The main objective of this study is to analyze the relationship between work stress and organizational commitment. Furthermore, the moderator effect that personality has on that relationship. Therefore, in order to reach those goals different statistical methods were applied.
This chapter contains the results of the descriptive statistics, Pearson Correlation and the Hierarchical Regression. The descriptive statistics gives an overlook of the demographic characteristics of the sample. Then the Pearson Correlation was used to analyze the relationship between the variables and finally, the Hierarchical Regression was used to test each one of the hypothesis regarding the relationship between x and y and the moderator. In addition, this chapter also contains the discussion of the findings.
Reliability
After collecting the data from 116 participants, it was decided to execute a second reliability analysis in order to ensure the consistency of the items on the questionnaire. This analysis was done for the work stress and organizational commitment scales.
Firstly it was done the analysis for the work stress scale which includes the three types of roles: conflict, ambiguity and overload and then, the overall work stress. The results are shown on the following table:
Table 4. 1
Reliability for Work Stress Scale (N=116)
Measurement Items Cronbach alpha Mean inter-item
correlations
Role Conflict RC1,RC2RC3,RC4,RC5 .786 .426
Role Ambiguity RA1,RA2,RA3,RA4,RA5 .712 .350
Role Overload RO1,RO2,RO3,RO4 .633 .303
Overall stress RC1,RC2RC3,RC4,RC5, RA1,RA2,RA3,RA4,RA5,
RO1,RO2,RO3,RO4
.615 .074
42
Secondly, it was done the analysis for the organizational commitment scale which includes the three types of commitment: affective, continuance and normative. Moreover, it was also test the overall organizational commitment. The results are presented in detail on the following table:
Affective Commitment AC1,AC2,AC3,AC4,AC5 .874 .591
Continuance Commitment CC1,CC2,CC3,CC4,CC5, CC5, CC7,CC8
.765 .303
Normative Commitment NC1,NC2,NC3,NC4,NC5,NC6, .640 .239
Overall Organizational
For this study 116 hard copy questionnaires were collected from employees that work at the production department of different companies at the Maquila Industry in Honduras. In the questionnaires were included 5 items for gathering the demographic data of the sample. These items were: gender, age, education, working experience at the Maquila Industry and the sector of the Maquila Industry where he/she currently works.
From the 116 respondents the majority were male 56% and female 43.1%. On the gender item it was found one missing data from the 116 questionnaires. On the hand, the age of the employees ranged from 18 to 39 or above years old. The employees from 18 to 23 years old
43
represented 18.1%. Also, the workers with 24 to 28 years old were the 44 % of the sample.
Hence, these two groups represented the highest number of participants from the entire sample.
Then, the employees from 29 to 33 years old represented the 17.2% of the participation. The 34 to 38 years old had the 12.9% and finally the lowest percentage was represented by the age range 39 or above with the 7.8%.
Furthermore, on the analysis of the educational background 68.1% of the sample had only a high school diploma. Then, the employees with Bachelor Degrees represented the 25% of the response and finally only 6.9% had a Master Degree diploma. Moreover, regarding the working experience on this industry only 0.9% had less than one year experience. Employees working from1 to 5 years had majority with 54.3% of the response. The ones with 6 to 11 represented the 17.2%. The second highest percentage was the 21.6% for workers with 12 to 17 years of working experience and finally, above 17 years of experience was represented by the 6%. On the other hand, 19% of the sample is formed by employees that work on the car harness electronics sector. The majority of the employees 78.4% work on the textile clothing sector.
Also, 2.6% of the respondents are part of other different sector of the Maquila Industry. The results are shown in Table 4.3.
44 Table 4. 3
Demographic Information of the Sample (N=116)
Variables Description Frequency Percentage (%)
Gender Female 50 43.1
Male 65 56.0
Age 18-23 21 18.1
24-28 51 44.0
29-33 20 17.2
34-38 15 12.9
39 or Above 9 7.8
Education High School 79 68.1
Bachelor Degree 29 25.0
Master Degree 8 6.9
Experience Less than one year 1 0.9
1-5 63 54.3
6-11 20 17.2
12-17 25 21.6
Above 17 7 6.0
Industry Car
Harness/Electronics
22 19.0
Textile/Clothing 91 78.4
Othera 3 2.6
Notea: Service activities
Correlation among Work Stress, Organizational Commitment and Personality
The correlation analysis was conducted in order to examine the relationship between all the variables. Firstly, in the analysis were included the control variables gender, age, education and work experience. Then, the independent variables that include the overall work stress, role conflict, role ambiguity and role overload and the moderator of the research model the five personality traits. Moreover, it was also included the dependent variable organizational
45
commitment including affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment.
On the table 4.4 are the results of the mean, standard deviation and the correlation of the variables mentioned above.
In the findings it can be seen that the workers’ age is positively related to the education level that they have (r= .369, p<.01). Hence, this gives evidence that the older the person is the higher their education level is. Moreover, the age is also positively related to the employee’s working experience (r=.920, p<.01). The older the person is the more working experience has on the Maquila Industry. On the other hand, the workers’ age is negatively related to their role conflict (r= -.327, p<.01). Thus, this suggests that the older the employees are the lower is their role conflict at their work position. However, employees’ age is positive related to role ambiguity(r=229, p<.05) which means that the older the employees are the higher is their role ambiguity levels.
Furthermore, the results also showed that the employees’ age is positively related to the overall organizational commitment of the workers (r=.274, p<.01). This means, that the older employees have a higher organizational commitment towards their organization. Moreover, the age is also significantly positive related to the affective commitment (r=0.295, p<.01) and normative commitment (r=.258, p<.01). On the other hand, the employees’ gender gives evidence to be negatively related to the employees role ambiguity (r=-.184, p<.05) and the overall work stress level (r=-.056, p<.05).
46
Mean, Standard Deviation and Correlation of the Control, Work Stress, Organizational Commitment and Personality Variables
Variable M S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1.Gender
2.Age .023
3.Education .13 .369**
4.WE 7.25 5.48 .017 .920** .198*
5.RC 2.25 .69 .03 - .327** -.155 - .321**
6.RA 4.61 .43 - .184* .229* .116 .211* - .485**
7.RO 2.98 .66 - .005 - .096 - .309** - .093 .551** - .263**
8.WS 3.28 .36 - .056* - .177 - .243** -.178 .784** - .076 .863**
9.AC 3.05 .79 - .059 .295** .245** .255** - .429** .325** -.328** - .346**
10.CC 3.22 .62 - .072 .122 - .070 .116 - .466** .244** - .235* -. 345** .471**
11.NC 3.03 .61 - .002 .258** .087 .232* - .442** .380** - .242** - .280** .672** .545**
12.OC 3.1 .57 - .054 .274** .12 .244** - .527** .376** - .324** - .386** .877** .776** .868**
13.Extraver
sion 3.45 .39 - .005 .14 .302** .14 - .282** .294** - .309** - .254** .253** .056 .09 .17
14.Agreea-bleness 3.02 .34 - .084 .024 - .168 .009 .207* - .152 .083 .123 -.177 - .397** -.209*
-.301** -.063
15.Consci-entiousness 3.25 .3 - .081 .045 - .120 .077 .063 - .081 - .026 -.008 .095 - .317** -.089 -.102 .139 .543**
16.Neuroti-cism 3.1 .42 - .018 .044 - .035 .038 .027 - .041 - .106 - .064 .108 - .177 -.109 -.052 .215* .390** .590**
17.Openess 3.53 .36 .09 .141 .285** .173 - .207* .266** - .313** - .220* .262** .054 .234* .225* .617** -.147 -.043 .036
Table 4. 4
*p<0.05, **p<0.01
Note: WE= work experience (year), RC= role conflict, RA= role ambiguity, RO= role overload, WS= work stress, AC= affective commitment, CC= continuance commitment, NC= normative commitment, OC= organizational commitment.
47
The correlation analysis gives evidence that the workers’ education level is slightly positive related to their work experience (r=.198, p<.05). On the other hand, the education level showed to be negatively related to the employees’ role overload (r=-.309, p<.01) and overall work stress levels (r=-.243, p<.01). This makes reference to the fact that the higher educational level an individual has the lower is his/her role overload and overall work stress. Furthermore, the educational level is positively related to the workers’ affective commitment (r=.245, p<.01).
Hence, the employees’ with a higher educational level background tend to have higher affective commitment toward their organizations. Then, the employees’ educational level is also positively related to two personality traits: extraversion (r=.302, p<.01) and openness (r=.285, p<.01).
Thus, this gives evidence that the more educated employees tend to be more extroverted and open to new experiences.
In addition, the employees working experience in the Maquila Industry is negatively related to their role conflict(r=-.321, p<.01) which means that the more experience they have the lower is their role conflict level. In contrast, the years of work experience are slightly positively related to the employees’ role ambiguity (r=.211, p<.05). This suggest that the more experience they have the more they can face role ambiguity issues at their work place. On the other hand, the working experience showed a positive correlation with the employees’ overall organizational commitment (r=.244, p<.01), affective commitment (r=.255, p<.01) and the normative commitment (r=.232, p<.05). Hence, the more working experience the employees’ have the higher is their organizational commitment and also their affective and normative commitment.
Continuing with the correlation analysis role conflict is negatively related to role ambiguity (r=-.485, p<.01). Therefore, the higher is the role conflict level the lower is the role ambiguity level that the employees face at their workplace. On the contrary, the role conflict is positively related to the role overload (r=.551, p<.01) and the overall work stress (r=.784, p<.01).
This makes reference to the fact that the more role conflict issues the employees’ have they tend to have more work load and as a consequence more work stress. On the other side, the role conflict has negatively correlation with the overall organizational commitment (r=-.527, p<.01), affective commitment (r=-.429, p<.01), continuance commitment (r=-.466, p<.01) and normative commitment (r=-.442, p<.01). Hence, the higher the role conflict is the lower is the organizational commitment of the employees. Then, the role conflict is also negatively related to
48
two personality traits: extraversion (r=-.282, p<.01) and openness (r=-.207, p<.05). Hence, the individual with role conflict issues are not extraverted and open to new experience. In contrast is slightly positively related to the agreeableness personality trait (r=.207, p<.05) which means that the more agreeable the person is the more role conflict experiments at the work place.
On the other hand, the role ambiguity is negatively related to the role overload (r=-.263, p<.01) which means that the higher role ambiguity is the lower is the role overload. Furthermore, the role ambiguity shows to be positively related to the overall organizational commitment (r=.376,p<.01), affective commitment (r=.325,p<.01) , continuance commitment (r=.244, p<.01) and the normative commitment (r=.380,p<.01) . Hence, the more role ambiguity the employees’
experiment the higher is their organizational commitment towards their companies. Moreover, role ambiguity is positively related to extraversion (r=.294, p<.01) and to openness (r=.266 p<.01). Therefore, the ones’ with high role ambiguity tend to be extraverted and open to new experiences.
Furthermore, role overload is positively related to work stress (r=.863, p<.01). On the other hand, role overload is negatively related to organizational commitment (r=-.324, p<.01), affective commitment (r=-.328, p<.01), continuance commitment (r=-.235, p<.05) and normative commitment (r=-.242, p<.01). Hence, the higher employees’ role overload is the lower is their organizational commitment. Role overload is also negatively related to extraversion (r=-.309, p<.01) and to openness (r=-.313, p<.01) which means that the individuals’ more overload at their job positions are not extraverted or open to new experiences.
Work stress showed to be negatively related to organizational commitment (r=-.386, p<.01), affective commitment (r=-.346, p<.01), continuance commitment (r=-.345, p<.01) and normative commitment (r=-.280, p<.01). Therefore, the higher the level of work stress is the lower is the workers’ organizational commitment. Then, the work stress was found to be negatively related to extraversion (r=-.254, p<.01) and openness (r=-.220, p<.05). Therefore, this suggests that the persons whose are not that extraverted and open to new experiences have higher work stress levels.
On the other hand, the affective commitment has a positive correlation with organizational commitment (r=.877, p<.01), continuance commitment (r=.471, p<.01) and
49
normative commitment (r=.672, p<.01). Moreover, affective commitment is also positive related to extraversion (r=.253, p<.01) and openness (r=.262, p<.01). Hence, the individuals with type of personalities tend to be more emotionally attach to their organizations.
In addition, continuance commitment is positively related to normative commitment (r=.545, p<.01) and organizational commitment (r=.776, p<.01). In contrast is negatively related to agreeableness(r=-.397, p<.01) and conscientiousness (r=-.317, p<.01). Hence, the person who is not that agreeable or conscientious has a higher continuance commitment toward his/her job.
The results show that normative commitment is positively related to organizational commitment (r=.868, p<.01). However, normative commitment is negatively related to agreeableness (r=-.209, p<.05) which means that a person who is not that agreeable tends to have a higher level of normative commitment. In contrast, normative commitment is positively related to openness (r=.234, p<.05). Hence, the more open minded the workers are the higher is their normative commitment.
Moreover, organizational commitment is negatively related to agreeableness (r=-.301, p<.01). Therefore, the less agreeable the employee is on his personality the lower is his organizational commitment. On the contrary, organizational commitment is positively related to openness (r=.234, p<.05) which suggest that the more open to new experiences the employee is the higher is his organizational commitment.
Regarding the five personality traits extraversion is slightly positively related to neuroticism (r=.215, p<.05). Also, extraversion shows to be positively related to openness (r=.617, p<.01). On the other hand, agreeableness was found to be positively related to conscientiousness (r=.543, p<.01) and neuroticism (r=.390, p<.01). Finally, conscientiousness is positively related to neuroticism (r=.590, p<.01).
The table 4.5 presents the summary of the hypothesis whether if they are supported or not based on the Pearson correlation analysis.
50 Table 4. 5
Hypothesis Pearson Correlation Results
Hypothesis Pearson Correlation Results
H1: Work stress is significantly related to organizational commitment.
Accepted H1-1: Role conflict is negatively related to
organizational commitment.
Accepted H1-2: Role ambiguity is negatively related to
organizational commitment.
Rejected H1-3: Role overload is negatively related to
organizational commitment.
Accepted H1-4: Work stress is negatively related to affective
commitment.
Accepted H1-5: Work stress is negatively related to continuance
commitment.
Accepted H1-6: Work stress is not related to normative
commitment.
Rejected
Relationship between Work Stress and Organizational Commitment Work Stress and Organizational Commitment
Firstly in the regression analysis it was entered the control variables: gender, age, education, work experience and industry. Then, on the second step it was placed the independent variable work stress, using organizational commitment as the dependent variable on this part.
The results are shown on the Table 4.6.
51 Table 4. 6
Results of Regression Analysis for Work Stress and Organizational Commitment (N=116)
Model 1 Model 2
Variable β β
Step 1
Gender -0.72 -0.081
Age 0.280 0.365
Education 0.017 -0.080
Work experience -0.016 -0.141
Industry -0.100 -0.112
Step 2
Work Stress -0.372***
R2 0.089 0.216
AdjR2 0.048 0.172
R2 0.089 0.127
F 2.140 4.959***
F 17.438***
The result of the regression shows that 21.6% of the total variance of organizational commitment was explained by work stress (see table 4.6). This result was significant at the p<.001 level F=4.959. Therefore, work stress makes a negative significant contribution (β= -.372; p<.001) to the dependent variable: organizational commitment. Hence, this gives support the first hypothesis:
H1: Work stress is significantly related to organizational commitment. (β= -.372; p<.001)
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
52
Work Stress Variables and Organizational Commitment
On the second part of the regression analysis it was tested the influence of the work stress variables on the organizational commitment. Hence, it was proceed to include on the first step the control variables. Then, on the second step it was used as the independent variables role conflict, role ambiguity and role overload. Finally, the dependent variable was organizational commitment. The results are shown on the table 4.7.
The outcome demonstrates that role conflict explains 30.5% of the variance on the dependent variable (see table 4.7). This is significant at the p<.001 level; F=7.897. Moreover, on the model role conflict was found to be negatively significant (β= -.494; p<.001). Therefore, this result gives full support to the hypothesis 1-1:
H1-1: Role conflict is negatively related to organizational commitment. (β= -.494;
p<.001).
Then on the analysis of this model the results also show that role ambiguity explains 18.7% of the variance on organizational commitment (see table 4.7). This outcome is significant at the p<.001 level; F=4.127. In addition, the model using role ambiguity as an independent variable was found to be significant (β=.327; p<.001). Hence, this result does not give support to the hypothesis 1-2:
H1-2: Role ambiguity is negatively related to organizational commitment. (β=.327;
p<.001).
On the other hand, role overload as the independent variable explains 18.6% of the variance on organizational commitment (see table 4.7). This is significant at the p<.001 level;
F=4.110. The role overload model was found to be negatively significant (β= -.330; p<.001).
Consequently this result gives complete support to the hypothesis 1-3:
H1-3: Role overload is negatively related to organizational commitment. (β= -.330;
p<.001).
53 Table 4. 7
Results of regressions analysis for Control Variables and Work Stress Variables on Organizational Commitment (N=116)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Variable β β β β
Step 1
Gender -0.72 -0.050 -0.006 -0.058
Age 0.280 0.224 0.233 0.411
Education 0.017 -0.023 -0.006 -0.110
Work experience -0.016 -0.115 -0.038 -0.142
Industry -0.100 -0.110 -0.088 -103
Step 2
Role Conflict -0.494***
Role Ambiguity 0.327***
Role Overload -0.330***
R2 0.089 0.305 0.187 0.186
AdjR2 0.048 0.266 0.141 0.141
R2 0.089 0.216 0.097 0.096
F 2.140 7.897*** 4.127*** 4.110***
F 33.491*** 12.897*** 12.801***
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
54
Work Stress and Organizational Commitment variables
The third part of the regression analysis was focused on testing the relationship between work stress and the organizational commitment variables. Hence, on the first step were included the control variables and on the second step the independent variable was work stress. In addition, as the dependent variables were used: the affective, continuance and normative commitment. The results are shown on the table 4.8.
The findings on the regression show that 20.8% of the total variance of affective commitment was explained by work stress (see table 4.8). This outcome was significant at the p<.001 level F=4.740. Therefore, work stress creates a negative significant contribution (β= -.295; p<.001) to the dependent variable: affective commitment. Hence, this gives support the hypothesis 1-4:
H1-4: Work stress is negatively related to affective commitment. (β= -.295; p<.001) On the other hand, the results on table 4.8 give evidence that work stress explains 18.7%
of the total variance of continuance commitment. This is significant at the p<.001 level F=4.143.
Then work stress creates a negative significant contribution (β= -.390 p<.001) to continuance commitment as the dependent variable. Thus, the results give support to the hypothesis 1-5:
H1-5: Work stress is negatively related to continuance commitment. (β= -.390 p<.001) Finally on the regression work stress has not a significant effect on normative commitment (β= -.261) (see table 4.8). Hence, this gives support to the hypothesis 1-6:
H1-6: Work stress is not related to normative commitment. (β= -.261).
55 Table 4. 8
Results of Regressions Analysis for Control Variables and Work Stress on Organizational Commitment Variables (N=116)
Y= Affective Commitment
Y= Continuance Commitment
Y= Normative Commitment Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
Variable β β β β β β
Step 1
Gender -0.97 -0.104 -0.067 -0.076 -0.007 -0.014
Age 0.167 0.234 0.260 0.349 0.303 0.363
Education 0.169 0.092 -0.153 -0.255 -0.017 -0.085
Work experience
0.070 -0.029 -0.091 -0.222 -0.043 0.131
Industry -0.113 -0.123 -0.113 -0.126 -0.017 -0.025
Step 2
Work Stress -0.295*** -0.390*** -0.261
R2 0.129 0.208 0.048 0.187 0.067 0.129
AdjR2 0.089 0.164 0.004 0.142 0.024 0.081
R2 0.129 0.080 0.048 0.139 0.067 0.062
F 3.226 4.740*** 1.097 4.143*** 1.565 2.674
F 10.853*** 18.488*** 7.733
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
56
Moderating Effect of Personality
On the last part of this analysis the hierarchical regression was used to test the moderating effect of the five personality traits on the relationship between work stress and organizational commitment. The first step is form by the control variables. Then on the second step work stress and the five personality traits were the independent variables. Finally, on the third step the work stress with the personality traits were inserted. All of this was done using organizational commitment as the dependent variable. The results of this regression are shown on the table 4.9.
On the table 4.9 at the second step gave evidence that work stress makes a negative significant contribution to the dependent variable: organizational commitment. On the other hand, in the third step was inserted the five personality traits with work stress and results show that only one of the five personality traits was significant: conscientiousness (β= 4.093; p<.05) (see table 4.9). Therefore, this result supports the hypothesis H2-1:
H2-1: Conscientiousness moderates the relationship between work stress and organizational commitment. (β= 4.093; p<.05).
However, on the other hand this outcome rejects the hypothesis H2-2, H2-3, H2-4 and H2-5:
H2-2: Agreeableness moderates the relationship between work stress and organizational commitment.
H2-3: Neuroticism moderates the relationship between work stress and organizational commitment.
H2-4: Extraversion moderates the relationship between work stress and organizational commitment.
H2-5: Openness to new experience moderates the relationship between work stress and organizational commitment.
57 Table 4. 9
Results of Regressions Analysis for the Moderating effect of Personality on the Relationship between Work Stress and Organizational Commitment (N=116)
Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
Variable β β β β β β β β β β
Step 1
Gender -0.077 -0.089 -0.094 -0.099 -0.088 -0.076 -0.082 -0.067 -0.089 -0.089
Age 0.399 0.385 0.365 0.397 0.367 0.410 0.380 0.381 0.456 0.456
Education -0.118 -0.096 -0.115 -0.138 -0.095 -0.137 -0.088 -0.118 -0.138 -0.139
Work experience -0.176 -0.144 -0.126 -0.157 -0.130 -0.170 0.150 -0.146 -0.238 -0.239
Industry -0.137 -0.122 -0.080 -0.084 -0.100 -0.097 0.114 -0.125 -0.118 -0.118
Step 2
Work Stress -0.353*** -1.568* -0.346*** -0.945 -0.375*** -3.516* -0.379*** -1.892* -0.350*** -0.313
Extraversion 0.113 -1.179
Agreeableness -0.265 -0.857
Conscientiousness -0.119 -2.775*
Neuroticism -0.094 -1.918
Openness 0.174 0.210
Step 3
WS* Extraversion 1.535
WS*Agreeableness 0.889
WS*Conscientiousness 4.093*
WS*Neuroticism 2.295
WS*Openness -0.046
R2 0.226 0.246 0.282 0.286 0.229 0.269 0.225 0.250 0.242 0.242
AdjR2 0.176 0.190 0.235 0.232 0.179 0.214 0.174 0.193 0.192 0.185
R2 0.137 0.020 0.193 0.004 0.140 0.040 0.135 0.025 0.152 0.000
F 4.469*** 4.332*** 6.011*** 5.311*** 4.553*** 4.881*** 4.428*** 4.412*** 4.873*** 4.225***
F 9.460*** 2.837 14.377*** 0.576 9.728*** 5.758* 9.332*** 3.559 10.750*** 0.002
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
58
H1: Work stress is significantly related to organizational commitment.
Accepted H1-1: Role conflict is negatively related to organizational
commitment.
Accepted H1-2: Role ambiguity is negatively related to
organizational commitment.
Rejected H1-3: Role overload is negatively related to
organizational commitment.
Accepted H1-4: Work stress is negatively related to affective
commitment.
Accepted H1-5: Work stress is negatively related to continuance
commitment.
Accepted H1-6: Work stress is not related to normative
commitment.
Accepted H2-1: Conscientiousness moderates the relationship
between work stress and organizational commitment.
Accepted H2-2: Agreeableness moderates the relationship between
work stress and organizational commitment.
Rejected H2-3: Neuroticism moderates the relationship between
work stress and organizational commitment.
Rejected H2-4: Extraversion moderates the relationship between
work stress and organizational commitment.
Rejected H2-5: Openness moderates the relationship between work
Rejected H2-5: Openness moderates the relationship between work