This chapter discusses the descriptive statistics derived from the survey data collected.
Perceived managerial trust, job involvement, organization affective commitment, job satisfaction and also looks at their positive and negative affect which was used as control variable in this research. The descriptive statistics examined frequencies, measures of central tendency (mean).
Range (standard deviation) is also provided in descriptive statistic.
Descriptive Statistics Descriptive Analysis for Questionnaire Items
Means and standard deviation of each item were calculated. Each items for the independent, independent, and control variables were examined.
Descriptive statistics for managerial trust in subordinates
Managerial trusts in subordinates were measured using a 5-point Likert scale of 10 items.
3 items measured harmony (X1-X3), 4 items measured reliability (X4-X7) and 3 items measured concern (X8-X10). The scale ranged from “Strongly Disagree” (1) to “Strongly Agree” (5).
Table 4.1 shows the results of the descriptive analysis.
From the table it can be noted that participants on average agreed to items X5: My manager believes that I will keep the promises I make (M = 4.03), X7: My manager believes I take actions that are consistent with my words (M = 4.03), and item X8: My manager believes that he or she can count on me to help if he or she have difficulties with work (M = 4.05). The lowest mean scores were item X1: There is a lot of warmth in the relationship between my manager and I (M = 3.34) and item X10: I believe that if I make a mistake my manager is willing to forgive and forget (M = 3.39). This shows that on average participants response were mostly
“neutral” to the items.
48
Regarding the standard deviation, the analysis revealed that participants showed more consistency in answering item X7 (SD = 0.784) with “Agree”. The highest standard deviations were found in items X1 and X10 which indicates that the responses are furthest away from the mean. This means that participants were least consistent in responding to the items.
Note. The 5-Point Likert scale is used
Descriptive Statistics for Job Involvement
Job involvement was measured using a 4-item scale. Each item had a 5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) and Strongly Agree (5). Table 4.2 shows the descriptive statistics for each of the items.
The highest mean from table 4.2 is found in item Y4: I am very much involved personally with my work (M = 3.62). This means that participants fairly agreed with this item.
The lowest mean was found in item Y2: The most important things that happen to me involve my work (M = 2.83). This indicates that on average participants remained neutral with the item or fairly disagreed. Standard Deviation on items showed that item Y4 has the lowest, indicating that participants were more consistent in their responses (SD = 1.033). Item Y3: I would Table 4.1
Descriptive Statistics for Managerial Trust in Subordinates Items
Items N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
49
probably keep working even if I didn’t need the money (SD = 1.363) had the highest standard deviation which means that respondents were least consistent in answering the item.
Table 4.2
Descriptive Statistics for Job Involvement Items
Job Involvement
Items N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Y1 100 1 5 3.05 1.313
Y2 100 1 5 2.83 1.248
Y3 100 1 5 2.98 1.363
Y4 100 1 5 3.62 1.033
Valid N (listwise) 100
Note. The 5-Point Likert scale is used
Descriptive statistics for affective organizational commitment
Organizational affective commitment was measured using a 4-item scale. Each item had a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” (1) to “Strongly Agree” (5). Table 4.3 gives the descriptive statistics for each item.
Table 4.3 shows that item Y5: I am willing to put in a great deal of effort to help this organization succeed (M = 4.20) had the highest mean. This means that participants on average agreed with the item. The item with the lowest mean was Y6: I would accept almost any type of job assignment to keep working for this company (M = 3.18) means that the participants were mostly neutral on this item.
Participants were most consistent in answering item Y5 (SD = 0.841) because it had the lowest standard deviation. The item with the highest standard deviation was Y6 (SD = 1.201) which indicates that participants were least consistent in responding to this item.
50
Note. The 5-Point Likert scale is used
Descriptive statistics for job satisfaction
Job satisfaction was measured using a 6-item scale. Each item had a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” (1) to “Strongly Agree” (5). Table 4.4 gives the descriptive analysis of each item.
From the table it can be noted that item Y10: I am satisfied with my immediate boss (M = 3.51) has the highest mean which means that on average participants fairly agreed to the item.
The item with the lowest mean was Y11: I am satisfied with my rate of pay (M = 2.64) which means that participants fairly disagreed with the item.
Regarding standard deviation, item Y10 (SD = 1) and Y14: I am satisfied with how secure my job is (SD = 1.031) got the lowest indicating that participants were more consistent in responding to the items. The item with the lowest standard deviation was Y12: I am satisfied with my chances of getting promoted (SD = 1.156). This means that participants were the least consistent in responding to the items.
Table 4.3
Descriptive Statistics for Affective Organizational Commitment Items
OAC Items N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Y5 100 1 5 4.20 .841
Y6 100 1 5 3.18 1.201
Y7 100 1 5 3.39 1.034
Y8 100 1 5 3.21 1.104
Valid N (listwise) 100
51
Table 4.4
Descriptive Statistics Job Satisfaction Items
Note. The 5-Point Likert scale is used
Descriptive statistics for positive affect
Positive Affect was measured using a 5 item-scale; each item had a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” (1) to “Strongly Agree” (5). Table 4.5 gives the descriptive analysis of each item. The items were measured by providing a list of words that describes different emotions and feelings and asking respondents to indicate whether they agree or disagree to having these feeling for the past few weeks
From the table it can be seen that items Y16: Alert (M = 3.94) and Y19: Determined (M
= 3.94) had the highest mean indicating that on average respondent agreed to having these feelings. Item Y15: Inspired (M = 3.15) had the lowest mean. This means that respondents generally answered with a neutral to this item.
Item Y16 (SD = 0.827) had the lowest standard deviation which means that participants were most consistent in responding with “Agree” on the item. Item Y15 had the highest standard deviation indicating the respondents were least consistent in answering the question.
Job Satisfaction N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Y9 100 1 5 3.07 1.066
Y10 100 1 5 3.51 1.000
Y11 100 1 5 2.64 1.124
Y12 100 1 5 2.76 1.156
Y13 100 1 5 3.10 1.087
Y14 100 1 5 3.37 1.031
Valid N (listwise) 100
52
Table 4.5
Descriptive Statistics Positive Affect Items
Note. The 5-Point Likert scale is used
Descriptive statistics negative affect
Negative Affect was measured using a 5 item-scale; each item had a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” (1) to “Strongly Agree” (5). Table 4.6 gives the descriptive analysis of each item. The items were measured by providing a list of words that describes different emotions and feelings and asking respondents to indicate whether they agree or disagree to having these feeling for the past few weeks.
Table 4.6 shows that Y24: Distressed (M= 2.48) had the highest mean. On average participants fairly responded with a “Disagree”. Item Y23: Scared (M = 2.06) had the lowest mean indicating that participants on average generally responded with a “Disagree”
The item with the lowest standard deviation was Y20: Afraid (SD = 0.964) which shows more consistency in responding to this item. Y24 (SD = 1.176) had the highest standard deviation which means that there was least consistency in responding to item.
Positive Affect N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Y15 100 1 5 3.15 1.104
Y16 100 1 5 3.94 .827
Y17 100 1 5 3.29 .998
Y18 100 1 5 3.49 1.010
Y19 100 1 5 3.94 .962
Valid N (listwise) 100
53
Table 4.6
Note. The 5-Point Likert scale is used
Correlation Analysis
Pearson coefficient correlation was utilized to measure the strength of linear dependence between the X and Y variables. The Pearson’s correlation returns values between a positive and negative one, correlation analysis reveals association between variables.
Table 4.7 affective organizational commitment, job satisfaction and positive affect,*P<.05, **P<.01
Independent and Dependent Variables Correlation
Based on the results of the correlation analysis, the three sub-independent variable harmony (H), reliability (R), and concern (C) of managerial trust in subordinates are significantly Descriptive Statistics Negative Affect Items
54
and positively correlated with dependent variables job involvement (JI), affective organizational commitment (AOC) and job satisfaction (JS).
Control Variables Correlation
Positive affect (PA) is highly correlated to JI (.505), AOC (.530), and JS (.622). Negative affect (NA) is negatively correlated to AOC (-.258) and JS (-.331). PA is also positively correlated to independent variables harmony, reliability and concern (0.314, 0.455, and 0.413).
NA is negatively correlated to independent variables reliability and concern (-0.292, and -0.301).
Tenure is significantly correlated with AOC (0.244) and PA (0.222) at p < 0.05 level.
Multiple Regression Analysis
Hypothesis One and Two
Regression Analysis was used to test for the effect of tenure on affective organizational commitment.
The following hypothesis was tested:
H1: There is a significant relationship between tenure and affective organizational commitment.
The results for the ANOVA test show the overall relationship between tenure and affective organizational commitment. The probability of the F statistic (6.207) for the overall regression relationship is <0.014. The beta coefficients associated with tenure is positive (0.244, p < 0.014).
The probability of the t statistic (2.491) for the beta coefficient is <0.014 which is less than the significance level 0.05. We accept the research hypothesis that there is a statistically significant relationship between tenure and criterion variable affective organizational commitment. The R
55
Square is 0.06 which means that tenure only explains 6% of the variance in organizational affective commitment. Table 4.8 below shows the results.
Table 4.8
Regression Analysis Tenure and Affective Organizational Commitment
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
t Sig.
B SEB Beta
1 (Constant) 3.147 .162 19.472 .000
Tenure .163 .065 .244* 2.491 .014
R2 (0.06)
Note. F = 6.207, p < 0.014 p* < 0.05
A multiple linear regression was used to test for the effect of positive and negative affect on job satisfaction. Hence the following research hypothesis was tested:
H2: There is a significant relationship between positive and negative affect and job satisfaction.
The results for the ANOVA test show the overall relationship between variables negative and positive affect and job satisfaction. The probability of the F statistic (32.25) for the overall regression relationship is <0.001. The beta coefficients associated with positive affect is positive (0.577, p < 0.001). The probability of the t statistic (6.845) for the beta coefficient is <0.001 which is less than the significance level 0.05. The beta coefficient associated with negative affect is (0.124, p < 0.149) this means that there is no significant relationship between the variable and job satisfaction. The research hypothesis was therefore partially supported that there is a statistically significant relationship between positive and negative affect and job satisfaction.
Table 4.9 gives the results.
56
Table 4.9
Hierarchical Regression Managerial Trust and JS Controlling for Positive Affect and Negative Affect
Note. PA and NA represents Positive Affect and Negative Affect; F = 32.25, p < 0.001;
p*** < 0.001
Hypothesis Three to Five
A Standard multiple regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between managerial trust in subordinates and job involvement. Sub-independent variables were also examined to measure their individual effect on job involvement.
H3: There is a significant positive relationship between managerial trust in subordinates and job involvement.
The results for the ANOVA test show the overall relationship between the independent variable managerial trust and dependent variable job involvement. The probability of the F statistic (9.398) for the overall regression relationship is <0.016, less than or equal to the level of significance of 0.05. The R squared was 8.8% which means that only 8.8% of the variance in job involvement is explained by managerial trust in subordinates. The beta coefficients associated with managerial trust in subordinates is positive (0.296) which indicates a direct relationship where an increase in the predictor variable will also lead to an increase in job involvement. The probability of the t statistic (3.198) for the beta coefficient is <0.002 which is less than the significance level 0.05. Based on these results, we accept the research hypothesis and conclude that there is a positive and significant relationship between managerial trust and job involvement.
57
Regression analysis for sub-independent variable of managerial trust in subordinates showed that “harmony” and “concern” were significant. Other sub-independent variable reliability had no significant effect on job involvement; the results can be seen in model 2 of table of 4.10.
Table 4.10
Standard Multiple Regression Analysis Effect of Managerial Trust on Job Involvement
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
t Sig.
Note. H, R, and C represents harmony, reliability and concern R2 = 0.088; F = 9.398, p <0.003
p*<0.05; p** < 0.01, p*** < 0.001
A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to test for H4. This method was used to control for the effect of tenure on affective organizational commitment. The following hypothesis was tested:
H4: There is a significant and positive relationship between managerial trust in subordinates and organizational affective commitment when controlling tenure.
The results for the ANOVA test show the overall relationship between tenure, managerial trust in subordinates and affective organizational commitment. The probability of the F statistic (16.330) for the overall regression relationship is <0.001. The beta coefficients associated with managerial trust in subordinates is positive (0.447, p < 0.001). The probability of the t statistic (4.994) for the beta coefficient is <0.001 which is less than the significance level 0.05. We accept the research hypothesis that there is a statistically significant and relationship between the
58
predictor variable managerial trust and criterion variable affective organizational commitment.
The R Square Change resulting from the addition of the predictor variable when controlling tenure is 0.192. This means that the predictor variable managerial trust in subordinates increases the predictive power of the model by 19.2%. It should be noted that with the inclusion of the predictor variable into model three, tenure became insignificant (0.156, p < 0.087)
For the sub independent variable “harmony”, the beta coefficient is (0.309, p < 0.013) is significant. Other sub-independent variables reliability and concern did not have a significant relationship with affective organizational commitment. Table 4.11 below shows the results.
Table 4.11
Hierarchical Regression Effect of Managerial Trust on Affective Organizational Commitment
Model
Note. H, R, C and MT represents harmony, reliability, concern, and managerial trust Model 3: R2 change is 0.192 F = 16.330, p < 0.001
p* < 0.05; p*** <0.001
For the final hypothesis, hierarchical regression analysis was done to test for the effect of managerial trust in subordinates and job satisfaction when controlling positive affect. Negative affect was not included in this analysis since from hypothesis 2 we noticed that the variable did
59
not have a significant relationship with job satisfaction; recall from table 4.8, that negative affect had a beta value of (0.123, p < 0.149). Table 4.12 shows the results. For this reason for hypothesis 5 (H5) only positive affect was controlled.
H5: There is a positive and significant relationship between managerial trust in subordinates and job satisfaction when controlling positive affect.
Table 4.12
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Effect of Managerial Trust on Job Satisfaction
Model relationship for managerial trust in subordinates and positive affect <0.001, is less than the level of significance of 0.05. The probability of the t statistic (3.556) for the beta coefficient for
60
managerial trust is <0.001 which is less than the level of significance of 0.05; managerial trust in subordinates successfully predicts affective job satisfaction with a beta coefficient of (0.299). We support the research hypothesis that there is a statistically significant relationship between managerial trust in subordinates and job satisfaction when controlling positive affect. The beta coefficient for positive affect in the third model is (0.486, p < 0.001). This means that positive affect has a significant and positive relationship with job satisfaction with the inclusion of managerial trust in the model. The R squared value was (0.457) which means that 45.7% of the variance in job satisfaction was explained by managerial trust in subordinates and positive affect.
Change in R squared when the predictor variable managerial trust was added to the model is (0.071) which means that the inclusion of the predictor variable only increases the predictive power of the model by 7.1%. It should also be noted that most of the variance in job satisfaction is explained by positive affect.
For the independent variable “harmony” which is a sub independent variable for managerial trust, the probability of the t statistic (2.019) for the b coefficient is (0.046). Other sub independent variables concern and reliability had no significant relationship with job satisfaction.
Summary of regression analysis results
Table 4.13 on the next page gives the summary of the results of regression analysis to test the main research hypothesis. As can be seen from the table, “reliability” is not an important factor in managerial trust measurement in this research as it failed to have any significant effect on any of dependent variables. Management trust in subordinates seems to have a bigger effect on affective organizational commitment than it did on the other independent variables.
61
Table 4.13
Note. P* < 0.05, p** < 0.01, p*** < 0.001 1. Dependent Variable: Job Involvement
2. Dependent Variable: Affective Organizational Commitment 3. Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction
Summary of hypothesis results
Table 4.14 gives a summary outcome of all hypothesis tested in this research based on hierarchical regression analysis and simple regression analysis as discussed above. Hypotheses 1, 3, 4 and 5 are fully supported and hypothesis 2 is partially supported in this research as we have already established from the regression analysis results.
Table 4.14
H2: There is a significant relationship between positive and negative affect and job satisfaction.
62
Table 4.14 (continued)
H3: There is a significant and positive relationship between managerial trust in subordinates and employees’ job involvement.
H4: There is a significant and positive relationship between managerial trust in subordinates and employees’ organization affective commitment when controlling tenure.
H5: There is a significant and positive relationship between managerial trust in subordinates and employees’ job satisfaction when controlling positive affect.
Fully Supported
Fully Supported
Fully Supported
Note. All hypothesis used in this research are stated here; hypothesis 1 and 2 were formulated for the purpose of accommodating the use of control variables in this research; hypothesis 3 to 5 are the main research hypothesis.
63