The results suggest the existence of acceptable distinctiveness between the variables. For example, the magnitude of the interrelationship among the 'participation in technical decisions (PTD)' and commitment variable such as 'job involvement (JI)' is .17 which suggests that the scale indicators used to assess 'participation in technical decisions' are different from those indicators used to measure 'job involvement'.
To assess common method bias in the data, Harman's single-factor test was performed. In this test, all of the items belonging to the variables in the research model were entered into a principal components factor analysis. The results showed that there existed four factors with eigenvalue greater than 1 in the data and no single factor emerged as a dominant factor accounting for most of the variance. The factor with the greatest eigenvalue accounts for 26.35% of the variance, thus indicating no substantial common method bias in the data.
Present study conducted a structural equation modeling using the AMOS 16.0 and SPSS 15.0 to test the proposed relationships. The model was prepared in a recursive manner to avoid problems associated with statistical identification (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). The results of the model with completely standardized path coefficients for the model are presented in Figure 2. The model showed a perfect fit with the data (Ï‡Â²=2.49, Ï‡Â²/df=1.25, GFI=1.00, TLI=1.00, CFI=1.00, RMSEA=.02). Kline (2005) suggested that x2/df of 3 or less is a reasonable good indicator of the model fit. The values for GFI, TLI, and CFI greater than .95 is considered as more rigorous model fit indices (Bentler, 1990).
Participation in technical decisions predicted affective organizational commitment (Î²=.20, p<.001). Although PTD had a significant bivariate correlation (r=.17) with job involvement, it had insignificant effect (Î²=.07, p>.05). Participation in managerial decisions predicted job involvement (Î²=.21, p<.001). However, PMD had no significant effect on affective organizational commitment (Î²=.00, p>.05), although there was a significant bivariate correlation between PMD and affective organizational commitment (r=.20). Job involvement has predicted affective organizational commitment (Î²=.40, p<.001).
.20 (.18) *
.21 (.13) *
.40 (.38) *
Figure 2: Standardized parameter estimates for the model
Note: Only significant paths are shown. Unstandardized path coefficients are in parenthesis. *p<.001
6. Hypotheses Testing
Hypothesis 1 was formulated to verify the relationship between participation in managerial decisions and affective organizational commitment. The results of the analysis revealed that participation in managerial decisions was not significantly related to affective organizational commitment (Î²=.00, p>.05). Hence, hypothesis 1 was refuted. Hypothesis 2 was tested to examine the relationship between participation in managerial decisions and job involvement. The results showed that participation in managerial decisions was positively and significantly related to job involvement (Î²=.21, p<.001). Hence, hypothesis 2 was accepted. Hypothesis 3 was related to the relationship between participation in technical decisions and job involvement. The results revealed that participation in technical decisions was not significantly related to job involvement (Î²= .07, p>.05). Hence, hypothesis 3 was refuted. Hypothesis 4 was verified to test the relationship between participation in technical decisions and affective organizational commitment. The results revealed that participation in technical decisions was positively and significantly related to affective organizational commitment (Î²= .20, p<.001). Hence, hypothesis 4 was supported. Hypothesis 5 was related to the relationship between affective organizational commitment and job involvement. The results revealed that affective organizational commitment was positively and significantly related to job involvement (Î²= .40, p<.001). Hence, hypothesis 5 was supported.
An examination of the mean and intercorrelation pattern gives us following indications (Table 1) First, the mean of participation in technical decisions was higher than the mean of participation in managerial decisions (M=3.65 and M=3.00, respectively). This result specifies that teachers were more involved in issues relating to students and instruction than the decisions related to institution operation and administration. The above mean values for participation in decision making were consistent with previous research (Somech & Bogler, 2002; Taylor & Bogotch, 1994; Duke & Gansneder, 1990).
Regarding relationship between participation in decision making and commitment, the results demonstrate that participation in the managerial decisions is positively associated with job involvement. However, it is not significantly associated with affective organizational commitment. This may be because of the fact that teachers have limited scope to participate in the managerial decisions at the institution level. Only a few teachers holding key positions get the opportunity to participate in the decisions related to determining the procedures to evaluate teachers' performance, setting and revising the institutional goal, etc. Such discrimination with respect to opportunity to participate in decision making affects teachers' attitude, and therefore, develops withdrawal intensions towards the organization. Hence, teachers' participation in managerial decision making has not transformed to predict commitment to organization. Support for the above argument can also be obtained by verifying previous research. Taylor and Bogotch (1994) reported low levels of teachers' involvement in the managerial issues such as designing administrative and organizational structure, developing methods to evaluate teachers, and setting institute goals, etc. However, a significant positive influence of teachers' participation in managerial decisions on job involvement reinforces the idea that teachers as professionals work normatively to improve teaching and learning activities. Even under the unfavorable working conditions teachers intend to justify their profession by fully involving in their job situation.
The results display a significant influence of participation in technical decisions on affective organizational commitment. When teachers are given an opportunity to participate in issues related to teaching, they may feel a sense of ownership with the institution. Meyer and Allen (1991) suggest that affective commitment develops as a result of experiences that satisfy employee's need to feel physically and psychologically comfortable in the organization.
Teachers' involvement in decisions related to students and classroom instructions were in congruence with their professional values and ethics. Teachers' influence in technical matters ensures that better decisions are made concerning to their own classroom which facilitates success in teaching. A successful teacher is expected to involve in their job extensively. Hence, the results anticipated a positive relation between participation in the technical decisions and job involvement. Surprisingly, the results demonstrated a non significant relationship between participation in technical decisions and job involvement. Such finding may be attributed to the forms of commitment; there would have been a sort of conflict between both the domains of commitment. The results augment the existing literature by indicating a positive relationship between affective organizational commitment and job involvement. However, demonstrating a positive relation does not necessarily mean that there is no tension between the two commitments (Aranya & Ferris, 1984). If the individual's professional work expectations and goals are met by the employing organization than there is no conflict among the commitment forms (Wallace, 1993).
Teachers who are involved in their job have positive work experiences that are attributed to the institution. Teachers committed to their job would develop meaningful relationships with the institution which might have positive effect on affective organizational commitment. Higher job involvement will lead to positive attitudes towards one's organization. Commitment to the job is based on the individual meaning of the job and has a stronger influence on organizational commitment. Overall, the results support previous research, which suggests that work conditions are significant predictors of commitment (Somech & Bogler, 2002; Firestone & Pennell, 1993; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Hackman & Oldham, 1980).
Findings of the present study are pertinent to concerned officials who are either directly or indirectly associated with the administration at different levels of governance of engineering institutions. Institutions need to consider empowering teachers to participate in all domains of decision making process, as it is related to job involvement and affective organizational commitment.
The institutions must provide supportive work environment, where teachers should feel that they have control over their job and related activities. Teachers who visualize institutions behaving in their favour can contribute more to the institution. Teachers will experience high status when they are allowed to participate in decisions related to their own classroom and the institution; such feelings would elevate their commitment forms. A committed teacher is always a competitive advantage to the institutions. Therefore, head of the institutions should recognize the findings and have to make every effort to raise teachers' commitment to job and the organization.
9. Limitations and Scope for Further Research
The findings of the study should be interpreted considering a few limitations. First, researchers did not follow random sampling approach while collecting data. However, precaution was taken to consider sample representation from all the three regions equally (rural, semi-urban, and urban). Considering the above limitations, implications of the study may be understood and applied with caution. Second, the study assumed that domains of participation in decision making are the predictors of commitment forms, but further research is needed to investigate these relationships to address the causality issue. The third limitation is that the study is based on the data collected from teachers only, whereas the views of both the principals and teachers are equally important in order to understand better how each group conceives commitment. Finally, possible extensions of this study could be to examine the relationship between teachers' participation in decision making and commitment forms such as group commitment, union commitment etc. in public and private institutions which can extend our understanding of the factors affecting the commitments in different educational settings.