The dependent variable in this study is organizational commitment. The independent variables are: (a) salary level (Maslow, 1954; Herzberg, 1964; Trinkle, 1994; Merrick, 1998; Hyde, 1999; Lockwood and Ansari, 1999; Tortola, 2001; Beck, 2002; DeMers, 2002; Opperman, 2002; Tamosaitis & Schwenker, 2002), (b) benefits (Maslow; Herzberg; DeMers, 2002), (c) job satisfaction (Maslow; Trinkle, 1994; Opperman), (d) promotional opportunities (Herzberg; Trinkle; Merrick; Lockwood & Ansari, Beck, Opperman), (e) training (Lockwood and Ansari; Kinnear & Sutherland, 2000; Opperman, (f) relevance of job (Herzberg; Hage & Powers, 1992; Merrick, Beck), (g) stress (Lockwood and Ansari; DeMers), (h) work-life balance (Merrick; DeMers; Tamosaitis & Schwenker), (i) feelings towards co-workers (Trinkle, Merrick, 1998; Lockwood & Ansari; Tortola), (j) leadership (Trinkle; Merrick; Lockwood & Ansari; Tamosaitis & Schwenker), (k) job stability (Tortola, Opperman, Tamosaitis & Schwenker), (l) geographic location (Tamosaitis & Schwenker, 2002), and (m) spouse/significant other employment (Lee & Maurer, 1999).
The hypotheses derive from research in organizational commitment and personal correlates of commitment.
H1 - A high level of job satisfaction is related to organizational commitment.
Get your grade
or your money back
using our Essay Writing Service!
HO1 - There is no significant relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
H2 - Satisfaction with salary levels is related to organizational commitment.
HO2 - There is no significant relationship between salary level and organizational commitment.
H3 - Satisfaction with benefit packages is related to organizational commitment.
HO3 - There is no significant relationship between benefit packages and organizational commitment.
H4 - Satisfaction with promotional opportunities is related to organizational commitment.
HO4 - There is no significant relationship between promotional opportunities and organizational commitment.
H5 - Satisfaction with training opportunities is related to organizational commitment.
HO5 - There is no significant relationship between training opportunities and organizational commitment.
H6 - Satisfaction with the relevance of one's job is related to organizational commitment.
HO6 - There is no significant relationship between the relevance of one's job and organizational commitment.
H7 - Satisfaction with stress levels is related to organizational commitment.
HO7 - There is no significant relationship between stress and organizational commitment.
H8 - Satisfaction with work-life balance is related to organizational commitment.
HO8 - There is no significant relationship between work-life balance and organizational commitment.
H9 - Satisfaction with co-workers is related to organizational commitment.
HO9 - There is no significant relationship between satisfaction with co-workers and organizational commitment.
H10 - Satisfaction with leadership is related to organizational commitment..
HO10 - There is no significant relationship between leadership and organizational commitment.
H11 - Satisfaction with job stability is related to organizational commitment.
HO11 - There is no significant relationship between job stability and organizational commitment.
H12 - Satisfaction with geographic location is related to organizational commitment..
HO12 - There is no significant relationship between geographic location and organizational commitment.
H13 - Satisfaction with spouse/significant other's employment is related to organizational commitment.
HO13 - There is no significant relationship between spouse/significant other's employment and organizational commitment.
H14 - There is a significant relationship between personal factors and organizational commitment.
HO14 - There is no significant relationship between personal factors and organizational commitment.
An existing survey was modified to collect data pertaining to technical knowledge worker organizational commitment (see Appendix A). This survey was based upon an instrument that was previously administered to selected individuals within the organization targeted for research. The survey questions were designed to answer specific research questions that have been investigated as part of this study.
The survey instrument selected for use was created by the headquarters activity of the organization being targeted by this research effort. The selection of this survey was key to obtaining approval to perform research in the targeted organization. The original survey was part of a People Focus Group effort that sought to identify the primary factors leading to employee job satisfaction and retention. This survey was sponsored and funded by the Commanding Officer of the Naval Air Systems Command, located in Patuxent River, Maryland. The People Focus Group survey was administered in July 2002. Written permission was granted to use this survey and is provided in Appendix B. The original People Focus Group survey consisted of both quantitative and qualitative questions. A five point Likert scale was utilized in the original People Focus Group survey. This study has preserved this schema, with the exception of question 18, where a 10-point Likert scale was implemented. A 10-point Likert scale was selected to allow a greater degree of separation between the available answers for purposes of statistical analysis. As this is strictly a quantitative study, all qualitative questions have been removed from the original survey.
Always on Time
Marked to Standard
The People Focus Group survey instrument was modified to include 17 additional questions that directly related to the research questions identified in this proposal. These additional questions have been seamlessly integrated into the original People Focus Group Survey. The additional questions seek to gauge the impact the following variables have on an employee's decision to stay in their present job: (a) low stress working environment, (b) effective leadership, (c) possibility of telecommuting, (d) pleasant working conditions, (e) current level of job satisfaction, (f) opportunities for advancement, (g) quality of co-workers, (h) high level of responsibility, (i) opportunity of creativity, (j) cash awards, (k) flexible work schedule, (l) availability of training appropriate to current position, (m) spouse/significant other's employment, (n) quality of public and private schools, (o) geographic location, (p) retirement package, and (q) I plan on leaving the organization in the next 12 months.
Survey Construction and Design
The original survey instrument was modified to include 17 additional questions that were analyzed separately to provide sufficient information to adequately address each of the substantive hypotheses. Based on his literature review, this researcher determined that the investigation of 11 of the 13 substantive hypotheses would greatly benefit from the addition of questions designed to enhance the survey's ability to measure the independent variables selected for evaluation.
15 of the additional questions were appended to question 18 of the survey. One demographic question concerning marital status was added to question 19, and question 17 was added, which asked respondents to indicate the likelihood they would leave the organization in the next 12 months. Question 18 asked: For each of the following elements, circle the number indicating how it impacts your decision to stay in your current job (1 does not affect my decision to stay, 10 definitely affects my decision to stay). A ten point Likert scale was used to record respondent answers. Questions are grouped below according to the specific hypothesis question they were designed to investigate.
H1 - Cash Awards
H2 - Retirement package
H3 - High level of responsibility, opportunity for creativity, pleasant working conditions, current level of job satisfaction
H4 - Opportunity for advancement
H5 - Availability of training appropriate to my current position
H7 - Low stress environment
H8 - Telecommuting, flexible work schedule
H9 - Effective leadership
H10 - Quality of co-workers
H12 - Geographic location
H13 - Spouse/Significant other's employment
These questions augment the capability of the selected survey to more accurately investigate the substantive hypotheses proposed in this study. For substantive hypotheses H6 and H11, the original survey instrument provided adequate coverage. Three items were added to question 18 that assist in evaluating personal factors for retention that have been identified in this study. These three questions evaluate the importance of the quality of public and private schools, the impact of geographic location, and the employment of spouse or significant others.
The survey was created by a high level team of professionals within the targeted organization and administered in May and June 2002. The theoretical basis underpinning the survey can be traced to Maslow (1954) and Herzberg (1959). This instrument was uniquely suited to answer the research questions proposed by this study, and was approved for use within the organization being studied. This researcher's approval to conduct this study in the targeted DoD activity was based on utilizing the specific survey vehicle provided as attachment A. The DoD organization studied was interested, engaged, and actively seeking cost savings potentially resulting from the implementation of improved organizational commitment among technical knowledge workers.
Appendix E provides a matrix of all 13 independent variables and the specific survey items designed to evaluate each variable. This matrix allows the reader a clear understanding of specific questions that were designed to investigate specific independent variables.
A pilot study was conducted to establish the validity of the survey instrument for this study. Fourteen technical knowledge workers were selected at random to participate in the pilot study. Based on the pilot study, items, format, and scales were adjusted to improve instrument validity and reliability and to make certain that the data requested are obtained. Comments from pilot participants were used to improve the overall usefulness of the survey. In addition, the researcher discussed changes with the authors of the original instrument.
This Essay is
a Student's Work
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.Examples of our work
Content validity was established for each of the items included in the survey instrument. Content validity seeks to determine if the items measure the content they were designed to measure (Creswell, 1994). To establish content validity each item will be reviewed using the following questions: (a) do the evaluation criteria address any extraneous content, (b) do the evaluation criteria of the scoring rubric address all aspects of the intended content, and (c) is there any content addressed in any question that should be evaluated through the rubric, but is not.
Data Collection Methods
Before the initiation of this research, approval was obtained from the Internal Review Board (IRB) of the University of Phoenix as detailed in Appendix I. Personal contact was initiated with the subject DoD activity's human resource department, union officials, and senior leadership personnel to gain permission to survey employees in the aeronautic repair depot.
Each perspective participant received a cover letter explaining the purpose and importance of this research. Along with this cover letter, each participant received a survey, instructions, and a postage paid envelope to return the completed survey within 14 days. Surveys were serialized for tracking purposes only. Strict confidentiality was a prerequisite of permission to conduct this research in the targeted organization.
Questionnaires were distributed to 353 full-time technical knowledge workers at a large governmental aeronautics repair and in-service support organization. A pre-test was performed on a small (n=14) sample of technical knowledge workers. Both managerial and non-managerial employees were asked to complete the survey. Based on the suggestions and actual administration of the pre-test survey, the survey was modified and instructions clarified where necessary.
It was planned that approximately two weeks after the distribution of the survey, all non-respondents would be contacted and encouraged to complete the survey in the next five working days. Individuals that requested an additional package would be provided with a new one. However, the response rate to the main survey was sufficient to negate the need for any reminder letters. 232 completed surveys were returned after the initial three-week period, a response rate of 65.72%.
To increase the probability of open and honest answers to incisive questions, respondents were not identified by name or physical location. Total confidentiality of respondents was assured and maintained. Demographic information obtained as part of the survey process was only used for statistical analysis purposes.
The researcher met with the senior executive of the organization being surveyed, and explained the goals of the study and the administration of a two-page survey. The use of data and complete preservation of anonymity were agreed to as a precondition to beginning the study. The researcher gained top management approval and support to perform this study using the survey mechanism provided as Attachment A. Attachment B provides an e-mail authorization to conduct this study and administer the survey within the aeronautic repair depot. It was critical in gaining approval for this study that a familiar survey mechanism be administered.
Local managers of the organization were engaged to assist in the distribution of the survey. A total of 353 paper questionnaires were distributed using the internal corporate mail system. Each survey package contained a cover letter, a questionnaire and a stamped return envelope. Subjects were informed that the survey was being conducted for workplace and job satisfaction purposes (i.e. exploring employee job satisfaction).
Subjects were instructed to mail completed surveys directly to the researcher in a pre-addressed stamped envelope. Data was collected for a three-week period, beginning in May 2003. Participation in the survey was on a voluntary and completely anonymous basis. Leedy and Ormrod (2001) recommended "to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis because a sample less than 100 may not provide enough statistical power to reject the null hypothesis" (p. 140). It was planned that two weeks after the initial survey distribution, the researcher would follow up with local managers and request they remind employees to submit their surveys. The outstanding response rate achieved negated the need for any such reminders. Of the 353 surveys distributed, 232 (65.72%) usable surveys were received. If a lower return rate had been achieved, additional surveys would have been distributed until a statistically valid sample was achieved.
Planned Data Analysis Methods
The dependent variable of interest in this investigation is organizational commitment. Organizational commitment is defined as the bond or linkage that an individual has to a particular organization (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). The relationship between the independent variables (salary level, benefits, job satisfaction, promotional opportunities, training, relevance of job, stress, work-life balance, feelings towards co-workers, leadership, job stability, geographic location, spouse/significant other's employment) and organizational commitment was investigated using multiple regression analysis. A multiple regression provided a method for determining the importance of each independent variable in the prediction of the dependent variable.
In creating a methodology for the research design, this researcher defined the: (a) research design, (b) independent and dependent variables, (c) data collection methods, and (d) planned data analysis methods used to answer research questions developed in Chapter 1. The limited number of previous organizational commitment studies in this DoD sector make the correlational study methodology particularly appealing.
This researcher agreed with Simon and Francis (2001) that "it is usually easier to use an instrument that has an established cooking record rather than to create your own [survey]" (p. 127). Based on the literature review conducted in chapter 2, a small number of questions were added to a survey that has been previously administered in the organization to allow for a more accurate analysis of the research questions. These 16 new questions were inserted as a group at the end of question 18 of the survey. These questions were inserted as a block to allow for separate analysis.
In performing statistical analysis of collected data this researcher used Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSSÂ®) version 11.0. The computations involved in performing a complex multiple regression analysis are so complex that the use of a statistical software package is recommended (Triola, 2001). The adjusted coefficient of determination, adjusted R2, will be used to denote how well the multiple regression equation fits the data collected. Triola stated "a perfect fit would result in adjusted R2 = 1. A very good fit results in a value near 1. A very poor fit results in a value of adjusted R2 close to 0" (p. 551). For example, if adjusted R2 = .894 in the SPSSÂ® software, then the particular equation indicates that 89.4% of the variation in the dependent variable is explained by that particular combination of independent variables.
As this study contained a large number of independent variables, a stepwise regression was used to determine which combination of independent variables resulted in the model that best predicted organizational commitment. In a stepwise regression SPSSÂ® first finds the independent variable with the highest correlation (R2) with the dependent variable. The program continues to try each of the remaining variables in a multiple linear regression until it finds the two variables with the highest R2. Then the program tries all of the variables again until it finds three variables with the highest R2, and so on. The overall R2 gets larger as more independent variables are added to the equation. The equation that predicts the greatest amount of variance in the dependent variable is selected as the best model.
P-value measures the overall significance of a multiple regression equation (Triola, 2001). A small P-value signifies that a particular multiple regression equation has good overall significance and is valuable for making predictions. Triola (1997) provided a scale for interpreting P-values as follows:
Less than 0.01 Highly statistically significant
Very strong evidence against the null hypothesis
0.01 to 0.05 Statistically significant
Adequate evidence against the null hypothesis
Greater than 0.05 Insufficient evidence against the null hypothesis. (p. 365)
Scope and Limitations
1. The survey instrument selected for use was created by the headquarters organization of the DoD activity being researched and has been modified for use in this study.
2. Qualitative data will not be collected under this study.
Feasibility and Appropriateness
Research conducted under this study adhered to the guidelines identified in the research methodology. Robson (1993) stated "the general principle is that the research strategy or strategies, and the methods or techniques employed, must be appropriate for the questions you want to answer" (p. 38). As an employee in the organization being investigated, this researcher had unique access and support of leaders that made the proposed research methodology possible. This support enabled the researcher to secure the participation of employees during the study's data collection period. The costs associated with performing this study included: (a) rental fees for a mail box, suitable for the return of completed surveys, (b) survey reproduction costs, and (c) postage costs for each survey distributed.
This chapter described the target study population, research design, data collection procedures, the survey instrument, the appropriateness of data collection and analysis, and the feasibility and appropriateness of the study. In Chapter 4 the researcher has provided the results of this study. SPSSÂ® was used for statistical analyses. Descriptive statistics provided insights on the nature of individual variables, and multiple regression determined the nature of relationships between organizational commitment and the independent variables and the relative importance of each independent variable in the prediction of organizational commitment.
CHAPTER IV: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
The purpose of this quantitative study was to determine the degree to which employee organizational commitment was related to salary level, benefits, job satisfaction, promotional opportunities, training, relevance of job, stress, work-life balance, feelings towards co-workers, leadership, job stability, geographic location, and spouse/significant other employment. Identification of key employee organizational commitment factors will allow leaders to develop strategies that could lead to the hiring and retaining of employees with high levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
The research questions in this quantitative multiple correlational study sought to determine relationships between several independent variables and the dependent variable of organizational commitment. The independent variables in this study were: (a) salary level, (b) benefits, (c) job satisfaction, (d) promotional opportunities, (e) training, (f) relevance of job, (g) stress, (h) work-life balance, (i) feelings toward co-workers, (j) leadership, (k) job stability, (l) geographic location, and (m) spouse/significant other employment. The independent variables were measured using an enhanced version of the Naval Aviation Job Satisfaction and Retention Survey. Organizational commitment was measured by averaging the response to three questions: (a) I plan on leaving the organization in the next 12 months (question 17), (b) pride in organization, its mission and quality of product (question 31), and (c) meaningful work, making a difference and a contribution (question 32). Regression analysis was performed to determine the influence that each independent variable had on organizational commitment. In addition, correlational analysis was performed to gain a better understanding of how each of the variables was related to organizational commitment and to each other.
"A pilot test is conducted on an instrument to detect weaknesses in design and instrumentation . . . and to emulate procedures and protocols that have been designated for data collection" (Cooper & Schnindler, 2003, p. 86). A pilot study was conducted in April 2003, to test the validity and reliability of the survey instrument and instrument taking procedures. The 14 individuals voluntarily agreed to participate in the pilot study and signed a consent form that is attached as Appendix C. It took the participants approximately 10 minutes to complete the instrument. The result of the pilot study confirmed the instrument to be valid and reliable and the participants interpreted the survey questions. There were minor adjustments to the survey instrument. Data collected as part of the pilot study were not included in the final analysis of study data.
One question pertaining to the likelihood of an individual leaving the organization in the next 12 months was removed from question 18 and recreated as a standalone question. There were 11 of the 14 pilot participants that felt the question was confusing in its original location. Appendix F provides a copy of the administered pilot study. Participants were provided areas after a section of questions where they were asked if they understood what the questions were asking, and if the questions could be made clearer. Based on these suggestions, minor improvements were made to the survey.
The pilot survey was administered directly to the group of 14 volunteers simultaneously, and respondents were encouraged to ask the survey administrator questions before, during, and after the administration of the survey. With the exception of the question pertaining to intent to leave the organization in the next 12 months, no ambiguity or difficulty in responding to individual questions was noted. Based on this successful pilot, a revised survey was created that incorporated improvements to the original survey. This revised survey is provided as Attachment A.
Population and Sample Selection
The population targeted by this study was employees working in a large governmental agency in a major metropolitan area located in the Southwestern United States. The employees represented a variety of technical knowledge workers such as logisticians, engineers, information technologists, technicians, and configuration management specialists. These employees represented four major departments that included various engineering, logistics, information technology, and production groups.
The sample consisted of 232 civil service employees, 23.71% females (n = 55), 71.55% males (n = 166), and 4.74% who declined to indicate gender (n = 11). To ensure that an accurate representation of the population was selected, each respondent identified the year they were born by selecting a range that coincided with one of five generational categories. The sample included individuals from the following generational groupings: (a) the Silent Generation at 14.22% (n = 33), (b) Baby Boomer at 59.48% (n = 138), (c) Cuspers at 7.76% (n = 18), (d) Generation "X" at 13.79% (n = 32), and (e) Generation "Y" at 1.72% (n = 4). The employees' organizational tenure ranged from less than 1 year to over 44 years. The distribution was as follows: 1.73% (n = 4) had less than 1 year of service; 25.11% (n = 58) had 1-10 years of service; 25.97% (n = 60) had 10-20 years of service; 26.41% (n = 61) had 20-30 years of service; 12.99% (n = 30) had 30-40 years of service; .87% (n = 2) had over 40 years of service; and 6.93% (n = 16) declined to provide the number of years they had worked for the organization. All respondents were full time civil service employees of the organization studied. These demographics reflect those of the population studied.
Beginning in May 2003, 353 surveys packages were distributed by hand to a large aeronautics repair depot located in the Southwest United States. Surveys were distributed to four separate departments as follows: (a) 180 to engineering, (b) 97 to logistics, (c) 40 to information technology, and (d) 36 to production. Within each of these departments, sub-department managers randomly distributed surveys to employees that were interested in taking the survey. The distribution of survey packages was based on the relative proportion of personnel employed by each department. The first page (see Appendix C), was a cover sheet requesting the employee complete the survey, explained the voluntary nature of participation, detailed the goals of the study, explained how to return the survey, ensured employees of complete anonymity and confidentiality, and informed respondents how to contact the researcher if they had any questions. The second page was the two-sided Job Satisfaction and Retention Survey (see Appendix A). The final item in each survey package was an addressed, stamped envelope provided to the respondents to mail their completed surveys to a Personal Mail Box (PMB) that was rented solely to facilitate the collection of completed surveys.
Survey distribution relied on managers from each participating department to hand deliver surveys packages to employees located in their departments. The researcher contacted the senior leader from each department to make them aware of the distribution of surveys within their departments. Employees were asked to respond within seven days of receiving a survey package. A small number or respondents elected to provide completed surveys directly to researcher. However, the vast majority of respondents selected to mail their completed surveys to the PMB as requested in the survey cover letter.
A total of 254 surveys were returned during the three weeks of data collection. For a variety of reasons, 22 surveys were unusable. Blank surveys were returned by 3 respondents who took the time to state in writing that they would not take the survey.
The second page of the survey was not completed by one respondent. One or more answers were left blank on 16 surveys. One respondent wrote derogatory comments about the survey and how much they disliked filling out surveys on the instrument. Lastly, one respondent wrote a formula estimating the cost of the survey to the organization and circled all of the same answers on both sides of the survey. A total of 232 usable surveys were received, yielding an acceptable 65.72% return rate.
To assess instrument reliability Cronbach's alpha and split-half analysis were performed. Cronbach's alpha is used to measure the proportion of variability in the responses that results from differences in the respondents. This is in contrast to variability that results from survey questions that are confusing and interpreted differently by individual respondents. SPSSÂ® 11.0 was used to perform a Cronbach reliability analysis on 45 scale survey questions. Results of this analysis showed the overall reliability of the survey was 0.93 with a standardized item alpha of 0.93 (see Table N1 in Appendix N).
A split-half analysis was conducted to obtain an accurate estimate of the reliability of the survey instrument against two sets of the same group of survey respondents. SPSSÂ® 11.0 was used to run the split-half analysis. Respondents were divided into two separate groups using the random selection method. This results in two groups being treated by SPSSÂ® as if they were two separate iterations of the same survey. Table N2 provides the results of the split-half analysis. The alpha for part 1 (23 items) was 0.8149 and for part 2 (22 items) it was 0.9345.
An ANOVA was performed to evaluate the F statistic and the level of significance in relation to reliability analysis data. The F statistic measures the fitness of the entire regression equation. The F statistic is the ratio of the between measures mean square and the mean square of the residuals (i.e., F = 51.4876/1.0106). An F statistic of 50.9476, as shown in Table N3, means that the regression equation is significant. A large F statistic is strong evidence against the conclusion that the population variances are equivalent (Triola, 2001).
Finally, a covariance/correlation reliability matrix was created using SPSSÂ® 11.0 to evaluate the reliability of each survey question. Analyzing the results of the matrix indicated that the reliability of the survey would not be improved in a significant way by removing any of the individual questions. The reliability matrix is provided as Table N4
Measurement of Data
Returned surveys were manually scored as they were returned to the researcher. Raw data were entered directly into Microsoft Excel software, and summarized into a single dependent variable, 13 independent variables, and demographic information. The dependent variable was organizational commitment. The 13 independent variables summarized were: (a) salary level, (b) benefits, (c) job satisfaction, (d) promotional opportunities, (e) training, (f) relevance of job, (g) stress, (h) work-life balance, (i) feelings toward co-workers, (j) leadership, (k) job stability, (l) geographic location, and (m) spouse/significant other employment. Demographic information collected included: (a) age, (b) series, (c) grade level, (d) gender, (e) role, (f) race, (g) years of federal service, (h) years of NAVAIR service, and (g) educational level.
As raw data were entered into Excel, the dependent and independent variables were generated using formulas that combined the answers provided to specific survey questions designed to measure specific study variables. Appendix E provides a detailed breakdown of the survey questions that were used in the generation of scores for both the independent variables and the dependent variable, organizational commitment. Following the conclusion of the data collection phase, the independent variables, the dependent variable, and demographic information were imported into SPSSÂ®.
Based on the research questions and hypotheses posed by the study, statistical analysis was performed to evaluate the data collected. Correlational analysis was performed to study the relationships that existed between each independent variable and organizational commitment. Following this analysis, a stepwise regression was used to determine which combination of independent variables resulted in the model that best predicted organizational commitment.
The purpose of this quantitative study was to determine the degree to which employee organizational commitment was related to salary level, benefits, job satisfaction, promotional opportunities, training, relevance of job, stress, work-life balance, feelings towards co-workers, leadership, job stability, geographic location, and spouse/significant other employment. Identification of key employee organizational commitment factors will allow leaders to develop strategies that could lead to the hiring and retaining of employees with high levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The following research questions guided the study:
What is the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment?
What factors best measure employee levels of motivation and degree of organizational commitment?
To what degree do personal factors influence retention of employees?
Substantive Hypotheses Tested
A high level of job satisfaction is related to organizational commitment.
Satisfaction with salary levels is related to organizational commitment.
Satisfaction with benefit packages is related to organizational commitment.
Satisfaction with promotional opportunities is related to organizational commitment.
Satisfaction with training opportunities is related to organizational commitment.
Satisfaction with the relevance of one's job is related to organizational commitment.
Satisfaction with stress levels is related to organizational commitment.
Satisfaction with work-life balance is related to organizational commitment.
Satisfaction with co-workers is related to organizational commitment.
Satisfaction with leadership is related to organizational commitment.
Satisfaction with job stability is related to organizational commitment.
Satisfaction with geographic location is related to organizational commitment.
Satisfaction with spouse/significant other's employment is related to organizational commitment.
Personal factors are related to organizational commitment.