Put it all together
Running head: JOB ATTITUDES ASSESSMENT 0
Analysis of Employees’ Job attitudes
Michael A. Leonard
Walden University
IPSY 8579
Job Attitudes, Measurement, and Change
Professor Deborah Peck
- Introduction
The purpose of a job attitude assessment is to help determine employees’ perception, availability, and feelings towards an organization or a company (Bashaw & Grant, 2014). Reliability is employed to show the degree to which a test score or data is consistent across applications or time. There are four types of reliability that are often employed when assessing employees’ job attitude: the test-retest reliability, equivalence reliability, internal reliability, and inter-rater reliability. To this end, this paper will compute different components of the job attitude assessment that were used. It begins by showing a computation of coefficient alpha estimates of reliability, then frequency responses for each of the items that were used to evaluate employees’ job attitude, overall scores f or the separate instruments that were selected, and finally computes Pearson’s product moment correlations for all variables.
- Computation of Coefficient Alpha Estimates of Reliability
The following results were obtained from the SPSS analysis about the coefficient alpha estimates of reliability.
Table 2: Organizational Commitment (Affective Commitment) | |||||||||||
| Cronbach's Alpha | Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items | No. of Items | |||||||||
| .956 | .957 | 6 | |||||||||
Table 4: Organizational Commitment (Continuance Commitment) | |||||||||||
| Cronbach's Alpha | Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items | No. of Items | |||||||||
| .933 | .933 | 6 | |||||||||
Table 6: Job Involvement | |||||||||||
| Cronbach's Alpha | Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items | No. of Items | |||||||||
| .944 | .955 | 6 | |||||||||
Table 1 shows that the coefficient alpha for the global job satisfaction variable is statistically significant since the computation yields a Cronbach’s alpha of .951 when n = 3. For this reason, the global job satisfaction is significantly reliable (Bashaw & Grant, 2014). The implication of this is that there is a direct relationship between employees’ job satisfaction and job attitude. Table 2 also reveals that the variable affective commitment, which is a component of organizational commitment, is statistically significant. Its Cronbach’s alpha when n = 6 is .957. As such, there exists a significant degree of reliability of employees’ job satisfaction to affective commitment (Darwish, 2000). It can be therefore be deduced that there is an association employees’ affective commitment and their job attitudes.
Similarly, the coefficient alpha that is corresponding to the normative commitment, which is a component of organizational commitment, is statistically significant. It also exhibits a considerable degree of reliability as its Cronbach’s alpha is .932 when n=6 (Dobrea & Găman, 2011). This proves that there exists a relationship between, job attitude and employees’ normative commitment. Additionally, there exists a relationship between continuance commitment of employees and job attitude as can be shown in table 4 where the coefficient alpha is statistically significant alongside a considerable degree of reliability since its Cronbach’s alpha is .933 (Darwish, 2000). Furthermore, there is a statistical significance and reliability between organizational commitment and employees’ job attitudes (Cronbach’s alpha =.946 when n=18) and there same is with job involvement (Cronbach’s alpha =.944 when n=6).
- Computation of an Overall Score for the Separate Instruments Selected
The following table is a pull up of an SPSS output regarding the different instruments that were selected to help gauge employees’ job satisfaction.
| Table 7: Case Summary | |||||||
| Cases | |||||||
| Valid | Missing | Total | |||||
| N | Percent | N | Percent | N | Percent | ||
| Global Job Satisfaction | 21 | 13.5% | 13 4 | 86.5% | 155 | 100.0% | |
| Organizational Commitment | 74 | 47.7% | 81 | 52.3% | 155 | 100.0% | |
| Job Involvement | 54 | 34.8% | 101 | 65.2% | 155 | 100.0% | |
From the table , different values were obtained for the selected elements’ standard de viatio n. For the variable job satisfaction, the results exhibited consistency with outcomes that were obtained for the three items that were chosen. The mean, M, was found to be 1.62 while the standard deviation, SD, was found to be 3.59. The variable organizational commitment also had results that were consistent for all the items that sub-variables that were considered. For this variable, M = 1.737 while SD = 3.37 . Another variable that also showed consistency in its sub-variables was the job involvement variable, which registered a mean of 1.162 and SD as 3.42.
- Computation of the Frequency of Responses for Each Item
The table below is an SPSS output for the computation of frequencies of responses for each of the items that were used to assess employees’ job attitude.
| Table 8: Global Job Satisfaction Frequencies | |||||||||||||||
| Responses | Percent of Cases | ||||||||||||||
| N | Percent | ||||||||||||||
| Global Job Satisfaction | JS1: All in all, I am satisfied with my job. | 15 | 32.6% | 71.4% | |||||||||||
| JS2: In general, I like my job. | 14 | 30.4% | 66.7% | ||||||||||||
| JS3: In general, I like working at this company | 17 | 37.0% | 81.0% | ||||||||||||
| Total | 46 | 100.0% | 219.0% | ||||||||||||
| a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. | |||||||||||||||
| Table 9: Organizational Commitment Frequencies | |||||||||||||||
| Responses | Percent of Cases | ||||||||||||||
| N | Percent | ||||||||||||||
| Organizational Commitment | AC6: I really feel as if this organization's problems are my own. | 24 | 6.9% | 32.4% | |||||||||||
| NC1: I feel an obligation to remain with this company. | 35 | 10.1% | 47.3% | ||||||||||||
| NC2: I would feel guilty if I left this company now. | 37 | 10.6% | 50.0% | ||||||||||||
| NC3: The company deserves my loyalty. | 23 | 6.6% | 31.1% | ||||||||||||
| NC4: I would not leave this company right now because I have a sense of obligation to the people in it. | 26 | 7.5% | 35.1% | ||||||||||||
| NC5: Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my organization now. | 34 | 9.8% | 45.9% | ||||||||||||
| NC6: I owe a great deal to this organization. | 30 | 8.6% | 40.5% | ||||||||||||
| CC1: It would be very hard for me to leave this company right now, even if I wanted to. | 13 | 3.7% | 17.6% | ||||||||||||
| CC2: Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave this company right now. | 24 | 6.9% | 32.4% | ||||||||||||
| CC3: Right now, staying with this company is a matter of necessity as much as desire. | 22 | 6.3% | 29.7% | ||||||||||||
| CC4: I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this company. | 28 | 8.0% | 37.8% | ||||||||||||
| CC5: One of the few negative consequences of leaving this organization would be the scarcity of available alternatives. | 24 | 6.9% | 32.4% | ||||||||||||
| CC6: If I had not already put so much of myself into this organization, I might consider working elsewhere. | 28 | 8.0% | 37.8% | ||||||||||||
| Total | 348 | 100.0% | 470.3% | ||||||||||||
| a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. | |||||||||||||||
| Table 10: Job Involvement Frequencies | |||||||||||||||
| Responses | Percent of Cases | ||||||||||||||
| N | Percent | ||||||||||||||
| Job Involvement | JI1: The major satisfaction in my life comes from my job. | 34 | 21.0% | 63.0% | |||||||||||
| JI2: The most important things that happen to me involve my work. | 30 | 18.5% | 55.6% | ||||||||||||
| JI3: I'm really a perfectionist about my work. | 21 | 13.0% | 38.9% | ||||||||||||
| JI4: I live, eat, and breathe my job | 25 | 15.4% | 46.3% | ||||||||||||
| JI5: I am very much involved personally with my work. | 21 | 13.0% | 38.9% | ||||||||||||
| JI6: Most things in life are not more important than work. | 31 | 19.1% | 57.4% | ||||||||||||
| Total | 162 | 100.0% | 300.0% | ||||||||||||
| a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. | |||||||||||||||
The frequency assessment was employed to help in establishing the percentages as well as number of participants who selected each of the scale anchors for the different items that were under investigation (Dobrea & Găman, 2011). For instance, the number of people who answered (1[Strongly Disagree] or 7[Strongly Agree] on Job Satisfaction JS01) similarly, the frequency of responses was used to help acquire detailed information concerning how workers actually respond to analytical questions as well as the job attitude evaluation (Dobrea & Găman, 2011).
- Computation of Pearson’s Product Moment Correlations for all variables
To compute Pearson’s product moment correlation for all the variables that were under consideration, SPSS was used to provide a summary of frequency scrutiny of the three selected variables, as shown the tables of frequencies above.
From the frequency evaluation graph, it is clear that there exists a number of correlations regarding the variable global job satisfaction. Nonetheless, the most crucial positive correlation is noted between the variable JS03 and JS01, whose r = .88 when n = 6, and Pearson’s product moment (p) = .000. Similarly, there exist several correlations regarding organizational commitment. Nevertheless, the most essential of the correlations is noted between AC05 and AC03, whose r = .887 when n = 18, and p = .000. Last but not least, regarding the variable job involvement, there are noted several correlations. However, the most important of them is that between JL01 and JL03, whose r = .781 when n = 18 and p = .0000.
Re ferenc esBashaw, E. R. & Grant, S. E. (2014). Exploring the distinctive nature of work commitments: Their relationships with personal characteristics, job performance, and propensity to leave. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 14(9), 41-56.
Darwish, Y. (2000). Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction as Predictors of Attitudes toward Organizational Change in a Non-Western Setting. Personnel Review, 29(4), 6–25.
Dobrea, R. & Găman, A. (2011). Aspects of the Correlation between Corporate Social Responsibility and Competitiveness of Organization, Revisit. Economic, Serial Management, 14(1), 236 - 298.
