Chapter-4-Presentation-Analysis-and-Interpretation-of-Data.pdf

CHAPTER 4 PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

Profile of the Research Participants

A total of 507 faculty members and administrators ad ministrators were invited invited to participate in this study. Of those invited, invited, 249 responded to this invitation invitation or an equivalent of 49.11% of the proposed population.

Table 3. Profile of Respondents by Sexual Orientation, Employment Status, Academic Rank, Length of Service, Designation and Collegial Affiliation VARIABLE

CATEGORY

Sex

Employment status

Academic Academic rank

N

%

Female Male

146 103

58.6 41.4

Total

249

100.0

Fulltime permanent Fulltime probationary Part-time

130 31 88

52.2 12.4 35.3

Total

247

100.0

23 39 27 90 13 19

10.9 18.5 12.8 42.7 6.2 9.0

211

100.0

38 93 49 37 24 16 3 3

41.3 21.8 16.4 10.7 7.1 1.3 1.3

225

100.0

Lecturer Professional lecturer Instructor Assistant professor professor Associate professor professor Full professor Total

Length of service

Did not indicate 0 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 15 years 16 to 20 years 21 to 25 years 26 to 30 years 31 years and over Total

Did not indicate

22

Designation

Faculty Department/Level chair Dean Others

213 20 4 2

89.1 8.4 1.7 0.8

Total

239

100.0

Did not indicate College

10

CAS CBA EDUC ENG'G NURSING

108 62 5 30 42

43.7 25.1 2.0 12.1 17.0

Total

247

100.0

Did not indicate

2

Although the study initially intended to conduct a total enumeration in view of it being a pioneering study, some constraints were encountered which led to a retrieval retrieval rate of less than 50% in spite spite of repeated follow ups using the required required protocol for surveys. This was, however, still beyond the required sample size of 224 using Slovin’s formula at 5% margin of error.

Profile of Participants According to Sexual Orientation Female

Male

41% 59%

Figure 3. Profile of Participants according to Sexual Orientation

33 | P a g e

The findings of the study indicated that 146 (59%) of the research participants were female. female. More than half (52%) of these faculty members were on fulltime on fulltime permanent status, status, 35% were part-timers were part-timers while while 13% or 31 of them were on fulltime on fulltime probationary status. probationary status.

Profile of Participants according to Employment Status Part-time 35%

Fulltime permanent 52%

Fulltime probationary 13%

Figure 4. Profile of Participants According to Employment Status In terms of academic rank, the t he research participants had varied qualifications ranging from a bachelor’s degree (for Lecturers (for Lecturers and and Instructors Instructors)) to a doctoral degree (for Full (for Full Professors and some Professional some Professional Lecturers). combined fulltime faculty members Lecturers). More than half of the combined fulltime (both probationary and permanent) had an academic rank of Assistant of Assistant Professor Professor (43%) (43%) or (6%) indicating that they have earned their master’s degr ee ee and a similar Associate Professor (6%) observation can be made of the part-timers with 39 of them occupying a rank of Professional of Professional Lecturer , a rank that could only be earned after they have completed either their master’s or doctoral degrees. However, a number of the research participants were still in in the process of earning or completing their master’s degree degree such as in the case o f the Lecturers the Lecturers (11%) (11%) and the Instructors (13%). In addition, addition, a total of 38 research participants were not able to indicate indicate their academic rank, hence their responses were not captured in the summary of analysis. 34 | P a g e

Profile of Participants according to Academic Rank 6%

9%

11%

Lecturer 18%

Professional lecturer Instructor

43%

13%

Assistant professor Associate professor Full professor

Figure 5. Profile of Participants according to Academic Rank

With the exception of 22 research participants who were not able to indicate their responses, the length of service of these research p articipants was estimated to range from a low of 0-5 years to be observed from Figure Figure 6, more than half years to a high of more than 31 years. years. As can be (41% for 0-5 years and 22% for 6-10 years) of the faculty members had o nly been with the institution for a maximum of ten years indicating years indicating a relatively young faculty corps with only a small percentage (3%) of these faculty members serving the institution for more than 25 years. years.

35 | P a g e

Profile of Participants according to Length of Service 1% 1% 11%

0 to 5 years

7% 41%

6 to 10 years 11 to 15 years

17%

16 to 20 years 22%

21 to 25 years 26 to 30 years 31 years and over

Figure 6. Profile of Participants according to Length of Service

Discounting the 10 research participants who did not indicate their designation, it can be seen from Table 4 that t hat approximately 10% of the research participants held pos itions such as Department/Level Chairs (8.4%), Chairs (8.4%), Deans Deans (1.7%) (1.7%) and other designations (0.8%). Faculty members from the five colleges of the institution institution participated in the study with 43.7% of them coming from the College of Arts and Sciences which Sciences which served the general education needs of the other colleges, followed by the College of Business and Accountancy (25.1%) which was the biggest college in terms of student population, the College of Nursing composing composing 17.0% of the research participants, the College of Engineering comprising comprising 12.1% of the respondents and the t he College of Education (2.0%) Education (2.0%) which had the fewest number of students and faculty members.

36 | P a g e

Table 4. Profile of Participants Participants according to Designation and Collegial Affiliation

DESIGNATION

COUNT

PERCENT

213 20 4 2 239 10

89.1 8.4 1.7 0.8 100

COUNT

PERCENT

108 62 5 30 42 247 2

43.7 25.1 2 12.1 17 100

Faculty Department/Level chair Dean Others Total Did not indicate

COLLEGIAL COLLEGIAL AFFILIATION AFFILIATION CAS CBA EDUC ENG'G NURSING Total Did not indicate

Primary Predictors Influencing the Commitment of Faculty and Administrators

In classifying and interpreting the results of the study, the following scale of interpretation was used inasmuch as the responses were considered as integers instead of continuous numbers:

Table 5. Scale of Interpretation of the Mean Rating

SCALE OF INTERPRETATION OF THE MEAN RATING 1.00 to 1.49 1.50 to 2.49

STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE

2.50 to 3.49 3.50 to 4.49 4.50 to 5.49 5.50 to 6.49

WEAKLY DISAGREE NEUTRAL WEAKLY AGREE AGREE

6.50 to 7.00

STRONGLY AGREE

37 | P a g e

There are thirteen (13) proposed predictors of organizational organizational commitment, namely: 1) economic factors, factors, 2) job 2) job satisfaction, satisfaction, 3) participation 3) participation in meetings, meetings, 4) intent to stay, stay, 5) perceived 5) perceived influence on institutional policies, policies, 6) perceived 6) perceived governance, governance, 7) working working conditions, conditions, 8) job 8) job embeddedness, embeddedness, 9) professional 9) professional development , 10) professional 10) professional commitment , 11) credentials, credentials, 12) induction and induction and 13) institutional reputation. reputation.

Table 6. Summary of the Mean Scores of the Predictors of Organizational Commitment INDEX 1 2 3 4

PREDICTORS

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Economic Job Satisfaction Participation in Meetings Intent to Stay Perceived Influence on Institutional Policies Perceived Governance Working Conditions Job Embeddedness Professional Development Professional Commitment Credentials Induction

13

Institutional Reputation

MEAN SCORE

SD

INTERPRETATION

5.74 5.24 5.73 5.32

0.983

Agree Weakly Agree Agree Weakly Agree

4.97

1.16

Weakly Agree

5.40 5.71 5.67 4.95 6.3 6.24 5.62

1.09 0.85 1.36 0.82 1.02 1.09

Weakly Agree Agree Agree Weakly Agree Agree Agree Agree

5.90

0.81

Agree

0.884

Of these predictors, the lowest mean rating was in the area o f professional development with a mean rating of 4.95 while the highest mean rating was registered in the area o f professional commitment with with a mean score score of 6.30. Additionally, the research research participants indicated that they weakly agreed with with 5 of the 13 predictors of organizational commitment, namely: 1) job 1) job satisfaction (5.24), satisfaction (5.24), 2) intent to stay (5.32), stay (5.32), 3) perceived 3) perceived influence on institutional policies (4.97), policies (4.97), 4) perceived 4) perceived governance (5.40) governance (5.40) and professional and professional development (4.95). On the other hand, they signified that they agreed with the remaining predictors pred ictors of organizational commitment, which includes: 1) economic factors (5.74), factors (5.74), 2) participation 2) participation in meetings (5.73), 3)

38 | P a g e

working conditions (5.71), conditions (5.71), 4) job 4) job embeddedness (5.67), 5) professional 5) professional commitment (6.30), (6.30), 6) credentials (6.24), credentials (6.24), 7) induction (5.62) induction (5.62) and institutional reputation (5.90). reputation (5.90). The results imply that on the whole, all thirteen (13) predictors were found to be important and relevant relevant predictors of organizational organizational commi co mmitment. tment. However, 8 of these predictors showed more weight in terms of influencing organizational o rganizational commitment commitment as demonstrated de monstrated by the statements and the mean mean ratings given by the research research participants. In fact, based based on the mean ratings provided by the research participants, t he following following could co uld be considered as their top to p five predictors of organizational commitment: commitment: 1) professional professional commitment, 2) credentials, 3) institutional reputation, 4) economic factors and 5) participation in meetings.

Principal Predictors Influencing the Commitment according to Specific Groupings

Accordin g to Sexual Sexual Or ientati on. Generally, the male male faculty members had higher mean

ratings for all the pred ictors of organizational commitment relative to the t he female faculty members. Based on this attribute, the mean scores ranged from a low of 4.72 (weakly (weakly agree for perceived influence on institutional policies) to a high of 6.38 (agree (agree for for professional commitment). For the male faculty faculty members, the five principal predictors included: 1) professional commitment (6.38), (6.38), 2) credentials (6.25), 3) induction/institutional induction/institutional reputation reputation (6.02), 4) working conditions (5.92) conditions (5.92) and economic factors (5.88). factors (5.88). Four of these five five predictors were also reflected in the principal predictors of their counterparts; however, there was a slight variation in the ranking. The female faculty members highlighted 1) credentials (6.23), credentials (6.23), 2) professional commitment (6.20), 3) institutional reputation (5.70), reputation (5.70), 4) participation 4) participation in meetings (5.62) and 5) working conditions (5.56) as their principal predictors as summarized in Table 7.

39 | P a g e

Table 7. Mean Scores of the Predictors of Organizational Commitment according to Sexual Orientation

PREDICTORS Economic

Job Satisfaction Participation in meetings Intent to stay Perceived influence on institutional policies Perceived governance

Working conditions

Job embeddedness Professional development Professional commitment Credentials

Induction

Institutional reputation

SEX

MEAN

INTERPRETATION P-VALUE

Male

5.88

Agree

Female

5.54

Agree

Male

5.39

Weakly Agree

Female

5.14

Weakly Agree

Male

5.81

Agree

Female

5.62

Agree

Male

5.33

Weakly Agree

Female

5.31

Weakly Agree

Male

5.14

Weakly Agree

Female

4.72

Weakly Agree

Male

5.55

Agree

Female

5.18

Weakly Agree

Male

5.92

Agree

Female

5.56

Agree

Male

5.81

Agree

Female

5.47

Weakly Agree

Male

5.19

Weakly Agree

Female

4.62

Weakly Agree

Male

6.38

Agree

Female

6.20

Agree

Male

6.25

Agree

Female

6.23

Agree

Male

6.02

Agree

Female

5.39

Weakly Agree

Male

6.02

Agree

Female

5.70

Agree

SIGNIFICANCE

0.01

Highly significant

0.014

Significant

0.112

Not significant

0.923

Not significant

0.005

Highly significant

0.01

Highly significant

0.002

Highly significant

0.003

Highly significant

0.001

Highly significant

0.1

Not significant

0.852

Not significant

0.008

Highly significant

0.004

Highly significant

40 | P a g e

It can be further be gleaned from Table 5 that when the mean ratings were grouped according to this attribute, attribute, the differences were highly significant significant in 8 areas, namely: 1) economic factors (at factors (at p=0.01 ), ), 2) perceived 2) perceived influence on institutional policies (at policies (at p=0.005), 3) perceived governance (at governance (at p=0.01), 4) working conditions (at p=0.002), 5) job 5) job embeddedness (at embeddedness (at p=0.003), 6) professional 6) professional development (at (at p=0.001), 7) induction (at induction (at p=0.008) and 8) institutional reputation (at reputation (at p=0.004). There was a significant significant difference in the mean rating rating in the area of job of job satisfaction (at satisfaction (at p=0.014) while no significant difference in the rat ings of this group could be established in the areas o f: (1) participation (1) participation in meetings, meetings, (2) intent to stay, stay, (3) professional commitment and and (4) credentials. credentials. The result of this study corroborated the findings of the study conducted by Marsden, Kalleberg & Cook (1993). The Work Organizations Organizations Module of the General Social Survey revealed a small but significant tendency for e mployed men to display higher organizational commitment than employed employed women do. They found that the primary primary explanation for for the gender difference was that men are more likely than women to hold jobs with commitment-enhanc ing features. On the other hand, in a study conducted by Bogler (2004) and Somech (2004), gender showed no significant difference (p>0.05) between teacher empowerment and organizational commitment. While in some some studies, the relationship relationship of gender and organizational commitment commitment showed different results (Arbor & Kesken, 2005; Aven, Parker and McEnvo y, 1993; Simsek, 2002 in Aydin, Sarier and Uysal, Uysal, 2011). Hence, there was no conclusive evidence evidence that a specific gender influences organizational commitment.

Accordin g to E mployment mployment Status. Table 6 shows shows that insofar as employment employment status was

concerned, the fulltime the fulltime probationary faculty members had members had the highest mean ratings in 8 of the 13 41 | P a g e

predictors, namely: 1) economic factors, factors, 2) participation 2) participation in meetings, meetings, 3) perceived 3) perceived influence on institutional policies, policies, 4) perceived 4) perceived governance, governance, 5) working conditions, conditions, 6) job 6) job embeddedness, embeddedness, 7) credentials and 8) induction. The highest ratings ratings for (1) job (1) job satisfaction, satisfaction, (2) intent to stay, stay, (3) professional commitment and and (4) institutional reputation could reputation could be attributed to the part-timers the part-timers while the highest rating in the area o f professional development was was given by the fulltime the fulltime permanent faculty members. members. The means scores based on this attribute were lowest lowest at 4.54 (weakly agree for agree for professional development) and highest at 6.34 (agree (agree for professional commitment).

Table 8. Mean Scores of the Predictors of Organizational Commitment according to Employment Status PREDICTORS

Economic

Job satisfaction

Participation in meetings

Intent to stay

Perceived influence on institutional policies Perceived governance

EMPLOYMENT STATUS

MEAN

INTERPRETATION

Full-time permanent

5.64

Agree

Full-time probationary

5.99

Agree

Part-time

5.81

Agree

Full-time permanent

5.07

Weakly Agree


5.54

Agree

Part-time

5.52

Agree

Full-time permanent

5.7

Agree


6.18

Agree

Part-time

5.62

Agree

Full-time permanent

5.32

Weakly Agree


5.19

Weakly Agree

Part-time

5.39

Weakly Agree

Full-time permanent

4.74

Weakly Agree


5.41

Weakly Agree

Part-time

5.15

Weakly Agree

Full-time permanent

5.22

Weakly Agree


5.71

Agree

P-VALUE

SIGNIFICANCE

0.146

Not significant

0.001

Highly significant

0.008

Highly significant

0.771

Not significant

0.004

Highly significant

0.025

Significant

42 | P a g e

Working conditions

Job embeddedness

Professional development

Professional commitment

Credentials

Induction

Institutional Reputation

Part-time

5.54

Agree

Full-time permanent

5.65

Agree


5.93

Agree

Part-time

5.9

Agree

Full-time permanent

5.52

Agree


5.98

Agree

Part-time

5.79

Agree

Full-time permanent

5.21

Weakly Agree


5.00

Weakly Agree

Part-time

4.54

Weakly Agree

Full-time permanent

6.28

Agree


6.30

Agree

Part-time

6.34

Agree

Full-time permanent

6.27

Agree


6.32

Agree

Part-time

6.19

Agree

Full-time permanent

5.54

Agree


5.79

Agree

Part-time

5.68

Agree

Full-time permanent

5.76

Agree


6.02

Agree

Part-time

6.03

Agree

0.063

Not significant

0.007

Highly significant

0.001

Highly significant

0.847

Not significant

0.787

Not significant

0.473

Not significant

0.034

Significant

The five principal predictors predictors for the fulltime fulltime permanent faculty included: 1) professional 1) professional commitment (6.28), 2) credentials (6.27), credentials (6.27), 3) institutional reputation (5.76), 4) participation 4) participation in meetings (5.70) and 5) working working conditions (5.65). conditions (5.65). Four of these these five predictors predictors could also be found in the priority list of the fulltime the fulltime probationary faculty, faculty, although there was a slight difference in the ranking. ranking. For this group of research participants, participants, the relevant predictors included: 1) credentials (6.32), credentials (6.32), 2) professional 2) professional commitment (6.30), 3) participation 3) participation in meetings (6.18), 4) institutional reputation (6.02) reputation (6.02) and (5) economic factors (5 factors (5.99). .99). The top three

43 | P a g e

responses of the part-timers the part-timers mirrored mirrored the choices made by the fulltime permanent faculty, with the remaining predictors being shared responses b y both the fulltime permanent and pro bationary faculty members, respectively. The part-time The part-time faculty members considered members considered the following predictors as important: 1) professional 1) professional commitment (6.34), (6.34), 2) credentials (6.19), credentials (6.19), 3) institutional reputation (6.03), reputation (6.03), 4) working conditions (5.90) conditions (5.90) and economic factors (5.81). factors (5.81). An analysis of the differences in the mean ratings in t his group shows that the d ifferences ifferences were highly significant in in 5 areas, namely: 1) job 1) job satisfaction (at satisfaction (at p=0.001), 2) participation 2) participation in 3) perceived influence on institutional policies (at 4) job meetings (at meetings (at p=0.008), 3) perceived policies (at p=0.004), 4) job embeddedness (at embeddedness (at p=0.007) and 5) professional 5) professional development (at (at p=0.001). The mean mean ratings were significantly were significantly different in in the areas of perceived of perceived governance and governance and institutional reputation but reputation but considered to be insignificant in in the aspects of: 1) economic factors, factors, 2) intent to stay, stay, 3) working conditions, conditions, 4) professional 4) professional commitment , 5) credentials and 6) induction. induction. While this study shows highly highly significant differences in five five areas, a related related study on perceived organizational support and work status, (Gakovic & Tetrick, 2003) reported that there were no significant differences between the 2 g roups (parttime and fulltime) fulltime) in terms of social exchange relationships, the levels levels of their t heir organization’s relational and transactional obligations to them and the level of continuance commitment, findings contrary to t he result of this one. Furthermore, decision making, self-efficiency and status were more significant predictors of organizational citizenship behavior, which part ly corroborates the result of this study.

Accordin g to Academi Academi c Rank. When the research participants were grouped according

to their academic rank, the gro up of Lecturers of Lecturers and Full and Full Professors topped Professors topped the mean ratings in 5 areas each as shown in Table 9. The mean scores for the predictors based on this attribute ranged from 4.36 (neutral (neutral for for perceived influence on institutional policies) to 6.66 ( strongly 44 | P a g e

agree for agree for professiona professionall commitment). commitment). The highest mean scores in the areas areas of 1) economic factors, factors, 2) job 2) job satisfaction, satisfaction, 3) perceived 3) perceived influence on institutional policies, policies, 4) perceived 4) perceived governance and governance and 5) working working conditions conditions came from the group of o f Instructors. Instructors. Whereas the top ratings in the aspects of: 1) participation 1) participation in meetings, meetings, 2) professional 2) professional development , 3) professional commitment , 4) credentials, credentials, and 5) induction were given by the group o f Full Professors.

Table 9. Mean Scores of the Predictors of Organizational Commitment according to Academic Academic Rank PREDICTORS

ACADEMIC RANK

MEAN

INTERPRETATION

5.62

Agree

5.9

Agree

Professional lecturer

5.74

Agree

Instructor

6.16

Agree

Assistant professor

5.59

Agree

Associate professor

5.78

Agree

Full professor

5.89

Agree

Did not indicate

5.3

Weakly Agree

Lecturer

5.48

Weakly Agree


5.49

Weakly Agree

Instructor

5.56

Agree

Assistant professor

5.11

Weakly Agree

Associate professor

5.17

Weakly Agree

Full professor

5.15

Weakly Agree

Did not indicate

5.87

Agree

Lecturer

5.81

Agree

5.39

Weakly Agree

5.91

Agree

Assistant professor

5.69

Weakly Agree

Associate professor

5.75

Weakly Agree

Full professor

5.96

Weakly Agree

Did not indicate

5.24

Weakly Agree

Lecturer

5.65

Agree

Did not indicate Lecturer

Economic

Job satisfaction


Intent to stay


P-VALUE

SIGNIFICANCE

0.193

Not significant

0.042

Significant

0.159

Not significant

0.044

Significant

45 | P a g e

Perceived influence on institutional policies

Perceived governance

Working conditions


5.29

Weakly Agree

Instructor

4.56

Weakly Agree

Assistant professor

5.43

Weakly Agree

Associate professor

5.73

Agree

Full professor

5.5

Agree

Did not indicate

5.01

Weakly Agree

Lecturer

5.22

Weakly Agree

5.22

Weakly Agree

5.33

Weakly Agree

Assistant professor

4.79

Weakly Agree

Associate professor

4.36

Neutral

Full professor

4.82

Weakly Agree

Did not indicate

5.22

Weakly Agree

Lecturer Professional lecturer Instructor

5.54

Agree

5.53

Agree

5.84

Agree

Assistant professor

5.31

Weakly Agree

Associate professor

4.97

Weakly Agree

Full professor

5.33

Weakly Agree

Did not indicate

5.77

Agree

Lecturer

5.87

Agree


5.78

Agree

Instructor

6.23

Agree

Assistant professor

5.66

Agree

Associate professor

5.71

Agree

Full professor

5.55

Agree

Did not indicate

5.69

Agree

6

Agree


5.72

Agree

Instructor

5.87

Agree

Assistant professor

5.57

Agree

Associate professor

5.07

Weakly Agree

Full professor

5.74

Agree

Did not indicate

4.64

Weakly Agree

Lecturer

4.54

Weakly Agree

4.8

Weakly Agree

4.82

Weakly Agree


Lecturer Job embeddedness



0.071

Not significant

0.167

Not significant

0.109

Not significant

0.044

Significant

0.046

Significant

46 | P a g e


Credentials

Induction

Assistant professor

5.08

Weakly Agree

Associate professor

5.22

Weakly Agree

Full professor

5.75

Agree

Did not indicate

6.13

Agree

Lecturer Professional lecturer

6.37

Agree

6.31

Agree

Instructor

6.04

Agree

Assistant professor

6.36

Agree

Associate professor

6.31

Agree

Full professor

6.66

Strongly Agree

Did not indicate

6.06

Agree

Lecturer

6.16

Agree


5.91

Agree

Instructor

6.33

Agree

Assistant professor

6.46

Agree

Associate professor

6.17

Agree

Full professor

6.35

Agree

Did not indicate

5.29

Weakly Agree

Lecturer

5.79

Agree


5.77

Agree

Instructor

5.95

Agree

Assistant professor

5.54

Agree

Associate professor

5.14

Weakly Agree

Full professor

5.96

Agree

6

Agree

6.06

Agree

Did not indicate


Lecturer Professional lecturer Instructor

5.9

Agree

6.05

Agree

Assistant professor

5.73

Agree

Associate professor

5.7

Agree

Full professor

6.05

Agree

0.199

Not significant

0.123

Not significant

0.076

Not significant

0.249

Not significant

The group of Lecturers of Lecturers indicated their principal predictors to include the following: 1) professional commitment (6.37), (6.37), 2) credentials (6.16), credentials (6.16), 3) institutional reputation (6.06), reputation (6.06), 4) job 4) job embeddedness (6.00), embeddedness (6.00), and 5) economic factors (5.90). The Professional The Professional Lecturers reiterated Lecturers reiterated the 47 | P a g e

significance of these predictors predictors when they reflected reflected four of these in their list, namely: namely: 1) professional commitment (6.31), (6.31), 2) credentials (5.91), 3) institutional reputation (5.90), reputation (5.90), 4) working conditions (5.78) conditions (5.78) and 5) job 5) job embeddedness (5.72). Instructors, Instructors, on the other hand, found the following predictors to be important: 1) credentials (6.33), credentials (6.33), 2) working conditions (6.23), conditions (6.23), 3) economic factors (6.16), factors (6.16), 4) institutional reputation (6.05) reputation (6.05) and professional and professional commitment (6.04). The Assistant The Assistant Professors Professors also also shared four of the responses respo nses of the Instructors the Instructors.. To them, the relevant predictors comprised of: 1) credentials (6.46), credentials (6.46), 2) professional 2) professional commitment (6.36), (6.36), 3) 4) participation in meetings (5.69) institutional reputation (5.73), reputation (5.73), 4) participation meetings (5.69) and 5) working working conditions (5.66). Associate Professors Professors found (1) professional (1) professional commitment (6.31) (6.31) at the top of o f their list list as did the Lecturers the Lecturers and and Professional followed closely by: 2) credentials Professional Lecturers. Lecturers. This was followed (6.17), 3) economic factors (5.78), factors (5.78), 4) participation 4) participation in meetings (5.75) meetings (5.75) and 5) intent to stay (5.73) stay (5.73) which was the only time that this predictor figured figured in the list based on this attribute. Just like like the Associate Professors, Professors, Full Professors also Professors also found (1) professional (1) professional commitment (6.66) (6.66) as their principal predictor. Additionally, their their list also contained: 2) credentials (6.35), credentials (6.35), 3) institutional reputation (6.05), reputation (6.05), 4) induction (5.96) induction (5.96) which also came out only for the first time in this listing and 5) economic factors (5.89). Apparently, Apparently, professional commitment and and credentials always figured in the top 5 predictors in this group. Kiyak and others (1997) mentioned ment ioned that those who occupy occup y higher status positions, which providedmore opportunities for involvement in decision decision making, report higher higher job satisfaction and greater commitment. commitment. Rank has previously previously been found to be significantly significantly related to organizational commitment. commitment. Associate Associate professors exhibited exhibited the lowest organizational commitment while assistant and full professors exhibited exhibited equal and higher levels of commitment (Harschbarger, 1989 and Finaly-Neumann, 1990). While the results results of these researches cited cited

48 | P a g e

that rank and organizational organ izational commitment were directly related, another research on predictors of organizational commitment contented that more educated employees employees show ed lower levels of commitment, most likely because they have higher expectations or greater job opportunities, which somehow appears to be contrary to the findings of the study. (Gran et al, 1991; Kacmar, Carlson & Brymen, 1999; Kiyak et al, 1997; Price and Mueller, 1981 in Simmons, 2005) Table 9 also reveals that based on this grouping, the differences d ifferences in the mean scores were significant in in 4 of the 13 predictors p redictors and were not significant for for the rest of these predictors. The four predictors were: 1) job 1) job satisfaction (at 3) job satisfaction (at p=0.042), 2) intent to stay (at stay (at p=0.044), 3) job embeddedness (at embeddedness (at p=0.044) and professional and professional development (at (at p=0.046).

terms of length of service, the mean mean scores ranged Accordin g to L ength of Servi Servi ce. ce. In terms from a low of 4.05 (neutral (neutral for for perceived influence on institutional policies) to a high of 6.69 ( strongly strongly agree for agree for professional professional commitment). Faculty members who who served the institution institution for more than 30 years topped years topped the mean scores in 9 of the 13 predictors, namely: namely: 1) economic factors, factors, 2) participation 2) participation in meetings, meetings, 3) perceived influence on institutional policies, policies, 4) perceived 4) perceived governance, governance, 5) working working conditions, conditions, 6) job 6) job embeddedness, embeddedness, 7) professional 7) professional development , 8) induction and induction and 9) institutional reputation. reputation. The mean mean score for job for job satisfaction was satisfaction was topped by the faculty members who served the institution for five for five years or less, less, the highest mean score for intent to stay went stay went to those who served the institution for 26-30 years, years, those who served the institution for 21-25 years figured years figured highest in the area of professional of professional commitment and and credentials was highly rated by those served the institution for 11-15 years. years.

49 | P a g e

Table 10. Mean Scores of the Predictors of Organizational Commitment according to Length of Service PREDICTORS

Economic

Job satisfaction


Intent to stay


LENGTH OF SERVICE

MEAN

INTERPRETATION

Did not indicate

5.8

Agree

0 to 5 years

5.89

Agree

6 to 10 years

5.73

Agree

11 to 15 years

5.46

Weakly Agree

16 to 20 years

5.52

Agree

21 to 25 years

5.69

Agree

26 to 30 years

5.21

Weakly Agree

31 years and over

6.34

Agree

Did not indicate

5.6

Agree

0 to 5 years

5.48

Weakly Agree

6 to 10 years

5.13

Weakly Agree

11 to 15 years

5.12

Weakly Agree

16 to 20 years

4.89

Weakly Agree

21 to 25 years

5.2

Weakly Agree

26 to 30 years

5.21

Weakly Agree

31 years and over

5.33

Weakly Agree

Did not indicate

5.93

Agree

0 to 5 years

5.75

Agree

6 to 10 years

5.72

Agree

11 to 15 years

5.72

Agree

16 to 20 years

5.45

Weakly Agree

21 to 25 years

5.73

Agree

26 to 30 years

5.33

Weakly Agree

31 years and over

6.48

Agree

Did not indicate

5.64

Agree

0 to 5 years

5.08

Weakly Agree

6 to 10 years

5.06

Weakly Agree

11 to 15 years

5.71

Agree

16 to 20 years

5.72

Agree

21 to 25 years

5.32

Weakly Agree

26 to 30 years

6.22

Agree

31 years and over

5.68

Agree

Did not indicate

5.06

Weakly Agree

0 to 5 years

5.18

Weakly Agree

6 to 10 years

4.91

Weakly Agree

11 to 15 years

4.66

Weakly Agree

16 to 20 years

4.55

Weakly Agree

P-VALUE

SIGNIFICANCE

0.243

Not significant

0.007

Highly significant

0.43

Not significant

0.065

Not significant

0.05

Significant

50 | P a g e


Working conditions

Job embeddedness



21 to 25 years

5.07

Weakly Agree

26 to 30 years

4.05

Neutral

31 years and over

5.83

Agree

Did not indicate

5.06

Weakly Agree

0 to 5 years

5.68

Agree

6 to 10 years

5.33

Weakly Agree

11 to 15 years

5.24

Weakly Agree

16 to 20 years

5.15

Weakly Agree

21 to 25 years

5.18

Weakly Agree

26 to 30 years

4.33

Neutral

31 years and over

5.96

Agree

Did not indicate

5.95

Agree

0 to 5 years

5.95

Agree

6 to 10 years

5.67

Agree

11 to 15 years

5.5

Agree

16 to 20 years

5.67

Agree

21 to 25 years

5.53

Agree

26 to 30 years

5.41

Weakly Agree

31 years and over

6.13

Agree

Did not indicate

5.83

Agree

0 to 5 years

5.84

Agree

6 to 10 years

5.57

Agree

11 to 15 years

5.39

Weakly Agree

16 to 20 years

5.49

Weakly Agree

21 to 25 years

5.73

Agree

26 to 30 years

4.87

Weakly Agree

31 years and over

6.17

Agree

Did not indicate

4.76

Weakly Agree

0 to 5 years

4.66

Weakly Agree

6 to 10 years

5.03

Weakly Agree

11 to 15 years

4.99

Weakly Agree

16 to 20 years

5.22

Weakly Agree

21 to 25 years

5.86

Agree

26 to 30 years

4.67

Weakly Agree

31 years and over

5.91

Agree

Did not indicate

6.31

Agree

0 to 5 years

6.25

Agree

6 to 10 years

6.14

Agree

11 to 15 years

6.31

Agree

16 to 20 years

6.54

Strongly Agree

21 to 25 years

6.69

Strongly Agree

0.031

Significant

0.096

Not significant

0.042

Significant

0.027

Significant

0.294

Not significant

51 | P a g e

26 to 30 years

Credentials

Induction


6

Agree

31 years and over

6.5

Strongly Agree

Did not indicate

6.13

Agree

0 to 5 years

6.21

Agree

6 to 10 years

6.03

Agree

11 to 15 years

6.59

Agree

16 to 20 years

6.26

Agree

21 to 25 years

6.48

Agree

26 to 30 years

6.06

Agree

31 years and over

6.17

Agree

Did not indicate

5.61

Agree

0 to 5 years

5.72

Agree

6 to 10 years

5.54

Agree

11 to 15 years

5.42

Weakly Agree

16 to 20 years

5.54

Agree

21 to 25 years

5.7

Agree

26 to 30 years

5.5

Agree

31 years and over

6.67

Strongly Agree

Did not indicate

6.09

Agree

0 to 5 years

6.02

Agree

6 to 10 years

5.87

Agree

11 to 15 years

5.7

Agree

16 to 20 years

5.67

Agree

21 to 25 years

5.84

Agree

26 to 30 years

4.64

Weakly agree

31 years and over

6.07

Agree

0.356

Not significant

0.665

Not significant

0.027

Significant

For faculty members who served the institution for 0-5 years, years, their principal predictors included: 1) professional 1) professional commitment (6.25), (6.25), 2) credentials (6.21), credentials (6.21), 3) institutional reputation (6.02), 4) working conditions (5.95) conditions (5.95) and economic factors (5.89). factors (5.89). Those who who spent 6-10 years with the University University reflected the top three choices of the earlier group, namely: 1) professional 1) professional commitment (6.14), (6.14), 2) credentials (6.03), credentials (6.03), 3) institutional reputation (5.87) reputation (5.87) followed by 4) economic factors (5.73) factors (5.73) and 5) participation 5) participation in meetings (5.72). At 11-15 years of years of service, the relevant predictors composed of: 1) credentials (6.59), credentials (6.59), 2) professional 2) professional commitment (6.31), (6.31), 3) participation in meetings (5.72), meetings (5.72), 4) intent to stay (5.71) stay (5.71) and institutional reputation (5.70). For 52 | P a g e

those who have served the institution institution for 16-20 years, years, their top 2 choices were similar to those who have been with w ith the University for 10 years or less, less, namely: 1) professional 1) professional commitment (6.54), 2) credentials (6.26) credentials (6.26) followed by 3) intent to stay (5.72), stay (5.72), 4) institutional reputation (5.67) reputation (5.67) and induction (5.54). At 21-25 years, years, faculty members also saw 1) professional 1) professional commitment (6.69) and 2) credentials (6.48) credentials (6.48) were highly relevant in addition to 3) professional 3) professional development (5.86) which was the only on ly time it figured in the list for this group, 4) institutional reputation (5.84) and participation and participation in meetings (5.73). At 26-30 years, years, 1) intent to stay (6.22) stay (6.22) became the primary consideration, which was kind of different compared to the previous previous responses, followed followed by 2) credentials (6.06), credentials (6.06), 3) professional 3) professional commitment (6.00), (6.00), 4) induction (5.50) induction (5.50) and 5) participation in meetings (5.33). For the few who have been with the institution for more than more than 30 years, 1 ) induction (6.67), which was also a relatively different topmost choice, was o f utmost consideration in addition to 2) professional 2) professional commitment (6.50), (6.50), 3) participation 3) participation in meetings (6.48), 4) economic factors (6.34) factors (6.34) and job and job embeddedness (6.17). Consistently Consistently reflected in in the top five choices for this group were professional were professional commitment and credential s. s. Accordingly, older employees and employees with longer organizational tenure, tended to be more committed than younger individuals or those with a shorter organizational tenure. (Gran et. Al, 1991; Kacmar, Carson & Bryman, 199 91; Kiyak et. Al, 1997; Price Pr ice and Mueller, 1981 in Simmons, 2005). Senior S enior faculty faculty members were more committed than either early career or mid-career stage faculty (Fjortoft, 1993). 1993). Fjortof’s (1993) finding was was affirmed by Salami (2008) by retorting that older workers were more committed to t he organization than the younger workers. Also Also married workers and workers with with higher educational goals were more committed committed to the organization. Workers who had higher higher job tenure had more commitment commitment than t han newlyemployed workers. These findings findings were partly corroborated by the results of the study. study.

53 | P a g e

Table 10 shows further that an analysis of the d ifferences ifferences in the means scores in this group indicated that it was highly significant in in terms of job of job satisfaction (at satisfaction (at p=0.007), significant p=0.007), significant in terms of 1) perceived 1) perceived influence on institutional policies (at policies (at p=0.050), 2) perceived 2) perceived governance (at p=0.031), 3) job 3) job embeddedness (at embeddedness (at p=0.042), 4) professional 4) professional development (at (at p=0.027) and institutional reputation (at reputation (at p=0.027) while insignificant for the seven of the predictors, namely: 1) economic factors, factors, 2) participation 2) participation in meetings, meetings, 3) intent to stay, stay, 4) working conditions, conditions, 5) professional commitment , 6) credentials and credentials and 7) induction. induction. In a research on collegiality in education (Sing and Manser, 2002), the respondents respondents stressed that participation of teachers in the decision-making pro cess created a sense of ownership that in turn enhanced the pro spects of successful implementation implementation of policies po licies.. Members of the organization who wished to be active players in the organization org anization have an impact on what is going on with it. They felt that they have status within it it and are ready read y to contribute beyond what is expected of them. (Yosef, 2000 in Bogler and Somech, 2004). In this case, when leaders are perceived as participative, part icipative, employees employees feel more committed to the organization, express higher levels of job satisfaction and their performance is high. (Bogler and So mech, 2004). Researches shows that greater greater participation participation in decision making is strongly strongly associated with higher levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Laschiger, et al, 2000) as has been highlighted in the findings of this study.

Accordin g to Des Design ation. Insofar as designation is is concerned, the Deans the Deans topped topped the

means scores in 10 of the 13 areas, namely: namely: 1) economic factors, factors, 2) job 2) job satisfaction, satisfaction, 3) participation in meetings, meetings, 4) perceived 4) perceived influence on institutional policies, policies, 5) perceived 5) perceived governance, governance, 6) working working conditions, conditions, 7) job 7) job embeddedness, embeddedness, 8) professional 8) professional commitment , 9) scores in the three remaining areas went to induction and induction and 10) institutional reputation. reputation. The top scores 54 | P a g e

the Department/Level the Department/Level Chairs. Chairs. The mean scores scores ranged from a low low of 4.63 (weakly (weakly agree for agree for intent to stay) and a high of 6.75 ( strongly strongly agree for agree for professional commitment).

Table 11. Mean Scores of the Predictors of Organizational Commitment according to Designation PREDICTORS

Economic

Job satisfaction


Intent to stay



Working conditions

Job embeddedness

DESIGNATION

MEAN

INTERPRETATION

Faculty

5.74

Agree

Department/Level chair

5.73

Agree

Dean

6.15

Agree

Faculty

5.29

Weakly Agree


5.19

Weakly Agree

Dean

5.46

Weakly Agree

Faculty

5.68

Agree

6

Agree

Dean

6.35

Agree

Faculty

5.31

Weakly Agree


5.84

Agree

Dean

4.63

Weakly Agree

Faculty

4.92

Weakly Agree


5.19

Weakly Agree

Dean

5.43

Weakly Agree

Faculty

5.38

Weakly Agree


5.32

Weakly Agree

Dean

5.7

Weakly Agree

Faculty

5.78

Agree


5.74

Agree

Dean

5.94

Agree

Faculty

5.67

Agree


5.65

Agree


P-VALUE

SIGNIFICANCE

0.709

Not significant

0.778

Not significant

0.107

Not significant

0.113

Not significant

0.447

Not significant

0.818

Not significant

0.915

Not significant

0.961

Not significant

55 | P a g e



Credentials

Induction


Dean

5.78

Agree

Faculty

4.89

Weakly Agree


5.1

Weakly Agree

Dean

4.98

Weakly Agree

Faculty

6.26

Agree


6.38

Agree

Dean

6.75

Strongly Agree

Faculty

6.21

Agree


6.43

Agree

Dean

6.33

Strongly Agree

Faculty

5.57

Agree


5.86

Agree

Dean

6.19

Agree

Faculty

5.87

Agree


5.8

Agree

Dean

6.33

Agree

0.809

Not significant

0.429

Not significant

0.669

Not significant

0.318

Not significant

0.496

Not significant

For the faculty the faculty members, members, the principal predictors included: 1) professional 1) professional commitment (6.26), 2) institutional reputation (5.87), reputation (5.87), 3) working conditions (5.78), conditions (5.78), which figured only once in the list of this group, 4) 4 ) economic factors and factors and 5) participation 5) participation in meetings (5.68). For the Department/Level Chairs, Chairs, the top predictor was 1) credentials (6.43) followed by 2) professional 2) professional commitment (6.38), (6.38), 3) participation 3) participation in meetings (6.00), meetings (6.00), 4) induction (5.86) induction (5.86) and intent to stay (5.84) which was the only on ly time this predictor this predictor figured in this group’s list. list. Similar to the faculty the faculty members, members, the Deans the Deans also valued 1) professional 1) professional commitment (6.75) (6.75) as a primary primary predictor with participation in meetings (6.35), meetings (6.35), credentials (6.33), induction (6.19), induction (6.19), and economic factors (6.15) factors (6.15) in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th place, respectively. This group also had relatively higher ratings at above 6.00 for their top five predictors. Participation in meetings and meetings and professional professional commitment always always 56 | P a g e

figured in the top five five choices in this group. A further look look at Table 11 also confirms that none of these mean scores were significantly different to each other in this group for all 13 predictors.

Finally, in terms of college affiliation, the mean According According to Collegial Collegial Af fi li ation. Finally, scores registered lowest at 4.25 (neutral (neutral for for intent to stay) and highest at 6.60 6. 60 ( strongly strongly agree for agree for credentials). Five colleges were represented in this this research undertaking and and the College of Education gave Education gave relatively higher higher ratings in 7 of these predictors, namely: 1) economic factors, factors, 2) job satisfaction, satisfaction, 3) intent to stay, stay, 4) perceived 4) perceived influence in institutional policies, policies, 5) perceived 5) perceived governance 6) governance 6) professional professional development and and 7) credentials. credentials. The highest highest mean scores for 1) participation in meetings, meetings, 2) job 2) job embeddedness and embeddedness and 3) induction came induction came from the research participants of the College of Business and Accountancy while the highest mean scores for 1) working conditions, conditions, 2) professional 2) professional commitment and and 3) institutional reputation could be traced to the College of Nursing .

Table 12. Mean Scores of the Predictors of Organizational Commitment according to Collegial Affiliation PREDICTORS

Economic

Job satisfaction


COLLEGE

MEAN

INTERPRETATION

CAS

5.71

Agree

CBA

5.84

Agree

Education

6.17

Agree

Engineering

5.46

Weakly Agree

Nursing

5.82

Agree

CAS

5.27

Weakly Agree

CBA

5.58

Agree

Education

5.66

Agree

Engineering

4.72

Weakly Agree

Nursing

5.26

Weakly Agree

CAS

5.74

Agree

CBA

5.86

Agree

Education

5.74

Agree

Engineering

5.27

Weakly Agree

P-VALUE

SIGNIFICANCE

0.362

Not significant

0.001

Highly significant

0.045

Significant

57 | P a g e

Intent to stay

Perceived influence in institutional policies


Working conditions

Job embeddedness



Credentials

Nursing

5.82

Agree

CAS

5.59

Agree

CBA

5.56

Agree

Education

5.67

Agree

Engineering

5.17

Weakly Agree

Nursing

4.25

Neutral

CAS

4.99

Weakly Agree

CBA

5.2

Weakly Agree

Education

5.65

Agree

Engineering

4.27

Neutral

Nursing

4.97

Weakly Agree

CAS

5.48

Weakly Agree

CBA

5.44

Weakly Agree

Education

6.28

Agree

Engineering

4.63

Weakly Agree

Nursing

5.55

Agree

CAS

5.63

Agree

CBA

5.94

Agree

Education

6.04

Agree

Engineering

5.39

Weakly Agree

Nursing

6.13

Agree

CAS

5.71

Agree

CBA

5.77

Agree

Education

5.73

Agree

Engineering

5.25

Weakly Agree

Nursing

5.71

Agree

CAS

4.98

Weakly Agree

CBA

4.8

Weakly Agree

Education

5.62

Agree

Engineering

4.61

Weakly Agree

Nursing

5.22

Weakly Agree

CAS

6.29

Agree

CBA

6.31

Agree

Education

6.3

Agree

Engineering

6.28

Agree

Nursing

6.32

Agree

CAS

6.3

Agree

CBA

6.13

Agree

Education

6.6

Strongly Agree

Engineering

6.25

Agree

0.001

Highly significant

0.005

Highly significant

0.001

Highly significant

0.001

Highly significant

0.085

Not significant

0.252

Not significant

0.999

Not significant

0.788

Not significant

58 | P a g e

Induction


Nursing

6.21

Agree

CAS

5.61

Agree

CBA

5.79

Agree

Education

5.44

Weakly Agree

Engineering

5.31

Weakly Agree

Nursing

5.62

Agree

CAS

5.84

Agree

CBA

5.97

Agree

Education

5.77

Agree

Engineering

5.51

Agree

Nursing

6.14

Agree

0.465

Not significant

0.019

Significant

For the faculty members and administrators of the College of Arts and Sciences, Sciences, the principal predictors included: 1) credentials (6.30), credentials (6.30), 2) professional 2) professional commitment (6.29), (6.29), 3) institutional reputation (5.84), reputation (5.84), 4) participation 4) participation in meetings (5.74) meetings (5.74) and 5) economic factors (5.71). For the mentors mentors and officers officers of the College of Business and Accountancy four Accountancy four of these five predictors were also reflected in their pre ferences with professional with professional commitment (6.31) (6.31) as the topmost predictor followed by 2) credentials (6.13), 3) institutional reputation (5.97), reputation (5.97), 4) working conditions (5.94) conditions (5.94) and 5) economic factors (5.84). In the College of Education, Education, the relevant predictors were composed of: o f: 1) credentials (6.60), credentials (6.60), 2) professional 2) professional commitment , 3) perceived governance (6.28) governance (6.28) which was the t he only time that this predictor figured in this group, 4) economic factors (6.17) factors (6.17) and 5) institutional reputation. reputation. This college affirmed affirmed four of these predictors that were common to the two other colleges so far. For the College of Engineering , 1) professional commitment (6.28) (6.28) was still a top choice together with 2) credentials (6.25), credentials (6.25), 3) institutional reputation (5.51), reputation (5.51), 4) economic factors (5.46) factors (5.46) and working working conditions (5.39). The top five choices for this college were exactly what were previously mentioned by the Co llege of Business and Accountancy except for a slight difference in ranking in their 4th and 5th choices. The faculty members and administrators of the College of Nursing also also saw 1) professional 1) professional

59 | P a g e

commitment (6.32) (6.32) as a primary predictor in addition to 2) credentials (6.21), credentials (6.21), 3) institutional reputation (6.14), reputation (6.14), 4) working conditions (6.13) conditions (6.13) and economic factors (5.82). factors (5.82). These choices and rankings were mirror images images with that of the College College of Business and Accountancy. Accountancy. In addition, four of these predictors always figured figured in the top choices of the different colleges, namely: 1) economic factors, factors, 2) professional 2) professional commitment , 3 ) credentials and credentials and 4) institutional reputation. Comparing the mean scores by co lleges, Table 9 reveals that the t he differences differences in these scores were highly significant for for five of these predictors, namely: 1 ) job satisfaction (at satisfaction (at p=0.001), 2) intent to stay (at 3) perceived influence on institutional policies (at stay (at p=0.001), 3) perceived policies (at p=0.005), 4) perceived 4) perceived governance (at governance (at p=0.001) and 5) working conditions (at p=0.001). The mean scores were also significantly also significantly different in in terms of participation of participation in meetings (at meetings (at p=0.045) and institutional reputation (at reputation (at p=0.019), while insignificantly different for for the rest of the predictors, among them: 1) economic factors, factors, 2) job 2) job embeddedness, embeddedness, 3) professional 3) professional development , 4) professional 4) professional commitment , 5) credentials and induction. induction.

Overall Types of Commitment and According to Specific Aggrupations

Organizational commitment commitment is classified into into five types, namely: namely: 1) affective commitment , 2) continuance commitment , 3) normative commitment , 4) collegial commitment and 5) institutional commitment . The scale used for for interpreting the mean scores scores for the different types of commitment was similar with the one used for the p roposed predictors.

60 | P a g e

Table 13. Summary of the Mean Scores of the Different Types of Organizational Commitment INDEX

TYPE OF COMMITMENT

1 2

Affective Continuance

3 4

Normative Collegial

5

Institutional

MEAN SCORE

SD

INTERPRETATION

5.27

Weakly Agree

4.48 4.75

Neutral Weakly Agree

5.63 6.04

Agree Agree

Of these types of commitment, continuance commitment generated the lowest mean rating at 4.48 while institutional commitment garnered garnered the the highest mean score of 6.04. It can also be further gleaned from Table 13 that the faculty members showed some degree o f neutrality when neutrality when it came to continuance commitment . They weakly agreed with with affective commitment (5.27) (5.27) and normative commitment (4.75) (4.75) and remarked re marked that they agreed with with collegial commitment (5.63) (5.63) and institutional commitment (6.04). (6.04). This may indicate that t hat while the faculty members were relatively uncertain about continued employment with the institution, they have a strong co mmitment mmitment towards to wards their college and colleagues as well as to the institution. institution. It also implies that the top three types of commitmen co mmitmentt demonstrated de monstrated by the faculty members of the institution institution included: included: 1) institutional commitment , 2) collegial commitment and and affective commitment. In a study of the relationships among the person-o rganization (P-O) fit and affective, normative, and continuance commitments, the t he hypothesis that the P-O would wo uld be positively associated with affective and normative organizational co mmitment mmitment was wa s statistically supported (C, J.M. 2003), findings findings that were partly corroborated by this study. The same study revealed that not only normative and affective a ffective commitments commitments have strong correlation to the P-O P -O fit, continuance commitment in fact has a stronger association association (C, J.M. 2003), which was kind of

61 | P a g e

opposite to the results results of this study. study. In the case of the present study continuance continuance commitment generated the lowest mean rating rat ing compared to the other types of commi co mmitment. tment.

Accordin g to Sexual Sexual Or ientati on. It can be gleaned from Table 14 that based on the

responses of the male and female faculty members, t he mean scores for the different types of commitment ranged from a low of 4.39 (neutral (neutral for for continuance commitment) to a high of o f 6.19 (agree for institutional institutional commitment). It can also be observed that at all levels levels of commitment, the male faculty members had members had relatively higher mean scores, although both male and female faculty members shared the same same rankings in their their top three types of commitment, namely: 1) institutional commitment (6.19 (6.19 for male and 5.93 for female), 2) collegial commitment (5.78 (5.78 for male and 5.52 for female) and 3) affective commitment (5.43 (5.43 for male and 5.15 5. 15 for female). Additionally, the differences in their mean scores were highly significant for for institutional (at p=0.005) and collegial commitment (at (at p=0.010), significant p=0.010), significant in in terms of affective commitment (at commitment (at (at p=0.017) and insignificant differences in their mean scores for continuance commitment and normative commitment .

Table 14. Mean Scores of the Different Types of Organizational Commitment according to Sexual Orientation TYPE OF COMMITMENT Affective

Continuance

Normative

Collegial

SEX

MEAN

INTERPRETATION

Male

5.43

Weakly Agree

Female

5.15

Weakly Agree

Male

4.61

Weakly Agree

Female

4.39

Neutral

Male

4.85

Weakly Agree

Female

4.68

Weakly Agree

Male

5.78

Agree

P-VALUE

SIGNIFICANCE

0.017

Significant

0.092

Not significant

0.115

Not significant

0.01

Highly significant 62 | P a g e

Institutional

Female

5.52

Agree

Male

6.19

Agree

Female

5.93

Agree

Highly significant

0.005

Relatedly, it was revealed in another survey that there was no significant significant diff d ifference erence between the job satisfaction and the levels of organizational and occupational commitment of the academics based on the gender variable (Munevver, 2006), which was not entirely supported by the current findings findings of the study. While in this study the men had relatively higher higher mean scores, another study however, negated these t hese results saying that the females were more committed committed compared to the males (Farooq, 2011) . Cramer, 1993; Harrison & Hubbard, 1998; Mowday, Mowday, 1982 in Farooq, 2011) also supported that as compared to the men, the women were more devoted and committed to their organization. organization. Similarly Ioscocco (1989) did a research in manufacturing industry and recommended that the female employees were more committed committed as compared to their male counterparts.

Table 15 shows that Accordin g to E mployment mployment Status. In terms of employment status, Table the mean scores ranged from a low of 4.51 (weakly (weakly agree for agree for continuance commitment) and a high of 6.19 (agree (agree for for institutional institutional commitment). Three of the highest highest scores could be traced to the fulltime the fulltime probationary faculty members in members in the areas of: 1 ) continuance commitment , 2) collegial commitment and and 3) institutional commitment while while the highest mean score ratings for affective commitment and and normative commitment were were given by the part-time the part-time faculty members.

63 | P a g e

Table 15. Mean Scores of the Different Types of Organizational Commitment According to Employment Status TYPE OF COMMITMENT

Affective

Continuance

Normative

Collegial

EMPLOYMENT STATUS

MEAN

INTERPRETATION

5.24

Weakly Agree

5.23

Weakly Agree

Part-time

5.47

Weakly Agree

Full-time permanent Full-time probationary

4.51

Weakly Agree

4.65

Weakly Agree

Part-time

4.51

Weakly Agree


4.69

Weakly Agree

4.83

Weakly Agree

Part-time

4.9

Weakly Agree

Full-time permanent

5.55

Agree


5.91

Agree

Part-time

5.77

Agree

6

Agree


6.19

Agree

Part-time

6.18

Agree


Full-time permanent Institutional

P-VALUE

SIGNIFICANCE

0.149

Not significant

0.763

Not significant

0.151

Not significant

0.028

Significant

0.132

Not significant

In this group, the choices for the top to p three types of commitment were identical, namely: 1) institutional commitment (at 6.00 for FT for FT permanent , 6.19 for FT for FT probationary and probationary and 6.18 for (at 5.55 for FT for FT permanent , 5.91 for FT for FT probationary and part-timers), part-timers), 2 ) collegial commitment (at probationary and 5.77 for part-timers for part-timers)) and 3) affective commitment (at 5.24 for FT for FT permanent , 5.23 for FT for FT probationary and 5.47 for part-timers for part-timers). ). Their mean mean scores scores were significantly were significantly different only only in terms of collegial commitment (at (at p=0.028) and were insignificantly different for for the remaining types or levels of commitment.

academic rank, the mean mean scores ranged Accordin g to Academi Academi c Rank. With regards to academic from a low of 4.29 (neutral (neutral for for continuance commitment) and a high of 6.33 (agree for agree for 64 | P a g e

institutional commitment). commitment). The highest highest mean score ratings ratings for affective commitment and and normative commitment were were given by the Lecturers the Lecturers while the Instructors the Instructors provided provided the highest mean score in terms of continuance commitment . Full Professors, Professors, on the other hand, figured highest in terms of the mean scores for collegial commitment and and institutional commitment as as summarized in Table 16.

Table 16. Mean Scores of the Different Types of Organizational Commitment according to Academic Rank TYPE OF COMMMITMENT

Affective

Continuance

Normative

Collegial

ACADEMIC RANK

MEAN

INTERPRETATION

Did not indicate

5.26

Weakly Agree

Lecturer

5.56

Agree


5.55

Agree

Instructor

5.09

Weakly Agree

Assistant professor

5.24

Weakly Agree

Associate professor

5.25

Weakly Agree

Full professor

5.38

Weakly Agree

Did not indicate

4.57

Weakly Agree

Lecturer

4.55

Weakly Agree


4.53

Weakly Agree

Instructor

4.59

Weakly Agree

Assistant professor

4.54

Weakly Agree

Associate professor

4.4

Neutral

Full professor

4.29

Neutral

Did not indicate

4.84

Weakly Agree

Lecturer

4.92

Weakly Agree


4.8

Weakly Agree

Instructor

4.58

Weakly Agree

Assistant professor

4.74

Weakly Agree

Associate professor

4.82

Weakly Agree

Full professor

4.9

Weakly Agree

Did not indicate

5.55

Agree

Lecturer

5.93

Agree


5.77

Agree

Instructor

5.72

Agree

Assistant professor

5.56

Agree

Associate professor

5.5

Agree

P-VALUE

SIGNIFICANCE

0.318

Not significant

0.967

Not significant

0.777

Not significant

0.131

Not significant

65 | P a g e

Institutional

Full professor

5.99

Agree

Did not indicate

6.09

Agree

Lecturer

6.22

Agree


6.22

Agree

Instructor

5.97

Agree

Assistant professor

6

Agree

Associate professor

5.91

Agree

Full professor

6.33

Agree

0.319

Not significant

The findings in this study negated the t he findings and explanations made on faculty commitment in Saudi Arabian Arabian universities. Educational level which was tantamount to academic rank, was found to be negatively associated with the organizational commitment (Iqbal, 2011). Iqbal’s (2011) findings findings imply that the less educated the faculty is, the more likely he or she is committed to the KSA universities than are the highly highly educated ones. He argued that education is an investment which would encourage the t he individual to seek better return on investment by searching for better jobs (Al-Kahtani, 2004 in Iqbal 2011). Joiner and Bakalis (2006) further contended t hat highly educated employees were likely to perceive fewer obstacles in finding alternative a lternative employment and were, therefore, less likely to feel “locked into” the organization. o rganization. However, the same study said that graduate graduate study with the employing university clearly enhanced the academics’ academics’ affective and continuance commitment (Joiner and Bakalis, Bakalis, 2006). With respect respect to affective commitment, it it was likely that the values of these academics were more congruent with the values of the university, hence they stayed on. It is noteworthy, however, that in the same g roup, the top three cho ices in terms of types of commitment were still still consistently given in the areas of: 1) institutional commitment (at (at 6.22 for Lecturers for Lecturers and and Professional Professional Lecturers, Lecturers, 5.97 for Instructors for Instructors,, 6.00 for Assistant for Assistant Professors Professors,, 5.91 for Associate for Associate Professors and Professors and 6.33 for Full for Full Professors), Professors), 2) collegial commitment (at (at 5.93 for Lecturers, Lecturers, 5.77 for Professional for Professional Lecturers, Lecturers, 5.72 for Instructor for Instructor s, s, 5.56 for Assistant for Assistant Professors Professors,, 66 | P a g e

5.50 for Associate for Associate Professors and 5.99 for Full for Full Professors) Professors) and 3) affective commitment (at (at 5.56 for Lecturers for Lecturers,, 5.55 for Professional for Professional Lecturers, Lecturers, 5.09 for Instructors for Instructors,, 5.24 for Assistant for Assistant Professors Professors,, 5.25 for Associate for Associate Professors and Professors and 5.38 for Full for Full Professors). Professors). When the mean scores scores were further further analyzed for this group, it could be noticed from the same table t hat these scores were not significantly different in in all types of commitment. Collegial commitment was high h igh among lecturers, professional lecturers, instructors, assistant professors, professors, associate associate professors and full professors. As operationally defined, collegial collegial commitment referred to one’s participation in the college’s various academic and non-academic non-academic programs. Participation in these these programs was strong when academic administrators supported the work environment environment that enhanced enhanced the dimensions dimensions of affective commitment. Other findings findings suggested that the turnover intention was more likely to occur if the faculty experience poo r working relationships with their academic unit head and co -workers, unclear work expectations and disagreement on relevant norms. norms. Alternately, if the faculty faculty experience positive working relationships, the urnover retention may be less likely to be experienced (Gormley & Kennerly, 2011).

Accordin g to L ength of Servi Servi ce. ce. To determine whether the length of service affects the

levels of commitment of the faculty members, a similar process was c onducted and as seen in Table 17, there was a slight slight variation in the ranking. ranking. The mean scores for for the types of commitment registered lowest at 4.33 (neutral (neutral for normative commitment) and highest at 6.44 (agree for agree for institutional institutional commitment). Three of these types types of commitment generated their their highest mean score ratings from the group of o f faculty members who were with the institution for 31 years or more, more, namely: 1) affective commitment , 2) normative commitment and and 3) institutional commitment . Whereas the top mean score ratings ratings for continuance commitment and and 67 | P a g e

collegial commitment could could be traced to faculty members who have been with w ith the institution for 26 to 30 years and 21 to 25 years, years, respectively.

Table 17. Mean Scores of the Different Types of Organizational Commitment according to Length of Service TYPE OF COMMITMENT

Affective

Continuance

LENGTH OF SERVICE

MEAN

INTERPRETATION

Did not indicate

5.34

Weakly Agree

0 to 5 years

5.30

Weakly Agree

6 to 10 years

5.17

Weakly Agree

11 to 15 years

5.37

Weakly Agree

16 to 20 years

5.12

Weakly Agree

21 to 25 years

5.80

Agree

26 to 30 years 31 years and over

4.50

Weakly Agree

6.30

Agree

Did not indicate

4.56

Weakly Agree

0 to 5 years

4.56

Weakly Agree

6 to 10 years

4.42

Neutral

11 to 15 years

4.30

Neutral

16 to 20 years

4.75

Weakly Agree

21 to 25 years

4.50

Weakly Agree

26 to 30 years

5.43

Weakly Agree

4.80

Weakly Agree

4.81

Weakly Agree

0 to 5 years

4.79

Weakly Agree

6 to 10 years

4.75

Weakly Agree

11 to 15 years

4.77

Weakly Agree

16 to 20 years

4.64

Weakly Agree

21 to 25 years

4.99

Weakly Agree

26 to 30 years

4.33

Neutral

31 years and over

5.06

Weakly Agree

Did not indicate

5.64

Agree

0 to 5 years

5.80

Agree

6 to 10 years

5.47

Weakly Agree

11 to 15 years

5.70

Agree

16 to 20 years

5.37

Weakly Agree

21 to 25 years

6.02

Agree

31 years and over Did not indicate

Normative

Collegial

PVALUE

SIGNIFICANCE

0.025

Significant

0.491

Not significant

0.839

Not significant

0.062

Not significant

68 | P a g e

Institutional

26 to 30 years

5.35

Weakly Agree

31 years and over

5.84

Agree

Did not indicate

6.13

Agree

0 to 5 years

6.13

Agree

6 to 10 years

6.02

Agree

11 to 15 years

6.04

Agree

16 to 20 years

5.97

Agree

21 to 25 years

6.23

Agree

26 to 30 years

5.48

Weakly Agree

31 years and over

6.44

Agree

0.579

Not significant

In finding the impact impact of demographics on organizational commitment, commitment, Iqbal (2011) found that length of service was highly significant s ignificant and positively associated with organizational commitment in the Kingdom Kingdom of Saudi Arabia universities. universities. An increased increased length of service to an organization increased the personal investment such as time, efforts promotion, pay, friendships and position. Accordingly, long service employees employees were willing to exert a level level of efforts that exceeds what was expected from them to achieve success for their t heir organizations (Al-Kahtani, 2004 in Iqbal 2011). Suliman and Lies (2000) noted that the employee who was affectively affectively attached to his or her organization, organ ization, valued his or her investments in it and felt felt a moral obligation to maintain membership. The literatures say that when individuals spend most most of the time in the organization, they became more more committed committed to the organization (Farooq, 2011).

Not

surprisingly, surprisingly, years in position, po sition, years in industry, and organizational o rganizational tenure were all significantly positively correlated. While most most of the experience variables are positively correlated with the affective and normative commitments, the correlations were not statistically statistically significant (C.J.M. 2003). Additionally, Munevver (2006) said that, faculty members who se working experience were 1-5 years tended to have lower level of continuance commitment compared to those with 669 | P a g e

10 years, 16-20 years and 21 years years and over. It could could be said that the lower lower is the number of years the faculty has in the university, the lower is his or her level level of commitment. Other findings said that, the individual was concerned w ith the need for security and whether his expectations will be met or not during du ring the first year and when the faculty reached the maturity stage after the fifth year he or she had a high level o f commitment commitment (Buchanan 1974, 19 74, in Munevver, 2006). The type of commitment commitment Buchanan (1974) referred to here was related to the findings on affective and normative commi co mmitment. tment. This was the first sub-grouping where a variation of the to p three types of commi co mmitment tment shows. In Table 17, five of the seven categories shared the same rankings, rankings, namely the groups of faculty members who were with with the institution institution for: 1) 0 to 5 years, years, 2) 6 to 10 years, years, 3) 11 to 15 years, years, 4) 16 to 20 years and years and 5) 21 to 25 years of years of service. service. Their rankings also reflected the top top three choices of the sub-groupings by sexual by sexual orientation, orientation, employment status, status, and academic rank . For these groups, the three major major types of commitment commitment were: 1) institutional commitment (at (at 6.13 for 0-5 years, years, 6.02 for 6-10 years, years, 6.04 for 11-15 years, years, 5.97 for 16-20 years, years, 6.23 for 21-25 years, years, 5.48 for 26-30 years and years and 6.44 for 31 years and above), above), 2) collegial commitment (at (at 5.80 for 0-5 years, years, 5.47 for 6-10 years, years, 5.70 for 11-15 years, years, 5.37 for 16-20 years, years, 6.02 for 21-25 years, years, 5.35 for 26-30 years and years and 5.84 for 31 years and above) above) and 3) affective commitment (at 5.30 for 0-5 years, years, 5.17 for 6-10 years, years, 5.37 for 11-15 years, years, 5.12 for 16-20 years and years and 5.80 for 21-25 years). years). While the first first (1st) and third (3 rd) choices for faculty members who have been with the institution for 26 to 30 years and years and 31 years and above were above were identical, namely: 6.44 , respectively) and collegial institutional commitment as their top choice (at 5.48 and 6.44, commitment as as their third choice (at 5.35 5. 35 and 5.84, respectively), they differed in their 2nd choice of type of commitment. commitment. For those who have been with with the University University for 26 to 30 years, years,

70 | P a g e

continuance commitment (at (at 5.43) was a consideration, the only time this type of commitment was reflected as among the top to p choices in the different sub-groupings, while for faculty members who have been with w ith the University for 31 years or more, more, affective commitment (at (at 6.30) was a second choice. Analyzing the differences differences in their mean scores further shows shows that this was significant only only in terms of affective commitment (at (at p=0.025) and insignificant for the other types of commitment.

part icipants in terms of their Accordin g to Des Design ation. Grouping the research participants designation revealed designation revealed that the mean scores ranged from a low of 4.35 (neutral (neutral for for continuance commitment) and a high of 6.64 ( strongly strongly agree for agree for institutional institutional commitment). Table 18 indicates further that the Deans the Deans gave gave the highest mean score ratings in four of the five levels of commitment, namely: 1) continuance commitment , 2) normative commitment, commitment, 3) collegial and 4) institutional commitment while while the group of faculty of faculty members provided commitment and members provided the highest rating in terms of o f affective commitment .

Table 18. Mean Scores of the Different Types of Organizational Commitment according to Designation TYPE OF COMMITMENT

Affective

Continuance

Normative

DESIGNATION

MEAN

INTERPRETATION

Faculty Department/Level chair

5.30

Weakly Agree

5.28

Weakly Agree

Dean

5.54

Agree

Faculty

4.53

Weakly Agree


4.35

Neutral

Dean

4.66

Weakly Agree

Faculty

4.76

Weakly Agree


4.87

Weakly Agree

Dean

5.34

Weakly Agree

P-VALUE

SIGNIFICANCE

0.86

Not significant

0.748

Not significant

0.313

Not significant

71 | P a g e

Collegial

Institutional

Faculty

5.64

Agree


5.87

Agree

Dean

5.95

Agree

Faculty Department/Level chair

6.06

Agree

6.11

Agree

6.64

Strongly Agree

Dean

0.351

Not significant

0.274

Not significant

The choices of the top to p three types of commitment were identical in this group and a lso resonated with the choices in the earlier sub-groupings, namely: namely: 1) institutional commitment (at (at 6.06 for faculty for faculty,, 6.11 for Department/Level for Department/Level Chairs and Chairs and 6.64 for Deans for Deans), ), 2) collegial commitment (at 5.64, 5.87 and 5.95, respectively) and 3) affective commitment (at (at 5.30, 5.28 and 5.54, respectively). An analysis of the differences in their mean scores scores indicated that these were not significant for for all types of commitment.

ter ms of collegial affiliation, affiliation, a closer look According According to Collegial Collegial Af fi li ation. Lastly, in terms at Table 19 shows that the mean score ratings reflected a low of 4.42 (neutral (neutral for for continuance commitment) and a high of 6.20 (agree (agree for for institutional institutional commitment). commitment). The faculty members members and administrators of the College of Business and Accountancy registered Accountancy registered relatively higher rat ings ings in three areas, namely: 1) normative commitment , 2) collegial commitment and and 3) institutional commitment while while the higher scores for affective commitment and and continuance commitment can can be traced to the Colleges of Arts and Sciences and Sciences and College of Education/College of Nursing , respectively.

72 | P a g e

Table 19. Mean Scores of the Different Types of Organizational Commitment according to Collegial Affiliation TYPE OF COMMITMENT

Affective

Continuance

Normative

Collegial

Institutional

COLLEGE

MEAN

INTERPRETATION

CAS

5.39

Weakly Agree

CBA

5.38

Weakly Agree

Educ

5.58

Agree

Eng'g

5.08

Weakly Agree

Nursing

5.16

Weakly We akly Agree

CAS

4.49

Neutral

CBA

4.42

Neutral

Educ

4.68

Weakly Agree

Eng'g

4.62

Weakly Agree

Nursing

4.68


CAS

4.75

Weakly Agree

CBA

4.85

Weakly Agree

Educ

4.55

Weakly Agree

Eng'g

4.54

Weakly Agree

Nursing

4.94


CAS

5.77

Agree

CBA

5.89

Agree

Educ

5.62

Agree

Eng'g

4.92

Weakly Agree

Nursing

5.61

Agree

CAS

6.15

Agree

CBA

6.20

Agree

Educ

6.10

Agree

Eng'g

5.69

Agree

Nursing

6.01

Agree

P-VALUE

SIGNIFICANCE

0.291

Not significant

0.69

Not significant

0.243

Not significant

0.001

Highly Significant

0.023

Significant

The top three choices of types of o f commitments were similar across all colleges with a slight variation in ranking for the College of Engineering in in their second second and third choices. For the colleges of Arts of Arts and Sciences, Business and Accountancy, Education and Nursing , these three choices were: 1) institutional commitment (at (at 6.15 for CAS, 6.20 for CBA, 6.10 for Education and 6.01 for Nursing), 2) collegial commitment (at (at 5.77, 5.89, 5.62 and 5.61, respectively) and

73 | P a g e

affective commitment (at (at 5.39, 5.38, 5.58 and 5.16, respectively). respectively). The faculty faculty members and administrators of the College of Engineering , on the other hand, saw 1) institutional commitment as a top choice (at 5.69) followed by affective commitment (at (at 5.08) and collegial commitment (at (at 4.92). In terms of the differences in the mean scores throughout t hese colleges, the differences were highly significant in in terms of collegial commitment (at (at p=0.001) and significant and significant insofar insofar as institutional commitment (at (at p=0.023). The differences differences in these these scores, however, were not for affective commitment , continuance commitment and and normative commitment . significant for One study said that the sense of o f allegiance to the unit where one is assigned to was dependent on a number of factors. These factors could could be in the form of job job embeddedness, working relationship, supervisor support, shared-values and the overall working cond ition. According to Joiner & Bakalis (2006), strong co -worker and supervisor supports both contributed to affective commitment. commitment. Moreover, formal and informal informal socialization, as well as ongoing forums to promote coworker interaction and communication, may further enhance the sense of belonging and loyalty loyalty to the University (Joiner & Balkis, 2006). Connectedly, Lowenstein, Fernandez & Crane (2007) conducted a study on the prevalence and predictors of intent to leave academic careers of medical school faculty. Their study highlighted the importance of colleague re lationships lationships which in this study referred to collegial relationship. relationship. They found out that faculty faculty were less likely to consider consider leaving if they were affiliated with an inter-department research or clinical center which wa s perhaps a reflection of closer colleague networks and stronger sense o f academic community. Lemaster (2004) further suggested that there was a correlation between the individualculture congruence and affective commi co mmitment tment at overall university and wo rk-unit subculture

74 | P a g e

levels. Literatures say that for every organizational culture, a sub-culture exists. As applied to to this study, this this sub-culture was the culture that that existed in every college. This study study shows that there existed high levels of o f collegial commitment in some of the colleges.

The Correlation between the Levels of Commitment and their Predictors

The thirteen predictors of organizational commitment may be further collapsed into six categories, namely: 1) economic predictors which predictors which included salaries included salaries and benefit package, package, 2) behavioral predictors which predictors which referred to job to job satisfaction, participation in in meetings and meetings and intent to stay, stay, 3) political 3) political predictors whi predictors which ch comprised of perceived of perceived influence on institutional policies and policies and perceived governance, governance, 4) structural 4) structural predictors predictors which took into account working conditions and conditions and job embeddedness, embeddedness, 5) professional 5) professional predictors consisting predictors consisting of professional of professional development , professional commitment , credentials, credentials, rank and and induction and induction and 6) institutional reputation. reputation. In order to determine the extent of correlation co rrelation between the different types of organizational commitment and its predictors, the following interpretative scale was used:

the Interpretation of Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient Table 20. Scale of the Size of Correlation

0.90 to 1.00 (+/-) 0.70 to 0.90 (+/-) 0.50 to 0.70 (+/-) 0.30 to 0.50 (+/-) 0.00 to 0.30 (+/-)

Interpretation Very high (positive/negative) correlation High (positive/negative) correlation Moderate (positive/negative) correlation Low (positive/negative) correlation Little if any correlation

Using the Pearson Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation (r (r ), ), all the predictors were positively correlated with the different types of organizational commitment with with varying degrees of relationship. relationship. In terms terms of affective commitment , two predictors were found to be of little if any positive correlation with this type of o f commitment, namely: professional development (r (r = 0.166 75 | P a g e

and p =.009) and credentials (r credentials (r = 0.25 and p =.001) both of which were found to be highly significant at at 99% confidence confidence level. There was also low positive correlation between correlation between affective commitment and and 9 other ot her predictors, namely: economic predictors (r predictors (r = 0.333 and p =.001), job =.001), job satisfaction (r satisfaction (r = 0.457 and p =.001), participation =.001), participation in meetings (r meetings (r = 0.358 and p =.001), intent to stay (r stay (r = 0.305 and p =.001), perceived =.001), perceived influence on institutional policies (r policies (r = 0.399 and p =.001), perceived governance (r governance (r = 0.437 and p =.001), working conditions (r conditions (r = 0.363 and p =.001), professional commitment (r = 0.336 and p =.001) and induction (r induction (r = 0.398 and p =.001), all of which were highly significant at at 99% confidence confidence level. There were 2 predictors predictors that had moderate positive correlation with correlation with affective commitment , among these: job these: job embeddedness (r embeddedness (r = 0.564 and p =.001) and institutional reputation (r reputation (r = 0.527 and p =.001), both of which were also highly significant at at 99% confidence confidence level. This means, that in in spite of the varying varying degrees of positive correlation between correlation between affective commitment and and the different predictors, predictors, all of these were highly significant at at a confidence level of 99%, therefore, rejecting the null hypothesis that hypothesis that there is no correlation correlation between affective commitment and the different different predictors. Thus, while while there were degrees of correlation between affective commitment and t he six categories of the predictors, indeed, these economic, behavioral, political, structural and professional professional predictors including institutional reputation had important implications on affective commitment.

Table 21. Correlation Matrix of the Predictors and the Different Types of Organizational Commitment

CORRELATION MATRIX PREDICTORS

TYPES OF COMMITMENT Affective

Continuance

Normative

Collegial

Institutional

Economic

0.333 0.001

0.145 0.024

0.271 0.001

0.515 0.001

0.522 0.001

Job satisfaction

0.457 0.001

0.006 0.93

0.373 0.001

0.551 0.001

0.497 0.001 76 | P a g e


0.358 0.001

0.028 0.667

0.239 0.001

0.532 0.001

0.491 0.001

Intent to stay

0.305 0.001

0.019 0.771

0.214 0.001

0.16 0.014

0.165 0.011

Perceived influence in

0.399

0.158

0.329

0.557

0.544

institutional policies

0.001

0.013

0.001

0.001

0.001


0.437 0.001

0.192 0.003

0.363 0.001

0.593 0.001

0.609 0.001

Working conditions

0.363 0.001

0.11 0.087

0.317 0.001

0.566 0.001

0.549 0.001

Job embeddedness

0.564

0.256

0.411

0.712

0.714

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001


0.166 0.009

0.239 0.001

0.155 0.016

0.174 0.007

0.175 0.006


0.336 0.001

0.227 0.001

0.302 0.001

0.416 0.001

0.471 0.001

Credentials

0.25 0.001

0.066 0.308

0.093 0.146

0.296 0.001

0.278 0.001

Induction

0.398 0.001

0.201 0.002

0.324 0.001

0.552 0.001

0.543 0.001


0.527 0.001

0.175 0.006

0.476 0.001

0.692 0.001

0.748 0.001

In fact, these findings were supported by the study of Sonia, particularly part icularly in the area of economic factors. According to Sonia Sonia (2008), employee perception of economic dependence was shown to be a possible generator of affective commitment. With regards to continuance commitment , in spite of the diff d ifferences erences in the values for Pearson’s coefficient of correlation, all of these values fell within the range of 0.00 to 0.30, implying little if any positive po sitive correlation with correlation with this this type of commitment. commitment. These results results were consistent with the responses of the faculty members that they were neutral insofar insofar as continuance commitment was was concerned and thus, t hus, it was not among their top three choices cho ices of the different types of organizational commitment.

77 | P a g e

Of the 13 predictors, 6 were found to be highly significant at at 99% level of confidence, namely: 1) perceived 1) perceived governance (r governance (r = 0.192 and p =.003), 2) job 2) job embeddedness (r embeddedness (r = 0.256 and p =.001), 3) professional 3) professional development (r (r = 0.239 and p =.001), 4) professional 4) professional commitment (r (r = 0.227 and p =.001), 5) induction (r induction (r = 0.201 and p =.002) and 6) institutional reputation (r reputation (r = 0.175 and p =.006). =.006). The correlation correlation between continuance commitment and and economic factors (r factors (r = 0.145 and p =.024) and perceived influence on institutional policies (r = 0.158 and p =.013) =.013 ) were found to be significant be significant at at 95% level of confidence while the remaining 5 predictors were not with continuance commitment , namely: 1) job 1) job satisfaction (r significantly correlated with satisfaction (r = 0.006 and p =.93), 2) participation 2) participation in meetings (r meetings (r = 0.028 and p =.667), 3) intent to stay (r stay (r = 0.019 and p = .771), 4) working working conditions (r conditions (r = 0.11 and p =.087) and 5) credentials (r credentials (r = 0.066 and p =.308). In other words, the null hypothesis that there is no correlation correlation between continuance commitment and the different predictors could cou ld only be rejected with all of the behavioral predictors (job satisfaction, satisfaction, participation in meetings and intent to stay), one of the structural predictors (working conditions) conditions) and another one of the professional predictors (credentials). (credentials). In other words, these predictors did not have important implications on continuance commitment. In terms of normative commitment , although all the values for Pearson’s coefficient of correlation registered positive values, there were 5 predictors that had little if any positive correlation with correlation with this type of commitment, commitment, among these: 1) economic factors (r factors (r = 0.271 and p =.001), 2) participation 2) participation in meetings (r meetings (r = 0;239 and p =.001), 3) intent to stay (r stay (r = 0.214 and p =.001), 4) professional 4) professional development (r (r = 0.155 and p =.016) and 5) credentials (r credentials (r = 0.093 and p =.146). However, the first the first 3 predictors were with predictors were found to be highly significantly correlated with normative commitment at at 99% level of confidence whereas the last 2 predictors were predictors were not significantly correlated with with normative commitment . Additionally, the remaining predictors predictors had

78 | P a g e

low positive correlation with correlation with normative commitment and and these included: 1 ) job satisfaction (r satisfaction (r =0.373 and p =.001), 2) perceived 2) perceived influence on institutional policies (r = 0.329 and p =.001), 3) perceived governance (r governance (r = 0.363 and p =.001), 4) working conditions (r conditions (r = 0.317 and p =.001), 5) job embeddedness (r embeddedness (r = 0.411 and p =.001), 6) profess 6) professional ional commitment (r (r = 0.302 and p =.001), 7) induction (r = 0.324 and p =.001) and 8) institutional reputation (r reputation (r = 0.476 and p =.001), all of which were highly significant at at 99% level level of confidence. Thus, it may be safe safe to say that insofar as normative commitment in concerned, all a ll the six categories of predictors (economic, (eco nomic, behavioral, political, structural, professional professional and institutional reputation) had important implications. Insofar as collegial commitment was was concerned, there were 3 predictors that had little if any positive correlation with correlation with this type of commitment, among these: 1) intent to stay (r stay (r = 0.16 and p =.014), 2) professional 2) professional development (r (r = 0.174 and p =.007) and 3) credentials (r credentials (r = 0.296 and p =.001) with the first predictor and the last 2 predictors being significantly being significantly and highly significantly correlated with with collegial commitment , respectively. Moreover , professional commitment had had a low positive correlation with correlation with collegial commitment (r (r = 0.416 and p =.001) which was highly significant at at 99% level of confidence. There were 8 predictors predictors that had moderate positive correlation with correlation with collegial commitment , namely: 1) economic factors (r factors (r =.0515 and p =.001), 2) job 2) job satisfaction (r satisfaction (r = 0.551 and p =.001), 3) participation 3) participation in meetings (r meetings (r = 0.532 and p =.001), 4) perceived 4) perceived influence on institutional policies (r policies (r = 0.557 and p =.001), 5) perceived governance (r governance (r = 0.593 and p =.001), 6) working conditions (r conditions (r = 0.566 and p =.001), 7) induction (r induction (r = 0.552 and p =.001) and 8) institutional reputation (r reputation (r =0.692 and p =.001) with all of these predictors being highly significantly correlated with with collegial commitment at 99% level of confidence. There was one predictor that had a high positive correlation with correlation with collegial

79 | P a g e

commitment and and this was job was job embeddedness (r embeddedness (r = 0.712 and p =.001) which was highly significant . In order words, as among among the top 3 manifestations manifestations of organizational organizational commitment for the faculty members of the University of o f St. La Salle, the six categories of the different predictors also had important implications on collegial collegial commitment. The fifth type of o f organizational commitment is institutional commitment and and this was in the top choice of commitment commitment of the faculty members. There were 3 predictors that had little if any positive correlation with institutional commitment , among among these: 1) intent to stay (r stay (r = 0.165 and p =.011), 2) professional 2) professional development (r (r = 0.175 and p =.006) and 3 ) credentials (r credentials (r = 0.278 and p =.001) with the first predictor and the last 2 predictors being significantly being significantly and and highly with institutional commitment , respectively. respectively. There were 3 predictors that significantly correlated with had low positive correlation with correlation with institutional commitment , namely: 1) job 1) job satisfaction (r satisfaction (r = 0.497 and p =.001), 2) participation 2) participation in meetings (r meetings (r = 0.491 and p =.001) and 3) professional 3) professional commitment (r (r = 0.471 and p =.001), all of which were highly significantly correlated with with institutional commitment at 99% level of confidence. There were 5 other predictors predictors that had moderate positive correlation with correlation with institutional commitment composed composed of: 1) economic factors (r factors (r = 0.522 and p =.001), 2) perceived 2) perceived influence on institutional policies (r policies (r = 0.544 and p =.001), 3) perceived governance (r governance (r = 0.609 and p =.001), 4) working conditions (r conditions (r = 0.549 and p =.001) and 5 ) induction (r induction (r = 0.543 and p =.001), all of which were also highly significantly correlated with institutional commitment . There were also also 2 predictors that had high positive correlation with correlation with institutional commitment which which were job were job embeddedness (r embeddedness (r = 0.714 and p =.001) and institutional with reputation (r reputation (r = 0.748 and p =.001), both of which were highly significantly correlated with institutional commitment at 99% level of confidence. Thus, T hus, such as in the case of co llegial commitment, the six categories of the predictors pred ictors also had important implications on institutional

80 | P a g e

commitment. This tendency seemed to be consistent consistent for 4 of the 5 types types of organizational commitment with the exception of continuance commitment. In a related literature, (Lasun & Nwosu, 2011) said that the intention to quit was wa s probably the most important important immediate antecedent antecedent of turnover decisions. decisions. According to Ajzen (1991), turnover intention was used instead of o f actual turnover because in general the theo ry of planned behavior suggested that behavioral was a good predictor of actual behavior. Researchers have found intent to leave or stay as the strongest predictor of factual turnover (Hendrix, Robbins, & Summers, 1999 & Liu, 2007 in Gbadamosi Gbadamosi & Chinaka). Ch inaka). Other results on the study stu dy of the relationship between turnover intentions and actual turnover have extended support and evidence on the significant relationship between these variables (Lambert et al, 2001 in Lasun & Nwosu, 2011). The results of this study, however, did did not seem to entirely support this relationship. relationship. On another analysis, this study resonated with t he findings of Sonia (2008) especially with regards to the the relational norms of flexibility, flexibility, participation participation and information exchange. These factors significantly significantly influenced affective commitment. It seemed that solidarity solidarity among colleagues in the firm was not enough to engender affective commitment, whereas the employee’s perception that agreements showed showed flexibility, that opinions were taken into account and that there was a frequent exchange of information with the firm could creat e the emotional ties included in affective commitment (Sonia 2008).

Multiple Regression Analysis of the Relationship between the Different Types of Commitment and their Predictors

In an attempt to quantify the magnitude of o f the relationship for each type of o f commitment commitment and its predictors, a multiple regression analysis was conduct ed for each of these types of commitment which resulted to the generation of a regression equat ion with regression 81 | P a g e

coefficients ( (s) that measured the magnitude of the relationship between a spec ific type of commitment and its predictors. predictors. Each regression equation reflected reflected the regression coefficients as well as the computed t-values which served as basis for determining whether these coeffi coe fficients cients were significant significant at least at 95% level of confidence (p < .05). These coefficients, coefficients, however, did not really have to be taken at nominal or face value but instead served as guide to reinforce the earlier process of establishing the correlation between organ izational commitment and its predictors. The computation of the values for the regression regression coefficients and their t-values were done through the use of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).

Af f ective Commitment. As can can be observed observed from Table 22, affective commitment had had 4

relevant predictors, 3 of which were highly significant and and 1 of o f which was significant was significant . These predictors were: 1) job 1) job embeddedness ( embeddedness (  = 0.331 and p =.001), 2) institutional reputation ( reputation (  = 0.274 and p =.010), 3) intent to stay ( stay (  = 0.141 and p =.001) and 4) job 4) job satisfaction ( satisfaction (  = 0.170 and p =.036). All of these significant significant predictors were positively were positively related with with affective commitment . Among these predictors, job predictors, job embeddedness had embeddedness had the highest h ighest positive effect on this type of commitment while intent to stay had stay had the lowest positive effect on affective commitment. With regards to the 9 remaining predictors, these were not found to be significantly related with affective commitment (their (their p-values were greater than 0.05) and t herefore, the null hypothesis that their ’s are equal to zero ( ( ’s = 0) was was accepted for for these predictors.

82 | P a g e

Table 22. Summary of the Regression Analysis for Affective Commitment Commitment

REGRESSION ANALYSIS Dependent variable: Affective Commitment

Model

Induction

Beta 0.481 -0.079 0.17 0.014 0.141 0.016 0.032 -0.082 0.331 0.03 0.022 0.036 -0.04

t 0.983 -1.25 2.109 0.203 3.762 0.248 0.44 -0.981 3.21 0.788 0.315 0.725 -0.652

p-value 0.327 0.213 0.036 0.839 0.001 0.804 0.66 0.328 0.002 0.432 0.753 0.469 0.515

Significance Not significant Not significant Significant Not significant Highly significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Highly significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant


0.274

2.603

0.01

Highly significant

Constant Economic Job satisfaction Participation in meetings Intent to stay Perceived influence in Perceived governance Working conditions Job embeddedness Professional development Professional commitment Credentials

summarizes the regression regression details for for continuance Contin uance Commitment. Table 23 summarizes commitment . Based on the results results of the regression regression analysis that was run using SPSS, it it can be seen there were only 3 significant significant predictors, namely: namely: 1) job 1) job embeddedness ( embeddedness (  = 0.353 and p =.016), 2) job 2) job satisfaction ( satisfaction (  = -0.253 and p =.028) and 3) professional 3) professional development ( ( = 0.133 and p =.013). Job embeddedness and embeddedness and professional professional development both both had positive had positive relationships with continuance commitment with job with job embeddedness having embeddedness having a relatively higher positive effect on continuance commitment. On the other hand, hand, job job satisfaction was satisfaction was negatively related with with continuance commitment which which did not seem to to be theoretically consistent. consistent. The remaining remaining 10 predictors were not found to be significantly related with with continuance commitment , thus, the null hypothesis for hypothesis for these predictors was accepted .

83 | P a g e

Table 23. Summary of the Regression Analysis for Continuance Commitment

REGRESSION ANALYSIS Dependent variable: Continuance Commitment

Beta

t

Constant

3.319

4.834

Economic Job satisfaction

0.056 -0.253

0.634 -2.217


-0.165

-1.725

pvalue 0.001 0.527 0.028 0.086

Intent to stay

-0.025

-0.453

0.651

Not significant

Perceived influence in

0.014

0.159

0.873

Not significant


0.076

0.744

0.458

Not significant

Working conditions Job embeddedness

-0.106 0.353

-0.906 2.44

0.366 0.016

Not significant Significant


0.133

2.508

0.013

Significant

Professional commitment Credentials

0.154 -0.08

1.596 -1.136

0.112 0.257

Not significant Not significant

Induction

0.007

0.078

0.938

Not significant


0.04

0.273

0.785

Not significant

Model

Significance Highly significant Not significant Significant Not significant

Some studies say that job satisfaction, occupational a nd organizational commitments were not completely completely unrelated. Organizational commitment was an answer to the belief in in organization and job satisfaction was an answer a nswer to certain duties and experience (Glisson & Durick, 1988 in Munever, 2006). Balay, (2000 in Munevver 2006) said that these two were very much related. An individual individual may be unhappy about some duties and experiences experiences but can be very strong in terms of committing committing oneself to the organization. The research findings findings of Meyer et al (2001) stated they had found the t he strongest correlation between affective and normative commitment to both occupation and t he organization, but was negat ively related with continuance. This study study shows that job satisfaction satisfaction was negatively related with with continuance commitment which seemed to support Meyer’s study.

84 | P a g e

Nor mati ve Commitment. With regards to normative commitment , only 2 of the

predictors were relevant as shown in Table 24. These were: 1) institutional reputation ( reputation (  = 0.341 and p =.002) which was highly significant and and 2) intent to stay ( stay (  = 0.084 and p =.028) which was significant was significant . Both of these predictors predictors were positively were positively related with normative commitment although although institutional reputation had reputation had a relatively higher positive effect on on this type of commitment. Of the 13 predictors, predictors, 11 were found found to be not significantly related with with normative commitment and and therefore, the null hypothesis for hypothesis for these predictors was accepted .

Table 24. Summary of the Regression Analysis for Normative Commitment Commitment

REGRESSION ANALYSIS Dependent variable: Normative Commitment

Model Constant Economic Job satisfaction Participation in meetings Intent to stay Perceived influence in Perceived governance Working conditions Job embeddedness Professional development Professional commitment Credentials Induction Institutional reputation

Beta 1.196 -0.048 0.135 -0.051 0.084 0.028 0.027 0.01 0.047 0.038 0.115 -0.076 -0.014 0.341

t 2.409 -0.744 1.653 -0.731 2.215 0.436 0.36 0.124 0.449 1.004 1.648 -1.502 -0.232 3.188

p-value 0.017 0.458 0.1 0.466 0.028 0.663 0.719 0.901 0.654 0.317 0.101 0.135 0.817 0.002

Significance Significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not Not significant Not significant Not significant Highly significant

it came to collegial commitment, commitment, as indicated in Table 25, Coll egial Commitment. When it 3 of these predictors were relevant, 2 of o f which were highly significant and and the remaining being significant. These predictors included: 1) job 1) job embeddedness ( embeddedness (  = 0.225 and p =.003), 2) participation in meetings ( meetings (  = 0.141 and p = .004) and 3) institutional 3) institutional reputation ( reputation (  = 0.183 and 85 | P a g e

p = .016). These predictors were positively were positively related with with collegial commitment with job with job embeddedness having the relatively re latively greater greater positive effect on on collegial commitment . While the remaining 10 predictors, on the other hand, had p-values greater than 0.05 (p > 0.05) meaning the null hypothesis was hypothesis was accepted for these predictors.

Table 25. Summary of the Regression Analysis for Collegial Commitment Commitment

REGRESSION ANALYSIS Dependent variable: Collegial Commitment

Model

Intent to stay

Beta 0.558 0.013 0.097 0.141 0.021

t 1.595 0.277 1.677 2.892 0.779

p-value 0.112 0.782 0.095 0.004 0.437

Perceived influence in Perceived governance

0.047 0.041

1.026 0.792

0.306 0.429 0.429


Working conditions Job embeddedness

0.024 0.225

0.412 3.051

0.681 0.003

Not significant Highly significant


-0.008

-0.306

0.76

Not significant


0.093

1.897

0.059

Not Not significant

Credentials Induction

0.007 0.016

0.195 0.361

0.846 0.718



0.183

2.436

0.016

Significant

Constant Economic Job satisfaction Participation in meetings

Significance Not significant Not significant Not significant Highly significant Not significant

I nstitu nstitu tional Commitme Commitment. nt. For the remaining type of organizational commitment, Table

26 reveals that institutional commitment had had 3 highly significant predictors, predictors, namely: namely: 1) institutional reputation ( reputation (  = 0.366 and p =.001), 2) job 2) job embeddedness ( embeddedness (  = 0.191 and p =.004) and 3) professional 3) professional commitment ( ( = 0.142 and p = .002). These 3 predictors predictors were positively were positively related with with institutional commitment with with institutional reputation showing reputation showing relatively higher positive effect on on this this type of commitment. The 10 remaining remaining predictors did not appear to be

86 | P a g e

significantly related with with institutional commitment and therefore, the t he null hypothesis ( hypothesis ( ’s = 0) for these predictors was accepted.

Table 26. Summary of the Regression Analysis for Institutional Commitment

REGRESSION ANALYSIS Dependent variable: Institutional Commitment

Model


Beta 1.076 0.013 0.015 0.066 0.03 0.017 0.06 0.001 0.191 -0.011

t 3.412 0.322 0.292 1.512 1.268 0.417 1.276 0.023 2.901 -0.455

p-value 0.001 0.748 0.77 0.132 0.206 0.677 0.204 0.982 0.004 0.65

Significance Highly significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Highly significant Not significant


0.142

3.212

0.002

Highly significant

Credentials Induction

-0.006 -0.025

-0.2 -0.65

0.842 0.516


Constant Economic Job satisfaction Participation in meetings Intent to stay Perceived influence in Perceived governance Working conditions Job embeddedness

Across the different types of organizational commitment, there were a total of 7 of the 13 predictors that were either significantly either significantly or or highly significantly related significantly related with organizational commitment . There were 2 predictors that showed up in four four (4) types of organizational organizational commitment, namely: 1) institutional reputation (in reputation (in affective, normative, collegial and institutional commitment ) and 2) job 2) job embeddedness (in embeddedness (in affective, continuance, collegial and ). There were 2 other predictors predictors that proved relevant relevant in 2 of the 5 types types institutional commitment ). of organizational commitment , among among these: 1) job 1) job satisfaction (in satisfaction (in affective and continuance commitment ) and 2) intent to stay (in stay (in affective and normative commitment ). ). The last last 3 predictors demonstrated in a specific type of organizational commitment and and these these were: 1) professional 1) professional

87 | P a g e

development (in (in continuance commitment ), ), 2) participation 2) participation in meetings (in meetings (in collegial commitment ) and 3) professional 3) professional commitment (in (in institutional commitment ). ). Some literatures say that employees who were satisfied satisfied with their jobs were likely to stay with the company and negatively influence their their decisions or intentions to leave. leave. Caldarola (2010) says that the theory of job e mbeddedness posits that work and non-work no n-work dimensions of links, fit fit and sacrifice tie employees employees to their role in the organization. organization. Although job embeddedness has been theorized to predict the key outcomes of both intent to leave and voluntary turnover, it has been connected to recent discussions of retention and intent to stay. On another aspect of commi co mmitment, tment, the results of this study also suggested that participation in meetings is a predictor of collegial collegial commitment which supports the findings of Henryhand (2009). His study study found that the perceptions perceptions of employee engagement had a significant impact impact on overall job satisfaction satisfaction and intent to leave the organization. The level of satisfaction with recognition and engagement practices was a significant predictor of the turnover intentions or intentions to stay. While intent to stay was a strong predictor pred ictor of affective and normative commitments, it too was influenced by other variables. variables. Some beliefs like open communication with with institutional leaders and an effective voice vo ice in governance were strong predictors of intent to leave academic medicine (Lowenstein, Fernandez, Fernandez, & Crane). According to one faculty, faculty, “t here here are opportunities in our school for school for faculty to voice opinions, but it isn’t clear that anybody at the top is listening”. This sentiment sentiment was somehow shared by some faculty members in this this study. They, for example, suggested that, “there should be an open communication between the administration and the faculty members. Some felt that the faculty had “nobody up there to defend them. If they they openly communicated communicated with with administration, it became misinterpreted. misinterpreted. The

88 | P a g e

formulation and implementation of institutional policies should follow a process of consultdeliberate-vote.” deliberate-vote.” Still, other studies found out that employee recognition and employee engagement had a significant impact on overall job satisfaction and intent to leave the o rganization (Henryhand, 2009). Henryhand’s (2009) Henryhand’s (2009) findings supported the t he theory that the level of satisfaction with recognition and engagement practices pract ices was a significant predictor of turnover intentions.

Commitment Indices

In a desire to provide even more meaningful analysis and interpretations to the different different predictors of organizational commitment, commitment, the researchers explored the possibility possibility of formulating a commitment index through the use o f the principal component analysis or the principal factor analysis. The mean scores for for the different types of commitment as well as for for the overall organizational commitment were determined and their co rresponding standard deviations were used to establish the range of scores which were then converted into three (3) levels of commitment, namely: 1) low, low, 2) average and average and 3) high. high.

Table 27. Summary of the Range Ran ge of the Mean Mea n Scores of the Different Types of Organizational Commitment

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS: COMMITMENT Affective Continuance Normative Collegial Institutional

MIN 1.75 1.00 2.00 2.53 3.06

MAX 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00

MEAN 5.3167 4.5241 4.7808 5.6731 6.086

SD 0.89639 1.00898 0.79885 0.77529 0.7178

Overall

2.84

6.63

5.2764

0.58612

89 | P a g e

Table 27 shows the minimum, minimum, maximum and mean scores for the different types of organizational commitment , their corresponding standard deviation and defined ranges for the different levels of commitment. As can be gleaned from from Table 28, there are ranges of scores. The range of scores in between the t he two other columns referred to the average level of commitment which which was equivalent to one (1) standard deviation above and below the mean score for each type of commi co mmitment tment ( (   ). When this range of score had had been determined, the range range of scores below its lower limit was referred to low level of commitment while while the range of scores above its upper limit was referred to high level of commitment . Using these values, it can also be o bserved that continuance commitment (4.5241) (4.5241) had the lowest mean value while w hile institutional commitment (6.0860) (6.0860) had the highest mean value. Additionally, continuance commitment (1.00898) (1.00898) and overall commitment (0.58612) (0.58612) generated the highest and lowest standard deviation, deviation, respectively, in the group. The type of commitment commitment that had the broadest range o f values (institutional (institutional commitment ) for low level of commitment led led to a smaller range of values for high level of commitment and and vice versa (continuance (continuance commitment ). ).

Table 28. Summary of the Range of Values across Different Types and Levels of Organizational Commitment

COMMITMENT INDEX LEVELS OF COMMITMENT

TYPES OF COMMITMENT Affective Continuance Normative Collegial

LOW 1.00-4.49 1.00-3.50 1.00-4.00 1.00-4.90

AVERAGE 4.50-6.29 3.51-5.50 4.01-5.60 4.91-6.45

HIGH 6.30-7.00 5.51-7.00 5.61-7.00 6.46-7.00

Institutional

1.00-5.37

5.38-6.80

6.81-7.00

Overall

1.00-4.69

4.70-5.86

5.87-7.00 90 | P a g e

On the basis of these values, the overall o verall responses of the research participants vis-à-vis the different types of commitment were located in these ranges o f values and their levels of commitment were identified identified correspondingly. The percentage share of each level of commitment for each type of commitment was then summarized as shown in Table 29.

Table 29. Summary of the Percentage Share of the Types and Levels of Commitment PERCENTAGE SHARE TYPES OF COMMITMENT Affective Continuance Normative Collegial Institutional

LOW 16.6 15.1 19.1 15.8 11.2

AVERAGE 70.4 72.2 63.4 66.8 68.9

HIGH 13 12.7 17.5 17.4 19.9

TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100

Overall

14.4

69.1

16.5

100

While the majority of the ratings tended or converged to wards the average level of commitment for for all types of commitment , it is interesting to look at the composition co mposition of the groupings at each level of commitment. For example, looking looking at the percentage share for the the low level of commitment , institutional commitment (11.2%) (11.2%) had the smallest percentage share o f research participants that were identified as belonging to t his group while normative commitment (19.1%) had the highest percentage share of faculty and administrators classified classified as having low level of commitment . Insofar as the average level of commitment was was concerned, normative commitment (63.4%) (63.4%) had the lowest percentage share while continuance commitment (72.2%) (72.2%) had the highest percentage share of research participants indicating average level of commitment. In terms of the high level of commitment percentage percentage sharing, continuance commitment (12.7%) (12.7%) had the smallest share while w hile institutional commitment (19.9%) (19.9%) had the highest percentage share 91 | P a g e

which reinforced the earlier findings where the research participants rated t hemselves hemselves lowest and highest in the areas of continuance commitment and and institutional commitment , respectively. The commitment index was also further disaggregated across sex, across sex, employment status, academic rank, length of service, designation and college affiliation to affiliation to determine whether there were significant differences in their commitment indices.

summarizes the responses of the research Accordin g to Sexual Sexual Or ientati on. Table 30 summarizes participants into a comparative presentation of the commitment commitment indices across the male and male and female partici female participants. pants. Once again, the tendency of the the scores to converge towards the average level of commitment was was consis co nsistent tent for both sexes across sexes across the different types of commitment although the male participants male participants consistently had bigger percentage shares under this area relative to the female the female partici participants. pants. Furthermore, with the exception exception of normative commitment , there were also bigger percentage shares of highly committed male participants the female male participants relative to the female participants.

Table 30. Summary of the Commitment Index according to Sexual Orientation AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT Sex Female Male Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

18 23 41

12.3 22.8 16.6

105 69 174

71.9 68.3 70.4

23 9 32

15.8 8.9 13

146 101 247

100 100 100

Chi-square p-value = .045 (Significant)

CONTINUANCE COMMITMENT Sex Female Male Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

18 19 37

12.4 19 15.1

106 71 177

73.1 71 72.2

21 10 31

14.5 10 12.7

145 100 245

100 100 100

Chi-square p-value = .262 (Not Significant) 92 | P a g e

NORMATIVE COMMITMENT Sex Female Male Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

22 25 47

15.1 25 19.1

99 57 156

67.8 57 63.4

25 18 43

17.1 18 17.5

146 100 246

100 100 100

Chi-square p-value = .123 (Not Significant)

COLLEGIAL COMMITMENT Sex Female Male Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

17 22 39

11.6 21.8 15.8

103 62 165

70.5 61.4 66.8

26 17 43

17.8 16.8 17.4

146 101 247

100 100 100

Chi-square p-value = .097 (Not Significant)

INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT Sex Female Male Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

10 17 27

7 17.3 11.2

104 62 166

72.7 63.3 68.9

29 19 48

20.3 19.4 19.9

143 98 241

100 100 100

Chi-square p-value = .042 (Sig nificant)

OVERALL COMMITMENT Sex Female Male Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

15 20 35

10.4 20.2 14.4

100 68 168

69.4 68.7 69.1

29 11 40

20.1 11.1 16.5

144 99 243

100 100 100

Chi-square p-value = .033 (Sig nificant)

Additionally, using the Chi-square test, the results indicated t hat the commitment indices between the male and male and female female research research participants were significantly were significantly different in in three types of commitment. These types of commitment included: 1) affective commitment (p=0.045), (p=0.045), 2) institutional commitment (p=0.042) (p=0.042) and overall commitment (p=0.033). (p=0.033). 93 | P a g e

20.2

Male

68.7

10.4

Female

0

11.1

69.4

20

40 Low

20.1

60 Average

80

100

High

Figure 7. Summary of the Commitment Commitment Index according to Sexual Orientation A study on the moderating effects of tenure and ge nder on the relationship between perception of organizational politics and commitment commitment and trust “supported previous findings that employees’ employees’ gender, tenure, and demographic characteristics had effects on their perceptions of equity” equity”(Kotabe et a, 1992; and Tansky et al, 1997 as cited in Indartono & Chen, 2011). Though in this study the male participants part icipants showed higher percentages on the t he different aspects of commitment as compared to the t he female participants, Al-Ajmi (2006), found that “the relationship between gender and organizational organizational commitment has also remained remained unclear. Mixed results have been reported on the relationship between gender and commitment in previous studies” (P.36). studies” (P.36). Hence, the findings findings partly negated the results results of the findings findings of Al-Ajmi (2006). A qualitative study on how gendered is organizational commitment utilized a grounded theory approach. The research found out that the existing existing measures of organizational organizational commitment were biased and were not appropriate measures of the commitment of women and some men in contemporary workplaces. workplaces. Fisher, Boyle and Fulop Fulop (2010) said that studying studying 94 | P a g e

organizational commitment using an interpretive approach a llowed llowed a more realistic realistic picture to emerge. Current approaches focused focused on measurement rather than understanding understanding the nature of organizational commitment. commitment. As a consequence, consequence, the commitment of women, and some some men, was not accurately and clearly understood in many workplaces. The lack of understanding understanding led to the perception that women, and some men, were lacking in commitment to their organization.

summarizes the Accordin g to E mployment mployment Status. Table 31, on the other hand, summarizes commitment indices of the participants across their employment status. status. Consistently, Consistently, the tendency of the majority majority to converge towards the average level of commitment was was manifested with the fulltime the fulltime probationary and probationary and part-time part-time faculty faculty members garnering the bigger percentage shares in three types of commitment each, namely: affective commitment (86.7%), continuance commitment (75.9%) (75.9%) and normative commitment (75.9%) (75.9%) for the fulltime the fulltime probationary faculty probationary faculty and collegial commitment (69.3%), institutional commitment (72.9%) (72.9%) and overall commitment (79.1%) for the part-time the part-time facul faculty ty member. These findings reinforced reinforced the t he earlier statements statements which indicated that the fulltime the fulltime probationary and probationary and part-time part-time faculty faculty members tended to be more committed relative to the fulltime the fulltime permanent faculty faculty members and administrators.

Table 31. Summary of the Commitment Index according to Employment Employment Status AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT Status Full-time permanent Full-time probationary Part-time Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

30 3 8 41

23.1 10 9.2 16.6

83 26 65 174

63.8 86.7 74.7 70.4

17 1 14 32

13.1 3.3 16.1 13

130 30 87 247

100 100 100 100

Chi-square p-value = .018 (Significant)

CONTINUANCE COMMITMENT Status

Low

Average

High

Total 95 | P a g e

Full-time permanent Full-time probationary Part-time Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

21 3 13 37

16.3 10.3 14.9 15.1

93 22 62 177

72.1 75.9 71.3 72.2

15 4 12 31

11.6 13.8 13.8 12.7

129 29 87 245

100 100 100 100

Chi-square p-value = .932 (Not significant)

NORMATIVE COMMITMENT Status Full-time permanent Full-time probationary Part-time Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

34 3 10 47

26.2 10.3 11.5 19.1

75 22 59 156

57.7 75.9 67.8 63.4

21 4 18 43

16.2 13.8 20.7 17.5

130 29 87 246

100 100 100 100

Chi-square p-value = 0.046 (Significant)

COLLEGIAL COMMITMENT Status Full-time permanent Full-time probationary Part-time Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

25 3 11 39

19.2 10.3 12.5 15.8

87 17 61 165

66.9 58.6 69.3 66.8

18 9 16 43

13.8 31 18.2 17.4

130 29 88 247

100 100 100 100

Chi-square p-value = 0.161 (Not significant)

INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT Status Full-time permanent Full-time probationary Part-time Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

19 2 6 27

15 6.9 7.1 11.2

83 21 62 166

65.4 72.4 72.9 68.9

25 6 17 48

19.7 20.7 20 19.9

127 29 85 241

100 100 100 100


OVERALL COMMITMENT Status Full-time permanent Full-time probationary Part-time Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

26 2 7 35

20.3 6.9 8.1 14.4

80 20 68 168

62.5 69 79.1 69.1

22 7 11 40

17.2 24.1 12.8 16.5

128 29 86 243

Chi-square p-value = 0.034 (Significant) 96 | P a g e

% 100 100 100 100

With regards to the low levels of commitment , the fulltime the fulltime permanent research research participants had bigger percentage shares in all areas of commitment . When it came to the high levels of commitment , the biggest percentage shares in terms of affective (16.1%) , , continuance (13.8% shared with the fulltime the fulltime probationary respondents) probationary respondents) and normative commitment (20.7%) (20.7%) were the part-timers the part-timers.. In the three three remaining types of commitment, commitment, referring to collegial (31.0%) , institutional (20.7%) (20.7%) and overall commitment (24.1%), the fulltime the fulltime probationary research participants showed relatively higher percentage shares.

8.1

Part-time

79.1

12.8

Low 6.9


69

24.1

Average High

20.3

Full-time permanent

0

20

62.5

40

60

17.2

80

100

Figure 8. Summary of the Commitment Index according to Employment Status Furthermore, using the Chi-square technique once again, the results show that the commitment indices across employment status were status were significantly significantly different in in three areas, namely: 1) affective commitment (p=0.018), (p=0.018), 2) normative commitment (p=0.046) (p=0.046) and overall commitment (p=0.034).

97 | P a g e

encapsulates the commitment commitment indices across Accordin g to Academi Academi c Rank. Table 32 encapsulates academic rank . Repeatedly, the tendency for for the majority scores to to converge towards the average level of commitment was was shown with the Professional the Professional Lecturers garnering Lecturers garnering the bigger percentage shares in the areas of affective commitment (78.9%), (78.9%), normative commitment (70.3%), institutional commitment (72.2%) (72.2%) and overall commitment (77.8%), (77.8%), while the Associate the Associate Professors and Lecturers and Lecturers led led the pack in the average level of commitment among among the participants in the areas of continuance commitment (92.3%) (92.3%) and collegial commitment (73.9%), (73.9%), respectively.

Table 32. Summary of Commitment Index according to Academic Rank AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT Rank Did not indicate Lecturer Professional Lecturer Instructor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

7 1 2 5 21 2 3 41

18.4 4.3 5.3 18.5 23.6 15.4 15.8 16.6

27 18 30 20 56 9 14 174

71.1 78.3 78.9 74.1 62.9 69.2 73.7 70.4

4 4 6 2 12 2 2 32

10.5 17.4 15.8 7.4 13.5 15.4 10.5 13

38 23 38 27 89 13 19 247

% 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


CONTINUANCE COMMITMENT Rank Did not indicate Lecturer Professional Lecturer Instructor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

7 4 6 4 13 1 2 37

18.4 17.4 16.2 14.8 14.6 7.7 11.1 15.1

24 16 24 17 69 12 15 177

63.2 69.6 64.9 63 77.5 92.3 83.3 72.2

7 3 7 6 7 0 1 31

18.4 13 18.9 22.2 7.9 0 5.6 12.7

38 23 37 27 89 13 18 245

Chi-square p-value = 0.480 (Not significant) 98 | P a g e

% 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

NORMATIVE COMMITMENT Rank Did not indicate Lecturer Professional Lecturer Instructor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

5 3 4 8 22 2 3 47

13.2 13 10.8 29.6 24.7 15.4 15.8 19.1

29 15 26 16 50 7 13 156

76.3 65.2 70.3 59.3 56.2 53.8 68.4 63.4

4 5 7 3 17 4 3 43

10.5 21.7 18.9 11.1 19.1 30.8 15.8 17.5

38 23 37 27 89 13 19 246

% 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


COLLEGIAL COMMITMENT Rank Did not indicate Lecturer Professional Lecturer Instructor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

7 1 5 3 18 3 2 39

18.4 4.3 13.2 11.1 20.2 23.1 10.5 15.8

27 17 25 19 57 7 13 165

71.1 73.9 65.8 70.4 64 53.8 68.4 66.8

4 5 8 5 14 3 4 43

10.5 21.7 21.1 18.5 15.7 23.1 21.1 17.4

38 23 38 27 89 13 19 247

% 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT Rank Did not indicate Lecturer Professional Lecturer Instructor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

4 2 2 3 12 3 1 27

10.8 8.7 5.6 11.5 13.6 23.1 5.6 11.2

27 16 26 17 60 8 12 166

73 69.6 72.2 65.4 68.2 61.5 66.7 68.9

6 5 8 6 16 2 5 48

16.2 21.7 22.2 23.1 18.2 15.4 27.8 19.9

37 23 36 26 88 13 18 241

% 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


OVERALL COMMITMENT Rank

Low

Average

High

Total

99 | P a g e

Did not indicate Lecturer Professional Lecturer Instructor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

4 2 2 5 17 3 2 35

10.5 8.7 5.6 18.5 19.1 23.1 11.8 14.4

31 17 28 19 56 7 10 168

81.6 73.9 77.8 70.4 62.9 53.8 58.8 69.1

3 4 6 3 16 3 5 40

7.9 17.4 16.7 11.1 18 23.1 29.4 16.5

38 23 36 27 89 13 17 243


Looking at the low levels of commitment summary, summary, the Associate the Associate Professors generated Professors generated bigger percentage shares in three (3) areas of commitment, commitment, namely: 1) collegial commitment (23.1%), 2) institutional commitment (23.1%) (23.1%) and overall commitment (23.1%) (23.1%) while the Lecturers indicated Lecturers indicated bigger percentage shares in the area of continuance commitment (17.4%), (17.4%), the Assistant Professors Professors registered registered higher percentage share in the area of affective commitment (23.6%) while the bigger percentage share for normative commitment (29.6%) (29.6%) could be traced to the Instructors the Instructors.. On the other hand, when it came to high levels of commitment , the Associate the Associate Professors and Professors and Full Full Professors garnered bigger percentage shares in two areas each, namely: normative (30.8%) normative (30.8%) and collegial commitment (23.1%) (23.1%) for the Associate the Associate Professors Professors and institutional (27.8%) (27.8%) and overall commitment (29.4%) (29.4%) for the Full the Full Professors. Professors. While the Lecturers and Lecturers and Instructors Instructors led led the t he group in terms of high levels of committed faculty members and administrators in the areas of affective (17.4%) affective (17.4%) and continuance commitment (22.2%), (22.2%), respectively.

100 | P a g e

% 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

7.9

81.6

10.5

17.4

16.7

73.9

77.8

8.7

11.1

70.4

5.6

18

23.1

62.9

53.8

29.4

58.8

18.5

19.1

23.1

High Average

11.8

Low

Figure 9. Summary of the Commitment Index according to Academic Rank The results showed some similarities to the earlier results indicating that the group of Lecturers, Lecturers, Instructors and Instructors and Full Full Professors had Professors had relatively relatively higher mean mean ratings. ratings. However, no significant differences in differences in the commi co mmitment tment indices co uld be established across the different types commitment based on this specific disaggregation.

service, Table 33 indicates the Accordin g to L ength of Servi Servi ce. ce. In the area of length of service, tendency or pattern for the commitment co mmitment index ratings to converge towards average levels of commitment was was disrupted in the areas o f affective commitment (33.3% (33.3% as opposed to 66.7% for low level of commitment ) and overall commitment (33.3% (33.3% across the three levels of commitment ). ). The research participants with 0-5 years and years and 31 or more years of years of service showed bigger percentage shares in two areas each, namely: affective commitment (76.9%) (76.9%) and overall commitment (74.7%) for the 0-5 years of years of service and normative (100.0%) normative (100.0%) and institutional commitment (80.0%) (80.0%) for those who have sta yed with the institution for 31 years or more. more.

101 | P a g e

Table 33. Summary of the Commitment Index according to Length of Service AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT Length of service

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

Did not indicate 0 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 15 years 16 to 20 years 21 to 25 years 26 to 30 years 31 years and above

3 11 11 5 7 2 2 0

13.6 12.1 22.4 13.5 29.2 12.5 66.7 0

16 70 32 27 15 10 1 3

72.7 76.9 65.3 73 62.5 62.5 33.3 60

3 10 6 5 2 4 0 2

13.6 11 12.2 13.5 8.3 25 0 40

22 91 49 37 24 16 3 5

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Total

41

16.6

174

70.4

32

13

247

100


CONTINUANCE COMMITMENT Length of service Did not indicate 0 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 15 years 16 to 20 years 21 to 25 years 26 to 30 years 31 years and above Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

3 15 7 7 2 2 0 1 37

13.6 16.5 14.6 18.9 8.3 13.3 0 20 15.1

17 61 36 28 17 13 2 3 177

77.3 67 75 75.7 70.8 86.7 66.7 60 72.2

2 15 5 2 5 0 1 1 31

9.1 16.5 10.4 5.4 20.8 0 33.3 20 12.7

22 91 48 37 24 15 3 5 245

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Chi-square p-value = 0.741 (Not sig nificant)

NORMATIVE COMMITMENT Length of service Did not indicate 0 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 15 years 16 to 20 years 21 to 25 years 26 to 30 years 31 years and above Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

2 14 14 7 6 3 1 0 47

9.1 15.4 29.2 18.9 25 18.8 33.3 0 19.1

17 62 23 24 14 9 2 5 156

77.3 68.1 47.9 64.9 58.3 56.3 66.7 100 63.4

3 15 11 6 4 4 0 0 43

13.6 16.5 22.9 16.2 16.7 25 0 0 17.5

22 91 48 37 24 16 3 5 246

Chi-square p-value = 0.512 (Not significant) 102 | P a g e

% 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

COLLEGIAL COMMITMENT Length of service Did not indicate 0 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 15 years 16 to 20 years 21 to 25 years 26 to 30 years 31 years and above Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

4 9 11 6 6 1 1 1 39

18.2 9.8 22.9 16.2 25 6.3 33.3 20 15.8

14 65 31 23 17 10 2 3 165

63.6 70.7 64.6 62.2 70.8 62.5 66.7 60 66.8

4 18 6 8 1 5 0 1 43

18.2 19.6 12.5 21.6 4.2 31.3 0 20 17.4

22 92 48 37 24 16 3 5 247

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT Length of service Did not indicate 0 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 15 years 16 to 20 years 21 to 25 years 26 to 30 years 31 years and above Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

2 6 7 5 3 3 1 0 27

9.5 6.7 15.2 13.9 12.5 18.8 33.3 0 11.2

15 67 32 23 16 7 2 4 166

71.4 74.4 69.6 63.9 66.7 43.8 66.7 80 68.9

4 17 7 8 5 6 0 1 48

19 18.9 15.2 22.2 20.8 37.5 0 20 19.9

21 90 46 36 24 16 3 5 241

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


OVERALL COMMITMENT Length of service Did not indicate 0 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 15 years 16 to 20 years 21 to 25 years 26 to 30 years 31 years and above Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

3 10 8 6 6 1 1 0 35

13.6 11 17 16.7 25 6.7 33.3 0 14.4

17 68 31 24 15 9 1 3 168

77.3 74.7 66 66.7 62.5 60 33.3 60 69.1

2 13 8 6 3 5 1 2 40

9.1 14.3 17 16.7 12.5 33.3 33.3 40 16.5

22 91 47 36 24 15 3 5 243


103 | P a g e

% 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Insofar as low levels of commitment were were concerned, the bigger percentage shares were dominated by those who have been b een with the institution for 26-30 years except years except in the area of continuance commitment . While in in terms of high levels of commitment , those who have been with the University for 21-25 years showed years showed bigger percentage shares in three areas, namely: normative (25.0%), normative (25.0%), collegial (31.3%) (31.3%) and institutional commitment (37.5%). (37.5%). Whereas those who have served the institution institution longest (≥ 31 years) years) were highly committed in in the areas of affective (40.0%) and overall commitment (40.0%). (40.0%). The most most highly committed group in terms of continuance commitment (33.3%) (33.3%) was those who have bee n with the institution for 26-30 years. years. These results corroborated the earlier findings that those who gave relatively higher commitment ratings were ratings were also the most committed groups and groups and these t hese were faculty members and administrators who have served the institution institution between 21-30 years. years. However, the commitment indices were not significantly different at at all types of commitment across the different categories of length of service.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

9.1

14.3

17

16.7

12.5 33.3

77.3

74.7

66

66.7

62.5

33.3

33.3 High

60

13.6

11

17

16.7

40

60 33.3

25 6.7

Average Low

0

Figure 10. Summary of the Commitment Index according to Length of Service 104 | P a g e

Indartono & Chen (2011) concluded that tenured t enured employees showed greater commitment commitment than junior employees. employees. Previous researchers have proposed evidence evidence of a positive association association between tenure and commitment (Mottaz, 1998; Gregersen and Black, 1992 cited in Indartono & Chen ,2011). The length of service service in an organization was positively related related to the level of internalization of organizational values, resulting in greater commitment on the part o f members (Dick and Metcalfe, 2007 as cited in Indartono & Chen ,2011). Other previous previous studies have also indicated that organizational commitment increases with tenure. In a related study on e ffects of service tenure and nature of occupat ion on organizational commitment and job satisfaction, Natarajan satisfaction, Natarajan & Nagar & Nagar (2011) (2011) claimed that the main effect of of service tenure was found to influence commitment and job satisfaction. It was seen that managers with longer tenure reflected re flected higher affective commitment, normative commitment and intrinsic job job satisfaction as compared to their their counterparts. Those who stayed in the organization adapted themselves to the organization and attained at tained maturity. Thus, affective and normative commitment were high when the employee joined the organization newly. This phase corresponded to the infancy stage of development. Thereafter, the commitment and job satisfaction dropped which corresponded to the adolescent stage of development, and finally, over longer service tenure both bot h commitment and job satisfaction stabilized, corresponding to adulthood or maturity stage of development.

Accordin g to Des Design ation. When grouped according to their designation, designation, Table 34

shows that with the exception of institutional commitment (50.0% (50.0% or equally shared between average and high levels of commitment ), ), the tendency of the levels of co mmitment mmitment to converge towards average levels of commitment held held true. The bigger percentage shares at this level went to the Deans the Deans in in four types of co mmitment, mmitment, namely: affective (75.0%), affective (75.0%), continuance (100.0%), 105 | P a g e

normative (75.0%) normative (75.0%) and overall commitment (75.0% commitment (75.0%). ). While in in terms of low levels of commitment , the bigger percentage shares could co uld be traced to the Department the Department or Level Chairs also in four areas, which included: affective (30.0%), affective (30.0%), normative (26.3%), institutional (21.1%) (21.1%) and overall commitment (15.8%). commitment (15.8%). The highest levels of commitment were were often registered by the group of Department of Department or Level Chairs, Chairs, also in four areas, including normative (26.3%), normative (26.3%), collegial (36.8%), institutional (31.6%) and overall commitment (36.8%). commitment (36.8%). While the faculty faculty members’ high levels of commitment in the areas of affective (12.3%) affective (12.3%) and continuance commitment (13.7%) (13.7%) was noteworthy.

Table 34. Summary of the Commitment Index according to Designation Designation AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT Designation Faculty Department/Level chair Dean Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

32 6 1 39

15.1 30 25 16.5

154 12 3 169

72.6 60 75 71.6

26 2 0 28

12.3 10 0 11.9

212 20 4 236

100 100 100 100


CONTINUANCE COMMMITMENT Designation Faculty Department/Level chair Dean Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

34 2 0 36

16 10.5 0 15.3

149 16 4 169

70.3 84.2 100 71.9

29 1 0 30

13.7 5.3 0 12.8

212 19 4 235

100 100 100 100


NORMATIVE COMMITMENT Designation Faculty Department/Level chair Dean Total

Low n 40 5 0 45

Average % 18.9 26.3 0 19.1

n 137 9 3 149

High % 64.6 47.4 75 63.4

n 35 5 1 41

Total %

n 16.5 26.3 25 17.4

212 19 4 235

106 | P a g e

% 100 100 100 100


COLLEGIAL COMMITMENT Designation

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

Faculty Department/Level chair Dean

34 3 1

16 15.8 25

148 9 2

69.5 47.4 50

31 7 1

14.6 36.8 25

213 19 4

100 100 100

Total

38

16.1

159

67.4

39

16.5

236

100


INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT Designation Faculty Department/Level chair Dean Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

23 4 0 27

11.1 21.1 0 11.7

147 9 2 158

71 47.4 50 68.7

37 6 2 45

17.9 31.6 50 19.6

207 19 4 230

100 100 100 100


OVERALL COMMITMENT Designation Faculty Department/Level chair Dean Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

31 3 0 34

14.8 15.8 0 14.6

150 9 3 162

71.4 47.4 75 69.5

29 7 1 37

13.8 36.8 25 15.9

210 19 4 233


The results, however, were not as conclusive relative to t he earlier findings which indicated that the Deans the Deans registered registered higher mean ratings and were found to be relatively more committed . Once again, no significant differences in the commitment indices could be established across the different types of commitment when the research participants were grouped according to their designation.

107 | P a g e

% 100 100 100 100

100% 90%

13.8 25 36.8

80% 70% 60% 50%

High

71.4

40%

47.4

Average

75

Low

30% 20% 10%

15.8

14.8

0% Faculty


0 Dean

Figure 11. Summary of the Commitment Index according to Designation Finally, the researchers attempted attempted to provide provide more According According to Collegial Collegial Af fi li ation. Finally, meaningful information with regards to the commitment index by disaggregating the results across colleges. As shown shown in Table 35, with the exception exception of collegial commitment (the (the College of Engineering had had higher percentage share in the low level of commitment at 53.6%), the tendency to converge towards average levels of commitment was was also observed across the colleges with the College of Education taking Education taking on bigger percentage shares in four (4) areas, namely: 1) continuance commitment (100.0%), (100.0%), 2) normative commitment (80.0%), 3) collegial commitment (80.0%) (80.0%) and institutional commitment (100.0%). (100.0%).

Table 35. Summary of the Commitment Index according to Collegial Collegial Affiliation AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT College CAS CBA Educ Eng'g

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

14 8 1 9

12.8 12.9 20 31

80 46 3 18

73.4 74.2 60 62.1

15 8 1 2

13.8 12.9 20 6.9

109 62 5 29

108 | P a g e

% 100 100 100 100

Nursing Total

9 41

21.4 16.6

27 174

64.3 70.4

6 32

14.3 13

42 247

100 100


CONTINUANCE COMMITMENT College CAS CBA Educ Eng'g Nursing Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

17 10 0 4 6 37

15.7 16.1 0 14.3 14.3 15.1

79 43 5 20 30 177

73.1 69.4 100 71.4 71.4 72.2

12 9 0 4 6 31

11.1 14.5 0 14.3 14.3 12.7

108 62 5 28 42 245

% 100 100 100 100 100 100


NORMATIVE COMMITMENT College CAS CBA Educ Eng'g Nursing Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

21 9 1 9 7 47

19.3 14.5 20 32.1 16.7 19.1

77 37 4 15 23 156

70.6 59.7 80 53.6 54.8 63.4

11 16 0 4 12 43

10.1 25.8 0 14.3 28.6 17.5

109 62 5 28 42 246

% 100 100 100 100 100 100


COLLEGIAL COMMITMENT College CAS CBA Educ Eng'g Nursing Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

14 3 1 15 6 39

12.7 4.8 20 53.6 14.3 15.8

72 45 4 13 31 165

65.5 72.6 80 46.4 73.8 66.8

24 14 0 0 5 43

21.8 22.6 0 0 11.9 17.4

110 62 5 28 42 247

% 100 100 100 100 100 100

Chi-square p-value = 0.001 (Highly significant)

INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT College CAS CBA

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

10 4

9.2 6.6

73 43

67 70.5

26 14

23.9 23

109 61 109 | P a g e

% 100 100

Educ Eng'g Nursing Total

0 8 5 27

0 30.8 12.5 11.2

5 16 29 166

100 61.5 72.5 68.9

0 2 6 48

0 7.7 15 19.9

5 26 40 241

100 100 100 100

Chi-square p-value = 0.033 (Significant)

OVERALL COMMITMENT College CAS CBA Educ Eng'g Nursing Total

Low

Average

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

14 6 1 8 6 35

13.1 9.7 20 29.6 14.3 14.4

76 45 3 18 26 168

71 72.6 60 66.7 61.9 69.1

17 11 1 1 10 40

15.9 17.7 20 3.7 23.8 16.5

107 62 5 27 42 243


On the other hand, when it came to the low levels of commitment , it was the College of Engineering that had bigger percentage shares in five of o f the six (5 of 6) types o f commitment which included: 1) affective commitment (31.0%), (31.0%), 2) normative commitment (32.1%), (32.1%), 3) collegial commitment (53.6%), (53.6%), 4) institutional commitment (30.8%) (30.8%) and 5) overall commitment (29.6%). While in in terms of the high levels of commitment , the faculty and administrators of the College of Business and Accountancy registered Accountancy registered bigger percentage shares in three (3) areas, namely: continuance (14.3%) , normative (25.8%) normative (25.8%) and collegial commitment (22.6%). commitment (22.6%). The College of Education generated Education generated bigger percentage shares in terms o f affective (20.0%) affective (20.0%) and overall commitment (20.0%) (20.0%) while the high level of co mmitment mmitment in terms of institutional commitment (23.9%) (23.9%) could be traced to the College of Arts and Sciences. Sciences.

110 | P a g e

% 100 100 100 100 100 100

Nursing

14.3

Eng'g

61.9

29.6

23.8

66.7

3.7 Low

Educ

20

60

20

Average High

CBA

9.7

CAS

13.1 0%

20%

72.6

17.7

71

15.9

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 12. Summary of the Commitment Index according to Collegial Affiliation Using the Chi-square test, this was the first time that significant that significant differences in differences in the commitment indices were established. established. These included the commitment commitment indices for collegial (p=0.001) and institutional commitment (p=0.033) (p=0.033) where the differences were highly significant and significant and significant , respectively. One of the major objectives o bjectives of the study was to find out which of the t ypes of commitment was predominant when the participants were grouped according to college. college. The study showed mixed mixed results. In the College of Business & Accountancy, Accountancy, for example, continuance commitment was was very strong , while affective commitment and commitment and institutional were strongest in in the College of Education and commitment were strongest Education and in the College of Arts and Sciences, Sciences, respectively. A plethora of studies on organizational organ izational commitment commitment seemed to support the results of this study. According to a study conducted by Iles Iles & Suliman (2000) the multidimensional multidimensional approach to conceptualizing organizational commitment (OC) assumed that OC “does not develop simply develop simply through emotional attachment, perceived cost or moral obligation, but through the interplay of 111 | P a g e

all these three components” components”. Furthermore, Kelman (1958, as cited in Iles & Suliman 2000) argued that “the underlying process in which an individual engag es es when he adopts induced behavior may be different, even though the resulting overt behavior may appear the same” (p.53). Lawrence (1958 as cited in Randall, Randall, 1987), on the other hand hand said that,“i that, “ideally, deally, we would want one sentiment to be dominant in all employees from top to bottom, namely a complete loyalty to the organizational purpose” (p. 208). However, Reichers (1985, as cited in Iles & Suliman, 2000) maintained maintained that , , “researchers must ignore the global view of OC and focus on specific commitments t o various entities within the organization”. Allen and Meyer (1990, as cited in Iles & Suliman, 2000) contended that “the net sum of a person’s commitment to the organization reflects each of the separable psychological states (affective attachment, perceived costs and obligation)” (p.4). obligation)” (p.4). Iles and Suliman (2000) put forward a new look in commitment-performance relationship saying that, “different types of commitment have different relationships to organizational behavior and that research has consistently demonstrated that affective, continuance and normative commitments are conceptually conceptually and empirically distinct.”

112 | P a g e

Chapter-4-Presentation-Analysis-and-Interpretation-of-Data.pdf

Recommend Documents