EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTION OF ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS IN AMHARA REGIONAL PUBLIC SERVICE ORGANS By Mesfin Raji Kiltu Project submitted in partial fulfilment for the award of the Degree of EXECUTIVE MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Bahir Dar University, College of Business and Economics Department of Management Bahir Dar June 2012
157
Embed
Employees’ perception of organizational climate and its implications for organizational effectiveness in Amhara regional public service organs
The study aimed at determining the level of Organizational Climate (OC) as perceived by the civil servants and finding out whether there is meaningful relationship between OC and Organizational effectiveness (OE). A standardised OC measurement questionnaires developed by Patterson et al (2005) based on Competing Values Model (CVM) and instrument of Speier & Venkatesh (2002) were used in collecting data. Hence, 348 questionnaires booklets were distributed to 6 public organizations in Amhara National Regional State (ANRS) and 260 questionnaires were returned, with an effective response rate of 75%. The collected data was analyzed using parametric statistical tools to test the hypotheses in SPSS. To this end, multiple linear regressions, Pearson’s Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients, Independent-samples t-test, and One-way ANOVA was adopted....
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
42
EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTION OF ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE
AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS IN AMHARA REGIONAL
PUBLIC SERVICE ORGANS
By
Mesfin Raji Kiltu
Project submitted in partial fulfilment for the award of the Degree of
EXECUTIVE MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Bahir Dar University, College of Business and Economics
Department of Management
Bahir Dar
June 2012
42
EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTION OF ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE
AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS IN AMHARA REGIONAL
PUBLIC SERVICE ORGANS
By
Mesfin Raji Kiltu
Student ID Number: CBE/129/03
Project submitted in partial fulfilment for the award of the Degree of
EXECUTIVE MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Bahir Dar University, College of Business and Economics
Bahir Dar
June 2012
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
iii
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this Project Report titled “Employees’ perception of
organizational climate and its implications for organizational
effectiveness in Amhara regional public service organs” is
submitted by me to the College of Business and Economics, Department of
Business Management, Bahir Dar University. It is a bonafide work undertaken
by me and it is not submitted to any other University or Institution for the
award of any degree diploma / certificate or published any time before.
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
33
derivation from four orientations to the study of organizational effectiveness,
reflecting long traditions in work and organizational psychology (Patterson et
al., 2004). Patterson and his colleagues thus, went on differentiating the two
approaches from the other two in that the open systems approach emphasizes
the interaction and adaptation of the organization in its environment, with
managers seeking resources and innovating in response to environment. The
human relations approach reflects the tradition derived from socio technical
and human relations schools emphasizing the well-being, growth and
commitment of the community of workers within the organization.
One of the main advantages of the CVM is the fact that it derives its
approach from long standing theories in management and organizational
psychology (Cooil et al. 2009) and it clarifies leadership roles and expectations
and the clarification minimizes ambiguity and avoids interpersonal conflicts
within teams (Zafft et al. 2009). The emergence of the pairs of competing
values; flexibility versus stability, and internal versus external reflects a basic
dilemma of organizational life and those organizations that are able to best
balance integration and differentiation are the most effective systems. From
which side we perceive, participants have unique feelings, likes and dislikes, and
require consideration, appropriate information, and stability in their workplace
(Quinn & Rohrbaugh 1983). Therefore, parallels among the models are
important. The human relations and open system models share an emphasis
upon flexibility whereas; the rational goal and internal process models are
rooted in a value on control (Ibid).
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
34
Source: Adapted from Quinn & Rohrbaugh (1983: 374)
Figure 2-2: The Alternative Competing Values Framework
In the following table the distinguishing factors of the two approaches in
CVM is presented;
Table 2-1: Distinguishing Factors of the two approaches of the CVM
Human Relations Approach:
Open Systems Approach:
Focus Commitment, Cohesion, and Morale
Adaptability and External Support
Assumption: Involvement results in commitment
Continual adaptation and innovation lead to acquiring and keeping necessary external resources
Emphasis: Participation, conflict resolution, consensus building
Political adaptability, creative problem solving, innovation, and management of change
Expectation: Act as a team, with high employee involvement
Operate in a high-risk, fast-paced, innovative climate, and to rely on vision and shared values
The leader: To take the role of a mentor, coach, and facilitator
To be highly adaptable, an innovator and broker
People: Want to and will perform well given the right environment and encouragement
Thrive on challenge, move from project to project as needed, and must watch for burn-out
Roles: Mentor, Facilitator Innovator, Broker Source: Adapted from Faerman (1990:4-5)
Quinn & Rohrbaugh further argue that OE is not a concept. It is a socially
constructed, abstract notion carried about in the heads of organizational
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
35
theorists and researchers and in judging the effectiveness of any organization,
they come up to demonstrate through social judgment analysis that it is possible
to articulate values, make the weights on each value explicit, and develop a
formula for empirically combining scores on each criterion. OE refers not only
to results, which are important but also to a number of other aspects - values,
philosophy, policies, process and outcomes.
2.2.4. The link between Competing Values Model and Organizational Climate
The CVM is an empirically derived and comprehensive framework that
encompasses many of the proposed dimensions in the literature and it has
proven to have both face and empirical validity (Cooil et al. 2009). With this
model, Quinn and his colleagues proposed that OC can best be classified by the
fundamental dimensions of internal versus external focuses and flexibility
versus control orientations (Quinn & Rohrbaugh 1983).
Kurt Lewin and his colleagues coined the term “Organizational Climate”
first in 1939 following a study of children’s school clubs. He subsequently
developed his well known field theory of behavior, which he linked to the
Gestalt psychology of holistic perception, and expanded to encompass whole
organizations (Clegg & Bailey 2008; Kundu 2007). The article mainly
emphasised on the relationship between leadership styles and so-called ‘Social
Climate’ that states as a distinctly organizational concept attributed to Rensis
Likert, whose work expanded Lewin’s ideas, and still actively influence the ways
scholars and practitioners approach OC. Likert’s use of surveys to measure
climate – still the dominant approach today – was intended to measure an OC
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
36
that he considered could not be explicitly known to the organization’s members,
nor was it something that could be created artificially.
OC can be seen as an enduring quality of the internal environment that is
experienced by members, influences their behavior and can be described by a
particular set of values of the characteristics of the organization that are created
by shared psychological climates and it is the employee’s perception of the work
environment and not the environment that is important. Schneider (1990) as
cited in (Patterson et al. 2004), suggested that OC perceptions focus on the
processes, practices, and behaviors which are rewarded and supported in an
organization. The success of Human Services organizations generally depends
on the relationships and interactions between service providers and service
recipients. These relationships are central to the quality and outcome of
services. Importing climate and process from the external environment,
organizations adapt ways from other organizations with which they compete or
cooperate. Effective management of organization processes is vital for
sustaining the competitive edge of any organization.
Processes no longer viewed as just production processes. Today,
management realizes there are many more processes that use material,
equipment, and people to provide many types of outputs and services. They are
called business processes, and today they are even more important to
competitiveness than production processes (Harrington 1991).
2.2.5. The relationship of Organizational Climate and Culture
Climate regarded as an attribute of the organization, a conglomerate of
attitudes, feelings, and behaviours that characterizes life in the organization,
and exists independently of the perceptions and understandings of the members
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
37
of the organization (Ekvall 1996). Ekvall has also stressed that OC is not
identical to organizational culture. The OC is mostly about attitude and
behaviours. Whereas culture is a process in which the aim is to form a collection
about more comprehensible system of values and believes (Gill 2008).
One of the critical issues in OC is its differentiation from organizational
culture. Indeed, the terms “culture” and “climate” used interchangeably in the
organizational literature. These concepts are, however, clearly differentiated
ontological perspectives and in most cases, culture refers to deeply embedded
values and assumptions (Clegg & Bailey 2008). Climate, on the other hand
refers to environmental factors that consciously perceived and, importantly are
subject to organizational control. That means, climate is something that can be
directly influenced by management policies and leadership, while culture is
much more difficult to change and control (Ibid).
Different authors like (Ashkanasy et al. 2000; Schneider 1990; Tagiuri &
Litwin 1968) as cited in (Edgar H. Schein 2004), defined the word “climate” as
the feeling that is conveyed in a group by the physical layout and the way in
which members of the organization interact with each other, with customers, or
other outsiders. In short, the author concludes climate understood as a surface
manifestation of culture. Nevertheless, some writers on culture divided the
concept into five components: values, beliefs, myths, traditions and norms that
are difficult and almost impossible to measure and even harder for people to
articulate but they are real and should be managed as part of the process of
changing the organization. On the other hand, more precisely, climate is shared
perceptions of organizational policies, practices and procedures (Imran et al.
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
38
2010). Therefore, climate is more dependent on perceptions rather than
assumptions (Kundu 2007).
The study of OC split and evolved in two directions: research on climate
and research on culture. This divisiveness in the literature remains until today,
as articulated by researchers who advocate keeping the concepts of climate and
culture distinct and independent of each other. However, a growing number of
researchers laud the benefits of understanding climate and culture as reciprocal
and reinforcing concepts that may benefit from mutual study that exist as
related concepts with similar definitions (Agard 2011:613). James et al. (1990)
as cited in (Neal et al. 2000) highlighted that perceptions of the general OC
develop as individuals attribute meaning to their organizational context based
on the significance of the environment for individual values. Apart from these
principal research works, explained in (Kundu 2007), there were also other
studies and the collection of all the research work ultimately provided the initial
framework of OC.
Source: Adapted from Quinn (1988) cited in (Gray & Densten 2006:596) Figure 2-3: The CVF and Culture
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
39
As shown in Figure 2-3 above, an internally focused flexible
organization thought of as a clan, whereas an internally focused stable
organization thought of as a hierarchy. An externally focused flexible
organization is labelled an adhocracy, and an externally focused stable
organization is thought of as a market (Schein 2004).
In explaining the four culture types Higgs (2010: 79-80) has stated that;-
… clan organizations have parallels with family run organizations, characterized as a friendly place to work, with shared values and goals, a strong cohesiveness and sense of ‘we-ness’ permeates throughout the organization. In an adhocracy culture typically, power is decentralized, effective leaders are visionary, innovative and risk taking. The hierarchy organization characterized as formal and structured where procedures govern how people work and effective leadership includes good coordination and organization, where the maintenance of a smooth-flowing operation is the key. The fundamental assumptions of the market are the external environment is hostile and customers are demanding and seeking value. Leaders are typically hard driving, who are tough and demanding to work. The organization is bound together by its emphasis on winning.
Therefore, as Patterson et al. (2005) stated there is no doubt that culture
and climate are similar concepts since both describe employees’ experiences of
their organizations.
2.2.6. Importance of Organizational Climate
Patterson et al. (2005) suggested that climate perceptions are associated
with a variety of important outcomes at the individual, group, and
organizational levels. He cited the various researches to support his argument
on leader behaviour (Rousseau 1988; Rentsch 1990), turnover intentions
Hence, we can easily understand that OC construct is used to describe the
psychological structure of organization and their sub units.
Table 2-2 portrays some of the compiled types of dimensions used while
studying OC by various researchers at different times.
42
Table 2-2: Research Summary Made on OC by various researchers
No Authors Variables used in their research Main findings Thesis Statement
1 Forehand &
Gilmer (1964)
1) Size 2) Structure 3) System Complexity 4) Leadership Style, and 5) Goal directions
They viewed climate as an objective property of the organization and found that firm’s climate cannot be affected by fluctuations in employee behaviours such as turnover
It has proved how OC influence the behaviour of people in the organization
2 Litwin & Stringer (1968)
1) Structure 2) Responsibility 3) Reward 4) Risk 5) Warmth, and 6) Support
They viewed climate as the perceived attributes of an organization and its sub-systems and they found that over time, the climates became increasingly differentiated consistent with the leader’s style.
Their work more focused on managerial styles and accounts for variance of climate perceptions
3 Schneider &
Snyder (1975)
1) Support 2) structure 3) harmony 4) Concern 5) agent independence, and 6) morale
They found that climate and satisfaction measures are correlated for people in some positions in the agencies and people agree more on the climate of their agency than they do on their satisfaction.
Their work is more concerned with the interpositions agreement on climate perception
4
Jones & James (1979)
1) leadership facilitation and support 2) work group cooperation, friendliness, and warmth 3) conflict and ambiguity 4) professional and organizational spirit 5) job challenge, importance, and variety 6) mutual trust
They proved that employee evaluations of OC have been related to the perceptions of customers who purchased the organization’s services or products.
They delineated the approaches to the study of OC using organizational & individual attributes.
5 Preziosi (1980)
1) Purpose 2) Structure 3) Leadership 4) Relationship 5) Reward 6) Helpful Mechanisms, and 7) Propensity for Change
He develop an organizational diagnosis questionnaire that helps in analysing the relationships among variables that influence organizational functioning.
It is based on Weisbord’s six box model and measures employee’s perception
6 Lehman et al.(2002)
1) Clarity of mission and goals 2) Staff cohesiveness 3) Staff cohesiveness 4) Openness of communication 5) Stress, and 6) Openness to change
A comprehensive assessment of organizational functioning and readiness for change (ORC) was developed based on a conceptual model and previous findings on transferring research to practice
Intended to device a measurement tool based on motivation and personality attributes
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
43
No Authors Variables used in their research Main findings Thesis Statement
7 Patterson et al.
(2005)
1) Autonomy 2) Clarity of Organizational Goals 3) Efficiency 4) Effort 5) Formalization 6) Innovation & Flexibility 7) Integration 8) Outward focus 9) Participation 10) Performance Feedback 11) Pressure to produce 12) Quality 13) Reflexivity 14) Supervisory Support 15) Tradition 16) Training, and 17) Welfare
They developed and validated a comprehensive multidimensional OC Measure (OCM), based upon Quinn and Rohrbaugh’s Competing Values model that help to examine organizational change processes.
Offers researchers a relatively comprehensive and flexible approach to the assessment of organizational members’ experience
8 Saad, Juhdi, & Samah (2008)
1) Support from Organization 2) Work-Family Conflict 3) Relationship With Peers 4) Self Competence 5) Impact on Job 6) Meaningfulness of Job 7) Optimism on Organizational Change 8) Autonomy 9) Access to Resources, and 10) Time Control
They found that only three variables (meaningfulness of job, optimism on organizational change, and autonomy) are significantly related to Job Satisfaction explaining 28.8% of the variance in Job Satisfaction.
It gives insight into employee’s perception of their work-life quality
9 Cooil et al.
(2009)
1) Autonomy 2) Integration 3) Involvement 4) Supervisory Support 5) Training 6) Welfare 7) Clarity of Goals 8) Efficiency 9) Performance Feedback 10) Effort and Pressure to produce
OC is positively correlated with all positive perceptions and most highly correlated with the perceptions of well-defined objectives/tasks, necessary personal resources, and with perceptions relating to teamwork using a multivariate partial least squares (MPLS) approach
Their approach was geared to the three business outcomes: employee retention, customer satisfaction, and scaled revenue.
10
Adenike (2011) adapted from Nicholson and Miljus (1992)
1) Management or leadership styles 2) Participation in decision making 3) Provision of challenging jobs to employees 4) Reduction of boredom and frustration 5) Provision of benefits 6) Personnel policies 7) Provision of good working conditions, and 8) Creation of suitable career ladder
The finding showed a significant positive relationship between OC and employee job satisfaction of academic staff from a private Nigerian University
Their work was a symbolical and good start for developing nations to build upon especially in African context.
Source: Researcher’s own compilation
44
2.3. CRITICAL REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES
2.3.1. Organizational Climate and Organizational Effectiveness
Since OC represents the way, in which its members perceive the
organization, from a practical point of view, climate usually assessed by
measuring employee’s perceptions of specific aspects of dimensions of the
organization. From public sectors point of view, the OC is the blend of top
leadership’s behaviour and employee’s behaviour. Most empirical studies have
used an aggregate unit of analysis, such as the work group, department, or
organization (Patterson et al. 2005). The rationale behind aggregating
individual data to a unit level is the assumption that organizational collectives
have their own climate and that these climates identified through the
demonstration of significant differences in climate between units and significant
agreement in perceptions within units.
In this regard, empirical studies on the process of how climate
perceptions are formed are scanty, indirect and mostly anecdotal and numerous
studies have shown OC as indisputably a major contributing factor for changing
employees’ attitudes and behaviour towards superior job performance and
satisfaction (Vijayakumar 2007). Some studies have focused on perceptually
based measures of climate dimensions and job satisfaction. For instance,
Adenike (2011), focusing on academic staffs of private Nigerian University,
sampled size of 384 proved in his finding that there is a significant positive
relationship (r = 0.671; df = 293, 0.01 sig. level) between OC and job
satisfaction. Adenike (2011) also showed a significant positive relationship
between these two variables and the findings show that 85.7% of the variability
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
45
in OC explained by boredom and frustration, personnel policies, working
conditions and participation in decision-making.
In the same country Nigeria, a study conducted by Idogho (2006) on
academic staff of Edo state Universities indicated the existence of significant
difference among academic staff [F (2, 4091) = 48.46, P < 0.05], among
universities in their perception of OC [F (3, 4091) = 12.545, P < 0.05)].
Moreover, the male and female academic staff of universities, do not differ in
their perception of OC [F (1, 4092) = 1.530, P > 0.05)] and no difference exist
between young and older academic staff in their perception of OC [F (1, 4092) =
0.002, P > 0.05)].
On the other hand, Cooil et al. (2009) proved that OC is significantly and
positively correlated with both retention and customer satisfaction using ten
dimensions of OC. According to (Imran et al. 2010) who relied only on the two
open system and rational goal models from CVM in his research to determine
innovative work behavior has proved that OC has highly significant positive
relation with its subscales open system model (r = 0.82, p < 0.01).
In Another Pakistan work environment (Iqbal 2007) has proved that
statistically significant correlations between some dimensions of OC and
organizational commitment (r = 0.38, P < 0.01 and r = 0.24, P < 0.01 for
Challenge & Involvement and Trust & Openness dimensions respectively)
demonstrating its strong implications for the literature of organizational
employees perception in developing countries. Therefore, several researchers
have tried to measure the perception of OC using their own specific dimensions
in their work and Prior research suggests that there are personal and
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
46
organizational factors that serve as antecedents to organizational commitment
(Avolio et al. 2004).
2.3.2. Validation of instruments
The OC measurement instrument that is intended to be used in this study
is well addressed through the rigorous methods the researcher followed in that a
sample of 6,869 employees across 55 manufacturing organizations was used in
the formulation process (Patterson et al. 2005). All the scales contained within
the measure had acceptable levels of reliability and were factorially distinct.
Reliability is concerned with the research and results in terms of replication (J.
Hussey & R. Hussey 1997). If the prime objective of a study is to understand the
OC and it is likely that another researcher following the same method with the
same data would offer similar conclusions, even though the opinions of a
different researcher would add a degree of subjectivity. This is because the
review method is a summary and synthesis of existing empirical research, thus
reliability would be reasonably high. Similar outcomes should be obtainable if
the research is repeated.
The concept of validity refers to the probability that an assertion or
finding is true (Dooley 1984). The unrelenting effort made to review research
from peer-reviewed research journals, the validity of the data set would be quite
accurate in representing organisational climate.
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
47
CHAPTER III – OVERVIEW OF THE ANRS
3.1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter highlights some of the socio-demographic characteristics of the
regional state in relation to its administrative structures, natural beauty,
economic activity, human resource and with a particular emphasis on the
undergoing organizational civil service reform program.
3.2. DEMOGRAPHIC SITUATION
ANRS is one among the nine and the third largest regional member
states established in Ethiopian Constitution by article 47 (FDRE 1995) and
decentralized into 10 administrative zones, 167 woredas (districts) and 3411
kebeles (localities)(BoFED 2011). The region covers an area of 157, 076 km2, and
covering 15% of the country’s total area. It has a population of 17,221,976 (Male
50.18% and Female 49.82 %) and the economically active and inactive
population stands at 49.4% and 21.9% respectively (CSA 2007). In the same
report it is indicated that out of 8,513,439 economically active population 98.1%
are employed and unemployed rate stands at 1.9 (urban 14.3 and rural 0.6).
The age structure of the population in the region, 42.59 percent are age
14 and under and those who are greater than or equal to 65 constitute 3.97
percent of the population. Hence, the young age dependency ratio is 79.69 and
that of the old age is 8.53 percent which make the societal dependency ratio
87.13 per cent (BoFED 2009).
3.3. NATURAL BEAUTY
The region is known for its historical and tourist attractions with about
70% of international and 80% of domestic tourists flow to the region (BoCTPD
2011). In the same report, it was disclosed that the three main tourist
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
48
destinations are Bahirdar, Gonder and Lalibella. The flow of domestic tourists
flow have showed a staggering 21 fold increment from 2002 (33,792) to 2010
(708,399) while the international tourists flow has increased steadily by 4 fold
from 2002 (22,589) to 2010 (86,772) during the eight years respectively
(BoCTPD 2010). However, still there is much to remain to reap out of the
immense potential and natural beauty of the region’s expositions.
3.4. ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
Concerning the economic activity rate or labour force participation rate,
which is computed as the percentage of the economically active population to
the total of economically active and inactive population, the region’s activity rate
accounts 61.0 which is above the national activity rate of 60.3 percent (CSA
2011). This means out of 100 persons aged ten years and above 61 persons is
engaged or available to participate in the production of goods and services.
While the remaining 39 persons are not ready to do so due to various reasons
such as education, illness, pregnancy, old age…etc.
3.5. HUMAN RESOURCE
In the regional state, there are 170,951 civil servants (Male 63.2% and
Female 36.8%) working at various government institutions of which; 13.9% are
graduate and above, 71.5% are undergraduates of diploma and certificates, and
the remaining 14.6% are high schools and undefined (BoFED 2011). The same
report has indicated that at regional level there are 4,276 civil servants working
in forty-six Public Institutions out of which currently three institutions have
been merged due to the organizational restructuring process.
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
49
3.6. THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM
Having noting the need to reform the overall public institutions, the
regional government has embarked intensively on BPR initiatives ever since the
program launched at National level in 2001.
3.6.1. The Public Service Capacity Building Program
The Civil Service Reform Program (CSRP) which is one of the six country
wide reform sub-programs under PSCAP started implementation in 1996/1997
in response to weaknesses in the administrative system and aims to introduce
new and improved legislation and working systems to simplify administrative
processes as well as ensuring effectiveness, efficiency, and ethical behaviour in
performance and service delivery. The PSCAP which was part of the GTP gave
especial focus on reform activities, mobilizing the civil servants to bring
dramatic improvements in the civil service, ensure zero tolerance to rent-
seeking attitude and practice, as well as deliver effective and efficient service
delivery to the customers.
In her results analysis report of the National project PSCAP (November
2004 to April 2009) Araya, (2009) stated that all the seven sub-program
components that run under CSRP progressed well in some aspects and failed to
bring the expected results. The components are: i) strengthening the capacity of
CSRP coordinating structures; ii) improving governance of financial resource
management; iii) improving governance of human resource management; iv)
improving performance and public service delivery; v) improving accountability
and transparency; vi) strengthening top management systems; and vii) building
the policy and institutional governance capacity of the four least developed
regional states.
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
50
The same report by Araya has also revealed that Amhara region has
demonstrated a good start in rolling out the sub-programs and especially
pioneer in implementing the BPR, which in later stage lags behind from its
determined targets and outcomes. Another report that investigates the
weaknesses in service delivery on 6,944 samples (Amhara Management
Institute, 2007) has attempted to identify the causes, which keep public
servants from observing the conduct norms specific to their field.
These causes are listed as follows:
a) The lack of accountability and transparency (29%);
b) Lack of fairness in placement (28%);
c) The lack of shared vision and a clear mission (11%);
d) The lack of Involvement (20%);
e) The low level of the leadership capacity (25%) and public servants (9%);
f) Lack of ownership of the public servants (24%);
g) The low level of morality when it comes to public servants (17%); and
h) Attitudinal problems (16%)
3.6.2. Business Process Reengineering
Reengineering is the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of
work processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary
measures of performance such as cost, quality, service and speed (Hammer &
Champy 1993). Unfortunately the number of BPR successes where expectations
have been fully realized is said to be quite small (E. Cameron & Green 2009).
BPR therefore offers the very attractive prospect of radically transforming key
processes by starting from a very blank sheet. The downside comes during
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
51
implementation, when resistance from those who have not been involved may
be encountered.
According to the GTP annual progress report released recently by
MoFED (2012) clearly stated that “though encouraging efforts have been done
in capacity building and good governances in the civil service, there were certain
weaknesses observed. These include among others that institutional
transformation is not progressing at the expected level and rent-seeking
attitudes and practices are still the key constraining challenges facing the civil
service.” That is why to solve the problems of hierarchical bureaucracy with
many non-value adding works/staffs/positions, nepotism, etc; BPR is seriously
implemented in all public institutions gradually. The three elements that
characterize work processes are the inputs, the processing and the outcome. The
problematic part of the process is processing (Zigiaris 2000). Work process
reengineering mainly intervenes in the processing part, which reengineered in
order to become less time and money consuming.
The organizational change program that the government had embarked
upon was once evaluated in connection to determining the extent of
implementation of BPR using rigorous criteria developed by the then regional
Bureau of Capacity Building and Civil Service (Amare et al. 2010). The
evaluation team constitute 24 individuals pooled from 17 public institutions.
The criteria used for the evaluation revolve around nine managerial issues.
These were; Planning, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Communication, Transparency,
Accountability, Rule of law, Participatory, and Ethics. The result of the
assessment report was used for determining the sampling frame of this study as
mentioned in chapter two.
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
52
CHAPTER IV: DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
4.1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter focuses on research results. The purpose of the chapter is to
explain the results from the analysis conducted using SPSS (Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences), on the data obtained from the respondents via the
questionnaires.
Following this introduction, Section 4.2 presents the descriptive statistics
of the measured demographic variables. Section 4.3 shows the results of validity
testing using principal component analysis to validate the constructs. Section
4.4 describes reliability analysis using Cronbach’s alpha to analyse the
constructs, and Section 4.5 provides details of hypothesis testing using
statistical tests of Multiple Linear Regression, Pearson’s Product-Moment
Correlation Coefficients, Independent-Samples t-test, and One-Way ANOVA
analysis.
4.2. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS: AN OVERVIEW
Descriptive Statistics, the simplest level of quantitative analysis, is used
to summarize or display quantitative data and is limited to, at most, the analysis
of frequencies, average and ranges (Collis & Roger Hussey 2003; Lancaster
2005). The demographics of respondents include gender, level of education,
tenure, and work processes in which they are working.
As part of this study, 348 questionnaires were distributed to 6 public
organizations in ANRS and 260 questionnaires were returned, an effective
response rate of 75%. Of the returned questionnaires, nineteen were found to be
missing responses to one or more questions. The missing responses were
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
53
replaced with the mean value of the variables based on the valid responses (Hair
et al. 2003).
4.2.1. Demography of Respondents
4.2.1.1. Gender
Table 4-1 shows that, of the 260 respondents, 169 were male and 91
were female. Males made up the majority of respondents at 65% while females
were 35%. The ratio of males to females in this sample is 65 to 35.
The sample is similar to the ratio of males and females (Male 63.2% and
Female 36.8%) in the distribution of ANRS civil servants (Bureau of Finance
and Economic Development, 2011), which covers workers at regional level. As
such, the sample is representative of the public work force in ANRS.
Table 4-1: Descriptive Statistics for Gender of Respondents
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Male 169 65.0 65.0 65.0 Female 91 35.0 35.0 100.0 Total 260 100.0 100.0
Source: Researcher’s own computation
4.2.1.2. Business Processes
Table 4-2 shows that, of the 260 respondents, 149 working in core
process and 111 working in support process. Respondents from core process
made up the majority of respondents at 57.3% while respondents from support
process were 42.7%. The ratio of respondents in core process to support process
in this sample is 57 to 43.
The sample is similar to the ratio of the working force available (In Core
process 59% and in Support process 41%) in the distribution of ANRS civil
servants (Bureau of Civil Service 2010), which covers workers public institutions
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
54
at regional level. As such, the sample is representative of the proportion of work
processes in ANRS.
Table 4-2: Descriptive Statistics for Work processes of Respondents
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Core Process 149 57.3 57.3 57.3 Support Process 111 42.7 42.7 100.0 Total 260 100.0 100.0
Source: Researcher’s own computation
4.2.1.3. Education
Table 4-3 shows the distribution of respondents’ level of Education as
Table 4-4 shows the distribution of respondents’ tenure as follows:
Below 5 years (42.4%), 5 to 10 years (27.2%), 11 to 15 years (11.6%), 16 to 20
years (8.0%) and above 20 years (10.8%). 10 respondents (3.8%) did not want
to state their tenure.
Table 4-4: Descriptive Statistics for Tenure of Respondents
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Below 5 Years 106 40.8 42.4 42.4 5 to 10 Years 68 26.2 27.2 69.6 11 to 15 Years 29 11.2 11.6 81.2 16 to 20 Years 20 7.7 8.0 89.2 Above 20 Years 27 10.4 10.8 100.0 Total 250 96.2 100.0
Missing 0 10 3.8
Total 260 100.0
Source: Researcher’s own computation
4.2.2. Descriptive Statistics
The key descriptive statistics are mean, standard deviation, skewness and
kurtosis (Field 2009; Veaux et al. 2008; Collis & Roger Hussey 2003). Standard
deviation is an indication of the dispersion of the data (De Veaux et al. 2008).
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
56
Positive values of skewness indicate too many low scores in the distribution,
whereas negative values indicate a build-up of high scores. Positive values of
kurtosis indicate a pointy and heavy-tailed distribution, whereas negative values
indicate a flat and light-tailed distribution (Field 2009).
Skewness measures the degree to which cases are clustered towards one
end of an asymmetry distribution. In general, the further the value of skewness
is from zero, the more likely it is that the data are not normally distributed
(Field 2009).
Kurtosis measures the level of peakiness in a histogram (De Veaux et al.
2008). High peaks have positive kurtosis, while flatter distributions have
negative kurtosis (De Veaux et al. 2008). Skewness and kurtosis are converted
to z-scores using the following formulas (Field 2009:139)
Zskewness = 𝑆−0𝑆𝐸𝑠𝑘𝑒𝑤𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠
Zkurtosis = 𝐾−0𝑆𝐸𝑘𝑢𝑟𝑡𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑠
An absolute value of z-scores greater than 1.96 is significant at p < .05,
above 2.58 is significant at p < .01 and absolute values above about 3.29 are
significant at p < .001. Large samples will give rise to small standard errors and
so when sample sizes are big, significant values arise from even small deviations
from normality therefore, in large samples this criterion should be increased to
the 2.58(Field 2009: 139).
For a large sample (200 or more) it is more important to look at the
shape of the distribution visually and to look at the value of the skewness and
kurtosis statistics rather than calculate their significance (Field 2009: 139).
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
57
Tables 4-5, 4-6 & 4-7 show the descriptive statistics for the variables:
a. Dependent Variable: OE Source: Researcher’s own computation
Figure 4-1 provides a diagrammatic view of the relationship between HRV and
OSV on OE.
Figure 4-1: Relationship between HRV and OSV on Organizational Effectiveness
Independent Variables Dependent Variable β = .272, p < .01 β = .338, p < .01
Human Relations Values (X1)
Open Systems Values (X2)
Organizational effectiveness (Y)
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
76
Referring back to Table 4-9, “B” values were extracted and the following
regression equation was derived:
OE= 1.021 + 0.401 (HRV) + 0.412 (OSV)
Therefore, according to the regression equation, HRV and OSV have a
positive influence on OE. Table 4-10 shows the strength of the above
relationship as indicated by the adjusted R Square value which in this case is
0.319, and is considered as low positive correlation (Collis & Roger Hussey
2003). The difference for the final model is small (in fact the difference between
the values is .325 − .319 = .005 (about 0.6%). This shrinkage means that if the
model were derived from the population rather than a sample it would account
for approximately 0.6% less variance in the outcome.
Another important point to notice from Table 4-10 is the Durbin–
Watson test that tests for serial correlations between errors in regression
models (Field 2009). Specifically, it tests whether adjacent residuals are
correlated, which is useful in assessing the assumption of independent errors
(Field 2009). Values less than 2 indicate a tendency for observations that are
close in time to be similar (positive autocorrelation), values greater than 2
indicate a tendency for close observations to be different (negative
autocorrelation) and values close to 2 indicates there is no autocorrelation. In
this result, the Durbin-Watson test does assume that the regression residuals
are normally distributed (Manly 2009: 191).
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
77
Table 4-10: Model Summary for the Strength of Relationship
Model Summaryb
Model R R
Square
Adjusted R
Square
Change Statistics
Durbin-
Watson
R Square Change
F Change df1 df2
Sig. F Chang
e 1 .570a .325 .319 .325 61.765 2 257 .000 1.974
a. Predictors: (Constant), Open Systems Values, Human Relations Values b. Dependent Variable: OE Source: Researcher’s own computation
4.5.1.2. Explanation of the hypothesis
Null hypothesis 1: The aggregated HRV & OSV of OC do not predict the OE
that is measured by employees’ Organizational commitment.
The Multiple Linear Regression analyses discussed above indicate that
the effect of HRV significantly predicted OE (β = .272, p < .05). The
independent variable HRV significantly predicts the dependent variable OE,
which reflects the research findings from the organic view of CVM model of
Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) on organizational effectiveness. This indicates
that in the natural system approach employees perceive that OC is important
(exhibit high HRV such as morale and cohesion) and has an impact on their
behavioral intentions to give more emphasis on human resource development.
This, in turn, places OC as a leading indicator of organisational performance
that contributes to OE (Srivastav 2009).
The Multiple Linear Regression analyses indicate also OSV significantly
predicted OE (β = .338, p < .05). The independent variable OSV significantly
predicts the dependent variable OE, which reflects the research findings from
the organic view of CVM model of Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) on
organizational effectiveness. This indicates that in the natural system approach
employees perceive that OC is important (exhibit high OSV such as flexibility
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
78
and readiness) and has an impact on their behavioral intentions to give more
emphasis on growth and resource acquisition. This, in turn, places OC as a key
motivational factor for organizational change that contributes to OE (Lehman et
al. 2002).
Most importantly, in the model summary, R square of .325 indicates
32.5% of the variation in OE is explained by HRV & OSV combined. The
remaining 67.5% variation in OE is explained by factors not included in the
model, essentially, contributed by either the untapped items (5 items from
Autonomy dimension, 1 item from Outward Focus dimension, and 2 items from
Reflexivity dimension) or contributed by the other two organizational values of
the quadrants of CVM; Rational Goal Values (RGV) & Internal Process Values
(IPV) or might be explained by both factors. HRV & OSV combined proved to
contribute almost 65% of the variation on the half segment of the CVM. In a
summary, the multiple linear regression test undertaken above proved that the
null hypothesis 1 is rejected.
4.5.2. Testing of Hypothesis Two (relationships between variables)
Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient (r) was used to
determine the strength of association between the specific dimensions and
domains of OC. Pearson's product moment correlation coefficient (r) is a
parametric technique which gives a measure of the strength of association
between two variables (Collis & Roger Hussey 2003).
4.5.2.1. Nature & Strength of Relationship
As shown in Table 4-11, Involvement, Supervisory Support, Training
and Welfare have shown high positive correlation with HRV (r = .736, .868,
.766, and .848 at p < 0.01 respectively). In contrast, Integration have shown
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
79
medium positive correlation with HRV (r = .622) (Collis & Roger Hussey 2003;
Patterson et al. 2005). The coefficient of determination, R2 that determines
the amount of variability in one variable that is shared by the other (Field
2009), shows that Integration shares 38.7% of the variability in HRV,
Involvement shares 54.2% of the variability in HRV, Supervisory Support
shares 75.3% of the variability in HRV, Training shares 58.7% of the variability
in HRV, and Welfare shares 71.9% of the variability in HRV. Therefore the
Condition for hypothesis test is met.
Table 4-11: Pearson Correlations of dimensions with Human Relations Values
Variables HRV Integration
Involvement
Supervisory
Support
Emphasis on
Training Welfare
HRV 1 Integration .622** 1 Involvement .736** .539** 1 Supervisory Support .868** .433** .584** 1 Emphasis on Training .766** .390** .552** .543** 1
Welfare .848** .468** .545** .741** .616** 1 **. Correlation is significant p < 0.01 level (1-tailed). Source: Researcher’s own computation Figure 4-2 provides a diagrammatic view of the relationship between the
dimensions; Integration, Involvement, Supervisory Support, Training and
Welfare with HRV domain.
Figure 4-2: Relationships of Dimensions of OC with HRV
Dimensions Domain R2 = .387, p < .01 R2= .542, p < .01 R2 = .753, p < .01 R2 = .587, p < .01 R2= .719, p < .01
Integration
Supervisory Support
Training
Welfare
Involvement
Human Relations
Values (HRV)
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
80
4.5.2.2. Explanation of the hypothesis
Null hypothesis 2: The dimensions of OC (Integration, Involvement,
Supervisory Support, Training, and Welfare) do not
positively related with HRV of flexible orientation.
The Pearson's product moment correlation coefficient analyses discussed
above indicate that Integration, Involvement, Supervisory Support, Training
and Welfare have shown high and medium positive correlation with HRV (r =
.622, .736, .868, .766, and .848 at p < 0.01 respectively).
Although Integration, Involvement, Supervisory Support, Training and
Welfare can account for 38.7%, 54.2% , 75.3% , 58.7% , and 71.9% of the
variation in HRV respectively, it does not necessarily cause this variation and
this still says nothing about which way causality runs. It can only express in
terms of “the variance in y accounted for by x ”, or even the variation in one
variable explained by the other (Collis & Roger Hussey 2003; Field 2009). The
research findings from the competing values framework perspective proved that
the climate strength of all or most climate dimensions within a quadrant inter-
correlate highly as a predictor of organizational outcomes (Patterson et al
2005). Previous research conducted in Pakistan work environment by Iqbal
(2007) has proved that statistically significant correlations between some
dimensions of OC and organizational commitment (r = 0.38, P < 0.01 and r =
0.24, P < 0.01 for Challenge & Involvement and Trust & Openness dimensions
respectively), which is consistent with this findings.
Above all, the results have shown that employees of public institutions do
not only perceive the dimensions of HRV positively but also it has strong effect
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
81
on their behavioural intentions of HRV such as morale, cohesion, trust and
belongingness (Reino & Vadi 2010).
The findings also reveal that in relative terms, supervisory support found
to be the major dominant factor and Integration is the least dominant factor
among the HRV domain in influencing employees’ perception. This is somewhat
contradictorily answered by respondents in the cross-checking question (see
APPENDIX- I) whether they do believe their organization is effective in doing
its job, the majority respondents suggested that Welfare & Emphasis on
training should be viewed as a first intervention strategy in improving the work
environment. In a summary, Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient
analysis undertaken above proved that the null hypothesis 2 is rejected.
4.5.3. Testing of Hypothesis Three (relationships between variables)
Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient (r) was used to
determine the strength of association between the specific dimensions and
domains of OC.
4.5.3.1. Nature & Strength of Relationship
As shown in Table 4-12, Innovation & Flexibility indicates very high
positive correlation with OSV (r = .987; p< 0.01). In contrast, Reflexivity, have
demonstrated medium positive correlation with OSV (r = .677 at p < 0.01) and
Outward Focus have demonstrated low positive correlation with OSV (r = .367
at p < 0.01) (Collis & Roger Hussey 2003; Patterson et al. 2005). The
coefficient of determination, R2 shows that Innovation & Flexibility shares
97.4% of the variability in OSV, Outward Focus shares 13.5% of the variability
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
82
in OSV, and Reflexivity shares 45.8% of the variability in OSV. Therefore the
Condition for hypothesis test is met.
Table 4-12: Pearson Correlations of dimensions with Open Systems Values
Variables OSV
Innovation &
Flexibility
Outward Focus Reflexivity
OSV 1 Innovation & Flexibility .987** 1 Outward Focus .367** .383** 1 Reflexivity .677** .676** .403** 1 **. Correlation is significant p < 0.01 level (1-tailed). Source: Researcher’s own computation Figure 4-3 provides a diagrammatic view of the relationship between the
dimensions; Innovation & Flexibility, Outward Focus, and Reflexivity with
OSV domain.
Figure 4-3: Relationships of Dimensions of OC with OSV
4.5.3.2. Explanation of the hypothesis
Null hypothesis 3: The dimensions of OC (Innovation & flexibility,
Reflexivity, and Outward focus) do not positively related
with OSV of flexible orientation.
The Pearson's product moment correlation coefficient analyses discussed
above indicate that Innovation & Flexibility, Outward Focus, and Reflexivity
Dimensions Domain R2 = .974, p < .01 R2 = .135, p < .01 R2= .458, p < .01
Innovation & Flexibility
Outward Focus
Reflexivity
Open Systems Values (OSV)
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
83
have shown high, medium and low positive correlation with OSV (r = .987, .677,
and .367 at p < 0.01) respectively.
Although Innovation & Flexibility, Outward Focus, and Reflexivity can
account for 97.4%, 13.5%, and 45.8% of the variation in OSV respectively, it does
not necessarily cause this variation and this still says nothing about which way
causality runs. It can only express in terms of ‘the variance in y accounted for by
x’, or even the variation in one variable explained by the other (Collis & Roger
Hussey 2003; Field 2009). The research findings from the competing values
framework perspective proved that the climate strength of all or most climate
dimensions within a quadrant inter-correlate highly as a predictor of
organizational outcomes (Patterson et al 2005). Above all, the results have
shown that employees of public institutions do not only perceive the dimensions
of OSV positively but also it has strong effect on their behavioural intentions of
OSV that encompasses values such as flexibility, external organizational
orientation, adaptability, the capacity to change, uniqueness and an orientation
towards customers (Reino & Vadi 2010).
The findings also reveal that in relative terms, Innovation & Flexibility
found to be the major dominant factor and Outward Focus is the least
dominant factor among the OSV domain in influencing employees’ perception.
This is somewhat contradictorily, tied-up answer obtained in the cross-checking
question (see APPENDIX- I) whether they do believe their organization is
effective in doing its job, the majority respondents suggested that Innovation &
Flexibility should be viewed as a first intervention strategy in improving the
work environment. On other hand, the same size respondents suggested
Innovation & Flexibility to be considered as the last option. However, the
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
84
former group’s opinion is supported since it seems realistically suggested. In a
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means Variables Condition F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)
OE
Equal variances assumed
4.213 .041 .792 258 .429
Equal variances not assumed
.829 209.613 .408
HRV
Equal variances assumed
.790 .375 .151 258 .880
Equal variances not assumed
.154 195.141 .877
OSV
Equal variances assumed
.313 .576 .685 258 .494
Equal variances not assumed
.684 183.913 .495
Source: Researcher’s own computation
4.5.4.2. Explanation of the hypothesis
Null hypothesis 4: There is no significant difference between employees’
perception of OC in terms of employees’ Gender in HRV,
OSV and OE across public sectors.
The Independent-Samples t-test discussed above indicated that Males
experienced greater positive perception to all three variables of OE, HRV and
OSV in which, the difference in perception in all cases was not significant (t
(209.6) = .829, p > .05), (t (258) = .151, p > .05) and (t (258) = .685, p > .05)
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
86
than to Females respectively. This will lead us to a conclusion that male and
female do not differ in their perception of OC and on OE.
The research findings proved that consistent result obtained with the
previous research conducted by Idogho (2006) on Nigerian academic staff of
universities, in which he found that male and female do not differ in their
perception of OC [F (1, 4092) = 1.530, P > 0.05)]. In a summary, Independent-
Samples t-test undertaken above proved that there is no ground for the null
hypothesis 4 to be rejected for OC and OE.
4.5.5. Testing of Hypothesis Five (difference between tenure)
One-way independent ANOVA test was used to test for differences
between several independent groups. The one-way independent ANOVA
compares several means, when those means have come from different groups of
people based on respondents Tenure. (Homogeneity test of Variance for
grouping variables is annexed see APPENDIX- H)
4.5.5.1. Nature & Strength of Difference
Table 4-14 shows there was no significant difference observed in
employees perception based on Tenure in terms of OE, F (4, 245) = 1.151, p
>.05. There was no significant difference observed in employees perception
based on Tenure in terms of HRV, F (4, 245) = .918, p >.05. There was no
significant difference observed in employees perception based on Tenure in
terms of OSV, F (4, 245) = .864, p >.05. Therefore the Condition for hypothesis
test is met.
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
87
Table 4-14: One-Way Independent ANOVA test for Tenure
Sum of
Squares df
Mean Square
F Sig.
OE
Between Groups 5.030 4 1.258 1.151 .333 Within Groups 267.690 245 1.093 Total 272.720 249
HRV
Between Groups 1.958 4 .489 .918 .454 Within Groups 130.606 245 .533 Total 132.564 249
OSV
Between Groups 2.520 4 .630 .864 .486 Within Groups 178.597 245 .729 Total 181.117 249
Source: Researcher’s own computation
4.5.5.2. Explanation of the hypothesis
Null hypothesis 5: There is no significant difference between employees’
perception of OC in terms of employees’ Tenure in HRV, OSV
and OE across public sectors.
The One-way Independent ANOVA test discussed above indicate that
there was no significant difference in Tenure exhibited in a period of job
possession in terms of employees perception of OC and organizational
commitment; OE, F (4, 245) = 1.151, p >.05, HRV, F (4, 245) = .918, p >.05, and
OSV, F (4, 245) = .864, p >.05.
The research findings proved that consistent result obtained with the
previous research conducted by Idogho (2006) on Nigerian academic staff of
universities, in which he found that no difference exist between young and older
academic staff in their perception of OC [F (1, 4092) = 0.002, P > 0.05)]. In a
summary, One-way Independent ANOVA test undertaken above proved that
there was no ground for the null hypothesis 5 to be rejected for OC factors of
HRV & OSV and OE.
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
88
4.5.6. Testing Hypothesis Six (difference between education level)
One-way independent ANOVA test was used to test for differences
between several independent groups. The one-way independent ANOVA
compares several means, when those means have come from different groups of
people based on respondents education level.
4.5.6.1. Nature & Strength of Difference
Table 4-15 shows there was no significant difference observed in
employees perception based on Education level in terms of OE, F (4, 247) =
1.918, p >.05. There was no significant difference observed in employees
perception based on Education level in terms of HRV, F (4, 247) = .369, p >.05.
There was no significant difference observed in employees perception based on
Education level in terms of OSV, F (4, 247) = .995, p >.05. Therefore the
Condition for hypothesis test is met.
Table 4-15: One-Way Independent ANOVA test for Education level
Sum of Squares
df Mean
Square F Sig.
OE Between Groups 8.506 4 2.126 1.918 .108 Within Groups 273.799 247 1.108
Total 282.305 251
HRV Between Groups .786 4 .197 .369 .831 Within Groups 131.586 247 .533
Total 132.372 251
OSV Between Groups 2.940 4 .735 .995 .411 Within Groups 182.420 247 .739
Total 185.360 251
Source: Researcher’s own computation
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
89
4.5.6.2. Explanation of the hypothesis
Null hypothesis 6: There is no significant difference between employees’
perception of OC in terms of Education level in human
relations, OSV and OE across public sectors.
The One-way Independent ANOVA test discussed above indicated that
there was no significant difference in Education level exhibited whether the
employee is qualified or not in terms of employees perception of OC and
organizational commitment. OE, F (4, 247) = 1.92, p >.05, HRV, F (4, 247) =
.369, p >.05, and OSV, F (4, 247) = .995, p >.05.
The research findings proved that employees’ background in educational
qualification has nothing to do with employees’ perception towards OC. In a
summary, One-way Independent ANOVA test undertaken above proved that
there was no ground for the null hypothesis 6 to be rejected for OC factors of
HRV & OSV and OE.
4.5.7. Testing Hypothesis Seven (difference between organization type)
One-way independent ANOVA test and Independent-sample t-test were
used to test for differences between several independent groups. The one-way
independent ANOVA compares several means, when those means have come
from different groups of people based on respondents’ organization type. The t-
test compares two means, when those means have come from different groups
of entities.
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
90
4.5.7.1. Nature & Strength of Difference
Table 4-16 shows there was a significant difference observed in
employees perception based on the type of organization in terms of OE, F (5,
254) = 2.395, p <.05 with a mean of OGADT = 3.84, BoTVT = 3.67, BoCTPD =
3.53, BoEPLA = 3.47, BoE = 3.28, and BoWYCA = 3.19. There was no significant
difference observed in employees perception based on the type of organization
in terms of HRV, F (5, 254) = 2.081, p >.05. There was a significant difference
observed in employees perception based on the type of organization in terms of
OSV, F (5, 254) = 3.67, p <.05 with a mean of OGADT = 3.39, BoCTPD = 3.09,
BoEPLA = 2.99, BoTVT = 2.93, BoE = 2.91, and BoWYCA = 2.65. Therefore the
Condition for hypothesis test is met.
Table 4-16: One-Way Independent ANOVA test for Organization Type
Sum of
Squares df Mean
Square F Sig.
OE
Between Groups 13.059 5 2.612 2.395 .038 Within Groups 277.017 254 1.091 Total 290.076 259
HRV Between Groups 5.248 5 1.050 2.081 .068 Within Groups 128.108 254 .504 Total 133.356 259
OSV Between Groups 13.115 5 2.623 3.670 .003 Within Groups 181.546 254 .715 Total 194.661 259
Source: Researcher’s own computation
Table 4-17 shows the result of Independent-sample t-test run for each
grouping that 9 out of 45 tests conducted revealed statistically significant
differences in the perception of organizational climate. At least two significant
differences exist in each factor. At least one significant difference exists for each
pair of organization grouping. Organizational climate is, therefore, not uniform,
but differential across various groups across organizations.
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
91
Table 4-17: Strength of difference for organization types
Pair of groups for Organizations
t-values OE HRV OSV
BoE Vs BoTVT -1.726 .321 -.114 BoE Vs BoEPLA -.778 -1.421 -.411 BoE Vs OGADT -2.691** -1.724 -3.021**
BoE Vs BoCTPD -1.193 -.121 -1.041 BoE Vs BoWYCA .397 1.301 1.654 BoTVT Vs BoEPLA .814 -1.581 -.282 BoTVT Vs OGADT -.767 -1.839 -2.617*
BoTVT Vs BoCTPD .589 -.400 -.853 BoTVT Vs BoWYCA 2.152* .889 1.733 BoEPLA Vs OGADT -1.520 -.134 -1.930 BoEPLA Vs BoCTPD -.249 1.212 -.426 BoEPLA Vs BoWYCA 1.126 2.542* 1.713 OGADT Vs BoCTPD 1.419 1.479 1.664 OGADT Vs BoWYCA 2.948** 2.851** 4.603***
BoCTPD Vs BoWYCA 1.497 1.312 2.548*
Notes: * p<=.05, **p<= .01 and ***p<= .001 Source: Researcher’s own computation
4.5.7.2. Explanation of the hypothesis
Null hypothesis 7: There is no significant difference between employees’
perception of OC in terms of type of organization in HRV,
OSV and OE across public sectors.
The One-way Independent ANOVA test discussed above indicate that
there is significant difference in employees perception across Organizations in
terms of OE (F (5, 254) = 2.395, p <.05) with a mean of OGADT = 3.84, BoTVT
= 3.67, BoCTPD = 3.53, BoEPLA = 3.47, BoE = 3.28, and BoWYCA = 3.19 and
OSV (F (5, 254) = 3.67, p <.05) with a mean of OGADT = 3.39, BoCTPD = 3.09,
BoEPLA = 2.99, BoTVT = 2.93, BoE = 2.91, and BoWYCA = 2.65 of the OC. On
other hand, no significance difference observed in HRV (F (5, 254) = 2.081, p
>.05) of employees perception across public organizations. OGADT & BoWYCA
are the two organizations, which exhibited extreme values in employees’
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
92
perception in both cases that impart significant difference in perception of the
OC. Furthermore, the Independent-sample t-test reveals nine (20%) out of 45
tests conducted revealed statistically significant differences in the perception of
organizational climate between organizations.
The research findings proved that partial result obtained with the
previous research conducted by Idogho (2006) on academic staff of Edo state
Universities that indicated the existence of significant difference among
universities in their perception of OC [F (3, 4091) = 12.545, P < 0.05)], which
are not categorized as human relations or open systems values. This makes the
obtained result differentiated from the previous researches. In a summary, One-
way Independent ANOVA test undertaken above proved that the null hypothesis
7 can be rejected for OC factor of OSV and OE. However, there is no ground for
the null hypothesis 7 to be rejected for OC factor of HRV.
4.5.8. Testing of Hypothesis eight (difference between work groups)
Independent Samples t-test was used to determine the difference and its
significance by comparing the means of two work groups in which the
respondents are working in.
4.5.8.1. Nature & Strength of Difference
Table 4-18 shows the results of Independent-samples t-test, on average,
employees in Core processes experienced greater positive perception to OE (M =
3.56, SE = 0.08) than to employees in Support processes (M = 3.39, SE = 0.11).
On other hand, on average, employees in Support processes experienced greater
positive perception to HRV (M = 3.08, SE = 0.07) than to employees in Core
processes (M = 3.04, SE = 0.06) and on average, employees in Support
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
93
processes experienced almost equal positive perception to OSV (M = 3.01, SE =
0.09) with employees in Core processes (M = 3.01, SE = 0.07). However, the
differences in OE & HRV were not significant t (258) = 1.291, p > .05 for OE; not
significant t (258) = -.381, p > .05 for HRV; and not significant t (258) = -.038,
p > .05 for OSV. Therefore the Condition for hypothesis test is met.
Table 4-18: Independent-Samples T-test between for Work Processes
Group Statistics Variables Business Processes N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
OE Core Process 149 3.5615 1.01126 .08285 Support Process 111 3.3904 1.11543 .10587
HRV Core Process 149 3.0449 .68989 .05652 Support Process 111 3.0792 .75583 .07174
OSV Core Process 149 3.0067 .80216 .06572 Support Process 111 3.0108 .95073 .09024
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means Variables Condition F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)
OE
Equal variances assumed
.692 .406 1.291 258 .198
Equal variances not assumed
1.273 223.634 .204
HRV
Equal variances assumed
.998 .319 -.381 258 .704
Equal variances not assumed
-.376 224.608 .707
OSV
Equal variances assumed
3.669
.057 -.038 258 .970
Equal variances not assumed
-.037 213.071 .971
Source: Researcher’s own computation
4.5.8.2. Explanation of the hypothesis
Null hypothesis 8: There is no significant difference between employees’
perception of OC in terms of work processes in HRV, OSV
and OE across public sectors.
The Independent-Samples t-test discussed above indicate that employees
in Core work processes experienced greater positive perception to OE than
employees in Support processes in which, the difference in perception is not
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
94
significant (t (258) = 1.291, p > .05). On other hand, employees in Support
processes experienced greater positive perception to HRV than employees in
Core processes in which, the difference in perception is not significant (t (258) =
-.381, p > .05). Lastly, employees in Support processes experienced almost equal
positive perception to OSV with employees in Core processes in which, their
perception is not significant t (258) = -.038, p > .05.
The research findings produces contradictory result with previously
studied related topics that was conducted on 155 individuals drawn from 27
hospital management teams by N. R. Anderson & M. A. West (1998), which
states there is variation in level of agreement both across teams within samples
and within teams across particular dimensions. In a summary, Independent-
Samples t-test undertaken above proved that there is no ground for the null
hypothesis 8 to be rejected for OE as well as for OC factors of HRV and OSV.
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
95
CHAPTER V – SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS &
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the concluding part of the research project. Section
5.1 provides an introduction to the chapter. Section 5.2 focuses on the major
findings while Section 5.3 is the conclusion for the research. Finally, Section 5.4
provides implications and recommendations for future research.
5.2. SUMMARY
Chapter 4 presented the research results that were generated by SPSS software.
The results include the demographics of respondents, namely: gender,
education level, work groups they are working in and years of experience in the
latest organization. The majority of respondents are male (63.2%). The finding
is representative of the ANRS public institutions work force at regional level,
and is consistent with statistic for civil servants (Bureau of Finance and
Economic Development, 2011). The majority of respondents are from core work
processes (57.3%) and the majority of respondents were holders of Bachelor
degree and above (71.1%). The majority of respondents have worked in the
present institution more than 5 years (57.6%). Except for educational level the
sample is representative of the distribution of ANRS civil servants at regional
level (Bureau of Civil Service 2010). Prior studies have demonstrated that these
demographic variables are potential predictors of organizational commitment
(Avolio 2004)
For testing the eight hypotheses in accordance with the research model in
Figure 2-4, various statistical tests were adopted to reject the null hypotheses.
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
96
For null hypothesis 1, Multiple Linear Regression was used to
determine the effects of the two independent variables (HRV and OSV) on the
dependent variable (OE) measured indirectly by organizational commitment
(Speier & Venkatesh 2002).
The results show that the conditions for regression analysis have been
met and the independent variables significantly predicted the dependent
variable.
The Multiple Linear Regression together with the relationship described
in Sections 4.5.1.1and 4.5.1.2, demonstrate that Hypothesis 1 was not supported,
rather HRV and OSV significantly predicted OE (β = .272, p < .05) and (β =
.338, p < .05) respectively. In the regression model summary, R square of .325
indicates 32.5% of the variation in OE is explained by HRV & OSV combined.
The remaining 67.5% variation in OE is probably explained by factors not
included in the model, essentially, by the other two values in the quadrants of
CVM; Rational Goal Values (RGV) & Internal Process Values (IPV) or either
explained by the remaining untapped items or both. HRV & OSV contribute
around 65% of the variation on the half segment of the CVM if we assume that
the full model is split into two segments proportionately.
The research finding does not support null Hypothesis 1 and is consistent
with prior theory and research in that OC positively & significantly influence on
employees’ perception of their work environment and impacts upon OE (Quinn
and Rohrbaugh 1983). Employees’ psychological capital is positively related to
their performance, satisfaction, and commitment and that a supportive climate
is related to employees’ satisfaction and commitment(Bakker & Schaufeli
2008). Moreover, according to CVM about 50% of the variation in OE should
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
97
have to be explained by HRV & OSV domains (Quinn & Rohrbaugh 1983).
However, in this study, 32.5% of the variation was proved been accounted by the
two quadrants of CVM; HRV and OSV.
This indicates that in the natural system approach employees perceive
that OC is important (exhibit high HRV such as morale and cohesion, and high
OSV such as flexibility and readiness) and has an impact on their behavioral
intentions to give more emphasis on human resource development and growth
and resource acquisition. This, in turn, places OC as a leading indicator of
organisational performance and as a key motivational factor for organizational
change that contributes to OE (Srivastav 2009; Lehman et al. 2002).
Since the alternate hypothesis was supported, the research question has
been answered, in that the OE of public sectors in ANRS that is measured by
employees’ organizational commitment are highly predicted by the flexible
orientation internal & external values of OC.
For null hypothesis 2 & 3, Pearson's product-moment correlation
coefficient (r) was used to determine the strength of association between the
specific dimensions and domains of OC. The result indicates that Involvement,
Supervisory Support, Training and Welfare have shown high positive
correlation with HRV (r = .736, .868, .766, and .848 at p < 0.01 respectively). In
contrast, Integration have shown medium positive correlation with HRV (r =
.622) accounting with determination of coefficient, R2, of 38.7%, 54.2%,
75.3%, 58.7%, and 71.9% of the variation in sub-scales of Integration,
Involvement, Supervisory Support, Training, and Welfare in the HRV of OC
respectively.
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
98
On other hand, Innovation & Flexibility indicates very high positive
correlation with OSV (r = .987; p< 0.01). In contrast, Reflexivity have
demonstrated medium positive correlation with OSV (r = .677 at p < 0.01) and
Outward Focus have demonstrated low positive correlation with OSV (r = .367
at p < 0.01) accounting with determination of coefficient, R2, of 97.4%,
13.5%, and 45.8% of the variation in sub-scales of Innovation & Flexibility,
Outward Focus, and Reflexivity in the OSV of OC respectively.
The research finding does not support null Hypotheses 2 & 3 and is
consistent with prior theory and research conducted on competing values
framework that the climate strength of all or most climate dimensions within a
CVM quadrant inter-correlate significantly as a predictor of organizational
outcomes such as organizational commitment (Iqbal 2007; Patterson et al.
2005)
The results have shown that employees of public institutions do not only
perceive the dimensions in the HRV and OSV domain of OC positively, but also
their perception has strong effect on their behavioural intentions of HRV such
as morale, cohesion, trust and belongingness. This is true also for OSV that
encompasses values such as flexibility, external organizational orientation,
adaptability, the capacity to change, uniqueness and an orientation towards
customers (Reino & Vadi 2010).
The findings also reveal that in relative terms Supervisory support and
Innovation & Flexibility found to be the dominant factors under HRV and OSV
domain of OC in influencing employees’ perception respectively. Integration
and Outward Focus are the least among the HRV and OSV domain of OC in
influencing employees’ perception respectively.
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
99
Since both alternate hypotheses 2 & 3 were supported, the research
questions has been answered, in that there is significant positive relationship
between the dimensions of OC and both HRV (internal focus) and OSV (external
focus) of flexible orientation.
For null hypothesis 4 & 8, Independent Samples t-test was used to
determine the difference and its significance by comparing the means of two
groups of gender and work processes with respect to employees’ perception
towards to OC. It was found that Males experienced greater positive perception
to OE (M = 3.53, SE = 0.09) than to Females (M = 3.42, SE = 0.10), greater
positive perception to HRV (M = 3.06, SE = 0.06) than to Females (M = 3.05,
SE = 0.07), and greater positive perception to OSV (M = 3.04, SE = 0.07) than
to Females (M = 2.96, SE = 0.09). However, the difference was not significant, t
(209.6) = .829, p > .05 for OE; not significant, t (258) = .151, p > .05 for HRV;
and not significant, t (258) = .685, p > .05 for OSV.
Employees in Core processes experienced greater positive perception to
OE (M = 3.56, SE = 0.08) than to employees in Support processes (M = 3.39, SE
= 0.11). On other hand, on average, employees in Support processes experienced
greater positive perception to HRV (M = 3.08, SE = 0.07) than to employees in
Core processes (M = 3.04, SE = 0.06) and on average, employees in Support
processes experienced almost equal positive perception to OSV (M = 3.01, SE =
0.09) with employees in Core processes (M = 3.01, SE = 0.07). However, the
differences in perceptions were not significant t (258) = 1.291, p > .05 for OE;
not significant t (258) = -.381, p > .05 for HRV; and not significant t (258) = -
.038, p > .05 for OSV.
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
100
The research findings was consistent with the previous research that
states male and female do not differ in their perception of OC (Idogho 2006).
On the contrary, contradictory result obtained with regard to work processes
with previously studied related topics that states there is variation in level of
agreement both across teams within samples and within teams across particular
dimensions (Anderson & West 1998; Srivastav 2009). However, it cannot
arguably be ruled out that the organizational dynamism could have significant
impact in today’s work environment than long time ago to rely more on latest
phenomena.
Even though, both null hypotheses 4 & 8 were supported for all factors in
the same manner, the research questions has been answered, in that there is no
significance difference between employees’ perception of OC in terms of
employees’ gender and work processes in HRV, OSV and OE across public
sectors.
For null hypothesis 5, 6 & 7, One-way independent ANOVA test was
used to test for differences between several independent groups. The one-way
independent ANOVA compares several means, when those means have come
from different groups of people based on respondents’ tenure, education level,
and organization type. It was found that based on employees tenure, no
significant difference in Tenure exhibited in a period of job possession in terms
of employees’ perception of OC and organizational commitment; OE, F (4, 245)
= 1.151, p >.05, HRV, F (4, 245) = .918, p >.05, and OSV, F (4, 245) = .864, p
>.05. There was no significant difference observed either in employees’
perception based on Education level in terms of OE, F (4, 247) = 1.918, p >.05,
in terms of HRV, F (4, 247) = .369, p >.05, and in terms of OSV, F (4, 247) =
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
101
.995, p >.05. On other hand, there is significant difference in employees
perception across Organizations in terms of OE (F (5, 254) = 2.395, p <.05) and
OSV, F (5, 254) = 3.67, p <.05) of the OC in which nine (20%) out of 45 tests
conducted revealed statistically significant differences in the perception of
organizational climate between organizations. However, no significance
difference observed in HRV, F (5, 254) = 2.081, p >.05) of employees perception
across public organizations.
The research findings proved that in terms of tenure, consistent result
obtained with the previous research conducted on academic staff of universities
in which there is no difference exist between young and older academic staff
(Idogho 2006). In terms of education level, even though no previous research
found to contrast with, the findings proved that employees’ background in
educational qualification has nothing to do with employees’ perception towards
OC. In terms of differences in organization type, partial result obtained with the
previous research conducted on academic staff of Universities that indicated the
existence of significant difference among universities in their perception of OC
(Idogho 2006) even if the unit of analysis are aggregated by human relations or
open systems values. The measuring instrument should demonstrate significant
differences in employee perceptions across organizations if it is to be useful in
discriminating between organizations (Patterson et al 2005).
Since, both null hypotheses of 5 & 6 were supported, the research
questions has been answered, in that there is no significance difference between
employees’ perception of OC in terms of employees’ tenure and education level
in HRV, OSV and OE across public sectors. On other hand, null hypothesis 7 is
partially supported in which the research questions have been answered, in that
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
102
there is significance difference between employees’ perception of OC in terms of
OE & OSV. However, there is no significance difference between employees’
perception of OC in terms of organization type in HRV.
5.3. CONCLUSION
The ANRS public service management is slow becoming nexus between
government deliverables and citizens demand. To maintain efficiency in service
delivery in Amhara is somehow illusive because employees have an inherent
exposition on how the work environment could be crafted to suit the general
public. One such view is OC in which it was described in the introduction part as
employees’ perception of how it feels to work in the unit, and includes specific
aspects of the environment that directly affect people's ability to get the job
done.
The literature review in Chapter 2 indicates that OC can be used as a tool
to assess employee perception towards organizational practices in the notion of
upholding participatory management. Public institutions around the world,
these days, are becoming heavily accountable in their service delivery to bring
about customer satisfaction. Investigations have indicated that employees have
positive outlook and capable of sharing their responsibilities on the work
environment. This is a significant breakthrough for bolstering the
organizational change process that can be achieved within the realm of reform
programs.
Findings from the literature review indicate that there is a lack of
localized empirical research in the country that relates OC to organizational
effectiveness, especially in the public service institutions. Therefore, to bridge
this gap, the following research questions were developed: (a) To what extent
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
103
does the OE of public sectors that is measured by organizational commitment of
employees are explained by the internal & external values of OC? (b) Is there
any significance positive relationship between the dimensions of OC and HRV
(internal focus) of flexible orientation? (c) Is there any significance positive
relationship between the dimensions of OC and OSV(external focus) of flexible
orientation?, and (d) Is there any significance difference between employees’
perception of OC in terms of employees’ gender, tenure, education level,
organization type, and work processes in HRV, OSVand OE across public
sectors?
From the research problem and research question, a research model was
developed adapted from competing values model. The model adopts HRV and
OSV as two aggregated independent variables, which are direct antecedents of
OE. Within each aggregated independent variables, there are sub-scales in
which for HRV there are Integration, Involvement, Supervisory Support,
Emphasis on Training, and Welfare and for OSV, there are Innovation &
Flexibility, Outward Focus, and Reflexivity. The last construct is OE as the
dependent variable measured by organizational commitment.
As part of the research model, eight hypotheses were derived, namely: (a)
The aggregated HRV & OSV of OC do not predict the OE that is measured by
employees’ organizational commitment. (b) The dimensions of OC (Integration,
Involvement, Supervisory Support, Training, and Welfare) do not positively
relate with HRV of flexible orientation. (c) The dimensions of OC (Innovation &
flexibility, Reflexivity, and Outward focus) do not positively relate with OSV of
flexible orientation. (d) There is no significant difference between employees’
perception of OC in terms of employees’ Gender in HRV, OSV and OE across
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
104
public sectors. (e) There is no significant difference between employees’
perception of OC in terms of employees’ Tenure in HRV, OSV and OE across
public sectors. (f) There is no significant difference between employees’
perception of OC in terms of Education level in HRV, OSV and OE across public
sectors. (g) There is no significant difference between employees’ perception of
OC in terms of type of organization in HRV, OSV and OE across public sectors.
(h) There is no significant difference between employees’ perception of OC in
terms of work processes in HRV, OSV and OE across public sectors.
A quantitative cross-sectional mixed research method was use to test the
eight hypotheses, and the unit of analysis were the individual, organization and
work groups. Standardized and validated questionnaires by Patterson et al
(2005) and Speier & Venkatesh (2002) were used to collect the data required for
analysis. The questions were adapted from previous studies and are based on
Likert scales.
The research data was tested using the SPSS Version 16 statistical test
utilities namely; multiple linear regression, Pearson’s moment-product
correlation, Independent samples t-test, and One-way independent samples
ANOVA test.
The hypotheses testing reveals the following results: (a) the independent
aggregate variables (HRV and OSV) positively & significantly predicted the
dependent variable (OE) and 32.5% of the variation in OE is explained by HRV
& OSV combined; (b) the dimensions Integration, Involvement, Supervisory
Support, Training and Welfare have shown significant positive correlation with
their respective HRV domain of OC; in addition, it also revealed that in relative
terms Supervisory support found to be the dominant and Integration becomes
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
105
the least influencing factors under HRV domain of OC; (c) the dimensions
Innovation & Flexibility, Outward Focus, and Reflexivity have shown
significant positive correlation with their respective OSV domain of OC, in
addition, it also revealed that in relative terms Innovation & Flexibility found to
be the dominant and Outward focus becomes the least influencing factor under
OSV domain of OC; (d) there is no significant difference exhibited in employees
gender in terms of employees’ perception of OC and OE; (e) there is no
significant difference exhibited in employees tenure in terms of employees
perception of OC and OE; (f) there is no significant difference exhibited in
employees education level in terms of employees’ perception of OC and OE; (g)
there is significant difference in employees’ perception in the type of
organizations in terms of OE and OSV of the OC. However, no significance
difference observed in HRV of employees’ perception across public
organizations; (f) there is no significant difference exhibited in work groups in
terms of employees’ perception of OC and OE.
5.4. IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.4.1. Implications for research
Future researchers may consider investigating whether OE and other OC
variables have a significant bottom-line impact on firm performance.
Investigating these bottom-line influences will help organizations decide
whether to allocate scarce resources toward developing positive OC. Moreover,
research may find that certain types of individual’s behaviours are more
susceptible to these OC variables and thus will be more motivated than other
types of employees. The implication of this would be a fundamental
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
106
improvement in efficiency and performance of organizations and reduced
turnover of employees.
Since this study focused only on direct path relationships, future research
should focus on assessing more mediating and moderating relationships.
Mediating and moderating relationships between the OC variables and
psychological and behavioural outcomes could help shed light on exactly how
these relationships vary. The implication of this would be a multidimensional
view of organizations and their interaction with the internal and external
environment.
Examining the association between OC and OE where if the latter is
measured in a multi-dimensional manner is also worthwhile. This is because an
aggregate unidimensional measure like OC may not help adequately capture the
contribution that employee perception may make to different dimensions of OC.
5.4.2. Recommendations for future research
This study focused on one of the three axes or value dimensions of OE
criteria’s i.e. on organizational focus, from an internal, micro emphasis on the
well-being and development of people in the organization to an external, macro
emphasis on the well-being and development of the organization itself (Quinn &
Rohrbaugh 1983). The other two, which are related to organizational structure
from an emphasis on stability to an emphasis on flexibility, and related to
organizational means and ends, and from an emphasis on important processes
to an emphasis on final outcomes (Ibid), should be addressed in future studies
based on the other two values; rational goal values & internal process values.
Because, it enables managers’ in organizations to assess employees’ experience
over many fundamental dimensions of OC (Patterson et al 2005).
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
107
Although the sample size had a satisfactory number of respondents to
compute all the statistical analyses, it was a randomly sampled from stratified
sample based on single-moment performance evaluation on change
implementation program. This implies an organization maintain its
achievement on change successes consistently for long period, which is unlikely
in real situation especially in the country’s creeping organizational change
initiatives. Therefore, future research should be conducted keeping these
variables constant, or doing studies comparing multiple industries or several
organizations with different sampling methodology.
Within each organization, this study also used just one data point to
gather information regarding the employees’ perception. For that reason, future
research should use multiple data points within one organization (for instance;
observe specific leadership behaviour, conduct in depth‐interviews with leaders
and survey the leaders’ subordinates). These multiple data points would results
in proven generelizability. Furthermore, the examination of employee’s
perceptions about their climate and its impact on OE requires relatively longer
period. A longitudinal design would capture the dynamic nature of the
perception process and its outcomes in a more comprehensive manner (Imran
et al. 2010).
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
108
REFERENCES
Abay, A. & Perkins, S.J., 2010. Employee Capacity Building and Performance in Ethiopian Public Services. Working paper, (December), pp.83-88.
Adenike, A., 2011. Organizational climate as a predictor of employee job satisfaction: evidence from Covenant University. Business Intelligence Journal, 4(1), pp.151-165.
Agard, K.A., 2011. Leadership in Non-profit Organizations: A Reference Handbook, USA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Ahmad, J. et al., 2005. Decentralization and Service Delivery. World Bank, (3603), pp.1-29.
Ajzen, I., 1991. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, pp.179-211.
Allison, M. & Kaye, J., 2005. Strategic Planning for Nonprofit Organizations: A Practical Guide and Workbook 2nd ed., New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Amare, M. et al., 2010. A Contest Report on Change Programs Implementations among 37 ANRS Regional Public Institutions, Bahirdar.
Anderson, N.R. & West, M.A., 1998. Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(June 1996), pp.235-258.
Araya, E., 2009. Ethiopia Public Sector Capacity Building Program Support Project Results Analysis,
Avolio, B.J. et al., 2004. Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, pp.951-968.
Bakker, A.B. & Schaufeli, W.B., 2008. Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, pp.147-154.
Barbuto, J.E., 2005. Motivation and Transactional, Charismatic, and Transformational Leadership: A Test of Antecedents. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(4), pp.25-40.
Beyene, J.S., 2007. The Contribution of Service Delivery Reform in Promoting Good Governance Principles: The Case of Ministry of Trade and Industry. Ethiopian Journal of Public Management and Development, 1(1), p.1.
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
109
Bhattacherjee, A., 2012. Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices, Tampa, Florida, USA: Global Text Project.
BoCS, 2010. Annual Bulletin of Cuvil Servants at Regional Bureaus, Zonal & Woreda levels, Bahirdar.
BoCTPD, 2010. Annual Tourism Bulletin, Bahirdar.
BoCTPD, 2011. Discover Amhara: The Home of Natural and Historic Wonders.
BoFED, 2011. 2009/2010 Budget Year Annual Statistical Bulletin, Bahirdar.
BoFED, 2009. Development Indicators of Amhara Region (2009/10),
Brown, K., Ryan, N. & Parker, R., 2000. New Modes of Service Delivery in the Public Sector: Commercialising Government Services. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(2), pp.206-221.
Brown, S. et al., 2005. Strategic Operations Management 2nd ed., Great Britain: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Burns, T. & Stalker, G.M., 1961. The management of innovation, Chicago: Quadrangle Books.
CSA, 2007. Population census, Addis Abeba.
CSA, 2011. The 2011 Urban Employment Unemployment Survey, Addis Abeba.
Cameron, E. & Green, M., 2009. Making Sense of Change Management: A Complete Guide to the Models, Tools & Techniques of Organizational Change 2nd ed., Great Britain: Kogan Page Limited.
Cameron, K. S. & Quinn, R.E., 1999. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. Based on the Competing Values Framework, Massachusetts: Addison - Wesley Longman.
Cameron, K.S & Quinn, R.E., 1999. Diagnosing and changing organizational culture, Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.
Clegg, S.R. & Bailey, J.R., 2008. Organizational Climate. In International Encyclopaedia of Organization Studies. Thousand oaks, CA: Sage Publications., pp. 1028-1030.
Collis, J. & Hussey, Roger, 2003. Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students, Palgrave Macmillan (UK).
Cooil, B. et al., 2009. The Relationship of Employee Perceptions of Organizational Climate to Business-Unit Outcomes: An MPLS Approach. , (804), pp.1-49.
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
110
Denhardt, R.B., 2000. The New Public Service: Serving Rather than Steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), pp.553-556.
Doherty, T.L. & Horne, T., 2002. Managing Public Services – Implementing Changes: A thoughtful approach to the practice of management,
Dooley, D., 1984. “Reviewing and Interpreting Research: Assessing Research and Interventions” in Human Resource Practice Selected Readings.
Ekvall, G., 1996. Organizational climate for Creativity and Innovation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), pp.105-123.
Entwistle, T. & Martin, S., 2005. From Competition to Collaboration in Public Service Delivery: A New Agenda for Research. Public Administration, 83(1), pp.233-243.
FDRE, 1995. Consituition of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Proclamation No.1/1995, Addis Abeba: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.
Faerman, S., 1990. Supervising New York State: A Framework For Excellence. , pp.1-21.
Field, A., 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS 3rd ed., SAGE Publications, Inc.
Fitzsimmons, ]ames A. & Fitzsimmons, M., 2006. Service Management: Operations, Strategy, and Information Technology 5th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Forehand, G.A. & Gilmer, B.V.H., 1964. Environmental variation in studies of organizational behaviour. Psychological Bulletin, 62(6), pp.361-382.
Furnham, A. & Gunter, B., 1993. Corporate Assessment, Auditing a Company’s Personality, New York: Routledge.
Gill, H., 2008. Organizational Climate and Academic Staff’s Perception on Climate Factors. Humanity & Social Sciences Journal, 3(1), pp.37-48.
Gray, J.H. & Densten, I.L., 2006. Towards an integrative model of organizational culture and knowledge management. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 9(2), pp.594-603.
Gregopoulos, B., 1965. Normative Structure Variables and Organizational behavior. Human Relations, 18, pp.115-170.
Hair, J.F. et al., 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis 5th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
111
Hair, J.F., Money, A. & Samouel, P., 2003. Essentials of business research methods, New Jersey: Wiley Press.
Hammer, M. & Champy, J., 1993. Reengineering The Corporation:A Manefesto For Business Revolution,
Hammer, M. & Stanton, S.A., 1995. The Reenginering Revolution: The Handbook, HarperCollins Publishers.
Harrington, H.J., 1991. Business Process Improvement: The Breakthrough Strategy for Total Quality, Productivity, and Competitiveness,
Higgs, M., 2010. leadership and change First., Elsevier Ltd.
Hogan, J., Hogan, R. & Kaiser, R.B., 2009. Management Derailment: Personality Assessment and Mitigation. Working paper, pp.1-28.
Hussey, J. & Hussey, R., 1997. Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students, MacMillan, London.
Idogho, P.O., 2006. Academic Staff Perception of the Organizational Climate in Universities in Edo State, Nigeria. Journal of Social Science, 13(1), pp.71-78.
Imran, R. et al., 2010. Organizational climate as a predictor of innovative work behavior. African Journal of Business Management, 4(15), pp.3337-3343.
Iqbal, A., 2007. Organizational climate and employees’ commitment: a study of the Pakistani knitwear industry. , pp.1-6.
Jones, A.P. & James, L.R., 1979. Psychological Climate Dimensions and Relationships of Individual and Aggregated Work Environmet. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, pp.201-250.
Kothari, C.R., 2004. Research Methodology: Methods & Techniques,
Kundu, K., 2007. Development of the conceptual framework of organizational climate. Vidyasagar University Journal of Commerce, 12(March).
Lancaster, G., 2005. Research Methods in Management: A concise introduction to research in management and business consultancy, Burlington.
Lehman, W.E.K., Greener, J.M. & Simpson, D.D., 2002. Assessing organizational readiness for change. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22, p.200.
Linden, R.M., 1998. Workbook for seamless Government: A hands-on Guide to implementing Organizational Change, San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
112
Litwin, G.H. & Stringer, R.A., 1968. Motivation and Organizational Climate, Cambridge, M.A: Harvard Business School, Division of Research.
Lok, P. & Crawford, J., 1999. The relationship between commitment and organizational culture , subculture , leadership style and job satisfaction in organizational change and development. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 20(7), pp.365-373.
MacCallum, R.C. et al., 1999. Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), pp.84-99.
Manly, B.F.J., 2009. Statistics for Environmental Science and Management 2nd ed. R. Smith, ed., New York: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Mengesha, G.H. & Common, R., 2006. Civil Service Reform in Ethiopia: Success in two ministries. Research Memorandum, (August), pp.1-26.
Milner, E. & Joyce, P., 2005. Lessons in leadership: Meeting the Challenges of Public Services Management, New York: Routledge.
MoFED, 2012. Growth and Transformation Plan (2010/11-2014/15) Annual Progress Report for F.Y. 2010/11, Addis Abeba.
Mullins, L.J., 2005. Management and Organisational Behaviour 7th ed.,
Neal, A., Griffin, M.A. & Hart, P.M., 2000. The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and individual behavior. Safety Science, 34, pp.99-109.
Nunnally, J., 1978. Psychometric Methods, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
O’Reilly, C. & Chatman, J., 1986. Organizational commitment and psychological attachment:The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), pp.492-499.
Patterson, M.G. et al., 2004. Development & validation of an organizational climate measure. , (0121).
Patterson, M.G. et al., 2005. Validating the organizational climate measure: links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 408, pp.379-408.
Paullay, I.M., Alliger, G.M. & Stone-Romero, E.F., 1994. Construct validation of two instruments designed to measure job involvement and work centrality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(2), pp.224-228.
Perry, J.L., Hondeghem, A. & Wise, L.R., 2010. Revisiting the Motivational Bases of Public Service: Twenty Years of Research and an Agenda for the Future. Public Administration Review, pp.681-690.
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
113
Preziosi, R.C., 1980. Organizational Diagonsis Questionaire: The Handbook for Group Fascilitators J. W. Pfeiffer and J. E. Jones, ed., University Associates Inc., SanDiago.
Pugh, D.S. & Hickson, D.J., 1996. Writers on Organizations: An invaluable introduction to the ideas and arguments of leading authorities on management 5th ed., Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
Punto, S., 2009. Organizational climate in it industry. Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna, Chiang-Mai, Thailand, p.711.
Quinn, R.E., 1988. Beyond rational management: Mastering paradoxes and competing demands of high effectiveness, San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Quinn, R.E. & Rohrbaugh, J., 1983. A Spatial Model of effectiveness criteria: towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29(3), pp.363-377.
Raza, S.A., 2010. Relationship between organizational climate and performance of teachers in Public and Private Colleges of Punjab.
Reino, A. & Vadi, M., 2010. What factors predict the values of an organization and how? Organization, pp.1-45.
Renckly, T.R., 2002. Sampling and Surveying Handbook; Guidelines for planning, organizing, and conducting surveys 5th ed., USA: Air University.
Riggle, R.J., 2007. The impact of organizational climate variables of perceived organizational support , workplace isolation , and ethical climate on salesperson psychological and behavioral work outcomes. University of South Florida.
Robbins, S.P., 2004. Organizational behavior 10th ed., New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Rose, N., 2005. Human Relations Theory and People Management. Human Relations, pp.43-62.
Saad, H.S., Juhdi, N. & Samah, A.J.A., 2008. Employees’ Perception on Quality Work Life and Job Satisfaction in a Private Higher Learning Institution. International Review of Business Research Papers, 4(3), pp.23-34.
Samuel, M.O. & Chipunza, C., 2009. Employee retention and turnover: Using motivational variables as a panacea. African Journal of Business Management, 3(8), pp.410-415.
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
114
Schein, E.H., 2004. Organizational Culture and Leadership 3rd ed., San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, B. & Snyder, R.A., 1975. Some Relationships Between Job Satisfaction and Organizational Climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(3), pp.318-328.
Silberman, M., 2001. The Consultant’s Toolkit, McGraw-Hill, the McGraw-Hill Publishing.
Singh, M., 2009. An analysis of 4 South African Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) to determine which internal areas/parts are promoting and inhibiting functioning.
Sosik, J.J. & Jung, D.I., 2010. Full Range Leadership Development: Pathways for People, Profit, and Planet, New York: Routledge: Taylor and Francis Group.
Speier, C. & Venkatesh, V., 2002. The hidden minefields in the adoption of sales force automation technologies. Journal of Marketing, 66(3), pp.98-111.
Srivastav, A.K., 2009. Heterogeneity of Organisational Climate. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 17(2), pp.1-13.
Steers, R.M., 1977. Antecedents and Outcomes of Organizational Commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, pp.46-56.
Thomas, K.W., 2009. Intrinsic Motivation at Work: What Really Drives Employee Engagement 2nd ed., San Francisco, California: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Toulson, B.P. & Smith, M., 1994. The relationship between organizational climate and employee perceptions of personnel management practices. Public Personnel Management, 23.
Vakola, M. & Nikolaou, I., 2005. Attitudes towards organizational change What is the role of employees ’ stress and commitment? Employee Relations, 27(2), pp.160-174.
Veaux, D. et al., 2008. Stats Data and Models, New York: Pearson Education Inc.
Vijayakumar, V.S.R., 2007. Management Styles, Work Values and Organizational Climate. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 33(2), pp.249-260.
Zafft, C.R., Adams, S.G. & Matkin, G.S., 2009. Measuring Leadership in Self-Managed Teams Using the Competing Values Framework. Journal of Engineering Education, (July), pp.273-282.
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
115
Zhou, J. & George, J.M., 2003. Awakening employee creativity: The role of leader emotional intelligence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, pp.545-568.
Zigiaris, S., 2000. Business Process Re Engineering (BPR),
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
116
APPENDICES APPENDIX- A: List of Public Institution used for Sampling of Respondents
No Organizations No employees Perform
ance Results
Z- scores M F ToT
1 Bureau of Education 116 56 172 80.55% 2.27
2 Bureau of Justice 56 44 100 74.20% 1.48
3 Urban planning Institute 52 16 68 72.90% 1.32
4 Bureau of Industry & Urban works development 98 63 161 72.30% 1.25
5 Bureau of Technical & Vocational Training 46 19 65 71.85% 1.19
6 Office of Prison Administration 245 198 443 71.60% 1.16
Z = number of standard deviation units of the sampling distribution
corresponding to the desired confidence level
Hence, for our sample, N = 552 n = 3,656 ∗ 1.962 ∗0.25
[0.052∗ 3,656]+ ⌊1.962∗0.25⌋
n = 3,511.22/10.10
n = 348
If the total population (N) is 3,656, and we wish a 95% confidence level and ± 5
percent precision level (d = .05, Z = 1.96 from the table) and the number of
distributed questionnaire without adjusting for response rate will be 348.
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
118
APPENDIX- C: Questionnaire of the Study
Questionnaire
Dear respondent,
My name is Mesfin Raji, I am carrying out a research entitled “Employees’ perception of organizational climate and its implications for organizational effectiveness in Amhara regional PSOs”. This forms part of the requirements for the award of Executive Master of Business Administration Degree at Bahirdar University. The aim of the study is to find ways of improvement of the work environment incorporating employees’ needs. Your participation and views regarding the topic is fundamentally important for the success of the study. I would be grateful for your cooperation in filling the accompanying questionnaire completely. I assure you all replies to this questionnaire are confidential and will be used for statistical purposes only, as part of academic research. Please attempt all questions based on the instructions given below promptly. I appreciate in devoting your valuable time in filling the questions.
I really appreciate your Participation in the Study!!
Instructions
1. You don’t have to state your name or any other personal identification other
than the one you asked to provide in this questionnaire.
2. Read the questions in the left hand of the table and rate parallel to them
according to your feeling using the space provided on the right hand side of the
table.
3. For Part I, give your answer by ticking “√” or “X” sign where it best describes
you.
4. For Part II, rate each question from least 1 - “Strongly Disagree” to the most 5
- “Strongly Agree” using the signs shown in the above instruction number 3.
5. Question 42 will be answered based on your response for Question 41, please
don’t answer Question 42 if your answer for question for 41 is “Yes”,
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
119
Part I – Information on demography
1)Gender Male 1
4) Educational level attained Female 2 2)Work Process you are working in
Core Process 1 Support Process 2
3)Tenure within the current organization
Below 5 Years 1 10th ፣12th and below 1 From 5-10 Years 2 Certificate 2 From 11-15 Years 3 Diploma 3 From 16-20 Years 4 Bachelor Degree 4 Above 20 years 5 Second Degree & above 5
Questions (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1 People are suspicious of other departments* 2 There is very little conflict between departments here 3 People in different departments are prepared to share
information
4 Collaboration between departments is very effective 5 There is very little respect between some of the
departments here*
6 Management involve people when decisions are made that affect them
7 Changes are made without talking to the people involved in them*
8 People don’t have any say in decisions which affect their work*
9 People feel decisions are frequently made over their heads*
10 Information is widely shared 11 There are often breakdowns in communication here* 12 Supervisors here are really good at understanding
peoples’ problems
13 Supervisors show that they have confidence in those they manage
14 Supervisors here are friendly and easy to approach 15 Supervisors can be relied upon to give good guidance
to people
16 Supervisors show an understanding of the people who work for them
17 People are not properly trained when there is a new machine or bit of equipment*
18 People receive enough training when it comes to using new equipment
19 The company only gives people the minimum amount of training they need to do their job*
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
120
No Questions Rating scale (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
20 People are strongly encouraged to develop their skills 21 This company pays little attention to the interests of
employees*
22 This company tries to look after its employees 23 This company cares about its employees 24 This company tries to be fair in its actions towards
employees
25 New ideas are readily accepted here 26 This company is quick to respond when changes need
to be made
27 Management here are quick to spot the need to do things differently
28 This organization is very flexible; it can quickly change procedures to meet new conditions and solve problems as they arise
29 Assistance in developing new ideas is readily available 30 People in this organization are always searching for
new ways of looking at problems
31 This organization is quite inward looking; it does not concern itself with what is happening in the market place*
32 Ways of improving service to the customer are not given much thought*
33 Customer needs are not considered top priority here* 34 This company is slow to respond to the needs of the
customer*
35 The methods used by this organization to get the job done are often discussed
36 There are regular discussions as to whether people in the organization are working effectively together
37 In this organization, time is taken to review organizational objectives
38 I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization.
39 I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization.
40 I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization.
41 Generally, do you believe that your organization is effective in doing its job? Yes ____ No____
42 If your answer is "No" please rank from 1 to 8 the following possible interventions strategy in their order of priority within the scope of the research
1) Integration 3) Supervisory Support
5) Welfare 7) Outward Focus
2) Involvement 4) Training
6) Innovation & Flexibility
8) Reflexivity
Remark: Items marked with an asterisk (*) are reversed. - Items from 1-37 refers OC measures - Items from 38 – 40 refers Organizational Commitment measures
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
121
APPENDIX- D: SPSS Chart Outputs of all Variables
Integration
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
122
Involvement
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
123
Supervisory Support
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
124
Emphasis on Training
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
125
Welfare
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
126
Innovation & Flexibility
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
127
Outward Focus
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
128
Reflexivity
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
129
Organizational Commitment
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
130
Human Relations Values
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
131
Open Systems Values
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
132
APPENDIX- E: Factor Analysis for Multifactor & Single factor structures
Results for HRV
Total Variance Explained
Component
Initial Eigenvalues Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
revQn17 .565 revQn7 .538 revQn19 .816 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations. a. Rotation converged in 3
iterations. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy
.914 .804 Source: Researcher’s own computation
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
136
APPENDIX- G: Item Loading for the Single Factor for Sub-scales of HRV & OSV
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
138
Reliability Statistics for OSV
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total
Correlation
Squared Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if Item
Deleted Qn25 23.02 24.347 .591 .497 .811 Qn26 23.20 23.425 .626 .539 .806 Qn27 23.10 23.005 .663 .557 .801 Qn28 23.00 23.958 .665 .545 .802 Qn29 23.27 24.010 .629 .530 .806 revQn32 22.40 27.300 .368 .359 .837 revQn33 22.40 26.002 .465 .464 .827 revQn34 22.49 25.942 .478 .364 .826 Cronbach's Alpha for N of items 8 = .835 Cronbach's Alpha can be improved to .837 but it is not a substantial change if the item is deleted
Reliability Statistics for Sub-scales of HRV & OSV Reliability Statistics for Integration
Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean
if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total Correlatio
n
Squared Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if Item
Deleted
Qn3 3.20 1.448 .503 .253 .a Qn4 3.60 1.199 .503 .253 .a Cronbach's Alpha for N of items 2 = .667 Cronbach's Alpha cannot be improved since the value will become negative due to a negative average covariance among items.
Source: Researcher’s own computation
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
139
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total Correlation
Squared Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if
Item Deleted
Reliability Statistics for Involvement Qn6 6.28 3.645 .466 .217 .451 revQn9 6.20 4.006 .404 .167 .543 Qn10 5.94 4.251 .402 .167 .545 Cronbach's Alpha for N of items 3 = .615 Cronbach's Alpha cannot be improved as no better value will be obtained if any item is deleted Reliability Statistics for Supervisory Support Qn12 12.67 17.132 .707 .501 .873 Qn13 12.63 17.955 .685 .491 .877 Qn14 12.52 17.154 .706 .514 .873 Qn15 12.67 16.540 .805 .664 .850 Qn16 12.57 17.033 .765 .608 .860 Cronbach's Alpha for N of items 5 = .891 Cronbach's Alpha cannot be improved as no better value will be obtained if any item is deleted Reliability Statistics for Emphasis on training revQn17 8.81 5.845 .396 .185 .382 Qn18 9.03 5.984 .416 .324 .368 revQn19 8.72 8.535 -.008 .012 .691 Qn20 8.94 5.174 .518 .376 .254 Cronbach's Alpha for N of items 4 = .528 Cronbach's Alpha for N of items 3 if item(revQn19) discarded = .691 Reliability Statistics for Welfare Qn22 5.74 4.447 .780 .629 .749 Qn23 6.01 4.560 .758 .607 .772 Qn24 5.47 5.161 .654 .430 .866 Cronbach's Alpha for N of items 3 = .856 Cronbach's Alpha can be improved to .866 but it is not a substantial change if the item is deleted
Source: Researcher’s own computation
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
140
Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean
if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total Correlation
Squared Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if
Item Deleted
Reliability Statistics for Innovation & Flexibility Qn25 14.89 18.707 .636 .495 .861 Qn26 15.07 17.946 .663 .515 .857 Qn27 14.97 17.447 .717 .550 .847 Qn28 14.87 18.436 .705 .544 .850 Qn29 15.13 17.986 .731 .570 .845 Qn30 15.04 18.790 .624 .418 .863 Cronbach's Alpha for N of items 6 = .875 Cronbach's Alpha cannot be improved as no better value will be obtained if any item is deleted Reliability Statistics for Outward Focus revQn32 7.36 2.942 .532 .316 .719 revQn33 7.36 2.417 .670 .449 .556 revQn34 7.45 2.735 .541 .323 .712 Cronbach's Alpha for N of items 3 = .751 Cronbach's Alpha cannot be improved as no better value will be obtained if any item is deleted Reliability Statistics for Reflexivity Qn35 6.63 3.299 .543 .296 .667 Qn36 6.91 3.049 .576 .332 .628 Qn37 6.83 3.253 .557 .312 .651 Cronbach's Alpha for N of items 3 = .735 Cronbach's Alpha cannot be improved as no better value will be obtained if any item is deleted Reliability Statistics for OE Qn38 7.03 4.513 .782 .625 .783 Qn39 7.11 4.737 .771 .611 .794 Qn40 6.80 5.074 .695 .484 .862 Cronbach's Alpha for N of items 3 = .868 Cronbach's Alpha cannot be improved as no better value will be obtained if any item is deleted
Source: Researcher’s own computation
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
141
APPENDIX- I: SPSS Outputs of Regression Charts
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
142
APPENDIX- J: Homogeneity test of Variance for Grouping Variable
Variances
Grouping Variable Variables Levene
Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
Education level
Organizational Commitment 1.305 4 247 .269
Human Relations Values .983 4 247 .418 Open Systems Values 2.597 4 247 .037
Grouping Variable Variables Levene
Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
Tenure
Organizational Commitment .292 4 245 .883
Human Relations Values .577 4 245 .680 Open Systems Values .204 4 245 .936
Grouping Variable Variables Levene
Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
Organization Type
Organizational Commitment .621 5 254 .684
Human Relations Values 1.607 5 254 .159 Open Systems Values 2.118 5 254 .064
Correlations for regressed variables
Variables Organizational Commitment
Human Relations
Values
Open Systems Values
Pearson Correlation
Organizational Commitment 1.000
Human Relations Values .523*** 1.000 Open Systems Values .540*** .744*** 1.000
***Correlation significant, p < .001 Sig. (1-tailed)
Source: Researcher’s own computation
Employees’ Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
143
APPENDIX- K: Suggestion of Intervention Strategies by Respondents
Do you believe that your organization is effective in doing its job? Frequency Percent Valid
Percent Cumulative
Percent Valid Yes 158 60.8 65.8 65.8
No 82 31.5 34.2 100.0 Total 240 92.3 100.0
Missing 0 20 7.7
Total 260 100.0 For the response “No”, prioritized intervention strategy suggested by