The following chapter contains two sections. The first section includes an overview of the descriptive statistics of the research data. The second section introduces the results of the SPSS findings, including the result of validity and reliability, Cronbach’s alpha and the test of hypotheses. The suggestions and recommendations are derived from the results exposed on this chapter.
Descriptive Statistics
In order to get a general description of the basic features of the data, this research uses descriptive statistics. It helps researcher show how relevant and important the study is. It provides basic information of samples to make people easily understand where the data come from.
Sample Characteristics
The researcher contacted 290 employees and in total received back 277 valid questionnaires. The characteristics of the sample are presented in table 4.1. in terms of gender, age, marital status, industry, education, position and tenure. According to the descriptive analysis, 52% of the participants were male and the rest were female. The descriptive statistics revealed that 35% of the respondents were 30-39 years old, 32% were 20-29 years old, 17% were 40 years old or older, and 16 % of the respondents chose not to reveal their age. Almost half of the participants of the study (44%) were married and the rest were not married. In addition, 44% of the respondents self-identified that they work in manufacturing and 56% work in service industry. The majority (50%) holds Bachelor’s degree, 40% of the respondents holds Master’s degree, and only few of the respondents have only college, high school or Doctorate’s degree. The majority (69%) has non-managerial position, the rest has managerial position. The descriptive analysis on tenure indicated that most of the respondents (39%) have been working for their company for 6 or more years, 25% have been working for 1 year or less, 21% have been working for 2-3 years and 8% have been with their company for 4-5 years.
Table 4.1.
Characteristics of Sample Population Based on Demographic Variables (N= 277)
Variables Entries Percentage
Gender Male 146 52.7
Female 131 47.3
Age 20-29 89 32.1
30-39 97 35.0
40 and older 47 17.0
Marital Status Married 125 45.1
Not Married 152 54.9
Industry Manufacturing 122 44.0
Service 155 56.0
Education High School 6 2.2
College Certificate 14 5.1
Bachelor degree 137 49.5
Master degree 110 39.7
Doctorate 8 2.9
Position Managerial 86 31.0
Non-managerial 191 69.0
Tenure Up to 1 year 71 25.6
2 to 3 years 59 21.3
4 to 5 years 23 8.3
6 and more years 108 39.0
Descriptive Statistics Analysis
This section provides a summary of the results from the questions gathered for the study.
All the variables are measured with a 5 point Likert’s scale. The participants were instructed to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with each of the statements with anchors ranging from 1 (Completely Disagree) to 5 (Completely Agree). Each table shows the mean and standard deviation for every item question.
Findings: Organizational commitment.
The table 4.2. shows that from the three organizational commitment dimensions the
the lowest average mean score of 2.70 meaning that the participants of the study has relatively high level of affective commitment but the continuance and normative commitment is not very strong. It means that the participants are emotionally attached to their organizations, but their commitment to stay or moral obligation to remain loyal to the company is below average.
Table 4.2.
Descriptive Statistics of Organizational Commitment Dimensions (N= 277)
OC Dimensions Mean SD
AC 3.43 0.76
CC 2.95 0.80
NC 2.70 0.64
Note. N= 277; AC= Affective Commitment; CC= Continuance Commitment; NC=
Normative Commitment
Table 4.3. shows that the average means for all the questions regarding affective commitment is above the average values. The participants showed the highest level of agreement on the question “I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it” (AC2).
The average mean scores for other two sub-dimensions of the organizational commitment are lower.
According to the results shown in the table 4.3., most of the results are above average meaning that the majority of participants have chosen to stay with this organization due to different reasons and not because of necessity or lack of alternatives. As it is previously explained in the Chapter II, normative commitment is a moral obligation of the employee to remain within the company. According to the results of normative commitment, the item NC1 “I think that people these days move from company to company too often” have received the highest score of 3.33 showing that the participants of this study see a value to remain loyal to the company. The item NC2 “I do not believe that a person must always be loyal to his or her organization*” received the lowest score of 1.80. The contradictory results might be explained with the fact that NC2 was a reversed item and it might have been not clear how to answer it.
Table 4.3.
Organizational Commitment; Likert’s Scales, Mean, and SD (N= 277)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
AC1 I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career in this
organization. 3.18 1.23
AC2 I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it. 3.96 0.95 AC3 I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own. 3.26 1.12 AC4 I think I could easily become attached to another organization, as
I am to this one.* 3.04 1.16
AC5 I do not feel like part of the family at my organization.* 3.42 1.16 AC6 I do not feel emotionally attached to this organization. * 3.57 1.12 AC7 This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me. 3.60 1.12 AC8 I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to this organization.* 3.45 1.15 CC1 I am not afraid of what might happen if I quit my job without
having another one lined up.*
2.55 1.20
CC2 It would be very hard for me to leave my job at this organization right now even if I wanted to.
2.88 1.22
CC3 Too much of my life would be disrupted if I leave this organization.
2.44 1.19
CC5 Right now, staying at this organization is a matter of necessity as much as desire.
3.51 1.16
CC6 I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization.
3.27 1.23
CC7 One of the few serious consequences of leaving my job at this organization would be the scarcity of available alternative elsewhere.
2.83 1.22
CC8 One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice- another company may not match the overall benefits I have here.
3.19 1.16
NC1 I think that people these days move from company to company too often.
3.33 1.05
(continued)
Table 4.3. (continued)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
NC2 I do not believe that a person must always be loyal to his or her organization.*
1.80 0.97
NC3 Jumping from organization to organization does not seem at all unethical to me.*
1.93 1.04
NC4 One of the major reasons I continue to work in this organization is that I believe that loyalty is important and therefore feel a sense of moral obligation to remain.
3.25 1.11
NC5 If I got another offer for a better job elsewhere I would not feel it was right to leave.
Note. N= 277; SD= Standard Deviation; AC= Affective Commitment; CC= Continuance Commitment; NC= Normative Commitment; *= reversed item
To conclude, on average the employees have quite high levels of affective commitment but the results of normative and continuance commitment are below average.
Findings: Training and development.
Item training motivation received the highest score of 4.35 and the item coworker support received the lowest score of 2.29. The gathered data shows that regarding training and development the participants of the study have very high training motivation and high perceived availability of the training, perceived training benefits and managerial support but low support from colleagues. The data of the mean of each sub-dimensions of training and development sub-dimensions can be found in the table 4.4.
Table 4.4.
Descriptive Statistics of Training and Development Dimensions (N= 277)
TD Dimensions Mean SD
TM 4.35 0.62
PA 3.49 1.15
TB 4.00 0.81
MS 3.59 0.89
CS 2.29 0.97
Note. N= 277; SD= Standard Deviation; TD= Training and Development; TM= Training Motivation; PA= Perceived Availability; TB= Training Benefits; MS= Manager Support, CS= Colleague Support
In the table 4.5. it is possible to see individual means of each item. The gathered data shows that the participants have very high training motivation as all the mean values are above 4.1. The participants of the study also have high perceived availability of training as all the values are above 3.4. It means that companies in Taiwan in service and manufacturing industries provide many training opportunities to their employees. In addition, the employees see training as a beneficial component to their personal career and job development. Last but not least, the gathered data indicates that there is a high vertical support (support from supervisor) but the horizontal support (support from co-workers) is below the average. In order to correctly determine the reasons of low value of support from colleagues, qualitative analysis should be performed. One of the possible reasons of this result could be that there is a focus on individual work in the companies the sample population works.
To conclude the analysis of this variable, all of the items except support from colleagues (TM_CS) surpass the mid-point of 3 (Neutral) from the 5 point Likert’s scale which demonstrates that the employees have high training motivation, perceived availability and perceived benefits of training and well as they receive support from managers to attend training activities.
Table 4.5.
Training and Development; Likert’s Scales, Mean, and SD (N= 277)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
TD_TM1 I try to learn as much as I can from training programs. 4.34 0.78 TD_TM2 I am usually motivated to learn the skills emphasized in training
programs.
4.19 0.87
TD_TM3 I am willing to invest effort to improve skills and competences related to my current job.
4.43 0.68
TD_TM4 I am willing to invest effort to improve skills and competences in order to have career progression.
4.47 0.63
TD_PA1 My organization provides its employees with good opportunities to undertake in-house job-specific training.
3.47 1.26
TD_PA2 My organization provides a good environment for new recruits to learn job -specific skills and knowledge.
3.52 1.17
TD_PA3 My organization provides its employees with good opportunities to learn general skills and knowledge inside the organization which may be of use to me in my future career.
3.62 1.14
TD_PA4 My organization provides its employees with good opportunities to undertake general training programmes and seminars outside of the organization.
3.41 1.20
TD_PA5 My organization provides assistance for its employees to take management training and development courses externally at educational institutions.
3.43 2.27
TD_TB1 Participating in training programs help my personal developing. 4.09 0.84 TD_TB2 Participating in training programs increase my chances of
performing better.
3.86 0.98
TD_TB3 Participating in training programs result in having to do extra work that would add value.
3.99 0.86
TD_TB4 Participating in training programs result in more opportunities to pursue different career paths.
4.10 1.55
TD_TB5 Participating in training programs help me stay up-to date on new processes and products or procedures related to my job.
3.95 0.85
(continued)
Table 4.5. (continued)
TD_MS3 My employer values development of new skills or acquisition of new knowledge.
3.66 1.09
TD_MS4 When I make a mistake, my manager usually treats it as a learning experience that can prevent failure and improve performance in the future.
3.74 1.00
TD_MS5 My manager shares information with me about problems or trends in the company that can influence my career plans.
3.40 1.12
TD_MS6 My manager makes sure I get the training needed to remain in the organization and be effective in my job.
3.44 1.13
TD_CS2 My co-workers tend to resist my efforts to apply new knowledge or skills on the job.
2.42 1.09
TD_CS3 More experienced co-workers are usually reluctant to give advice.
2.16 1.09
Note. N= 277; SD= Standard Deviation; TD= Training and Development; TM= Training Motivation; PA= Perceived Availability; TB= Training Benefits, MS= Managers Support, CS= Colleague Support
Findings: Turnover intention.
The SPSS analysis showed that mean for all of the items of turnover intention is below average. It means that the study participants have low levels of turnover intentions and are not considering quitting their jobs in near future. The results of the turnover intention analysis are included in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6.
Turnover Intention; Likert’s Scales, Mean, and SD (N= 277)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
TI1 I often think of quitting my present job. 2.63 1.26
TI2 I may leave this company and work for another company in the next year.
2.61 1.34
TI3 I plan to stay in this company to develop my career for a long time. * 2.44 1.15 TI4 I may not have a good future if I stay with this organization. 2.71 1.29 Note. N= 277; SD= Standard Deviation; TI= Turnover Intention; *= reversed item
The internal consistency of the whole questionnaire of 51 items were 0.86.
The Cronbach’s alpha value of affective commitment scale was 0.82, normative commitment 0.71, and continuance commitment 0.56. The continuance commitment construct did not meet requirements and therefore in order to improve Cronbach’s alpha value one item (CC4) was dropped. The deleting of the item increased the Cronbach’s alpha value result for the continuance commitment from 0.56 to 0.79. The originally low level of Cronbach’s alpha might be attributed to the fact that CC4 was a reversed item and the participants might have difficulties understanding it. The reliability analysis on training and development showed that the result of Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.81. The result of Cronbach’s alpha value for the sub-dimensions of the training and development were as follows: training motivation 0.85;
perceived availability of training 0.84; perceived benefits of training 0.83; support from managers 0.903; support from colleagues 0.23. In order to increase the result of Cronbach’s alpha value, the item TD_CS1 was deleted and it increased the result of internal consistency to acceptable level of 0.72. In addition the Cronbach’s alpha value of the turnover intention scale was 0.87. To conclude, after dropping the item the reliability of whole survey increased to 0.87 therefore it is possible to conclude that the decision to drop an item improved the reliability of the model as a whole. As after the required changes, the results of the Cronbach’s alpha value were above 0.7, it is possible to conclude that the survey questionnaire had good reliability and internal consistency.
Table 4.7.
Reliability Test (N= 277)
Constructs
Before dropping Items After dropping Items Sub-
dimensions No. of Items Cronbach’s alpha Availability; TB= Training Benefits, MS= Managers Support, CS= Colleague Support; OC=
Organizational Commitment; AC= Affective Commitment; CC= Continuance Commitment;
NC= Normative Commitment; TI= Turnover Intention
Correlation Analysis
In order to understand the relationship among variables, the Pearson correlation analysis was performed. The results of the analysis can be seen in the table 4.8. It is possible to see that organizational commitment is correlated with both training and development and turnover intention. The demographic variables that has more than two categories were selected for the correlation analysis. The results have indicated that organizational commitment is correlated with the demographic variables of age and tenure. The variable training and development is correlated with organizational commitment, as well as with turnover intention. It is also correlated with demographic variable of age. The turnover intention is correlated with both organizational commitment and training and development, but it is not correlated to control variables.
Table 4.8.
Inter-correlations of Study Variables
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1- OC 3.034 .608 1
2- TD 3.687 .597 .522*** 1
3- TI 2.606 1.072 -.686*** -.438*** 1
4- Age 1.530 .953 .145* .128* -.084 1
5- Education 3.339 .775 -.041 .116 -.007 .005 1
6- Tenure 2.491 1.376 .239*** .003 -.058 .289*** -.079 1
Note. N= 277; *p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001; TD= Training and Development; OC=
Organizational Commitment; TI= Turnover Intention; SD= Standard Deviation
Hierarchical Regression Analysis
Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted for hypothesis testing and to provide further analysis of the effect that training and development has on the organizational commitment, the casual relationship between training and development and turnover intention, the relationship between organizational commitment and turnover intention, as well as to test the mediating effect of organizational commitment
Two steps were conducted. Firstly, the control variable with the highest correlation score were entered. As it is evident in the table 4.8., organizational commitment was correlated with two demographic variables and training and development was correlated with one demographic variable. In order to have internal consistency all of the hierarchical regression analysis used only one control variable. The correlation analysis indicated that tenure has the highest correlation score with organizational commitment, therefore it was taken as a control variable. Training and development was correlated with age, therefore this demographic variable was taken as a control variable. Secondly, the independent variables were entered to test their effect on the dependent variable. In addition, the hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to examine the mediating role of organizational commitment on the
relationship between training and development and turnover intention. The hierarchical analysis resulted in supporting all the hypothesis. The results of the analysis and discussion of them can be seen in the next paragraph.
Results and Discussions
In this research there were four hypotheses. The hypotheses were based on the literature review, and the hierarchical regression analysis was done taking into consideration the results of correlation analysis.
Hypothesis 1 proposed that training and development has a significantly positive influence on organizational commitment. The results of the regression analysis in Table 4.9.
show that training and development was significantly and positively associated with organizational commitment (β= 0.490, p< .001). Therefore, hypothesis 1 was supported. It means that training and development activities can increase organizational commitment of employees of service or manufacturing industries.
Hypothesis 2 proposed that training and development has a significantly negative influence on turnover intention. The results in Table 4.10. of the regression analysis showed that training and development was negatively and significantly associated with turnover intention (β= -.435, p< .001). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was supported. It means that it is possible to reduce turnover intention by utilizing training and development activities.
Hypothesis 3 proposed that organizational commitment has a significantly negative influence on turnover intention. The results in Table 4.11. of the regression analysis showed that organizational commitment was negatively and significantly associated with turnover intention (β= -.675, p< .001). Is possible to conclude that high organizational commitment will result in low turnover intention, therefore the hypothesis 3 was supported.
Following the above associations, hypothesis 4 proposed that organizational commitment has a mediating effect on the relationship between the training and development and turnover intention. The results of the regression in Table 4.12. show that the initial relationship between training and development and turnover intention was negative and significant (β= -.435, p<. 001), however after introducing organizational commitment, the relationship between training and development and turnover intention weakened and became less significant (β= -.112, p< .05) therefore it is possible to conclude that organizational commitment had a complete mediating effect, and hypothesis 4 was supported.
Table 4.9.
Result of Hierarchical Regression Analyses on the Organizational Commitment and Training and Development (N= 277)
Variables Model 1 Model 2
Control variable
Tenure .147* .179***
Main Effects
Training and Development .503***
R2 .096 .343
Adjusted R2 .090 .336
F 14.525*** 47.401***
ΔR2 .096 .247
Δ F 14.525*** 102.365***
Note. N= 277; Independent Va.: Training and development; *p< .05; **p< .01, ***p< .001
In the table above it is possible to see relationship between training and development and organizational commitment. The results indicate that the relationship between those two variables is significant and positive. This analysis was done in order to test hypothesis 3 which was supported meaning that training and development activities has a positive effect on organizational commitment.
Table 4.10.
Result of Hierarchical Regression Analyses on the Turnover Intention and Training and Development (N= 277)
Variables Model 1 Model 2
Control variable
Age -.082 -.026
Main Effects
Training and Development -.435***
R2 .007 .193
(continued)
Table 4.10. (continued)
Variables Model 1 Model 2
Adjusted R2 .003 .187
F 1.868 32.553**
ΔR2 .007 .186
Δ F 1.868 62.818***
Note. N= 277; Independent Va.: Training and development; *p< .05; **p< .01, ***p< .001
Table 4.10. shows that there is a significantly negative relationship between training and development and turnover intention. In accordance with correlation analysis, age was taken as control variable. This analysis was done in order to test hypothesis 2 and the results of the analysis supported the hypothesis.
Table 4.11.
Result of Hierarchical Regression Analyses on the Turnover Intention and Organizational Commitment (N= 277)
Variables Model 1 Model 2
Variables Model 1 Model 2