findings: Organizational Trust
Concerning organizational trust, items Iden1 “I feel connected to my peers” (M= 4.18) and Iden2 “I feel connected to my company” (M= 4.14) have the highest mean. This indicates the majority of employees agree with both of these statements and feel a certain degree of identification with their peers and the organization respectively. On the other hand, items Op/h3 “I have a say in the decisions that affect my job” (M= 3.26) and Conc3 “Top
37
management listens to their employees’ concerns” (M=3.27) have the lowest mean. This implies employees believe these situations only happen at times.
Table 4.2
Organizational Trust by Likert Scale, Mean and Standard Deviation
Variable Question Min Max M SD Comp1 I am highly satisfied with our company’s
overall efficiency of operation. 1 5 3.80 .904
Comp2 I am highly satisfied with the overall quality of the financial products and services of our
company. 1 5 3.99 .924
Comp3 I am highly satisfied with the capacity of our
company to achieve its objectives. 1 5 4.10 .950
Comp4 I am highly satisfied with the capability of our
company’s employees. 1 5 3.87 .917
Op/h1 I can tell my immediate supervisor when
things are going wrong. 1 5 3.66 1.231
Op/h2 I am free to disagree with my immediate
supervisor. 1 5 3.32 1.215
Op/h3 I have a say in the decisions that affect my job.
1 5 3.26 1.217
Op/h4 My immediate supervisor keeps confidences.
1 5 3.49 1.221
Op/h5 I receive adequate information regarding how
well I am doing in my job. 1 5 3.96 1.005
Op/h6 I receive adequate information regarding how I
am being evaluated. 1 5 3.85 1.050
Op/h7 I receive adequate information regarding how
my job-related problems are handled. 1 5 3.59 1.070 Op/h8 I receive adequate information regarding how
organizational decisions that affect my job are
made. 1 5 3.42 1.110
(continued)
38
Variable Question Min Max M SD Op/h9 I receive adequate information regarding the
long-term strategies of our company. 1 5 3.50 .981 Conc1 My immediate supervisor listens to me.
1 5 4.02 1.052
Conc2 Top management is sincere in their efforts to
communicate with their employees. 1 5 3.52 1.088
Conc3 Top management listens to their employees’
concerns. 1 5 3.27 1.107
Conc4 My immediate supervisor is concerned about
my personal well-being. 1 5 3.70 1.081
Conc5 Top management is concerned about their
employee’s well-being. 1 5 3.41 .993
Conc6 My immediate supervisor is sincere in his/her
efforts to communicate with team members. 1 5 3.94 1.016 Conc7 My immediate supervisor speaks positively
about subordinates in front of others. 1 5 3.81 1.071 Reli1 My immediate supervisor follows through with
what he/she says. 1 5 3.72 1.046
Reli2 My immediate supervisor behaves in a
consistent manner form day to day. 1 5 3.81 1.010
Reli3 Top management keeps their commitments to
their employees. 1 5 3.56 1.019
Reli4 My immediate supervisor keeps his/her
commitments to team members. 1 5 3.91 .966
Iden1 I feel connected to my peers.
1 5 4.18 .918
Iden2 I feel connected to my company.
1 5 4.14 .916
Iden3 I feel connected to my immediate supervisor.
1 5 3.79 1.037
Iden4 My values are similar to the values of my
peers. 1 5 3.76 .900
Iden5 My values are similar to the values of my
immediate supervisor. 1 5 3.69 .959
Note. N=254; Min=1; Max=5; SD=Standard deviation Table 4.2 (continued)
39
(continued) SPSS Findings: Intellectual Capital
Regarding intellectual capital, item HC2 “Compared to others in the industry; our company is staffed with creative (innovative) workers” has the highest mean (M=4.17). This suggests employees agree with the statement and believe the organization possesses innovative workers. Contrariwise, item HC3 “Our company turnover rate is lower than that of others in the industry” has the lowest mean (M=3.12). This indicates employees perceive Ficohsa’s turnover rate is on average lower than that of other financial institutions.
Table 4.3
Intellectual Capital by Likert Scale, Mean and Standard Deviation
Variable Question Min Max Mean SD HC1 Our company understands its employees and can
make good use of employees' abilities.
1 5 3.66 .980
HC2 Compared to others in the industry; our company is staffed with creative (innovative) workers. and informal) including: computer skills,
teamwork, sales and/or new methods training. 1 5 3.86 1.111 OrgC2 Our company provides a formal and effective
grievance procedure or complaint resolution
system. 1 5 3.39 1.064
OrgC3 The organizational structure is flexible and allows for a fast and effective reallocation of labor when
and where it is needed. 1 5 3.65 1.029
CuC1 Customers are generally satisfied with our
company's services. 1 5 3.44 .908
CuC2 Customers' feedback and comments are widely circulated within our company, and our employees
clearly understand their needs. 1 5 3.69 .971
CuC3 Our company stands from others in the industry by
providing high value-added customer services. 1 5
3.90
1.009
40 Table 4.3 (continued)
Variable Question
Min Max Mean SD StruC1 Utilizing our company's knowledge management
system allow me to improve my job performance.
1 5 4.07 .888
StruC2 Our company's knowledge management system is updated regularly and can provide real-time
information. 1 5 3.89 .928
StruC3 Our company's knowledge management system meets the needs of its users.
1 5 3.84 .894
InnC1 Our company's culture is open-minded and supports the development of innovative ideas.
1 5 3.87 .953
InnC2 When someone comes up with a great idea, we share the knowledge within our company as much
as we should. 1 5 3.72 1.017
InnC3 Our company encourages innovation and its management style supports it.
1 5 3.88 .964
ProC1 Our company takes full advantage of information and communications technology available to facilitate the transfer of information throughout the company.
1 5 4.09 .889
ProC2 The software used by our company is suitable and allows easily processing, store, retrieving and
communicating information. 1 5 3.89 .986
ProC3 The hardware used by our company adequately supports the software used in our company.
1 5 3.74 1.032
Note. N=254; Min=1; Max=5; SD=Standard deviation SPSS Findings: Business Performance
Relating to business performance, items Mark2 “(Our company’s) future prospect is better than that of other financial institutions” (M=4.19) and Mark5 “(Our company’s) average sale growth has improved over the last three years (M=4.17) have the highest mean.
This implies employees agree with these statements and believe the organizations sale growth has improved over the past three years and currently its future outlook seems better than that
41
of other financial institutions. In contrast, item Finp1 “(Our company’s) after tax return on sale is better than that of other financial institutions” has the lowest mean (M=3.85). This suggests employees think that compared to other financial institutions, Ficohsa’s after tax return on sale is average.
Table 4.4
Business Performance by Likert Scale, Mean and Standard Deviation
Variable Question Min Max Mean SD Mark1 (Our organizational) Market share is better than that
of others in the financial industry. 1 5 3.90 .923
Mark2 (Our company’s) Future prospect is better than that
of other financial institutions. 1 5 4.19 .867
Mark3 (Our company’s) Industry market leadership is better
than that of other financial institutions. 1 5 4.14 .858 Mark4 (Our company's) Overall financial product and
service innovation is better than that of other
financial institutions. 1 5 4.13 .876
Mark5 (Our company's) Average sales growth has improved
over the last three years. 1 5 4.17 .852
recent three years is better than that of other financial
institutions. 1 5 4.03 .902
Finp5 (Our company's) Overall business performance is
better than other financial institutions. 1 5 4.12 .892 Note. N=254; Min=1; Max=5; SD=Standard deviation
SPSS Findings: Survival and Competitiveness
In relation to survival and competitiveness, items SuCo1 “Our company has a high innovation capability” (M=4.20) and SuCo3 “Our company is highly dynamic” (M=4.22)
42
have the highest mean. This implies employees perceive Ficohsa as a highly dynamic and innovative institution. On the other hand, item SuCen3 “There is an excellent relationship between customers, suppliers and partners” has the lowest mean (M=3.69). This denotes employees feel the relationship between customers, suppliers and partners is average.
Table 4.5
Survival and Competitiveness by Likert Scale, Mean and Standard Deviation
Variable Question Min Max Mean SD SuCo1 Our company has a high innovation capability.
1 5 4.20 .858
SuCo2 The organizational structure is very flexible.
1 5 3.88 .963
SuCo3 Our company is highly dynamic.
1 5 4.22 .906
SuCo4 Our company has an excellent and distinctive
culture and value system. 1 5 4.09 .858
SuCen1 Our company has the ability to easily adapt to the
environment's capacity. 1 5 4.12 .883
SuCen2 The working environment in our company is
excellent. 1 5 3.85 1.102
SuCen3 There is an excellent relationship between
customers, suppliers and partners. 1 5 3.69 .912 SuCemp1 Our company supports the recruitment and
retention of employees with key knowledge. 1 5 3.86 .937 SuCemp2 Our company adequately supports employee
learning. 1 5 3.96 .971
Note. N=254; Min=1; Max=5; SD=Standard deviation
Descriptive Statistics Discussion
Results obtained from the descriptive statistics analysis highlight several important aspects. Regarding organizational trust, items Op/h3, which refers to the participation employees have in the decision making process of aspects that will affect their job collected the lowest mean (M=3.26). This implies employees perceived their opinion is not always taken into account when decisions are made. This is further supported by item Conc3 which refers to top management listening to their employee’s concerns (M=3.27). The low means of both these items indicate employees feel their voice is not being heard by top management.
43
According to MacLeod and Clarke (2011), a “workplace without active, confident and vocal employees will not be able to achieve ongoing success” (p.12).
The lack of employee participation in the decision making process is likely to discourage innovation, impede engagement and productivity as well as affect decision making (Clarke & MacLeod, 2011). It also impairs organizational communication which in turn hinders knowledge sharing. Top management may consider supporting and encouraging employee voice and making them feel heard since it is “vital for authentic workplace relationships based on trust” (MacLeod & Clarke, 2011, p.1).
In relation to innovation capital item HC3, which addresses the company’s turnover rate, attained the lowest mean (M=3.12). Although employees perceive the organization’s turnover rate is on average lower than that of other financial institutions, Evidence of a high turnover rate can be found in the characteristics of the sample population obtained through the seniority variable. Data shows 84% of the total sample has worked in the company for no more than 3 years. Dess and Shaw (2001) suggested “the function of an organization is determined by the accumulation of firm-specific, valuable human capital” (p.447) therefore a high turnover rate has a negative effect on human capital because it diminishes it. A high turnover rate also affects social capital because strong workgroup relational ties are not fully developed (Dess & Shaw, 2001). Considering the negative effects the high turnover rate has on the company’s intellectual capital, top management may consider creating initiatives to retain its personnel.
The overall mean scores for business performance are relatively high, ranging from 4.17 to 3.85. Item Mark2 (which refers to the organization’s future prospect) and Mark5 (which mentions the improvement of the average sale growth) have the highest mean values of 4.19 and 4.17 respectively. This suggests employees perceive the company has a good overall business performance and expect it to continue performing well in the near future.
With regard to survival and competitiveness, all items have relatively high mean values. Item SuCo1, which relates to the company’s innovation capability, has the highest mean score (M=4.20). This suggests employees recognize Ficohsa as a highly innovative organization. This is further evidenced in the high means in items HC2 (M=4.17) which refer to the innovation of the staff as well as items InnC1, InnC2 and InnC3 which received mean values of 3.87, 3.88 and 3.72 correspondingly. Item SuCen3 has the lowest mean (M=3.65) which suggests employees feel the relationship between customers, suppliers and partners could be improved.
44
Correlation Analysis
Pearson Coefficient Correlation (see Table 4.6) was used to test whether or not multicollinearity exists in the model. According to Kennedy (1989) for hypothesis testing, values above .75 are considered problematic. The correlation among constructs reflects 24 values are greater than .75, therefore it can be assumed multicollinearity exists in the model.
However, it is important to point out multicollinearity does not reduce the predictive power or reliability of a model; it only affects calculations regarding individual predictors (Khalaf et al., 2013).
45 Table 4.6
Main Study’s Correlations among Constructs (n=254)
Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1 Acomp 1
2 Aop/h .684** 1
3 Aconc .660** .829** 1
4 Areli .656** .770** .880** 1
5 Aiden .680** .705** .742** .704** 1
6 Ahc .724** .707** .731** .722** .733** 1
7 Aorgc .667** .700** .701** .622** .638** .739** 1
8 Acuc .715** .637** .639** .623** .677** .732** .737** 1
9 Astruc .650** .660** .633** .599** .639** .674** .699** .740** 1
10 Ainnc .672** .696** .710** .663** .693** .741** .775** .734** .769** 1
11 Aproc .596** .567** .569** .549** .566** .667** .580** .664** .690** .634** 1
12 Asorg .756** .725** .709** .684** .761** .774** .753** .794** .771** .848** .721** 1
13 Asemp .716** .697** .704** .675** .681** .784** .752** .722** .736** .773** .694** .840** 1
14 Asenv .742** .742** .721** .711** .762** .809** .717** .770** .738** .802** .691** .885** .852** 1
15 Amark .659** .602** .581** .556** .631** .677** .668** .732** .729** .728** .655** .860** .771** .773** 1
16 Afinp .633** .584** .508** .495** .597** .638** .617** .695** .659** .678** .611** .792** .682** .719** .833** 1 Note. *p<.05, **<.01
46
Validity and Reliability Analysis
Cronbach’s Alpha, R Squared and Internal Consistency
Cronbach’s alpha, Rsquared and internal consistency were used to assess the validity and reliability of the questionnaire. Validity and reliability measures were initially calculated with the data obtained from the pilot study and later re-calculated with the data obtained from the sample with the aid of SmartPLS. Results pertaining to the pilot study are presented first and are then followed by those obtained from the sample.
Cronbach’s alpha values for the models constructs were OT=.935, IC=.829, BP=.898 and SuC=.805. All values were above .80, exceeding the criterion of .70 proposed by Nunally (1978) as acceptable for explanatory research. R squared values, used to explain the endogenous latent variables to the total variance were equal to .600 for IC; .537 for BP and .621 for SuC. Chin (1998) proposed R2 values of 0.67, 0.33 and 0.19 are substantial, moderate and weak respectively. Applying Chin’s proposed values, it can be concluded that the TIP model’s R2 values are moderate. Results also reflect the model has an explanatory power (R2) of 62.14%. Individual item reliability was assessed by examining the loadings of each of the factors on their respective latent constructs. The criterion of .50 recommended by Hulland (1999) was adopted for the retention of factors. Because no value is below .50, all factors were retained.
The validity and reliability of the model was once again tested using the data gathers from the sample. Cronbach’s alpha values for OT=.931, IC=.934. BP=.909 and SC=.948.
Because all values are above .90, they once again exceed the criterion of .70 proposed by Nunally (1987). R squared values equal .731 for IC, .658 for BP and .713 for SC. The models explanatory power is 71.31%. According to the parameters suggested by Chin (1998) the R squared values are substantial. Finally, individual item reliability was examined through the loadings. All factors were retained because no value was below the .50 criterion recommended by Hulland (1999).
Table 4.7
Cronbach’s Alpha Values
Constructs Number of items Pilot (n=30) Sample (n=254)
OT 29 .935 .931
IC 18 .829 .934
BP 10 .898 .909
SC 9 .805 .948
47 Table 4.8
Internal Consistency and R2 Values
Table 4.9
Pilot Test Loadings
Item Loading Item Loading Item Loading
Comp .875 HC .787 ProC .516
Op/h .910 OC .821 Mark .956
Conc .923 CuC .505 Finp .949
Reli .894 StruC .875 Envi. .920
Iden .847 InnC .864 Emp. .8459
Table 4.10 Sample Loadings
Item Loading Item Loading Item Loading
Comp .832 HC .875 ProC .805
Op/h .900 OC .870 Mark .961
Conc .927 CuC .885 Finp .954
Reli .903 StruC .876 Envi. .957
Iden .865 InnC .895 Emp. .939
Constructs Number of items Internal Consistency Pilot
Internal consistency Sample
R² (%) Pilot
R² (%) Sample
OT 29 .950 .948 - -
IC 18 .877 .948 .600 .731
BP 10 .951 .956 .537 .658
SC 9 .925 .966 .621 .713
48
Factor Analysis
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measures of Sampling Adequacy and Barleett’s Test of Sphericity
A larger sample allowed the researcher to further test the data using SPSS 20. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity were conducted in order to evaluate the suitability of the data for structure detection. Cronbach’s alpha was once again calculated to assess reliability.
KMO indicates the adequacy of the data for running factor analysis. Values range from 0 to 1.0. Larger values imply the sample is more adequate for running factor analysis.
Kaiser recommends values greater than .50 are acceptable (Verma, 2013). KMO values equal .946 for OT, .945 for IC, .948 for BP and .947 for SuC. Because no values were below the criterion of .50, it can be concluded factor analysis is appropriate to run using the data set.
Cronbach’s alpha values equaled .932 for OT, .934 for IC, .909 for BP and .947 for SuC.
Thus all values are above the .70 criterion.
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity is used to test the hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an identity matrix, which would indicate the variables are unrelated and therefore, unsuitable for structure detection. A p value of less than .05 is considered adequate. The significance of all factors was less than .001 confirming the data was suitable for factor analysis.
Factor Analysis
Once the data was confirmed as appropriate, a factor analysis was conducted. The results obtained for both the pilot study and the main investigation are presented in the tables below.
Table 4.11
Pilot Test Factor Analysis Results for All Constructs
Construct Items KMO Eigen Value % Variance
49 Table 4.12
Main Study Factor Analysis Results for All Constructs
Construct Items KMO Eigen value % Variance explained Bartlett’s tests of Sphericity
OT 29 .946 14.423 49.736% 2=5764.475;p <.000 method selected by the researcher rather than the constructs the measures represent. It often occurs in behavioral research when constructs share a common measurement method. If present, CMV can be problematic because it may provide an alternative explanation to relationships observed between constructs (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Therefore, it is important to take CMV into account when analyzing empirical results in order to avoid misleading conclusions.
There are two primary ways to reduce the negative effect caused by CMV, procedural and statistical remedies. Procedural remedies are put in place in the design phase of the study.
The study is designed in a way that allows the measures of the variables to be collected using different sources or by collecting the measures at different times. The second method is used after the data has been collected in order to test for CMV and if present, to minimize the influence of CMV in the findings.
In order to test for CMV, Harman’s single-factor test (single-factor test) was used. For this test, the number of factors extracted in the factor analysis was constrained to one and the unrotated solution was examined. CMV is present when a single factor accounts for more than 50% of the covariance between the measures in the model (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Table 4.13 presents the results of the single-factor test.
Table 4.13
Single Factor Test
Component Extraction Sum of Square Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 23.461 30.699 30.699
50
Results showed a single factor explains 30.6% of the variance, therefore it can be concluded CMV is not an issue in this investigation. After a thorough evaluation of the scales used in this thesis and considering the notable improvement in the final values in comparison with those obtained with the pilot test; it can be concluded the TIP Model has a high and ample degree of validity and reliability.
51