The influence of commitment on the relationship between perceived support and turnover intentions.
Course: Thesis
Date: 17th of august 2014 Student: Rivka Albek Student number: 5910234 Supervisor: Dr. C. Boon
VOORWOORD: Beste lezer,
Voor u ligt mijn masterscriptie. Deze scriptie is geschreven in het kader van mijn afstuderen binnen de faculteit Economie en Bedrijfskunde aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam (Amsterdam Business School). De scriptie is het resultaat van een onderzoek dat is uitgevoerd binnen de Koninklijke
Marechaussee (KMar).
"De KMar is een militair politiekorps met duidelijke waarden en een lange traditie. Onze mensen zijn ons kapitaal. We hebben aandacht voor en vertrouwen in de professionaliteit van onze medewerkers" (Ontwikkelagenda KMar, 2010-2014). Hiermee onderkennen we als organisatie dat het personeel de cruciale factor is in onze organisatie. Dit jaar bestaat de KMar organisatie 200 jaar, een bijzonder moment, een moment om terug te kijken naar waar we staan en wat we met elkaar bereikt hebben, maar zeker ook een moment om naar de toekomst te kijken. Een toekomst waarin we met elkaar staan voor flexibiliteit en vernieuwing. Een van de belangrijkste waarden om de organisatie en het personeel aan elkaar te binden is door middel van commitment. De perceptie van een medewerker over de steun van zijn leidinggevende en team bepaalt voor een groot deel zijn betrokkenheid aan de organisatie. Voor een organisatie is het van groot belang om te beschikken over betrokken personeel, personeel die zich een voelt met de organisatie en haar doelen wil nastreven.
Het doel van deze scriptie is om te ontdekken of de KMar instaat is haar personeel aan zich te binden door het meten van de mate van betrokkenheid van het personeel aan de organisatie. Hierin heb ik specifiek gekeken naar twee soorten betrokkenheid; de perceptie van medewerkers voor de mate van steun van hun leidinggevenden en vanuit hun team en de invloed op 'Turnover intentions'. Vanuit dit perspectief lever ik een bijdrage aan het denken over hoe we als organisatie het beste betrokkenheid kunnen creëren en hoe we hierin kunnen investeren.
Met deze scriptie beëindig ik tevens een lange en belangrijke studieperiode. Een van mijn belangrijkste levenslessen is de les die mijn gehandicapte broertje mij (on)bewust heeft mogen leren; het nooit opgeven en doorgaan waar anderen stoppen. Of het nu psychisch, fysiek of mentaal is. Hoewel ik enthousiast aan mijn masterstudie begon zakte deze levensles soms weg. Ik begon een paar jaar geleden aan mijn masterstudie en dacht dit "snel te kunnen doen", het viel soms tegen. Vanwege mijn geliefde maar zeer veeleisende baan moest ik mijn studie meerdere malen vertragen en prioriteiten verleggen. Tijdens het schrijven van mijn scriptie gold hetzelfde. Ik begon enthousiast, maar ook hier ging ik in de vertraging. Het is mede dankzij de niet aflatende steun, waardevolle feedback, betrokkenheid en positief kritische begeleiding van mijn scriptiebegeleidster Corine Boon dat het zover gekomen is, zonder Corine was ik nu nog bezig met (her)schrijven. Ik ben dan ook blij dat ik hier mijn waardering aan Corine kan betonen.
Ook aan de volgende mensen wil ik graag mijn dankbaarheid en respect betonen;
- Egon leerde mij zoveel over leiderschap, betrokkenheid en inspiratie, door het voorbeeld in leiderschap te zijn.
- Jossi, mijn bijzondere broertje die ook nu weer een belangrijke motivator is geweest door "te zijn". - Mijn geliefde ouders, broertjes en zusjes die mij hebben beïnvloed en gevormd.
- Wouter door een belangrijke kritische en redactionele bijdragen te leveren aan mijn scriptie maar bovenal door praktische adviezen te geven.
- Gergana leverde een belangrijke inhoudelijke en redactionele bijdrage aan eerdere versies van mijn scriptie.
- En ten slotte mijn gewaardeerde en loyale HR team voor hun geduld, humor, loyaliteit en steun.
ABSTRACT
The present study aimed to examine the influence of commitment (team and organizational commitment) on the relationship between perceived support (supervisor and team support) and turnover intentions. Specifically it was hypothesized that (a) perceived supervisor support is positively related to organizational commitment, (b) perceived team support is positively related to team commitment, (c) perceived supervisor support is negatively related to turnover intentions, and (d) perceived team support is negatively related to turnover intentions. Data was collected from 5754 employees of the Royal Dutch Marechaussee. Results supported the main hypotheses. These results imply that that perceived team support and perceived supervisor support, both have a negative relationship with turnover intention. The analysis of data set also depicted that perceived team support and perceived supervisor support, both have a positive, strong and significant relationship with organizational and team commitment. Moreover, research findings highlighted that the turnover intention and perceived supports are positive related to organizational and team commitment. Implications of theses findings are discussed.
Contents
ABSTRACT ... 4
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ... 7
1.2 Aims and Objectives ... 11
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ... 12
2.1 The Perceived Support Theory ... 12
2.2 Perceived Supervisor Support ... 14
2.3 Perceived Team Support ... 15
2.4 Organizational Commitment ... 17
Support and organizational commitment ... 20
2.5 Team Commitment ... 22
2.6 Turnover Intentions ... 24
Organizational commitment and turnover intentions ... 25
Team commitment and turnover intentions ... 27
Support and turnover intentions ... 27
2.7 Research Model ... 29
CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 30
3.1 Sample ... 31
3.2 Measurement of Variables ... 32
Perceived team support from colleagues ... 32
Perceived Supervisor Support ... 33
Team Commitment ... 33
Organizational Commitment ... 34
3.3 Data Collection ... 35 3.4 Statistical Procedure ... 35 3.5 Control Variable ... 36 CHAPTER 4. RESULTS ... 37 4.1 Frequency Distribution ... 37 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ... 47 5.1 Theoretical Implications ... 47
Perceived organizational support and turnover intentions ... 49
Three-component model of organizational commitment and turnover intention ... 50
5.2 Practical Implications ... 52
5.3 Future Research ... 55
REFERENCES ... 57
Appendix 1 ... 68
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
This chapter introduces the purpose and background of this study. The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the reader to the reasons why this study is being carried out. The background will describe the context in which this study is taking place and the foundation for the research question.
“To win in the marketplace you must first win in the workplace.” (Former Campbell’s Soup CEO, Doug Conant)
For an organization to achieve its goals and objectives, it requires that it’s different employee units (teams) function effectively and optimally. The literature takes us to a focused relationship between the employee and the employee’s supervisor. Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski and Rhoades (2002) explained as a result of their research, “Because supervisors act as agents of the organization, who have responsibility for directing and
evaluating subordinates’ performance, employees would view their supervisor’s favorable or unfavorable orientation toward them as indicative of the organization’s support” (p. 565). Eisenberger et al further expounded, “Employees appear to infer perceived organizational support from perceived supervisor support based on their perception of their supervisors’ status in the organization, leading to reduced turnover” (p, 570).
This research is followed by Shore & Coyle-Shapiro (2003), who explained from their findings, “Greater understanding of the relationship between an employee and his/her employing organization has been the goal of organizational behavior scholars for decades” (p. 443).
The information gleaned here helps the researcher to understand the connection between organizations and employees. The literature shows that a bond between an employee and the organization begins to form a feeling of obligation in a give and take interchange
bi-directionally. This feeling develops a social expectation that people will respond to each other in kind, exchanging benefit for benefit; this is called the reciprocity norm of the social exchange theory. For there to be some social exchange, all parties involved must present something that is precious and rational (Campbell, 2000). A party’s contribution to the exchange may be in physical form, emotional support, motivation, or even assistance with the task. Due to this sharing, the employees satisfy each other’s socioeconomic needs amongst themselves. Sowa et al. (1986) points out that this satisfaction of needs a team member gets from the team gives the perception of team support. This perception elicits team commitment. Consequently, the
employee indirectly remains committed to the organization since the team is a part of the larger organization.
Rhoades, Eisenberger and Armeli, (2001) explained, “On the basis of the reciprocity norm, perceived organizational support would create a felt obligation to care about the organization’s welfare and help the organization reach its objectives” (p. 825).
In other words, an employee will feels obliged to return the support they feel they are getting from the organization by caring about the organization and thus committing to stay and help the organization reach its goals.
Building upon the concept of the reciprocity norm, Watson and Papamarcos (2002) determined from their research, “we discovered that trust in management, reliability of communication, and employee focus; each positively and significantly influenced levels of organizational (employee) commitment” (p. 550). When exploring the various approaches to the research along with the findings, the literature shows that the term organizational commitment is synonymous with employee commitment. In either case the employee is committing to stay voluntarily with the organization.
According to Allen and Meyer (1990), workers who committed to their jobs identify themselves with the organization and they have a tendency to support their team members. There is a clear connection between issues with team and supervisor support and commitment. Both team support and supervisor support can inspire commitment (Rosseau & Aube, 2010). These researchers explain that when team workers and supervisors energetically show support to subordinates and fellow employees, workers became more contented with their job duties and over time, they can develop an emotional affiliation to their organization. Evidently, there exists great interconnectedness between the two levels of support and organization commitment. Perceived support is the means to achieving organizational commitment, however, the level effectiveness of team and supervisor support is definite different.
To explore the importance of employee support in a company’s strategic operations plan, the influence of commitment on the relationship between perceived support and turnover
intentions shall be discussed with a special focus on previous findings. In doing so, focus shall be retained on two types of perceived support an employee perceives from an organization
specifically, supervisor support and team support. In this regard, focus shall be retained on establishing the extent to which supervisor and team support influence employee’s turnover
intentions. In essence, (organizational and team) commitment is a multifaceted attribute with employee self-esteem being one of the major indicators. Due to this and in light of the methods employed in previous studies in the analysis, the following literature gaps are pointed to:
There is lack of clear definition of the overall support an employee perceives from an organization and commitment that makes it hard to draw conclusions on the relationship between turnover intentions and the different types of perceived support in an organizational set-up (supervisor and team support). There does not exist a theory or a study, which covers the measuring of support that employees receive from the teammates or their supervisors. This has led to the popularization of organizational support without defining the actual source of this support, either team or supervisors.
Turnover intentions and job satisfaction are derivatives of a number of work related factors. One of these factors is the level of perceived organizational support. Similarly,
organizational culture and/or climate nurtures organization-based self-esteem and hence point to the perceived level of organizational support. As such, there is need to factor the impact of these aspects in the analysis of the relationship between supervisor and team support and employee turnover intentions.
As discussed hereinbefore, based on the social exchange theory and the norm of reciprocity, employees who perceive high levels of team and supervisor and team support will show their commitment to an organization in various ways. In essence, this commitment
comprises the valuable item of exchange and the reciprocation described by the social exchange theory and norm of reciprocity respectively.
This study aims to fill the gaps by examining the influence of commitment (team and organizational commitment) on the relationship between perceived support (supervisor and team support) and turnover intentions.
This study is structured as follows. The first chapter describes the literature review on commitment (team and organizational commitment), support (supervisor and team support) and the relationship to turnover intentions. Subsequently, chapter three outlines the data collection procedure and research method. The results of this data are discussed in chapter four. Finally, the thesis will conclude with the conclusions and implications of this research, together with the limitations and suggestions for further research.
1.2 Aims and Objectives
This study aims to establish the focus of commitment that is stronger at various levels of company’s hierarchy. To do so, the following objectives have been set:
To explore the relationship between perceived supervisor support and organizational
commitment
To explore the relationship between perceived team support and team commitment To explore the relationship between perceived supervisor support and turnover intentions To explore the relationship between perceived team support and turnover intentions
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter provides a discussion of the key concepts that are relevant to this study. It covers the topics of perceived support theory, perceived supervisor support, perceived team support, organizational commitment, team commitment, turnover intentions, ranks and its importance and the relationship between them. The interactions between these concepts form the basis for the research question driving this study.
2.1 The Perceived Support Theory
Lin et al. (1986) defined support as instrumental provisions or expressions, real or
perceived, provided by the community, society, and companions. The distinction between real or perceived support considers either only objective aspects of support (support actually received) or the opinion of the same dimension (support thought to be received). Both real and perceived supports are related to well-being.
Eisenberger and Huntington (1986) posited that employees acquire a generalized view regarding the degree to which their employers care for their general well-being and value their individual contributions; employees base their assessment of the benefits accruing from
increasing their work effort on this perception, as well as on the ability of the employer to meet the social-economic needs mentioned above. This generalized perception forms the perceived support employees receive from the organization.
Perceived support theory holds that creation of perceived support is enhanced by the tendency of employees to perceive the organization as an individual (Eisenberger & Huntington, 1986). This implies that employees view their association to the organization as one between a powerful individual and themselves. With such an interpersonal relationship, complimentary treatment will receive a higher regard from employees if it appears to be discretionary instead of one elicited by external forces, such as regulations by the government and union contracts. Alternatively, unfavorable employee treatment perceived as being far from an organization’s control impacts perceived support less negatively.
The majority of the studies conducted on perceived support have been based on the social exchange theory (Locke & Latham, 2002). Blau (1964) developed the social exchange theory to provide a basis for understanding the role that organization and managers play in creating feelings of employee obligation (commitment). The social exchange theory assumes that when an individual or entity favors the other, the person or organization that receives the favor has an obligation to respond (Locke & Latham, 2002). For two parties to participate in social
exchanges, Locke and Latham (2002) suggested that it is mandatory that they understand who is supporting them. In this case, they should be able to distinguish supervisory support from team support and further distinguish their commitment towards a social body from the support they receive from the social body. This is supported by the norm of reciprocity. The norm of reciprocity describes that individuals tend to feel obliged to aid those who have aided them (Gouldner, 1960), and in an administrative setting (Scholl, 1981), to reimburse aids and the prospects offered by the company. When employees or members of an organization realize that the teams (coworkers) or the (management) supervisors have an interest in their welfares, they will return the favor by working hard to achieve the goals of the team and management,
respectively (Locke &Latham, 2002). Hence, researchers argue that individuals who perceive greater support feel more inclined commit themselves to the organization (Shore & Wayne, 1993).
Osca et al. (2005) developed a three-dimensional gauge to measure perceived support, including supervisor and associate support, training and salutation, and rewards. It is extremely important to understand these measures of perceived support and their importance in different ranks in an organization so it will aid in understanding how perceived support can be used as a motivational tool to help achieve optimal employee productivity. To understand the dynamics of these measures, the important aspects of supervisor and team support are provided below.
2.2 Perceived Supervisor Support
The literature review takes us to the relationship between the employee and the employee’s supervisor. Eisenberger et al. (2002) explained as a result of their research, “Because supervisors act as agents of the organization, who have responsibility for directing and evaluating subordinates’ performance, employees would view their supervisor’s favorable or unfavorable orientation toward them as indicative of the organizations support” (p.565). For the purpose of this study perceived supervisor support, refers to employee beliefs that their
supervisor cares about them and values their contributions. Supervisors act as representatives of the organization, and are frequently charged with evaluating employees and communicating the organization’s goals and values to the employee. As such, perceived supervisor support is very important, as the employees have been found to perceive supervisor support as support from the organization itself. (Eisenberger, Fasolo and Davis LaMastro, 1990).
Based on the earlier explained norm of reciprocity, an agent who receives support from the other reciprocates the favor in another form. As such, employees reciprocate superior support by being loyal and committed to the organization and its goals.
Supervisors can enhance perceived support through employee emotional sustenance, instrumental support, role modeling behavior, and imaginative work-life administration
(Levinson, 1965). Assessing each employee individually is also important when assigning tasks in order to reduce stress. Several studies concluded that work overload was a strong contributing factor to job dissatisfaction and intent to leave (Firth et al., 2004). Social or emotional support in the form of feedback on the employee's work and performance, and mutual assistance or
discharge, can reduce stress reactions and instead contribute to greater personal development at work.
Positive work experiences have been found to have positive impacts on job satisfaction. A positive work environment is characterized by teamwork, participation, and trust. A healthy work environment supports a culture of growth and learning, where employees can discover the joy of working together.
2.3 Perceived Team Support
Perceived team support is the extent to which employees perceive that a team values their contribution and cares about their well being (Bishop, Scott, & Burroughs, 2000). It is similar to perceived organizational support (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986) except
that the team, versus the organization, serves as the point of perceived support, which is relevant in a team-based context (Bishop, Scott, Goldsby, & Cropanzano, 2005). Prior research has distinguished perceived team support from perceived organizational support (Bishop et al. 2000; Bishop et al., 2005; Self, Holt, & Schaninger, 2005).
According to Emerson (2008), team support is the social or occupational assistance an individual employee receives from his or her team members. In this case, it is important to note that for some perception of team support to exist, the individual employee must first view
himself or herself as a member of a team. When such an employee receives a favor that he or she considers beneficial, then this is viewed as team support.
Team support is often moral, social, and emotional. It cultivates a feeling of belonging because the individual employee feels an accepted member of the team. In the previous subchapter, it was established that a supervisor contributes significantly to the way employees view their organization. In most cases, the immediate supervisor is in charge of a number of employees handling a similar task and is responsible for the creation of team spirit. However, as Sowa et al. (1986) indicated, team spirit can grow among employees who interact with each other and, in the process, motivate each other toward the achievement of the team’s objectives. As such, it is possible to visualize a hierarchy of teams in a company having large numbers of different levels of employees.
Essentially, for an organization to achieve its goals and objectives, it requires that its different employee units (teams) function effectively and optimally. Emerson (2008) posited that employees will tend to view teams as closer sources of support than the company. This implies that support at the level of an organizations’ leadership will appear less attractive to an employee who could seek the same from a fellow employee at his or her job level. According to Bishop et
al. (2005), team support is more proximal since interactions and communications in teams are face-to-face, and hence, immediate feedback is obtained. Bishop et al. (2005) suggested that teams have a more direct and stronger influence than the entire organization on the social satisfaction that an employee receives from his or her job.
As previously mentioned, the close day-to-day communications and interactions at the team level make social support proximal (Sowa et al., 1986). The exchange of information and feedback is vital for the continuous existence of a team and hence its continuous effectiveness. This increased perception of team support can also be explained by the social exchange theory. As explained earlier, for any social exchange to exist, all parties involved must present a quality that is precious and rational (Campbell, 2000). A party’s contribution to the exchange may be in physical form, emotional support, motivation, or even assistance with the task. Due to this sharing, the employees satisfy each other’s socioeconomic needs amongst themselves. Sowa et al. (1986) indicated that this need satisfaction a team member receives from the team provides the perception of team support. This perception elicits team commitment. Consequently, the employee indirectly remains committed to the organization since the team is a part of the larger organization.
2.4 Organizational Commitment
For the purpose of this study, employee commitment is known as the employee’s sense of belonging to and identification with the organization, which increases involvement in the
organization’s activities, provides a willingness for the employee to pursue the organization’s goals, and elicits a desire to remain with the organization (Rhoades, Eisenberger and Armeli,
2001). Eisenberger and Hutington (1986) defined organizational commitment as “the stability and intensity of employee dedication to an organization” (p.503). In essence, commitment is the sense or feeling of being intellectually or emotionally bound to something, someone, or some course of action.
Accordingly, organizational commitment is a sense or feeling of being bound to an organization and its objectives. Organizational commitment can thus be generalized as loyalty to an organization.
According to Meyer and Allen (1984), there is affective, continuative, and normative organizational commitment. Affective commitment occurs when the employee identifies and becomes involved in an organization while demonstrating some affection toward the
organization. Alternatively, continuance commitment represents the perceived cost that is linked with leaving an organization. Lastly, according to Allen and Meyer (1990), normative
commitment is the urge to remain with the organization that is not necessarily linked to the material costs of leaving.
Although the three factors in the three-component model are indirectly related to labor turnover, there is a difference in their relations to measures of other work-relevant behaviors, a fact that Rousseau, Aube, and Savoie (2006) supported. Such work relevant behaviors include organizational citizenship behavior, attendance, and in role performance. In terms of their ratio of relation, affective commitment is the strongest in the positive trend followed by normative commitment. However, continuance commitment is expect to be unrelated or negatively related to the desirable work behaviors, for instance laxity in work. Based on the discussion above, this thesis shall focus on exploring the extent to which perceived supervisor and team support influences affective commitment to an organization. As explained above, affective commitment
is the strongest form of organizational commitment and is elicited by emotional attachment, such as between an employee and the people in his or her immediate working environment.
Some theorists have based organizational commitment on the economic price tag of moving from one employer to the other. Levinson (1965) suggested that increased employee dedication, and hence commitment to an organization, may be in anticipation of some economic benefits from the current employer, such as pay hikes and promotions. On the other hand, other theorists have explained employee commitment based on emotional attachment to the
organization. Bishop et al. (2005) provided a definition of employee commitment that better explains the theory relating emotional attachment to employee commitment. He defined
employee commitment as the “employee’s identification with and involvement with a particular organization” (p. 503). The sense of identifying with the organization implies a sense of oneness.
Eisenberger and Hutington (1986) define organizational commitment as “…the stability and intensity of employee dedication to an organization…” (p…). In essence, commitment is the sense or feeling of being intellectually or emotionally bound to something, someone, or some course of action. Accordingly, organizational commitment is a sense or feeling of being bound to an organization and its objectives. Organization commitment can thus be generalized to refer to loyalty to an organization. According to Eisenberger and Hutington (1986), employees present their efforts and loyalty to an organization in anticipation of a material or social reward. In essence, employees infer the level of their organization’s commitment towards them through their inference of the level of concern (support) that their organization demonstrates towards them.
Support and organizational commitment
According to Eisenberger and Hutington (1986), employees present their efforts and loyalty to an organization in anticipation of a material or social reward. In essence, employees infer the level of their organization’s commitment towards them through their inference of the level of support that their organization demonstrates towards them. Effectively, employees organizational commitment is determined by the level of support, both team and supervisor support, they receive from the organization. An employee interacts with colleagues and supervisors regularly in their immediate working environment. Due to this, the supervisor and coworkers are an important source of satisfaction to social needs. Therefore, it can be deduced that team and supervisor support influence employee’s commitment to an organization
depending on the level of fulfillment of some employee’s social needs and hence the level of perceived supervisor and team support.
As mentioned hereinbefore, employees tend to personify an organization when gauging its support. According to Eisenberger and Hutington (1986), “…the personification of an organization by an employee represents his/her distillation of opinions about all members who influence the employee’s symbolic and material benefits…”(p. 504) Jangert (2012) posits that the perceived willingness of the organization to recompense extra effort and its ability to meet approval and praise needs creates a sense of being valued within the employee (Shore & Wayne, 1993). This elicits commitment and hence suppresses the urge to leave the organization.
Essentially, an employee interacts with colleagues and supervisors regularly in their immediate working environment. Due to this, the supervisor and coworkers are an important source of satisfaction to social needs. Therefore, it can be deduced that team and supervisor support
influence employee’s commitment to an organization depending on the level of fulfillment of some employee’s social needs and hence the level of perceived supervisor and team support.
Jangert (2012) presents the argument that any employee working in an organization where they feel that they are not fully supported will be ready to leave the organization on promise of a more supportive working environment. Jangert (2012) further argues that organizational commitment is demonstrated by employee’s loyalty to the organization, their readiness to work hard for the organization and the overall desire to uphold membership. Several studies have in the past found sufficient evidence to conclude that organizational commitment is indirectly related to employee behaviors such as turnover, absenteeism, job search activities, and poor performance.
The norm of reciprocity and the social exchange theory posit that when a person or entity favors an individual the person receiving the favor feels the need to respond as well, even though the time of reciprocation and the form of response are not specified (Gouldner, 1960). As such, the employees tend to improve performance through increased effort and dedication to
designated tasks to continue enjoying the support. Bishop et al (2005) posits that lack of perceived team support suppresses commitment.
According to Allen and Meyer (1990), workers who are committed to their jobs identify themselves with the organization and they have a tendency to support their team members. There is a clear connection between team/supervisor support and organizational commitment. Both team support and supervisor support can inspire affective commitment (Rousseau & Aubé, 2010). These researchers explain that when team workers and supervisors energetically show support to subordinates and fellow employees, workers become more contented with their job duties and over time, they can develop an emotional affiliation to their organizations. Evidently,
there exists great interconnectedness between the two levels of support and organization
commitment. Perceived support is the means to achieving organizational commitment, however, the level effectiveness of team and supervisor support is definite different. Therefore, it is important to explore the impact of the two types of support and their effectiveness in eliciting commitment to the organization. Following this argument, the following hypothesis shall guide the analysis of this point of view:
• H1: Perceived supervisor support is positively related to organizational
commitment.
2.5 Team Commitment
According to Allen and Meyer (1996), team commitment is known as multiple efforts aimed at strengthening the bond between teammates; for example, employees may gain loyalty and strengthen connections to individuals in groups functioning as a team if there is immediate transference of feedback between these individuals.
Bishop et al. (2005) takes note that in order to deliver successfully, members of a team should also be given an opportunity to select teammates. Allen & Meyer (1996) suggest that the triumph of teams in realizing their objectives is not only related to the talents of members and the effectiveness of ability, but is also related to the level of relations of the members given that team relations are based on language, cognition and the interrelation of members.
The close day-to-day communications and interactions at the team level make social support proximal (Sowa et al., 1986). The exchange of information and feedback is vital for the continuous existence of a team and hence its continuous effectiveness. This increased perception
of team support can be explained by the social exchange theory. For any social exchange to exist, all parties involved must present a quality that is precious and rational (Campbell, 2000). A party’s contribution to the exchange may be in physical form, emotional support, motivation, or even assistance with the task. Due to this sharing, the employees satisfy each other’s
socioeconomic needs amongst themselves. Sowa et al. (1986) indicated that the satisfaction of needs a team member gains from the team provides the perception of team support. This
perception elicits team commitment. Consequently, the employee indirectly remains committed to the organization since the team is a part of the larger organization. This will specifically work in an environment where the team’s leaders are members of another higher-level company team in the chain of command (Carlson & Perrewe, 1999).
Allen and Meyer (1996) posited that employees became attached to their coworkers after working together for some time. According to the perceived support theory previously discussed, an employee will perceive support from team members if they receive some material or social benefits from coworkers. Therefore, high levels of perceived team support will lead to high commitment to the team from team members due to the desire to reciprocate the benefits reaped from the team. This leads to an increased desire to strengthen the bond between team members in anticipation of increased benefits. Therefore, hypothesis 2 can be created:
2.6 Turnover Intentions
Turnover can be defined as the act of leaving a current job by moving to another job or relocating to another destination (Fields, Dingman, Roman, & Blum, 2005). Turnover is caused by controllable factors (Fields et al., 2005). Controllable turnover does not include involuntary reasons for leaving, such as death or retirement. Employee turnover is one of the most studied behaviors in management research (Maertz & Campion, 2004).
Calculative forces presume that an individual’s behavior will be based upon self-interest and the individual will calculate his or her opportunities to achieve future goals in an
organization. If employees believe they can achieve set goals and values by remaining with their present organization, then the individuals will become more motivated to remain with their current employer. If individuals believe they will not meet their goals and values where presently employed, the theory of calculative forces states that they will be motivated to leave their current organizations (Maertz & Campion, 2004). In addition, normative forces can affect an employee’s perceptions of his or her own family and/or friends’ expectations regarding the employee
remaining at his or her job. Normative forces involve a condition in which people desire a particular goal based on their personal norms or standards.
Jangert (2012) posited that in an organizational setup, turnover intentions are the opinions and aims of an employee regarding continued work for the particular organization (Jangert, 2012). At times, employees express the urge to leave an organization to seek better opportunities elsewhere and/or due to emotional needs. In addition, employees may express the need to leave a particular employer based on the general working conditions. It is important to note that, under
the theories of human needs, human beings always seek to better their lives through
advancement in what renowned psychologist, Abraham Maslow, described as the hierarchy of needs. According to this theory, a human being will progress from low-level needs to high-level needs as he or she advances in life (Reid-Cunningham, 2008). This implies that an employee will seek to move from one organization to another if there is a promise of increased need satisfaction at another organization.
Organizational commitment and turnover intentions
According to Kiyak et al. (1997), worker attitudes, personal background, and job characteristics are directly linked to job commitment and satisfaction, and effect turnover indirectly through their effects on intention to leave. An employee will seek to move from one organization to another if there is a promise of increased need satisfaction at another
organization.
Both one’s peers and supervisors influence this satisfaction of needs by providing emotional support. Essentially, the impact of this would be to diminish turnover intentions. For instance, an employee working in a team of employees may be relieved from his or her job responsibilities by another in order to join to personal requirements. For instance, if a worker needs to consent work initially to take care of an ill child, a team member can display their support through staying late at work to augment the job of their absent co-worker. The support established and reduction in burden may increase employee satisfaction and organizational commitment. Not only can team members lessen some of these densities, but supervisors can as well. Supervisors have the capability to make the workers feel contented using work-life
creativities (Straub, 2012). Straub (2012) presents that perceptions of supervisor support have a significant impact on worker’s outcomes as compared to that associated with co-workers support (Allen & Griffeth, 2001; Kelly et al., 2008). Essentially, the supervisor represents the head of the local employee team since he/she interacts closely and often with these employees.
Based on the earlier described social exchange theory, perceived support is expected to generate feelings of responsibility to achieve organizational goal. The theory suggests that a person who perceives support based on his level of commitment to the organization, and his desire to take up challenging responsibility, the person tends to be more committed to the organization. Consequently, support inspires commitment and hence suppresses turnover intentions (Eisenberger et al., 1990). The norm of reciprocity describes that individuals tend to feel obliged to aid those who have aided them (Gouldner, 1960), and in an administrative setting (Scholl, 1981), to reimburse aids and the prospects offered by the company. Hence, researchers argue that individuals who perceive greater support feel more inclined commit themselves to the organization (Shore & Wayne, 1993). The theory posits that an individual who receives some valuable item of exchange feels the need to reciprocate. Effectively, this reduces the desire for employees to leave the organization rather improving loyalty to the organization.
Geurts et al. (1999) provided a wider foundation on the topic of personal factors leading to employee retention. They researched turnover on the basis of theories of social exchange, social comparison, and equity. They concluded that perceived inequity in the employee
relationship caused feelings of resentment, which in turn resulted in less commitment, increased turnover intentions, and higher rates of absenteeism. Furthermore, these factors were interrelated; less commitment led to further turnover intentions and absenteeism.
Team commitment and turnover intentions
Strong work relationships are vital in reducing employee turnover. Most individuals want and need colleagues with whom to work, think, and create. Several studies showed that colleague reinforcement and recognition was fundamental in retaining employees talent. The study found that some people saw their workplace as the primary source of social relationships (Thomas, 2000). Similarly, Cohen and Bailey (1997) found that teamwork could create enticements to stay with the present employer, creating commitment unrelated to attachments to the work itself or the organization. Altogether, these reviewed studies showed the influence of attitudes on turnover, as well as what causes these attitudes.
From the definition of team commitment by Allen and Meyer (1996), it is clear that high levels of team commitment will, in turn, reduce employee turnover intentions because the team exists as part of the organization. As such, leaving the organization would require leaving the team. Allen & Meyer (1996) posit that employees get attached to their co-workers after working together for some time. According to he perceived support theory discussed hereinbefore; an employee will perceive support from team members if they receive some material or social benefits from coworkers. Therefore, it can be deducted that high levels of perceived team support will lead to high commitment to the team from team members due to the desire to reciprocate the benefits repeated from the team.
Support and turnover intentions
Currently, the issue of labor turnover has become increasingly complex in the wake of standardized wages and minimum wage regulations that may, at times, make the financial costs
of transferring from one organization to the other very small. In this regard, both peers and supervisors influence this satisfaction by providing emotional support. Essentially, the impact of this would be to diminish turnover intentions. For instance, an employee working on a team of employees may be relieved from his or her job responsibilities by another in order to manage personal requirements. If a worker needs to leave work early to take care of an ill child, a team member could display his or her support through staying late at work to augment the absent co-worker’s job. The support established and reduction in burden may increase employee
satisfaction and organizational commitment.
According to Witt and Nye (1992) support is an important factor that affects employees’ job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Supervisors have the capability to make the workers feel contented using work-life creativities (Straub, 2012). Straud (2012) suggested that perceptions of supervisor support have a more significant impact on worker’s outcomes as compared to those associated with co-workers’ support (Allen, 2001; Kelly et al., 2008). Essentially, the supervisor represents the head of the local employee team since he or she interacts closely and often with these employees.
Based on social exchange theory, perceived support is expected to generate feelings of responsibility to achieve organizational goals. Social exchange theory suggests that a person who perceives support based on his or her level of commitment to the organization and his or her desire to accept challenging responsibilities tends to be more committed to the organization. Consequently, support inspires commitment and hence suppresses turnover intentions
(Wiesenberger et al., 1990). Therefore, researchers argue that individuals who perceive greater support feel more inclined to commit themselves to the organization (Shore et al., 1993).
Eisenberger et al. (1990) posited that perceptions of support would encourage the adoption of organizational membership as an important part of an employee’s self-identity. As previously discussed, based on the social exchange theory and the norm of reciprocity,
employees who perceive high levels of supervisor and team support will show their commitment to an organization in various ways. More important to the subject of turnover is the level of perceived employee and team support. As such, an employee will feel inclined to leave a certain organization on a promise of increased satisfaction of needs in another organization.
Based on this argument, the following hypotheses were made:
• H3: Perceived supervisor support is negatively related to turnover intention. • H4: Perceived team support is negatively related to turnover intention.
2.7 Research Model
This model shows that the antecedents of organizational and team support are perceived team and supervisor support. Whereas, the consequence in weak support cases may be the high level of turnover intentions of employees. The hypothesis explained below also explains the model very well.
Perceived supervisor support Perceived team support Organizational commitment Team commitment Turnover intentions
Research Hypothesis Perceived team support Organizational commitment Team commitment Turnover intentions Perceived supervisor support Support Commitment H2 H3 H4 H1
CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This following section presents the demographic information of the sample that was used in the study. The chapter further expands on the process that was used to develop the questionnaire, the constructs to be measured and the variables in the study. Empirical information about the constructs and variables will be discussed to ascertain the reliability, viability and suitability of the selected measures. The chapter will conclude by giving a synopsis of how the findings will be analyzed.
3.1 Sample
The respondents of this study were drawn from the Royal Dutch Marechaussee. After getting the consents to conduct the study using the Marechaussee members from the relevant authorities, a letter requesting for their cooperation in the study was sent to 5754 of the 6800 members. The letter soughs to acquire informed consent in accordance with the research ethics regulations (WHO, 2013). The latter also bore log in for the respective online accounts where the respondents could find the questionnaire.
Of the 5754 members requested, 3775 responded representing a response rate of 65.6%. Of these, only 15.42% were women while 84.58% were men. The members had diverse
educational background, however, all of them had more than the basic primary school education. Majority (35.15%) had attained VMBO/MAVO as the highest education level. 29.90% had attained VMBO/MBO, 16.45% HVO, 2.1% VWO, 9.98% HBO, 4.1% WO and 2.02% had other academic qualifications. Close to half of the respondents were less than 34 years of age with 12.82% being 23 years and below, 36.59% between the age of 24 and 34 years. 19.36% were
aged between 35 and 44 years, 27.53% between 45 and 54, and only 0.03% were above 55 years with none being above 65 years of age. Majority of the respondents’ employment contracts were FPS military phases, with most of them (60.64%) being in phase 3, while 15.07% and 9.38% were in phases 2 and 1 respectively. 3.42% of the respondents’ employment terms were BBT while 10.81% and 0.69% were Civilian with permanent and temporary contracts respectively.
The assurance of anonymity encouraged the respondents to give information about their salary scale and all the 434 (11.5%) Civilians with permanent and temporary contracts revealed their salary scale. This indicates that, 100% of civilians indicated their salary scale, which is a very statistically significant level of response (Nulty, 2008). The lowest paid was in salary scale 3 and the highest 19. However, the sample had a mean of 8.32 and standard deviation of 3.61, indicating that majority were in the average salary scale. The soldiers were asked to indicate their rank and not their salary as the two are related and one can tell the salary level from the rank. Most of the Marechaussee members had served in the Dutch defense forces for less than 10 years. On average, the Marechaussee members served in the Dutch defense forces for 6.53 with a standard deviation of 1.75. Some had served for less than a year while others had been in the services for more than 15 years. In addition, the members had average years of services in the KMar of 6.19 and a standard deviation of 1.92. The members had also been in this service for between zero to more than 15 years.
3.2 Measurement of Variables
Perceived team support from colleagues
To measure the perceived team support from colleagues the researcher of the study used the scale of Robinson & Morrison, (2000). To assess the effect of team support, six items were
used. The respondents were supposed to rate each item on one point along a 5-point Likert scale ranging from the strongly disagree as the least value and strongly agree as the highest value. All the six items were positively coded with the least number representing smallest perceived team support from colleagues. This means that on the scale, number one which represent strongly disagree also represents the lowest perceived team support from work mates while number five which represents strongly agree also represents the highest perceived support from co-workers. For instance, if a respondents strongly feels that team support affects job satisfaction, this is response is assigned score 5.
Perceived Supervisor Support
To measure the perceived supervisor support a 13 item, Cornbach’s alpha (α =.92)
(Robinson & Morrison, 2000). The items included statements like, ‘my supervisor shows interest in me as a person.’ Every respondent was required to rate each of the items on a 5 point record-scale. The scale ranged from 1-never to 5-always. The full scale comprised of points, including: never, rarely, sometimes, usually, and always.
Team Commitment
This variable was supposed to measure the extent to which samples could be willing and able to bind themselves their current groups at their place of work, (Aube & Rousseau, 2005). The measure had three items all describing team commitment. These items were positively coded with the lowest commitment being represented by the lowest number and the highest
commitment by the highest number. The three variables were measured using a 5-point Likert scale.
Organizational Commitment
The organizational commitment measures an individual psychological attachment to the organization. Measuring this variable is meant to investigate and impact on how workers feel about their job so that they can become more concerned about their organization, (Machon, 2007). Four constructs were used to asses organizational commitment, for example, how happy the respondents were working for KMar. Each of the four items indicated the degree of
organizational commitment. They were measured by using a 5 point Likert-scale. The points ranged from 1-strongly disagree (representing the lowest) to 5-strongly agree (representing the highest).
Turnover Intention
Turnover is the procedure through which staff leave a business or association and that business or association replaces them. Turnover intention is an estimation of whether a business' or association's representatives plan to leave their positions or whether that association
arrangements to expel workers from positions. Turnover intention, in the same way as turnover itself, might be either willful or automatic. Intentional turnover happens when the representative settles on the choice to leave on his own. Typically, deliberate turnover intention happens when the worker sees an alternate open door as superior to his current position. This incorporates more pay, more distinguishment or a more helpful area. It can likewise happen when the worker need
to leave for wellbeing or family reasons. On the off chance that a representative arrangements to willfully resign from a position, that is intentional turnover intention, as well.
3.3 Data Collection
Information to solve the research problem was collected from primary source. Data collection was conducted using online survey where questionnaires sent online were distributed to the target samples. The process of filling questionnaires was opened on 17th January 2011 and lasted until 7th February 2011.
3.4 Statistical Procedure
Data collected in the questionnaires were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software. After obtaining summary of the data in form of frequency distributions, hypothesis testing was performed. A correlation matrix was obtained that showed relationship between the independent, dependent, and the moderating variables. Regression analysis was used to test each hypotheses and sub-hypotheses. For Hypothesis 1 to Hypothesis 4, the variables were used in their original form. However, for hypothesis 5 and 6 that test
moderating role of ranks, a variable is formed thorough multiplying ranks with the perceived supervisor support and perceived team support.
3.5 Control Variable
The control variable in this study is perceived team support. The construct of perceived team support (PTS) can be defined as the degree to which employees believe that the team values their contribution and cares for the their well being.
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
This chapter shows the empirical work performed in this research to answer the research question. This chapter first shows how factors of key variables are made and then it shows the results using these factors. Finally, mean-tabulations are used to understand the estimated association between the variables.
4.1 Frequency Distribution
Demographic of Survey Respondents from KMar organization
Following table shows frequency distribution of demographic information about the participants. Most of the participants were male while the majority had completed their high schools. Thus, sample of the study was male dominated consisting of educated individuals. Least of the participants were civilian temporary and contracted personals thus, the sample mostly contained non-civilians. Soldiers to participate in the research were mostly below the rank of a major. This distribution of ranks is obvious given low proportion of higher rank soldiers in the armed forces. Of the 5754 members requested, 3775 responded representing a response rate of 65.6%. Of these, only 14.6% were women while 85.4% were men. The members had diverse educational background, however, all of them had more than the basic primary school education. Majority (34.6%) had attained VMBO as the highest education level. 29% had attained MBO, 16.6% HAVO, 2% VWO, 11.2% HBO, 4.1% WO and 2.4% had other academic qualifications. Majority of the respondents’ employment contracts were FPS military phases, with most of them
(61.3%) being in phase 3, while 15.4% and 9.1% were in phases 2 and 1 respectively. 3.42% of the respondents’ employment terms were BBT while 10.3% and 3.9% were Civilian with permanent and temporary contracts respectively.
Table 1: Frequency Distribution of Demographics Demographics Frequency % Gender Male 3162 83.75 Female 613 16.25 Education VMBO 1308 34.6 MBO 1095 29 HAVO 627 16.6 VWO 76 2 HBO 423 11.2 WO 156 4.1 Other 90 2.4 Contract FPS Phase 1 345 9.1 FPS Phase 2 580 15.4 FPS Phase 3 2313 61.3 BBT 390 10.3 Civilian Permanent 26 0.7 Civilian Temporary 121 3.2 Rank Officer Cadet 1145 30.3 Second Lieutenant 1104 29.2 Lieutenant 1070 28.3 Captain 97 2.8 Major 57 1.5 Lieutenant Colonel 57 1.5 Colonel 54 1.4 Brigadier General 48 1.4 Major General 53 1.5 Lieutenant General 47 1.3 General 43 1.2
Perceived Team Support
Three statements representing perception about team support were given in the questionnaire. When asked for fair treatment in the team, a mix of responses was observed (see Table 2 in Appendix A). The difference between number of those who agreed and those who denied was less than 3%. Thus, participants have equally varied opinions regarding their own fair treatment. However, when the question switched to fair treatment of the team with other people, most of the participants (25.6%) strongly agreed. Similar response was observed when participants were asked for mutual agreements in the team (24.7% strongly agreed) and for taken care by the team (23.9% strongly agreed).
Team Commitment
Regarding team commitment, three statements were developed and listed in the questionnaire. In the sample, very few (7.9%) are not proud of being part of their teams while most of the respondents (23.9%) are proud that they belong to their teams. Similarly, majority of the participants (approximately 24%) discusses the fair treatment of their team with friends and family and want the same team to work with in future (see Table 3 in Appendix A).
Organization Commitment
Similar to the responses of Team Commitment, around 23% to 24% participants strongly agreed with each of the three statements representing organization commitment. In the sample, very few (8.8%) are not proud of working for the KMar while most of the respondents (24.2%) are proud of working for the KMar. Similarly, majority of the
participants (approximately 23%) discusses the goodness of KMar with friends and family and are happy on their decision to choose to work for the KMar (see Table 4 in Appendix A).
Perceived Supervisor Support
To measure participants’ perception about support from their supervisor, twelve statements were developed and presented. Inspiration from mangers is the most agreed upon statement (25.7%) while the most disagreed upon (9.1%) are awareness of the manager about issues of employees and discussion of manager with everyone about their behavior (see Table 5 in Appendix A).
Turnover Intention
Participants were asked for their recent and persistent turnover intentions.
Approximately 26% (25.5% and 25.1%) did not answer the questions related to turnover intentions. Approximately, 26% of the participants have no recent intention quitting or switching job while 25% has not been looking for another job in the last 3 months. From those who recently seek for another job, majority 24.6% seek job in the defense forces while 11.5% seek outside defense forces. In addition, 12.2% participants seek job both outside and inside defense forces. From those who consistently seek for another job for the last 3 months, majority 25.7% seek job in defense forces while 12.8% seek outside defense forces. In addition, 11.3% participants seek job both outside and inside defense forces (see Table 6 in Appendix A).
4.2 Reliability Score
Questionnaire sent to the participants contained multiple question measuring five key variables of the study. Number of items in each variable and its reliability score are given in the following table.
Table 2: Reliability Score
Factor Items Cronbach’s Alpha
Perceived Team Support (PTS) 4 0.777
Team Commitment (TC) 3 0.763
Organization Commitment (OC) 3 0.764 Perceived Supervisor Support (PSS) 12 0.791
Turnover Intention (TI) 2 0.651
As it can be seen that Cronbach’s alpha for each factor, except turnover intention, is more than 0.7. Hence, corresponding items are reliable to combine into one factor. These factors were obtained using average scores of variables. Factors were saved and these used for the regression analysis presented next. However, responses for the two statements of turnover intentions were not combined, as they do not have a sufficient reliability score. Thus, two separate regression analysis were performed. Reason for such high reliability score for the items, PTS, TC, OC, and PSS is that the items to measure these factors were identical thus; there is a strong reliability score. However, instead of developing items to measure turnover intention, participants were directly asked about their job search recently and in past.
4.3 Pearson Correlation
Table 3: Pearson Correlation Matrix Correlations
TI1 TI2 PTSA TCA OCA PSSA Rank
TI1 Pearson Correlation 1 .137** -.172** -.192** -.178** -.183** -.130** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 3775 3775 3775 3775 3775 3775 3775 TI2 Pearson Correlation .137** 1 -.154** -.167** -.171** -.159** -.131** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 3775 3775 3775 3775 3775 3775 3775 PTSA Pearson Correlation -.172** -.154** 1 .903** .903** .906** -.002 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .896 N 3775 3775 3775 3775 3775 3775 3775 TCA Pearson Correlation -.192** -.167** .903** 1 .897** .897** .001 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .946 N 3775 3775 3775 3775 3775 3775 3775 OCA Pearson Correlation -.178** -.171** .903** .897** 1 .900** .003 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .835 N 3775 3775 3775 3775 3775 3775 3775
PSSA Pearson Correlation -.183** -.159** .906** .897** .900** 1 -.003 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .874 N 3775 3775 3775 3775 3775 3775 3775 Rank Pearson Correlation -.130** -.131** -.002 .001 .003 -.003 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .896 .946 .835 .874 N 3775 3775 3775 3775 3775 3775 3775
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The above table shows that perceived team support and perceived supervisor support, both have a negative relationship with turnover intention. The relationship is negative
because the corresponding correlation coefficients have negative sign while the relationship is weak because the corresponding correlation coefficients are less than 0.5. As level of
significance for each of these coefficients is less than 0.05, these are significant. Moreover, perceived team support and perceived supervisor support, both have a positive, strong and significant relationship with organizational and team commitment. The relationship is positive because the corresponding correlation coefficients have positive sign while the relationship is strong because the corresponding correlation coefficients are greater than 0.5. As level of significance for each of these coefficients is less than 0.05, these are significant.
4.4 Regression Analysis for Hypothesis Testing
H1: Perceived supervisor support is positively related to organizational commitment.
Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) .098 .054 1.796 .073 PSSA .443 .015 .439 29.437 .000 Gender -.017 .028 -.004 -.614 .539 Education .013 .008 .013 1.658 .097 Salary .019 .003 .057 7.178 .000 Contract -.005 .010 -.003 -.516 .606 Rank -.002 .006 -.002 -.268 .789
R-squared .855 Adjusted R-squared .855
R-squared in the above table is 0.855 that shows that approximately 85.5% of the organizational commitment in employees is determined by the independent variables included in the model. As coefficient of PSSA is positive, 0.443 there is a positive relationship between perceived supervisor support and organizational commitment. Test statistic for this
relationship is 31.609, which is adequate to exceed the critical value at a level of significance less than 0.05. Thus, perceived supervisor support and organizational commitment are
positively and significantly related. H1 is not rejected.
Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) .171 .054 3.173 .002 PTSA .464 .014 .487 32.485 .000 Gender .001 .027 .000 .051 .959 Education -.003 .008 -.003 -.412 .681 Salary .020 .003 .061 7.574 .000 Contract -.003 .010 -.002 -.285 .776 Rank .004 .006 .006 .733 .464
R-squared .853 Adjusted R-squared .853
R-squared in the above table is 0.853 that shows that approximately 85.3% of the team commitment in employees is determined by the independent variables included in the model. As coefficient of PTSA is positive, 0. 416 there is a positive relationship between perceived team support and team commitment. Test statistic for this relationship is 31.609, which is adequate to exceed the critical value at a level of significance less than 0.05. Thus, perceived team support and team commitment are positively and significantly related. H2 is not
rejected.
H3: Perceived supervisor support is negatively related to turnover intention.
Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 3.653 .116 31.528 .000 PSSA -.123 .032 -.146 -3.839 .000 Gender -.076 .059 -.021 -1.297 .195 Education -.025 .016 -.030 -1.502 .133 Salary -.010 .006 -.035 -1.720 .085 Contract -.029 .022 -.021 -1.335 .182
Rank -.069 .013 -.111 -5.483 .000
R Square .053 Adjusted R Square .051
R-squared in the above table is 0.053 that shows that only 5.3% of the turnover intention in employees is determined by the independent variables included in the model. Reason for such low coefficient of determination is that many other factors that explain turnover intentions are not included in the model. As coefficient of PSSA are negative, -0.123 there is a negative relationship between perceived supervisor support and turnover intention. Test statistic for this relationship is -3.839, which is adequate to exceed the critical value at a level of significance less than 0.05. Thus, perceived supervisor support and turnover intention are negatively and significantly related. H3 is not rejected.
H4: Perceived team support is negatively related to turnover intention.
Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 3.356 .115 29.186 .000 PTSA -.041 .030 -.052 -1.362 .173 Gender .012 .058 .003 .199 .842 Education .005 .016 .006 .279 .781 Salary -.008 .006 -.027 -1.318 .187 Contract -.003 .021 -.002 -.132 .895 Rank -.083 .013 -.135 -6.647 .000
R Square .044 Adjusted R Square .042
As coefficient of PTSA are negative, -0.015 there is a negative relationship between perceived team support and turnover intention. Test statistic for this relationship is -0.500, which is not adequate to exceed the critical value at a level of significance less than 0.05. Thus, perceived team support and turnover intention are negatively but not significantly related. H4 is not rejected.
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
In this chapter the most findings are discussed, together with implications of these findings with respect to the literature and management practice. Furthermore, the limitations and suggestions for further research are outlined.
The main theme of this particular research study is to examine the influence of commitment (team and organizational commitment) on the relationship between perceived support (supervisor and team support) and turnover intentions. In order to accomplish this proposed research aim supervisor and team support is selected. This particular research study is conducted to answer the research questions related to perceived team and supervisor support in organizational setups related to organizational commitment. Commitment is the most important to influence turnover.
The research findings of this study indicated that perceived team support and
perceived supervisor support, both have a negative relationship with turnover intention. The analysis of data set also depicted that perceived team support and perceived supervisor
support, both have a positive, strong and significant relationship with organizational and team commitment. Moreover, research findings highlighted that the turnover intention and
perceived supports are positive related to organizational and team commitment.
5.1 Theoretical Implications
Richman et al., (2008) notes the value added that the multiple-commitment approach has to refining our understanding of work-related behavior. The study acknowledges and
