Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Acknowledgement....i
Executive Summary.....ii
List of Tables.iii
List of Abbreviation......iv
CHAPTER 1.....................................................................................................................12
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................12
1.1 Background........................................................................................................12
1.2 Problem Statement.............................................................................................13
1.3 Research Objective............................................................................................13
1.4 Significance of Study..........................................................................................13
CHAPTER 2.....................................................................................................................15
LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................................................15
2.1 Locus of Control.................................................................................................15
2.2 General Locus of Control and its Dimensions....................................................16
2.3 Work Locus of Control........................................................................................17
2.4 Organizational Commitment...............................................................................17
2.5 Relationship between Work Locus of Control and Organizational Commitment
..................................................................................................................................19
2.6 Organizational Identification...............................................................................20
2.7 Work Locus of Control and Organizational Identification...................................21
2.8 Organizational Identification and Organizational Commitment..........................22
2.9 Organizational Identification as a Mediator between Work Locus of Control and
Organizational Commitment.....................................................................................22
2.10 Theoretical Framework.....................................................................................23
2.11 Hypothesis........................................................................................................24
CHAPTER 3.....................................................................................................................25
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................25
3.1 Sampling Process..............................................................................................25
3.2 Research Design................................................................................................25
3.3 Sampling Population..........................................................................................25
3.4 Sample Size.......................................................................................................25
3.5 Research Instrument..........................................................................................26
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The main objective of research project is to examine the impact of work locus of control
on organizational commitment in non-government organizations of Pakistan. After
extensive literature review and research it is examined that there is significance positive
relationship between work locus of control and organizational commitment.
In order to measure the impact of work locus of control and organizational commitment,
a sample of 100 employees from different non-government organizations was drawn
through convince sampling technique .Questionnaire was adopted, starting from
strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Data analysis was carried out through SPSS software package. Correlation and linear
and multiple regression analysis were carried out to test the predictive nature of
independent variable i.e. work locus of control and its impact on dependent variable i.e.
organizational commitment and its three types.
The research concluded that the work locus of control indicate positive influence on
organizational commitment and the three types of organizational commitment such as
affective, continuous and normative commitment.
List of Tables
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics...........................................................................................27
Table 2 Correlations.........................................................................................................27
Table 3 Correlations.........................................................................................................28
Table 4 Correlations.........................................................................................................28
Table 5 Correlations.........................................................................................................29
Table 6 Correlations.........................................................................................................29
Table 7 Correlations.........................................................................................................30
Table 8 Correlations.........................................................................................................30
Table 9 Correlations.........................................................................................................31
Table 10 Correlations.......................................................................................................31
Table 11 Model Summary................................................................................................32
Table 12 ANOVA..............................................................................................................32
Table 13 Coefficients (a)..................................................................................................32
Table 14 Model Summary................................................................................................33
Table 15 ANOVA(b)..........................................................................................................33
Table 16 Coefficients(a)...................................................................................................34
Table 17 Model Summary................................................................................................34
Table 18 ANOVA(b)..........................................................................................................34
Table 19 Coefficients(a)...................................................................................................35
Table 20 Model Summary................................................................................................35
Table 21 ANOVA(b)..........................................................................................................35
Table 22 Coefficients(a)...................................................................................................36
Table 23 Model Summary................................................................................................36
Table 24 ANOVA(b)..........................................................................................................37
Table 25 Coefficients(a)...................................................................................................37
Table 26 Model Summary................................................................................................37
Table 27 ANOVA(b)..........................................................................................................38
Table 28 Coefficients(a)...................................................................................................38
Table 29 Model Summary................................................................................................39
Table 30 ANOVA(b)..........................................................................................................39
Table 31 Coefficients(a)...................................................................................................39
Table 32 Model Summary................................................................................................40
Table 33 ANOVA(b)..........................................................................................................40
Table 34 Coefficients(a)...................................................................................................41
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Worldwide the work and its possible future effects is changing with time and also
organization demands for having best performance and competitive edge which leads to
work on workforce emotional welfare stated by De Witte, 1999.
Rotter in 1966, examined the relationship of locus of control and organizational
commitment but Specter in 1988, developed work locus of control scale and examined
work locus of control with organizational commitment. Specter has done more study on
work locus of control and job satisfaction but his work provides us grounds to consider
that work locus of control will have strong relationship with organizational commitment.
Early studies explained organizational commitment has no dimensions but Meyer and
Allen in 1991 recommended that organizational commitment has three types, Affective,
Continuous and Normative commitment. They developed a scale on it .Affective
commitment refers to an emotional involvement with workplace (person wants to stay
with workplace)Continuous commitment refers to the cost bearing by leaving workplace
as person need to stay as he has not alternates. Normative commitment refers to the
responsibility to continuous work with workplace. These three types of commitment is
important because these types of commitment reduces the chances of leaving a
workplace.
Due to the effect of affective commitment and continuous commitment on the
functions of workplace, anything that can bring improvement in our perception of
variables can be helpful for workplace.
Meyer and Allen also stated that different variables of individuals also contribute
in the growth of affective commitment. Different studies shows that those having internel
wok locus of control mostly have affective commitment with their workplace (Luthans
1987)
The universal control beliefs are measured by work locus of control, stated by
(Honegger & Appelbaum, 1998). In several researches the researchers focused on the
issues that add value in the development of relationship of work locus of control and
organizational commitment. The reason of this study is to examine the correlation
between work locus of control and organizational commitment and with its types,
focusing the employee in nongovernmental organizations in Pakistan. Although many
researchers have done work on the relationship of work locus of control and
organizational commitment but not in Pakistan so there exist some research space and
this study contributes to fill this research space.
This research shows that work locus of control has positive relation with
organizational commitment.(Chang 1990) stated that employees with internal work
locus of control will be more committed to the workplace and if not ,they will try to leave
the workplace but when they stay in workplace they are forced or they needed to stay.
Those having internal work locus of control think that their achievements depends upon
their own deeds (Fairly & Tosi, 1989).
It will help us to know that either work locus of control help in enhancing
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Locus of Control
Brownell (1981) defined locus of control as an individuals opinion about the level
of control a person can have over the actions of his or her life. Triandis (1995) described
individualism as a trend for people to examine themselves as separate entities who are
mostly provoked by the objectives and priorities of their own.
Locus of control is defined as an indication of the autonomous identity by Markus
and Kitayama (1998) and a term of requirement for independence by Kagitgibasi
(1994). Phares (1976) stated that thinking about control can be changed across some
fields of life. On the other hand, if someone's interest is related to working issues, it is
obvious to value the workplace control instead of general control.
Core self-evaluations have four dimensions which are neuroticism, self-efficacy,
self-esteem and one is locus of control. Judge Locke and Durham (1997) were the first
who examined the perception of core self-evaluation and it has been proven that people
have the abilities to forecast different work results.
Rotter (1966) defined locus of control as a degree to which people think that they
can control the actions of their lives. He divided locus of control as internal locus of
control and External locus of control. Those people having internal locus of control think
that events of their lives are controlled by their own behaviours and judgements while
the people who have an external locus of control think that they cannot control whatever
happens to them. They think that it is a result of luck or fate.
Rotter (1966) also stated that locus of control can be measured with the
Internal/External (I-E) Scale which presents external locus of control by high scores and
internal locus of control by low scores.
According to Rotter (1966) locus of control is the extent to which people think that
results are driven either by their own deeds or by the outside forces which create a
range with external locus of control at one side and internal locus of control at other
side.
According to Spector (1982), Wickens and Hollands (2000) and Ng, Sorensen
and Eby (2006), those people who have internal locus of control frequently think that
they can control a tense condition for which they can use different problem solving
tactics while those having external locus of control think that situations are not possible
to be changed or transformed.
All those people who think that whatever happens to them are controlled by the
workplace surroundings are the one who have external locus of control and are more
sensitive to the workplace support. This is stated by Chiu, Lin, Tsai and Hsiao (2005).
connection with working criteria. They also stated that the analysis proved that internal
locus of control was directly connected to the degree of common interest and to the
affective responses associated with work.
commitment,
Continuous
commitment
and
Normative
commitment
respectively.
Affective commitment is defined as the psychological association of workers to the
recognition with and attachment to the workplace. Workers with a positive affective
commitment will not leave the workplace as they feel like doing it.
Continuous commitment is defined as the knowledge and understanding of expenses
linked with leaving the workplace. Workers with strong continuous commitment stay in
workplace as their most important relation to workplace is based on continuous
commitment and because its their requirement.
Normative commitment is defined as the feelings of commitment and responsibilities
to carry on the job. Workers having strong/positive normative commitment believe that
they should stay with the workplace.
Allen and Meyer (1997) stated that organizational commitment can be
deliberated by using Affective, Continuous and Normative commitment scale. According
to Hrebiniak and Alutto (1972), normative perception is defined as the loyalty of a
worker to carry on the job for his or her workplace is on the basis of the concept of
thinking about the benefits of cost of parting from the workplace.
Mathieu and Zajac (1990) and Meyer, Allen, and Smith (1993) stated that organizational
commitment can be described as a connection between the worker and his or her
workplace. Organizational commitment is very important to the workplace because it is
connected to many different and attractive results like work performance, reduce
turnover, lower the purpose to exit, decreases absenteeism (stated by Mathieu and
Zajac in 1990 and Jaros in 1997) but Begley and Czajka (1993) also added one more
outcome to it which is minimizing the stress levels.
Similarly Yousef (2000) explained further the point of Begley that organizational
commitment is directly manipulated by job performance and indirectly controlled by job
stress (stated by Sager, 1990).
Spector (1988) also assumes that employees will complete their work in a better
way in working conditions because they have strong faith in the capabilities they have
and the outcomes of it.
In three of the studies done by Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979), they stated
the association between work locus of control and organizational commitment. In these
studies they reported that there were small relationships of work locus of control and
organizational commitment while the work locus of control and satisfaction relations was
bigger. This is possibly because Spector considered organizational commitment with
only two things from Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) due to which the
result is not placed/conclude effectively. Yet Spector (1988) concluded from work locus
of control and job satisfaction that it provides us a cause to consider that the work
dimension of locus of control will be positively correlated to organizational commitment.
The attractiveness of the perception of identity and identification is that they give
us a method to have a look on the human behavior in their workplace structure.
Organizational Identification is the internal concept that means the worker point of view
about the workplace. This concept was stated by Albert, Ashforth and Dutton (2000).
According to Dutton, Duckerich and Herguail (1994) and Hatch and Schultz
(2000), the worker identification with the workplace is based on the Organizational
Identity. And Pratt (1998) stated that the whole concept of Organizational Identification
is connected to one question that is What is my relation to my workplace?
The satisfaction and worker behavior can be influenced by Organizational
Identification and the value of workplace is also affected. It is stated by Lee (1971), then
by Hall and Schneider (1972), OReilly and Chatman (1986), Ashforth and Mael (1989)
and by Albert et al (2000).
level
of
relationship
of
organizational
identification
and
affective
2.11 Hypothesis
H1: Work locus of control is positively related to organizational commitment
H2: Work locus of control is positively related to affective commitment
H3: Work locus of control is positively related to continuous commitment
H4: Work locus of control is positively related to normative commitment
H5: Organizational identification strengthen the relationship of work locus of control and
organizational commitment
H6: Organizational identification strengthen the relationship of work locus of control and
affective commitment
H7: Organizational identification strengthen the relationship of work locus of control and
continuous commitment
H8: Organizational identification strengthen the relationship of work locus of control and
normative commitment
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Sampling Process
Sampling is the act, process, or technique of selecting a representative part of a
population for the purpose of determining the characteristics of the whole population
and authenticity of outcome is only possible when there is proper technique
development used for sampling. For our research we have chosen convenient sampling
technique to get ideal results so the number of employees who will participate is not
predetermined employees are given questionnaire and given complete information and
guidance to fill that questionnaire so that the outcome of results are authentic.
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
1.1 Descriptive Analysis
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics
Age
Gender
N
100
100
Minimum
1
0
Maximum
4
1
Mean
1.54
.73
Std. Deviation
.744
.446
Education
100
1.86
.711
Income
100
3.80
1.589
Experience
100
1.96
.909
Valid N (listwise)
100
Testing Hypothesis
One of the main purposes of research project is to find out the impact of work locus of
control on organizational commitment. The outcomes of hypothesis testing and analysis
are organized under the following headings.
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
OCMEAN
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
WLOCMEAN
1
OCMEAN
.607(**)
.000
100
100
.607(**)
.000
100
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
100
The pearson correlation is 0.607 which shows that the two variables work locus of
control and organizational commitment are strongly correlated with each other. This
means that changes in work locus of control are strongly correlated with changes in
organizational commitment.
The sig. (2-tailed) is 0.00 which means there is statistically significant correlation
between both variables and increase or decrease in work locus of control is highly
related to increase or decrease in organizational commitment.
Work locus of control and Affective organizational commitment
Table 3 Correlations
WLOCMEAN
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
ACMean
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
WLOCMEAN
1
ACMean
.387(**)
.000
100
100
.387(**)
.000
100
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
100
The pearson correlation is 0.387 which shows that the variables work locus of control
and affective commitment have weak relationship with each other in comparison to
other types of commitment. The sig. (2-tailed) is 0.00 which means there is statistically
significant correlation between both variables and increase or decrease in work locus of
control is highly related to increase or decrease in affective commitment.
Work locus of control and continuous commitment
Table 4 Correlations
WLOCMEAN
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
CCMean
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
WLOCMEAN
1
CCMean
.587(**)
.000
100
100
.587(**)
.000
100
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
100
The pearson correlation is 0.587 which shows that work locus of control and continuous
organizational commitment are comparatively strongly correlated with each other. This
means that changes in work locus of control are strongly correlated with changes in
continuous commitment.
The sig. (2-tailed) is 0.00 which means there is statistically significant correlation
between both variables and increase or decrease in work locus of control is highly
related to increase or decrease in continuous commitment.
Work locus of control and normative commitment
Table 5 Correlations
WLOCMEAN
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
WLOCMEAN
1
NCMean
.522(**)
.000
100
100
.522(**)
N
NCMean
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
100
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
100
The pearson correlation is 0.522 which shows that work locus of control and normative
organizational commitment have comparatively less stronger relationship with each
other. This means that changes in work locus of control are strongly correlated with
changes in normative commitment.
The sig. (2-tailed) is 0.00 which means there is statistically significant correlation
between both variables and increase or decrease in work locus of control is highly
related to increase or decrease in normative commitment.
Work locus of control and organizational identification
Table 6 Correlations
WLOCMEAN
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
OIMean
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
WLOCMEAN
1
OIMean
.545(**)
.000
100
100
.545(**)
.000
100
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
100
The pearson correlation is 0.545 which shows that work locus of control and
organizational identification are strongly correlated with each other. This means that
changes in work locus of control are strongly correlated with changes in organizational
identification.
The sig. (2-tailed) is 0.00 which means there is statistically significant correlation
between both variables and increase or decrease in work locus of control is highly
related to increase or decrease in organizational identification.
Organizational identification and organizational commitment
Table 7 Correlations
OIMean
OIMean
N
OCMEAN
OCMEAN
.408(**)
.000
100
100
.408(**)
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
100
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
100
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
ACMean
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
ACMean
.201(*)
.044
100
100
.201(*)
.044
100
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
100
N
CCMean
CCMean
.339(**)
.001
100
100
.339(**)
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.001
100
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
100
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
NCMean
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
NCMean
.487(**)
.000
100
100
.487(**)
.000
100
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
100
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
Regressi
11.299
1
11.299
on
Residual 19.379 98
.198
Total
30.678 99
a Predictors: (Constant), WLOCMEAN
b Dependent Variable: OCMEAN
Sig.
57.136
.000(a)
This table reports how well the regression equation fits the data. In the regression row
Sig. is 0.000 and is less than 0.05 which indicates that this regression model statistically
is a good fit for the data.
Table 13 Coefficients (a)
Mod
el
1
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Std.
B
Error
(Constant) .979
.304
Standardiz
ed
Coefficients t
Beta
B
3.221
Sig.
Std.
Error
.002
WLOCME
.654
.086
AN
a Dependent Variable: OCMEAN
.607
7.559
.000
This table gives us the information to determine the contribution of independent variable
statistically significantly to the model. Here Beta is equal to 0.607 which shows that
work locus of control positively influence the dependent variable which is organizational
commitment.
Work locus of control and affective commitment
Table 14 Model Summary
Adjusted Std. Error
Mod
R
R
of
the
el
R
Square Square
Estimate
1
.387(a) .149
.141
.59754
a Predictors: (Constant), WLOCMEAN
This table shows the value of R and R Square, where R represent the simple correlation
and in this case R=0.387 which means that there is positive correlation between work
locus of control and affective organizational commitment. R Square is 14.9% which
represents the total number of variation in affective commitment can be explained by
work locus of control and it shows that it is not very large.
Table 15 ANOVA(b)
Mod
el
1
Sum of
Squares Df
Mean
Square
Regressi
6.147
1
6.147
on
Residual 34.991 98
.357
Total
41.138 99
a Predictors: (Constant), WLOCMEAN
b Dependent Variable: ACMean
Sig.
17.215
.000(a)
This table reports how well the regression equation fits the data. In the regression row
Sig. is 0.000 and is less than 0.05 which indicates that this regression model statistically
is a good fit for the data.
Table 16 Coefficients(a)
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Mod
Std.
el
B
Error
1
(Constant) 1.411
.408
WLOCME
.482
.116
AN
a Dependent Variable: ACMean
Standardiz
ed
Coefficients t
Beta
B
3.458
Sig.
Std.
Error
.001
.387
4.149
.000
This table gives us the information to determine the contribution of independent variable
statistically significantly to the model. Here Beta is equal to 0.387 which shows that
work locus of control positively influence the dependent variable which is affective
commitment.
Work locus of control and continuous commitment
Table 17 Model Summary
Adjusted Std. Error
Mod
R
R
of
the
el
R
Square Square
Estimate
1
.587(a) .345
.338
.58872
a Predictors: (Constant), WLOCMEAN
In this case R=0.587 which means that there is positive correlation between work locus
of control and continuous organizational commitment. R Square is 34.5% which
represents the total number of variation in continuous commitment can be explained by
work locus of control and it shows that it is not very large.
Table 18 ANOVA(b)
Mod
el
1
Regressi
on
Residual
Total
Sum of
Squares Df
Mean
Square
Sig.
17.875
17.875
51.574
.000(a)
33.966
51.841
98
99
.347
Standardiz
ed
Coefficients T
Beta
B
.920
Sig.
Std.
Error
.360
.587
7.181
.000
Here Beta is equal to 0.587 which shows that work locus of control positively influence
the dependent variable which is continuous commitment.
Work locus of control and normative commitment
Table 20 Model Summary
Adjusted Std. Error
Mod
R
R
of
the
el
R
Square Square
Estimate
1
.522(a) .273
.265
.53316
a Predictors: (Constant), WLOCMEAN
Here R=0.522 which means that there is positive correlation between work locus of
control and normative organizational commitment. R Square is 27.3% which represents
the total number of variation in normative commitment can be explained by work locus
of control and it shows that it is not very large.
Table 21 ANOVA(b)
Mod
el
1
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
Regressi
10.449 1
10.449
on
Residual 27.858 98
.284
Total
38.307 99
a Predictors: (Constant), WLOCMEAN
b Dependent Variable: NCMean
Sig.
36.759
.000(a)
This table reports how well the regression equation fits the data. In the regression row
Sig. is 0.000 and is less than 0.05 which indicates that this regression model statistically
is a good fit for the data.
Table 22 Coefficients(a)
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Mod
Std.
el
B
Error
1
(Constant) 1.256
.364
WLOCME
.629
.104
AN
a Dependent Variable: NCMean
Standardiz
ed
Coefficients t
Beta
B
3.448
Sig.
Std.
Error
.001
.522
6.063
.000
Here Beta is equal to 0.522 which shows that work locus of control positively influence
the dependent variable which is continuous commitment.
Organizational identification as a mediator between Work locus of control and
organizational commitment
Table 23 Model Summary
Adjusted Std. Error
Mod
R
R
of
the
el
R
Square Square
Estimate
1
.614(a) .377
.364
.44396
a Predictors: (Constant), OIMean, WLOCMEAN
This table shows the value of R which is equal to 0.614 and it shows that organizational
identification positively affects the correlation between work locus of control and
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
Regressi
11.559
2
5.779
on
Residual 19.119
97
.197
Total
30.678 99
a Predictors: (Constant), OIMean, WLOCMEAN
b Dependent Variable: OCMEAN
Sig.
29.322
.000(a)
Here Sig. is 0.000 which shows that this regression model statistically is a good fit for
the data. the effect of mediator is positive.
Table 25 Coefficients(a)
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Mod
Std.
el
B
Error
1
(Constant) .826
.331
WLOCME
.589
.103
AN
OIMean
.103
.090
a Dependent Variable: OCMEAN
Standardiz
ed
Coefficients t
Beta
B
2.494
Sig.
Std.
Error
.014
.547
5.722
.000
.110
1.149
.253
Here Beta is 0.547 for work locus of control and Beta is 0.110 for organizational
identification which means that organizational identification positively influences the
relationship of work locus of control and organizational commitment.
Organizational identification as a mediator between Work locus of control and
affective commitment
Table 26 Model Summary
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
Regressi
6.152
2
3.076
on
Residual 34.986 97
.361
Total
41.138 99
a Predictors: (Constant), OIMean, WLOCMEAN
b Dependent Variable: ACMean
Sig.
8.528
.000(a)
Here Sig. is 0.000 which shows that this regression model statistically is a good fit for
the data. The effect of mediator is positive.
Table 28 Coefficients(a)
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Mod
Std.
el
B
Error
1
(Constant) 1.432
.448
WLOCME
.491
.139
AN
OIMean
-.014
.122
a Dependent Variable: ACMean
Standardiz
ed
Coefficients t
Beta
B
3.198
Sig.
Std.
Error
.002
.394
3.525
.001
-.013
-.117
.907
Here Beta is 0.394 for work locus of control and Beta is -0.013 for organizational
identification which means that organizational identification has very little influence on
the relationship of work locus of control and affective commitment.
Organizational identification as a mediator between Work locus of control and
continuous commitment
Table 29 Model Summary
Adjusted Std. Error
Mod
R
R
of
the
el
R
Square Square
Estimate
1
.588(a) .345
.332
.59150
a Predictors: (Constant), OIMean, WLOCMEAN
The value of R is equal to 0.588 and it shows that organizational identification positively
affects the correlation between work locus of control and continuous commitment. R
Square is equal to 33.2% which means there is a little decrease in the total number of
variation in continuous commitment due to the mediator organizational identification.
Table 30 ANOVA(b)
Mod
el
1
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
Regressi
17.902 2
8.951
on
Residual 33.938 97
.350
Total
51.841 99
a Predictors: (Constant), OIMean, WLOCMEAN
b Dependent Variable: CCMean
Sig.
25.584
.000(a)
Here Sig. is 0.000 which shows that this regression model statistically is a good fit for
the data. the effect of mediator is positive.
Table 31 Coefficients(a)
Mod
el
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardiz t
ed
Coefficients
Sig.
Std.
B
Error
1
(Constant) .320
.441
WLOCME
.801
.137
AN
OIMean
.034
.120
a Dependent Variable: CCMean
Beta
B
.727
Std.
Error
.469
.572
5.840
.000
.027
.281
.780
Here Beta is 0.572 for work locus of control and Beta is 0.027 for organizational
identification which means that organizational identification positively influences the
relationship of work locus of control and continuous commitment.
Organizational identification as a mediator between Work locus of control and
normative commitment
Table 32 Model Summary
Adjusted Std. Error
Mod
R
R
of
the
el
R
Square Square
Estimate
1
.575(a) .331
.317
.51403
a Predictors: (Constant), OIMean, WLOCMEAN
R is equal to 0.575 which shows that organizational identification positively affects the
correlation between work locus of control and normative commitment. R Square is equal
to 33.1% which means there is an increase in the total number of variation in normative
commitment due to the mediator organizational identification.
Table 33 ANOVA(b)
Mod
el
1
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
Regressi
12.676 2
6.338
on
Residual 25.630 97
.264
Total
38.307 99
a Predictors: (Constant), OIMean, WLOCMEAN
b Dependent Variable: NCMean
Sig.
23.988
.000(a)
Here Sig. is 0.000 which shows that this regression model statistically is a good fit for
the data. the effect of mediator is positive.
Table 34 Coefficients(a)
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Mod
Std.
el
B
Error
1
(Constant) .809
.383
WLOCME
.440
.119
AN
OIMean
.302
.104
a Dependent Variable: NCMean
Standardiz
ed
Coefficients t
Beta
B
2.110
Sig.
Std.
Error
.037
.366
3.690
.000
.288
2.903
.005
Here Beta is 0.366 for work locus of control and Beta is 0.288 for organizational
identification which means that organizational identification positively influences the
relationship of work locus of control and normative commitment.
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECCOMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion
The above study has been conducted to examine the impact of work locus of control on
organizational commitment and its types which are affective, normative and continuous
commitment in the public organization of the Pakistan. For that survey we choose Engro
food, non-government organizations and Compulogic Company. The result of survey
show different perception regarding work locus of control.
It is obvious from the result and discussion that there is a positive relationship between
work locus of control and organizational commitment. One of the main factor that can
enhance organization performance is work locus of control, by providing employees
favorable climate lead the organization to success because it enhance the commitment
of employees toward their organization.
The findings of the survey shows that work locus of control have different impact on
different dimensions of organizational commitment such as affective, normative and
continuous commitment. Workers with a positive affective commitment will not leave the
workplace as they feel like doing it. Workers with strong continuous commitment stay in
workplace as their most important relation to workplace is based on continuous
commitment and because its their requirement. Workers having strong/positive
normative commitment believe that they should stay with the workplace and work locus
of control has high interaction with working criteria.
5.2 Recommendations
According to our research, following are the recommendations that can be given to all
organizations either public or private in order to motivate the employees to do their work
in a better way which will lead to maximize employees outcomes, employees
commitment towards the organization.
These recommendations are:
Managers should provide such climate which in return increases the productivity
of the organization.
Manager should give their employees carrier opportunities and rewards which
can motivate them and they become loyal with the organization.
If the manager treat their subordinates with care, trust and motivate them then
they shows greater level of commitment and innovative behavior.
decision making.
Manager should not be very rigid with their employees he should have to be
supportive and trust worthy which will help them to be more motivated and
committed.
Give incentives and benefits to their employees that will also increase their
motivation and commitment to the organization.
5.3 Limitations
Following are the limitation we have face while doing that research:
i.
The sample size of 100 is small to examine the impact of work locus of control
ii.
iii.
research work.
As the result has been drawn on the basis of the information provided by the
iv.
v.
REFERENCES
1. Locus of control and well-being at work: how generalizable are western findings?
PAUL E. SPECTOR--University of South Florida Academy of Management
Journal 2002, Vol. 45. No. 2, 453-466.
2. Relationship of Organizational Commitment, Locus of Control, and Readiness to
Change among Nurses By Santi Julita and Wan Rafaei Abdul Rahman
3. WORK LOCUS OF CONTROL AND DISPOSITIONAL OPTIMISM
AS
of
occupational
stress
among
university
teachers
ANA
Industrial Marketing
APPENDIX-I
Questionnaire
A Survey on Employees Work Locus of Control and its relationship with
Organizational Commitment.
Dear Sir/Madam!
I am conducting a research survey on Employees Work Locus of Control and its
relationship with Organizational Commitment In this regard I will be thankful for your
cooperation and participation in this survey.
Part A
Please tick the appropriate checkbox below.
Age
21-30
31-40
above
41-50
51 and
Gender
Male
Female
Bachelors
Masters
Income Level
Below 10,000
31,000-40,000
11,000-20,000
41,000-50,000
21,000-30,000
50,000
MS/M.Phil
PhD
Work Experience
Above
Part B
Please circle the appropriate number against each statement, according to the
scale given below.
Scale
Strongly
Disagree
1
Disagree
2
Indifferent/Neu
tral
3
Agree
4
Strongly
Agree
5
2