DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS - The Effect of Intrinsic Motivation and Transformational Leadership

The study employs quantitative approach. The data are analyzed by IBM SPSS 23.0, SPSS Amos 24, and Smart PLS 3.0, and the researcher will compare the results retrieved from three different analytic tools or software. In this chapter, it presents the result of descriptive statistics, correlations and main study results. The researcher primarily adopted the data analysis results of Smart PLS 3.0, and in the appendices, he attached the figures of the results and data analysis results of SPSS 23.0 and SPSS Amos 24 to make comparisons between the results yielded via different statistical software.

Descriptive Statistics

The demographic information consists of 5 categories: gender, marital, age, education, and tenure. It is used to check whether there are missing items and compare whether different groups of people may have special tendencies when answering the questionnaire. Descriptive statistics will also present mean and standard deviation value of the dimensions and constructs. Minimum and maximum values are shown to see whether the data includes incorrect ratings that fall outside of the scale. Table 4.1 presents the frequencies of the respondent in each group, and the data can be analyzed to compare whether there are differences between different groups.

Table 4.1.

Demographic Information of the Participants of this Study

N=275

From the collected data, most firefighters are male and only 8.4% of samples are females, and out of total 275 samples, nearly half of them are married and the other half are not. Regarding to age, education, and tenure, the participants belong to different groups.

Variable Item Frequency Percentage (%)

Gender Male

Education Taiwan Police College (Official) Taiwan Police College (Staff) Taiwan Police College (Exam) Central Police University (Graduate)

Central Police University (Official) Central Police University (2 year) Central Police University (Exam)

Table 4.2.

Minimum, Maximum, Mean, and Standard Deviation of the Data

N=275

Minimum and maximum of each variable are listed to check wrong coding in the data, and all the numbers are in the proper scales.

Items N Minimum Maximum Mean Standard Deviation

Gender 275 1 2 1.08 0.277

Table 4.3.

Mean and Standard Deviation of Items of Intrinsic Motivation

Code Items Mean SD

IMK1 For the pleasure it gives me to know more about the job that I do.

3.85 0.841 IMK2 For the pleasure of discovering new working techniques. 3.96 0.847 IMK3 For the pleasure that I feel while learning working

techniques that I have never tried before.

3.87 0.878 IMK4 For the pleasure of discovering new performance

strategies.

3.88 0.820 IMA5 Because I feel a lot of personal satisfaction while

mastering certain difficult working techniques.

4.01 0.817 IMA6 For the pleasure I feel while improving some of my weak

points.

3.93 0.826 IMA7 For the satisfaction I experience while I am perfecting

my abilities.

3.99 0.833 IMA8 For the pleasure that I feel while executing certain

difficult achievement.

4.12 0.815 IMS9 For the pleasure I feel in having exciting job experiences.

IMS10 For the excitement I feel when I am really involved in the job.

3.86 0.910 IMS11 For the intense emotions I feel doing a job that I like. 3.93 0.893 IMS12 Because I like the feeling of being totally immersed in

the job.

3.69 1.006

Note. IMK=Intrinsic Motivation to Know, IMA=Intrinsic Motivation toward Accomplishment, IMS=Intrinsic Motivation to Experience Stimulation.

Table 4.4.

Mean and Standard Deviation of Items of Transformational Leadership

Code Items Mean SD

TLIC1 My direct supervisor spends time teaching and coaching.

3.41 1.177 (Continued)

Table 4.4. (continued.)

Code Items Mean SD

TLIC2 My direct supervisor treats others as an individual rather than just as a member of a group.

3.31 1.251 TLIC3 My direct supervisor considers an individual as having

different needs, abilities and aspirations from others.

3.32 1.189 TLIC4 My direct supervisor helps others to develop their

strengths.

3.17 1.195 TLIS5 My direct supervisor re-examines critical assumptions

to question whether they are appropriate.

3.45 1.153 TLIS6 My direct supervisor seeks differing perspectives

when solving problems.

3.55 1.111 TLIS7 My direct supervisor gets others to look at problems

from many different angles

3.40 1.121 TLIS8 My direct supervisor suggests new ways of looking at

how to complete assignments.

3.32 1.114 TLIM9 My direct supervisor talks optimistically about the

future.

3.08 1.224 TLIM10 My direct supervisor talks enthusiastically about what

needs to be accomplished

3.47 1.131 TLIM11 My direct supervisor articulates a compelling vision of

the future.

3.02 1.208 TLIM12 My direct supervisor expresses confidence that goals

will be achieved.

3.14 1.183 TLIA13 My direct supervisor instills pride in me for being

associated with me.

3.07 1.209 TLIA14 My direct supervisor goes beyond self-interest for the

good of the group.

3.10 1.184 TLIA15 My direct supervisor acts in ways that builds my

respect.

3.28 1.146 TLIA16 My direct supervisor displays a sense of power and

confidence.

3.41 1.172 TLIB17 My direct supervisor talks about their most important

values and beliefs.

3.52 1.099 TLIB18 My direct supervisor specifies the importance of

having a strong sense of purpose.

3.42 1.106 (Continued)

Table 4.4. (continued.)

Code Items Mean SD

TLIB19 My direct supervisor considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions

3.59 1.098 TLIB20 My direct supervisor emphasizes the importance of

having a collective sense of mission.

3.53 1.101

Note. TL=Transformational Leadership, IC=Individualized Consideration, IS=Intellectual Stimulation, IM=Inspirational Motivation, IA=Idealized Attribute, IB=Idealized Behavior.

Table 4.5.

Mean and Standard Deviation of Items of Job Satisfaction

Code Items Mean SD

JSS1 My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job. 3.67 1.150

JSS2 My supervisor is unfair to me.^{( )} 3.41 1.227

JSS3 My supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates.^{( )}

3.49 1.227

JSS4 I like my supervisor. 3.48 1.166

JSC5 Communications seem good within this organization. 3.63 1.004 JSC6 The goals of this organization are not clear to me.^{( )} 3.88 0.963 JSC7 I often feel that I do not know what is going on with the

organization.^{( )}

4.03 0.757 JSC8 Work assignments are not fully explained.^{( )} 4.05 0.769 JSW9 I sometimes feel my job is meaningless.^{( )} 4.03 0.932 JSW10 I like doing the things I do at work. 3.77 0.997 JSW11 I feel a sense of pride in doing my job. 3.93 0.958

JSW12 My job is enjoyable. 3.60 1.064

Note. JS=Job Satisfaction, S=Supervision, C=Communication, W=Nature of Work.

Table 4.6.

Mean and Standard Deviation of Items of Organizational Commitment

Code Items Mean SD

OCA1 I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization.

3.43 1.198 OCA2 I enjoy discussing about my organization with people

outside it.

3.80 1.076 OCA3 I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own. 3.42 1.076 OCA4 I think that I could easily become as attached to another

organization as I am to this one.^{( )}

3.02 1.080 OCA5 I do not feel like ‘part of the family’ at my organization.^{( )} 3.97 0.825 OCA6 I do not feel ‘emotionally attached’ to this organization.^{( )} 4.00 0.824 OCA7 This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for

me.

3.98 0.894 OCA8 I do not feel a ‘strong’ sense of belonging to my

organization.^{( )}

3.75 0.954 OCC9 I am not afraid of what might happen if I quit my job without

having another one lined up.^{( )}

3.27 1.356 OCC10 It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right

now, even if I wanted to.

3.51 1.147 OCC11 Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided to leave

my organization now.

3.60 1.152 OCC12 It wouldn’t be too costly for me to leave my organization

now.^{( )}

3.54 1.166 OCC13 Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of

necessity as much as desire.

3.61 1.002 OCC14 I feel that I have very few options to consider leaving this

organization.

3.34 1.238 OCC15 One of the few serious consequences of leaving this

organization would be the scarcity of available alternatives.

3.35 1.277 OCC16 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.

3.75 1.111

(Continued.)

Table 4.6. (continued.)

Code Items Mean SD

OCN17 I think that people these days move from company to company too often.

3.79 1.004 OCN18 I do not believe that a person must always be loyal to his or

her organization.^{( )}

3.80 0.958 OCN19 Jumping from organization to organization does not seem at

all unethical to me.^{( )}

3.33 1.048 OCN20 One of the major reasons I continue to work in this

organization is that

I believe loyalty is important and therefore feel a sense of moral obligation to remain.

3.18 1.089

OCN21 If I got another offer for a better job elsewhere I would not feel it was right to leave my organization.

2.90 1.218 OCN22 I was taught to believe in the value of remaining loyal to one

organization.

3.26 1.161 OCN23 Things were better in the days when people stayed in one

organization for most of their careers.

3.52 1.227 OCN24 I do not think that to be a ‘company man’ or ‘company

woman’ is sensible anymore.^{( )}

3.32 1.052

Note. OC=Organizational Commitment, A=Affective, C=Continuance, N=Normative

Correlation Analysis

Pearson coefficient correlation as shown in Table 4.7 was performed to examine the direction and the strength of linear relationship between variables. According to the result, the relationships between intrinsic motivation, transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment are strong and positive. In the five measurement paths of this study, all the relations are significantly positive as shown in Table 4.7 and Table 4.8. The assumptions related to linearity and homoscedasticity were previously validated in the correlation analysis. In the diagnosis of the multicollinearity, the correlation analysis was used to test whether multicollinearity exists in the proposed model. According to Kennedy (1989), the correlation value needs to be below .75;

otherwise, multicollinearity is present. The correlation table shows there are 15 values that are greater than .75 out of 78 values (IM_total, TL_total, JS_total, and OC_total are not discussed), and only 3 of those 15 values were between variables (IM_S, JS_W, and OC_A); whereas, the rest of them are between sub-dimensions under the same construct. Therefore, multicollinearity it is not present in this study.

Table 4.7.

Correlation Analysis of Main Study

Note. *p<.05. **p<.01.

Variable 1 Variable 2 Correlation Analysis

Correlation Value Direction Sig. Result

IM JS 0.735 + ** Correlated

TL JS 0.435 + ** Correlated

JS OC 0.654 + ** Correlated

IM OC 0.633 + ** Correlated

TL OC 0.400 + ** Correlated

Table 4.8.

Mean, Standard Deviation, Reliability and Correlation of Main Study

Note. Number in the brackets represents the Cronbach’s Alpha value. N=275.

*p<.05. **p<.01.

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

1. IM_K 3.89 .764 (.923)

2. IM_A 4.01 .744 .843^** (.926)

3. IM_S 3.83 .850 .823^** .800^** (.891)

4. TLI_C 3.30 1.114 .234^** .252^** .259^** (.913)

5. TLI_S 3.43 1.020 .211^** .254^** .242^** .893^** (.928)

6. TLI_M 3.18 1.066 .271^** .295^** .299^** .845^** .822^** (.920)

7. TLI_A 3.26 1.084 .236^** .264^** .261^** .891^** .857^** .849^** (.920)

8. TLI_B 3.52 1.024 .301^** .338^** .351^** .797^** .819^** .819^** .818^** (.921)

9. JS_C 3.99 .688 .487^** .448^** .515^** .421^** .406^** .393^** .415^** .449^** (.764)

10. JS_W 3.83 .880 .668^** .650^** .791^** .321^** .313^** .344^** .326^** .371^** .573^** (.913)

11. OC_A 3.77 .796 .670^** .664^** .792^** .338^** .320^** .366^** .368^** .406^** .572^** .779^** (.910)

12. OC_C 3.53 1.011 .205^** .262^** .220^** .145^* .167^** .143^* .169^** .154^* .183^** .164^** .290^** (.904)

13. OC_N 3.33 .839 .432^** .424^** .539^** .345^** .324^** .406^** .397^** .389^** .406^** .552^** .655^** .391^** (.843)

14. IM_total 3.92 .733 .950^** .942^** .923^** .264^** .250^** .306^** .269^** .350^** .513^** .743^** .750^** .244^** .491^** (.961)

15. TL_total 3.33 .990 .267^** .299^** .301^** .946^** .943^** .934^** .942^** .905^** .443^** .357^** .383^** .166^** .397^** .307^** (.977)

16. JS_total 3.90 .714 .671^** .643^** .770^** .400^** .388^** .404^** .401^** .446^** .817^** .941^** .785^** .191^** .556^** .735^** .435^** (.886)

17. OC_total 3.56 .692 .558^** .576^** .662^** .350^** .342^** .386^** .394^** .402^** .494^** .639^** .830^** .694^** .857^** .633^** .400^** .654^** (.912)

Partial Least Square Analysis

The dimension satisfaction of supervision (JS_S) was excluded after the pilot test, and the revised framework is shown as below. First of all, the researcher will wield SPSS 23.0 to run regressions for testing the hypotheses 1, 2, and 3. Secondly, the framework will be tested as SEM in SPSS Amos 24 and Smart PLS 3.0. Finally, the researcher will present the different results retrieved respectively by SPSS 23.0, SPSS Amos 24, and Smart PLS 3.0.

Figure 4.1. Framework of the main study

Reliability and Validity

The reliability and validity of the model and the data were tested by using Smart PLS 3.0. Composite reliability and average variance extracted were examined to determine convergent validity. The value of .70 is considered as a cutoff to test composite reliability (Nunnally & Berstein, 1994). All four constructs have composite reliability greater than .70.

Average variance extracted (AVE) determines the variance captured by the indicators relative to the measurement error. AVE for all constructs should exceed the recommended threshold value of 0.50, according to (Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011).

Compared with other three variables, organizational commitment has a relevantly lower value of AVE, but the value is above the cutoff value of .50. A factor loading for a variable is a measure of how much the variable contributes to the factor (Yong & Pearce, 2013). The factor loadings of indicators associated with each construct had to be .60 or above (Bagozzi & Youjae, 1988). All the factor loading values passed the recommended value of .60 except the factor loading value of OC_C (.511). However, the Cronbach’s Alpha of OC_C is analyzed at the value of 0.904 and its factor loading is .648 under the construct of organizational commitment with OC_A and OC_N by using SPSS 23.0.

Hence, OC_C remains.

Table 4.9.

Measurement Model Result via Smart PLS 3.0

Construct Items

Figure 4.2. PLS result of the main study Note: N=275

*p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001

Findings and Discussion

Compare Mean

Based on the result of using marital as a control variable in hierarchical regressions, results show that marital status has an effect on organizational commitment (β=.152, t=2.541, p<0.05). Therefore, the researcher wields the compare mean technique in IBM SPSS 23.0 and locates Marital in the independent list. It is detected that married group ranks higher scales than single group in every single item under the construct of job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

Table 4.10.

Compare Means of Martial Status on Job Satisfaction

Item Mean

Single Married

JSC6 3.78 3.99

JSC7 4.00 4.05

JSC8 4.01 4.11

JSW9 4.00 4.06

JSW10 3.69 3.86

JSW11 3.88 3.98

JSW12 3.47 3.73

JS_C 3.93 4.05

JS_W 3.76 3.91

JS_total 3.83 3.97

Note. Independent List=Marital

Table 4.11.

Compare Means of Martial Status on Organizational Commitment

Item Mean

Testing Measurement Model

Data analysis was performed as a SEM framework by algorithm and bootstrapping techniques via Smart PLS 3.0. SEM regression analysis provides the results of path coefficient and t-ratio in each path. The standard of significance is *p<0.05, **p<0.01, and ***p<0.001, which indicates the significant relationship between two variables and the hypothesis can be supported when p-value is below .05. Beyond one-star significance (*p<0.05), the relationship can be even stronger if there is a smaller p-value lower than .01(**) or .001(***).The data analysis result via Smart PLS 3.0 also presents p-values that are used to determine the significance of each relationship between variables.

Hypothesis 1: Firefighters’ intrinsic motivation has an effect on their job satisfaction.

In the path IMJS, the result indicates a positive and significant correlation between intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction (β=.658, t=18.921), and it doesn’t imply the presence of multicollinearity (VIF=1.108). Intrinsic motivation and transformational leadership together explain 59.0% of job satisfaction. P-value was calculated at 0.000 below 0.001, which implies that the relationship between intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction is three-star significant. Hypothesis 1 is supported:

Firefighters’ intrinsic motivation has a strong and positive effect on their job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2: Perceived transformational leadership behavior has an effect on job satisfaction of firefighters.

To test hypothesis 2, the relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction has to be examined. Compared with the effect of intrinsic motivation on job satisfaction, the effect of transformational leadership on job satisfaction is relevantly smaller, but it is still strong and significant (β=.242, t=5.302). Transformational leadership can explain 59.0% of job satisfaction together with intrinsic motivation. The p-value of the correlation between transformational leadership and job satisfaction was calculated at 0.000 below 0.001. Hypothesis 2 is supported: Perceived transformational leadership behavior has a strong and positive effect on job satisfaction of firefighters, and the significant level is three stars.

Hypothesis 3: Firefighters’ job satisfaction has an effect on their organizational commitment.

In hypothesis 3, we examine the effect of job satisfaction on organizational commitment of firefighters. The result presents a significant and positive relationship between firefighters’ job satisfaction and their organizational commitment (β=.388, t=5.411), and the path indicates the effect of intrinsic motivation, transformational leadership, and job satisfaction on organizational commitment. The p-value of the correlation between job satisfaction and organizational commitment was calculated at 0.000 below 0.001 that refers to three-star significant. Hypothesis 3 is supported:

Firefighters’ job satisfaction has a strong and positive effect on organizational commitment.

Hypothesis 4: Firefighters’ intrinsic motivation has effect on their organizational commitment.

For the examination of hypothesis 4 and hypothesis 5, the effect of intrinsic motivation on organizational commitment and that of transformational leadership on organizational commitment are indirect effects, which represent the effect after the mediation of job satisfaction and indicate that organizational commitment is not directly affected by intrinsic motivation and transformational leadership but also affected by job satisfaction. The indirect effect of intrinsic motivation on organizational commitment is strong and positive (β=.376, t=5.858), and the p-value was calculated at 0.000 below 0.001, which refers to three-star significance. Hypothesis 4 is supported: Firefighters’

intrinsic motivation has a strong and positive effect on their organizational commitment.

Hypothesis 5: Perceived transformational leadership behavior has an effect on organizational commitment of firefighters.

Hypothesis 5 is an assumption to hypothesize the existent relationship between transformational leadership and organizational commitment. The result supported the hypothesis ((β=.136, t=2.533), and the correlation is strong and positive (p<0.01). The p-value was calculated at 0.007, in between 0.01 and 0.001, and the value is not below .001. Based on the result, the significant level is between **p<0.01 and

***p<0.001, and it is two-star significance. Hypothesis 5 is supported; perceived transformational leadership behavior has a strong and positive effect on organizational commitment of firefighters.

Table 4.12.

Structural Equation Modeling Regression via Smart PLS 3.0

Note. *p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001

Mediating Effect of Job Satisfaction

For examining the mediating effect of job satisfaction on the relationship of intrinsic motivation, transformational leadership and organizational commitment, it will be tested by comparing Model 1 and Model 2 in SPSS, SPSS Amos and Smart PLS that will be presented as the following. Regarding to SPSS, it can provide multi-hierarchical regression technique and indicate the change of R square, p-value, and t-ratio before and after involving the mediating effect. Because the primary analytical tool for this study is Smart PLS 3.0, the following only presents the results retrieved by Smart PLS 3.0. The researcher mentioned the results retrieved by SPSS and SPSS Amos in appendices.

Path Hypothesis Smart PLS 3.0

β-path Adj. t-value

p-value Sig. Direction VIF Result

IMJS H1 0.658 18.921 0.000 *** + 1.108 Supported

TLJS H2 0.242 5.302 0.000 *** + 1.108 Supported

JSOC H3 0.388 5.411 0.000 *** + 2.439 Supported

IMOC H4 0.376 5.858 0.000 *** + 2.163 Supported

TLOC H5 0.136 2.533 0.007 ** + 1.250 Supported

The Mediating Effect of Job Satisfaction on IM and OC

In measuring the mediating effect of job satisfaction via Smart PLS 3.0, the researcher applies Baron and Kenny’s (1986) four-step approach to examine relationships with four models:

Figure 4.3. Test of mediating effect of job satisfaction on IM and OC step 1

Figure 4.4. Test of mediating effect of job satisfaction on IM and OC step 2

Figure 4.5. Test of mediating effect of job satisfaction on IM and OC step 3

Figure 4.6. Test of mediating effect of job satisfaction on IM and OC step 4

Four-step approach is used to test the relationship between IM and JS, JS and OC, IM and OC, and the indirect effect of intrinsic motivation on organizational commitment after the mediation of job satisfaction. The direct effect of intrinsic motivation on organizational commitment is three-star significant (β=.702, t=23.782, p<0.001). After involving the mediator of job satisfaction, the effect of intrinsic motivation on organizational commitment lowered (β=.363, t=4.910, p<0.001). The result still presents a significant relationship, which indicates that job satisfaction does not fully or completely mediate but partially mediates the relationship between intrinsic motivation and organizational commitment. Therefore, job satisfaction performs a role of partial mediation.

Table 4.13.

Mediating Effect of Job Satisfaction on IM and OC

*p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001

The Mediating Effect of Job Satisfaction on TL and OC

Figure 4.7. Test of mediating effect of job satisfaction on TL and OC step 1

Figure 4.8. Test of mediating effect of job satisfaction on TL and OC step 2

Model Hypothesis Smart PLS

β-path Adj.

t-value

p-value Sig. Direction VIF

1 IMJS 0.738 29.861 0.000 *** + 1.000

2 JSOC 0.729 27.246 0.000 *** + 1.000

3 IMOC 0.702 23.782 0.000 *** + 1.000

4 IMOC 0.363 4.910 0.000 *** + 2.010

IMJS 0.736 27.291 0.000 *** + 1.000

JSOC 0.461 7.245 0.000 *** + 2.010

Figure 4.9. Test of mediating effect of job satisfaction on TL and OC step 3

Figure 4.10. Test of mediating effect of job satisfaction on TL and OC step 4

As Table 4.12 shown, four-step approach is used to test the relationship between TL and JS, JS and OC, TL and OC, and the indirect effect of transformational leadership on organizational commitment after the mediation of job satisfaction. The direct effect of transformational leadership on organizational commitment is three-star significant (β=.426, t=7.632, p<0.001). After involving the mediator of job satisfaction, the effect of transformational leadership on organizational commitment is lowered (β=.129, t=2.334, p<0.05). Although the significant level drops from three stars to one star, the result still presents a significant relationship, which indicates that job satisfaction does not fully or completely mediate but partially mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational commitment. Therefore, job satisfaction performs a role of partial mediation.

100

Table 4.14.

Mediating Effect of Job Satisfaction on TL and OC

在文檔中 The Effect of Intrinsic Motivation and Transformational Leadership on Organizational Commitment with Job Satisfaction as Mediator of Firefighters in Taiwan (頁 87-0)