CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
In order to reach the research purposes presented in this study, eleven hypotheses were expressed. Findings and discussions were presented in this chapter. Six of the total of eleven hypotheses expressed had found to have a significant relationship with the dependent variable and to be the most important predictors of Taiwan vocational high school principals’affective organizational commitment. Those predictors were personal background characteristics (education, organizational tenure), organizational management (pay satisfaction, and perceived fairness), and school setting characteristics (school location and school status). Five of the eleven hypotheses for personal background characteristics (age, and gender), organizational management (perceived organizational support, and perceived autonomy), and leadership style (autocratic, democratic, delegative) were found to have no significant relationship with the dependent variable, affective organizational commitment.
The participants in the study were 157 vocational high school principals in Taiwan.
With a return rate of 72% (113) and 99% (112) of usable responses, the study results could be generalized to the population from which the sample was drawn. The data analysis showed the following results, for both descriptive and inferential analyses.
Affective organizational commitment, the dependent variable
In order to establish the relationships between the independent variables and the
dependent variable, the means and standard deviation of affective organizational
commitment, (dependent variable) have been calculated. A summary of the results was shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1. Means and standard deviations for affective organizational commitment (n = 112)
Item N
oItem M SD
1 I would be happy to spend the rest of my career with this school. 6.30 .78 ______________________________________________________________________
2 I do not feel like a part of the family in this school. ® 5.01 1.49 ______________________________________________________________________
3 I really feel as if this school’s problems are my own. 5.94 1.03 ______________________________________________________________________
4 I do not feel emotionally attached to this school. ® 6.38 .98 ______________________________________________________________________
5 This school has a great deal of meaning for me. 6.26 .81 ______________________________________________________________________
6 I feel a strong sense of belonging to this school. 6.38 .80 ______________________________________________________________________
7 I think I could easily become as attached to another school. ® 4.44 1.82
Total 5.82 0.63
Table 4.2 presents the results of stepwise multiple regression analysis of affective organizational commitment. It was found that affective commitment can be explained with a linear combination of the following six variables: Perceived fairness, School status, School location, Pay satisfaction, previous position and Education level. The largest percentage, 17.5%, of the variance of affective commitment can be explained by the variable Perceived fairness (R
2= .175, p<.05). An additional 9.0% of the variance in Perceived fairness can be attributed to the variable School status. A third, fourth, fifth, and sixth variables, (School location, Pay satisfaction, previous position and Education level) counted respectively for another 4.9%, 4.2%, 2.9%, and 3.0% of the variance.
Consequently, the prediction equation is:
Predicted affective commitment = 3.451 + .299* (Perceived fairness) + -.318*
(School status) + .327* (School location) +.142* (Pay satisfaction) + -.264* (Previous position) + .248* (Education level). These results means that principals affective organizational commitment is linked to six important factors: perceived fairness, school status, school location, pay satisfaction, previous position and education level. The following section gives more details on the relationships between the dependent variable and these predictors.
Table 4.2. Stepwise multiple regression of affective organizational commitment (N = 112)
Variables R
2R
2changeb F P
Perceived
fairness .175 .175 .299 23.379 .000
School status .265 .090 -.318 19.626 .000
School
location .314 .049 .327 16.467 .000
Pay
satisfaction .356 .042 .142 14.782 .000
Previous
position .385 .029 -.264 13.298 .000
Education
level .415 .030 .248 12.411 .000
Constant 3.451
Personal Background Characteristics and Affective Organizational Commitment
Gender and affective organizational commitment
The relationship between gender and affective organizational commitment in this
study was tasted using the t-test. Results indicated that gender was not a predictor of
principals’affective organizational commitment. Table 4.3 presents the findings.
Table 4.3. Gender and Affective organizational commitment using the Independent t-test (N=112)
Variable Category N Value Affective Commitment
M SD t
(1) Female 10 5.83 .57
Gender 0.07
(2) Male 102 5.81 .64
This finding, even if it did not support the research hypothesis, was consistent with previous research results (Aven, Parker, & McEvoy, 1993; Kushman, 1992; Lorence, 1987) which found that men and women demonstrate equal amounts of commitment in a fair and equitable work environment. Nevertheless, these findings contradicted those of Kuo and Jen (2004) who assumed that in Taiwan, female employees have lower organizational commitment and professional commitment than male employees. This difference on research findings might be due to the fact that the sample size of female population in this study was small (8.9%) and might not be enough to infer significantly on research results on affective organizational commitment in relation with gender.
Age and affective organizational commitment
Previous literature had found that employee age is a strong, sometimes weak
predictor of affective organizational commitment. Some researchers, (Meyer & Allen,
1984; Bowen, Radhakrishna & Keyser, 1994), assumed that older workers become
more committed to an organization for a variety of reasons, among them greater
satisfaction with their jobs and better position in the organization. Hawkins (1998)
found in his study a little correlation (r = - . 004, p, <.05) between high school
principals’ age and affective organizational commitment. In this study, there was no
significant relationship between age and principals affective organizational commitment.
Plus, the t-test results, presented in Table 4.4, found no significant difference between principals of the first group (37 to 55 years old) and those of the second group (56 to 67 years old) as regard to their commitment to the organization.
Table 4.4. Age and affective organizational commitment using the Independent t-test (N=112).
Variable Category N Value Affective Commitment
M SD t
(1) 37-55 years 53 5.80 .65
Age 0.15
(2) 56-67 years 69 5.82 .61
Education level and affective organizational commitment
This included Major subject of highest degree and highest level of training
institution attended. Education, as presented in Table 4.2, was positively related to
affective organizational commitment (R
2= .415, p< .05). These findings were
consistent with those of previous studies (Hawkins, 1998; Kuo & Jen, 2004; Mowday et
al., 1982). Nevertheless, no significant difference was found between groups. Results of
data analysis using ANOVA and presented in Table 4.5, show a relative equal
commitment level among and between the different groups of principals. That means
that whether education is a predictor of affective organizational commitment, there is no
specific group as regard to the level of education, the training institution attended or the
major subject of highest degree, which has more or less predisposition to be more or
less committed to their organization.
Table 4.5. Education Level and affective organizational commitment using ANOVA (N=112)
Variable Category N Value Affective
Commitment
M SD F Scheffe
(1) Bachelor 26 5.73 .67
Education (2) Master 74 5.83 .60 0.15
(Highest Degree) (3) Doctorate 12 5.81 .72
_____________ ___________________________ __________________________
(Training Insti- (1) Teacher Col. /Taiwan 49 6.04 .64
tution attended) (2) Other col. /Taiwan 52 6.06 .64 0.103 (3) Teacher col. /oth./count. 01 6.33 .
(4) Other col. /other/count 10 5.98 .80
_____________ ___________________________ __________________________
(Major Subject (1) Education 74 6.10 .62
of Highest (2) Social Sciences 17 5.99 .69
Degree) (3) Humanities 6 6.08 .91 0.69
(4) Natural Sciences 6 5.94 1.05 (5) Applied Sciences 9 5.74 .22
Organizational tenure and affective organizational commitment
This included the Length of time in present position, the previous position
occupied and whether having a part time teaching job. The most predictable variable in
this analysis was the principals’ experience (Table 4.2). Consistent with other research
findings (Gregersen, 1993; Hawkins, 1998; Kushman, 1992; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990)
organizational tenure was positively related to affective organizational commitment
with R
2= .385, p< .05. Kuo and Jen (2004) also found in their study that employees
with a longer length of service tend to demonstrate more commitment to their
organization than those with a shorter length of service. We then speculate, in
conformity with the results presented in Table 4.2 that principals with a longer length of
service have more experience and are more confident in leading their schools than the
ones with a shorter experience in teaching and administering. We also speculate that principals with a longer length of service had a great professional investment in their school and may be less willing to leave this school. As presented in Table 4.6, the ANOVA and Independent t-test used to determine the correlation found no significant difference between and among groups as regard to the commitment level.
Table 4.6. Organizational tenure and affective organizational commitment using ANOVA and t-test (N=112)
Variable Category N Value Affective Commitment
M SD F/t Scheffe
Organizational (1) 1 to 3 years 44 6.01 .75
Tenure (2) 4 to 6 years 36 6.04 .57 0.171
(Present (3) more than 6 years 32 6.10 .59
Position)____________________________________________________________
Organizational (1) Principalship/any SHS 32 5.92 .71 Tenure (2) Principalship/any JHS 9 6.19 .70
(Previous (3) Division Directorship 5 5.43 .65 1.4 Position) (4) Associate Professorship 9 6.11 .66
(5) Teacher 47 6.10 .59
(6) Any other position 9 6.31 .54
______________________________________________________________________
(Having a part- (1) had had 14 5.70 .63
time teaching 0.70
Job) (2) had not had 98 5.83 .63
Notes: SHS = senior high school; JHS = junior high school
Organizational Management and Affective Organizational Commitment
Pay satisfaction and affective organizational commitment
As presented in Table 4.2, there is a positive relationship between pay satisfaction
and affective organizational commitment (R
2= .356, p< .05). It was found in this study
that pay satisfaction was a predictor of principals’ commitment to their organization.
The more they are satisfied with the organizational pay structure, the more their willingness to stay with this organization. Means and Standard Deviations are presented in Table 4.7 for pay satisfaction.
These findings supported those of Mathieu and Zajac (1990) who reported a positive correlation between salary and organizational commitment, giving the reasons that higher salary levels increase feeling of self-esteem. These findings were also consistent with those of Kuo and Jen (2004) who reported in their study based on 365 engineers of 57 private electronics companies in Taiwan, that pay satisfaction is positively related to organizational commitment and perceived unfairness in pay will result in negative perceptions of the organization and then, a low or negative commitment. Pay satisfaction is one of the most important values among Taiwanese workers according to a study on multinational organizations (Kullen, & Parboteeah, 2005) and employees with high income might have more to lose in leaving the organization. Therefore, they are less likely to leave and demonstrate more commitment.
Table 4.7. Means and standard deviations for pay satisfaction (N = 112)
Item N
oItem M SD
1 How satisfied are you with the school district pay structure? 5.07 1.16 ______________________________________________________________________
2 How satisfied are you with your benefit package? 4.89 1.24 ______________________________________________________________________
3 How satisfied are you with your current salary? 5.19 1.20 ______________________________________________________________________
4 How satisfied are you with the way your raises are
determined? 4.69 1.35
______________________________________________________________________
Total 4.96 1.11
Perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment
Means and standard deviations for perceived organizational support are presented in Table 4.9. There is no significant relationship between perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment using the stepwise multiple regression analysis. Nevertheless, the PEARSON correlation analysis found a strong significant correlation between perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment (r =.456, p<.05). Table 4.8 shows the results of this analysis. These findings are consistent with those of previous studies (Colarelli, Dean & Konstans, 1987; Hawkins, 1998; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Posehn, 1988;
Shore & Wayne, 1993) which found a correlation between perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment. Employees are more willing to stay with an organization that supports them and cares about their well being. In the contrary, their commitment was negative to the organization that does not give them enough support.
Table 4.8. Relationships between management and leadership styles variables and affective organizational commitment using PEARSON correlation coefficients (N=112)
M SD Pay Perceived Perceived Perceived Leadership
Satisfaction Support Fairness Autonomy Style Affective
organizational 4.96 1.11 .424* .456* .528* .417* .396*
commitment
* p < .05
Table 4.9. Means and standard deviations for perceived organizational support (N = 112)
Item N
oItem M SD
1 The Administration shows concern for the needs
which I express regarding the school I work. 5.82 .76 ______________________________________________________________________
2 The Administration appreciates any extra time and
effort that I spend to do efficient and effective work. 5.54 . 91
Total 5.68 .72
Perceived fairness and affective organizational commitment
Perceived fairness in this study is one of the most important predictor of affective organizational commitment. The means and standard deviation are presented in Table 4.10 and the results of stepwise multiple regression analysis in Table 4.2 above. It was found a positive relationship between perceived fairness and affective organizational commitment (R
2= .356, p< .05). Principals’ level of commitment was related to the way they perceive fairness within the organization. Hawkins (1998), Moorman, Niehoff and Organ (1993), Witt (1993) also discovered a moderate to strong relationship between perceived fairness and affective organizational commitment. Hawkins (1998) found in his study of affective organizational commitment among high school principals in the United States that principals value highly fairness in their function.
This can be explained by their function itself: administrators, educators and leaders. If
we agree with Bennis, (1997, p.9) that “Managers are people who do things right and
leaders are people who do the right thing” (cited by Lee & Lai, 2006), then we can
assume that valuing fairness is being a manager and a leader. The Pearson correlation as
presented in Table 4.8 above showed also a positive correlation between perceived
fairness and affective organizational commitment (r =.528, p<.01). These findings were consistent with the results of the stepwise multiple regression analysis.
Table 4.10. Means and standard deviations for perceived fairness (N = 112)
Item N
oItem M SD
1 I believe that rules and procedures are administered fairly
by administrators. 5.63 1.01
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2 District resources are allocated without favoritism. 5.83 .88
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3 I trust The Administration to make decisions on my behalf. 5.64 .88
Total 5.70 0.74
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Perceived autonomy and affective organizational commitment
Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 4.11 for perceived
autonomy. The stepwise multiple regression analysis had found no significant
relationship between perceived autonomy and affective organizational commitment
attested in Table 4.2. Nevertheless, the Pearson correlation analysis had found a
significant correlation between perceived autonomy and affective organizational
commitment (r =.417, p<.05). These findings, presented in Table 4.8 above, are
consistent with those of previous studies (Colarelli, Dean & Konstans, 1987; Hawkins,
1998; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Posehn, 1988; Shore & Wayne,
1993) which discovered a positive correlation between perceived autonomy and
affective organizational commitment. As regard to Taiwanese workers, Chen, Beck and
Amos (2005), discovered that most faculty members in Higher Education prefer having
academic self-determination and autonomy in their positions.
Table 4.11. Means and standard deviations for perceived autonomy (N = 112)
Item N
oItem M SD
1 Within the bounds of any policy and laws, I have freedom
to act on students’issues. 5.28 1.26
______________________________________________________________________
2 I have reasonable freedom to make decisions about
instructional issues in the school in which I am employed. 5.46 1.13 ______________________________________________________________________
3 I have freedom to manage the fiscal affairs of my school. 4.60 1.45 ______________________________________________________________________
4 I have reasonable freedom to direct student activities in
the school in which I am employed. 5.47 1.07
Total 5.20 0.95
Leadership style and affective organizational commitment
Whether the stepwise multiple regression analysis did not found a significant relationship between leadership style and principals’ affective organizational commitment, the Pearson correlation analysis did found a significant correlation between principals’ leadership style and their commitment to the organization (r =.396, p<.05). Means and Standard Deviations are summarized and presented in Table 4.12 and the Pearson correlation analysis is shown in Table 4.8 presented above. Principals’
who lead their schools in a participative (democratic) way succeed more and are more
willing to stay with their organization. Although the leadership styles used in this study,
based on the classification of Clark (2004), were different from the three leadership
styles used by the previous researchers, the findings are consistent. In fact, Lee and Lai,
(2006), Lee and Lin, (1999), Wu, (2000) found that in Taiwanese context,
transformational leadership such as charisma and intellectual stimulation reveals a
strongly positive relationship with employee commitment, whereas transactional
leadership, including contingent reward leadership, shows a degree of influence on personal commitment, depending on the situation.
Table 4.12. Summary of descriptive statistics for leadership style
Leadership Style n M SD
Participative 112 39.78 3.44
Delegative 112 36.72 3.66
Authoritarian 112 31.26 4.23
Valid n (listwise) 112
The summary of findings for leadership style using descriptive analysis shows in Table 4.12 that a great majority of principals (87.5%) in Taiwanese vocational high schools are participative (democratic) leaders (M = 39.78). Some of them (11.61%) use the delegative leadership style (M = 36.72). Only 0.89% use the authoritarian (autocratic) leadership style (M = 31.26).
In addition, it was found, as presented in Table 4.13., that items 21 (M = 4.48), 5 (M = 4.38), 11 (M = 4.23), 8 (M = 4.20), and 20 (M = 4.13) had the highest means.
Item 21 stated that “Each individual is responsible for defining their job”. The high
mean demonstrated that principal’s value and promote employees’ accountability in
defining their job. For item 5, “I ask for employee ideas and input on upcoming plans
and projects”, it was found that principal’s value the participation of their employees in
their schools’ program planning. Item 11 was “I want to create an environment where
the employees take ownership of the project. I allow them to participate in the decision
making process”. The high mean of this item means that principals’, as for item 5, value
employees participation and involvement to the decision making as regard to school
management. The fourth highest item was “When things go wrong, and I need to create a strategy to keep a project running on schedule, I call a meeting to get my employees’
advice”. The high agreement of principals with item means that they do appreciate the importance in delegating the power to their employee to participate in setting strategies for the school. And the fifth item stated that “When there are differences in role expectations, I work with them to resolve the differences”. Principals’higher agreement with this item indicated that they do not neglect conflict management within their school and prefer conflicts resolutions where everyone is involved.
As for the highest means discussed above, there are five lowest means that indicate which actions principals’ value less in their leadership. Items 4 (M = 1.53), 25 (M = 2.17), 9 (M = 2.29), 13(M = 2.38), and 19 (M = 2.97) were concerned. Item four stipulated that “I do not consider suggestion made by my employees as I do not have the time for them”. The disagreement with this item means that principals really do appreciate the participation of their employees in school decision-making and they assign much attention on their suggestions. Item twenty five, “Employees must be directed or threatened with punishment in order to get them to achieve the organizational objectives” had also a low mean. That means that principals do not appreciate positively punishment as a mean to oblige employees to achieve the organizational goals. Item 9, “To get information out, I send it by e-mail, or voice mail;
very rarely is a meeting called. My employees are then expected to act upon the
information”. The low agreement with this item means that principals value most
meetings compared to e-mail and voice mail to deliver information related to their
school affairs. Item thirteen was “New hires are not allowed to make any decisions
unless it is approved by me first”. Principals’ low agreement with this item means that
they do not make any discrimination between employees when it is about decision
making. Equality in participating to decision making is given to both new and ancient
employees in the school. The item 19 was “I closely monitor my employees to ensure they are performing correctly”. Principals had a low agreement with this item. That means that they did not closely monitor their employees to make sure they perform well.
Each employee is accountable and this is a way for principals to express the level of confidence they have for their employees.
Table 4.13. Means and standard deviations for leadership style (n = 112)
Item N
oItem M SD
1 I always retain the final making authority within my school. 3.80 .87 ______________________________________________________________________
2 I always try to include one or more employees in determining what to do and how to do it. However, I
maintain the final decision making authority in my school. 3.98 .75 ______________________________________________________________________
3 I and my employees always vote whenever a major
decision has to be made. 3.35 .87
______________________________________________________________________
4 I do not consider suggestions made by my employees as
I do not have the time for them 1.53 .61
______________________________________________________________________
5 I ask for employee ideas and input on upcoming plans and
projects 4.38 .54
6 For a major decision to pass in my department, it must have
the approval of each individual or the majority. 3.96 .85 ______________________________________________________________________
7 I tell my employees what has to be done and how to do it 3.99 .64 ______________________________________________________________________
8 When things go wrong and I need to create a strategy to keep a project or process running on schedule, I call a
meeting to get my employees’advice. 4.20 .58
9 To get information out, I send it by email, or voice mail;
very rarely is a meeting called. My employees are then
expected to act upon the information. 2.29 .87
Table 4.13. (Continued)
Item N
oItem M SD
10 When someone makes a mistake, I tell then not to ever do
that again and make a note of it. 3.22 .95
______________________________________________________________________
11 I want to create an environment where the employees take ownership of the project. I allow them to participate in the
of the project. I allow them to participate in the decision
making process. 4.23 .57
______________________________________________________________________
12 I allow my employees to determine what needs to be done
and how to do it. 4.00 .59
______________________________________________________________________
13 New hires are not allowed to make any decisions unless
it is approved by me first. 2.38 .99
______________________________________________________________________
14 I ask employees for their vision of where they see their jobs
going and then use their vision where appropriate. 4.00 .52 ______________________________________________________________________
15 My employees know more their job than me, so I allow
them to carry out the decisions to do their job. 3.68 .73 16 When something goes wrong, I tell my employees that a
procedure is not working correctly and I establish a new
one. 4.01 .61
______________________________________________________________________
17 I allow employees to set priorities with my guidance 3.95 .64 ______________________________________________________________________
18 I delegate tasks in order to implement a new procedure or
process 3.87 .58
______________________________________________________________________
19 I closely monitor my employees to ensure they are
performing correctly 2.97 .85
20 When there are differences in role expectations, I work with
them to resolve the differences. 4.13 .58
Table 4.13. (Continued)
Item N
oItem M SD
21 Each individual is responsible for defining their job. 4.48 .66 ______________________________________________________________________
22 I like the power that my leadership position holds over
subordinates. 3.20 .95
______________________________________________________________________
23 I like to use my leadership power to help subordinates grow. 3.79 .83 ______________________________________________________________________
24 I like to share my leadership power with my subordinates 4.00 .74 ______________________________________________________________________
25 Employees must be directed or threatened with punishment
in order to get them to achieve the organizational objectives. 2.17 .95 ______________________________________________________________________
26 Employees will exercise self-direction if they are committed
to the objectives. 3.77 .72
______________________________________________________________________
27 Employees have the right to determine their own
organizational objectives. 3.56 .74
______________________________________________________________________
28 Employees seek mainly security 3.95 .78
29 Employees know how to use creativity and ingenuity
to solve organizational problems 3.46 .79
______________________________________________________________________
30 My school employees can lead themselves just as well
as I can. 3.55 .80
School setting characteristics (status, location, type and size) and Affective Organizational Commitment
School status and affective organizational commitment
According to the stepwise multiple regression analysis (Table 4.2), school
status (public or private) is a predictor, but was found to have a negative relationship
with principals’ affective organizational commitment (R
2=- .265, p< .05). This study revealed that principals in public schools are less committed to their organization and this situation can be explained by the fact that principals working in the public sector are subject to possible posting. Nevertheless, the t-test analysis had found no significant difference as regard to the value commitment between the principals of the two sectors.
Table 4.14 presents the findings, using the Independent t-test analysis.
Table 4.14. School status and affective organizational commitment using the Independent t-test (N=112)
Variable Category N Value Affective Commitment
M SD t
(1) Public 75 5.97 .67
School status 0.15
(2) Private 37 6.20 .59
School location and affective organizational commitment
It was also found a relationship between school location and affective organizational
commitment. As presented in Table 4.2, school location is a predictor and has a positive
relationship with principals’ commitment (R
2= .314, p< .05). This study found that
principals in the Northern district are more committed to their organization than those
of the other districts. Nevertheless, the analysis using ANOVA found no significant
difference among principals of the five districts as regard to the value affective
commitment to their organization, as presented in Table 4.15.
Table 4.15. School location and affective organizational commitment using ANOVA (N=112)
Variable Category N Value Affective Commitment
M SD F Scheffe
(1) Eastern 10 6.08 .73
School (2) Central district 30 5.94 .67
Location (3) Northern district 28 6.15 .63 .675 (4) Southern district 39 6.08 .54
(5) Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu 5 5.73 1.19
School type and affective organizational commitment
According to the stepwise multiple regression analysis there is no significant relationship between principals’ school type and their affective organizational commitment. That means that school type is not a predicted variable of principals’
affective organizational commitment. Also, the Independent t-test demonstrated that there was homogeneity among groups (typical vocational high schools and senior high schools offering vocational programs) as regard to the value commitment to the organization. The result of the t-test is presented in Table 4.16.
Table 4.16. School type and affective organizational commitment using the Independent t-test analysis (N=112)
Variable Category N Value Affective Commitment
M SD t
(1) Typical VHS 82 6.06 .66
School Type .193
(2) SHSOVP 30 6.00 .61
Notes: Typical VHS = typical vocational high school; SHSOVP = senior high school offering vocational
program