A Study On Relationship Between Organizational Job Commitment, and Its

ijcrb.webs.
com DECEMBER 2011

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 8
A study on Relationship between Organizational job Commitment, and its

Determinants among CSRs and Managerial level Employees of Pakistan
(Telecommunication sector)
Huda Khan
Lecturer, Lahore Business School, The University of Lahore, Pakistan.
Amir Razi
Syed Atif Ali

Ali Asghar
Lahore Business School, The University of Lahore, Pakistan.
Abstract
Psychologist and human racecourse management practitioners are widely researching in
organizational commitment areas. Objective of this study is to analyze relationship between
work motivation, job satisfaction with organizational commitment among managerial and
CSRs(Customer Services Representative) in telecommunication sector. Focus of the study is
towards analyzing the general behavior of managers and CSRs towards work motivation and
job satisfaction which may build higher level of organizational commitment. Sample size of
200 was taken both male and female 100 from managerial class and 100 from CSRs. Two
statistical tools correlation and linear regression were applied on data with the help of SPSS
16.0.results showed that positive and significant result exist between work motivation ,job
satisfaction and organizational commitment. Although both independent variables are
strongly associated with organizational commitment but impact of work motivation on
organizational commitment is stronger. In case having no motivation and job satisfaction will
have a more sever impact on CSRs than Managerial class on the organizational commitment.
Keywords: Organizational commitment, Work motivation, Job commitment
1. Introduction:
Pakistan is among developing countries and economies of the world. The economy of any
country is based on different factors and the organizations are one of them. As the
development level increases, the working environment becomes more competitive.
Employers now demand for more skilled, trained and qualified work force since the
organizational output and productivity is highly dependent on the employees performances
(Currall et al. 2005). So these types of qualified employees in return demands for more
attractive packages, and to retain the performers has remained a dilemma for the human
resource management practitioners (Sumita, 2004). Moreover variation exists in terms of pay
packages, working conditions, incentives, recognition and fringe benefits for the employees
(Lavy, 2007). So to increase the growth and productivity of any organization, the skilled,
trained and qualified workforce is required. On the other hand these work forces do work
heartily, when they are all satisfied and committed to their organization.
269
COPY RIGHT 2011 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
ijcrb.webs.com DECEMBER 2011
Job satisfaction, work motivation and the job commitment of the employees is very important
to increase the productivity of an organization. Locke and Lathan (1976) gave a
comprehensive definition of job satisfaction as pleasurable or positive emotional state
resulting from the appraisal of ones job or job experience. Job satisfaction is a result of
employee's perception of how well their job provides those things that are viewed as
important. According to (Mitchell and Lasan, 1987), it is generally recognized in the
organizational behavior field that job satisfaction is the most important and frequently studied
attitude.
Job satisfaction is an emotional response to a job situation. As such it cannot be seen, it can
only be inferred.
Job satisfaction is often determined by how well outcome meet or exceed expectations. For
instance, if organization participants feel that they are working much harder than others in the
department but are receiving fewer rewards they will probably have a negative attitudes
towards the work, the boss and or coworkers. On the other hand, if they feel they are being
treated very well and are being paid equitably, they are likely to have positive attitudes
towards the job.
Job satisfaction represents several related attitudes which are most important characteristics
of a job about which people have effective response. These to Luthans are: the work itself,
pay, promotion opportunities, supervision and coworkers.
Motivation is defined as the process that initiates, guides and maintains goal-oriented
behaviors. Motivation is what causes us to act, whether it is getting a glass of water to reduce
thirst or reading a book to gain knowledge. There are three major components to motivation:
activation, persistence and intensity. Activation involves the decision to initiate a behavior,
such as enrolling in a psychology class. Persistence is the continued effort toward a goal even
though obstacles may exist, such as taking more psychology courses in order to earn a degree
although it requires a significant investment of time, energy and resources. Finally, intensity
can be seen in the concentration and vigor that goes into pursuing a goal. For example, one
student might coast by without much effort, while another student will study regularly,
participate in discussions and take advantage of research opportunities outside of class.
Different types of motivation are frequently described as being either extrinsic or intrinsic.
Extrinsic motivations are those that arise from outside of the individual and often involve
rewards such as trophies, money, social recognition or praise. Intrinsic motivations are those
that arise from within the individual, such as doing a complicated cross-word puzzle purely
for the personal gratification of solving a problem. A wide variety of definitions and measure
of organizational commitment exist. Beckeri, Randal, and Riegel (1995) defined the term in a
three dimensions:
1. A strong desire to remain a member of a particular organization;

2. A willingness to exert high levels of efforts on behalf of the organization;
3. A define belief in and acceptability of the values and goals of the organization.
To North craft and Neale (1996), commitment is an attitude reflecting an employee's loyalty
to the organization, and an ongoing process through which organization members express
their concern for the organization and its continued success and wellbeing.
Organizational commitment is determined by a number of factors, including personal factors

(e.g., age, tenure in the organization, disposition, internal or external control attributions);
270
organizational factors (job design and the leadership style of one's supervisor); non-
organizational factors (availability of alternatives). All these things affect subsequent
commitment (North craft and Neale, 1996).
Mowday, Porter, and Steer (1982) see commitment as attachment and loyalty. These authors
describe three components of commitment:
An identification with the goals and values of the organization.

A desire to belong to the organization.
A willingness to display effort on behalf of the organization.
2. Literature Review:
To increase in the production of any organization, overall job satisfaction, work motivation and
organizational Commitment pays an important role. These are all closely related to each other
and very important for an organization production and growth.
Whereas Meyer & Herscovitch (2001, p. 301) defined commitment as follows: Commitment
is a force that binds an individual to a course of action that is of relevance to a particular
target. Two theories have presented differentiated views of organizational commitment. First,
OReilly and Chatman (1986) used Kelmans (1958) typology to distinguish three forms of
organizational commitment, including (a) identification with the organization, (b)
internalization of the organizations values, and (c) compliance. Theoretically, OReilly and
Chatmans compliance is related to SDTs external regulation. Further, as suggested above,
their concepts of identification and internalization relate to the internal types of motivation in
SDTthat is, to autonomous extrinsic motivation, as well as to introjected motivation (which
is not autonomous). To test this, Gagne and Koestner (2002) did a study in which they
assessed the SDT concepts of external, introjected, identified, and intrinsic motivation, as well
as OReilly and Chatmans (1986) identification and internalization. The researchers found, as
expected, that the two types of commitment correlated strongly with intrinsic motivation and
identified regulation (rs ranged from 0.46 to 0.58), and that they also correlated significantly
with introjected regulation (rs0.36 and 0.39). Neither identification nor internalization
correlated with external regulation. The researchers then combined the four subscales of the
motivation measure to form a relative autonomy index as described by Ryan and Connell
(1989), and they found, using cross-lag correlations, that Time 1 relative autonomy predicted
Time 2 commitment (the combination of identification and internalization), but Time 1
commitment did not predict Time 2 autonomous motivation. This suggests that autonomous
motivation may provide an important part of the basis for these types of commitment. In the
second theory of commitment, Allen and Meyer (1996) specified three forms of commitment.
Affective commitment refers to employees identification with, emotional attachment to, and
involvement in the organization, which is the type of commitment in their taxonomy that is
theoretically most aligned with autonomous motivation. Gagne, Boies, Koestner, and Martens
(2004) predicted that affective commitment would be facilitated by employees autonomous
motivation. Gagne and Koestner (2002) had found when they related the types of motivation
to OReilly and Chatmans measure of identification and internalization. Thus, the type of
organizational commitment that encompasses accepting the organizational goals, being
committed to the organization, and feeling engaged with and attached to the organization
appear to be facilitated by autonomous motivation. Motivation researchers have long
recognized that this desire to make an effort can derive from different sources (e.g., Herzberg,
1966; Porter & Lawler, 1968; Staw, 1977). Early in the 20th century, scholars and practitioners
believed that external controls, incentives, punishments, and rewards were necessary to
271
motivate persistence, performance, and productivity (see Heath, 1999; Steers, Mowday, &
Shapiro, 2004. Comparing the definitions of motivation and commitment reveals an obvious
similarity: Both have been described as energizing forces with implications for behavior. Note,
however, that Pinder (1998) described motivation as a set of energizing forces and that Meyer
and Herscovitch (2001) defined commitment as a force that binds an individual to a course of
action. This implies that motivation is a broader concept than commitment and that
commitment is one among a set of energizing forces that contributes to motivated (intentional)
behavior. As another point of comparison, it is clear from our discussion of motivation and
commitment theory that both developed in an attempt to understand, predict, and influence
employee behavior. As we noted at the outset, however, motivation theorists have generally
been more concerned with explaining task performance. This is clearly reflected in Lockes
(1997) model; In contrast, commitment theorists have historically focused more on explaining
employee retention or turnover. The latter has clearly changed, however, as is evident in Meyer
and Herscovitchs (2001) model where predictions are made concerning the effects of
commitment on any behavior (focal or discretionary) of relevance to the target of that
commitment. Meyer and Allen (e.g., Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1997) developed a
widely accepted commitment framework in which people develop affective, continuance, and
normative commitments conceptualized such that employees may form strong attachments on
none, some, or all three dimensions. Research on this model grows each year, and a substantial
body of scholarship supports the construct validity of their measures (Allen & Meyer, 1990,
1996; Cohen, 1996; Meyer, Allen, & Gellatly, 1990). Commitment is a more responsive
approach by an organization.
Organizations incorporate programs like total quality management, employee involvement, job
enrichment, skill-based pay, gain sharing plans to gain a competitive edge (Lawler, 1992;
Lawler, et al. 1992). The objective of such interventions is to increase the firm productivity by
controlling employee behavior on the job and actively contribute towards achieving
organizational objective, and thus building strong organizational commitment (Lawler, 1986).
One of the core objectives of the management is to increase the efficiency by getting
maximized productivity at the minimum cost. However, motivation is considered to be crucial
for good performance (Sumita, 2004). Thus job performances are typically determined by the
motivation to work hard and high motivation means greater efforts and higher performances
(Mitchell, 1982). Thus, it can be said that motivation is to push workers towards improved
performance and increased productivity (Tung, 1981). Also the managements concern has
increased for the employees to keep them motivated on the job (Mitchell, 1973). Employers use
a wide range of motivational techniques including monetary incentives, goal setting, job
enlargement, behavior modification, participation, award and recognition plans, discipline, and
counseling (Porter & Perry, 1982). Meyer & Becker (2004), Pinder (1998) provided an
impressive definition of work motivation that it is a set of energetic forces that originates both
within as well as beyond an individuals being, to initiate work-related behavior, and to
determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration. Managers and management researchers
have long believe that organizational goals are unattainable without the enduring commitment
of members of the organizations. Motivation is a human psychological characteristic that
contributes to a person's degree of commitment (Stoke, 1999).
Job satisfaction is more of a response to specific facets of the job. Job satisfaction is placed as a
central concept in work and organizational psychology, which mediates the relation between
working conditions on the one hand and organizational and individual outcomes on the other
hand. Although intuitively convincing, working conditions, as the major cause of job
satisfaction, have been challenged (Dormann & Zapf, 2001). Performance pay may be part of a
human resource innovations associated with high-performance workplaces. Such workplaces
272
may create greater feelings of belonging, esteem, satisfaction and commitment (Green &
Heywood, 2007). Job satisfaction is defined as the degree to which a worker experiences
positive affection towards his or her job [23]. Locke [24] in his well-cited definition considers
job satisfaction to be a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of
ones job or job experiences and as a function of the perceived relationship between what one
wants from ones job and what one perceives it as offering (p. 1300). Though recent theorizing
on job satisfaction describes it as a multifaceted construct, and a function of two major factors,
dispositional (worker personality traits) and situational (workplace factors) [25, 26, 27], the
general indication, however, is that job satisfaction is more of an affective reaction to ones job,
an evaluative measure and consequently an indicator of working conditions [Hart et al., as cited
in 4, 23]. Occupational injuries and industrial accidents are therefore likely to be mediated by
organizational climate and job satisfaction. The reason why satisfaction will lead to the
commitment is that a higher level of job satisfaction may lead to good work life and reduction
in stress (Cote & Heslin, 2003).
Our objective is to compare job satisfaction, work motivation and Organizational
commitment among the CSR and the Managerial class of (Telecommunication sector) of
Pakistan. As we know that positive and significant relationship exists between work
motivation, overall job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
3. Conceptual Framework:
Organizational commitment is considered to be one of the foremost important and crucial
outcomes of the human resource strategies. Employee commitment is seen as the key factor
in achieving competitive performance (sahnwaz & juyal, 2006).significatnt relationship has
been identified between job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Narimawati, 2007).
Sarmad (2007) also tried to determine the level of influence job satisfaction facet will have
on the organizational commitment.
The conceptual framework for the study has been adopted from previous study Ayeni &
Phapoola(2007).They have studied the relationship between work motivation, job satisfaction
and organizational commitment. Another study was under taken in Pakistan for private sector
by (warsi, Fatima & sahibzada)(2009).but our aim to test the same relationship by using the
data of telecommunication sector, between managerial and CSRs(Customer service
representative). The independent variables are work motivation and job satisfaction whereas
organizational commitment is the dependent variable.
Organizational commitment and its relation with work motivation and job satisfaction
Job Related Variables
Work motivation
Organizational
Commitment
Job satisfaction
Reference: Ayeni, C. O., & Phopoola, S. O. (2007). Work Motivation, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment of Library
Personnel in Academic and Research Libraries in Oyo State, Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice 2007.
273
3.1 Research hypothesis
The hypotheses of the study are:
H01: The work motivation is positively associated with the organizational commitment.
H02: Job satisfaction is positively associated with the organizational commitment.
H03: There is a significant effect on organizational commitment due to work motivation and
job satisfaction.
4. Research Methodology:
This study analyzes the association between organizational job commitment, and its
determinants. The study was undertaken February 2011 to June 2011 in which the survey tool
was developed and modified from past studies. Questions were adopted from different
sources to make sure that objective must be achieved at the right way. Responses were
collected on a likert scale from 1 to 5 where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree 3 is
for the neutral response.
Study questionnaire includes 22 questions in which 8, 6, 3 questions are about job

satisfaction, organizational commitment and work motivation respectively. five questions
were asked for the demographics. Convenience sampling which is the kind of Non
probability sampling technique was used in our survey to complete the survey the total of 200
samples were selected from the Telecommunication sector population. These questionnaires
were filled from well known telecom network operator such as Warid, Telenor, Mobilink,
PTCL, Zong and U-fone.100 questionnaire were filled from managerial class and 100 from
the CSRs. SPSS 16.0 used for data entry and findings and analysis.
5. Results
5.1.1 Distribution of age by respondent.
Managerial class CSRs
Age Male Female Male Female
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Less than 25 19 23.8% 11 55% 26 31.0% 10 62.5%
25 29 30 37.5% 4 20% 32 38.1% 4 25.0
30 35 17 21.2% 2 10% 21 25.0% 2 12.5
36 39 6 7.5% 2 10% 5 6.0% 0 0
40 50 5 6.2% 1 5% 0 0 0 0
More than 50 3 3.8% 0 0 0 0 0 0
274
5.1.2 Distribution of workplace by respondent.

Managerial class
CSRs
Workplace
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Ufone 31 31% 3 3%
Warid 18 18% 17 17%
Telenor 5 5% 29 29%
Mobilink 18 18% 14 14%
PTCL 12 12% 24 24%
Zong 16 16% 13 13%
5.1.3 Distribution of work experience of sector by respondent.

How long have you Managerial class
CSRs
worked for this
company? Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Less than 1 year 36 36% 43 43%
1- 5 45 45% 43 43%
6-10 17 17% 6 6%
More than 10 years 2 2% 8 8%
5.1.4 Distribution of current position by respondent.

How long have you Managerial class
CSRs
Held your current
position? Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Less than 1 year 55 55% 45 44%
1- 5 32 32% 37 37%
6-10 9 9% 12 12%
More than 10 years 4 4% 6 6%
5.1.5 Distribution of Questions by respondent.
Managerial Class CSRs
Questions S.D D N A S.A S.D D N A S.A
F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
Are you satisfied

with the working 11 11 7 7 8 8 57 57 17 17 7 7 6 6 9 9 75 75 3 3
hours each week?
Are you satisfied
with the flexibility in 5 5 10 10 16 16 55 55 14 14 1 1 16 16 35 35 45 45 3 3
scheduling?
Do you feel
comfortable with the
5 5 11 11 18 18 39 39 27 27 1 1 6 6 21 21 59 59 13 13
Location of
workplace?
Do you think that
your workplace is 3 3 11 11 20 20 60 60 6 6 1 1 14 14 30 30 51 51 4 4
giving you a good
275
salary?
Are satisfied with the

amount paid vacation 8 8 14 14 37 37 34 34 7 7 10 10 41 41 29 29 19 19 1 1
time?
Does your workplace
provide opportunities 2 2 6 6 24 24 55 55 13 13 1 1 20 20 41 41 37 37 1 1
for promotion?
Are you satisfied
with the benefits
6 6 17 17 31 31 30 30 16 16 16 16 31 31 32 32 20 20 1 1
(Health, Life
insurance, etc)?
Do you think that
you have job 8 8 35 35 19 19 30 30 8 8 7 7 45 45 23 23 24 24 1 1
security?
Are you satisfied
with recognition for 7 7 10 10 16 16 58 58 9 9 0 0 12 12 50 50 37 37 1 1
work accomplished?
Are you satisfied
from relationship(s)
5 5 11 11 14 14 44 44 26 26 1 1 4 4 9 9 57 57 29 29
with your co-
workers?
Are you satisfied
from relationship(s)
8 8 8 8 14 14 33 33 37 37 0 0 2 2 17 17 40 40 41 41
with your
Supervisors?
Does your workplace
give you the
opportunity to utilize 3 3 13 13 23 23 43 43 18 18 1 1 2 2 51 51 26 26 8 8
your skills and
talents?
Does your workplace
allow you to learn 6 6 9 9 29 29 46 46 10 10 2 2 20 20 37 37 36 36 5 5
new skills?
Do they provide you
support for additional
9 9 10 10 15 15 51 51 15 15 6 6 26 26 28 28 38 38 2 2
training and
education?
Are you interested in
6 6 13 13 15 15 41 41 25 25 1 1 6 6 23 23 64 64 6 6
their work activities?
Are you satisfied
with the degree of
independence 6 6 14 14 27 27 38 38 15 15 7 7 22 22 35 35 32 32 4 4
associated with your
work role?
Does your workplace
provide you adequate
opportunity for 5 5 25 25 32 32 25 25 13 13 7 7 41 41 33 33 17 17 2 2
periodic changes in
duties?
Are you satisfied
with the
21 21 21 21 30 30 19 19 9 9 17 17 45 45 25 25 12 12 1 1
superannuation
benefits?
(S.D=Strongly Disagree,D= Disagree,N= Neutral, A= Agree, S.A= Strongly Agree, F= Frequency, %= Percentage)
276
Table 5.1.1 is showing the demographic portion of the questionnaire in which the total of 200
questionnaire filled by managerial and CSRs(customer service representative), in which 36
were female and 164 males by both designations. Ages of managerial class are around less
than 25 to more than 50 in which most of them lie between < 25 and 25-29,on the other hand
ages of CSR mostly consist of < =30, and most of them were having less than 1 year
duration with their respective companies.
Table 5.1.2, 5.1.3, 5.1.4 consist frequency and percentage of workplace, duration with the
company and duration of current position respectively.
Table 5.1.5 consists of descriptive data according to designation. There are 23 questions in
which the respondent have answered the questions by the help of likert scale in which 1
stands for strongly disagree and the 5 stands for strongly agree, 3 indicates the neutral
response.
Results shows that the majority of managerial and CSR are agreed with the working hours
each week. Flexibility in scheduling is an agreed option for most of the managerial class but
the CSRs has their own point of view in which 35% of them were neutral and 45% were
agreed with the statement. Most of them are agree with the statement about salary and
workplace. In the case of paid vacation, opportunities for promotion, and benefits such as
(health, life etc) answers were mixed with managers are happy with the vacation paid and
promotion where as CSR were neutral and disagreed and in the case of benefits both of them
having mix responses. Job security is the topic where total of 62% managers and 75% CSRs
were neutral or disagree with the statement. Managers are more satisfied than CSRs with the
recognition for work accomplished.70% manager are agreed and strongly agree with
relationships with co-workers and supervisors where 83.5% CSR agree with the statement.
Training, education, learning and utilization of new skills is showing a high percentage of
satisfaction managers and CSRs. moreover 75% and 87% managers and CSRs are interested
in the work activities of their workplace. Independence of work role is more easy for
managers than CSRs where they have neutral or negative views.72% of managers are having
negative or neutral views and 87% CSRs having same views on satisfaction of
superannuation benefits.
6. Analytical Results
Correlation and linear regression is the tool that was applied to data for analysis. Correlation
is not the same as linear regression but they are related. The best way to predict the work
motivation and job satisfaction toward organizational commitment is linear regression but the
correlation quantified the magnitude and direction the relation between work motivation, job
satisfaction and organizational commitment. Relation of dependent and independent variables
are shown in table 6.2. Analysis revealed that there is a positive and significant relationship
between work motivations, job satisfaction with organizational commitment. The correlation
found to be strongly and positively associated with the organizational commitment (work
motivation, r = 0.654 and job satisfaction, r = 0.494). Results are showing that work
motivation is more strongly associated with organizational commitment as compare to job
satisfaction. (Job satisfaction r = 0.494 < work motivation = 0.654). It means that if the work
motivation and job satisfaction is increasing the organizational commitment may also
increase. Moreover, in the case of negative the independent variable will also decline.
277
Table 6.2. Pair wise correlation

Correlations
Organizational Work
Commitment Job Satisfaction Motivation
Organizational Commitment Pearson Correlation

.494** .654**
Sig. (2-tailed) 1.000
.000 .000
N 200.000
200 200
Job Satisfaction Pearson Correlation

.494** .549**
.000 .000
N 200.000
200 200
Work Motivation Pearson Correlation

.654** .549**
.000 .000
N 200.000
200 200
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
To validate the result from correlation, linear regression was calculated in table 6.3.1. It also
shows that work motivation, job satisfaction are significantly associated with organizational
commitment (at 99% confidence level) and may predict organization commitment depending
upon work motivation and job satisfaction of the employees. Thus results indicate support for
the first and second research hypothesis. We accept the hypothesis and the work motivation
and jobs satisfaction are significantly related to the organizational commitment.
Table 6.3.1 Regression analysis

Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 2.144 1.444 1.485 .139
Job Satisfaction .179 .058 .193 3.067 .002
Work Motivation 1.101 .126 .549 8.714 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Organizational Commitment
The regression coefficients are shown in the table above. The intercept, 2.144 representing
the estimated average value of organizational commitment when work motivation and job
satisfaction are zero. The slop of job satisfaction 0.179 means change in organizational
commitment is 0.179 when job satisfaction increase by 1. And the slop of work motivation
1.101 showing that change in organizational commitment is 1.101 when work motivation is
increased by 1.
278
Table 6.3.2
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of
the Estimate
a
1 .674 .454 .449 3.10571
a. Predictors: (Constant), Work Motivation, Job Satisfaction
Table 6.3.3
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1582.047 2 791.023 82.010 .000a
Residual 1900.148 197 9.645
Total 3482.195 199
a. Predictors: (Constant), Work Motivation, Job Satisfaction
b. Dependent Variable: Organizational Commitment
The result from the tables indicates that work motivation and job satisfaction could
significantly contribute toward R2 value of 0.454.an examination of these two variable
indicated that the work motivation represented the strongest effect on organizational
commitment with the standard beta of 1.101 followed by job satisfaction with the beta of
0.179, thus the statistical results prove that positive and strong linear relationship exist
between dependent and independent variables.
Linear regression line that predicted organizational commitment from work motivation and
job satisfaction by minimizing the sum of square of the vertical distances of the point from
regression line. R2 = 0.454 measure righteousness of linear regression given as;
Organizational commitment = 2.144 + WM (1.101) + JS (0.179)
Now we will discuss the analysis of 1st part that relation of organizational commitment with
job satisfaction and work motivation by managerial class. And then in case of CSR( customer
services representative).
Table 6.4.1 Regression analysis of Managerial class
Coefficientsa
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 5.062 1.863 2.717 .008
Work Motivation .816 .181 .452 4.494 .000
Regression analyses of managerial class are shown above interpreting them as we have
interpreted in overall case, in above given tables. Intercept, (5.062) is representing the
279
estimated average value of organization commitment when work motivation and job
commitment is zero. Slop of job satisfaction is 0.207 and the slop of work motivation is 0.816
and that show the change in organizational commitment when job satisfaction and work
motivation increased by 1.
Table 6.4.2
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the Estimate
Square
a
1 .647 .419 .407 3.33209
a. Predictors: (Constant), Job Satisfaction, Work Motivation
Table 6.4.3
ANOVAb
Model Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
1 Regression 777.024 2 388.512 34.992 .000a
Residual 1076.976 97 11.103
Total 1854.000 99
These result are also showing that work motivation and job satisfaction could significantly
contributing toward the R2 value that is 0.419.and the examination of these variables is again
indicating even in the case of managerial class that work motivation is representing strong
relation with organization commitment with the beta 0.816. Result is proving that positive
and strong relation ship exists between two variables in the case of managerial class.
Organizational commitment = 5.062 + WM (0.816) + JS (0.207)
Table 6.5.1 Regression Analysis of CSR (customer services representative)

Coefficientsa
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) -2.832 2.388 -1.186 .238
Work Motivation 1.380 .182 .589 7.604 .000
The intercept, -2.832, is representing the estimated average value of organizational

commitment when work motivation and job satisfaction is zero. Thus CSRs having no
280
motivation and job satisfaction will have severe impact on the organizational commitment of
the employees. The slop of job satisfaction 0.237 and work motivation 1.380 means change
in organizational commitment is 0.237 and 1.380 when job satisfaction and work motivation
increase by 1.
Table 6.5.2
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the Estimate
Square
a
1 .698 .487 .476 2.65994
Table 6.5.3
ANOVAb
Model Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
1 Regression 651.486 2 325.743 46.039 .000a
Residual 686.304 97 7.075
Total 1337.790 99
Results again indicating that work motivation and job satisfaction could significantly
contribute towards the R2 value. Based on R2 value of 0.487.Examination of these two
variables are indicating that work motivation representing the strongest effect on
organizational commitment with the standard beta of 1.380 followed by job satisfaction with
0.237.
Organizational commitment = -2.832 + WM (1.380) + JS (0.237)
Correlation result proved that the independent variables work motivation and job satisfaction
are positively associated with the organizational commitment in all three cases overall,
managerial class and CSRs. And these results are in line with the previous research many
studies in general and in specific with drago et al, 1992; Moon,200;crewson,1997;
Campbell,2007;samad2007; opkara,2004; Ayani,C.O.,& Phopoola,S.O.2007 & Warsi,
Fatima& sahibzada;2009.
There are different variable to which work motivation and job satisfaction may relate. Some
scholars say to link performance and motivation with the financial reward but then later a
number of non-financial tool were found to be very effective in motivating and increasing job
satisfaction. When people perform effectively at these jobs. They experience satisfaction of
basic psychological needs and have positive attitudes toward their jobs (Gagne,2005). For
further research different classes and sectors can be used and may also relate to different
other variables e.g Job nature, working conditions, promotions, Organizational environment
and Organization vision.
281
Conclusion:
This study shows that work motivation, job satisfaction and organizational commitment are
significantly related (For telecommunication sector), in both cases of managerial class and
CSRs. Organization would only need to increase and maintain two variables (work
motivation and job satisfaction) to achieve a positive effect on organizational commitment. In
case of CSR, if they are not having motivation and job satisfaction then they will face a
severe impact on organizational commitment.
And the ways to improve work motivation and job satisfaction may vary from job nature (as
study showing between managerial class and CSRs), organization and individuals. And by
increasing commitment company will get efficient and greater output which is the desire for
any organization.
282
References
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. 1990 A cross-national perspective on managerial problems in a non western
country, The Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 136, no. 2, pp. 165-172.
Ayeni, C. O., & Phopoola, S. O. 2007. Work Motivation, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment of
Library Personnel in Academic and Research Libraries in Oyo State, Nigeria, Library Philosophy and Practice
2007.
Balfour, D., & Wechsler, B. 1996. Organizational Commitment, Public Productivity & Management Review,
vol. 19, pp. 256-277.
Berger, J. B., & Schwabo, D. P. 1980. Pay incentives and pay satisfaction, Industrial Relations, vol. 19, no. 2,
206-210.
Brudney, J. L., & Coundrey, S. E. 1993. Pay for performance: Explaining the differences in managerial
motivation, Public Productivity & Management Review, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 129-144.
Cote, S., & Heslin, P. 2003. Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment.
Currall, S. C., Towler, A. J., Judge, T. A., & Kohn, L. 2005. Pay satisfaction and organizational outcomes,
Personnel Psychology, vol. 58, pp. 613-640.
Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. 2001. Job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of stabilities, Journal of Organizational
Behaviour, vol. 22, no 5, pp. 483-504.
Drago, R., Estrin, S., Wooden, M. 1992. Pay for performance incentives and work attitudes, Australian
Journal of Management, vol. 17, no. 2.
Feldman, J., & Landsman, D. L. 2007. The benefits of incentives, Talent Management Magazine, pp. 28-31.
Freeman, R. B., & Kleiner, M. M. 2005. The last American shoe manufacturers: decreasing productivity and
increasing profits in the shift to continuous flow production, Industrial Relations, vol. 44, pp. 307-330.
Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L. 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation, Journal of Organizational
Behaviour, vol. 26. pp. 331-362.
Green, C., & Heywood, J. S. 2007. Does performance pay increase job satisfaction? The London School of
Economics and Political Science, pp. 1-19.
Guzzo, R. A. 1979. Types of Rewards, Cognitions, and Work Motivation, The Academy of Management
Review, vol. 4, no. 1, 75-86.
Igalens, J., & Roussel, P. 1999. A study of relationships between compensation package, work motivation and
job satisfaction, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 1003-1025.
Keller, R. T., & Szilagyi, A. D. 1976. Employee Reactions to Leader Reward Behaviour, The Academy of
Management Journal, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 619-627.
Lavy, V. 2007. Using performance based pay to improve the quality of teachers, The Future of Children, vol.
17, no. 1, pp. 87-109.
Mccausland, W., Pouliakas, K., & Theodossiou, I. 2005. Some are punished and some are rewarded: a study of
the impact of performance pay on job satisfaction, International Journal of Manpower, vol. 26, pp. 63659.
Meyer, J. P., & Becker, T. E. 2004. Employee Commitment and Motivation: A Conceptual Analysis and
Integrative Model, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 89 no. 6, pp. 991-1007.
283
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. 2001. Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model, Human
Resource Management Review, vol. 11, pp. 299326.
Mitchell, T. R. 1973. Motivation and Participation: An Integration, The Academy of Management Journal, vol.
16 no. 4, pp. 670-679.
Mitchell, T. R. 1982. Motivation: New Directions for Theory, Research, and Practice, The Academy of
Management Review, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 80-88.
Moon, M. J. 2000. Organizational commitment revisited in new public management: Motivation,

organizational culture, sector, and managerial level, Public Performance & Management Review, vol. 24, no. 2,
pp. 177 194.
Nanda, R., & Browne, J. J. 1977. Hours of work, job satisfaction and productivity, Public Productivity Review,
vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 46-56.
Narimawati, S. E. 2007. The Influence of Work Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and Turnover
Intention Towards the Performance of Lecturers at West Javas Private Higher Education Institution, Journal of
Applied Sciences Research, vol. 3, no. 7, pp. 549-557.
Okpara, J. O. 2004. Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment: Are there differences between American
and Nigerian Managers Employed in the US MNCs in Nigeria? Academy of Business & Administrative
Sciences, Briarcliffe College, Switzerland.
Omar, N. S, Olffen., W. V., & Roe, R. A. 2008. Beyond the Three-Component Model of Organizational
Commitment, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 70-
Rai. Sumita. 2004. Motivational Theories and Incentives Approaches, IIBM Management Review.
Sahnawaz, M. G., & Juyal, R. C. 2006. Human Resources Management Practices and Organizational
Commitment in Different Organizations, Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, vol. 32, pp.
171-178.
Samad, S. 2007. Assessing the Effects of Job Satisfaction and Psychological Contract on Organizational
Commitment among Employees in Malaysian SMEs. The 4th SMEs IN A Global Economy Conference 2007.
Schwab, D. P., & Wallace, M. J. n. d. Correlates of employee satisfaction with pay.
Tella, A., Ayeni, C. O., & Popoola, S. O. 2007. Work Motivation, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational
Commitment of Library Personnel in Academic and Research Libraries in Oyo State, Nigeria, Library
Philosophy and Practice, pp. 1-16.
Tung, L. R. 1981. Patterns of Motivation in Chinese Industrial Enterprises, The Academy of Management
Review, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 481-489.
Waldman, M. 2007. Handbook of Organizational Economics. Ithaca, New York: Johnson Graduate School of
Management.
Warsi, S., Fatima, N., & Sahibzada, S.A. study on relation ship between organizational commitment and its
determinants among private sector employees of pakistan ,international Review of business Research papers,
vol. 5 no. 3 April 2009 Pp.399-410
Yuvaz, N. 2004. The Use of Non-Monetary Incentives as a Motivational Tool. Unpublished masters thesis,
Middle East Technical University, Turkey
284
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

A Study On Relationship Between Organizational Job Commitment, and Its

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Study On Relationship Between Organizational Job Commitment, and Its

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ijcrb.webs.

com DECEMBER 2011

A study on Relationship between Organizational job Commitment, and its

Syed Atif Ali

Keywords: Organizational commitment, Work motivation, Job commitment

1. A strong desire to remain a member of a particular organization;

Organizational commitment is determined by a number of factors, including personal factors

An identification with the goals and values of the organization.

3.1 Research hypothesis

The hypotheses of the study are:

H02: Job satisfaction is positively associated with the organizational commitment.

Study questionnaire includes 22 questions in which 8, 6, 3 questions are about job

Age Male Female Male Female

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Less than 25 19 23.8% 11 55% 26 31.0% 10 62.5%

25 29 30 37.5% 4 20% 32 38.1% 4 25.0

30 35 17 21.2% 2 10% 21 25.0% 2 12.5

36 39 6 7.5% 2 10% 5 6.0% 0 0

More than 50 3 3.8% 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.1.2 Distribution of workplace by respondent.

Warid 18 18% 17 17%

Mobilink 18 18% 14 14%

PTCL 12 12% 24 24%

Zong 16 16% 13 13%

5.1.3 Distribution of work experience of sector by respondent.

5.1.4 Distribution of current position by respondent.

5.1.5 Distribution of Questions by respondent.

Managerial Class CSRs

Questions S.D D N A S.A S.D D N A S.A

Are you satisfied

Are satisfied with the

Table 6.2. Pair wise correlation

Organizational Commitment Pearson Correlation

Job Satisfaction Pearson Correlation

Work Motivation Pearson Correlation

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

Table 6.3.1 Regression analysis

B Std. Error Beta

a. Dependent Variable: Organizational Commitment

Table 6.5.1 Regression Analysis of CSR (customer services representative)

a. Dependent Variable: Organizational Commitment

The intercept, -2.832, is representing the estimated average value of organizational

Moon, M. J. 2000. Organizational commitment revisited in new public management: Motivation,

Schwab, D. P., & Wallace, M. J. n. d. Correlates of employee satisfaction with pay.

You might also like