Chapter 4 RESULTS & DISCUSSION
4.3 Hypotheses Testing between Depression, Job Burnout, Social Support, Self-Control,
Self-Leadership and Work Engagement
The following is the reliability analysis, correlation coefficients and hypotheses testing to answer the third question: What degrees do depression, job burnout, social support, self-control, self-leadership play in employees’ decision to remain with or leave their organization?
There were five hypotheses designed to answer the third research questions:
Hypothesis 1: Job stress has some relationship with work engagement.
Hypothesis 1a: Depression has a negative relationship with work engagement.
Hypothesis 1b: Job burnout has a negative relationship with work engagement.
Hypothesis 2: Social support has a positive relationship with work engagement.
Hypothesis 3: Learn resourcefulness has some relationship with work engagement.
Hypothesis 3a: Self-control has a positive relationship with work engagement.
Hypothsis 3b: Self-leadership has a positive relationship with work engagement.
A Pearson product–movement correlation coefficient uses Rules of Thumb (Burns & Bush, 2006) to make the decision and is used to test all hypotheses in this study. The strength of correlation assuming correlation coefficient is statistically significant showed in Table 11.
Table 11: Strength of Pearson Correlation
Correlation Strength of Correlation
+ .81 to + 1.00 Strong
+ .61 to + .80 Moderate
+ .41 to + .60 Weak
+ .21 to + 40 Very Weak
+ .00 to + .20 None
Noted: Adapt from Burns & Bush (2006)
Hypothesis 1:
Hypotheis 1: Job stress has some relationship with work engagement.
Hypothesis 1a: Depression has a negative relationship with work engagement.
Null H: Depression has no relationship with work engagement Alt H: Depression has a negative relationship with work engagement.
Table 4.12: Correlations between Depression and Work Engagement
Depression Work Engagement
Depression
Pearson Correlation 1 .178
Sig. (2-tailed) .075
N 101 101
Work Engagement
Pearson Correlation .178 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .075
N 101 101
The correlations had a Sig.values of 0.75 which is larger than .05, therefore accept null hypothesis. According to the rule of thumb, the correlations fall in the
“none” range with a positive direction (p=.178), confirming the acceptance of null hypothesis. This result indicates that there is no support for the hypothesis that depression has a negative relationship with work engagement.
Hypothesis 1b: Job Burnout has a negative relationship with work engagement.
Null H: Job Burnout has no relationship with work engagement Alt H: Job Burnout has a negative relationship with work engagement.
Table 4.13: Correlations between Job Burnout and Work Engagement
Job Burnout Work Engagement
Job Burnout
Pearson Correlation 1 -.238*
Sig. (2-tailed) .016
N 101 101
Job Burnout Work Engagement
Work Engagement
Pearson Correlation -.238* 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .016
N 101 101
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Job burnout was found to be negatively and significantly related to work engagement (p=-.238*, r=.016). The correlation fell in very weak range (p=-.238*).
However, the correlations had a Sig.values of .016 is smaller than alpha .05. The null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, there is a support for the hypothesis that job burnout has a negative relationship with work engagement.
From testing hypothesis 1a and hypothesis 1b, this result is concluded that job stress including depression and job burnout has some relationship with work engagement. Specifically, depression has no relationship with work engagement while job burnout has a negative relationship with work engagement.
Hypothesis 2:
Hypothesis 2: Social support has some relationship with work engagement.
Null H: Social Support has no relationship with work engagement Alt H: Social Support has a positive relationship with work engagement.
Table 4.14: Correlations between Social Support and Work Engagement (n=101)
Pearson Correlation .129 .046 .143 1 -.190 .088
Sig. (2-tailed) .199 .648 .155 .057 .380
Pearson Correlation .147 .100 .016 .088 .011 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .141 .319 .874 .380 .910
N 101 101 101 101 101 101
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Hypothesis 2a: Social embeddedness has a positive relationship with work engagement.
Null H: Social embeddedness has no relationship with work engagement Alt H: Social embeddedness has a positive relationship with work engagement.
Social embeddedness was found to have a positive relation but no strength of correlation (p =.147). The correlation was insignificant with Sig. values of (r=.319) >.05.
The null hypothesis is accepted. Therefore, there is no support for the hypothesis that social embeddedness has a positive relationship with work engagement.
Hypothesis 2b: Received support has a positive relationship with work engagement.
Null H: Received support has no relationship with work engagement Alt H: Received support has a positive relationship with work engagement.
The correlations between received support and work engagement are insignificantly different with Sig. values of (r=.319) >.05. According to the rules of thumb, the correlations fall in the “none” range with positive direction but no strength of correlation (p=.100). Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. This result indicates that there is no support for the hypothesis that received support has a positive relationship with work engagement.
Hypothesis 2c: Provided support has a positive relationship with work engagement.
Null H: Provided support has no relationship with work engagement Alt H: Provided support has a positive relationship with work engagement.
The correlations are insignificantly different with Sig. values of (r=.874)>.05.The correlations fall in the “none” range with positive direction (p =.016).
This result means that provided support has no relationship with work engagement.
Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. This study can conclude that there is no support for the hypothesis that provided support has a positive relationship with work engagement.
Hypothesis 2d: Negative interaction has a negative relationship with work engagement.
Null H: Negative interaction has no relationship with work engagement Alt H: Negative interaction has a negative relationship with work engagement.
Negative interaction was found to be positive relation but non strength of correlation (p =.088) according to the rules of thumb. However, the correlations were insignificant with Sig. values of (r=.380)>.05. The null hypothesis is accepted.
Therefore, there is no support for the hypothesis that negative support has a negative relationship with work engagement.
Hypothesis 2e: Anticipated support has a positive relationship with work engagement.
Null H: Anticipated support has no relationship with work engagement Alt H: Anticipated support has a positive relationship with work engagement.
Anticipated support was found to have a positive relation but no strength of correlation (p =.011) according to the rules of thumb. The correlation was insignificant with Sig. values of (r=.910) >.05. The null hypothesis is accepted. Therefore, there is no support for the hypothesis that anticipated support has a positive relationship with work engagement.
From testing hypothesis 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d and 2e, this result is concluded that social support including social embeddedness, received support, provided support, negative interaction and anticipated support have no significant relationships with work engagement.
Hypothesis 3:
Hypothesis 3: Learn resourcefulness has some relationship with work engagement.
Hypothesis 3a: Self-control has a positive relationship with work engagement.
Null H: Self-control has no relationship with work engagement Alt H: Self-control has a positive relationship with work engagement.
As can be seen in Table 4.15 below, self-control was found to be positively and significantly related to work engagement (p=.218*, r=.029). The correlations fall in the
“very weak” range (p=.218*). However, the correlations were significant with Sig.
values of (r=.029) is smaller than alpha (.05). The null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, there is a support for the hypothesis that self-control has a positive relationship with work engagement.
Table 4.15: Correlations between Self-control and Work Engagement
Job Burnout Work Engagement
Self-control
Pearson Correlation 1 .218*
Sig. (2-tailed) .029
N 101 101
Work Engagement
Pearson Correlation .218* 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .029
N 101 101
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Hypothesis 3b: Self-leadership has a positive relationship with work engagement.
Null H: Self-leadership has no relationship with work engagement Alt H: Self-leadership has a positive relationship with work engagement.
Table 4.16: Correlations between Self-leadership and Work Engagement
Self-leadership Work Engagement
Self-leadership
Pearson Correlation 1 .317**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001
N 101 101
Work Engagement Pearson Correlation .317** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .001
N 101 101
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
As been shown in Table 4.16 above, there is a positive and significant relation between self-leadership and work engagement (p=.317*, r=.001). The correlation falls in the “very weak” range (p=.317*). However, the correlations were significant with Sig. values of (r=.001) is smaller than alpha (.05). The null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, there is a support for the hypothesis that self-leadership has a positive relationship with work engagement.
From testing hypothesis 3a and 3b, the results show that learned resourcefulness including self-control and self-leadership has a positive relationship with work
engagement. To sum up, the result of the above tested hypotheses are summarized as follows.
Table 4.17: Summary results of hypotheses
Hypothesis Variables Result
Hypothesis 1 Job Stress and Work Engagement Negative relationship 1a Depression and Work Engagement No Support
1b Job Burnout and Work Engagement Negative relationship Hypothesis 2 Social Support and Work Engagement No relationship Hypothesis 3 Learned Resourcefulness & Work Engagement Positive relationship
3a Self-control and Work Engagement Positive relationship 3b Self-leadership and Work Engagement Positive relationship