This chapter showed the statistical results of this research in three divisions. Firstly, this study presented all of the findings based on the descriptive statistics of the participants as well as the descriptive statistics of all variables. Secondly, the findings of the analyses on the data collected: correlation analysis, linear regression analysis, hierarchical regression analysis and also, t-test and one-way ANOVA were displayed. Thirdly, results of the hypotheses were demonstrated and discussed.
Descriptive Analysis
This area showed participants' overview of the characteristics with showing the information of the respondents' geographic information; gender, age, tenure, position and industries. Moreover, table 4.1 also explained the results of the sample characteristic with frequency and percentage.
Participants’ Characteristics
There are 215 respondents participated in this study. Participants were recruited by snowball-sampling methods and received the invitation and an online survey form created by using Google Forms by E-mail, LINE and messenger of Facebook. Then, they responded to the survey between March 9, 2020 and April 9, 2020. Total response rates are 100 percent.
Since eight samples were excluded from the total sample because of missing many responses, 207 samples were used in these statistics. Table 4.1 showed the results of the descriptive statistics. This analysis had five control variables; gender, age, tenure, position and industries which they were belonged in.
First, the results showed that male participants were slightly more numerous in this survey; the number of males was 121 (58.5 %), while the female was 86 (41.5 %). Secondly, for the age of the participants, the author divided ages into seven groups; under 24 years, 25 - 29 years, 30-34 years, 35-39 years, 40-44 years, 45-49 years, above 50 years. The largest group of the respondent's age group was the age of 35-39 years old with 54 respondents (26.1 %), while the smallest group was the age of under 24 years old with 14 respondents (6.8 %). Thirdly, for the job tenure at the current organization, this study had five options; less than 3 years, 3-5
26
years, 6-10 years, 11-15 years and more than 15 years. The result showed that the largest group of the respondents was working in the company between 6-10 years with 54 (26.1%), and the smallest group 11-15 years with 32 (15.5%) Fourthly, about the position of the participants, the majority (162, 78.3%) of the respondents are in the non-managerial position. Lastly, this study asked the participants which their company had worked in with 20 options which were established by Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan and named Japan Standard Industrial Classification. The author integrated 20 items into seven items based on the area, which was related to each industry. The results of integration showed below table 4.2.
27
The Integration of Japan Standard Industrial Classification
Integrated classification Original items Agriculture and forestry
Fisheries
Mining And Quarrying Of Stone And Gravel Construction
Manufacturing
Electricity, Gas, Heat Supply And Water Information And Communications Transport And Postal Activities Wholesale And Retail Trade Finance And Insurance
Real Estate And Goods Rental And Leasing
Scientific Research, Professional And Technical Services Education, Learning Support
Accommodations, Eating And Drinking Services
Living-Related And Personal Services And Amusement Services Compound Services
28
Descriptive Statistics of Perceived Organizational Support Dimensions
Perceived Organizational Support dimensions have 15 items. Respondents selected the extent of agreement with each statement on a five-point scale (5 = Strongly agree to 1 = Strongly disagree). Based on the results of the descriptive analysis, the mean of all 15 items is 2.94, and standard deviations are 0.90. Also, unlike other variables, POS does not have sub-dimensions.
Table 4.3 shows the mean and standard deviation of the responses for each item of the POS. According to the results of the descriptive statistics, the result of the item “The organization values my contribution to its well-being” had the highest mean score (M=3.30).
Moreover, the item “The organization really cares about my well-being” had the lowest mean result (M=2.64). This indicates that many respondents believe that the company will highly value their contributions. On the other hand, fewer people believe that organizations are paying attention to the well-being of individual workers. Furthermore, this item had the most consistent responses from participants since it had the lowest standard deviation value of any item measuring POS (SD=1.09).
29 Table 4.3.
Descriptive Statistics for Perceived Organizational Support (N=207)
Order Items Mean SD
POS1 The organization is willing to help me when I need a special
favor. 2.98 1.13
POS2 The organization shows very little concern for me. 3.18 1.12 POS3 The organization cares about my general satisfaction at
work. 2.81 1.18
POS4 Help is available from the organization when I have a
problem. 3.00 1.14
POS5 The organization really cares about my well-being. 2.64 1.09
POS6 The organization cares about my opinions. 3.08 1.13
POS7 The organization disregards my best interests when it
makes decisions that affect me. 2.81 1.08
POS8 Even if I did the best job possible, the organization would
fail to notice. 3.08 1.17
POS9 The organization tries to make my job as interesting as
possible. 2.77 1.10
POS10 The organization takes pride in my accomplishments at
work. 2.80 1.10
POS11 The organization would ignore any complaint from me. 2.86 1.12 POS12 The organization strongly considers my goals and values. 2.78 1.12 POS13 The organization fails to appreciate any extra effort from
me. 3.21 1.17
POS14 The organization values my contribution to its well-being. 3.30 1.12 POS15 If the organization could hire someone to replace me at a
lower salary it would do so. 2.78 1.15
Note. SD=Standard Deviation
This study used 5-point Likert scale: (5) Strongly Agree to (1) Strongly Disagree
Descriptive Statistics of Organizational Commitment Dimensions
Table 4.4 showed items mean and standard deviations in OC and its sub-dimensions: AC, CC and NC. Each sub-dimensions have eight items, and as the sum of all items, OC has 24 items. These results provide a bird's eye view of participants' attitudes about commitment.
Among the three dimensions, CC had the highest mean (M=3.40) and showed the greatest
30
variability in responses (SD=0.83). On the other hand, NC accepted the lowest mean (M=2.46) and the most consistent responses (SD=0.83).
These results show the following. Although the attitudes of the respondents vary from person to person, they are more likely to believe that staying with one company has its benefits.
In contrast, the tendency of respondents to think that they should "commit organization without reason" is weaker, although it had more consistency.
Table 4.4.
Descriptive Statistics for Dimensions of Organizational Commitment (N=207)
Dimensions Mean SD
Orgnizational Commitment 2.94 0.48
Affective Commitment 2.96 0.70
Continuous Commitment 3.40 0.83
Normatve Commitment 2.46 0.60
Note. SD=Standard Deviation
This study used 5-point Likert scale: (5) Strongly Agree to (1) Strongly Disagree
Table 4.5 showed the mean and standard deviation of the responses for each item of the OC. According to the results of the descriptive statistics, the item “Jumping from organization to organization does not seem at all unethical to me” had the lowest mean result (M=2.01) and accepted the minimum standard variation (SD=0.98) among 24 items. Since this is a reverse coded item, the authors performed score inversions during statistical processing. This indicates that many respondents tend to consider that changing company so frequently is not unethical.
Moreover, the result had the most consistent among other questions. Also, item “I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization” accepted the highest variation in answer score (SD=1.34).
31 Table 4.5.
Descriptive Statistics for Items of Organizational Commitment (N=207)
Order Items Mean SD
AC1 I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with
this organization. 2.88 1.30
AC2 I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it. 3.10 1.22 AC3 I really feel as if this organization's problems are my own. 3.25 1.14 AC4 I think that I could easily become as attached to another
organization as I am to this one. 3.07 1.06
AC5 I do not feel like 'part of the family' at my organization. 2.50 1.18 AC6 I do not feel 'emotionally attached' to this organization. 2.69 1.25 AC7 This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for
me. 3.17 1.23
AC8 I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my
organization. 3.02 1.20
CC1 I am not afraid of what might happen if I quit my job
without having another one lined up. (R) 3.54 1.24
CC2 It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right
now, even if I wanted to with. 3.81 1.11
CC3 Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided I
wanted to leave my organization now. 3.29 1.28
CC4 It wouldn't be too costly for me to leave my organization
now. (R) 3.46 1.31
CC5 Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of
necessity as much as desire. 3.34 1.14
CC6 I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this
organization. 2.87 1.34
CC7 One of the few serious consequences of leaving this
organization would be the scarcity of available alternatives. 3.44 1.20 CC8 One of the major reasons I continue to work for this
organization is that leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice - another organization may not match the overall benefits I have here.
3.40 1.18
Affective Commitment
Continuous Commitment
(continued)
32 Table 4.5. (continued)
Order Items Mean SD
NC1 I think that people these days move from company to
company too often. 2.87 1.15
NC2 I do not believe that a person must always be loyal to his or
her organization. 2.20 0.99
NC3 Jumping from organization to organization does not seem at
all unethical to me. 2.01 0.98
NC4 One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that I believe that loyalty is important and therefore, feel a sense of moral obligation to remain.
2.47 1.15
NC5 If I got another offer for a better job elsewhere I would not
feel it was right to leave my organization. 2.35 1.11 NC6 I was taught to believe in the value of remaining loyal to
one organization. 2.60 1.19
NC7 Things were better in the days when people stayed with
one organization for most of their careers. 2.99 1.12 NC8 I do not think that wanting to be a 'company man' or
'company woman' is sensible anymore. 2.17 1.00
Normatve Commitment
Note. SD=Standard Deviation
This study used 5-point Likert scale: (5) Strongly Agree to (1) Strongly Disagree
Descriptive Statistics of Organizational Justice Dimensions
Items mean and standard deviations in moderator OJ and its sub-dimensions were provided in Table 4.6. The total number of items in OJ is 20, including seven items for procedural justice (PJ), four items for distributive justice (DJ), and nine items for interactional justice (IJ). Among the three dimensions, IJ accepted the highest mean (M=3.38) while PJ had the lowest mean in answering score (M=3.15), and this score had the lowest variation. The data revealed that participants in this study perceived interactional justice more strongly and were less likely to perceive procedural justice when compared to other factors.
33 Table 4.6.
Descriptive Statistics for Dimensions of Organizational Justice (N=207)
Dimensions Mean SD
Orgnizational Justice 3.26 0.61
Procedural Justice 3.15 0.76
Distributive Justice 3.20 0.99
Interactional Justice 3.38 0.87
Note. SD=Standard Deviation.
This study used 5-point Likert scale: (5) Strongly Agree to (1) Strongly Disagree.
Moderator organizational justice was assessed by using 5-point Likert's scale as same as other two variables. Results of descriptive analysis of each 20 items of organizational justice were provided below the table 4.7. According to the results shown below, the item “Has (he/she) treated you in a polite manner?” accepted the highest mean score (M=3.73). By this result, it was illustrated that many participants believed they treated politely by the supervisor.
From the other result of this table, item “Have you been able to appeal the (outcome) arrived at by those procedures?” which belongs to procedural justice dimensions had the lowest mean score (M=2.73). It means that many participants were not allowed to challenge the evaluation of their results in the procedure.
34 Table 4.7.
Descriptive Statistics for Items of Organizational Justice (N=207)
Order Items Mean SD
PJ1 Have you been able to express your views and feelings
during those procedures? 2.95 1.15
PJ2 Have you had influence over the (outcome) arrived at by
those procedures? 2.74 1.03
PJ3 Have those procedures been applied consistently? 3.47 1.15 PJ4 Have those procedures been free of bias? 3.39 1.12 PJ5 Have those procedures been based on accurate
information? 3.22 1.09
PJ6 Have you been able to appeal the (outcome) arrived at by
those procedures? 2.73 1.25
PJ7 Have those procedures upheld ethical and moral standards? 3.52 1.02
DJ1 Does your (outcome) reflect the effort you have put into
your work? 3.19 1.14
DJ2 Is your (outcome) appropriate for the work you have
completed? 3.12 1.08
DJ3 Does your (outcome) reflect what you have contributed to
the organization? 3.24 1.12
DJ4 Is your (outcome) justified, given your performance? 3.24 1.05
IJ1 Has (he/she) treated you in a polite manner? 3.73 1.13 IJ2 Has (he/she) treated you with dignity? 3.69 1.10 IJ3 Has (he/she) treated you with respect? 3.55 1.11 IJ4 Has (he/she) refrained from improper remarks or
comments? 3.34 1.16
IJ5 Has (he/she) been candid in (his/her) communications with
you? 3.62 1.07
IJ6 Has (he/she) explained the procedures thoroughly? 2.96 1.18 IJ7 Were (his/her) explanations regarding the procedures
reasonable? 3.20 1.14
IJ8 Has (he/she) communicated details in a timely manner? 3.19 1.10 IJ9 Has (he/she) seemed to tailor (his/her) communications to
individuals' specific needs? 3.17 1.17
Distributive Justice
Interactional Justice Procedural Justice
Note.SD=Standard Deviation.
This study used 5-point Likert scale: (5) Strongly Agree to (1) Strongly Disagree.
35
Confirmation Factor Analysis (CFA)
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine the validity of the measurement structure. In this study, CFA was conducted using Mplus version 7.4. The result of CFA analysis was based on fit criteria, in order to confirm model fits.
Firstly, according to Marsh and Hocevar (1985), a chi-squared divided by the degrees of freedom (χ²/df) value is between 2-5 is a desirable result, while under 5 is still acceptable. With the sake for investigating how accurately the model considered fits proportionally to the other models, the Comparative Fix Index (CFI) and the Tucker Lewis non-formed index 9 (TLI) were utilized. Kelloway (1998) indicated that both CFI and TLI showed a good model fit if the value is over 0.90 (>0.90). Thirdly, the Root Mean Square of Approximation (RMSEA) indicates how well the model fits based population. Also, according to Kelloway (1998), if the value of the test resulted in under 0.08(<0.08), it showed its better model fit. Lastly, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) is an index of how few components of residual variance covered over all of model components; if the value is under 0.05, the model showed satisfactory level, but under 0.08(<0.08) is still acceptable.
Table 4.8.
Result of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (N=207)
Index Acceptable Level Satisfactory Level CFA Test Results
χ²/df < 5 05-2 1.77
CFI > 0.90 > 0.95 0.92
TLI > 0.90 > 0.95 0.91
RMSEA < 0.08 < 0.05 0.06
SRMR < 0.08 < 0.05 0.07
Note. χ²= Chi square. df= Degree of freedom. CFI= Comparative fit index. TLI = Tucker lewis index. RMSEA= Root mean-square error of approximation. SRMR= Standardized root mean square residual.
36
As the above table showed, in this study, the result encompassed the following; chi-squared divided by the degrees of freedom (χ²/df) value was 1.77, CFI was 0.92 and TLI was 0.91, RMSEA was.006, and SRMR was .007.
The Relationships among Variables
This section presented the result of the correlation analysis that showed the relationships among independent variables; POS, dependent variables; organizational commitment, the moderator; organizational justice and control variables; gender, age, tenure and position. The items of control variables that ask for gender have categories as “1” for male and “2” for female.
In addition, items asking for the position, originally the author set category “1” for manager and non-managerial position was set as “2” in the category. However, the author reversed the answer values when conducting statistical analysis. Therefore, it means that the higher the answer value is, the higher the position of the respondent occupied.
Correlation Analysis
Table 4.9 showed that there was a positive correlation between POS and organizational commitment (r=.246, p<.01). It indicated that the stronger employee perceived support for from his or her organization, the more they try to contribute towards the company. Besides, seeing from another point, when the employee tries to contribute more, they perceived they received more support from the company. From this result, Hypothesis 1 was supported.
Moreover, it was found that POS is positively related to organizational justice (r=.497, p<.01). It illustrated that the stronger employee perceived support from his or her organization;
they thought they received more fair treatments from the organization. Moreover, having a different viewpoint, it can be said that when the employee perceived they receive fairly treatment from the organization, they feel more strongly that they were supported from the company. On the relationships among control variables, only organizational justice had correlation which is with ages and is negative correlation (r=-.213, p<.01). This indicates that younger employees are more likely to recognize fairness, and this shows that the older a participant is, the harder it is to perceive the fairness of the company.
The relationships among the control variables helped us understand more about participants. Age had a positive relationship with tenure(r=.543, p<.01). It means the older
37
respondents are, the longer they have stayed the company. Position is related to all other control variables; negatively with gender (r=-.230, p<.01), positively with age (r=.259, p<.01) and age (r=.222, p<.01). It indicated that male occupies a higher position than female.
Table 4.9.
Mean, Standard Deviations and Correlations of Each Variables (N=207)
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Gender 1.42 0.49 1
2 Age 4.06 1.68 -.189** 1
3 Tenure 2.94 1.42 -.108 .543** 1
4 Position 1.22 0.41 -.230** .259** .222** 1
5 POS 2.94 0.90 .023 -.062 .017 .089 1
6 OC 2.94 0.48 -.103 -.036 .063 .150* .246** 1
7 OJ 3.26 0.61 .111 -.213** -.116 .150* .497** .276** 1 Note. SD=Standard Deviation; **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Results of Regression Analysis
In this section, firstly, simple linear regression was conducted to analyze whether or not independent variable; POS affect the dependent variable; organizational justice and if POS affect organizational justice, the results provided how strongly independent variable influence the dependent variable. Second, hierarchical regression analysis was executed in order to investigate how the moderator, organizational justice have an influence on the relationship between POS and organizational commitment.
Simple Linear Regression Analysis
First, in order to investigate the hypothesis1, linear regression analysis was conducted to test the influence of POS on organizational commitment. Hypothesis 1 examined that independent variable POS is related to dependent variable organizational commitment. Based
38
on the results of regression analysis, hypothesis 1 was accepted again. POS was positively related to organizational commitment, and it showed that the correlation coefficient obtained is significant (β=.246, p<.001). However, the coefficient of determination resulted in .060 (r2=.060). It means that the variation in POS could explain 6.0% of the change in organizational commitment. In addition, this result was statistically significant (p<.001).
Table 4.10.
Simple Linear Regression Analysis of Perceived Organizational Support and Organizational Commitment (N=207)
Standardized Coefficients
Beta t
(Constant) 23.080
POS .246** 3.608 13.021** .060 .056
Model F R2 Adj. R2
Note. Dependent Variable = Organizational Commitment; POS=Perceived Organizational Support; **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
According to organizational support theory, which is a theory related to POS, if the employee receives support from the organization or organization’s agent (e.g. from HR or supervisor), the employee will have many positive feelings towards the organization and will strive to contribute more to it (Aselage & Eisenberger, 2003). The results of this study supported organizational support theory. The result also proved that if the company try to elicit employees’ commitment, organizations need to provide opportunities and policies that allow employees to recognize that they perceive the support from the company.
39 Table 4.11.
Simple Linear Regression Analysis of Perceived Organizational Support and Three Dimensions of Organizational Commitment (N=207)
Note. Independent Variable = Perceived Organizational Support.
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.1 level (2-tailed).
Table 4.11 showed the results of the regression analysis of POS and each sub-dimensions of organizational commitment, affective commitment, continuous commitment and normative commitment.
Among the three elements, normative commitment was found to have the strongest positive correlation with POS (β=.322, p<.001). In addition, for the regression equation, coefficient of determination of POS on normative commitment resulted in also the highest (r2=.103, p<.001) among three dimensions of organizational commitment. It means that the variation in POS could explain 10.0% of the change in normative commitment, and shows that POS could explain the change of normative commitment more than POS does on other dimensions.
Continuous commitment also was found to be positively correlated with POS, as well as with normative commitment (β=.230, p<.01). Coefficient of determination of POS on continuous commitment was resulted in r2=.053 (p<.01). It means that the variation in POS could explain only 5.3% of the change in normative commitment. The results of the analysis of the relationship between POS and affective commitment were not statistically significant.
Continuous commitment also was found to be positively correlated with POS, as well as with normative commitment (β=.230, p<.01). Coefficient of determination of POS on continuous commitment was resulted in r2=.053 (p<.01). It means that the variation in POS could explain only 5.3% of the change in normative commitment. The results of the analysis of the relationship between POS and affective commitment were not statistically significant.