The Relationship Between Training Benefits And Organizational Commitment,

With Conscientiousness As The Moderator

Muhammad Zia Aslam

Submitted to the Graduate School of Business

Faculty of Business and Accountancy

University of Malaya, in partial fulfillment

Of the requirements for the Degree of

Master of Business Administration

July 2009
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- v

LIST OF FIGURES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ v

LIST OF APPENDICES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------ vii

ABSTRACT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ---------------------------------------------------------- 1

1.1 Problem Statement--------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

1.2 Purpose of the Study ------------------------------------------------------------------ 2

1.3 Significance of the Study ------------------------------------------------------------- 3

1.4 Scope of the Study--------------------------------------------------------------------- 8

1.4.1 Understanding Training and Training Benefits ------------------------------ 8

1.4.2 Understanding Organizational Commitment --------------------------------10

1.4.3 Personality and Conscientiousness -------------------------------------------14

1.5 Research Questions-------------------------------------------------------------------15

1.6 Expected Contribution of the Study------------------------------------------------16

1.7 Limitations of the Study -------------------------------------------------------------17

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW -------------------------------------------------19

2.1 Introduction----------------------------------------------------------------------------19

2.2 Commitment---------------------------------------------------------------------------20

2.2.1 Organizational Commitment---------------------------------------------------21

2.2.2 Organizational Commitment Variables---------------------------------------23

ii
 2.2.2.1 Affective Commitment-------------------------------------------------------24

2.2.2.2 Continuance Commitment---------------------------------------------------24

2.2.2.3 Normative Commitment -----------------------------------------------------25

2.2.3 Consequences of Organizational Commitment -----------------------------26

2.3 Employee Training -------------------------------------------------------------------27

2.3.1 Benefits of Employee Training ------------------------------------------------30

2.3.2 Types of Training Benefits -----------------------------------------------------31

2.3.3 Relationship between Employee Training and Organizational

Commitment --------------------------------------------------------------------------------32

2.4 Conscientiousness --------------------------------------------------------------------33

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ----------------------------------------35

3.1 Introduction----------------------------------------------------------------------------35

3.2 Development of Hypotheses and Research Design------------------------------36

3.2.1 Development of Hypothesis ---------------------------------------------------37

3.2.2 Research Design -----------------------------------------------------------------38

3.2.3 Research Variables --------------------------------------------------------------40

3.3 Research Site and Sampling Design -----------------------------------------------41

3.4 Selection of Measures (Survey Instrument) --------------------------------------42

3.5 Data collection procedure -----------------------------------------------------------44

3.6 Data Analysis Techniques -----------------------------------------------------------46

3.7 Statistical Analysis--------------------------------------------------------------------46

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH RESULTS---------------------------------------------------48

4.1 Summary Statistics -------------------------------------------------------------------48

4.1.1 Descriptive Statistics------------------------------------------------------------48

4.1.2 Inferential Statistics -------------------------------------------------------------51

iii
 4.2 Testing of Hypotheses----------------------------------------------------------------58

4.3 Summary of Research Results ------------------------------------------------------63

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ----------------------65

5.1 Summary and Conclusion -----------------------------------------------------------65

5.2 Suggestions for Future Research ---------------------------------------------------70

5.3 Implications ---------------------------------------------------------------------------71

REFERENCES ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------73

Appendix 1 – Survey Instrument--------------------------------------------------------------82

Appendix 2 – Regression Results-------------------------------------------------------------86

iv
 LIST OF TABLES

Table - 1 Descriptive Statistics ----------------------------------------------------- 49

Table - 2 Correlation Matrix of the predicting variables -------------------------- 52

Table - 3 Multiple Regression results for Affective Commitment --------------- 53

Table - 4 Multiple Regression results for Continuance Commitment ------------ 54

Table - 5 Multiple Regression results for Normative Commitment -------------- 55

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure - 1 Research Model ------------------------------------------- 39

Figure - 2 Gender – Sample Percentages Pie chart --------------------------- 49

Figure - 3 Age – Sample Percentages Pie chart ------------------------ 50

Figure - 4 Level of Education – Sample Percentages Pie chart --------------- 50

Figure - 5 Length of Service – Sample Percentages Pie chart -- -------- 51

v
 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Survey Instrument:

Covering Letter --------------------------------------------------------- 80

Section One: Organizational Commitment scale --------------------- 81

Section Two: Training Benefits scale ---------------------------------- 82

Section Three: Conscientiousness and Demographics scale --------- 83

Appendix 2: Regression Analysis Results:

Affective Commitment (as independent)

Model Summary ------------------------------------------------------- 84

Annova Results Table ------------------------------------------------ 85

Coefficients Result Table ------------------------------------------- 86

Continuance Commitment (as independent)

Model Summary ----------------------------------------------------- 88

Annova Results Table ----------------------------------------------- 89

Coefficients Result Table ------------------------------------------- 90

Normative Commitment (as independent)

Model Summary ----------------------------------------------------- 92

Annova Results Table ---------------------------------------------- 93

Coefficients Result Table ------------------------------------------ 94

vi
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge my research supervisor Dr. Sharan

Kaur, for her persistent encouragement, guidance and advice, without which it would

not be possible for me to complete this life changing experience of my research work.

I would also like to thank to all my respected respondents of the study survey, which

made it possible for me to find the relationship in the proposed variables in my

research work. Moreover, I am really thankful to my dear friends, especially shahid

and Hafeez, my fellow classmates and all my well wishers who helped me in any way

in the completion of my research theses.

Finally, my special thanks go to all my teachers, staff, and the Graduate School of

Business, University of Malaya, for facilitating and providing the environment of

leaning and personal development in the campus.

vii
 ABSTRACT

The study examined the relationship between employees’ beliefs regarding training

benefits, measured as personal benefits, career benefits and job-related benefits, and

organizational behavior as a set of affective commitment, continuance commitment

and normative commitment, and the moderating effect of conscientiousness on the

relationship, in Malaysia. This relationship was assessed through a quantitative

research design using a total of 199 responses collected by convenient sampling in

Malaysia. Findings suggest that, first, only career benefits of training predict affective

commitment and continuance commitment positively and significantly. However,

career benefits of training do not have a significant relationship with normative

commitment. Second, personal benefits of training and job-related benefits of training

do not have a significant relationship with organizational commitment represented as

affective, continuance and normative. Third, demographic factors (gender, age,

education and length of service) do not show a significant relationship with

organizational commitment. Fourth, and final, conscientiousness does not moderate

the relationship between benefits of training and organizational commitment.

viii
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

This study explores the relationship between Malaysian employees’ beliefs regarding

Training Benefits (Personal, Career and Job Related) and their Organizational

Commitment (Affective, Continuance and Normative Commitment), as well as the

moderating effect of Conscientiousness (a personality dimension of Big-Five model)

on this relationship. The study used the research model from the work of Muhammad,

A. S., & Michael, J. M., (2007).

1.1 Problem Statement

Employee training and development programs are becoming more critical in order to

accomplish organizational objectives and goals effectively and efficiently.

Organizations continue to struggle with the specific issues of employee retention and

manpower shortages. Accordingly, there has been an increased interest in

organizational commitment. The exploration of the relationship between training

benefits and organizational commitment is still in its early stages and need to be

explored. Furthermore, the moderation effect of conscientiousness as a Big-Five

personality trait has never been examined to better understand this relationship.

Although, there have been several studies reported on training and organizational

commitment in western countries, very little has been done in Malaysia. Therefore,

1
the relationship between organizational commitment and training benefits, as well as

the moderation effect of conscientiousness on the relationship, is as yet unclear

especially in Malaysia.

1.2 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between Malaysian

employees’ beliefs regarding Training Benefits (Personal, Career and Job Related)

and their Organizational Commitment (Affective, Continuance and Normative

Commitment), as well as the moderating effect of Conscientiousness (a personality

dimension of Big-Five model) on this relationship.

This study examines the relationship between employee attitudes towards training and

organizational commitment, as well as the moderating effect of conscientiousness on

the relationship, among Malaysian employees. The basic inspiration for this research

work has been adopted from literature (Muhammad, A. S., & Michael, J. M., 2007).

In their quantitative study in a petroleum company in the sate of Qatar, Muhammad A.

S., and Michael J. M. (2007) examined the relationship between training benefits and

organizational commitment with a different approach than before i.e. using the three

component model of training benefits (personal, career and job-related) from the work

of Noe and Wilk (1993) and the three component model of organizational

2
commitment (affective, continuance and normative) proposed by Allen and Myer

(1997). They found a positive relationship between employees’ beliefs regarding

training benefits and their organizational commitment.

1.3 Significance of the Study

Although this study uses the same major constructs of training benefits and

organizational commitment, as examined in Muhammad A. S., and Michael J. M.

(2007), it also investigates the moderation effect of conscientiousness of Big-Five

model on the relationship, in the Malaysian scenario. Thus, the findings of this study

may contribute to the theory and practice of relevant fields differently, especially in

the Malaysian context.

Human Resource Development has been a key focus area for Malaysian government

as well as corporate organizations for the last three decades. Since Malaysian

government started efforts to change Malaysia’s agriculture-based economy in 1970s

to industrial-based economy (vision 2020), the government realized that human

resources are the major driving factor for the country’s social and economic growth

(Haslinda A., Rose, & Kumar, 2007). As a result, the government continuously has

been focusing on the country’s human resources development (HRD) through HRD

plans, policies and strategies, starting from way back in 1960s (First Malaysia Plan,

3
1966 - 1970), to Ninth Malaysia Plan (2006 - 2010). Malaysia’s vision 2020, Malaysia

Eight Plan, and Malaysia Ninth Plan place special attention on shifting its economy

from input-driven to knowledge-driven through human resource development.

HRD is recognized as being able to foster and contribute to desired work-place

attitudes and behaviors of employees. This is the reason that organizations spend lot

of money on training and development programs to keep competitive advantage of

highly skilled workforce in the competitive world of business. Although, literature

gives importance to organizational commitment and training, the nature of

relationship between the two is still unclear. For example, as Muhammad, A. S., &

Michael, J. M., 2007 found, there continues to be lack of empirical studies that

identify which benefits of employee training (Personal, Career and Job-related) is the

best predictor of which component of organizational commitment (affective,

normative and continuance). As training is a vast and costly activity, employee

training and development should be designed to achieve increased organizational

commitment. Irrelevant training programs may negatively affect organizational

commitment (Pinks, 1992). However, training research also emphasize that because

training is an individual’s behavior change activity, the effect of personal

characteristics on training effectiveness must also be examined (Campbell 1988;

Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). While personality traits have been studied frequently to

4
find their effect on employee performance, training motivation and other dimensions

of work life, no research, at-least in Malaysia, examined the moderation effect of

personality traits (conscientiousness in this case) on the relationship of organizational

commitment and training benefits as intended in this research work.

Dr. Kamarul Z. A. & Raida A. B. (2003) conducted a study to find the relationship

among organizational commitment and training in Malaysian context, however, the

training construct was not investigated as is intended in this research work. They

investigated the association between five training variables (availability of training,

support for training, motivation to learn, training environment and perceived benefits

of training), and various aspects of organizational commitment (affective commitment,

normative commitment, continuance commitment and overall organizational

commitment). They found that availability of training, support for training, motivation

to learn, training environment, perceived benefits of training were all significantly

correlated with affective commitment, normative commitment and overall

organizational commitment. The training environment and perceived benefits were

also significantly correlated with continuance commitment. However the availability

of training, support for training and motivation to learn were not significantly

correlated with continuance commitment.

It is widely acknowledged that personnel’s training is the cornerstone in most

5
organizations’ HRD systems (Nordhaug, 1989). Training contributes to gains in

competitive advantage (Schuler & MacMillan, 1984) with some suggesting that

improvements in productivity and organizational performance have become the most

dominant argument for justifying training (Scott & Meyer, 1991). On the other hand,

organizational commitment is an increasingly valued work-related attitude, especially

in the context of employee training and development. Of the many work-related

attitudes frequently examined for their relationship to the management of employee

behavior, organizational commitment is increasingly valued as a predictor of work

behaviors and behavioral intentions (Jaros, Jermier, Koehler, & Sincich, 1993). Early

research considered organizational commitment to be a construct with a single

dimension; however, it is now widely accepted as being multi-dimensional (Meyer &

Allen, 1997). In other words, more than one forms of employee attachment exist to

describe the nature of this psychological tie or mind-set.

Personality refers to the relatively stable characteristics of individuals that influence

their overall behavior. It is an important variable in most of the motivation theories as

Digman (1990) states, “research linking personality to training motivation has

examined narrow traits as well as wider traits included in the Big-Five model.” In fact

research has linked the conscientiousness factor of the Big-Five model to training.

Conscientiousness individuals have more confidence in their ability to learn the

6
training materials (Martocchio & Judge, 1997). Similarly, Colquitt and Simmering

(1998) showed that conscientious learners had higher self-efficacy and a stronger

desire to learn the training content. Hence, it is worth looking the moderation effect of

conscientiousness on the relationship of employees’ organizational commitment and

their perceived benefits of training.

Hence, it is a widely accepted argument that successful organizations recognize their

employees as their most valuable resources and consider retention of human capital as

their primary concern. Becker’s (1975) human capital theory explains that

organizations can achieve greater productivity through employee training. Therefore,

organizational investment in human capital has resulted in management being

required to pay ever closer attention to employee training. However, despite the

availability of training programs, there is still a concern over the contribution of

training to the desired organizational outcomes such as commitment. The effect of

training on commitment has received less attention than it deserves. There has only

been some studies conducted that provide some evidence to suggest that organizations

can influence employees’ commitment through their training practices. Gaertner and

Nollen (1989) found that employees’ commitment was related to the actual and

perceived human resource management practices such as training. Lang (1992) also

suggested that training should be designed to achieve increased organizational

7
commitment.

1.4 Scope of the Study

The scope of this study is to understand what component of benefits of training is the

best predictor of the which component of organizational commitment, and does

conscientiousness moderates the relationships between different combinations of

training benefits and organizational commitment, as defined in the research questions

of this study. It is important to have a close look on the related concepts to better

understand the variables chosen for the study.

Therefore, we try to comprehend below the concepts of training, organizational

commitment and conscientiousness as an important dimension of Big-Five model.

1.4.1 Understanding Training and Training Benefits

Buckley and Caple (1995) defined training as ‘a planned and systematic effort to

modify or develop knowledge, skill, and attitude through learning experience, to

achieve effective performance in an activity or range of activities’. Training can be

viewed as a management practice that can be controlled or managed to elicit a desired

set of unwritten, shared attitudes and behaviors, including job involvement,

motivation, and organizational commitment (Sparrow, 1998). Moreover, there is

sound reasoning behind training expenditures and investments, as research has already

8
shown that learning in school and on the job is by far the most important factor

accounting for economic growth and productivity in this century. Organizational

investment in human capital resulted in management paying closer attention to

employee training. Yet such widely supported generalizations miss a critical aspect of

the corporate training i.e. immediate relevance. As Burrow and Berardinelli (2003)

suggest, “in the past decade, training has seen an increasing criticism in terms of

relevance to key business processes and outcomes. It has been suggested that unless

training is targeted at results that make a difference in measures that are significant to

the organization, it will not be valued and valuable. Furthermore, several factors are

known to affect the effectiveness of training such as the behavior of individual

learner, the training program, the environment in which the trainee works, and the

support from the trainee’s immediate supervisor (Montesino, 2002). Noe and Wilk

(1993), based on the work of Nordhaug (1989), developed a three component model of

employees’ training benefits. They suggested that employees’ participation in training

activities result in three types of benefits: personal benefits, career benefits and

job-related benefits. Personal benefits refers to the employees’ believe that

participation in training activities can help them network, improve their job

performance and make progress towards their personal development. Identifying career

objectives, reaching career objectives and creating opportunity to pursue new career

9
paths through training leads employees towards their perception of career benefits.

Whereas, job-related benefits represent employees’ perceptions towards better

relationship between peers and managers, and a necessary break from the job. They

argued also that the more personal, career-related, and job-related benefits that

employees feel they can obtain from participating in development activities, the greater

will be their degree of participation in such activities.

1.4.2 Understanding Organizational Commitment

In the fields of Organizational Behavior and Industrial/Organizational Psychology,

organizational commitment is, in a general sense, the employee's psychological

attachment to the organization. It can be contrasted with other work-related attitudes,

such as Training Benefits, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Performance etc.

Beyond this general sense, Organizational scientists have developed many definitions

of organizational commitment, and numerous scales to measure them. Exemplary of

this work is Meyer & Allen's model of commitment, which was developed to integrate

numerous definitions of commitment that had proliferated in the literature. According

to Meyer and Allen's (1991) three-component model of commitment, prior research

indicated that there are three "mind sets" which can characterize an employee's

commitment to the organization:

Affective Commitment: AC is defined as the employee's positive emotional attachment

10
to the organization. An employee who is affectively committed strongly identifies

with the goals of the organization and desires to remain a part of the organization.

This employee commits to the organization because he/she "wants to".

Continuance Commitment: The individual commits to the organization because he/she

perceives high costs of losing organizational membership, including economic costs

(such as pension accruals) and social costs (friendship ties with co-workers) that

would be incurred. The employee remains a member of the organization because

he/she "has to".

Normative Commitment: The individual commits to and remains with an organization

because of feelings of obligation. These feelings may derive from many sources. For

example, the organization may have invested resources in training an employee who

then feels a 'moral' obligation to put forth effort on the job and stay with the

organization to 'repay the debt.' It may also reflect an internalized norm, developed

before the person joins the organization through family or other socialization

processes, that one should be loyal to one's organization. The employee stays with the

organization because he/she "ought to".

According to Meyer and Allen, these components of commitment are not mutually

exclusive: an employee can simultaneously be committed to the organization in an

affective, normative, and continuance sense, at varying levels of intensity. This idea

11
led Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) to argue that at any point in time, an employee has

a "commitment profile" that reflects high or low levels of all three of these mind-sets,

and that different profiles have different effects on workplace behavior such as job

performance, absenteeism, and the chance that the organization member will quit.

As for the process of developing commitment, the first era is based on Howard

Becker’s (1960) conceptualization that defined commitment by using what is known

as the side-bet theory (Cohen & Lowenberg, 1990). According to this theory,

committed employees are committed because they have hidden or less hidden

investments, “side-bets,” they have made by remaining in a given organization. The

term “side-bets” was used by Becker (1960) to refer to the accumulation of

investments valued by the individual that would be lost if he or she was to leave the

organization. Becker (1960) argued that over a period of time certain costs accrue that

make it more difficult for the person to disengage from a consistent pattern of activity,

namely maintaining membership in the organization. The threat of losing these

investments, along with a perceived lack of alternatives to replace or make up for the

loss of them, commits the person to the organization. Becker himself phrased his

argument as follows:

...The man who hesitates to take a new job may be deterred by a complex

of side-bets: the financial costs connected with a pension fund he would

12
 lose if he moved; the loss of seniority and ‘connections’ in his present

firm, which promise quick advance if he stays; the loss of ease in doing

his work because of his success in adjusting to the particular conditions of

his present job; the loss of ease in domestic living consequent on having

to move his household, and so on...

However, the findings based on the side-bet approach were disappointing in terms of

the relationship between commitment and behavioral outcomes in the workplace, and

in terms of their relationship to determinants (Cohen & Lowenberg, 1990). Therefore,

researchers suggested other theories for commitment that were based on the idea of

psychological attachment, like a psychological contract between the individual and

the organization. The psychological approach began with a scale, the Organizational

Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ), advanced by Porter and Smith (1970) and Porter

and his colleagues (1974), and was later summarized in a book by Mowday et al.

(1982). The psychological approach has an entirely different perspective on

commitment. Instead of focusing on measuring the perceived costs of leaving the

organization from the individual’s point of view, it focuses on the psychological

attachment that employees develop to the organization based on an exchange process

with the relevant object of commitment. However, the current favorite approach is

known as the three-component approach of commitment advanced by Meyer and

13
Allen (1984, 1991). Using the argument that organizational commitment can be better

understood as a multidimensional concept, Allen and Meyer (1990) proposed a

three-dimensional measure of organizational commitment.

1.4.3 Personality and Conscientiousness

Personality is the set of unseen characteristics and processes that underlie a relatively

stable pattern of behavior in response to ideas, objects, or people in the environment

(Richard L. Daft, 2008). Further he suggests that organizations can use this

understanding to improve the effectiveness of their employees. The debate about

using personality tests to predict success in the workplace changed with the

development of the Big Five model (Goldberg, 1993; Landy, Shankster, & Kohler,

1994). The findings from Big Five research model provided mush stronger evidence

for the relationship between personality and job performance (Tett, Jackson, &

Rothstein, 1991). A great deal of research indicates that, of the Big Five factors,

Conscientiousness may be the best predictor of job performance (Barrick and Mount,

1991; Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001; Hurtz & Denovan, 2000; Salgado, 1997). To

understand why, we need look at some of the characteristics that make up this

personality dimension. People who score high in Conscientiousness are said to be

careful, thorough, and dependable. That is, they don’t rush through a job but take time

to do the job correctly and completely. These individuals are also hardworking,

14
persistent, and achievement oriented. Although most of the research studies done on

Big-Five personality traits model focus on its relationship with employee job

performance, we assume that because of its widely accepted importance in workplace

settings it is important to find the moderation effect of conscientiousness on the

relationship of training and organizational commitment.

1.5 Research Questions

The major research questions that guide this study are “what is the relationship

between Malaysian employees’ beliefs regarding training benefits and the

commitment of those employees to the organization, and does conscientiousness has a

moderating effect on this relationship?” However, given below are the five

sub-questions derived from the components of two main variables in question i.e.

organizational commitment and beliefs regarding training benefits, and the

moderating variable, conscientiousness.

1. What is the relationship between Affective Commitment and personal

benefits, career benefits, and job-related benefits of employee training

respectively?

2. What is the relationship between Continuance Commitment and personal

15
 benefits, career benefits, and job-related benefits of employee training

respectively?

3. What is the relationship between Normative Commitment and personal

benefits, career benefits, and job-related benefits of employee training

respectively?

4. How conscientiousness moderates the relationship between training benefits

(personal, career and job-related) and organizational commitment (affective,

continuance and normative)?

5. How demographic factors represented by age, gender, education and length

of service make a difference in the employees’ Organizational Commitment

represented by affective, continuance and normative commitment?

1.6 Expected Contribution of the Study

This study will be significant for the following reasons:

1. Contribution to theory: As only little is known about the relationship between

employees’ training benefit beliefs and organizational commitment, use of

three component model of organizational commitment (as dependent

variables) and beliefs regarding training benefits (as independent variables)

will add to what is known about this relationship. Particularly, this empirical

16
 study will be the first to examine the relationship between employees’ beliefs

regarding training benefits (personal, career and job-related) and

organizational commitment (affective, continuance and normative), and the

moderating effect of conscientiousness on the relationship, in Malaysia.

2. Contribution to practice: The relationships, identified in this study, between

organizational commitment and benefits of employee training might enable

Malaysian organizations, to understand the importance of the linkages of

training benefit beliefs of the employees and their organization commitment,

keeping in mind the effect of personality as well. Hence, resulting in reduced

costs associated with recruiting, hiring, and training and development.

3. Recommendations for future research: As little research work has been done

in this particular domain of relationship between organizational commitment

and training benefits, this study may provide new directions for future

research work in Malaysian context.

1.7 Limitations of the Study

Results of this study will be limited only to Malaysian context as the study uses

Malaysian employees as the subjects for data collection. Therefore, the findings of

this study should be interpreted with recognition of the study’s limitations. This study

17
id limited by the following constraints:

1. This study uses convenient data sampling technique by targeting all

Malaysian employees to collect data; the results may not be applied in

specific industry types or organizations.

2. The results of this study do not segregate findings on the bases of public and

private sector employees, so the findings should be taken as the general

behavior of Malaysian employees towards training benefits and

organizational commitment.

3. The survey nature of this study has some limitations such as possible

ambiguity of individual questions, answers that can not be clarified, and

variations in respondents’ motivation to response and their knowledge.

4. The complex nature of organizational commitment and employee training

constructs may reduce the reliability of the measures.

5. The stability of the findings should be taken keeping in mind that it is not a

longitudinal study.

6. The survey instrument has been used in English and could affect

respondents’ understanding, as English is not the first language in Malaysia.

18
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

The objective of this section is to provide a review of the literature that guided various

aspects of this research study on the relationship between employees’ beliefs

regarding training benefits and employees’ organizational commitment in Malaysia. It

provides an analysis of the literature regarding previous and current research findings,

including theoretical / conceptual framework relevant to the study. The literature

review for this study was conducted using a computerized search using

“organizational commitment”, “training” and “personality” as keywords. More

specifically, employee training and development, retention, turnover, organizational

commitment, Big-Five model, conscientiousness and other related keywords were

subsequently searched.

The study is built around three constructs: employee training, organizational

commitment, and conscientiousness of Big-Five personality traits model. The variables

are divided into three categories: organizational commitment as dependent variables,

employee training benefits as independent variables, and conscientiousness of Big-Five

model as moderating variable. Organizational commitment variables include affective

commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment (Meyer & Allen

19
1997). Employee training variables include personal, career and job-related benefits of

employee training (Noe & Wilk, 1993).

The literature review information is presented in three sections. First, the commitment

section includes the following sub-sections: organizational commitment,

organizational commitment variables, and consequences of organizational

commitment. The second section of the literature review explores employee training

literature with the focus on the following sub-sections: benefits of employee training

and relationship between employee training and organizational commitment. Third and

final section on conscientiousness brings together the possible literature support for the

importance of personality and Big-Five model in organizational settings, especially

concentrating on conscientiousness of Big-Five personality traits model.

2.2 Commitment

According to Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982), commitment can be defined as “the

relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular

organization”. They identify three characteristics of commitment: a belief in and

acceptance of the values of the organization, a strong willingness to put in effort for the

organization and the desire to remain with the organization. These three characteristics

show that commitment is not only an attitude, but also a behavior. Schappe and Doran

(1997) added that “commitment is a global attitude that results from the sense of

20
support and a feeling that one’s efforts are acknowledged and shared by the

organization”. Commitment literature identifies four major commitments: Protestant

work ethic, career commitment, job commitment and organizational commitment

(Morrow, 1983).

Commitment can be viewed from two perspectives: the employee perspective and the

employer perspective. From the employer perspective, committed employees benefit

the organization by improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization in

terms of increased performance and reduced employee turnover and absenteeism

(Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). From the employee perspective, committed

employees gain financial and non-financial benefits such as monetary gains and job

satisfaction (Meyer & Allen, 1997).

2.2.1 Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment has been defined as both an attitudinal and a behavioral

construct. The attitudinal approach to organizational commitment is based on the

employee development of emotional or psychological attachment to the organization

(Meyer & Allen, 1997). In contrast, the behavioral approach to organizational

commitment is based on cost benefits decisions of leaving or remaining with the

organization (Becker, 1960).

Organizational commitment has been a popular field of study among organizational

21
and behavior researchers since the 1960s starting with Becker’s (1960) work. Becker

concludes that “commitments come into being when a person, by making a side-bet,

links extraneous interests with a consistent line of activity” and, further, that

individual bonds to the organization are based on “instrumental interests” such as

salary and benefits. From that point, interest in the phenomenon expanded. For

example, Marsh and Mannari (1977) reported that “there has been a continuing

interest in the commitment of employees to their organization”. This is because

organizational commitment is recognized as one of the major determinants of

organizational effectiveness (Steers, 1975). Ferris and Aranya (1983) added that

“organizational commitment is becoming an increasingly valued construct to predict

performance, absenteeism and turnover”. Liou and Nyhan (1994) point out that

management is recognizing the link between increased organizational commitment

and higher levels of job performance, lower levels of absenteeism and lower levels of

employee turnover. Mitchell, Holtom, Lee and Graske (2001) say, “Organizations of

all sizes and types are recognizing that they are engaged in a struggle to retain talent,

and are actively trying to do something about it”.

Mowday, Porter and Steers (1982) identified some of reasons for the increased

popularity of studies related to organizational commitment. For example,

organizational commitment predicts important behaviors such as employee turnover

22
and increased management interest in improving employee commitment and achieving

employee loyalty to the organization. Hom and Griffeth (1995) identify the following

determinants of organizational commitment: procedural justice which is “fair

procedures for allocating rewards in the organization”; expected utility of internal roles

or “prospects for attaining desirable work roles inside the company”; employment

security which deals with employment reliability; and job investment including

pension benefits and on-job training. Meyer and Allen (1997) suggest that it is not

financial rewards that develop organizational commitment; rather, employee

commitment to the organization is based on the opportunity the organization offers its

employees to conduct important and challenging work, the interaction with interesting

people, and the environment that facilitates developing and building new skills. Such

varied views lead naturally to the question of the essential nature of organizational

commitment.

2.2.2 Organizational Commitment Variables

This study adapted its organizational commitment variables from Meyer and Allen

(1997) three-component model of organizational commitment, more specifically:

affective, continuance, and normative commitment. The three-component model of

organizational commitment is addressed in the following section.

23
2.2.2.1 Affective Commitment

The first approach to view affective commitment is based on emotions. Kantor (1968)

was the first to identify that commitment to the organization is considered an affective

or emotional attachment. He describes how “cohesion commitment involves the

attaching of an individual’s fund of affectivity and emotions to the group…cohesion

commitment is commitment to a set of social relationships”. The affective commitment

of employees to their organizations is further addressed by Mowday, Steers and Porter

(1979) by defining organizational commitment as “the relative strength of an individual

identification with and involvement in a particular organization”. Meyer and Allen

(1997) recognized that “affective commitment develops on the basis of work

experiences that employees find rewarding or fulfilling”. Affective commitment is

based on emotional attachment to the organization. Employees choose to remain with

the organization because they “desire” to stay.

2.2.2.2 Continuance Commitment

The second approach to view commitment is based on cost to the individual. Becker

(1960) suggests, “Commitments come into being when a person, by making a side-bet,

links extraneous interests with a consistent line of activity”. Moreover, that

commitment is associated with the individual’s recognition of the costs associated with

continuing or discontinuing the activity. Kantor (1968) reports that cognitive

24
continuous commitment takes place when there is a “profit associated with continued

participation and a cost associated with leaving”. Meyer and Allen (1997) suggest that

“continuance commitment refers to employee’s awareness that costs are associated

with leaving the organization…continuance commitment can develop as a result of any

action or event that increases the costs of leaving the organization, provided the

employee recognizes that these costs have been incurred”. Continuance commitment is

based on perceived cost associated with leaving the organization. Employees remain

with the organization because they “have to” stay.

2.2.2.3 Normative Commitment

The third and final approach to view commitment is based on obligations. Wiener

(1982) defines organizational commitment wholly in this regards: the “totality of

internalized normative pressures to act in a way which meets organizational goals and

interests, and suggests that individuals exhibit behaviors solely because they believe it

is the right and moral thing to do”. This is the less common, but equally important

approach to view organizational commitment. Normative commitment was defined as

employees’ feelings of obligation to remain with the organization (Meyer & Allen,

1990). Meyer and Allen (1997) suggest that “normative commitment refers to an

employee’s feelings of obligation to remain with the organization. Thus, employees

with strong normative commitment will remain with an organization by virtue of their

25
belief that it is the “right and moral” thing to do”. Normative commitment is based on

the belief that it is an employee’s obligation to be committed to the organization.

Employees remain with the organization because they believe they “should” stay in the

organization.

2.2.3 Consequences of Organizational Commitment

Understanding work on the consequences of organizational commitment is relevant to

understanding the multidimensionality of the construct as well. Pinks (1992) points out

“there are many reasons for an organization to increase the level of commitment among

its employees, among which are: lower employee turnover; decreased absenteeism,

longer job tenure; and enhanced performance”. Mowday, Porter and Steers (1982)

divide the consequences of organizational commitment into three categories:

consequences for individuals, consequences for work groups and consequences for the

organizations.

For the individual, positive consequences include “feelings belonging and attachment,

security, goals and direction, positive self-image, organizational rewards, and

attractiveness to other potential employees”; negative consequences include “reduced

mobility and career advancement, reduced self-development and growth, family

tensions, and stress”. For the work group, positive consequences include “membership

stability, group effectiveness, and cohesiveness”, negative consequences include

26
“groupthink, lower creativity and adaptation, and intra-group conflict”. For the

organization, positive consequences include “increased effectiveness due to individual

effort; reduced turnover; reduced absenteeism; and reduced tardiness, and

attractiveness to non-organizational members”, and negative consequences include

“decreased effectiveness due to reduced turnover and reduced absenteeism, and lower

innovation and adaptation”.

In their analyses of three-component model of organizational commitment, Meyer and

Allen (1997) suggest that employees with strong affective commitment will not have a

high rate of absenteeism and will be motivated to do better on job. Employees with

strong continuance commitment will stay longer with the organization for reasons

because leaving the organization will be more costly to them. Employees with strong

normative commitment will have better job performance, work attendance and

organizational citizenship, because they are linked to the organization by feelings of

obligation and duty.

2.3 Employee Training

Noe (2002) defines training as planned activities on the part of the organization targeted

towards increasing the job knowledge and skills or to modify the attitudes and

behaviors of employees in ways consistent with the goals of the organization and the

27
requirement of the job. For purposes of this study, employee training includes formal

training, informal training, on-job-training, professional development and other

developmental learning activities that prepare the employee for his present job as well

as possible future jobs.

Kalleberg, Knoke, Marsden and Spaeth (1996) identify four theoretical approaches of

employer job training: human capital theory, credential-screening approaches,

structural explanations and institutionalization. Becker’s (1975) human capital theory

emphasizes that relationship between the employee and the employer is an investment

that leads to improved organizational efficiency and effectiveness. According to

Becker, the organization provides its employees with the necessary job training if it

anticipates that it can increase worker productivity to offset its training costs. Human

capital theory suggests that organizations provide its employees both general and firm

specific training.

Credential and screening principle is the second theoretical approach of employer job

training. According to Kalleberg et al (1996), selection of new employees is based on

employee credentials and likelihood of staying with the organization for long periods

to enable the employee to payback the costs of informal work experiences and formal

job training. This approach attempts to explain the types of employees that are most

likely to receive employer sponsored job training.

28
Structural explanations theory of employer job training explains that “the structure of

work sittings may facilitate or constrain individual job training opportunities…for

example, computer manufacturing companies require highly specialized software and

hardware skills. When external labor markets, comprising mixes of recent school

graduates and experienced worker willing to leave their current employers, persistently

fail to furnish the demanded skills, computer manufactures are compelled to create such

employees for themselves” (Kalleberg et al, 1996).

Institutionalization is the fourth and final theory of employer job training. Kalleberg et

al (1996) report that, “organizations and their employees are mutually shaped by the

larger cultural environments within which they are embedded, these environmental

conditions induce substantial uniformity among organizational practices, including job

training programs and policies, by conferring greater legitimacy on organizations that

adopt conventional structures”.

Employee training has been identified as a key factor of human resource management

practices that facilitates and contributes to gaining competitive advantage (Schuler &

MacMillan, 1984). Noe (1999) suggests that “training refers to a planned effort by a

company to facilitate employees’ learning of job-related competencies. These

competencies include knowledge, skills or behaviors that are critical for successful job

performance. According to Noe, Wilk, Mullen and Wanek (1997), “training is a

29
necessary component of companies’ efforts to improve quality, meet the challenges of

global competition, use new technologies in producing products and services, and

capitalize on the strength of a diverse workforce”.

2.3.1 Benefits of Employee Training

According to Craig (1996), an employee benefits from on-job training in many ways.

For example, on-job-training:

…Reduces unproductive periods of assimilation of new employees to the

work requirements; therefore increasing individual productivity more

quickly, ensures that employees learn how to perform tasks in line with the

expectations and standards of the organization; the work unit, and the

manager-supervisor, allows the learner to experience the day-to-day

realities of the job which provides an opportunity to identity problems or

discrepancies and enhance present job methods and procedures, eliminates

the transfer-of-training problem experienced in other training

methodologies since learning is one in the actual workplace, encourages

the creation and maintenance of job and task descriptions and standards and

procedures which support consistency and continuity in the job, increases

learner’s confidence and productiveness by allowing them to work at their

30
 own rate, establishes and strengthens relationship between leaner and

supervisor through positive reinforcement and feedback, increases the

supervisor’s understanding of the work done by individual contributors

through the review and implementation of training plans, defines outcomes

in advance, which increases the predictability of achieving results, requires

active involvement by learners and on-job training instructors, which is a

cornerstone for any learning process, incorporates just-in-time training

principles which support the concept of learning new skills as required, and

establishes a learning partnership between the new employee and the

organization which reinforces joint training and development solutions…

In short, on-job training increases efficiency and effectiveness of the workforce and

facilitates achieving organizational goals and objectives.

2.3.2 Types of Training Benefits

Noe and Wilk (1993) developed a fourteen-item scale that measures the benefits of

employee training based on an earlier study of Nordhaug (1989). According to Noe and

Wilk (1993), employee participation in training activities results in three types of

benefits: personal benefits, career benefits and job-related benefits. Personal benefits

represent the extent to which employees believe that participation in training activities

31
help them network, improve their job performance and make progress towards their

personal development. Career benefits result from participation in training activities

that lead to identifying career objectives, reaching career objectives and creating

opportunity to purse new career paths. Finally, job-related benefits lead to better

relationship between peers and managers, and provide a necessary break from the job.

2.3.3 Relationship between Employee Training and Organizational

Commitment

A literature review of training and organizational commitment suggests that there is a

relationship between employee training and organizational commitment. However, the

exact nature of the relationship is unclear. It is important to investigate the relationship

between employees’ beliefs regarding training benefits and employees’ organizational

commitment for both theoretical and practical reasons. This study will contribute to

theory by adding to what is known about organizational commitment and employee

training at the individual level of analysis, and by expanding the body of knowledge

with respect to the relationship between employees’ beliefs regarding training benefits

and employees’ organizational commitment, particularly in Malaysian context.

32
2.4 Conscientiousness

Personality has been conceptualized from a variety of theoretical perspectives, and at

various levels of abstraction (John, Hampson, & Goldberg, 1991; McAdams, 1995).

The number of personality traits, and scales designed to measure them, escalated

without an end in sight (Goldberg, 1971). However, the consensus is emerging that a

five-factor model of personality can be used to describe the most salient aspects of

personality (Goldberg, 1990). Even the cross-cultural generalize-ability of the

Big-Five model has been established through research in many countries (McCrae &

Costa, 1997). Evidence indicates that the Big-Five traits are heritable and stable over

time (Costa & McCrae, 1988; Digman, 1989). The dimensions comprising the

five-factor model are Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness to Experience,

Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. The literature on personality, however,

suggests that two of the Big-Five personality traits, Conscientiousness and Emotional

Stability (Neuroticism), may be valid for predicting performance on most or all jobs

(Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Salgado, 1997).

Conscientiousness as a personality dimension is likely to have a direct impact on

person behavior. Costa & McCare (1992) reported competence, order, dutifulness,

achievement striving, and self-discipline as the facets of conscientiousness, which

clearly leads us to recognize the important of this particular trait especially in an

33
organizational context. Many studies support Barrick & Mount’s (1991) findings that

conscientiousness is probably important for any job, regardless of whether it is

self-managed or traditionally structured. The reason behind these findings might

because of the very nature of conscientious people who tend to be self-motivated and

task oriented (Aronoff & Wilson, 1985; Barrick & Mount, 1993; Costa & McCare,

1992).

Hence, people do, in fact, have long term, dispositional traits, such as

conscientiousness, that influence their behavior in work settings and this idea is

relatively well accepted now (Mount & Barrick, 1998).

34
 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

The relationship between employee training and organizational commitment is unclear

and under explored. A review of the literature on employee training and organizational

commitment suggest that there is a relationship between employee training and

organizational commitment (Becker, 1975; Pinks, 1992; Meyer & Smith, 2000;

Bartlett, 2001). Furthermore, the research has yet to find the moderation effect of

conscientiousness, as a personality dimension, on the above relationship. However,

literature states briefly the importance of personality, especially conscientiousness,

regarding work behaviors. Therefore it is worth testing the moderating effect of the

conscientiousness on the relationship of training benefits and organizational

commitment.

However, there is limited empirical research available in Malaysia to know the

relationship between employee training and organizational commitment as well as the

moderating effect of conscientiousness.

This is a quantitative study utilizing survey methodology. The study design is

considered associational or non-experimental co-relational descriptive research design.

In this research, the objective is to identify the relationship between employees’ beliefs

regarding training benefits as measured by personal, career and job-related benefits and

35
employees’ organizational commitment as measured by affective, continuance and

normative commitment, and to see the moderating effect of conscientiousness on the

relationship.

This part of the study includes the research design as well as the development of

hypotheses, sampling design, data collection procedures along with survey instrument,

and data analysis techniques.

3.2 Development of Hypotheses and Research Design

The study examined the relationship between employees’ beliefs regarding training

benefits as measured by Noe and Wilk (1993) benefits of employee training and

employees’ organizational commitment as measured by Meyer and Allen (1997) the

three-component model of organizational commitment, and to further explore the

moderating effect of personality (conscientiousness of Big-Five) on this relationship.

Both main theories, Noe and Wilk (1993) benefits of employee training and Meyer and

Allen (1997) three components of Organizational Commitment, used in this research

are well-grounded theories and are appropriate to measure the relationship between

employees’ beliefs regarding training benefits and employees’ organizational

commitment.

36
3.2.1 Development of Hypothesis

This study will examine the following research hypotheses:

Affective commitment:

H1a. There is a positive relationship between affective organizational commitment

and personal, career, and job-related benefits of training.

H1b. Demographic factors (age, gender, education and length of service) positively

predict employees’ affective organizational commitment.

H1c. Conscientiousness positively moderates the relationship between affective

organizational commitment and benefits of training (personal, career and

job-related).

Continuance commitment:

H2a. There is a positive relationship between continuance organizational

commitment and personal, career, and job-related benefits of training.

H2b. Demographic factors (age, gender, education and length of service) positively

predict employees’ continuance organizational commitment.

H2c. Conscientiousness positively moderates the relationship between continuance

organizational commitment and benefits of training (personal, career and

job-related).

Normative commitment:

37
H3a. There is a positive relationship between normative organizational

commitment and personal, career, and job-related benefits of training.

H3b. Demographic factors (age, gender, education and length of service) positively

predict employees’ normative organizational commitment.

H3c. Conscientiousness positively moderates the relationship between normative

organizational commitment and benefits of training (personal, career and job-related).

3.2.2 Research Design

The research design of this study is based on the Meyer and Allen’s (1997)

three-component model of organizational commitment and Noe and Wilk’s (1993)

three-component model of benefits of training.

The selection of Meyer’s and Allen’s (1997) three-component model of organizational

commitment for this study is based on two major reasons. First, the model has been

assessed and validated by a number of researchers and been used and accepted by

recent multidimensional studies of employee commitment. Moreover, on an

assessment of the three-component model of organizational commitment, researchers

supported the reliability of the affective, continuance, and normative commitment

scales. Second, the model offers a survey instrument for studying and measuring

organizational commitment variables.

38
Noe’s and Wilk’s (1993) personal, career and job-related benefits of training is used to

measure employee training because it is also a well accepted model as Phillips (1997)

report that increased organizational commitment is one of the benefits of employee

training.

Figure 1: Research Model

Figure 1 show the research framework used to conduct the study. This framework

focuses on understanding relationships between employees’ beliefs regarding personal,

career and job-related training benefits and employees’ organizational commitment

representing commitment as affective, continuance and normative commitment.

Conscientiousness in this model shows the possible moderating effect of this important

39
Big-Five personality dimension on the basic relationships of training benefits and

organizational commitment.

This research design identifies the relationships between the constructs (proposition)

and the relationships between the research variables (questions or hypotheses) based on

review of relevant literature related to employee training and organizational

commitment. More specifically, the study is built around two main constructs:

employee training and organizational commitment, and one moderating construct i.e.

conscientiousness.

3.2.3 Research Variables

The variables in this study are divided into three main categories: organizational

commitment variables, employee training related variables, and conscientiousness.

Organizational commitment variables include: affective commitment, continuance

commitment and normative commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Employee training

variables include personal benefits, career benefits and job-related benefits of training

(Noe & Wilk, 1993). Whereas, conscientiousness is one of the five personality

dimensions of Big-Five personality model and has been tested in this study as a

moderating variable on the relationship of employees’ commitment and training

benefits.

40
Employees’ organizational commitment was examined as a possible consequence of a

condition affected by employees’ beliefs regarding training benefits. Therefore,

employees’ organizational commitment (affective commitment, continuance

commitment and normative commitment) is the dependent variable under

investigation.

Whereas, employees’ beliefs regarding training benefits were considered a possible

antecedent, or predictor, of employees’ organizational commitment; therefore,

employees’ beliefs regarding training benefits (personal benefits, career benefits and

job-related benefits) were viewed as the independent variable.

The study also investigates the moderating effect of conscientiousness on the

relationship of commitment and training. So it is a moderating variable in the study.

Additionally, some demographic factors (age, gender, level of education and length of

experience) have also been tested to find whether they play an important role in

predicting employees’ organizational commitment, if yes then which one is more

significant.

3.3 Research Site and Sampling Design

Malaysia is the research site of this study and therefore Malaysian employees become

the target subjects to collect data, regardless of the type of organization and the

41
industry. Employees of public as well as private sector organizations of Malaysia, who

are the Malaysian citizens, have been considered as study sample for this research

work. Basically, the method of convenient data sampling has been adopted to collect

data for the study.

This study will exclude subjects who are:

 Not Malaysian citizens

 Blue collar employees

 Never attended any training activity

 Temporary employees

3.4 Selection of Measures (Survey Instrument)

The data used for this study is obtained through Meyer and Allen’s (1997) three

components of organizational commitment questionnaire and Noe and Wilk’s (1993)

three components of benefits of employee training questionnaire, as is used by

Mohammed A. S. and Michael J. M., (2007). The scale to measure conscientiousness

has been adopted from an open internet source, International Personality Item Pool,

developed by Lewis R. Goldberg. All three sections of the questionnaire representing

organizational commitment, training benefits and conscientiousness measure the

responses on a Lickert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree/very inaccurate (for

42
conscientiousness) to 7=strongly agree/very accurate (for Conscientiousness).

Additional demographic information items (gender, age, education and length of

service) were also included in the survey to facilitate describing the sample and

predicting organizational commitment behavior.

Given below is the brief summary of the instrument used for this study, full survey

questionnaire can be seen in appendix.

. The survey consists of the following measures:

 The three-component model of organizational commitment is represented

by 23 items to measure organizational commitment. Eight items assess

affective organizational commitment, nine items assess continuance

organizational commitment and six items assess normative organizational

commitment.

 Employee benefits of training are represented by a 14-item scale that

measures the benefits of employee training. Five items assess the personal

benefits of employee training, six items assess the career benefits of

employee training and three items assess the job-related benefits of

employee training.

 Conscientiousness has been measured by 10-item scale, developed by

43
 Lewis R. Goldberg as an open source, but with a slight difference of

measurement scale to make the whole instrument consistent using scales

from 1 to 7, as is used for commitment and training benefits. Six items of

this scale are positive and four items of the scale are arranged in negative

statements, which need to be re-arranging to get real score for

conscientiousness.

 Four demographic items – age, gender, education level, and length of

service at the current organization were included in the survey to facilitate

the interpretation of the results.

Meyer and Allen (1997) report that median reliabilities for the affective, continuance,

and normative commitment Scales, respectively, are .85, .79, and .73. Further, Noe

and Wilk (1993) found internal consistency reliability estimate for personal benefits,

career benefits, and job-related benefits of employee training, respectively, to

be .88, .74, and .70.

3.5 Data collection procedure

This study uses primary data collected through convenient sampling from Malaysian

employees through a survey questionnaire. Using questionnaire for data collection is a

valid technique in social sciences research and provides the advantage of measurable

44
responses for apparently non-measurable variables like commitment and training

benefits. However, there might be some disadvantages associated with survey

questionnaire, as the level of motivation to respond, knowledge of the respondent,

understanding the constructs etc may vary. But still survey questionnaire is an

affordable and easy to use data collection technique and provides measurable data.

The questionnaire for this study was prepared carefully to give ease to the respondents

to respond. A soft copy of the questionnaire with check boxes for each question to

respond was prepared to get online responses through e-mailing and the hard copy of

the same was used to distribute physically to the respondents by convenient sampling.

Almost four hundred questionnaires, including both soft and hard copies, were

distributed to the Malaysian employees with the special request to contribute in

understanding the relationship between training benefits and organizational

commitment in Malaysia. Although the response from the target subjects was not fast

and encouraging at first, still the researcher could receive two hundred and sixty

responses lately. However, about sixty one questionnaires received back were not up

to the standards, missing major sections of the survey or looking just filled half

heartedly, therefore, leaving the researcher with one hundred and ninety nine

complete questionnaires for data analysis.

Hence, the study used one hundred and ninety nine complete survey questionnaires

45
for data analysis, without any missing entries.

3.6 Data Analysis Techniques

This study has been conducted at the individual level of analysis. The research

questions and data collection direct the data analysis method for this study. This is a

quantitative study using survey methodology for data collection and the study design

is considered associational design. In this type of research the objective is “to measure

the degree and direction of the influence of the independent on the dependent

variables and to assess the statistical significance of the relationship” (Alreck & Settle,

2004, p. 329).

3.7 Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis techniques vary based on the type of data collected, as Fink (2003)

reported that the type of scale and data dictate the statistical techniques to be used in

the study. This study used the Meyer and Allen (1997) three-component model of

organizational commitment and Noe and Wilk (1993) benefits of employee training to

collect the data needed. Responses were made using 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging

from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Meyer and Allen’s (1997) model

consists of 23 items to measure organizational commitment: eight items assess

affective organizational commitment, nine items assess continuance organizational

commitment and six items assess normative organizational commitment. Noe and

46
Wilk’s (1993) instrument consists of 14 items to measure benefits of employee

training: five items measure personal benefits of training, six items to measure career

benefits of training and three items to measure job-related benefits of training.

Two types of statistical analysis were conducted for this study using SPSS 16.0,

which is a reliable data analysis tool for social sciences research. First, descriptive

statistics used to calculate mean, maximum, minimum, and standard deviations for all

study variables including demographic information. Second, sequential moderated

multiple regression analysis has been used to test the relationships between study

variables as mentioned in the research questions and hypotheses of this study.

The study used sequential multiple regression analysis for three reasons. First, to

investigate the relationship between variables, and second to identify the strength of

the relationships. Thirdly, this type of multiple regressions modeling technique can

test the moderating effect of a proposed moderator in the study model. More

specifically, sequential multiple regression analysis has been employed to identify the

relationship between employees’ beliefs regarding training benefits as measured by

personal, career and job-related benefits (independent variables), employees’

organizational commitment as measured by affective, continuance and normative

commitment (dependent variables), and the moderating effect of conscientiousness

(moderating variable).

47
 CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH RESULTS

This chapter reports the statistical analysis results of the study and explains techniques

used to answer the research questions and test research hypotheses. The results of the

study are organized in three sections. Summary statistics presents simply the

descriptive and inferential statistical results. Testing of hypotheses discusses the

acceptance or rejection of research hypotheses, along with analysis of measures,

based on the research results found by data analysis. And finally summary of research

results summarizes the chapter by providing brief results synopsis again.

4.1 Summary Statistics

4.1.1 Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics has been obtained by using SPSS 16.0 to calculate mean and

standard deviations for the study variables and demographic information using

responses from 199 surveys. The descriptive statistics measures are given in the

Table-1 below. Further, pie charts have been plotted to better understand the study

sample and to show the percentage frequencies for the demographic information of

the sample.

48
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance

Affective Commitment 199 34 19 53 34.75 5.866 34.409

Continuance
199 45 14 59 40.57 8.977 80.579
Commitment

Normative
199 33 9 42 26.18 8.328 69.348
Commitment

Personal Benefits of
199 26 9 35 28.04 5.000 24.998
Training

Career Benefits of
199 36 6 42 30.05 6.997 48.963
Training

Job Benefits of
199 18 3 21 13.27 5.055 25.550
Training

Conscientiousness 199 32 30 62 45.52 5.688 32.352

Gender 199 1 1 2 1.49 .501 .251

Age 199 4 1 5 2.65 .783 .613

Level of Education 199 5 1 6 3.82 1.066 1.136

Experience with
199 6 1 7 3.85 1.469 2.159
current organization

Valid N (listwise) 199

Figure 2 shows the gender percentage of the survey respondents, 102 respondents are

males and 97 are females out of 199 total responses used.

Figure 2 : Gender

49
Figure 3 shows age statistics of the sample, two age categories are very prominent in

the sample i.e. 96 (48.2%) respondents belong to 21-30 years of age and 71 (35.7%)

belong to 31-40 years age. We can say that most of the respondents for this survey are

young professionals between the ages of 21 to 40.

AGE - Sample Percentages

1.5
1.5 UNDER 21
13.1
YEARS
21-30 YEARS

31-40 YEARS
48.2

41-50 YEARS
35.7

51-60 YEARS

Figure 3 : Age

EDUCATION LEVEL - Sample Percentages

HIGH SCHOOL
1.5 1.5 12.1
SOME COLLEGE
28.1
2 YEAR COLLEGE
20.1 DEGREE
4 YEAR COLLEGE
DEGREE
MASTER DEGREE

DOCTORAL DEGREE
36.7

Figure 4 : Level of Education

50
Figure 4 above shows the level of education of the respondents. Most of the

respondents have four years degree (73, 36.7%) and master degree (56, 28.1%). It

means the respondents of this study are well educated.

Figure 5 provides the information about the length of service of the respondents with

their current organizations. Sample is well dispersed in terms of length of service with

their current organizations. However, 58 respondents have the length of service from

1 to 3 years (29.1%) and 51 have 3 to 5 years (25.6%) experience with their current

organizations.

EXPERIENCE - Sample Percentages

LESS THAN 6 MONTHS

6.5 3 6 MONTHS TO LESS

8.5 13.6 THAN 1 YEAR
1 TO LESS THAN 3
YEARS
13.6 3 TO LESS THAN 5
YEARS

29.1 5 TO LESS THAN 7

YEARS
7 TO LESS THAN 9
25.6 YEARS
OVER 9 YEARS

Figure 5 : Experience

4.1.2 Inferential Statistics

First of all the correlation matrix have been taken for all the predicting variables of

organizational commitment that is the dependent variable in three components;

51
affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment. Table 2

summarizes the correlations of the independent variables.

Table 2 : Correlation Matrix of the predicting variables

Consc Gende Educa Exp
PBT CBT JBT . r Age . .

Personal Benefits 1

Career Benefits .487** 1

Job Benefits .182* .343** 1

Conscientiousnes
s .038 .167* .078 1
-.03
Gender .103 -.048 8 -.103 1
-.203* -.234* -.04
Age * * 5 -.021 -.243** 1
.252*
Education -.147* -.082 .099 .139* -.245** * 1
-.03 .603*
Length of Service -.064 .006 1 -.079 -.229** * .164* 1
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Correlations matrix can be viewed to see the multicollinearity problem and

correlations between the predicting variables. The existence of correlation of about

0.8 or larger indicates that there is a problem of multicollinearity (Lewis-Back, 1993).

None of the pair-wise coefficient of correlation is 0.8 or larger in any of the

observations above. So by examining the correlation matrix among the explanatory

variable we can say that there is no multicollinearity problem found.

Sequential multiple regression analysis results for all three dependent variables

52
(affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment) are

shown in tables 3, 4 and 5 below.

53
Table 3: Multiple Regression results for Affective Commitment (as dependent)

Dependent Variable Model Model Model Model

One Two Three Four
Independent Variables

Constant 27.095 29.192 33.486 43.415

(11.136)*** (7.485)*** (6.821)*** (2.107)**
Personal Benefits -0.013 -.007 -.010 -.689
(-0.169) (-.083) (-.123) (-1.076)
Career Benefits .288 .291 .312 .577
(3.522)*** (3.406)*** (3.610)*** (.763)
Job Benefits .054 .061 .060 .394
(.750) (.821) (.813) (.652)
Gender -.084 -.092 -.097
(-1.150) (-1.256) (-1.320)
Age .082 .089 .081
(.890) (.962) (.862)
Education -.092 -.077 -.089
(-1.256) (-1.048) (-1.201)
Experience -.046 -.063 -.061
(-.524) (-.708) (-.678)
Conscientiousness -.101 -.284
(-1.433) (-.666)
PB_Interactions .836
(1.063)
CB_Interaction -.331
(-.356)
JB_Interaction -.359
(-.552)
No of Observations 199 199 199 199
R-Square 0.093 0.108 0.117 0.127
F-Statistics (6.656)*** (3.300)*** (3.160)*** (2.464)***

Note: *** Significant at 1% level,

** Significant at 5% level
* Significant at 10% level.

54
Table 4: Multiple Regression results for Continuance Commitment (as dependent)

Dependent Variable Model Model Model Model

One Two Three Four
Independent Variables

Constant 35.750 42.007 46.459 54.256

(9.364)*** (6.869)*** (6.017)*** (1.668)*
Personal Benefits -0.081 -.075 -.077 -.341
(-1.015) (-.922) (-.947) (-.516)
Career Benefits .251 .244 .258 .201
(2.996)*** (2.790)*** (2.910)*** (.258)
Job Benefits -.033 -.032 -.032 .278
(-.436) (-.422) (-.429) (.447)
Gender -.116 -.121 -.123
(-1.546) (-1.611) (-1.619)
Age .024 .028 .022
(.251) (.297) (.222)
Education -.055 -.045 -.053
(-.737) (-.598) (-.692)
Experience -.092 -.103 -.100
(-1.024) (-1.138) (-1.077)
Conscientiousness -.069 -.163
(-.945) (-.372)
PB_Interactions .320
(.395)
CB_Interaction .067
(.070)
JB_Interaction -.336
(-.501)
No of Observations 199 199 199 199
R-Square 0.046 0.063 0.068 0.071
F-Statistics (3.151)** (1.845)* (1.725)* (1.299)

Note: *** Significant at 1% level,

** Significant at 5% level
* Significant at 10% level.

55
Table 5: Multiple Regression results for Normative Commitment (as dependent)

Dependent Variable Model Model Model Model

One Two Three Four
Independent Variables

Constant 25.193 26.314 25.481 -27.588

(6.986)*** (4.622)*** (3.537)*** (-.931)
Personal Benefits -0.070 -.038 -.038 -.646
(-.864) (-.470) (-.463) (-.997)
Career Benefits .087 .098 .095 .2.268
(1.023) (1.121) (1.069) (2.962)
Job Benefits .053 .047 .047 .080
(.694) (.623) (.623) (.132)
Gender -.166 -.165 -.161
(-2.217)** (-2.191)** (-2.160)**
Age .158 .157 .138
(1.668)* (1.652)* (1.452)
Education -.056 -.058 -.060
(-.752) (-.769) (-.797)
Experience -.071 -.069 -.047
(-.783) (-.750) (-.516)
Conscientiousness .014 .836
(.190) (1.940)*
PB_Interactions .799
(1.003)
CB_Interaction -2.709
(-2.876)***
JB_Interaction -.028
(-.042)
No of Observations 199 199 199 199
R-Square 0.011 0.057 0.057 0.104
F-Statistics (.735) (1.641) (1.433) (1.981)**

Note: *** Significant at 1% level,

** Significant at 5% level
* Significant at 10% level.

56
Sequential moderated multiple regression analysis has been conducted to verify the

relationships designed for this research. Altogether three regression analysis, with four

sequential models each, have been run for each dependent variables of the study.

Every regression analysis includes all three independent training benefits variables

(personal training benefits, career training benefits, and job-related training benefits)

in the first model, and then scoots demographic factors in the second model and

conscientiousness (moderating variable) in the third model. Fourth model uses the

interaction scores for all three training benefits independent variables to test the

moderating effect of conscientiousness on the relationships between dependent

variable and independent variables.

Interaction scores were computed by multiplying conscientiousness scores of each

respondent with each training benefits’ component (personal, career and job-related)

scores. So three interaction scores are used in the fourth model of sequential

moderating multiple analysis to test the moderation effect of conscientiousness on the

relationship of organizational commitment and training benefits respectively.

All the regression results are given above in tables 3, 4 and 5 for affective

commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment respectively.

57
4.2 Testing of Hypotheses

To test each of the research hypothesis, sequential multiple regression analysis were

performed via SPSS 16.0 software. This sequential multiple regression analysis was

used to determine factors that influence each level of organizational commitment

(affective, continuance and normative) when all factors (personal benefits of training,

career benefits of training, job-related benefits of training, gender, age, education,

length of service, and conscientiousness) were taken into consideration. The results

are summarized in tables 3, 4 and 5 in the previous section of the report. Additional

and detailed results are also reported in Appendix 1.

Affective commitment:

H1a. There is a positive relationship between affective organizational commitment

and personal, career, and job-related benefits of training.

H1b. Demographic factors (age, gender, education and length of service) positively

predict employees’ affective organizational commitment.

H1c. Conscientiousness positively moderates the relationship between affective

organizational commitment and benefits of training (personal, career and

job-related).

Affective commitment hypotheses were tested in the first regression using four

models in the sequential moderated multiple regression analysis (results are

58
summarized in table 3 in the previous section). Results indicate that there is a

significant positive relationship between affective organizational commitment and

career benefits of training (p= .001); whereas relationships between affective

organizational commitment and personal benefits of training (p= .866) as well as

job-related benefits of training (p= .454) is not significant. Moreover the relationship

between affective organizational commitment and personal benefits of training is

negative.

None of the demographic factors from gender, age, education and length of service is

predict affective organizational commitment significantly. Gender (p= .252),

education (p= .211), and length of service (p= .601) have even negative relationship

with affective organizational commitment. Only age is positively related with

affective commitment but not significant at (p= .374).

Results for moderating effect of conscientiousness show that conscientiousness does

not moderate significantly the relationship between affective organizational

commitment and training benefits of training. Significance level of conscientiousness

along with interaction variables for personal, career and job-related benefits are

(p= .153), (p= .289), (p= .723), (p= .581) respectively.

Hence, the results partially support hypotheses H1a, as career benefits of training

positively and significantly predict affective commitment, but reject hypotheses H1b

59
and H1c.

Continuance commitment:

H2a. There is a positive relationship between continuance organizational

commitment and personal, career, and job-related benefits of training.

H2b. Demographic factors (age, gender, education and length of service) positively

predict employees’ continuance organizational commitment.

H2c. Conscientiousness positively moderates the relationship between continuance

organizational commitment and benefits of training (personal, career and

job-related).

Continuance organizational commitment hypotheses were tested in the second

regression using four models in the sequential moderated multiple regression analysis

(results are summarized in table 4 in the previous section). Results again indicate that

the only positively significant predictor of continuance organizational commitment is

career benefits of training with (p= .003). Other two training benefits components,

personal benefits (p= .311), job-related benefits (p= .663), are not significant and

negatively related with continuance commitment.

Again in continuance commitment hypotheses testing, none of the demographic

factors from gender, age, education and length of service predict continuance

60
organizational commitment significantly. Gender (p= .124), education (p= .462), and

length of service (p= .307) again have negative relationship even with continuance

organizational commitment. Only age is positively related with continuance

commitment but not significant at (p= .802).

Moreover, results for moderating effect of conscientiousness still do not show any

positively significant moderating effect of conscientiousness on the relationship of

continuance organizational commitment and benefits of training. Significance level of

conscientiousness along with interaction variables for personal, career and job-related

benefits are (p= .346), (p= .693), (p= .944), (p= .617) respectively.

Therefore, even for the continuance organizational commitment, only career benefits

of training predict continuance commitment, partially supporting hypotheses H2a and

rejecting both hypotheses H2b and H2c.

Normative commitment:

H3a. There is a positive relationship between normative organizational

commitment and personal, career, and job-related benefits of training.

H3b. Demographic factors (age, gender, education and length of service) positively

predict employees’ normative organizational commitment.

H3c. Conscientiousness moderates the relationship between normative

organizational commitment and benefits of training (personal, career and

61
 job-related).

Normative organizational commitment hypotheses were tested in the third regression

using four models in the sequential moderated multiple regression analysis (results are

summarized in table 5 in the previous section). Interestingly, the results for normative

commitment do not show any expected predicting factor as positively significant,

instead of age at very low positive significance level (p= .097). It leads the researcher

to reject almost all his normative commitment hypotheses (H3a, H3b, and H3c) and

accept the null hypotheses that there is not a positive relationship between normative

commitment and benefits of training represented as personal, career and job-related.

Further, neither demographic factors, instead of age at very low positive significance

level (p= .097), play an important role in the relationship nor conscientiousness

moderates the relationship.

P-values of the predictors in this relationship are as follows: personal benefits are

negatively related with (p= .389), career benefits and job-related benefits though

positive but not significant at (p= .308) and (p= .488) respectively, gender (p= .028)

though significant but have negative relationship, education (p= .453) and length of

service (p= .434) have inverse relationship. Only age is positively and significantly

related with normative commitment at (p= .097) 90% significant level.

Further, conscientiousness has positive relationship but not significant at (p= .850),

62
with interaction variables personal benefits interaction (p= .317), career benefits

interaction (p= .004) but negative, job-related benefits interaction (p= .967) negative,

not showing any significant change in the relationship.

Therefore, looking at the results for normative commitment, the researcher concludes

that there does not exist the relationship between normative organizational

commitment and benefits of training represented by personal, career and job-related.

4.3 Summary of Research Results

The statistical analysis for this study has been conducted in two steps using SPSS 16.0

software. First, descriptive statistics (frequencies) were conducted to describe the

sample and indicate the degree to which the sample data represents the study

population. Second, inferential statistics (Regression analysis) was conducted to

examine the relationship between study variables as highlighted in the research

questions and to test the research hypotheses. More specifically, sequential moderated

multiple regression analysis was employed to identify the relationships between

employees’ beliefs regarding training benefits as measured by personal, career and

job-related benefits (independent variables) and employees’ organizational

commitment as measured by affective, continuance and normative commitment

(dependent variables), as well as to test the moderating effect of conscientiousness on

63
the relationship.

In summary, the results show career benefits of training alone as positive and

significant predictor of two organizational commitment components (affective

commitment and continuance commitment) and all other expected predictors such as

personal benefits of training and job-related benefits of training including

demographic factors non-significant. However, even career benefits of training do not

have a positive and significant relationship with the third organizational commitment

component that is normative commitment. In addition, conscientiousness does not

show any moderating effect, positively and significantly, on the relationship of

organizational commitment (affective, continuance and normative) and benefits of

training (personal, career and job-related).

64
 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter summarizes the research study, discussing the findings of the study in the

context of the theoretical framework and the literature review. The chapter is

organized into three sections: summary and conclusion, suggestions for future

research, and possible implications of the study.

5.1 Summary and Conclusion

The research question that provided the foundation for the study was: What is the

relationship between employees’ beliefs regarding training benefits and employees’

organizational commitment in Malaysia, and does conscientiousness moderate this

relationship. More specifically, five sub-questions were addressed: What is the

relationship between Affective Commitment and personal benefits, career benefits,

and job-related benefits of employee training respectively? What is the relationship

between Continuance Commitment and personal benefits, career benefits, and

job-related benefits of employee training respectively? What is the relationship

between Normative Commitment and personal benefits, career benefits, and

job-related benefits of employee training respectively? Does conscientiousness

moderate the relationship between training benefits (personal, career and job-related)

and organizational commitment (affective, continuance and normative)? And, do

65
demographic factors represented by age, gender, education and length of service make

a difference in the employees’ Organizational Commitment represented by affective,

continuance and normative commitment?

This study is only of its type conducted in Malaysia with three component models of

organizational commitment (affective, continuance and normative) and benefits of

training measured as personal, career and job-related. Although the study is

constructed on two well grounded theories, it shows some interesting findings that

differ from the previous findings of Al-Emadi and Marquardt (2007).

In their study Al-Emadi and Marquardt (2007) found that affective commitment is

positively related with personal, career and job-related benefits of training, however

job-related benefits of training do not significantly predict affective commitment.

They also found a positive and significant relationship between continuance

commitment and personal, career and job-related benefits of training. Further they

found that only job-related benefits of training (though positive), do not significantly

predict normative commitment.

Whereas this study shows quite interesting findings in terms of the relationship

between organizational commitment and benefits of training. It found only career

benefits of training positively and significantly predicting only two types of

organizational commitment i.e. affective commitment and continuance commitment.

66
None of the other expected factors predict organizational commitment positively as

well as significantly. Although job-related benefits of training and age have positive

relationship with affective commitment but are not significant. Likewise, age has

positive relationship with continuance commitment but is not significant, and also has

a positive and significant relationship with normative commitment but at the 90%

variation with (p= .10). Further, conscientiousness does not positively and

significantly moderates any of the relationship specified in study design.

Before going to the conclusion and comparison of both the studies, we need to

comprehend the concepts associated with commitment and training benefits variables

again. Affective commitment is defined as the employees’ positive emotional

attachment to the organization. An employee who is affectively committed strongly

identifies with the goals of the organization and desires to remain a part of the

organization. Continuance commitment, on the other hand, refers to the sort of

commitment that emerges from the fears of possible uncertainties of future. In other

words, due to the costs associated with job switching, the employee “has to” be

committed. Normative commitment is simply caused by the feelings of obligation

towards the organization and this kind of moral obligation may be derived from kind

of social norms like family associations etc. the nature of normative commitment

clearly demands certain social patterns and longer length of the service with the

67
organization.

Personal benefits of training refers to the employees’ believe that participation in

training activities can help them network, improve their job performance and make

progress towards their personal development. Whereas, identifying career objectives,

reaching career objectives and creating opportunities to pursue new career paths

through training leads employees towards their perception of career benefits. However,

job-related benefits present employees’ perceptions towards better relationship

between peers and managers, and a necessary break from the job.

Research site and sampling design is very much important in examining and

comparing the findings of this study. The demographic information is of high

importance to justify and compare the results of this study with literature. Asad S. A.

and Michael J. M., (2007) conducted their study in a large public petroleum company

of Qatar. The sample of their study was focused on the middle and high level

executives of the company, who might be enjoying high perks and rewards. 72% of

their respondents were between the age of 31 to 50 with 71% having four years

degree and 61% having more than 9 years of experience with the same company.

Characteristics of the research sample of their study obviously lead towards high

organizational commitment.

68
On the other hand, the respondents of this study are mostly young professionals of

private organizations of Malaysia, who are well educated and passionate about their

careers in the fast growing and increasingly saturating business market of Malaysia.

Most of them represent lower length of service with their respective current

organizations as well. Therefore, the sample characteristics of this study give a fair

explanation of the findings of the study. The beliefs of the Malaysian employees of

this study sample might be said more interested in the career benefits of the training

activities and can only be attached/committed affectively and continuously with the

organization if they feel training will provide them opportunities to identify their

career objectives and help them reach their career objectives.

In conclusion, according to the findings based on a limited sample design and unique

characteristics of respondents of this study, it can be said that Malaysian employees

are willing to be committed with their organizations emotionally (affective

commitment) and continually only if they feel the training activities supported or

arranged by their respective organizations would help achieve their career objectives.

Further that the training benefits (personal, career and job-related) do not make them

feel to be committed as an obligation (normative commitment) towards their

organizations.

69
5.2 Suggestions for Future Research

As a result of this study, it is possible to identify a number of areas for further

research. Recommendations for future research include the following:

1. The results of this study do not support all of the previous findings using the

same commitment and training benefits variables. Therefore, the same

research design, using three component models of commitment and benefits of

training, can be re-explored in Malaysia with a more precise and bigger

sample design.

2. Training construct of this study does not segregate training from development

activities. Future research can examine the training construct in a way that

separates training and development activities and then test the relationships

with organizational commitment.

3. Convenient sampling, sampling design of this study, does not allow

generalizing results for all Malaysian employees. Future research can attempt

to find the comparison of this relationship between private and public sector

employees separately.

4. As both the main constructs of this study, commitment and benefits of training,

are difficult to measure through just a survey, future research might use

70
 mixed-method approach that includes survey and interview for data collection.

It can give more depth to the study and can help understand why or why not

employees remain committed with their organizations.

5. Organizational commitment is a desired outcome every organization seeks in

its employees. Therefore, future research can look into the relationship of

commitment with other human resource practices like reward and

compensation systems, organizational justice and organizational culture.

6. Conscientiousness as one single personality dimension of Big-Five model, as

used in this study, does not moderate the commitment – training relationship.

But future research can use the whole Big-Five personality model as a

predictor of organizational commitment.

5.3 Implications

A number of implications for practice can be derived from the findings and

conclusions of this study that examined the relationship between employees’ beliefs

regarding training benefits and employees’ organizational commitment. The study has

implications for human resource professionals, managers, and other practitioners

interested in employee training and organizational commitment. Additional research,

needs to be conducted to test the implications within organizations to determine best

71
practices for maintaining human capital.

The implications of this study for practice are given below:

1. Malaysian organizations should very carefully design training and employee

development programs, keeping in mind the career objectives of their

employees, aiming to increase the organizational commitment of its

employees.

2. Organizations need to focus on the level of commitment each employee has

and should try to facilitate monitoring organizational commitment

periodically.

3. Organizations should develop cultures those facilitate employees to stay with

the company longer. It can be achieved through organizational change

activities and/or policies and procedures.

4. Training is a costly process and should not just be there to show training

activities in the organization. A very comprehensive training needs analysis

should be conducted to know individual training needs of all the employees so

that training activity could be transferred to the work place and increase the

commitment level of the employee.

72
 REFERENCES

Asad Shareef Al-Emadi and Michael J. Marquardt (2007). “Relationship between

employees’ beliefs regarding training benefits and employees’ organizational

commitment in a petroleum company in the State of Qatar”, International

Journal of Training and Development 11:1 ISSN 1360-3736.

Alreck, P. I., & Settle, R. B. (2004). The survey research handbook. New York:

McGraw-Hill Irwin

Aronoff J., & Wilson J.P. (1985). Personality in the social process hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Barrack, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job

performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Barrick M.R., & Mount M.K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationship

between the Big-Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology. 78:111-118.

Barrack, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at

the beginning of the new millennium: what do we know and where to we go

next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 91, 9-30.

Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of

Sociology, 66, 32-40.

73
Buckley, R. and Caple, J. (1995), The Theory and Practice of Training, 3rd edn

(London: Kogan Page).

Burrow, J., & Berardinelli, P. (2003). Systematic performance improvement-refining

the space between learning and results. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(1),

6-14.

Campbell, J. P. (1988). Training design for performance improvement. In J. P.

Campbell & R. J. Campbell (Eds.), Productivity in organizations (pp.

177-215). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Colquitt, J. A., & Simmering, M. S. (1998). Conscientiousness, goal orientation, and

motivation to learn during the learning process: A longitudinal study. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 83, 654-665.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year

longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality

Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 853–863.

Costa P.T., Jr., & McCare R.R. (1992). Revised NEO-Personality Inventory Mannual

(Neo-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Mannual.

Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Craig, R. L. (1996). The ASTD training and development handbook: A guide to

human resource development. New York: McGraw-Hill.

74
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model.

Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417—440.

Dr. Kamarul Zaman Ahmad and Raida Abu Bakar (2003). “The association between

training and organizational commitment among whitecollar workers in

Malaysia”, International Journal of Training and Development 7:3 ISSN

1360-3736.

Ferris, K. R., & Aranya, N. (1983). A comparison of two organizational commitment

scales. Personal Psychology, 36(1), 87-101.

Fink, A. (2003). The survey kit. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gaertner, K. N. and Nollen, S. D. (1989), ‘Career Experiences, Perceptions of

Employment Practices, and Psychological Commitment to the Organization’,

Human Relations, 42, 975–91.

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American

Psychologist, 48, 26-34.

Goldberg, L. R. (1971). A historical survey of personality scales and inventories. In P.

McReynolds (Ed.), Advances in psychological assessment (Vol. 2) (pp.

293-336). Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.

Haslinda A., Raduan Che R., and Naresh K. (2007). Human resource development

strategies: the Malaysian scenario. Journal of Social Science 3(4): 213-222.

75
Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (1995). Employee turnover. Cincinnati, OH:

South-Western College.

Hurtz, G. M., & Denovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five

revisited. Journal of applied Psychology, 85, 869-879.

Jaros, S. T., Jermier, J. M., Koehler, J. W., & Sincich, T. (1993). Effects of

continuance, affective, and moral commitment on the withdrawal process: An

evaluation of eight structural equation models. Academy of Management

Journal, 36, 951-995.

John, O. P., Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R. (1991). Is there a basic level of

personality description? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,

348-361.

Kalleberg, A. L., Knoke, D., Marsden, P. V., & Spaeth, J. (1996). Organizations in

America. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Kantor, R. M. (1968). Commitment and social organizations: A study of commitment

mechanisms in utopian communities. American Sociological Review, 34,

499-517.

Landy, F. J., Shankster, L. J., & Kohler, S. S. (1994). Personnel selection and

placement. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 261-296.

76
Lang, D. L. (1992), ‘Organizational Culture and Commitment’, Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 3, 2, 191–6.

Liou, K., & Nyhan, R. (1994). Dimensions of organizational commitment in the

public sector: An empirical assessment. Public Administration Quarterly, 18,

99-118.

Martocchio, J. J., & ludge, T. A. (1997). Relationship between conscientiousness and

learning in employee training: Mediating influences of self-deception and

self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 764-773.

McAdams, D. P. (1995). What do we know when we know a person? Journal of

Personality, 63, 365-396.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human

universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516.

Montesino, M. U. (2002), ‘Strategic Alignment of Training, Transfer-Enhancing

Behaviors, and Training Usage: a Post-training Study’, Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 13, 1, 89– 108.

Mount M.K., & Barrick M.R. (1998). Five reasons why the "big five" article has been

frequently cited. Personnel Psychology 1998, 51.

Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., & Lee, T. W. (2001). How to keep your best

employees: Developing an effective retention policy. The Academy of

77
 Management Executive, 15(4), 96-108.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of

organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1),

61-89.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research,

and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a

general model. Human Resource Review, 11, 299-326.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Organizational linkages: The

psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. San Diego, CA:

Academic Press.

Marsh, R. M., & Mannari, H. (1977). Organizational commitment and turnover: A

predictive study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 57-75.

Malaysia, Government, 2001a. The Eighth Malaysia Plan, 2001-2005. National

Printing Department, Kuala Lumpur.

Malaysia, New Straits Times, 2005. Ninth Malaysia Plan thrust on human capital.

Retrieved 2008, from http://www.nst.com.my/Current_news/NST/Friday/

National/NST32232492.txt/Article/indexb_html. 04/02/2005.

78
Noe, R. A., Wilk, S. L. (1993). Investigation of the factors that influence employee’s

participation in development activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2),

291-302.

Noe, R. A. (2002). Employee training and development. McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Nordhaug, O. (1989). Reward functions of personnel training. Human Relations,

42(5), 373-378.

Nordhaug, O. (1989). Reward functions of personnel training. Human Relations,

42(5), 373-388.

Pinks, G. J. (1992), Facilitating Organizational Commitment through Human

Resource Practices (Kingston, Ontario: Queen’s University Industrial

Relations Center).

Porter, L. W., & Smith, F. J. (1970). The etiology of organizational commitment.

Unpublished paper, University of California, Irvine.

Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational

commitment. Academy of Management Review, 10, 465–476.

Richard L. Daft, “The Leadership Experience” 2008 (Fourth Edition), Thomson

South-Western.

Salgado, J. F. (1997). The Five Factor model of personality and job performance in

79
 the European community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30-43.

Schappe, S. P., & Doran, A. C. (1997). How does fair treatment affect employee

commitment to an organization? A field study of financial holding company

employees. The Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business, 33(3), 191-202.

Schuler, R. S., & MacMillan, I. C. (1984). Gaining competitive advantage through

human resource management practices. Human Resource Management, 23(3),

241-255.

Scott, W. R., & Meyer, J. W. (1991). The rise of training programs in firms and

agencies: An institutional perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior,

13, 297-326.

Sparrow, P. R. (1998), ‘Reappraising Psychological Contracting’, International

Studies of Management and Organization, 28, 1, 30–63.

Steers. R. M. (1975). Problems in the measurement of organizational effectiveness.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 546-558.

Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors

of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44,

703-739.

Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. The Academy of

80
Management Review, 7(3), 418-428.

81
 Appendix 1 – Survey Instrument

Survey Instrument (Questionnaire)

82
83
84
85
 Appendix 2 – Regression Results

SPSS output Regression 1 for Affective Commitment:

Model Summary

Change Statistics
Std. Error of
R Adjusted R the R Square F Sig. F
Model R Square Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change

a
1 .305 .093 .079 5.630 .093 6.656 3 195 .000
b
2 .328 .108 .075 5.641 .015 .803 4 191 .525
c
3 .343 .117 .080 5.626 .010 2.055 1 190 .153
d
4 .356 .127 .075 5.641 .009 .653 3 187 .582

a. Predictors: (Constant), Job_Bnfts, Prsnl_Bnfts, Career_Bnfts

b. Predictors: (Constant), Job_Bnfts, Prsnl_Bnfts, Career_Bnfts, LENGTH OF SERVICE WITH

CURRENT ORGANIZATION, LEVEL OF EDUCATION, GENDER, AGE

c. Predictors: (Constant), Job_Bnfts, Prsnl_Bnfts, Career_Bnfts, LENGTH OF SERVICE WITH CURRENT

ORGANIZATION, LEVEL OF EDUCATION, GENDER, AGE, Conscn

d. Predictors: (Constant), Job_Bnfts, Prsnl_Bnfts, Career_Bnfts, LENGTH OF SERVICE WITH

CURRENT ORGANIZATION, LEVEL OF EDUCATION, GENDER, AGE, Conscn, PB_Interaction,
JB_Interaction, CB_Interaction

86
 e
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

a
1 Regression 632.824 3 210.941 6.656 .000

Residual 6180.111 195 31.693

Total 6812.935 198

b
2 Regression 735.053 7 105.008 3.300 .002

Residual 6077.881 191 31.821

Total 6812.935 198

c
3 Regression 800.075 8 100.009 3.160 .002

Residual 6012.860 190 31.647

Total 6812.935 198

d
4 Regression 862.443 11 78.404 2.464 .007

Residual 5950.491 187 31.821

Total 6812.935 198

a. Predictors: (Constant), Job_Bnfts, Prsnl_Bnfts, Career_Bnfts

b. Predictors: (Constant), Job_Bnfts, Prsnl_Bnfts, Career_Bnfts, LENGTH OF SERVICE WITH

CURRENT ORGANIZATION, LEVEL OF EDUCATION, GENDER, AGE

c. Predictors: (Constant), Job_Bnfts, Prsnl_Bnfts, Career_Bnfts, LENGTH OF SERVICE WITH

CURRENT ORGANIZATION, LEVEL OF EDUCATION, GENDER, AGE, Conscn

d. Predictors: (Constant), Job_Bnfts, Prsnl_Bnfts, Career_Bnfts, LENGTH OF SERVICE WITH

CURRENT ORGANIZATION, LEVEL OF EDUCATION, GENDER, AGE, Conscn, PB_Interaction,
JB_Interaction, CB_Interaction

e. Dependent Variable: Affec_Comt

87
 a
Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 27.095 2.433 11.136 .000

Prsnl_Bnfts -.015 .092 -.013 -.169 .866

Career_Bnfts .241 .069 .288 3.522 .001

Job_Bnfts .063 .084 .054 .750 .454

2 (Constant) 29.192 3.900 7.485 .000

Prsnl_Bnfts -.008 .093 -.007 -.083 .934

Career_Bnfts .244 .072 .291 3.406 .001

Job_Bnfts .070 .086 .061 .821 .412

GENDER -.983 .855 -.084 -1.150 .252

AGE .615 .690 .082 .890 .374

LEVEL OF EDUCATION -.505 .402 -.092 -1.256 .211

LENGTH OF SERVICE
WITH CURRENT -.184 .351 -.046 -.524 .601
ORGANIZATION

3 (Constant) 33.486 4.909 6.821 .000

Prsnl_Bnfts -.011 .093 -.010 -.123 .903

Career_Bnfts .261 .072 .312 3.610 .000

Job_Bnfts .069 .085 .060 .813 .417

GENDER -1.074 .855 -.092 -1.256 .211

AGE .664 .689 .089 .962 .337

LEVEL OF EDUCATION -.424 .405 -.077 -1.048 .296

LENGTH OF SERVICE
WITH CURRENT -.250 .353 -.063 -.708 .480
ORGANIZATION

Conscn -.105 .073 -.101 -1.433 .153

4 (Constant) 43.415 20.604 2.107 .036

88
 Prsnl_Bnfts -.808 .751 -.689 -1.076 .283

Career_Bnfts .484 .634 .577 .763 .446

Job_Bnfts .457 .701 .394 .652 .515

GENDER -1.137 .862 -.097 -1.320 .189

AGE .607 .704 .081 .862 .390

LEVEL OF EDUCATION -.491 .409 -.089 -1.201 .231

LENGTH OF SERVICE
WITH CURRENT -.245 .361 -.061 -.678 .499
ORGANIZATION

Conscn -.292 .439 -.284 -.666 .506

PB_Interaction .017 .016 .836 1.063 .289

CB_Interaction -.005 .014 -.331 -.356 .723

JB_Interaction -.008 .015 -.359 -.552 .581

a. Dependent Variable: Affec_Comt

89
SPSS output Regression 2 for Continuance Commitment:

Model Summary

Change Statistics
Std. Error of
R Adjusted R the R Square F Sig. F
Model R Square Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change

a
1 .215 .046 .032 8.834 .046 3.151 3 195 .026
b
2 .252 .063 .029 8.845 .017 .872 4 191 .481
c
3 .260 .068 .028 8.848 .004 .893 1 190 .346
d
4 .266 .071 .016 8.903 .003 .220 3 187 .883

a. Predictors: (Constant), Job_Bnfts, Prsnl_Bnfts, Career_Bnfts

b. Predictors: (Constant), Job_Bnfts, Prsnl_Bnfts, Career_Bnfts, LENGTH OF SERVICE WITH

CURRENT ORGANIZATION, LEVEL OF EDUCATION, GENDER, AGE

c. Predictors: (Constant), Job_Bnfts, Prsnl_Bnfts, Career_Bnfts, LENGTH OF SERVICE WITH CURRENT

ORGANIZATION, LEVEL OF EDUCATION, GENDER, AGE, Conscn

d. Predictors: (Constant), Job_Bnfts, Prsnl_Bnfts, Career_Bnfts, LENGTH OF SERVICE WITH

CURRENT ORGANIZATION, LEVEL OF EDUCATION, GENDER, AGE, Conscn, PB_Interaction,
JB_Interaction, CB_Interaction

90
 e
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

a
1 Regression 737.586 3 245.862 3.151 .026

Residual 15217.107 195 78.036

Total 15954.693 198

b
2 Regression 1010.636 7 144.377 1.845 .081

Residual 14944.057 191 78.241

Total 15954.693 198

c
3 Regression 1080.523 8 135.065 1.725 .095

Residual 14874.171 190 78.285

Total 15954.693 198

d
4 Regression 1132.723 11 102.975 1.299 .228

Residual 14821.971 187 79.262

Total 15954.693 198

a. Predictors: (Constant), Job_Bnfts, Prsnl_Bnfts, Career_Bnfts

b. Predictors: (Constant), Job_Bnfts, Prsnl_Bnfts, Career_Bnfts, LENGTH OF SERVICE WITH

CURRENT ORGANIZATION, LEVEL OF EDUCATION, GENDER, AGE

c. Predictors: (Constant), Job_Bnfts, Prsnl_Bnfts, Career_Bnfts, LENGTH OF SERVICE WITH

CURRENT ORGANIZATION, LEVEL OF EDUCATION, GENDER, AGE, Conscn

d. Predictors: (Constant), Job_Bnfts, Prsnl_Bnfts, Career_Bnfts, LENGTH OF SERVICE WITH

CURRENT ORGANIZATION, LEVEL OF EDUCATION, GENDER, AGE, Conscn, PB_Interaction,
JB_Interaction, CB_Interaction

e. Dependent Variable: Contin_Comt

91
 a
Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 35.750 3.818 9.364 .000

Prsnl_Bnfts -.146 .144 -.081 -1.015 .311

Career_Bnfts .322 .108 .251 2.996 .003

Job_Bnfts -.058 .132 -.033 -.436 .663

2 (Constant) 42.007 6.116 6.869 .000

Prsnl_Bnfts -.135 .146 -.075 -.922 .358

Career_Bnfts .313 .112 .244 2.790 .006

Job_Bnfts -.057 .134 -.032 -.422 .674

GENDER -2.072 1.340 -.116 -1.546 .124

AGE .272 1.083 .024 .251 .802

LEVEL OF EDUCATION -.464 .630 -.055 -.737 .462

LENGTH OF SERVICE
WITH CURRENT -.563 .550 -.092 -1.024 .307
ORGANIZATION

3 (Constant) 46.459 7.721 6.017 .000

Prsnl_Bnfts -.139 .146 -.077 -.947 .345

Career_Bnfts .331 .114 .258 2.910 .004

Job_Bnfts -.058 .134 -.032 -.429 .668

GENDER -2.166 1.344 -.121 -1.611 .109

AGE .322 1.084 .028 .297 .767

LEVEL OF EDUCATION -.380 .636 -.045 -.598 .551

LENGTH OF SERVICE
WITH CURRENT -.632 .555 -.103 -1.138 .257
ORGANIZATION

Conscn -.108 .115 -.069 -.945 .346

4 (Constant) 54.256 32.518 1.668 .097

92
 Prsnl_Bnfts -.611 1.185 -.341 -.516 .606

Career_Bnfts .258 1.000 .201 .258 .797

Job_Bnfts .494 1.106 .278 .447 .655

GENDER -2.202 1.360 -.123 -1.619 .107

AGE .247 1.111 .022 .222 .824

LEVEL OF EDUCATION -.447 .646 -.053 -.692 .490

LENGTH OF SERVICE
WITH CURRENT -.613 .570 -.100 -1.077 .283
ORGANIZATION

Conscn -.258 .693 -.163 -.372 .710

PB_Interaction .010 .025 .320 .395 .693

CB_Interaction .002 .022 .067 .070 .944

JB_Interaction -.012 .024 -.336 -.501 .617

a. Dependent Variable: Contin_Comt

93
SPSS output Regression 3 for Normative Commitment:

Model Summary

Change Statistics
Std. Error of
R Adjusted R the R Square F Sig. F
Model R Square Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change

a
1 .106 .011 -.004 8.344 .011 .735 3 195 .532
b
2 .238 .057 .022 8.235 .046 2.306 4 191 .060
c
3 .239 .057 .017 8.256 .000 .036 1 190 .850
d
4 .323 .104 .052 8.110 .047 3.302 3 187 .022

a. Predictors: (Constant), Job_Bnfts, Prsnl_Bnfts, Career_Bnfts

b. Predictors: (Constant), Job_Bnfts, Prsnl_Bnfts, Career_Bnfts, LENGTH OF SERVICE WITH

CURRENT ORGANIZATION, LEVEL OF EDUCATION, GENDER, AGE

c. Predictors: (Constant), Job_Bnfts, Prsnl_Bnfts, Career_Bnfts, LENGTH OF SERVICE WITH CURRENT

ORGANIZATION, LEVEL OF EDUCATION, GENDER, AGE, Conscn

d. Predictors: (Constant), Job_Bnfts, Prsnl_Bnfts, Career_Bnfts, LENGTH OF SERVICE WITH

CURRENT ORGANIZATION, LEVEL OF EDUCATION, GENDER, AGE, Conscn, PB_Interaction,
JB_Interaction, CB_Interaction

94
 e
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

a
1 Regression 153.466 3 51.155 .735 .532

Residual 13577.379 195 69.628

Total 13730.844 198

b
2 Regression 778.836 7 111.262 1.641 .126

Residual 12952.008 191 67.812

Total 13730.844 198

c
3 Regression 781.285 8 97.661 1.433 .185

Residual 12949.560 190 68.156

Total 13730.844 198

d
4 Regression 1432.788 11 130.253 1.981 .032

Residual 12298.056 187 65.765

Total 13730.844 198

a. Predictors: (Constant), Job_Bnfts, Prsnl_Bnfts, Career_Bnfts

b. Predictors: (Constant), Job_Bnfts, Prsnl_Bnfts, Career_Bnfts, LENGTH OF SERVICE WITH

CURRENT ORGANIZATION, LEVEL OF EDUCATION, GENDER, AGE

c. Predictors: (Constant), Job_Bnfts, Prsnl_Bnfts, Career_Bnfts, LENGTH OF SERVICE WITH

CURRENT ORGANIZATION, LEVEL OF EDUCATION, GENDER, AGE, Conscn

d. Predictors: (Constant), Job_Bnfts, Prsnl_Bnfts, Career_Bnfts, LENGTH OF SERVICE WITH

CURRENT ORGANIZATION, LEVEL OF EDUCATION, GENDER, AGE, Conscn, PB_Interaction,
JB_Interaction, CB_Interaction

e. Dependent Variable: Normtv_Comt

95
 a
Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 25.193 3.606 6.986 .000

Prsnl_Bnfts -.117 .136 -.070 -.864 .389

Career_Bnfts .104 .102 .087 1.023 .308

Job_Bnfts .087 .125 .053 .694 .488

2 (Constant) 26.314 5.694 4.622 .000

Prsnl_Bnfts -.064 .136 -.038 -.470 .639

Career_Bnfts .117 .104 .098 1.121 .264

Job_Bnfts .078 .125 .047 .623 .534

GENDER -2.766 1.248 -.166 -2.217 .028

AGE 1.681 1.008 .158 1.668 .097

LEVEL OF EDUCATION -.441 .586 -.056 -.752 .453

LENGTH OF SERVICE
WITH CURRENT -.401 .512 -.071 -.783 .434
ORGANIZATION

3 (Constant) 25.481 7.204 3.537 .001

Prsnl_Bnfts -.063 .137 -.038 -.463 .644

Career_Bnfts .114 .106 .095 1.069 .286

Job_Bnfts .078 .125 .047 .623 .534

GENDER -2.748 1.254 -.165 -2.191 .030

AGE 1.672 1.012 .157 1.652 .100

LEVEL OF EDUCATION -.457 .594 -.058 -.769 .443

LENGTH OF SERVICE
WITH CURRENT -.388 .518 -.069 -.750 .454
ORGANIZATION

Conscn .020 .107 .014 .190 .850

4 (Constant) -27.588 29.621 -.931 .353

96
 Prsnl_Bnfts -1.076 1.079 -.646 -.997 .320

Career_Bnfts 2.699 .911 2.268 2.962 .003

Job_Bnfts .133 1.007 .080 .132 .895

GENDER -2.676 1.239 -.161 -2.160 .032

AGE 1.469 1.012 .138 1.452 .148

LEVEL OF EDUCATION -.469 .588 -.060 -.797 .426

LENGTH OF SERVICE
WITH CURRENT -.268 .519 -.047 -.516 .607
ORGANIZATION

Conscn 1.224 .631 .836 1.940 .054

PB_Interaction .023 .023 .799 1.003 .317

CB_Interaction -.059 .020 -2.709 -2.876 .004

JB_Interaction .000 .022 -.028 -.042 .967

a. Dependent Variable: Normtv_Comt

97