Analyzing the dynamics of the relationship between organizational factors ...

ISSN: 2277-4637 (Online) | ISSN: 2231-5470 (Print)

Opinion Vol. 2, No. 2, December 20 2012

Analyzing the dynamics of the Relationship Between Organizationall Factors, Attitude Organizationa Attitude Factors & Organizational Organiza tional Commitment Commitment and Turnover Turnover Intentions of Faculty Members in Self Financed Professional Institutions in Delhi and NCR Ritika Maheshwari* Dr.. Hari Prakash Maheshwari** Dr ABSTRACT

The present research is aimed at determining the impact of organizational factors, attitude factors and organizational commitment commit ment which are of controllable nature, responsible for creation of turnover intentions amongst the faculty members of self financed prof professional essional institut institutions, ions, further leading to their voluntary turnover from the organization. The study focused on hi-end knowledge-bas knowledge-based ed education industry, particularly, Self-financed Institutions. Organizational factors, attitude factors and organizational commitment are identified as independent variables whereas behavioral intention to quit is identified as a dependent variable. The data was statistically analyzed using bi-variate correlation using SPSS 20.0. The findings indicate the association of organizational factors, attitude fact fa ct or orss an d org an iz izat atio iona na l co mm mmit itme me nt wi with th turnover intentions.

Ke yw ywor ords ds : Organizational Factors, Attitude Factors, Fact ors, Organiza Organizationa tionall Commi Commitment tment,, Turnove Turnover r Intention. I. INTRODUCTION

The best single predictor of an individual’s individual’s behaviour is the measure of his/her intention to perform that behaviour (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Intentions to quit have been supported empirically as the most powerful predictor of turnover behaviour (Dalessio, Silverman and Schuck, 1986; Mobley et al., 1979) explaining on the average, about 25 per cent of the variance in actual turnover (Steel and Ovalle, 1984a). It has also been argued that the study of intent to leave is important in its own right because it focuses foc uses on the volitional component compon ent of o f turnover and avoids non-volitional determinants. Jackofsky (1984) and Jackofsky and Peters (1983a) proposed a ‘perceived alternatives’ rationale for the relationship among performance, work-related affect

Research arch Scho Scholar lar , ** Rese arch Guide Guide,, * Rese Mewar University, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, India

www.cpmr.org.in

Opinion: International Journal of Business Management 56



and voluntary turnover. This rationale predicts a positive of employees, researchers continue to identify significant relationship between performance and turnover correlations between these concepts and positive intentions and a stronger negative relationship between organizationa organizationall outcomes. The outcomes include the job satisfaction and turnover intention among high perf pe rfor orma manc ncee (M (Mat athi hieu eu an andd Za Zaja jac, c, 10 1009 09), ), ro role le performe perf ormers, rs, than amon amongg low perf performe ormers. rs. performance performan ce and organiz organizational ational citiz citizenship enship behavio behavior r Also, the relationship between the provision of (Riketta, 2002), employee innovation and risk taking adequate factors like, organizational factors, attitude (Lyon and Ferrier, 2002), work place attendance and factors, and organizational commitment with turnover is improved customer satisfaction (Stephens et al., 2004). strong but it is moderated by individual’ individual’ss behavioral In self financed institutions, the various identified intentions to quit. Behavioural intentions are becoming workplace environmental factors which influence the increasingly indispensable to empirical and theoretical turnover intention of faculty members in the institution work linking turnover behaviour to psychological include poor sitting arrangements with facilities like antecedents. Mobley (1977) urged the the need to move desktop PC, internet, telephone etc. on their table and beyondd simp beyon simple le repli replicati cation on of the sati satisfact sfactionion-turno turnover ver reach; non-provision for flexible flexib le timings; job security; relationship toward research on the cognitive and poor grievance redressal system; no autonomy in behavi beh aviour oural al pro proces cesses ses tha thatt may occ occur ur bet betwee weenn deciding teaching methods; non-supportive colleagues satisfaction and actual turnover. and administration staff; and no formal recognition and appreciationn for work delivered. appreciatio II. ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS

Working Environment

Working environment is found to be a major theme in organizational literature predicting organizational outcomes such as turnover and absenteeism absenteeism.. According to the study conducted by Carnevale (1992) and Clements-Croome (1997), better outcomes and enhanced productivity is assumed to be the result of better bett er work workpla place ce envi environm ronment ent.. They prop proposed osed tha thatt the presence of better physical environment of working working place boosts the employees’ morale and ultimately improve their productivity productiv ity.. As proposed by Likert (1961), employee satisfaction sentiments are best achieved through maintaining a positive social organizational environment, providing autonomy autonomy,, participati participation, on, and mutual trust. Research has shown that there are many environmental features that can be created and maintained to give employees satisfaction: Pay and benefits, communication (Brewer, 2000; Wagner 2000), motivation, (Kirby 2000) and leisure time (Rabbit 2000), all seemingly play a part so as to ascertain whether employees are satisfied, according to studies. In other studies of organizational commitment and engagement www.cpmr.org.in

HODs Commit Commitment ment and Support

Top managements and HODs support sup port plays a crucial role in the choice of employees either to stay or to leave the organization. Top Top management support refers to the extent to which the top management acts as a role model when participating in knowledge retention activities and establishing all the necessary conditions for knowledge retention process as well as in providing additional resources if considered necessary. Supervisors and managers strongly influence employees’ attitudes (Bohn & Grafton, 2002, Deci et al., 1989, Dienesch and Liden, 1986) by exerting influence and creating environments that shape employee feelings and actions. Managers in turn hold feelings and impressions gained from their individual experience of working with employees (Forman and Markus, 2005). In self financed institutions, the various identified factors related to top management’s support which influence the turnover intention of faculty facu lty members in the institution include management not devoting considerable time and resources in ensuring ensur ing that the faculty members are given adequate resources and facilitate conditions to carryout their academic responsibilities without undue worries. Further not Opinion: International Journal of Business Management 57


ensuring that faculty members enjoy their work and not valuing their academic and intellectual skills. III. COMPENSATION DESIGN

Remuneration and other types of benefits have always been an imp importa ortant nt fact factor or in the rete retenti ntion on equa equatio tion. n. The tenure of the employees is likely to be highly sensitive to changes in specific (usually monetary) incentives: small changes in compensation may lead to numerous departures. Experts like, Lawler (1990), maintained that the key issue in retention is the amount of total compensation relative to levels offered by other organizations organiza tions i.e. maintenance of external extern al equity. Organizations Organizations that have high levels of compensation have lower turnover rates and larger numbers of individuals applying to work for them. Also, Also, he argued, high wage workplaces create a “culture of excellence.” But building “affective commitment” (Meyer et al, 2003) involves much more than paying well, and that retention based on the principle of “compensation-based “ compensation-based commitment” is sensitive to changes in compensation within the organization. Employers that base their retention on compensation-based commitment are vulnerable to the possibility possibili ty that their competito competitors rs will be able to offer better wages and thus lure away their employees. On the similar path, Smith (2001) argued that “money gets employees in the door, but it doesn’t keep them there.” ther e.” Ashby and Pell classified money as a “satisfier,” meaning that it is necessary but insufficient factor in employee retention, while Harris and Brannick (1999) agree that money is retaining their employees without any pay basedd rete base retenti ntion on ince incenti ntives ves (Pfe (Pfeffe ffer, r, 1999 1999). ). Organizations that successfully incorporate compensation and benefits into their retention efforts have a clear understanding of their business objectives objec tives and use compensation as a tool for influencing organizational and employee behaviour (Lawler, 1990). For example, pay systems and practices have a major impact on employee retention by motivating membership-oriented behaviour (commitment). Pay systems also affect knowledge sharing and transfer if www.cpmr.org.in


sharing, teamwork, suggestions, etc. are rewarded or recognized. In self financed institutions, the various identified compensation based variables which influence the turnover intention of faculty members in the institution include non-compliance of prescribed scale of pay as directed by UGC, delay in payment payme nt of monthly salary, non-transparency in pay issues and non equity on matters related to access to facilities, travel grants, sponsorship for various seminars and workshops, no provision for benefits like study/academic leaves, appreciation certificates, annual increments, provident fund etc. IV.. TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT IV

Training and development are so enthusiastically embraced as key factors to good retention that there is no doubt about the fact that well-developed training programs are becoming bec oming ever more essential es sential to the ongoing survival surv ival of most competitive organizations. organiza tions. To To the extent that operational paradigms such as “The Learning Organization” or the “Knowledge-Based Organization” continue to take hold in the contemporary business busi ness worl world, d, trai training ning is only lik likely ely to becom becomee more important. In any event, retention reflects a desire to keep one’s valued people; but it is just as much about keeping and managing the skills that an organization needs to meet its goals. The provision of training is a way of developing those skills in the first place. The fact that providing it also turns out to be a benefit that is highly valued by those who receive it makes for a very powerful powe rful appro approach ach to doin doingg busi business. ness. Because training and professional development are so fundamental to the operation of any organization, it goes against intuition to suggest that training and development are to be thought of primarily as “retention” tools. Nevertheless, countless studies tend to confirm the fact that a good part of the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of workers is associated with issues related to their professional development. A 1999 Gallup poll name namedd the lack of oppo opportuni rtunitie tiess to lear learnn and grow as one of the top three reasons for employee dissatisfaction (B.C. Business, 2001), and other studies have offered similar conclusions (BHRC, 2002). Opinion: International Journal of Business Management 58



Furthermore, the evidence seems to confirm that the appraisal context, distributive distributive justice refers to the fairness link between training and retention is even stronger for of the evaluation received, whereas procedural justice more highly skilled workers (Kaiser and Hawk, 2001; refers to the fairness of the process used in determining Paré et al, 2000). the evaluation (Greenberg, 1986). In self financed institutions, the various identified Although both types of fairness perceptions are training and development factors which influence the important, fairness in performance appraisal has been turnover intention of faculty members in the institution conceptualized largely in relation to due process (Folger include non provision for job specific training and et al., 1992 Taylor et al., 1995). According to the th e due profes pro fessio sional nal deve developm lopment ent acti activiti vities, es, inad inadequ equate ate process perspective, which is rooted in theories of opportunities for FDPs, Seminars/Conferences, non- procedural justice- an important element affecting availability of latest pedagogical tools, discouragement per percep cepti tions ons is ju judg dgem ement ent bas based ed on ev evid idenc ence; e; rat rater erss mu must st to undertake professional consultancy with industries, assure that the performance standards are applied research projects, and lack of opportunities to guide consistently across employees without any distortion by M.Phil/Ph.D projects. external pressure, corruption or personal biases. Thus, performance perform ance evalu evaluatio ationn made on the basis of polit political ical Organizational Justice consideration violates employees’ due process. When Organizational justice emerged as an attempt to describe employee feel unfairly treated, they are likely to react the role of fairness in the workplace. Researchers Researcher s have by ini initia tially lly chan changin gingg the their ir job att attitu itudes, des, fol follow lowed ed in the examined organizational justice under two major longer term, by response that are ar e more retaliatory, such dimensions, distributive justice and procedural justice. as quitting (Vigoda, (Vigoda, 2000). There is past evidence that satisfaction on i. Distr Distributi ibutive ve justice justice refers to the the perceived perceived fairness fairness procedural justice is related to employee satisfacti Fre y, 1996; Konovsky or equity of the manner in which rewards are and turnover intention (Cobb and Frey and Cropanzano, Cropanza no, 1991; Taylor Taylor et al., 1995). distributed in organizations Although there is no direct evidence that perceptions ii. Proce Procedural dural justic justicee refers to the perceived perceived fairness fairness of performance appraisal politic affect job attitudes or equity of the procedures used in making negatively,, a number of studies have found perceptions negatively decisions regarding the distribution of rewards of organizational politics to predict job satisfaction. Job (Folger and Greenberg, 1985) satisfaction reflects partly employees’ reactions toward Although the concerns for justice and fairness have their opportunity for within-organizational advancement existed for a long time (e.g Aristotle, Hobbes, J.S. Mill, (Schneider et al., 1992). Therefore when employees and Marx), it was not until Homans (1961) who perceive their performance per formance ratings, and a nd hence pay introduced the concept of distributive justice due to increase and promotion, to be determined by factors which the social scientists began to pay attention to this other than performance factors, they are likely to fundamental aspect of human behaviour behaviour.. The concept experience reduced job satisfacti satisfaction. on. became more pertinent in organizational behaviour Furthermore, because employees tend to view research with the work of scholars like Blau (1964) workplace politics as undesirable, they may withdraw and Adarns (1965), (Arif Hassan, 2002). from their organization as a means of avoiding political Literature from the organizational justice domain can activities. One form of withdrawal is employee turnover. be dr draw awnn on fo forr ex expl plai aini ning ng th thee pe perc rcep eptio tionn of For those with external job mobility mobility,, actual turnover may perfor per forman mance ce app apprai raisal sal on job att attitu itudes des and beh behavi aviour oural al be an op opti tion on,, fo forr th thos osee wi with th li limi mite tedd ex exte tern rnal al jo jobb mo mobi bili lity ty,, intentions. Two Two primary components of organizational psych psycholog ological ical turno turnover ver (e.g. (e.g.,, inte intentio ntionn to quit quit)) may be justice are distributive justice and procedural justice the option (Kacmar et al., 1999). Applying the same (Cropanzano and Folger, 1996). In the performance reasoning, when employees perceive their performance www.cpmr.org.in



ratings to be based on political factors rather than performance factors, they are likely to engage in withdrawal cognitions such as intention inte ntion to quit. There is evidence that perceived politics is significantly related to turnover intention (Cropanzano et al,. 1997; Kacmar et al., 1999; Valle Valle and Perrewe, Perrewe , 2000). V. ATTITUDE FACTORS

In the literature, attitude is another kind of push pus h factor/ controllable factor which is mostly attached with employee behaviour.Attitude factors are further classified c lassified into job satisfaction and job stress. Job Satisfaction


effectively predict and understand understan d turnover (Mobley, 1982:45). Recent studies have found that withdrawal intentions can be predicted from job satisfaction (Price, 2001; Larnbert et al., 2001), and that job dissatisfaction is related to intention to leave (Hellman, 1997). Another recent study by DeConinck and Stilwell (2001) showed that job dissatisfaction leads to work-related outcomes such as low performance, absenteeism absentee ism and turnover. A scrutiny of past research on job satisfaction suggests that most of the studies have examined the effect of overall satisfaction on turnover with only a few investigating the relationship between turnover and the specific aspects of job satisfaction such as pay, supervision, and nature of work. Koh and Goh (1995) noted that the use of overall satisfaction satisfaction conceals the vital effects of different job facets on turnover turnover.. In his study he classified job satisfaction into eight categories: categorie s: supervision, supervisio n, company identity, kind of work, amount of work, physical working conditions, co-workers, financial rewards, and career future. In the present study, we have included three facets of job satisfaction—pay, nature of work, and supervision—that we consider relevant from self financed professional institutions context.

Job satisfaction is defined as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences (Locke, 1976). 197 6). According to Bullock (1984) job satisfaction is a positive or negative emotional state associated with one’s work. Mottaz (1988) regarded job satisfaction as an effective response resulting from an evaluation evalua tion of the work situation. It is widely accepted that job satisfaction is a function of work-related rewards and values (Vroom, 1964). The relationship between job satisfaction and turnover is one of the most thoroughly investigated topics in the turnover literature. Job satisfaction has been Job Stress Stress repeatedly identified as the single most important reason why employees leave their jobs (Mobley et al, 1979). Job stress includes variables such as role ambiguity (e.g. Many studies report a consistent and negative my job responsibilities are not clear to me), role conflict p eople at my job, I have to upset relationshipp between job satisfactio relationshi satisfactionn and turnover (e.g., (e.g. to satisfy some people Cotton & Tuttle, 1986; Arnold & Feldman, 1982; others), work-overload (e.g. it seems to me that I have Bluedorn, 1982; Mobley, 1982; Price, 1977, and many more work at my job than I can handle) and workothers), as dissatisfied employees are more likely to leave family conflicts (e.g. my work makes me too tired to enjoy family life). an organization than satisfied ones. Although past research suggests a stable negative VI. ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT relationship between job satisfaction satisfac tion and turnover, job satisfaction alone has been found to account for f or small There are many factors which are attached with percentage percent age of the total variance in a turnove turnoverr model – employee and organization and work as push factors less than 15% (Blau & Boal, 1989). The fact that the for an employee to quit. Organizations are interested in relationship (between job satisfaction and turnover) is not only finding high performing employees, but those not stronger does not suggest that satisfaction should who will be committed to the organization. Similarly not be measured. It does suggest that measures of employees are also interested to work in an organization satisfaction must be combined with other measures to which is committed to pursue their carriers and benefits. www.cpmr.org.in




Organizational commitment is recognized as a key factor Organizational VII. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES in the employment relationship and it is widely accepted The objectives of the study are as follows: that strengthening employment commitment, reduces • To study the relati relationshi onshipp between between turnover turnover intenti intention on turnover (Mohammad, 2006). Johns (1996) defines and organizational factors. organizational commitment as “an attitude that reflects • To study the relati relationshi onshipp between between turnover turnover intenti intention on the strength of the linkage between an employee and an and attitude factors. organization.” Ugboro (2006) identified identifie d three types of organizational commitment: affective, continuance and • To study the relati relationshi onshipp between between turnover turnover intenti intention on normative, detail of which is given below: and organizational commitment. Affective commitment is employee emotional attachment to the organization. It results from and is VIII. HYPOTHESES induced by an individual and organizational value H1:: Orga H1 Organiza nizatio tional nal factor factorss are negati negatively vely assoc associate iatedd congruency. It is almost natural for the individual to with turnover intention. becomee emot becom emotiona ionally lly atta attached ched to and enjoy cont continui inuing ng association with the organization. Specifically Continuance commitment is willingness of employee H1 H1a: a: Working Environm Environment ent is negatively negatively associated to remain in an organization because of personal with turnover intention. investment in the form of non transferable investments H1b: b: Top Management/HODs Management/HODs support is negatively negatively such as close working relationships with co-workers, H1 associated with turnover intention. retirement investments and career investments, acquired H1c: c: Compensa Compensation tion is negatively negatively associated associated with job ski skills lls whi which ch are uni unique que to a par partic ticula ularr orga organiz nizati ation, on, H1 turnover intention. years of employment in a particular organization, H1d: d: Trai Training ning and Developmental Developmental Opportunities Opportunities is involvement in the community in which the employer is H1 negatively associated with turnover intention. located, and other benefits that make it too costly for one to leave and seek employment elsewhere. H1e: H1 e: Organizati Organizational onal Justice Justice is negatively negatively associated associated with turnover intention. Normativ Norm ativee comm commitm itment ent is indu induced ced by a feel feeling ing of obligation to remain with an organizatio organization. n. H2: Att Attitu itudina dinall factors factors are associa associated ted with with turnover turnover Before Porter et al’s (1974) study, scholars focused intention. on job satisfaction as the major cause of turnover. However, Porter et al’s study highlighted the importance Specifically of organizational commitment in explaining turnover. In H2 H2a: a: Job Satisfaction Satisfaction is negatively negatively associated associated with their study, they demonstrated that organizational turnover intention. commitment was a better predictor of turnover than job H2b H2b:: Job Stress is is positively positively associated with turnover turnover satisfaction. Since then organizational commitment has intention. been freq frequent uently ly exp explor lored ed in the turn turnover over lit literat erature, ure, and H3: Orga Organiz nizati ationa onall Commitme Commitment nt is neg negati ativel velyy like job satisfaction, has been shown to be negatively associated with turnover intention. related to turnover (e.g., Wong, Wong, Chun & Law, 1996; Arnold & Feldman, 1982; Bluedorn, 1982; Porter et. IX. RESEARCH DESIGN AND al, 1974, and many others). Several other scholars METHODOLOGY (Arnold & Feldman, 1982; Ben-Bakr et al., 1994; Kim co-relationa l in nature which is aimed at et al, 1996; Tett & Meyer, 1993) have also found The study is co-relational organizational commitment an important predictor of investigating the employee’s turnover intention in selffinanced professional institutions. The study examines turnover. www.cpmr.org.in




the relationship between the predictor variables (organizational factors, attitude factors and organizational commitment) and employee’s turnover intention, further enabling us to identify the factors responsible for employee voluntary volunta ry turnover. A sample of 294 faculty fac ulty members was considered from professional institutions running under Delhi and NCR Region. The questionnaire consisted of two sections. First section consisted of the demographic profile of the respondents. In second section, the respondents were required to answer questions pertaining to the independent variable for the study namely organizational factors (including working environment, HODs commitment, compensation, training & development, and organizational justice) comprising of 26 questions in totality. totality. Further, the researcher used u sed three items for measuring satisfaction with pay, satisfaction with nature of work, and supervision. The items were adapted from the Minnesota Satisfaction Satisf action Questionnaire; Questionna ire; Weiss Weiss et al. (1967) and the Index of Organizational Reactions Questionnaire; Smith (1976). Researcher used 4 item scale to measure job stress in the following section and 8 item scale to measure organizational organizationa l commitment in the subsequent section, which were adapted from Porter e al.’s 15-item organizational commitment questionnaire. ques tionnaire. Each respondent was asked to indicate the degree of agreement or disagreement on each of the item

statement on a scale of 1 to 5, based on 5-point Likert Liker t scale. The opinion indicated as ‘strongly agree’ has been assigned a weight of 5, the opinion indicated as ‘agree’ has been assigned a weight of 4, the opinion indicated as ‘neutral’ has been assigned a weight of 3, the opinion indicated as ‘disagree’ has been assigned a weight of 2, the opinion indicated as ‘strongly disagree’ has been assigned a weight of 1. Also, the that Cronbach’s Alpha for all variables were acceptable having scores of 0.889 for organizational factors, 0.783 for job satisfaction, 0.764 for job stress, and 0.950 for organizational commitment. X. DA DAT TA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Demographic Profile of the Respondents Respondents

From the demographic profile of the respondents, it has been observed that 10.2% respondents were falling under the age bracket of less than 25 years, 41.8% belong bel onged ed to the bra bracke ckett of 2525-30 30 yea years, rs, 25. 25.2% 2% belonged to the age group of 30-40 years, 13.3% belonged to the age group of 40-50 years and 9.5% were above 50 years of age. Majority of the respondents were female (63.6%) and followed by the male respondents (36.4%). Most of the respondents (60.2%) were married and 39.8% of them were single.

Table 1

Mean and Standard Deviation of Variables under Study Variables

Working Environment

www.cpmr.org.in

Sub-Factors

Mean Standard Mean S Sttandard Deviat ion Deviation

I find supportive colleagues & administrative staff in the college.

3.5034 1.08590

I have physically comfortable place to work.

3.6088 1.14185

I find politics in the institute. (reverse coded)

2.5204 1.13188

I can easily avail flexible timings.

2.6224 1.21016

I can design my own teaching pedagogy.

2.9014 1.40712

I get due recognition for my work delivered.

2.9048 1.35925

I work for adequate number of hours.

3.3333 1.29495

I find unequal distribution of workload. (reverse coded)

3.1054 1.11418

I find adequate safety provisions in the institute.

3.4660 1.09476

3.107

0.7294




Top Management/ I have healthy relations with my HOD/Top Mgt. HODss Support HOD Support

Compensation

Training and Development

Organizational Justice

Satisfaction with Pay

3.4592 1.15521

My ac acti tivi viti ties es ar aree clo close sely ly mo moni nito tore redd by by my my Top Mg Mgt. t./H /HOD OD.. (re (reve vers rsee code coded) d)

2.56 2. 5646 46 .9 .963 6398 98

My academic and intellectual skills are valued in the college.

3.2755 2.69539

My HOD deals with my personal problems with empathy.

2.8537 1.18683

My HOD ensures timely redressal of my professional problems.

3.1803 1.10451

I get competitive salary package.

3.2653 1.14078

I receive salary on time.

3.6259 1. 1 .01666

I do not get monetary incentives. (reverse coded)

2.7211 1.09782

I get job specific training.

2.8435 1.00307

DevelopmentI ge get pr professional de developmental op opportunities.

3.1190 1.06581

I am valued as a scholar.

3.1837 2. 2 .63999

I fin findd dif diffi ficu cult ltyy in in ava avail ilin ingg sem semin inar ar an andd res resea earc rchh gra grant nts. s. (r (rev ever erse se co code ded) d)

2.82 2. 8299 99 1. 1.10 1045 4599

I receive the evaluation that I deserve.

3.0034 1.06286

Thee eva Th evalu luat atio ionn syst system em re refl flec ects ts the the qua quali lity ty of of my del deliv iver ered ed per perfo form rman ance ce..

3.06 3. 0612 12 1. 1.10 1005 0577

An independent observer from outside the college would have made a similar judgement about my performance.

3.0952 1.17907

I consider the evaluation to be fair.

3.0170 1.15507

The rule rules, s, proced procedure uress & policie policiess adopted adopted to to evalua evaluate te my perfo performa rmance nce are are fair fair

3.0238 3.0 238 1.1 1.1158 15877

Considering the living cost, my pay is...

3.1905 1.19346

For the the work work I do, I feel feel tha thatt the amou amount nt of mone moneyy I make make is... is... (reve (reverse rse code coded) d)

3.0850 3.0 850 1.1 1.1341 34133

The in inst stiitu tute tess pa payy st stru ruct ctur uree en enccou oura rage gess me to wo work rk es espe peci cial ally ly ha hard rd.. (reverse coded)

3.08 3. 0884 84 1. 1.13 1353 5388

Satisfaction with I get the chance to design my own methods of teaching. Nature of Work Work I get get th thee ch chan ance ce to or orga gani nize ze co coll lleg egee ev even ents ts th that at ma make kess us usee of my ab abil ilit itie ies. s. I get the freedom to use my own judgment in doing the things. Satisf Sati sfac acti tion on wi with th Do yo youu fe feel el th that at yo youu wi will ll wo work rk be bett tter er un unde derr di diff ffer eren entt su supe perv rvis isio ionn (H (HOD OD)? )? Supervision The supervision I receive is the kind that... Job Stress

Organizational Commit Com mitmen mentt

www.cpmr.org.in

3.4320 3.62591

3.066

1.0296

3.204

0.7754

2.994

1.0992

3.040

1.0522

3.121

1.0870

3.234

1.6753

3.08 3. 0800

1.04 1. 0493 93

3.097

0.9803

3.170

1.0 831

3.159 3. 15999 1. 1.199 19938 38 3.1122 1.19626 3.05 3. 0510 10 1. 1.16 1687 8766 3.0510 1.09954

How Ho w doe doess you yourr HOD HOD in infl flue uenc ncee you yourr ove overa rall ll at atti tittud udee tow towaard yo your ur job ob??

3.13 3. 1395 95 1. 1.15 1526 2655

My job responsibilities are not clear to me.

2.8571 1.26113

To satisfy some people at my job, I have to upset others.

3.2959 1.23826

It seems to me that I have more work at my job that I can handle.

3.0782 1.20182

My work makes me too tired to enjoy family life.

3.1599 1.15886

I am wi willing to to pu put in a great deal of ef effort beyond wh what is is no normally expec exp ected ted in order order to make make this this institu institute/ te/col colleg legee success successful ful..

3.3435 1.19199

I talk talk abo about ut thi thiss inst instit itut ute/ e/co coll lleg egee to my my frie friends nds as a gre great at pla place ce to to work work for for..

3.33 3. 3333 33 1. 1.221 22172 72

I fe feel el ve very ry li litt ttle le lo loya yalt ltyy to towa ward rdss th this is in inst stit itut ute/ e/co coll lleg ege. e. (r (rev ever erse se co code ded) d)

3.14 3. 1429 29 1. 1.12 1267 6788

I fin findd tha thatt my va valu lues es an andd the the co coll lleg ege/ e/in inst stit itut ute’ e’ss val value uess are are ve very ry si simi mila larr.

2.98 2. 9898 98 1. 1.20 2043 4333

I feel proud to tell others that I am a part of thi hiss institute/college.

3.2007 1. 1.2251 51884

This college helps me to realize the very best in me.

3.0782 1.25189

I am ext extrem remely ely gla gladd that that I cho chose se this this ins instit titute ute/co /colle llege ge to to work work for ove overr other otherss

3.1531 3.1 531 1.2 1.22281 2281




I was considering at the time of joining. Turnover Intention

I really care about the fate of this institute/college.

3.1259 1.25072

I will likely actively look for a new job in the next year.

3.3401 1.87492

I often think about quitting.

3.1054 1.52312

I probably look for a new job in the next year.

3.2721 1.52592

3.239

1.5158

Based on the data presented in Table Table 1, the mean faculty members of self financed professional institutions value of item statements under variable Working towards the variable Organizational Justice. Environment ranged from 2.52 to 3.60 with standard The mean value of item statements under variable deviations ranged from 1.08 to 1.40. Mean score Satisfaction with Pay ranged from 3.08 to 3.19 with Working Environment is 3.10 while standard deviation standard deviations ranged from 1.13 to 1.19. Mean is 0.72. This indicates neutral agreement of faculty score Satisfaction with Pay is 3.12 while standard members of self financed professional institutions deviation is 1.08. This indicates a moderate level of towards the variable working environment. satisfaction of faculty members of self financed profes essi sion onal al in inst stit itut utio ions ns to towa ward rdss th thee va vari riab able le Sa Sati tisf sfac acti tion on The mean value of item statements under variable prof Top Management/HODs Support Sup port ranged from 2.56 to with Pay. 3.45 with standard deviations ranged from 0.96 to 2.69. The mean value of item statements under variable Mean score Top Management/HODs Support is 3.06 Satisfaction with Nature of Work ranged from 3.11 to while standard deviation is 1.02. This indicates neutral 3.43 with standard deviations ranged from 1.19 to 3.62. Satisf action with Nature of Work Work is 3.23 agreement of faculty members of self financed Mean score Satisfaction professional institutions towards the variable Top while standard deviation is 1.67. This indicates a moderate level of satisfaction of faculty members member s of self Management/HODs Support. professiona l institutions towards the variable The mean value of item statements under variable financed professional Satisfactionn with Nature of Work. Compensation ranged from fro m 2.72 to 3.62 with standard Satisfactio The mean value of item statements under variable deviations ranged from 1.01 to 1.14. Mean score Compensation is 3.20 while standard deviation is 0.77. Satisfaction with Supervision ranged from 3.05 to 3.13 This indicates stronger neutral agreement of faculty f aculty with standard deviations ranged from 1.09 to 1.16. members of self financed professional institutions Mean score Satisfaction with Supervision is 3.08 while standard deviation is 1.04. This indicates a moderate towards the variable Compensation. The mean value of item statements under variable level of satisfaction of faculty members of self financed prof ofes essi sion onal al in inst stit itut utio ions ns to towa ward rdss th thee va vari riab able le Sa Sati tisf sfac acti tion on Training and Development ranged from 2.82 to 3.18 pr with standard deviations ranged from 1.00 to 2.63. with Supervision. The mean value of item statements under variable Mean score Training and Development is 2.99 while standard deviation is 1.09. This indicates somewhat Job Stress ranged from 2.85 to 3.29 with standard neutral agreement of faculty members of self financed deviations ranged from 1.15 to 1.26. Mean score Job professi prof essional onal inst institu itution tionss towa towards rds the vari variable able Tr Traini aining ng Stress is 3.09 while standard deviation is 0.98. This indicates moderate level of agreement of faculty and Development. members of self financed professional institutions The mean value of item statements under variable towards the variable Job Stress. Organizational Justice ranged range d from 3.00 to 3.09 with The mean value of item statements under variable standard deviations ranged from 1.06 to 1.17. Mean Organizational Commitment ranged from 2.98 to 3.34 score Organizational Justice is 3.04 while standard with standard deviations ranged from 1.12 to 1.25. deviation is 1.05. This indicates neutral agreement of www.cpmr.org.in




Mean score Organizational Commitment is 3.17 while standard deviation is 1.08. This indicates neutral agreement of faculty members of self financed prof pr ofes essi sion onal al in inst stit itut utio ions ns to towa ward rdss th thee va vari riab able le Organizational Commitment Commitment.. The mean value of item statements under variable Turnover Intention ranged from 3.10 to 3.34 with standard deviations ranged from 1.52 to 1.87. Mean

score Turnover Intention is 3.23 while standard deviation is 1.51. This indicates agreement of faculty fac ulty members of self financed professional institutions towards the variable Turnover Intention. Overall, the analysis results depicts that faculty members of self financed professional institutions have considerable agreement towards turnover intention.

Table 2

Correlation between Controllable Factors & Turnover Intention 1

1. WE

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1.00

2. HOD

.746**

1.00

3. PAY

.553**

.516**

1.00

4. TD

.663**

.543**

.441**

1.00

5. JUSTICE

.805**

.732**

.628**

.688**

1.00

6. JS

.756**

.713**

.676**

.658**

.852**

1.00

7. JSTRESS

-.640**

-.534**

-.437**

-.516**

-.582**

-.534**

1.00

8 . OC

.803**

.731**

.632**

.714**

.878**

.862**

-.621**

1.00

9. TI

-.697**

-.648**

-.603**

-.622**

-.786**

-.796**

.577**

-.800**

1.00

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 2 reports the inter-correlations among the independent controllable variables and the dependent variable TI. The data indicates a negatively strong to moderate significant relationship between controllable factors namely, working environment (r= -0.697, p=.000), p=.0 00), top top manageme management/H nt/HODs ODs support support (r= -0.648, -0.648, p=.000), p=.000 ), compensatio compensationn (r= -0.603, -0.603, p=.000), p=.000), training training and developmental opportunities (r= -0.622, p=.000), organizational justice (r= -0.786, p=.000), job satisfaction (r= -0.796, p=.000), and organizational commitment (r= -0.800, p=.000) with turnover intention,, providing a good support to our laid down intention Hypothesis H1a, H1b, H1c, H1d, H1e, H2a and H3 respectively. The negative correlation coefficient indicates that as these independent variable increases, the dependent variable turnover intention decreases and vice versa. Also, it is observed that job stress (r= www.cpmr.org.in

0.577, p=.000), is significantly positively correlated with TI, indicating the fact that as the stress level in job increases, the TI also increases, thus proving our Hypothesis H2b true. Therefore, Hypothesis H1 (Organizational factors are negatively associated with turnover intention), Hypothesis H2 (Attitudinal factors are associated with turnover intention), and Hypothesis H3 (Organizational Commitment is negatively associated with turnover intention) received a good support from the study. XI. CONCLUSION

Human capital in organization offers significant potential for competitive differentiation differentiatio n and acts as a critical source of achieving sustained competitive advantage. The most important contribution of management today is to increase the productivity of knowledge work by retaining Opinion: International Journal of Business Management 65


knowledge workforce. Thus, understanding the role of variables such as working environment, top management’s support, compensation design, training and development, performance appraisal, job satisfaction, job stress, organizational commitment and intentions to leave is important importa nt in today’s context. It has been be en ob obse serv rved ed fr from om th thee st stud udyy th that at or orga gani niza zati tion onal al fa fact ctors ors,, job satisfaction and organizational commitment are negatively associated with turnover intentions whereas jobb st jo stre ress ss is re rece ceiv ivin ingg a po posi siti tive ve as asso soci ciat atio ionn wi with th tu turn rnov over er intention amongst the faculty members of self financed prof pr ofess essio iona nall in inst stit itut utio ions ns.. XII. REFERENCES


8. Brewer Brewer.. John D., (200 (2000), 0), “Et “Ethno hnograp graphy hy Understanding Social Research” Open University Press. 9. Carneval Carnevale, e, D.G., D.G., (1992), (1992), Physic Physical al Settings Settings of Work. Public Productivity and Management Review, 15, 4, 423-436. 10. Clemen Clements-C ts-Croo roome, me, D.J., D.J., (1997), (1997), Speci Specifyin fyingg Indoor Climate, in book Naturally Ventilated Buildings. 11. Cobb, A.T A.T.. and Frey Frey,, F.M. F.M. (1996). (1996). The effects effects of leader fairness and pay outcomes on superior/ subordinate relations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,, 26, 1401- 1426. Psychology

1. Adams, Adams, J.S J.S.. (196 (1965). 5). Ine Inequi quity ty in soc social ial exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology ps ychology (Vol. (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press.

12. Cotton, Cotton, J.L. J.L. and Tut Tuttle, tle, J.F J.F.. 1986. 1986. Employee Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review with implications for research. Academy of Management Manageme nt Review, 11(1): 55-70.

2. Arnold Arnold,, H.J. H.J. and Feld Feldman man,, D.C. D.C. 1982. 1982. A multivariate analysis of the determinants of job turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology Psycholog y, 67(3): 350-360.

13. Cropanzano Cropanzano,, R. R. (1996) (1996).. When is it ethi ethical cal to screen for addictive behaviors? Employment Testing: Law & Policy Reporter, 5, 181-186.

3. Ben-Bakr Ben-Bakr,, K.A., K.A., Al-Sh Al-Shammar ammari,i, I.S., I.S., Jefri, Jefri, O.A. and Prasad, J.N. 1994. Organizational commitment, satisfaction and turnover in Saudi organizations:: Apredictive study. organizations s tudy. The Journal Journ al of Socio-Economics, 23(4): 449-456. 4. Blau, Blau, P. P. M. 1964. 1964. Exch Exchange ange and power power in socia sociall life. New York: York: Wiley Wiley.. 5. Blau G, Boal K (1989).” (1989).”Usin Usingg job invo involvem lvement ent and organizational commitment interactively to predict predi ct turn turnover” over”,, J. Mana Manage. ge. 15 (1): 11 115-127 5-127.. 6. Bluedo Bluedorn rn AC (198 (1982). 2). “A uni unifie fiedd model model of turnover from organizations”, Hum. Relat. 35: 135-153. 7. Bohn, Bohn, J. G., G., & Grafto Grafton, n, D. (2002 (2002). ). The The Relationship Relationsh ip of Perceived Leadership Behaviors to Organizational Efficacy. Jo Jour urna nall of leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(2), 65-80. www.cpmr.org.in

14. Dalessio Dalessio,, A., Silver Silverman, man, W.H. and and Schuck, Schuck, J.R. J.R. (1986). “‘Paths “‘P aths to Turnover: A Reanalysis and Review of Existing Existing Data on the Mobley, Homer, and Hollingsworth Turnover Model”. Human Relations, Vo1.39, Vo1.39, No.3, pp. 245 - 263. 15. Deci, Deci, E. L., Conne Connell, ll, J. J. P., P., & Ryan Ryan,, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal Journal of Applied Psychology, Psychology, 74, 580–590. 16.. Dienes 16 Dienesch, ch, R. R. M., & Lide Liden, n, R. C. C. (1986) (1986).. Leader-Member Exchange Model of Leadership: A Critique and Further Development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 618-634 618-634.. 17.. Fishbei 17 Fishbeinn M and and Ajz Ajzen en I (1975) (1975),, “Belie “Belief, f, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research”, Resea rch”, Addison-Wesley, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Opinion: International Journal of Business Management 66


18. Folger. Folger. R. & Greenber Greenberg. g. 1.(1985 1.(1985). ). Procedu Procedural ral justice just ice:: An int interpr erpreta etativ tivee anal analysis ysis of pers personne onnell systems. In K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds.). Rp.uo...rrbin personnel and human resource management (Vol. (Vol. 3. pp. 141-183).Greenwich. CT: lA1 Press. 19. Folger Folger.. R. Konovsky Konovsky.. M. A. A. & Cropanza Cropanzano. no. R. (1992). A due process metaphor for performance appraisal appraisal.. In B. M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eels.).R rrb in oliani7Ational .bcba.nm:(Vol. .bcba.nm:(V ol. 14. pp. 129-177). Greenwich. Green wich. CT: lA1 Press. 20. Forman, Forman, J., & Markus Markus,, M.L. M.L. (2005 (2005). ). Resea Research rch on collaboration, business communication and technology: Reections on an interdisciplinary academic collaboration. Journal of Business Communication, 42(1), 78-102. 21.. Greenber 21 Greenberg. g. J. (l986 (l986a). a). Deter Determin minants ants of of percei per ceived ved fai fairne rness ss of per perfor forman mance ce eva evalua luati tions ons.. Journal of Applied Psychology Psychology,, 340-342. 22. Greenber Greenberg. g. J. (1986 (1986b). b). The The distri distribut butive ive just justice ice of organizational performance evaluations. In H. W. W. Bierhoff. R. L. L . Cohen, & J. Greenberg Gr eenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 337-351). New York ork:: Ple Plenum num.. 23. Greenber Greenberg. g. J. (1986c) (1986c).. Organiza Organizatio tional nal perfo pe rform rman ance ce ap appr prai aisal sal pr proc oced edur ures: es: Wh What at ma makes kes them fair? In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard. & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.). Research on negotiation in organization. (Vol. (Vol. 1. pp. 25-41). Greenwich, cf: JAl Press. 24. Harris, Harris, J.and J.and J. Branni Brannick. ck. Findi Finding ng and and Keepi Keeping ng Great Employees (New York: AMA Publications, 1999). 25. Hellma Hellman, n, C. M. (1997 (1997), ), “Job “Job Satisfa Satisfacti ction on and Intent to Leave”, Journal of SociaI Psychology Psychology,, Vol. 137, No.6, pp. 677-689. 26. Homans, Homans, G. G. G. G. 1961. Social Social behavi behavior: or: Its Its elementaryy forms. New York: elementar York: Harcourt, Brace, Brac e, & World. www.cpmr.org.in


27. Johns, G. (1996); (1996); Organi Organization zational al Behavio Behavior, r, New York ork:: Har Harper per Col Collin linss Pub Publis lishin hing. g. 28. Kacmar Kacmar,, K.M., K.M., Bozeman, Bozeman, D.P D.P.,., Carlson Carlson,, D.S., D.S., & Anthony, W.P W.P.. (1999). (199 9). An examination exami nation of the perceptions of organizational politics model: Replication and extension. Human Relations, 52, 383-416. 29. Kaiser Kaiser,, Kate Kate and Step Stephan han Hawk. Hawk. An Empiri Empirical cal Study on the Recruitment and Retention of IT Personnel ([Paper presented at the Decision Sciences Institute 32nd Annual Meeting]. 30. Kim, S-W S-W,, Price, Price, J. L., Mueller Mueller,, C.W. C.W. and Watson, T.W. T.W. 1996. The determinan d eterminants ts of career care er intent among physicians at a U.S. Air Force hospital. Human Relations, 49(7): 947-976. 31. Kirby Kirby,, Susan, Susan, (2000), (2000), Impact Impact of of Marketi Marketing ng Work-Place Diversity on Employee Job Involvement and Organizational Commitment”, Journal of Social Psychology Psycholog y, June, Pg: 367. 32. Koh, H.C. and Goh, Goh, C.T C.T.. 1995. 1995. An analysi analysiss of the factors affecting the turnover turnov er intention of non managerial manager ial clerical staff: staff: ASingapor Singaporee study. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6(1). 33. Konovsky Konovsky,, M. A., & Cropan Cropanzano, zano, R. (1991). (1991). The perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and a nd job performance. Journal of AWne Psychology, Psychology, 16,698-707. 34. Lambert Lambert,, E.G., E.G., Hogan, Hogan, N.L., N.L., Barton Barton,, A., A., & Lubbock, S.M. (2001). The impact of job satisfaction on turnover intent: A test of a structural measurement model using a national sample of workers. Social Science Journal, 38(2), 233-251. 35. Lawler Lawler,, Edward Edward E., E., III. III. Strat Strategi egicc Pay (San (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1990). 36. Likert, Likert, R. L. L. (1961). (1961). “The Huma Humann Organization”. New York: McGraw-Hill. Opinion: International Journal of Business Management 67


37. Locke, Locke, E. E. A. A. (1976) (1976).. The natu nature re and and causes causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. 38. Mathie Mathieu, u, J. and Zaja Zajac, c, D. (199 (1990), 0), “A “A review review of of meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates and consequences of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 17194. 39. Meyer Meyer,, John, Laryssa Laryssa Topol Topolnyt nytsky sky,, Henryk Krajewski and Ian Gellatly. Best Practices: Employee Retention (Toronto: TomsonCarswell, 2003). 40. Mobley Mobley,, W. W. H. (1977). (1977). Intermed Intermediat iatee linkages linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(2), 237-240. 41. Mobley Mobley WH, WH, Griff Griffith ith H, H, Meglin Meglinee B (1979) (1979).. “Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process.” Psychol. Bull, 86: 493-522. 42. Mobley Mobley W H (198 (1982a) 2a),, “Some “Some Unans Unanswere weredd Questions in Turnover and Withdrawal Research”, Academy of Management Review Review,, Vol.7, No.1, N o.1, pp. pp . 111-116. 43. Mohammad Mohammad et et al, (2006 (2006); ); Affe Affectiv ctivee Commitment and Intent to Quit: the Impact Impa ct of Work and Non-Work Related Issues, Journal Jou rnal of Managerial Issues. 44. Mottaz Mottaz,, C. (1988b) (1988b),, “Work “Work satisf satisfact action ion among among hospital nurses”, Hospital and Health Service Administration, Vol. Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. pp . 57-74. 45. Paré, Paré, Guy, Guy, Michel Michel Tr Trembl emblay ay and Patri Patrick ck Lalonde. The Measurement and Antecedents of Turnover Intentions among IT Professionals (Montreal: École des hautes études commerciales, 2000). 2000 ). [Web [Web document] URL www.cirano.qc.ca/pdf/publ www .cirano.qc.ca/pdf/publication/2000sication/2000s33.pdf. www.cpmr.org.in


46. Pfeffer Pfeffer,, J., and and Veiga, Veiga, J. 1999. 1999. “Puttin “Puttingg people people first for organizational success”. Academy of Management Executive, 13: 37-48. 47. Porter LW LW, Steers Steers RM, RM, Mowday Mowday RT RT, Boulian Boulian PV (1974). “Organizational commitment, commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians”, J. Appl. Psychol. 59: 603-609. 48. Price, Price, J.L (197 (1977). 7). The The study study of turno turnover ver,, 1st edition, Iowa state university press, IA pp1025. 49. Price, Price, J.L. J.L. (2001). (2001). Reflect Reflections ions on the the determinants of voluntary turnover. International Journal of Manpower, 22(7), 660-624. 50. Rabbit, Rabbit, T.W (2000 (2000), ), “Surf “Surf and be be Happy; Happy; Web Web Access at Work Makes Workers Feel More Productive, Less Stressed, Says Survey”, Network World, Sept 2000, Pg:45. 51. Rikett Riketta, a, M. 2002. Attit Attitudi udinal nal organi organizat zation ional al commitment and job performance: a meta analysis. Journal Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 257-266. 52. Smith, Smith, Gregory Gregory P. P. Here Today Today,, Here Tomor Tomorrow row (Chicago: Dearborn Trade Publishing, 2001). 53. Steel, Steel, R.P R.P. and Ovalle Ovalle,, N.K. N.K. (1984). (1984). “A Revi Review ew and Meta-Analysis of the Research on the Relationship between Behavioral Intentions and Employee Turnover”. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.69, No.4, pp.673 - 686 54. Taylor aylor,, M. S., S., Tracy Tracy,, K. B., Renard, Renard, M. M. K., Harrison, J. K., & Carroll, S. 1. (1995). (19 95). Due process in performance performanc e appraisa1: A quasiexperimenting procedural justice. Administrative Science Quarterly 40, 495-523. 55. Tett, R.P. R.P. and Meyer, Meyer, J.P. J.P. 1993. Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytical findings. Personnel Psychology Psychology,, 46(2): 259-293. Opinion: International Journal of Business Management 68


56. Ugboro, Ugboro, I.O. I.O. (2006); (2006); Organ Organizat izationa ionall Commitment, Job Redesign, Employee Empowerment and Intent to Quit Among Survivors of Restructuring and Downsizing, Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management, North Carolina A&T State University. 57. Vall alle, e, M., & Perrewe Perrewe,, P. P. L. (2000). (2000). Do politi politics cs percepti perce ptions ons rela relate te to poli politic tical al beha behavior viors? s? Tests of an implicit assumption and expanded model. Human Relations, 53, 359–386.

www.cpmr.org.in


58. Vroom, V. (1964). (1964). Work Work and motivat motivation. ion. New New York: John Joh n Wiley & Sons. 59. Wagner agner,, Stacey Stacey,(200 ,(2000), 0), “Retenti “Retention: on: Finders, Finders, Keepers.” Training & Development, Aug 2000, Pg: 64. 60. Wong ong,, C.S., C.S., Chun, Chun, H. and Law Law,, K.S. 1996. 1996. Casual relationship between attitudinal antecedents to turnover. Academy of Management BEST PAPERS PROCEEDINGS 1995, 342-346, Vancouver, British Columbia Canada.


Analyzing the dynamics of the relationship between organizational factors ...

Recommend Documents