Employees' Perception of Organizational Climate and Its Implications For Organizational Effectiveness in Amhara Regional Public Service Organs

EMPLOYEES PERCEPTION OF ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS IN AMHARA REGIONAL PUBLIC SERVICE ORGANS
By Mesfin Raji Kiltu
Project submitted in partial fulfilment for the award of the Degree of EXECUTIVE MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Bahir Dar University, College of Business and Economics Department of Management
Bahir Dar June 2012
42
By Mesfin Raji Kiltu Student ID Number: CBE/129/03
Project submitted in partial fulfilment for the award of the Degree of EXECUTIVE MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Bahir Dar University, College of Business and Economics
Bahir Dar June 2012
42
Employees Perception of Organizational Climate and its implications for Organizational Effectiveness
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this Project Report titled Employees perception of organizational climate and its implications for organizational effectiveness in Amhara regional public service organs is submitted by me to the College of Business and Economics, Department of Business Management, Bahir Dar University. It is a bonafide work undertaken by me and it is not submitted to any other University or Institution for the award of any degree diploma / certificate or published any time before.
Mesfin Raji Kiltu ------------------------------------
Signature --------------------------
Date ..
iii
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that the Project Report title Employees perception of organizational climate and its implications for organizational effectiveness in Amhara regional public service organs is submitted in partial fulfilment for the award of EMBA Programme of Department of Business Management, College of Business and Economics, Bahir Dar University, was carried out by Mr. Mesfin Raji Kiltu under our guidance. It has not been submitted to any other University or Institution for the award of any degree/diploma/certificate.
Principal Advisor: Yitbarek Takele (PhD) Bair Dar University College of Business and Economics Department of Management Signature Date . Co- Advisor: Demeke Gadissa (MA) Bair Dar University College of Business and Economics Department of Management Signature .. .
Date .
iv
BOARD OF EXAMINERS BAHIRDAR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS
BY MESFIN RAJI KILTU Approved by the Board of Examiners: Advisor .. External Examiner -------------------------------------Internal Examiner -------------------------------------Signature .. Signature --------------------Signature --------------------
ABSTRACT
The study aimed at determining the level of Organizational Climate (OC) as perceived by the civil servants and finding out whether there is meaningful relationship between OC and Organizational effectiveness (OE). A standardised OC measurement questionnaires developed by Patterson et al (2005) based on Competing Values Model (CVM) and instrument of Speier & Venkatesh (2002) were used in collecting data. Hence, 348 questionnaires booklets were distributed to 6 public organizations in Amhara National Regional State (ANRS) and 260 questionnaires were returned, with an effective response rate of 75%. The collected data was analyzed using parametric statistical tools to test the hypotheses in SPSS. To this end, multiple linear regressions, Pearsons Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients, Independent-samples t-test, and One-way ANOVA was adopted. Overall, it was found that (a) the independent aggregate variables; Human Relations Values (HRV) and Open Systems Values (OSV) positively & significantly predicted the dependent variable (OE) and 32.5% of the variation in OE is explained by HRV & OSV combined on the half segment of the Competing Values Model (CVM); (b) the dimensions Integration, Involvement, Supervisory Support, Training and Welfare have shown significant positive correlation with their respective HRV domain of OC; (c) the dimensions Innovation & Flexibility, Outward Focus, and Reflexivity have shown significant positive correlation with their respective OSV domain of OC; and (c) there is no significant difference exhibited in employees gender, tenure, education level, and work processes in terms of employees perception of OC and OE. On other hand, there is significant difference found in employees perception in the type of organizations in terms of OE and OSV of the OC in which nine (20%) out of 45 tests conducted revealed statistically significant differences in the perception of organizational climate between organizations. However, with regard to HRV, no significance difference observed in employees perception across public organizations. The research results will have implications for policy makers and future researches in that it might contribute for a fundamental improvement in efficiency and performance of organizations and reduced turnover of employees.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am extremely grateful to my supervisors Dr Yitbarek Takele and Mr Demeke Gaddissa for their guidance and continuous follow up in the entire process of the thesis work without which this thesis could not have been completed. I am also grateful for the Amhara National Regional Government for providing me the opportunity to participate on the study program, staff of Amhara Management Institute and coordinator of this especial post graduate study program in EMBA at BDU who made the program run & successfully completed. I wish to thank all those who contributed directly and indirectly to this study, and helped me conclude this research project. In particular the following individuals deserves worth to be mentioned on facilitating data collection process: Mr Kebede Yimam and Mr Sileshi Kume from Bureau of Environment Protection & Land Administration; Mr Tefera Feyessa, Mr Fanta Moges & Mr Dagnew Asmare from Bureau of Education; Mr Tilahun Arega & Mr Getahun Ayalew from Bureau of Technical & Vocational Training; Mr Birhanu Gebre, Mr Kassahun Molla, & Mr Adamu Bogalle from Bureau of Culture Tourism & Parks Development; Mr Gared Legesse & Mr Chilot Amare from Office of General Auditor; and finally, Mr Ashagrie Zewdie from Bureau of Women, Youth & Children Affairs. At Last but not least, my sincere thank goes to Mr Tefera Tegegne for proofreading my manuscript and Ms Hizbalem Kebede for her unreserved secretarial support she provided to me not only for my thesis but throughout the learning process. I reserve my final gratitude for my caring family, my wife Martha Desalegn and my son, Biniyam. They have given me so much motivation, support and encouragement, together with their love, patience, and the acknowledged sacrifice of quality family time during my EMBA course. This dissertation belongs more to them than to me.
vii
ACRONYMS
ANRS BoCS BoCTPD BoE BoEPLA BoFED BoTVT BoWYCA BPR CSA CSRP CVM GTP HRV OC OE OGADT OSV PSCAP Amhara National Regional State Bureau of Civil Service Bureau of Culture Tourism & Parks Development Bureau of Education Bureau of Environment Protection & Land Administration Bureau of Finance Economic Development Bureau of Technical & Vocational Training Bureau of Women, Youth & Children Affairs Business Process Reengineering Central Statistics Agency Civil Service Reform Program Competing Values Model Growth Transformation Plan Human Relations Values Organizational Climate Organizational Effectiveness Office of General Auditor Open Systems Values Public Service Capacity Building Program
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents Page

DECLARATION .................................................................................... iii CERTIFICATION .................................................................................. iv BOARD OF EXAMINERS ...................................................................... v ABSTRACT ........................................................................................... vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .....................................................................vii ACRONYMS.........................................................................................viii TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................... ix LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................ xiii LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................. xiii LIST OF APPENDICES ........................................................................xiv CHAPTER I - THE PROBLEM AND ITS APPROACH ........................... 1
1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ............................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ............................................................. 7 OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................... 9 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ....................................................................... 10 RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODOLOGY ................................................ 10 Nature and Sources of Data ............................................................. 10 Sampling technique & sample size Determination .............................. 11 Method of Data collection ................................................................ 14 Method of Data analysis .................................................................. 16 Definitions and explanation of terms ................................................ 17 Validity & Reliability Tests ............................................................... 19 Variables of the study and Conceptual framework ............................. 21 Research hypotheses........................................................................ 22
1.5.1 1.5.2. 1.5.3. 1.5.4. 1.5.5. 1.5.6. 1.5.7. 1.5.8. 1.6. 1.7. 1.8. 1.9. 2.1. 2.2.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ............................................................. 23 SCOPE OF THE STUDY .......................................................................... 24 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY .............................................................. 25 ORGANIZATION OF THE PAPER ........................................................... 27 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 28 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................... 28 Overview ........................................................................................ 28
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE....................... 28
2.2.1.
ix
2.2.2. 2.2.3. 2.2.4. 2.2.5. 2.2.6. 2.2.7. 2.3. 2.3.1. 2.3.2. 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6.
Definitions of Organizational Climate ............................................... 30 The emergence of Competing Values Model ....................................... 31 The link between Competing Values Model and Organizational Climate35 The relationship of Organizational Climate and Culture ..................... 36 Importance of Organizational Climate .............................................. 39 Factors affecting Organizational Climate .......................................... 41 Organizational Climate and Organizational Effectiveness .................. 44 Validation of instruments ................................................................ 46
CRITICAL REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES ........................................ 44
CHAPTER III OVERVIEW OF THE ANRS ...................................... 47

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 47 DEMOGRAPHIC SITUATION ................................................................. 47 NATURAL BEAUTY ............................................................................... 47 ECONOMIC ACTIVITY ........................................................................... 48 HUMAN RESOURCE ............................................................................. 48 THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM............................................................... 49 The Public Service Capacity Building Program .................................. 49 Business Process Reengineering ....................................................... 50
3.6.1. 3.6.2. 4.1. 4.2.
CHAPTER IV: DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS .................................... 52

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 52 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS: AN OVERVIEW........................................... 52 Demography of Respondents............................................................ 53 Gender ..................................................................................... 53 Business Processes .................................................................... 53 Education................................................................................. 54 Tenure ..................................................................................... 55 4.2.1.1. 4.2.1.2. 4.2.1.3. 4.2.1.4. 4.2.2. 4.2.3. 4.3. 4.3.1.
4.2.1.
Descriptive Statistics ....................................................................... 55 Summary ....................................................................................... 60 Human Relation Values ................................................................... 61 Integration ............................................................................... 62 Involvement ............................................................................. 63 Supervisory Support ................................................................. 64 Emphasis on Training ............................................................... 64 Welfare .................................................................................... 65 Innovation & Flexibility ............................................................. 66
VALIDITY ANALYSIS............................................................................. 60 4.3.1.1. 4.3.1.2. 4.3.1.3. 4.3.1.4. 4.3.1.5.
4.3.2.
Open System Values ........................................................................ 65
4.3.2.1.
4.3.2.2. 4.3.2.3. 4.3.3. 4.4. 4.4.1.
Outward Focus ......................................................................... 67 Reflexivity ................................................................................ 67
Organizational Effectiveness ............................................................ 68 Human Relations Values.................................................................. 70 Integration ............................................................................... 70 Involvement ............................................................................. 71 Supervisory Support ................................................................. 71 Emphasis on Training ............................................................... 71 Welfare .................................................................................... 72 Innovation & Flexibility ............................................................. 72 Outward Focus ......................................................................... 73 Reflexivity ................................................................................ 73
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 69 4.4.1.1. 4.4.1.2. 4.4.1.3. 4.4.1.4. 4.4.1.5.
4.4.2.
Open Systems Values ....................................................................... 72
4.4.2.1. 4.4.2.2. 4.4.2.3. 4.4.3. 4.5. 4.5.1.
Organizational Effectiveness ............................................................ 73 Testing of Hypothesis One (effects between variables) ........................ 74 Nature & Strength of the Effect .................................................. 75 Explanation of the hypothesis .................................................... 77 Nature & Strength of Relationship ............................................. 78 Explanation of the hypothesis .................................................... 80 Nature & Strength of Relationship ............................................. 81 Explanation of the hypothesis .................................................... 82 Nature & Strength of Difference ................................................. 84 Explanation of the hypothesis .................................................... 85 Nature & Strength of Difference ................................................. 86 Explanation of the hypothesis .................................................... 87 Nature & Strength of Difference ................................................. 88 Explanation of the hypothesis .................................................... 89 Nature & Strength of Difference ................................................. 90 Explanation of the hypothesis .................................................... 91
HYPOTHESIS TESTING ......................................................................... 74 4.5.1.1. 4.5.1.2.
4.5.2.
Testing of Hypothesis Two (relationships between variables) ............. 78
4.5.2.1. 4.5.2.2. 4.5.3. 4.5.3.1. 4.5.3.2. 4.5.4. 4.5.4.1. 4.5.4.2. 4.5.5. 4.5.5.1. 4.5.5.2. 4.5.6. 4.5.6.1. 4.5.6.2. 4.5.7. 4.5.7.1. 4.5.7.2.
Testing of Hypothesis Three (relationships between variables) ........... 81
Testing of Hypothesis Four (difference between gender)..................... 84
Testing of Hypothesis Five (difference between tenure) ...................... 86
Testing Hypothesis Six (difference between education level) ............... 88
Testing Hypothesis Seven (difference between organization type) ....... 89
xi
4.5.8.
Testing of Hypothesis eight (difference between work groups) ............ 92 Nature & Strength of Difference ................................................. 92 Explanation of the hypothesis .................................................... 93
4.5.8.1. 4.5.8.2.
CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 95

5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 95 SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 95 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 102 IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................ 105 Implications for research ............................................................... 105 Recommendations for future research ............................................ 106
5.4.1. 5.4.2.
REFERENCES ................................................................................... 108 APPENDICES .................................................................................... 116
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Sample Selection & Distribution for organizations and respondents.......... 14 Table 2-1: Distinguishing Factors of the two approaches of the CVM ........................ 34 Table 2-2: Research Summary Made on OC by various researchers .......................... 42 Table 4-1: Descriptive Statistics for Gender of Respondents ..................................... 53 Table 4-2: Descriptive Statistics for Work processes of Respondents ........................ 54 Table 4-3: Descriptive Statistics for Education of Respondents ................................ 55 Table 4-4: Descriptive Statistics for Tenure of Respondents..................................... 55 Table 4-5: Descriptive Statistics for Sub-scales of HRV ........................................... 57 Table 4-6: Descriptive Statistics for Sub-scales of OSV ............................................ 58 Table 4-7: Descriptive Statistics for HRV, OSV and OE ........................................... 59 Table 4-8: Case wise diagnostics of constructs ........................................................ 60 Table 4-9: Coefficients Result ............................................................................... 75 Table 4-10: Model Summary for the Strength of Relationship .................................. 77 Table 4-11: Pearson Correlations of dimensions with Human Relations Values .......... 79 Table 4-12: Pearson Correlations of dimensions with Open Systems Values .............. 82 Table 4-13: Independent-Samples T-test for Gender ............................................... 85 Table 4-14: One-Way Independent ANOVA test for Tenure ..................................... 87 Table 4-15: One-Way Independent ANOVA test for Education level.......................... 88 Table 4-16: One-Way Independent ANOVA test for Organization Type ..................... 90 Table 4-17: Strength of difference for organization types ......................................... 91 Table 4-18: Independent-Samples T-test between for Work Processes ...................... 93
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Sampling Frame Distribution based on Performance of Organizations ..... 13 Figure 2-4: Research Model Adapted from Natural System Model of CVM ............... 22 Figure 2-1: The Competing Values Framework ....................................................... 32 Figure 2-2: The Alternative Competing Values Framework ...................................... 34 Figure 2-3: The CVF and Culture .......................................................................... 38 Figure 4-1: Relationship between HRV and OSV on Organizational Effectiveness ..... 75 Figure 4-2: Relationships of Dimensions of OC with HRV ....................................... 79 Figure 4-3: Relationships of Dimensions of OC with OSV ........................................ 82
xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX- A: List of Public Institution used for Sampling of Respondents ........... 116 APPENDIX- B: Determination of Respondents Sample ........................................ 117 APPENDIX- C: Questionnaire of the Study .......................................................... 118 APPENDIX- D: SPSS Chart Outputs of all Variables ............................................. 121 APPENDIX- E: Factor Analysis for Multifactor & Single factor structures ............... 132 APPENDIX- F: Item Loading for the Single Factor for HRV & OSV ........................ 135 APPENDIX- G: Item Loading for the Single Factor for Sub-scales of HRV & OSV .... 136 APPENDIX- H: Reliability Statistics for all Variables ............................................ 137 APPENDIX- I: SPSS Outputs of Regression Charts ............................................... 141 APPENDIX- J: Homogeneity test of Variance for Grouping Variable ...................... 142 APPENDIX- K: Suggestion of Intervention Strategies by Respondents ................... 143
xiv
CHAPTER I - THE PROBLEM AND ITS APPROACH

1.1. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
The environment of the early twentieth century was considerably more stable and predictable than todays. That is why Thomas (2009:19-20) stress the need for strong sense of purpose by organizations and allow workers to take active responsibility for handling more and more of the uncertainties involved in the accomplishment of their purposes. As many of todays businesses continue to struggle to survive or remain competitive, it becomes important for managers to better understanding of the factors that influence employees and important employee-oriented work outcomes (Allison & Kaye 2005). Therefore, individuals perceptions provide a starting framework for perceiving the organization's current situation. The growing significance placed on understanding of employees and their behaviour within the organization has produced a great deal of interest in investigating employees perceptions of climate within the organization (Riggle 2007) especially, at times when significant change is taking place. In our society, we spend quite a bit of time in either public institutions, business enterprises, or religious institutions. Therefore, the environment surrounding the individual bears significant influence personally and professionally. From human behaviour perspective, we learnt that people have their own perceptions, feelings and attitudes towards the organisation. Vijayakumar (2007) argued that climate in an organization evolves out of collective perceptions of employees on various aspects of the organizational work life and stressed organizational climate as indisputably a major contributing factor for 1
changing employees attitudes and behaviour towards superior job performance and satisfaction. Hence, it is understandable that a person perception shapes his attitudes to behave in a particular way. In fact, what does perception is all about? How do it impart on factors of individual and group behaviours and influence organizational effectiveness? These are the keenly awaiting answers from the nomenclature of management theories. According to Robbins (2004), perception can be defined as a process by which individuals organise and interpret their sensory impressions in order to give meaning to their environment based on their perception of what reality is, not on reality itself. Of course, perception affects our working relationships in many ways relating to the factors of individual, group or organisational behaviour. For example, based on the perceiver, context and target we may have the perception that the management under which we are working are no good at managing the job. Therefore, we may tend to avoid working with them, in fear of held responsible for their failures, and in doing so, affecting our working relationship with work environment, and ultimately, the effectiveness and efficiency of the organisation. Employee perceptions of organizational climate (OC) and work experiences have become one of the most researched aspects of management. According to Schneider & Snyder (1975) each individual perceives or conceptualizes his organization in any number of ways, depending upon the context and the set of information about the organization which is operative for that individual. In this regard, climate is the employees perception of how it
feels to work in the unit, and includes specific aspects of the environment that directly affect people's ability to get the job done (Mullins 2005). The difference in perception is explained by Doherty & Horne (2002) as it might be because of missing, or misconstruing, some of the stimuli since a persons perception is the way they select, organize and interpret stimuli. Therefore, just as the perceptions of the individual are at the centre of any behavioural intervention in OC, so are the perceptions of the characteristics of the organization, by the members of the organization, central to the diagnosis of organization's problems and dysfunctions. This in turn will lead us in contemplating and understanding of how the OC as perceived by employees in public sectors is antecedent of the organizations effectiveness. Managers in public sectors so far have concentrated on accountability and high performance and have sought to restructure bureaucratic agencies, redefine organizational missions, streamline organizational processes, and decentralize decision-makings. Two of the more significant shifts in the 21st century have been the increased attention to the delivery of public services on the one hand, and greater decentralization of responsibility for these services on the other (Ahmad et al. 2005). These facets of the service delivery have brought about much attention in public sectors to be more accountable and meet the expectations of the citizens. Arguments on adopting some limited new forms of commercial principles that may improve service delivery like outsourcing of some sections of an organisations activities in security, cleaning and property management could have a significant impact on changing the routinely entrenched mode of
service delivery (K. Brown et al. 2000). Such kind of collaboration at their face value could be advantageous for citizens demands. Entwistle & Martin (2005) argue that the turn to partnership marks an important departure in service delivery and they insist as a proposition partnership that delivers a transformational approach to service improvement. However, they fail short to dictate explicitly the peculiarity and modalities in formulation of the partnership. Across the public and private sector bridge, this characteristic of open systems facilitates teaming with stakeholders and encouraging the formation of partnerships. Nowadays a new paradigm for public management has emerged, aimed at fostering a performance-oriented culture in a less centralized public sector in which the Ethiopian Government has tried to implement as pilot New Public Management (NPM) initiative and now in the process of drafting as new Human Resource Development Policy (MoFED 2012; Abay & Perkins 2010). This new paradigm is often referred to as new public management that focus upon achieving qualitative service improvement, from a citizen perspective, whilst maintaining an overt focus upon bottom-line financial performance (Milner & Joyce 2005; Abay & Perkins 2010). The new policy document is currently under thorough review and discussion before submitted to the legislative bodies (MoFED 2012). Some of the critics of NPM which are outlined by Desta (2008) are: no clear definition what New Public Management is, the concept is loose and multifaceted and offer a kind of shopping basket of various elements for reformers of public administration, and some of the theoretical justifications are
also highly questionable. Above all, NPM tends to bread management not necessarily in terms of numbers rather the search for more effective means of control in the name of accountability. This final conclusive remark of Desta, as means of control is against the very essence of flexibility in a world of uncertainty that demands proactive measures. In recent times, agitated by persistent citizen tastes and requirements the hostile environment chases public sectors beyond their expectation. The new public service demands nothing more than satisfying the customers. However, in differentiating the new public service from the old public administration, the following invaluable principles are overriding (R. B. Denhardt & J. V. Denhardt 2000:553-556). Serving, rather than steering; Making the public interest as the aim, not the by-product; Thinking strategically, and acting democratically; Serving citizens, not customers; Understanding that accountability isnt simple; Valuing people, not just productivity; and finally, Valuing citizenship and public service above entrepreneurship. Without an adequate understanding of OC or culture, many well-intended leaders have led organizations to their demise since OC represents one of the first widely studied concepts to address the social context in organizations (Agard 2011: 611- 612). An attempt had been made to establish interrelationship between OC and its effect on performance and their attitudes of the civil servants. This is done based on best instruments available after proper adaptation. According to Lok & Crawford (1999), various researchers have confirmed that bureaucratic and stable environment often resulted in a lower level of employee commitment
(Brewer 1994; Kratina 1990; Wallach 1983) and performance (Krausz et al. 1995; Trice & Beyer 1993). The public administration scenario in ANRS, driven by the civil servants, who are the main change agents through efficient service delivery, undergoes so many strains and stresses during the discharge of their duties (BoCS 2010). OC surveys routinely show that about 75 percent of working adults report that the most stressful aspect of their job is their immediate boss (J. Hogan et al. 2009). Another findings studied by Vijayakumar (2007) implied that the role of management style in shaping climate perceptions of employees is crucial to advocate the case for strengthening participatory approach in the management. OC is a relatively an enduring quality of the internal environment of an organization that is experienced by its members, influences their behaviour, and can be described in terms of the values of a particular set of characteristics (or attributes) of the organization (Mullins 2005). In this study, the author tries to explore the concept of OC from the viewpoint of employees sensation that resides in the prevailing psychological environment of public institutions and the relevancy for quality and change initiatives. Civil Servants are a vital part of our work environment. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate how the organizational values are influenced by OC factors as perceived by employees and determine its implications for organizational effectiveness that in turn bring about job satisfaction and improved performance and understand how employees perception mould the quality of the working situation emanating from their interaction.
1.2.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM It is an undeniable fact that the public administration in ANRS is not
delivering well despite the fact that government effort to rejuvenate the system through the managerial cult of BPR is still ongoing and the overall change implementation process is yet at its infancy stage (BoCS 2010). According to Hammer & Stanton (1995) full implementation of BPR across all the processes of the business units of an organization can take many years (can easily last five to seven years, or even longer). The deterioration in the work environment and ineffectiveness of the whole public administration can be attributed not only to the poor conduct of civil servants working in the organizations but it might also be attributed to the lack of determination and failure of the leadership in creating conducive OC which deemed to be one of its crucial responsibility. This brings us to a point where thorough examination of the work environment is needed to identify causes of this debacle. Effectiveness of the public administration depends mainly upon the civil servants who are responsible for running it according to the set goals. The efficiency of the civil servants depends upon the extent and nature of their professional readiness for the performance of their jobs. It is not sufficient, however, that the civil servants merely have the required knowledge and skill or credentials only. It is essential that they should have an adequate understanding of servant attitude and the need to discern the underlying reasons and source of their payments besides having the mandatory requirement of some desirable level of mastery in the job in which they are assigned. That is why after reviewing empirical research about public service motivation conducted during the last two decades, Perry et al.
(2010) concluded that at the heart of the construct is the idea that individuals are oriented to act in the public domain for the purpose of doing good for others and society. Even though the ANRS public administration change process is in a mediocre stage; the lack of discipline in government institutions, substandard accountability, unmotivated employees, redeployment, idleness all contribute to poor performance of civil servants seems to aggravate the situation unless possible measures put in place to circumvent the mishaps. Furthermore, the new result oriented approach of outcome based public administration, rudimentary management style of the leadership, flatten organizational structures, the high customer expectation, coping with current political and ambitious developmental aspirations, and eradication of unethical behaviors and practices from public service sectors are believed to cause stress on civil servants. This in turn will lead to poor performance, high turnover and customer dissatisfaction. In most cases the leadership evidently denied accountability and easily put the whole blame on employees poor efficiency and lack of commitment. Apart from the necessity of having the leadership and subordinate irreplaceable relationships and technical competency little attention is usually paid to the underlining context of the work environment whether it favors or degrades employees morale. Therefore, the turning point of all fallacies and undesirable manifestations is looking into the context of the work environment and amend the irregularities. A recent survey concludes that public service delivery in Ethiopia can be improved if the commitment, ownership, and the drive for
change are in place (Mengesha & Common 2006; Beyene 2007). In conviction of the researcher, this can be realized if the context of the working environment is found to be favorable to employees to bring job satisfaction and boost their morale. From this OC takes the major share. 1.3. OBJECTIVES The main objective of the study is to determine the nature and strength of perception of OC in relation to the human relations (internal focus) and open systems (external focus) of flexible organizational orientation of OC as perceived by the civil servants of the ANRS. The specific objectives of the study are: a) To determine the influence of Human HRV and OSV domains of flexible orientations of OC on OE of Public sectors as perceived by employees. b) To determine the relationship that exists between the dimensions of OC and the aggregated HRV and OSV domains of OC respectively, and determines the dominant factor in each category. c) To find out if there is a significant difference in employees perceptions of OC in terms of employees gender, tenure, education level, organization type, and work processes in human relations values, OSV and Organizational effectiveness of OC across public sectors. d) To recommend a future research area that capitalizes on the findings of this research and to lay ground for future localized empirical research on similar topics. 9
1.4.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The study is aimed at answering the following research questions; 1. To what extent do HRV & OSV of OC influence organizational effectiveness ANRS public services? 2. Is there any significant positive relationship between the dimensions of OC and HRV (internal focus) of flexible orientation? 3. Is there any significant positive relationship between the dimensions of OC and OSV (external focus) of flexible orientation? 4. What is the dominant factor of OC influencing employees perception in public sectors of ANRS? 5. Is there any significant difference between employees perception of OC in terms of employees gender, tenure, education level, organization type, and work processes in HRV, OSVand OE across public sectors in ANRS? 1.5. RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODOLOGY
1.5.1 Nature and Sources of Data The research design fall under the broad category of positivist studies since its goal is to test the hypotheses proposed. A mixed research design of qualitative and quantitative is used as it aided the researcher in analysing the areas that impart employees perception towards OC and to scope out the magnitude or extent of a particular phenomenon, problem, or behaviour. Even though this research is qualitative in nature, data were collected using quantitative research methods, as a quantitative approach was more appropriate and the study involved the generation of data in quantitative form, which is subject to rigorous quantitative analysis. 10
A cross-sectional field survey adopted to collect primarily quantitative data such as numeric scores and biographic metrics. Field surveys are nonexperimental designs that do not involve controlling for or manipulating independent variables or treatments (Bhattacherjee, 2012) and it is convenient to capture snapshots of practices, beliefs, or situations from a random sample of subjects in field settings through a survey questionnaire. In the process, independent and dependent variables were measured at the same point in time using a single questionnaire. According to C. Hutchison (2000) mentioned in Silberman (2001), there are a number of data collection and analysis tools that can provide information about the status of an organization. The survey used climate survey or attitude survey in which it assesses employees current feelings and opinions within the organization regarding factors of OC and employees commitment. The study used mainly primary observational data sources i.e. personal feelings & sensation collected through self-administered questionnaire of crosssectional survey. The sources of the primary data were all type of individual government civil servants excluding political appointees in the selected sampled public sectors. 1.5.2. Sampling technique & sample size Determination In a positivistic study a representative or good sample is one in which the results obtained for the sample can be taken to be true for the whole population that can be able to generalise from the results. A good sample must be chosen at random (every member of the population must have a chance of being chosen), large enough to satisfy the needs of the investigation being undertaken, and unbiased (Collis & Roger Hussey 2003). However, many of the above methods
11
present problems of sample bias, mainly because in a sampling frame we cannot identify unambiguously in advance. In other words, the sample will not be representative of the population as a whole. Therefore, in a positivistic study, attempts are usually made to minimize the bias through justification of the sample selection method. In this study, taking the viability and representativeness of the sample, and resource constraints into consideration a two step process was followed in the selection of the respondents. First, the number of organizations was
sampled due to the homogeneity in work cultures across public sectors. Therefore, for every ten only one organization was taken as representative sample allowing equal chance of selection through random sampling from each stratum. In the second step, however, the respondents sample size was determined from the total number of employees in the thirty six organizations and subsequently allocating the calculated figure to the selected organizations in the first step proportionately. The stratification was done taking into account their difference in performance evaluation rankings in Civil Service Reform Program (CSRP) implementation, formally evaluated by the formerly known Regional Capacity Building and Civil Service Bureau 1 (Amare et al. 2010). Thirty-seven organizations took part in the evaluation of BPR implementation among which one organization latter had dissolved (See APPENDIX- A). The thirty-six organizations were classified based on the normal distribution curve of their rankings, which shows a mean of 62.21% and
The report was dispatched in circular Ref No. /2/8/87 dated 04/08/2002EC
12
standard deviation measure of 8.08%. Assuming that the data is almost normally distributed as it fulfills the condition set in the central limit theorem, and transforming the data into standardized form and taking the standard values of Z-scores as cut-off between +/- 1.00 and +/- 2.00 points, 20 organizations (55.56%) fall within the middle pile of the distribution curve, 7 organizations (19.44%) fall within the left 97.22% tail of data distribution, another 8 organizations (22.22%) fall within the right 97.22% tail of data distribution, and only one organization fall outside the right extreme end of the 97.22 % tail of the data distribution curve. Figure 1-1 shows the normal distribution curve of the sampling distribution of organizations.
F 0
E 7
D 13
C 7
B 8
A 1
Class
N. of Organization
Figure 1-1: Sampling Frame Distribution based on Performance of Organizations Hence, a sample size of 348 individual respondents was determined which were drawn from all work processes in random sampling out of the total 3,656 employees of the thirty six organizations proportionately using a formula for Sampling (Renckly 2002: 25)(see APPENDIX- B). Accordingly, the specific sampling distribution and sample sizes are depicted in the following table; 13
Table 1-1: Sample Selection & Distribution for organizations and respondents
Strata (based on Z scores) No. of Organiz ation Sampled Org. Type of Work Processes & their size
Class A (Above 1.79) Class B (1.15 to 1.79) Class C (0 to 1.14) Class D (0 to -1.14) Class E (-1.15 to -1.79) Class F (Below -1.79)
1 8 7 13
BoE BoTVT BoEPLA BoCTPD OGADT BoWYCA
0 36
0 6
Note: CP Core Process & SP Support Process Source: Researchers own computation 1.5.3. Method of Data collection
CP 5 SP 5 TOT - 10 CP 4 SP 5 TOT - 9 CP 5 SP 5 TOT - 10 CP 4 SP 5 TOT - 11 CP 5 SP 4 TOT - 9 0 0 0 CP 5 SP 6 TOT - 11
Respondent Sample Size % 39 19% 40 28% 79 23% 16 8% 17 12% 33 9% 26 13% 23 16% 49 14% 105 52% 48 33% 153 44% 17 9% 17 11% 34 10% 0 0 0 0 0 0 203 58% 145 42% 348 100%
The study adopted the standardised, structured and validated OC measurement developed by Patterson et al (2005) based on competing values model (CVM). Only the flexible orientation values of HRV and OSV were tapped from the measurement. OE is measured indirectly using proxy variable organizational commitment measurement developed by (Speier & Venkatesh 2002), which is adapted from (OReilly & Chatman 1986). Organizational commitment has been identified as a useful measure of OE explaining the workrelated behaviour of employees in organizations (Iqbal 2007; Steers 1977) and
14
the scales believed to measure the three basic components of organizational commitment; identification, involvement, and loyalty. Overall, the 8 dimensions of the OC measures comprised of 37 Likerttype items having a proven regression weight of 0.6 and above, the minimum recommendation (Hair et al. 1998; Vijayakumar 2007) were tapped from HRV and OSV of the CVM. For organizational commitment measure three Likerttype items, which previous researchers Speier & Venkatesh (2002) have found an acceptable reliabilities of ( = 0.75 0.83) were used. The response formats for both types of measures use a 5 point, Likert-type scale from 1- Strongly Disagree to 5- Strongly Agree. Both measures, translated into local language Amharic and put into a single questionnaire, since more than 85% of the respondents are believed to be undergraduates, questions in English language might not produce the required response and assumed to limit their participation on the survey. A Group of three linguistics professionals carried out the translation meticulously preserving the dialects and original positive/negative wording of the English language (see APPENDIX- C). The demographic questions put at the beginning of the questionnaire, though there is some debate regarding the best location for the classification questions which ask about the respondents sex, education, etc. Some authors believe that they are best placed at the beginning, so that respondents gain confidence in answering easy questions; others prefer to place them at the end, so that the respondent starts with the more interesting questions. However, Collis & Roger Hussey (2003:175) advised that unless your questions have a
15
large number of classification and are of a sensitive nature, it may be best to start with the non-threatening classification questions. At the end of the questionnaire, a filtering question was provided using nominal and ordinal scale measures to crosscheck the consistency and genuineness of the responses. It also serves gather respondents opinion on the areas of possible improvement of OE. The questionnaire was prepared in two formats, in hard copy ballpoint format for personal contact and electronic format. Adobe Acrobat X Pro software was used to design the e-questionnaire with a friendly use of dropdown lists and button marked response platform. Data collection started on April 11, 2012 and concluded within 10 days. 1.5.4. Method of Data analysis The collected data were statistically analysed by means of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS Version 16) and the data analyses involved both descriptive and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics allow researchers to present the data acquired in a structured, accurate and summarised manner (Collis & Roger Hussey 2003: 196). The descriptive statistics utilised in this research used to analyse the demographic data included frequencies, percentages, means, median, and standard deviations. Inferential analysis is concerned with the various tests of significance for testing hypotheses in order to determine with what validity data can be said to indicate some conclusion(s) and concerned with the estimation of population values (Kothari 2004: 131). The following linear regression model was tested assuming that the interaction between predictors is negligible and the effect of
16
control variables is minimal. In multiple linear regressions, the individual relationships in any of the component regressions are linear (straight-line, not curved, or any other shape). Organizational Effectiveness (OE) = (Xi=1-2) where, Xi are the two aggregated values of the OC. i.e.
independent variables in which; X1 = HRV, X2 = OSV, 0 = the y-intercept, bi,

i=1-2 =
(Where: Y = dependent variable of Organizational Effectiveness (OE) and Xi =
Y = + b1 X1 + b2 X2 +
regression coefficients of the two factors in explaining Y, and = the Error
term). Hence, H0: bi, i=1-2 = 0 Therefore, the collected data were analyzed using parametric statistical tools to test the hypotheses. To this end, Multiple Linear Regressions, Pearsons Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients, Independent-samples T- test, and One-way ANOVA were used for testing the hypotheses. 1.5.5. Definitions and explanation of terms The terminologies used in the study are defined as follows; Human Relations: refers to the well-being, growth and commitment of the community of workers within an organization (Patterson et al. 2005) and understanding of the problems and anxieties of the staff and to encourage their wider motivations to work (Rose 2005). Open systems: refers to the interaction and adaptation of the organization to its environment, with managers seeking resources and innovating in response to environmental demands (Pugh & Hickson 1996). Work process: is a set of interrelated steps that begin with an input or trigger and end with an outcome that satisfies the end user (Linden 1998). 17
Core processes: are those that end up touching an external customer; they occur when an employee fills a customers order, responds to a customers complaint, or develops a new program or product (Linden 1998). Support Processes: are internally focused, such as the process of recruiting, hiring, and training of new employees (Linden 1998). Integration: is the extent of interdepartmental trust and cooperation (Patterson et al. 2005) binding the variety of experience and expertise among members to provide a synergetic effect which can be applied to the increasingly complex problems of modern organisations (Mullins 2005). Involvement: is the degree to which one is cognitively preoccupied with, engaged in and concerned with ones present job (Paullay et al. 1994), drives alignment and promotes teamwork. Supervisory Support: is the extent to which employees experience support and understanding from their immediate supervisor (Patterson et al. 2005). Laissez-faire leadership described as a leader's disregard of supervisory duties and lack of guidance to subordinates (Barbuto 2005) as a result in todays environment, the supervisory role has shifted from authoritarian to team facilitator. Emphasis on training: is about developing employees skills and proved in Samuel & Chipunza (2009) researches that training and development as a motivational variables were found to have significantly influenced employee retention in both the public and private sector organisations. Employee Welfare: is the extent to which the organization values and cares for employees (Patterson et al. 2005) and make them feel as though their well being is considered as a vital component of OC.
18
Innovation & flexibility: Innovation is the extent of encouragement and support for new ideas and innovative approaches while flexibility is an orientation toward change (Patterson et al. 2005). To survive, adapt, and gain competitive advantage, organizations need to fully take advantage of their employees innate creative potential (Zhou & George 2003), because employees creative ideas can be used as building blocks for organizational innovation, change, and competitiveness. Outward focus: is the extent to which the organization is responsive to the needs of the customer and the marketplace in general (Patterson et al. 2005). Reflexivity: is a concern with reviewing and reflecting upon objectives, strategies, and work processes, in order to adapt to the wider environment (Patterson et al. 2005). 1.5.6. Validity & Reliability Tests Pilot study was carried out using convenient selection method on four public organizations having the same characteristics with the participants of the main study. The advantages of doing a pilot study include; it helps to detect potential defects in the measurements procedures, it assists in identifying ambiguous items, and it allows the researcher to become aware of non-verbal behaviours that may occur due to the wording of questions (Singh 2009). In fear of the boredom that may inflict on the participants, only one organization was included from the sampling frame and the remaining three were outside the sample frame. Since, the intention was to undertake the pilot study on 20% of the sample size and hence, after randomly identifying and having the list of email address of the participants, 68 questionnaires (splitting evenly for both ballpoint and email filling) were distributed to the participants,
19
which were drawn from all work processes of the organizations. Eventually, 37 questionnaires were returned with a response rate of 54.4%. The low response rate of the email filling, 26.5% as compared to 82.4% for the hard copy was the first lesson learnt from the pilot study to rely only on the ball-point and exclude the electronic questionnaire format. The second lesson, it was learnt that no complains reported on the clarity and ambiguity of wording of the questions. Thirdly, with regard to the psychometric properties of the questionnaire, most items under their respective nine constructs has shown a reliability measure, Cronbach's Alpha, within an acceptable range of .694 to .873 except for one construct, Training, with low alpha value of .453 and another, Integration, with a negative value. One question was identified as the cause of low alpha value in the Training construct as there would be a possibility of raising the alpha value to .673 if it had been eliminated there of. The validity of the measurement during the pilot study was assessed using the KaiserMeyerOlkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) in principal component analysis that represents the ratio of the squared correlation between variables to the squared partial correlation between variables. This had been done as KMO is another alternative way of gauging of the substantive importance of a given variable to a given factor. Kaiser (1974) as cited in Field (2009) recommends accepting values greater than 0.5 as barely acceptable because values below this imply to either collect more data or rethink what variables to include. Hence, the KMO values obtained in the pilot study fall within the range of .519 to .822 except for one construct, Integration that shown negative alpha in reliability again showed KMO of .439, which is below the recommended
20
threshold value. However, it was decided latter to maintain Integration with the Training construct that showed low alpha value though suspected of reasons that may arise from the lax behaviours of respondents and the small sample size used coupled with low response rate in the pilot study might have affected the results. 1.5.7. Variables of the study and Conceptual framework Organizational commitment that was selected as a proxy variable to measure Organizational Effectiveness (OE) was considered as a dependent variable. The sub-scales (dimensions) of the HRV domain (Training, Welfare, Integration, Involvement, and Supervisory support) and OSV domain (Reflexivity, Outward focus and Innovation & Flexibility) of OC were considered as first-order independent variables. The aggregated domains of HRV and OSV were considered as the second-order independent variables. In the study, demographic variables such as sex, educational level, type of work process in which the respondents are assigned, and tenure were considered as control variables. Prior studies have demonstrated that these demographic variables are potential predictors of organizational commitment (Avolio 2004). Having a thorough review of earlier researches and noting the dearth of empirical works in African work environment especially on public servants, this study geared to focus in filling the gaps that is sought in the aforementioned areas. Figure 2-4 in the next page portrays the conceptual research model that is formulated to rejuvenate the main elements of the study.
21
Flexible Orientation of OC Training Welfare Integration Involvement Supervisory support Reflexivity Outward Focus Innovation & Flexibility Natural System Model Open systems (External Focus) Human Relations (Internal Focus)
Outcome Organizational effectiveness
Figure 2-2: Research Model Adapted from Natural System Model of CVM
This study was based on the premise that OC perceptions contribute to groups and organizational effectiveness and would try to test the propositions that positive climate perceptions would improve, and negative climate perceptions would deteriorate group and organizational effectiveness.
Therefore, the study tried to shade light on identifying the blurred areas of confrontation between management and employees in the work environment in terms of flexible orientations of OC i.e. HRV and OSV. 1.5.8. Research hypotheses The study proposes to test the following eight hypotheses: 1) The aggregated HRV & OSV of OC do not predict the organizational effectiveness, commitment. which is measured by employees organizational
22
2) The dimensions of OC (Integration, Involvement, Supervisory Support, Training, and Welfare) do not positively relate with HRV domain of flexible orientation. 3) The dimensions of OC (Innovation & Flexibility, Reflexivity, and Outward focus) do not positively relate with OSV domain of flexible orientation. 4) There is no significant difference between employees perception of OC in terms of employees gender in HRV, OSV and OE across public sectors. 5) There is no significant difference between employees perception of OC in terms of employees tenure in HRV, OSV and OE across public sectors. 6) There is no significant difference between employees perception of OC in terms of education level in HRV, OSV and OE across public sectors. 7) There is no significant difference between employees perception of OC in terms of type of organization in HRV, OSV and OE across public sectors. 8) There is no significant difference between employees perception of OC in terms of work processes in HRV, OSV and OE across public sectors. 1.6. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY The impetus for this study arose out of the realization that the aggressive moves by the government to transform the countrys economy to middle-income economy level within the coming decade, coupled with the general perception of the necessity of creating competent public sectors and administration that actively engaged on implementation of government policies to mobilize the society. Hence, a more analytical approach in understanding how employees perceive their environment and how this in turn influences their attitudes
23
towards the OE first need to be figured out to devise appropriate organizational measures. In this study, there are two basic factors: OC and OE. The study aimed at determining the level of OC as perceived by the civil servants and find out whether there is meaningful relationship between OC and OE. The study also tries to verify whether there is difference in perception of OC within institutions in terms of gender, tenure, educational level and work processes. The findings of this study would serve as a basis for fostering improved working relationships between the leadership and employees and that of customers. It would also help the leadership of the regional government bureaux to regulate their relationship towards their subordinates by providing welfare facility, adequate participation, training prospects and promotion opportunities. The results of the study will enable to acquire adequate knowledge about the management styles of the leadership in ANRS. The research may be helpful to the cabinet council to make intense efforts to improve the public sector management competencies. The result of this research will provide necessary information and more understanding about public sectors officials competencies and their relation with their subordinates. The result of this research will emphasize the need for and importance of preservice and in-service training of leadership for effective management. 1.7. SCOPE OF THE STUDY The study is geographically confined to governmental public sectors of the ANRS at the regional tier of political governance supervised by the regional Bureau of Civil Service (BoCS) for the reason of responsibilities levied upon in
24
devising the developmental programs and put directions for the lower administrative levels. The regional public offices are by far better than branch offices at lower administration levels in terms of intellectual and institutional arrangements to portray the working culture. The study also deals only on aspects of Human relations (internal focus) and Open systems (external focus) of flexible orientations of CVM of OC because it enables to get focussed and have better insight and deal with the institutional adaption to the overall organizational change process. 1.8. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY One of the major limitations emerges from its scope, in spite of time constraints and fear of bulkiness in managing the study process, the relationship between organizational effectiveness and the control orientations of organizations which represent almost half of the organizational analysis in the CVM i.e. the Internal Process Values (IPV) and Rational Goal Values (RGV) were not included in the set of independent variables. Since climate is best described as employee perceptions of the organization and will be a function of employee attitudes and values (Toulson & Smith 1994), and also Quinn (1988) argued that a balance of competing organizational values is required for OE. Therefore, it would have been better if the assessment is done holistically to gain insight in light of factors of OE framed in OC. Secondly, the study involves largely latent constructs that are not directly measurable. Thus, though the measure is applied across a variety of organizational types and in a variety of national contexts (Patterson et al 2005), the inherent limitations of the questionnaire and selectivity of measurement 25
scales that was tapped from the manufacturing environment adaptation to service industry of standardized validated measurement of such constructs remain. Thirdly, potential limitations that emerge from the nature of sampling; targeting of on regional level public institutions and public servants, relatively non-updated information used in determining the sampling frame and sample size (true representativeness of the current situation may suffer) and the crosssectional nature of the data in the study. As a result, generalization of the results may be limited. This research also relied on self-report surveys to measure employees' perceptions of their work environment preferences, which raises the potential for common method variance. Common method variance, in this case refers to the problem that occurs when the same participant completes all the measures using the same type of paper-and pencil response format (Vakola & Nikolaou 2005). It is possible that data collected from the questionnaires do not capture the complexity of employees perceptions towards their workplace conditions. Since a quantitative design was used, qualitative data could have added value to the research. Alternatively, a triangulation method like interview and focal group discussion could have been employed to gather richer data to establish the linkages of OC and OE. Lastly, a limitation in a dearth of similar empirical researches and relevant literatures in the area of employees perception of OC in Ethiopian as well as ANRS work environments. In general, the results need to be interpreted in the spatial, temporal, and methodological context of the study. That is, in the countrys government institutions context and regional work culture as well as the nature of the measurement employed for the statistical tests need to be
26
considered in interpreting the results. The use of a combination of methods also relates to this need for flexibility in the study. Thus, the hypotheses need to be tested in other empirical settings to garner further support. 1.9. ORGANIZATION OF THE PAPER Chapter-I sets the tone and context of OC in the shift from old to new public administration and outlines the reasons behind the study. It provides a brief description about the background of the study, statement of the problem, general and specific objectives, research questions & hypotheses, research methodology, significance of the study, the scope, limitations and organization of the paper. Chapter-II provides a thorough review of related theoretical and empirical literatures on the thematic issue of OC. The empirical evolution of conceptual and methodological issues pertaining to research problem was emphasised highlighting the methodological clues drawn through the literature review. Chapter-III addresses a brief historical retrospect about the entity of the study, the regional governments profile in relation to civil service reform implementation. Chapter-IV presents the data analysis and the most salient results emanating from the analysis obtained in the study. Chapter-V provides the summary and conclusions that are drawn based on the obtained results and integrated with existing literature. Moreover, practical implications of the research findings are highlighted and
recommendations for future research outlined.
27
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter reassesses the literature of the theoretical basis of the framework used in the study, Competing Values Model. Literatures on the links between Competing Values Model and Organizational Climate, the relationship of Organizational Climate and Culture and the importance of OC and factors affecting OC. The chapter try to review some of the empirical studies with regard to the subject matter in light of its connection to organizational effectiveness. 2.2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.2.1. Overview Early theories of employee motivation almost completely dominated by the assumption that the only incentives available, which are likely to exist until today to some managers, believed to rely more on the monetary ones and economic self-interest (Schein 2004). However, Hawthorne studies
(Roethlisberger & Dickson 1939; Homans 1950) had born the new series of social assumptions, postulating that employees motivated by the need to relate well to their peer and membership groups and that such motivation often overrides economic self-interest (Ibid, p172). This argument is against the many economic theories assumption that human beings are rational and employ utility maximization based on cost and benefit expectations as a way of understanding human behaviour (Bhattacherjee 2012). On the contrary, political science theories, assume that people are more political than rational, and try to position themselves in their professional or personal environment in a way that maximizes their power and control over 28
others (Ibid). This was previously supported by Ajzen (1991) in his theory of planned behaviour postulating that behaviours are based on ones intention regarding that behaviour, which in turn is a function of the persons attitude toward the behaviour, subjective norm regarding that behaviour, and perception of control over that behaviour. Recent theories also emphasize the need to enhance the career development and psychosocial support to employees through mentoring and reduce their perception of job-related stress (Sosik & Jung 2010:345). In all perspectives, peoples behaviour framed not merely from personal exposition but has direct linkage with organizational behaviours. Even though the exact time of the individual assertion not mentioned, excerpts obtained from the book Writers on Organization (Pugh & Hickson 1996), the great management gurus of the olden times had highlighted how the need to function successfully in different environments led organizations to adopt different structures and strategies. For instance, it was explained how Tom Burns examined the effects rapidly changing technological developments on the attempts of old-fashioned firms to adjust to new environments. How Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch emphasised that it is the appropriateness of the organizations structure in relation to its environmental requirements, which is the basis of effectiveness. James D. Thompson also portrayed organizations as open systems having to achieve their goals in the face of uncertainty in their environments, while Raymond Miles and Charles Snow emphasised the strategic choices that managements have to make to adapt to the environmental pressures they face. All the writers concern was the need for adaptation for change situations and being flexible to the environment surrounding the organizations.
29
In their approach, they highlight three key elements on understanding of organizational behaviour, which believed in line with the underling outlook of this study. These are: a) it is people who have purposes, not organizations; b) people have to come together to coordinate their different activities into an organization; and c) the effectiveness of the organization is judged by the adequacy with which the members needs are satisfied through planned transactions with the environment (ibid). 2.2.2. Definitions of Organizational Climate OC perceptions are descriptive of conditions that exist in the work environment. The perceptions are not evaluative or affective (Schneider & Snyder 1975) but recent work contradicts this view, suggesting strong evaluative or affective components (Patterson et al 2005). For decades, the definitions barely changed in the early understanding of OC as a normative structure of attitudes and behavioural standards which provided a basis for interpreting the situations and act as a source of pressure for directing activities (Gregopoulos 1965). To the recent amalgamated definition of Agard (2011) of all the
preceding studies, seeing OC to consist the visible attributes of an organizations values as interpreted, in a shared manner, by multiple members of the organization. All in all, climate is best described as employee perceptions of the organization, it follows that the measurement of climate will be a function of employee attitudes and values (Toulson & Smith 1994). There are a variety of measures of OC as summarized by Furnham & Gunter (1993). To name the few; the categorical approach which attempts to classify organizations according to pre-existing theoretical types, the
dimensional approach which attempts to classify organizations according to the
30
perceptions of its members to a set of dimensions, the third method is to use historical data of an organization to develop an aggregate index of OC. The first and the third methods are objective measures while the second is a subjective measure based on the perceptions of individuals. We can therefore, summarize the definitions as any course of sequence of behavior that aids in achieving a necessary purpose or a series of action that lead to the accomplishment of objectives. 2.2.3. The emergence of Competing Values Model As part of their contribution on organizational behavior, Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983), where they engaged in a series of studies to review the OC literature have compiled a list of dimensions, which they termed as the Competing Values Model. Even though the model is likely rooted from mechanistic and organic type of classification of organizations in which the former is adapted to relatively stable conditions and the latter is adapted to unstable conditions when new and unfamiliar problems continually arise (Burns & Stalker 1961), the CVM is a preferred way of portraying the organizational behavior in the context of organic type of organization that seek adaptation to new environment. According to (K. S. Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Quinn, 1988), the CVM named as one of the fifty most important models in the history of business. It has since extended as a framework that makes sense of high performance in regards to numerous topics in the social sciences and organizations. The CVM studied and tested in organizations for more than twenty-five years by a group of thought leaders from leading business schools and corporations. It has been the topic of many books and papers and it employed in the improvement of
31
thousands of organizations. Still, various researchers use the CVM for all aspects and levels in organizations. Two domains of the Competing Values Framework used in the present study as a frame of reference (Quinn and Rohrbaugh 1983). This framework captures the dimensions of flexibility/stability and the external/internal focus of organizations and makes it possible to distinguish between organizational values. The Open System type encompasses values such as flexibility, external organizational orientation, adaptability, the capacity to change, uniqueness and an orientation towards customers and the Human Relations type of values is supported by an internal focus, cohesion, morale, trust and belongingness (K. S. Cameron & Quinn 1999).
HUMAN RELATION MODEL Flexibility/Spontaneity OPEN SYSTEM MODEL
Means: Cohesion; Morale Ends: Human Resource Development

Internal Focus
Means: Flexibility; Readiness Ends: Growth; Resource Acquisition Outpu t Q lit

External Focus
Natural System Values
Means: Information Management; Communication Ends: Stability; Control

INTERNAL PROCESS MODEL
Means: Planning; Goal Setting Ends: Productivity; Efficiency
Rational Values
Predictability/Control
RATIONAL GOAL MODEL
Source: (Adapted from Quinn & Rohrbaugh (1983: 369) Figure 2-1: The Competing Values Framework The framework suggests four main quadrants, each associated with different managerial ideologies encapsulating the means by which outcomes may be achieved (Cooil et al. 2009). A major strength of this model is its 32
derivation from four orientations to the study of organizational effectiveness, reflecting long traditions in work and organizational psychology (Patterson et al., 2004). Patterson and his colleagues thus, went on differentiating the two approaches from the other two in that the open systems approach emphasizes the interaction and adaptation of the organization in its environment, with managers seeking resources and innovating in response to environment. The human relations approach reflects the tradition derived from socio technical and human relations schools emphasizing the well-being, growth and commitment of the community of workers within the organization. One of the main advantages of the CVM is the fact that it derives its approach from long standing theories in management and organizational psychology (Cooil et al. 2009) and it clarifies leadership roles and expectations and the clarification minimizes ambiguity and avoids interpersonal conflicts within teams (Zafft et al. 2009). The emergence of the pairs of competing values; flexibility versus stability, and internal versus external reflects a basic dilemma of organizational life and those organizations that are able to best balance integration and differentiation are the most effective systems. From which side we perceive, participants have unique feelings, likes and dislikes, and require consideration, appropriate information, and stability in their workplace (Quinn & Rohrbaugh 1983). Therefore, parallels among the models are important. The human relations and open system models share an emphasis upon flexibility whereas; the rational goal and internal process models are rooted in a value on control (Ibid).
33
Source: Adapted from Quinn & Rohrbaugh (1983: 374) Figure 2-2: The Alternative Competing Values Framework In the following table the distinguishing factors of the two approaches in CVM is presented; Table 2-1: Distinguishing Factors of the two approaches of the CVM
Human Relations Open Systems Approach: Approach: Focus Commitment, Cohesion, and Adaptability and External Support Morale Assumption: Involvement results in Continual adaptation and innovation commitment lead to acquiring and keeping necessary external resources Emphasis: Participation, conflict Political adaptability, creative resolution, consensus problem solving, innovation, and building management of change Expectation: Act as a team, with high Operate in a high-risk, fast-paced, employee involvement innovative climate, and to rely on vision and shared values The leader: To take the role of a mentor, To be highly adaptable, an innovator coach, and facilitator and broker People: Want to and will perform well Thrive on challenge, move from given the right environment project to project as needed, and and encouragement must watch for burn-out Roles: Mentor, Facilitator Innovator, Broker
Source: Adapted from Faerman (1990:4-5)
Quinn & Rohrbaugh further argue that OE is not a concept. It is a socially constructed, abstract notion carried about in the heads of organizational 34
theorists and researchers and in judging the effectiveness of any organization, they come up to demonstrate through social judgment analysis that it is possible to articulate values, make the weights on each value explicit, and develop a formula for empirically combining scores on each criterion. OE refers not only to results, which are important but also to a number of other aspects - values, philosophy, policies, process and outcomes. 2.2.4. The link between Competing Organizational Climate Values Model and
The CVM is an empirically derived and comprehensive framework that encompasses many of the proposed dimensions in the literature and it has proven to have both face and empirical validity (Cooil et al. 2009). With this model, Quinn and his colleagues proposed that OC can best be classified by the fundamental dimensions of internal versus external focuses and flexibility versus control orientations (Quinn & Rohrbaugh 1983). Kurt Lewin and his colleagues coined the term Organizational Climate first in 1939 following a study of childrens school clubs. He subsequently developed his well known field theory of behavior, which he linked to the Gestalt psychology of holistic perception, and expanded to encompass whole organizations (Clegg & Bailey 2008; Kundu 2007). The article mainly emphasised on the relationship between leadership styles and so-called Social Climate that states as a distinctly organizational concept attributed to Rensis Likert, whose work expanded Lewins ideas, and still actively influence the ways scholars and practitioners approach OC. Likerts use of surveys to measure climate still the dominant approach today was intended to measure an OC
35
that he considered could not be explicitly known to the organizations members, nor was it something that could be created artificially. OC can be seen as an enduring quality of the internal environment that is experienced by members, influences their behavior and can be described by a particular set of values of the characteristics of the organization that are created by shared psychological climates and it is the employees perception of the work environment and not the environment that is important. Schneider (1990) as cited in (Patterson et al. 2004), suggested that OC perceptions focus on the processes, practices, and behaviors which are rewarded and supported in an organization. The success of Human Services organizations generally depends on the relationships and interactions between service providers and service recipients. These relationships are central to the quality and outcome of services. Importing climate and process from the external environment, organizations adapt ways from other organizations with which they compete or cooperate. Effective management of organization processes is vital for sustaining the competitive edge of any organization. Processes no longer viewed as just production processes. Today, management realizes there are many more processes that use material, equipment, and people to provide many types of outputs and services. They are called business processes, and today they are even more important to competitiveness than production processes (Harrington 1991). 2.2.5. The relationship of Organizational Climate and Culture Climate regarded as an attribute of the organization, a conglomerate of attitudes, feelings, and behaviours that characterizes life in the organization, and exists independently of the perceptions and understandings of the members 36
of the organization (Ekvall 1996). Ekvall has also stressed that OC is not identical to organizational culture. The OC is mostly about attitude and behaviours. Whereas culture is a process in which the aim is to form a collection about more comprehensible system of values and believes (Gill 2008). One of the critical issues in OC is its differentiation from organizational culture. Indeed, the terms culture and climate used interchangeably in the organizational literature. These concepts are, however, clearly differentiated ontological perspectives and in most cases, culture refers to deeply embedded values and assumptions (Clegg & Bailey 2008). Climate, on the other hand refers to environmental factors that consciously perceived and, importantly are subject to organizational control. That means, climate is something that can be directly influenced by management policies and leadership, while culture is much more difficult to change and control (Ibid). Different authors like (Ashkanasy et al. 2000; Schneider 1990; Tagiuri & Litwin 1968) as cited in (Edgar H. Schein 2004), defined the word climate as the feeling that is conveyed in a group by the physical layout and the way in which members of the organization interact with each other, with customers, or other outsiders. In short, the author concludes climate understood as a surface manifestation of culture. Nevertheless, some writers on culture divided the concept into five components: values, beliefs, myths, traditions and norms that are difficult and almost impossible to measure and even harder for people to articulate but they are real and should be managed as part of the process of changing the organization. On the other hand, more precisely, climate is shared perceptions of organizational policies, practices and procedures (Imran et al.
37
2010). Therefore, climate is more dependent on perceptions rather than assumptions (Kundu 2007). The study of OC split and evolved in two directions: research on climate and research on culture. This divisiveness in the literature remains until today, as articulated by researchers who advocate keeping the concepts of climate and culture distinct and independent of each other. However, a growing number of researchers laud the benefits of understanding climate and culture as reciprocal and reinforcing concepts that may benefit from mutual study that exist as related concepts with similar definitions (Agard 2011:613). James et al. (1990) as cited in (Neal et al. 2000) highlighted that perceptions of the general OC develop as individuals attribute meaning to their organizational context based on the significance of the environment for individual values. Apart from these principal research works, explained in (Kundu 2007), there were also other studies and the collection of all the research work ultimately provided the initial framework of OC.
Source: Adapted from Quinn (1988) cited in (Gray & Densten 2006:596) Figure 2-3: The CVF and Culture
38
As shown in Figure 2-3 above, an internally focused flexible organization thought of as a clan, whereas an internally focused stable organization thought of as a hierarchy. An externally focused flexible organization is labelled an adhocracy, and an externally focused stable organization is thought of as a market (Schein 2004). In explaining the four culture types Higgs (2010: 79-80) has stated that; clan organizations have parallels with family run organizations, characterized as a friendly place to work, with shared values and goals, a strong cohesiveness and sense of we-ness permeates throughout the organization. In an adhocracy culture typically, power is decentralized, effective leaders are visionary, innovative and risk taking. The hierarchy organization characterized as formal and structured where procedures govern how people work and effective leadership includes good coordination and organization, where the maintenance of a smooth-flowing operation is the key. The fundamental assumptions of the market are the external environment is hostile and customers are demanding and seeking value. Leaders are typically hard driving, who are tough and demanding to work. The organization is bound together by its emphasis on winning. Therefore, as Patterson et al. (2005) stated there is no doubt that culture and climate are similar concepts since both describe employees experiences of their organizations. 2.2.6. Importance of Organizational Climate Patterson et al. (2005) suggested that climate perceptions are associated with a variety of important outcomes at the individual, group, and organizational levels. He cited the various researches to support his argument on leader behaviour (Rousseau 1988; Rentsch 1990), turnover intentions (Rousseau 1988; Rentsch 1990), job satisfaction (Mathieu, Hoffman & Farr 1993; James & Tetrick 1986; James & Jones 1980), individual job performance (Brown & Leigh 1996; Pritchard & Karasick 1973), and organizational performance (Lawler et al. 1974; Patterson et al. 2004). Furthermore, Glisson 39
and James (2002) have proved that organizational commitment and job satisfaction also found to be closely related (Imran et al. 2010). On the other hand, some of the characteristic features of a healthy organisational climate were elucidated in Mullins (2005) and Punto (2009). They emphasised that the need of integration of organisational goals and personal goals and recognition of peoples needs and expectations at work and individual differences and attributes. The necessity of equitable systems of rewards based on positive recognition; concern for the quality of working life and job design; opportunities for personal development and career progression; and a sense of identity with, and loyalty to, the organisation and a feeling of being a valued and important member. Every incident treated as a learning opportunity and people have a sense of satisfaction in their work; and finally, people feel that they are cared for and have a sense of belonging. However, what is far more important than healthiness of an organization especially in service sector is the issue of service agility and flexibility. Bessant et al. (2001:31) offer the following definition of agility cited in (S. Brown et al. 2005): Agility in manufacturing involves being able to respond quickly and effectively to the current configuration of market demand, and also to be proactive in developing and retaining markets in the face of extensive competitive forces. Moreover, they offer an emerging model of agile manufacturing capabilities, consisting of four key interlinked parameters: agile strategy, agile processes, agile linkages, and agile people developing a flexible and multi-skilled workforce, creating a culture that allows initiative, creativity and supportiveness to thrive throughout the organization.
40
Successful services are dynamic organizations that can adapt to changes in the quantity and nature of demand. How well a service can adapt depends greatly on the flexibility inbuilt in it. Flexibility also might be called "designing for the future" (]ames A. Fitzsimmons & M. Fitzsimmons 2006). Therefore, a positive OC is important job resource for organizations as it helps them cope with demanding interactions with customers. 2.2.7. Factors affecting Organizational Climate Several authors on literatures, one way or another, tried to explain that OC is affected by several factors both internal & external: Internal Organizational structure, Individual responsibility, Rewards, Risk taking, and Conflict & Tolerance. External - Physical environment, Leadership style, Organizational politics, Characteristics of members, and Organizational size & structure. Most importantly, Climate is somewhat used interchangeably with the term psychological environment and is concerned with the structure, autonomy, reward structure, tolerance and conflict, need for innovation, warmth, support, consideration, job stress, job satisfaction, leadership style etc (Raza 2010). Hence, we can easily understand that OC construct is used to describe the psychological structure of organization and their sub units. Table 2-2 portrays some of the compiled types of dimensions used while studying OC by various researchers at different times.
41
Table 2-2: Research Summary Made on OC by various researchers

No 1 Authors Forehand & Gilmer (1964) Litwin & Stringer (1968) Variables used in their research 1) Size 2) Structure 3) System Complexity 4) Leadership Style, and 5) Goal directions Main findings They viewed climate as an objective property of the organization and found that firms climate cannot be affected by fluctuations in employee behaviours such as turnover They viewed climate as the perceived attributes of an organization and its sub-systems and they found that over time, the climates became increasingly differentiated consistent with the leaders style. They found that climate and satisfaction measures are correlated for people in some positions in the agencies and people agree more on the climate of their agency than they do on their satisfaction. They proved that employee evaluations of OC have been related to the perceptions of customers who purchased the organizations services or products. Thesis Statement It has proved how OC influence the behaviour of people in the organization Their work more focused on managerial styles and accounts for variance of climate perceptions Their work is more concerned with the interpositions agreement on climate perception They delineated the approaches to the study of OC using organizational & individual attributes. It is based on Weisbords six box model and measures employees perception Intended to device a measurement tool based on motivation and personality attributes
1) Structure 2) Responsibility 3) Reward 4) Risk 5) Warmth, and 6) Support
1) Support 2) structure 3) harmony 4) Schneider & Concern 5) agent independence, and 6) Snyder morale (1975) 1) leadership facilitation and support 2) work group cooperation, friendliness, and warmth 3) conflict and ambiguity 4) professional and organizational spirit 5) job challenge, importance, and variety 6) mutual trust 1) Purpose 2) Structure 3) Leadership 4) Preziosi Relationship 5) Reward 6) Helpful (1980) Mechanisms, and 7) Propensity for Change 1) Clarity of mission and goals 2) Staff cohesiveness 3) Staff cohesiveness 4) Lehman et Openness of communication 5) Stress, and al.(2002) 6) Openness to change Jones & James (1979)
He develop an organizational diagnosis questionnaire that helps in analysing the relationships among variables that influence organizational functioning. A comprehensive assessment of organizational functioning and readiness for change (ORC) was developed based on a conceptual model and previous findings on transferring research to practice
42
No
Authors
Variables used in their research 1) Autonomy 2) Clarity of Organizational Goals 3) Efficiency 4) Effort 5) Formalization 6) Innovation & Flexibility 7) Integration 8) Outward focus 9) Participation 10) Performance Feedback 11) Pressure to produce 12) Quality 13) Reflexivity 14) Supervisory Support 15) Tradition 16) Training, and 17) Welfare 1) Support from Organization 2) Work-Family Conflict 3) Relationship With Peers 4) Self Competence 5) Impact on Job 6) Meaningfulness of Job 7) Optimism on Organizational Change 8) Autonomy 9) Access to Resources, and 10) Time Control 1) Autonomy 2) Integration 3) Involvement 4) Supervisory Support 5) Training 6) Welfare 7) Clarity of Goals 8) Efficiency 9) Performance Feedback 10) Effort and Pressure to produce
Main findings They developed and validated a comprehensive multidimensional OC Measure (OCM), based upon Quinn and Rohrbaughs Competing Values model that help to examine organizational change processes.
Thesis Statement Offers researchers a relatively comprehensive and flexible approach to the assessment of organizational members experience It gives insight into employees perception of their work-life quality
Patterson et al. (2005)
Saad, Juhdi, & Samah (2008)
Cooil et al. (2009)
10
Adenike (2011) adapted from Nicholson and Miljus (1992)
1) Management or leadership styles 2) Participation in decision making 3) Provision of challenging jobs to employees 4) Reduction of boredom and frustration 5) Provision of benefits 6) Personnel policies 7) Provision of good working conditions, and 8) Creation of suitable career ladder
They found that only three variables (meaningfulness of job, optimism on organizational change, and autonomy) are significantly related to Job Satisfaction explaining 28.8% of the variance in Job Satisfaction. OC is positively correlated with all positive perceptions and most highly correlated with the perceptions of well-defined objectives/tasks, necessary personal resources, and with perceptions relating to teamwork using a multivariate partial least squares (MPLS) approach The finding showed a significant positive relationship between OC and employee job satisfaction of academic staff from a private Nigerian University
Their approach was geared to the three business outcomes: employee retention, customer satisfaction, and scaled revenue. Their work was a symbolical and good start for developing nations to build upon especially in African context.
Source: Researchers own compilation 43
2.3.
CRITICAL REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES 2.3.1. Organizational Climate and Organizational Effectiveness
Since OC represents the way, in which its members perceive the organization, from a practical point of view, climate usually assessed by measuring employees perceptions of specific aspects of dimensions of the organization. From public sectors point of view, the OC is the blend of top leaderships behaviour and employees behaviour. Most empirical studies have used an aggregate unit of analysis, such as the work group, department, or organization (Patterson et al. 2005). The rationale behind aggregating individual data to a unit level is the assumption that organizational collectives have their own climate and that these climates identified through the demonstration of significant differences in climate between units and significant agreement in perceptions within units. In this regard, empirical studies on the process of how climate perceptions are formed are scanty, indirect and mostly anecdotal and numerous studies have shown OC as indisputably a major contributing factor for changing employees attitudes and behaviour towards superior job performance and satisfaction (Vijayakumar 2007). Some studies have focused on perceptually based measures of climate dimensions and job satisfaction. For instance, Adenike (2011), focusing on academic staffs of private Nigerian University, sampled size of 384 proved in his finding that there is a significant positive relationship (r = 0.671; df = 293, 0.01 sig. level) between OC and job satisfaction. Adenike (2011) also showed a significant positive relationship between these two variables and the findings show that 85.7% of the variability
44
in OC explained by boredom and frustration, personnel policies, working conditions and participation in decision-making. In the same country Nigeria, a study conducted by Idogho (2006) on academic staff of Edo state Universities indicated the existence of significant difference among academic staff [F (2, 4091) = 48.46, P < 0.05], among universities in their perception of OC [F (3, 4091) = 12.545, P < 0.05)]. Moreover, the male and female academic staff of universities, do not differ in their perception of OC [F (1, 4092) = 1.530, P > 0.05)] and no difference exist between young and older academic staff in their perception of OC [F (1, 4092) = 0.002, P > 0.05)]. On the other hand, Cooil et al. (2009) proved that OC is significantly and positively correlated with both retention and customer satisfaction using ten dimensions of OC. According to (Imran et al. 2010) who relied only on the two open system and rational goal models from CVM in his research to determine innovative work behavior has proved that OC has highly significant positive relation with its subscales open system model (r = 0.82, p < 0.01). In Another Pakistan work environment (Iqbal 2007) has proved that statistically significant correlations between some dimensions of OC and organizational commitment (r = 0.38, P < 0.01 and r = 0.24, P < 0.01 for Challenge & Involvement and Trust & Openness dimensions respectively) demonstrating its strong implications for the literature of organizational employees perception in developing countries. Therefore, several researchers have tried to measure the perception of OC using their own specific dimensions in their work and Prior research suggests that there are personal and
45
organizational factors that serve as antecedents to organizational commitment (Avolio et al. 2004). 2.3.2. Validation of instruments The OC measurement instrument that is intended to be used in this study is well addressed through the rigorous methods the researcher followed in that a sample of 6,869 employees across 55 manufacturing organizations was used in the formulation process (Patterson et al. 2005). All the scales contained within the measure had acceptable levels of reliability and were factorially distinct. Reliability is concerned with the research and results in terms of replication (J. Hussey & R. Hussey 1997). If the prime objective of a study is to understand the OC and it is likely that another researcher following the same method with the same data would offer similar conclusions, even though the opinions of a different researcher would add a degree of subjectivity. This is because the review method is a summary and synthesis of existing empirical research, thus reliability would be reasonably high. Similar outcomes should be obtainable if the research is repeated. The concept of validity refers to the probability that an assertion or finding is true (Dooley 1984). The unrelenting effort made to review research from peer-reviewed research journals, the validity of the data set would be quite accurate in representing organisational climate.
46
CHAPTER III OVERVIEW OF THE ANRS

3.1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter highlights some of the socio-demographic characteristics of the regional state in relation to its administrative structures, natural beauty, economic activity, human resource and with a particular emphasis on the undergoing organizational civil service reform program.
3.2. DEMOGRAPHIC SITUATION

ANRS is one among the nine and the third largest regional member states established in Ethiopian Constitution by article 47 (FDRE 1995) and decentralized into 10 administrative zones, 167 woredas (districts) and 3411 kebeles (localities)(BoFED 2011). The region covers an area of 157, 076 km2, and covering 15% of the countrys total area. It has a population of 17,221,976 (Male 50.18% and Female 49.82 %) and the economically active and inactive population stands at 49.4% and 21.9% respectively (CSA 2007). In the same report it is indicated that out of 8,513,439 economically active population 98.1% are employed and unemployed rate stands at 1.9 (urban 14.3 and rural 0.6). The age structure of the population in the region, 42.59 percent are age 14 and under and those who are greater than or equal to 65 constitute 3.97 percent of the population. Hence, the young age dependency ratio is 79.69 and that of the old age is 8.53 percent which make the societal dependency ratio 87.13 per cent (BoFED 2009).
3.3. NATURAL BEAUTY

The region is known for its historical and tourist attractions with about 70% of international and 80% of domestic tourists flow to the region (BoCTPD 2011). In the same report, it was disclosed that the three main tourist 47
destinations are Bahirdar, Gonder and Lalibella. The flow of domestic tourists flow have showed a staggering 21 fold increment from 2002 (33,792) to 2010 (708,399) while the international tourists flow has increased steadily by 4 fold from 2002 (22,589) to 2010 (86,772) during the eight years respectively (BoCTPD 2010). However, still there is much to remain to reap out of the immense potential and natural beauty of the regions expositions.
3.4. ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

Concerning the economic activity rate or labour force participation rate, which is computed as the percentage of the economically active population to the total of economically active and inactive population, the regions activity rate accounts 61.0 which is above the national activity rate of 60.3 percent (CSA 2011). This means out of 100 persons aged ten years and above 61 persons is engaged or available to participate in the production of goods and services. While the remaining 39 persons are not ready to do so due to various reasons such as education, illness, pregnancy, old ageetc.
3.5. HUMAN RESOURCE

In the regional state, there are 170,951 civil servants (Male 63.2% and Female 36.8%) working at various government institutions of which; 13.9% are graduate and above, 71.5% are undergraduates of diploma and certificates, and the remaining 14.6% are high schools and undefined (BoFED 2011). The same report has indicated that at regional level there are 4,276 civil servants working in forty-six Public Institutions out of which currently three institutions have been merged due to the organizational restructuring process.
48
3.6.
THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM
Having noting the need to reform the overall public institutions, the regional government has embarked intensively on BPR initiatives ever since the program launched at National level in 2001. 3.6.1. The Public Service Capacity Building Program The Civil Service Reform Program (CSRP) which is one of the six country wide reform sub-programs under PSCAP started implementation in 1996/1997 in response to weaknesses in the administrative system and aims to introduce new and improved legislation and working systems to simplify administrative processes as well as ensuring effectiveness, efficiency, and ethical behaviour in performance and service delivery. The PSCAP which was part of the GTP gave especial focus on reform activities, mobilizing the civil servants to bring dramatic improvements in the civil service, ensure zero tolerance to rentseeking attitude and practice, as well as deliver effective and efficient service delivery to the customers. In her results analysis report of the National project PSCAP (November 2004 to April 2009) Araya, (2009) stated that all the seven sub-program components that run under CSRP progressed well in some aspects and failed to bring the expected results. The components are: i) strengthening the capacity of CSRP coordinating structures; ii) improving governance of financial resource management; iii) improving governance of human resource management; iv) improving performance and public service delivery; v) improving accountability and transparency; vi) strengthening top management systems; and vii) building the policy and institutional governance capacity of the four least developed regional states.
49
The same report by Araya has also revealed that Amhara region has demonstrated a good start in rolling out the sub-programs and especially pioneer in implementing the BPR, which in later stage lags behind from its determined targets and outcomes. Another report that investigates the weaknesses in service delivery on 6,944 samples (Amhara Management Institute, 2007) has attempted to identify the causes, which keep public servants from observing the conduct norms specific to their field. These causes are listed as follows: a) The lack of accountability and transparency (29%); b) Lack of fairness in placement (28%); c) The lack of shared vision and a clear mission (11%); d) The lack of Involvement (20%); e) The low level of the leadership capacity (25%) and public servants (9%); f) Lack of ownership of the public servants (24%); g) The low level of morality when it comes to public servants (17%); and h) Attitudinal problems (16%) 3.6.2. Business Process Reengineering Reengineering is the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of work processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary measures of performance such as cost, quality, service and speed (Hammer & Champy 1993). Unfortunately the number of BPR successes where expectations have been fully realized is said to be quite small (E. Cameron & Green 2009). BPR therefore offers the very attractive prospect of radically transforming key processes by starting from a very blank sheet. The downside comes during
50
implementation, when resistance from those who have not been involved may be encountered. According to the GTP annual progress report released recently by MoFED (2012) clearly stated that though encouraging efforts have been done in capacity building and good governances in the civil service, there were certain weaknesses observed. These include among others that institutional
transformation is not progressing at the expected level and rent-seeking attitudes and practices are still the key constraining challenges facing the civil service. That is why to solve the problems of hierarchical bureaucracy with many non-value adding works/staffs/positions, nepotism, etc; BPR is seriously implemented in all public institutions gradually. The three elements that characterize work processes are the inputs, the processing and the outcome. The problematic part of the process is processing (Zigiaris 2000). Work process reengineering mainly intervenes in the processing part, which reengineered in order to become less time and money consuming. The organizational change program that the government had embarked upon was once evaluated in connection to determining the extent of implementation of BPR using rigorous criteria developed by the then regional Bureau of Capacity Building and Civil Service (Amare et al. 2010). The evaluation team constitute 24 individuals pooled from 17 public institutions. The criteria used for the evaluation revolve around nine managerial issues. These were; Planning, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Communication, Transparency, Accountability, Rule of law, Participatory, and Ethics. The result of the assessment report was used for determining the sampling frame of this study as mentioned in chapter two.
51
CHAPTER IV: DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

4.1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter focuses on research results. The purpose of the chapter is to explain the results from the analysis conducted using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), on the data obtained from the respondents via the questionnaires. Following this introduction, Section 4.2 presents the descriptive statistics of the measured demographic variables. Section 4.3 shows the results of validity testing using principal component analysis to validate the constructs. Section 4.4 describes reliability analysis using Cronbachs alpha to analyse the constructs, and Section 4.5 provides details of hypothesis testing using statistical tests of Multiple Linear Regression, Pearsons Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients, Independent-Samples t-test, and One-Way ANOVA analysis. 4.2. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS: AN OVERVIEW
Descriptive Statistics, the simplest level of quantitative analysis, is used to summarize or display quantitative data and is limited to, at most, the analysis of frequencies, average and ranges (Collis & Roger Hussey 2003; Lancaster 2005). The demographics of respondents include gender, level of education, tenure, and work processes in which they are working. As part of this study, 348 questionnaires were distributed to 6 public organizations in ANRS and 260 questionnaires were returned, an effective response rate of 75%. Of the returned questionnaires, nineteen were found to be missing responses to one or more questions. The missing responses were
52
replaced with the mean value of the variables based on the valid responses (Hair et al. 2003). 4.2.1. Demography of Respondents 4.2.1.1. Gender Table 4-1 shows that, of the 260 respondents, 169 were male and 91 were female. Males made up the majority of respondents at 65% while females were 35%. The ratio of males to females in this sample is 65 to 35. The sample is similar to the ratio of males and females (Male 63.2% and Female 36.8%) in the distribution of ANRS civil servants (Bureau of Finance and Economic Development, 2011), which covers workers at regional level. As such, the sample is representative of the public work force in ANRS. Table 4-1: Descriptive Statistics for Gender of Respondents
Frequency Valid Male Female Total 169 91 260 Percent 65.0 35.0 100.0 Valid Percent 65.0 35.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 65.0 100.0
Source: Researchers own computation 4.2.1.2. Business Processes
Table 4-2 shows that, of the 260 respondents, 149 working in core process and 111 working in support process. Respondents from core process made up the majority of respondents at 57.3% while respondents from support process were 42.7%. The ratio of respondents in core process to support process in this sample is 57 to 43. The sample is similar to the ratio of the working force available (In Core process 59% and in Support process 41%) in the distribution of ANRS civil servants (Bureau of Civil Service 2010), which covers workers public institutions 53
at regional level. As such, the sample is representative of the proportion of work processes in ANRS. Table 4-2: Descriptive Statistics for Work processes of Respondents
Frequency Valid Core Process Support Process Total 149 111 260 Percent 57.3 42.7 100.0 Valid Percent 57.3 42.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 57.3 100.0
Source: Researchers own computation 4.2.1.3. Education
Table 4-3 shows the distribution of respondents level of Education as follows: 10th, 12th & below (5.2%), Certificate (3.1%), Diploma (20.0%), Bachelor Degree (52.7%) and 2nd Degree & above (16.2%). 8 respondents (3.1%) did not state their education level. The sample is a little different to the ratio of the education level (13.9% are graduate and above and 71.5% are undergraduates of diploma and certificates and the remaining 14.6% are high schools and undefined) in the distribution of ANRS civil servants (BoFED 2011), which covers workers of public institutions at regional level. This might be explained by the expansion of the education sector compounded by the fast economic growth that helped were graduating from 2010 onwards. As such, the sample is representative of the proportion of level education in ANRS.
54
Table 4-3: Descriptive Statistics for Education of Respondents

Frequency Valid 10th,12th & Below Certificate Diploma Bachelor Degree 2nd Degree & Above Total Missing Total 0 13 8 52 137 42 252 8 260 Percent 5.0 3.1 20.0 52.7 16.2 96.9 3.1 100.0 Valid Percent 5.2 3.2 20.6 54.4 16.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 5.2 8.3 29.0 83.3 100.0
Source: Researchers own computation 4.2.1.4. Tenure
Table 4-4 shows the distribution of respondents tenure as follows: Below 5 years (42.4%), 5 to 10 years (27.2%), 11 to 15 years (11.6%), 16 to 20 years (8.0%) and above 20 years (10.8%). 10 respondents (3.8%) did not want to state their tenure. Table 4-4: Descriptive Statistics for Tenure of Respondents
Frequency Valid Below 5 Years 5 to 10 Years 11 to 15 Years 16 to 20 Years Above 20 Years Total Missing Total 0 106 68 29 20 27 250 10 260 Percent 40.8 26.2 11.2 7.7 10.4 96.2 3.8 100.0 Valid Percent 42.4 27.2 11.6 8.0 10.8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 42.4 69.6 81.2 89.2 100.0
Source: Researchers own computation 4.2.2. Descriptive Statistics
The key descriptive statistics are mean, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis (Field 2009; Veaux et al. 2008; Collis & Roger Hussey 2003). Standard deviation is an indication of the dispersion of the data (De Veaux et al. 2008).
55
Positive values of skewness indicate too many low scores in the distribution, whereas negative values indicate a build-up of high scores. Positive values of kurtosis indicate a pointy and heavy-tailed distribution, whereas negative values indicate a flat and light-tailed distribution (Field 2009). Skewness measures the degree to which cases are clustered towards one end of an asymmetry distribution. In general, the further the value of skewness is from zero, the more likely it is that the data are not normally distributed (Field 2009). Kurtosis measures the level of peakiness in a histogram (De Veaux et al. 2008). High peaks have positive kurtosis, while flatter distributions have negative kurtosis (De Veaux et al. 2008). Skewness and kurtosis are converted to z-scores using the following formulas (Field 2009:139) Zskewness =
Zkurtosis =
An absolute value of z-scores greater than 1.96 is significant at p < .05, above 2.58 is significant at p < .01 and absolute values above about 3.29 are significant at p < .001. Large samples will give rise to small standard errors and so when sample sizes are big, significant values arise from even small deviations from normality therefore, in large samples this criterion should be increased to the 2.58(Field 2009: 139). For a large sample (200 or more) it is more important to look at the shape of the distribution visually and to look at the value of the skewness and kurtosis statistics rather than calculate their significance (Field 2009: 139).
56
Tables 4-5, 4-6 & 4-7 show the descriptive statistics for the variables: Integration, Involvement, Supervisory Support, Training, Welfare, Innovation & Flexibility, Outward Focus, Reflexivity, HRV, OSV and OE. Table 4-5 shows that the Integration variable has a mean of 3.396, a median of 3.50, and a standard deviation of 0.997. It is a negatively skewed distribution (-0.383) and with negative kurtosis of (-0.479). The Involvement variable has a mean of 3.07, a median of 3.00, and a standard deviation of 0.912. It is a negatively skewed distribution (-0.105) and with negative kurtosis of (-0.630). The Supervisory Support variable has a mean of 3.15, a median of 3.20, and a standard deviation of 1.02. It is a negatively skewed distribution (0.205) and with negative kurtosis of (-0.765). The Training variable has a mean of 2.91, a median of 2.67, and a standard deviation of 0.974. Its skewness is almost zero and with negative kurtosis of (-0.573). The Welfare variable has a mean of 2.87, a median of 3.00, and a standard deviation of 1.05. It is a negatively skewed distribution (-0.118) and with negative kurtosis of (-0.865). Table 4-5: Descriptive Statistics for Sub-scales of HRV
Integration Involve ment Supervis ory Support Emphasis on Training Welfare
N Mean
Valid
260 3.396 3.500 .997 -.383 .151 -.479 .301 -2.54 -1.59 P < .01
260 3.07 3.00 .912 -.105 .151 -.630 .301 -0.70 -2.09 P < .01
260 3.15 3.20 1.02 -.205 .151 -.765 .301 -1.36 -2.54 P < .01
260 2.91 2.67 .974 -.002 .151 -.573 .301 -0.01 -1.90 P < .05
260 2.87 3.00 1.05 -.118 .151 -.865 .301 -0.78 -2.87 P < .001
Median Std. Deviation Skewness Std. Error of Skewness Kurtosis Std. Error of Kurtosis Zskewness Zkurtosis Not Significant at
Source: Researchers own computation 57
Table 4-6 shows that the Innovation & Flexibility variable has a mean of 2.999, a median of 3.00, and a standard deviation of 0.84. It is a negatively skewed distribution (-0.109) and with negative kurtosis of (-0.421). The Outward Focus variable has a mean of 3.695, a median of 4.00, and a standard deviation of 0.774. It is a negatively skewed distribution (-0.474) and with negative kurtosis of (-0.194). The Reflexivity variable has a mean of 3.39, a median of 3.33, and a standard deviation of 0.84. It is a negatively skewed distribution (-0.476) but with positive kurtosis of (0.076). Table 4-6: Descriptive Statistics for Sub-scales of OSV
Innovation & Flexibility N Mean Median Std. Deviation Skewness Std. Error of Skewness Kurtosis Std. Error of Kurtosis Zskewness Zkurtosis Not Significant at Valid 260 2.9994 3.0000 .84318 -.109 .151 -.421 .301 -0.72 -1.40 P < .05 Outward Focus 260 3.6949 4.0000 .77447 -.474 .151 -.194 .301 -3.14 -0.64 P < .001 Reflexivity 260 3.3949 3.3333 .84061 -.476 .151 .076 .301 -3.15 0.25 P < .001
Source: Researchers own computation Table 4-7 shows that the HRV variable has a mean of 3.06, a median of 3.05, and a standard deviation of 0.718. It is a positively skewed distribution (0.058) and with negative kurtosis of (-0.462). The OSV variable has a mean of 3.01, a median of 3.00, and a standard deviation of 0.867. It is a negatively skewed distribution (-0.114) and with negative kurtosis of (-0.479). The OE variable has a mean of 3.49, a median of 3.67, and a standard deviation of 1.06.
58
It is a negatively skewed distribution (-0.49) and with negatively kurtosis of (3.22). Table 4-7: Descriptive Statistics for HRV, OSV and OE
HRV N Mean Median Std. Deviation Skewness Std. Error of Skewness Kurtosis Std. Error of Kurtosis Zskewness Zkurtosis Not Significant at Valid 260 3.0595 3.0526 .71756 .058 .151 -.462 .301 0.38 -1.53 P < .05 OSV 260 3.0085 3.0000 .86694 -.114 .151 -.479 .301 -0.75 -1.59 P < .05 OE 260 3.4885 3.6667 1.05829 -.490 .151 -.322 .301 -3.25 -1.07 P < .001
Source: Researchers own computation Table 4-8 shows Case wise diagnostics for the sample size of 260. It is reasonable to expect about 13 cases (5%) to have Standardized Score outside of the limit of +/- 1.96 and expect about 3 cases (1%) to have Standardized Score outside of the limit of +/- 2.58 (Field 2009). Hence, we can see that we have 17 cases (7%) only for Innovation & Flexibility, which is outside of the limits. There are no cases that falls outside the limit of +/- 2.58. This indicates that the sample can be assumed as normally distributed and statistically analyzed with 99% confidence level. Therefore, our sample is within 1% error of what we would expect.
59
Table 4-8: Case wise diagnostics of constructs

Constructs Integration Involvement Supervisory Support Emphasis on Training Welfare Innovation & Flexibility Outward Focus Reflexivity OE HRV OSV Sample size z-scores outside +/-1.96 7 10 5 8 7 17 12 10 12 13 12 260 % 3% 4% 2% 3% 3% 7% 5% 4% 5% 5% 5% 100% z-scores outside +/-2.58 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 z-scores outside +/-3.29 0 0 0 0 0 0 1% 0 0 0 1% 0 0 % %
Source: Researchers own computation 4.2.3. Summary In summary, the majority of the respondents were male (65%). The majority of respondents are working in Core work process (57.3%) and the majority of respondents were holders of Bachelor degree and above (71.1%). The majority of respondents have worked in the present institution more than 5 years (57.6%). The means, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis of the eleven variables were presented. (The plots of Histogram, Normal Q - Q and Box plots are annexed (see APPENDIX- D). 4.3. VALIDITY ANALYSIS
The psychometric properties of a measurement are important because it gives an indication of the effectiveness of the measurement utilized. It was determined by measuring the reliability and validity. Validity is the extent to which an instrument measures what it claims to.
60
Principal component analysis is a psychometrically sound procedure, it is conceptually less complex than factor analysis, and it bears numerous similarities to discriminant analysis (Field 2009). In a reliable scale, all items should correlate with the total. Factors with a few low loadings should not be interpreted unless the sample size is 300 or more (Field 2009) as communalities become lower the importance of sample size increases. In the worst scenario of low
communalities (well below 0.5) and a larger number of underlying factors MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang, & Hong, (1999) recommended samples above 500. However, as Field (2009) pointed out that a sample of around 300 or more will probably provide a stable factor solution. Typically, researchers take a loading of an absolute value of more than 0.3 to be important (Field 2009). Since the communality is a measure of the proportion of variance explained by the extracted factors, Stevens (2002) as mentioned in Field (2009: 644) recommends that based on an alpha level of .01 (two-tailed), for a sample size of 200 it should be greater than 0.364, for 300 it should be greater than 0.298. On the other hand Hair et al. (1998) suggested that a cut-off loading value of 0.50 be adopted because of the large number of variables being analyzed. Therefore, a cut-off loading value of 0.5 was used for this analysis. 4.3.1. Human Relation Values A principal component analysis was conducted using SPSS on the HRV scale to examine its proposed multi-factor structure. The results of the principal components analysis annexed (see APPENDIX- E) and according to the Eigenvalue > 1 rule, there are five significant factors named as Supervisory Support, welfare, integration, involvement and Training. It explains a total of 61
65.218% of the total variance in the nineteen items discarding items revQn1, Qn2, revQn8, revQn9 & Qn10 due to their non significant correlation with any other items and low communality (below 0.5). Item loading for the multi Factor for HRV that contains the item loading showed that all of the items are loaded strongly onto their respective components (See APPENDIX- F). This suggests a multi-factor structure with five sub-scales is extracted for the HRV scale. Eight items loaded on the first factor, which is characterized by Supervisory Support & Welfare sub-scales together, four items loaded on the second factor solicited from Emphasis on Training, welfare & involvement sub-scales, three items explicitly characterized by integration sub-scale loaded on the third factor, three items solicited from involvement and training sub-scales loaded on the fourth factor and lastly, one item from training sub-scale loaded on the fifth factor strongly. All of the items have loadings above the 0.5 level, as recommended by Hair et al. (1998). KMO value of .914, which is above the cut-off point of 0.5 recommended by Kaiser (1974) and close to 1 indicates that patterns of correlations are relatively compact and so factor analysis should yield distinct and reliable factors. 4.3.1.1. Integration A principal component analysis was conducted using SPSS on the Integration scale to examine its proposed single-factor structure. The results of the principal components analysis annexed (see APPENDIX- E ) and according to the Eigenvalue > 1 rule, there is only one significant factor, Integration, and it explains 75.140% of the total variance in the two items discarding items revQn1, Qn2 & revQn5 due to their non significant correlation with any other items and low communality (below 0.5). 62
Item loading for the Single Factor for Integration that contains the item loading, showed that all of the items are loaded strongly onto the first component (see APPENDIX- F). This suggests a single-factor structure for the Integration scale. All of the items have loadings above the 0.5 level, as recommended by Hair et al. (1998). KMO value of .5, which is exactly equal to the cut-off point of 0.5 recommended by Kaiser (1974) and close to 1 indicates that patterns of correlations are relatively compact and so factor analysis should yield distinct and reliable factors. 4.3.1.2. Involvement A principal component analysis was conducted using SPSS on the Involvement scale to examine its proposed single-factor structure. The results of the principal components analysis annexed (see APPENDIX- E ) and according to the Eigenvalue > 1 rule, there is only one significant factor, Involvement, and it explains 56.517% of the total variance in the three items discarding items revQn7, revQn8 & revQn11 due to their non significant correlation with any other items and low communality (below 0.5). Item loading for the Single Factor for Involvement that contains the item loading, showed that all of the items are loaded strongly onto the first component (see APPENDIX- F). This suggests a single-factor structure for the Involvement scale. All of the items have loadings above the 0.5 level, as recommended by Hair et al. (1998). KMO value of .635, which is above the cutoff point of 0.5 recommended by Kaiser (1974) and close to 1 indicates that patterns of correlations are relatively compact and so factor analysis should yield distinct and reliable factors.
63
4.3.1.3. Supervisory Support A principal component analysis was conducted using SPSS on the Supervisory Support scale to examine its proposed single-factor structure. The results of the principal components analysis annexed (see APPENDIX- E) and according to the Eigenvalue > 1 rule, there is only one significant factor, Supervisory Support, and it explains 69.697% of the total variance in the five items. Item loading for the Single Factor for Supervisory Support that contains the item loading, showed that all of the items are loaded strongly onto the first component (see APPENDIX- F). This suggests a single-factor structure for the Supervisory Support scale. All of the items have loadings above the 0.5 level, as recommended by Hair et al. (1998). KMO value of .874, which is above the cutoff point of 0.5 recommended by Kaiser (1974) and close to 1 indicates that patterns of correlations are relatively compact and so factor analysis should yield distinct and reliable factors. 4.3.1.4. Emphasis on Training A principal component analysis was conducted using SPSS on the Emphasis on Training scale to examine its proposed single-factor structure. The results of the principal components analysis annexed (see APPENDIX- E) and according to the Eigenvalue > 1 rule, there is only one significant factor, Emphasis on Training, and it explains 62.106% of the total variance in the three items. Item loading for the Single Factor for Emphasis on Training that contains the item loading, showed that all of the items are loaded strongly onto the first component (see APPENDIX- F). This suggests a single-factor structure 64
for the Emphasis on Training scale. All of the items have loadings above the 0.5 level, as recommended by Hair et al. (1998). KMO value of .623, which is above the cut-off point of 0.5 recommended by Kaiser (1974) and close to 1 indicates that patterns of correlations are relatively compact and so factor analysis should yield distinct and reliable factors. 4.3.1.5. Welfare A principal component analysis was conducted using SPSS on the Welfare scale to examine its proposed single-factor structure. The results of the principal components analysis annexed (see APPENDIX- E) and according to the Eigenvalue > 1 rule, there is only one significant factor, Welfare, and it explains 77.705% of the total variance in the three items discarding one item revQn21 due to its non significant correlation with any other items and low communality (below 0.5). Item loading for the Single Factor for Welfare that contains the item loading, showed that all of the items are loaded strongly onto the first component (see APPENDIX- F). This suggests a single-factor structure for the Welfare scale. All of the items have loadings above the 0.5 level, as recommended by Hair et al. (1998). KMO value of .708, which is above the cutoff point of 0.5 recommended by Kaiser (1974) and close to 1 indicates that patterns of correlations are relatively compact and so factor analysis should yield distinct and reliable factors. 4.3.2. Open System Values A principal component analysis was conducted using SPSS on the OSV scale to examine its proposed multi-factor structure. The results of the principal components analysis annexed (see APPENDIX- E) and according to the 65
Eigenvalue > 1 rule, there are two significant factors, Innovation & Flexibility and Outward Focus, and altogether explain 65.717% of the total variance in the thirteen items discarding items Qn30, revQn31, Qn35, Qn36 and Qn37 due to their non significant correlation with any other items and low communality (below 0.5). Item loading for the Single Factor for OSV that contains the item loading, showed that all of the items are loaded strongly onto their respective components (see APPENDIX- F). This suggests a multi-factor structure with two sub-scales is extracted for the OSV scale. Five items loaded on the first factor, which is explicitly characterized by Innovation & Flexibility sub-scale, three items loaded on the second factor explicitly characterized by the Outward Focus sub-scale. All of the items have loadings above the 0.5 level, as recommended by Hair et al. (1998). KMO value of .804, which is above the cutoff point of 0.5 recommended by Kaiser (1974) and close to 1 indicates that patterns of correlations are relatively compact and so factor analysis should yield distinct and reliable factors. 4.3.2.1. Innovation & Flexibility A principal component analysis was conducted using SPSS on the Innovation & Flexibility scale to examine its proposed single-factor structure. The results of the principal components analysis annexed (see APPENDIX- E) and according to the Eigenvalue > 1 rule, there is only one significant factor, Innovation & Flexibility, and it explains 61.732% of the total variance in the Six items. Item loading for the Single Factor for Innovation & Flexibility that contains the item loading, showed that all of the items are loaded strongly onto 66
the first component (see APPENDIX- F). This suggests a single-factor structure for the Innovation & Flexibility scale. All of the items have loadings above the 0.5 level, as recommended by Hair et al. (1998). KMO value of .856, which is above the cut-off point of 0.5 recommended by Kaiser (1974) and close to 1 indicates that patterns of correlations are relatively compact and so factor analysis should yield distinct and reliable factors. 4.3.2.2. Outward Focus A principal component analysis was conducted using SPSS on the Outward Focus scale to examine its proposed single-factor structure. The results of the principal components analysis annexed (see APPENDIX- E) and according to the Eigenvalue > 1 rule, there is only one significant factor, Outward Focus, and it explains 66.835% of the total variance in the four items discarding one item revQn31 due to its non significant correlation with any other items and low communality (below 0.5). Item loading for the Single Factor for Outward Focus that contains the item loading, showed that all of the items are loaded strongly onto the first component (see APPENDIX- F). This suggests a single-factor structure for the Outward Focus scale. All of the items have loadings above the 0.5 level, as recommended by Hair et al. (1998). KMO value of .652, which is above the cutoff point of 0.5 recommended by Kaiser (1974) and close to 1 indicates that patterns of correlations are relatively compact and so factor analysis should yield distinct and reliable factors. 4.3.2.3. Reflexivity A principal component analysis was conducted using SPSS on the Reflexivity scale to examine its proposed single-factor structure. The results of 67
the principal components analysis annexed (see APPENDIX- E ) and according to the Eigenvalue > 1 rule, there is only one significant factor, Reflexivity, and it explains 65.389% of the total variance in the three items. Item loading for the Single Factor for Reflexivity that contains the item loading, showed that all of the items are loaded strongly onto the first component (see APPENDIX- F). This suggests a single-factor structure for the Reflexivity scale. All of the items have loadings above the 0.5 level, as recommended by Hair et al. (1998). KMO value of .685, which is above the cutoff point of 0.5 recommended by Kaiser (1974) and close to 1 indicates that patterns of correlations are relatively compact and so factor analysis should yield distinct and reliable factors. 4.3.3. Organizational Effectiveness A principal component analysis was conducted using SPSS on the OE scale to examine its proposed single-factor structure. The results of the principal components analysis annexed (see APPENDIX-E) and according to the Eigenvalue > 1 rule, there is only one significant factor, OE, and it explains 79.181% of the total variance in the three items. Item loading for the Single Factor for OE that contains the item loading, showed that all of the items are loaded strongly onto the first component (see APPENDIX- F). This suggests a single-factor structure for the OE scale. All of the items have loadings above the 0.5 level, as recommended by Hair et al. (1998). KMO value of .725, which is above the cut-off point of 0.5 recommended by Kaiser (1974) and close to 1 indicates that patterns of correlations are relatively compact and so factor analysis should yield distinct and reliable factors. 68
4.4.
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS
The test of reliability is an important test of sound measurement. It refers to consistency of obtaining the same results carried out under same conditions or a condition that particular data collection approach will yield the same results on different occasions (Kothari 2004; Lancaster 2005) i.e. if we took two people from different organizations that have positive outlook on same construct, they should both get equally same scores. The split-half method is used to test internal consistency levels of the measuring instrument (Field 2009; Nunnally 1978). The method randomly splits all items that are used to measure the same construct into two sets (Field 2009; Nunnally 1978). By comparing one half of the results with the other half of the results from the same construct using Cronbachs coefficient alpha () test, reliability can be established (Nunnally 1978). Cronbachs alpha is a commonly used test of internal reliability and it essentially calculates the average of all possible split-half reliability coefficients. The correlation between the two halves is the statistic computed in the split-half method, with large correlations being a sign of reliability (Field 2009). The intention is to test the level to which scale items are consistent and reveal the same fundamental constructs. The calculated alpha coefficient fluctuates between 1 (perfect internal reliability) and 0 (no internal reliability). The figure .70 is recommended by Nunnally (1978) as a rule of thumb, to indicate the level of internal consistency reliability that can be considered satisfactory. Nonetheless, Kline (1999) cited in Field (2009) suggest that when dealing with psychological constructs values below even .7 can, realistically, be expected because of the diversity of the constructs being measured. It also mentioned in
69
same document, Cronbach (1951) suggested that if several factors exist then the formula should be applied separately to items relating to different factors. (Reliability statistics of the SPSS outputs for all variables is annexed see APPENDIX- E) 4.4.1. Human Relations Values A Cronbachs alpha analysis was performed using SPSS on the HRV scale to examine its internal consistency. Cronbachs alpha for the nineteen items scale after discarding five items (revQn1, Qn2, revQn8, revQn9 & Qn10) was calculated to check the internal consistency reliability of the scale and was 0.900, which is above the 0.70 criterion of Nunnally (1978). Since the value can be improved to 0.907 by discarding one item (revQn19) further, the item was retained because the increment does not bring substantial difference and above all, both values reflect a good degree of reliability. Therefore the internal consistency reliability of the HRV scale used in this study can be considered acceptable. 4.4.1.1. Integration A Cronbachs alpha analysis was performed using SPSS on the Integration scale to examine its internal consistency. Cronbachs alpha for the two items scale after discarding three items (revQn1, Qn2 & revQn5) was calculated to check the internal consistency reliability of the scale and was 0.667, which is not substantially below the 0.70 criterion of Nunnally (1978). Therefore the internal consistency reliability of the Integration scale used in this study can be considered acceptable (Kline 1999 as cited in Field 2009: 675).
70
4.4.1.2. Involvement A Cronbachs alpha analysis was performed using SPSS on the Involvement scale to examine its internal consistency. Cronbachs alpha for the three items scale after discarding three items (revQn7, revQn8 & revQn11) was calculated to check the internal consistency reliability of the scale and was 0.615, which is not substantially below the 0.70 criterion of Nunnally (1978). Therefore the internal consistency reliability of the Involvement scale used in this study can be considered acceptable (Kline 1999 as cited in Field 2009: 675). 4.4.1.3. Supervisory Support A Cronbachs alpha analysis was performed using SPSS on the Supervisory Support scale to examine its internal consistency. Cronbachs alpha for the five items scale was calculated to check the internal consistency reliability of the scale and was 0.891, which is above the 0.70 criterion of Nunnally (1978). Therefore the internal consistency reliability of the Supervisory Support scale used in this study can be considered acceptable. 4.4.1.4. Emphasis on Training A Cronbachs alpha analysis was performed using SPSS on the Emphasis on training scale to examine its internal consistency. Cronbachs alpha for the three items scale after discarding one item (revQn19) was calculated to check the internal consistency reliability of the scale and was 0.691, which is not substantially below the 0.70 criterion of Nunnally (1978). Therefore the internal consistency reliability of the Emphasis on training scale used in this study cant be considered acceptable (Kline 1999 as cited in Field 2009: 675).
71
4.4.1.5. Welfare A Cronbachs alpha analysis was performed using SPSS on the Welfare scale to examine its internal consistency. Cronbachs alpha for the three items scale after discarding one item (revQn21) was calculated to check the internal consistency reliability of the scale and was 0.856. Since the value can be improved to 0.866 by discarding one item (Qn24) further, the item was retained because the increment does not bring substantial difference and above all, both values reflect a good degree of reliability. The obtained value is above the 0.70 criterion of Nunnally (1978). Therefore the internal consistency reliability of the Welfare scale used in this study can be considered acceptable. 4.4.2. Open Systems Values A Cronbachs alpha analysis was performed using SPSS on the OSV scale to examine its internal consistency. Cronbachs alpha for the thirteen items scale after discarding four items (Qn30, revQn31, Qn35, Qn36 & Qn37) was calculated to check the internal consistency reliability of the scale and was 0.835, which is above the 0.70 criterion of Nunnally (1978). Since the value can be improved to 0.837 by discarding one item (revQn32) further, the item was retained because the increment does not bring substantial difference and above all, both values reflect a good degree of reliability. Therefore the internal consistency reliability of the OSV scale used in this study can be considered acceptable. 4.4.2.1. Innovation & Flexibility A Cronbachs alpha analysis was performed using SPSS on the Innovation & Flexibility scale to examine its internal consistency. Cronbachs alpha for the six items scale was calculated to check the internal consistency
72
reliability of the scale and was 0.875, which is above the 0.70 criterion of Nunnally (1978). Therefore the internal consistency reliability of the Innovation & Flexibility scale used in this study can be considered acceptable. 4.4.2.2. Outward Focus A Cronbachs alpha analysis was performed using SPSS on the Outward Focus scale to examine its internal consistency. Cronbachs alpha for the three items scale after discarding one item (revQn31) was calculated to check the internal consistency reliability of the scale and was 0.751, which is above the 0.70 criterion of Nunnally (1978). Therefore the internal consistency reliability of the Outward Focus scale used in this study can be considered acceptable. 4.4.2.3. Reflexivity A Cronbachs alpha analysis was performed using SPSS on the Reflexivity scale to examine its internal consistency. Cronbachs alpha for the three items scale was calculated to check the internal consistency reliability of the scale and was 0.735, which is above the 0.70 criterion of Nunnally (1978). Therefore the internal consistency reliability of the Reflexivity scale used in this study can be considered acceptable. 4.4.3. Organizational Effectiveness A Cronbachs alpha analysis was performed using SPSS on the OEscale to examine its internal consistency. Cronbachs alpha for the three items scale was calculated to check the internal consistency reliability of the scale and was 0.868, which is above the 0.70 criterion of Nunnally (1978). Therefore the internal consistency reliability of the OE scale used in this study can be considered acceptable.
73
4.5.
HYPOTHESIS TESTING
It is proposed that the collected data be analyzed using parametric statistical tools to test the hypotheses since it is assumed that the sampling distribution is normal and none of the assumptions were found violated. Hypotheses 1 is tested using multiple linear regressions. Hypotheses 2 and 3 are tested using Pearsons product-moment Correlation Coefficients. Hypothesis 4 and 8 are tested using Independent-samples T- test. Hypotheses 5, 6 and 7 are tested using One-way ANOVA. 4.5.1. Testing of Hypothesis One (effects between variables) Multiple Linear Regression was used to determine the effects of the two independent variables (HRV and OSV) on the dependent variable (OE) measured indirectly by organizational commitment (Speier & Venkatesh 2002). The following multiple regression model was used to measure the effects of the two independent variables on the dependent variable.
Where: Y = the dependent Variable of OE, Xi = the independent Variables in
Y = + b1 X1 + b2 X2 +
which; X1 = HRV, X2 = OSV, 0 = the y-intercept, bi, i=1-2 = regression coefficients of the two factors in explaining Y, and = the Error term.
With a statistical significance p < .05, the test results may be considered acceptable at the 95% confidence level, and the results are unlikely to change. With a value of p < 0.01 the test results can be considered acceptable at the 99% confidence level. The SPSS results from the multiple linear regressions to test the relationship in the model and to determine to what degree the dependent variable is explained by the independent variables are presented in the following sections. Though prior studies have demonstrated that demographic variables 74
are potential predictors of organizational commitment (Avolio 2004), all the demographic variables in this study correlated hardly with the dependent variable and hence, their effects have been removed from the regression analysis. (Regression chart outputs are annexed See APPENDIX- G) 4.5.1.1. Nature & Strength of the Effect As shown in Table 4-9, HRV and OSV significantly predicted OE ( = 0.272, p < 0.01 and = 0.338, p < 0.01, respectively). The VIF values less than 10 and tolerance values greater than 0.2 indicates there is no problem of multicollinearity. Table 4-9: Coefficients Result
Unstandardize d Coefficients Std. B Error Standardized Coefficients Beta t Sig. Collinearity Statistics Tolerance VIF
Model
(Constant) HRV
1.021 .401
.239 .113 .272 .338
4.277 3.544 4.398
.000 .000 .000 .446 .446 2.242 2.242
OSV .412 .094 a. Dependent Variable: OE
Source: Researchers own computation Figure 4-1 provides a diagrammatic view of the relationship between HRV and OSV on OE. Independent Variables
Human Relations Values (X1)
Dependent Variable = .272, p < .01

Organizational effectiveness (Y)
Open Systems Values (X2)
= .338, p < .01
Figure 4-1: Relationship between HRV and OSV on Organizational Effectiveness
75
Referring back to Table 4-9, B values were extracted and the following regression equation was derived: OE= 1.021 + 0.401 (HRV) + 0.412 (OSV) Therefore, according to the regression equation, HRV and OSV have a positive influence on OE. Table 4-10 shows the strength of the above relationship as indicated by the adjusted R Square value which in this case is 0.319, and is considered as low positive correlation (Collis & Roger Hussey 2003). The difference for the final model is small (in fact the difference between the values is .325 .319 = .005 (about 0.6%). This shrinkage means that if the model were derived from the population rather than a sample it would account for approximately 0.6% less variance in the outcome. Another important point to notice from Table 4-10 is the Durbin Watson test that tests for serial correlations between errors in regression models (Field 2009). Specifically, it tests whether adjacent residuals are correlated, which is useful in assessing the assumption of independent errors (Field 2009). Values less than 2 indicate a tendency for observations that are close in time to be similar (positive autocorrelation), values greater than 2 indicate a tendency for close observations to be different (negative autocorrelation) and values close to 2 indicates there is no autocorrelation. In this result, the Durbin-Watson test does assume that the regression residuals are normally distributed (Manly 2009: 191).
76
Table 4-10: Model Summary for the Strength of Relationship

Model Summaryb
Adjuste dR Square
Model
R Square
R Square Change
Change Statistics
F Change
df1
df2
Sig. F Chang e
DurbinWatson
1 .325 .319 .325 61.765 2 257 .000 a. Predictors: (Constant), Open Systems Values, Human Relations Values b. Dependent Variable: OE
.570a
1.974
Source: Researchers own computation
4.5.1.2. Explanation of the hypothesis Null hypothesis 1: The aggregated HRV & OSV of OC do not predict the OE that is measured by employees Organizational commitment. The Multiple Linear Regression analyses discussed above indicate that the effect of HRV significantly predicted OE ( = .272, p < .05). The independent variable HRV significantly predicts the dependent variable OE, which reflects the research findings from the organic view of CVM model of Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) on organizational effectiveness. This indicates that in the natural system approach employees perceive that OC is important (exhibit high HRV such as morale and cohesion) and has an impact on their behavioral intentions to give more emphasis on human resource development. This, in turn, places OC as a leading indicator of organisational performance that contributes to OE (Srivastav 2009). The Multiple Linear Regression analyses indicate also OSV significantly predicted OE ( = .338, p < .05). The independent variable OSV significantly predicts the dependent variable OE, which reflects the research findings from the organic view of CVM model of Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) on organizational effectiveness. This indicates that in the natural system approach employees perceive that OC is important (exhibit high OSV such as flexibility 77
and readiness) and has an impact on their behavioral intentions to give more emphasis on growth and resource acquisition. This, in turn, places OC as a key motivational factor for organizational change that contributes to OE (Lehman et al. 2002). Most importantly, in the model summary, R square of .325 indicates 32.5% of the variation in OE is explained by HRV & OSV combined. The remaining 67.5% variation in OE is explained by factors not included in the model, essentially, contributed by either the untapped items (5 items from Autonomy dimension, 1 item from Outward Focus dimension, and 2 items from Reflexivity dimension) or contributed by the other two organizational values of the quadrants of CVM; Rational Goal Values (RGV) & Internal Process Values (IPV) or might be explained by both factors. HRV & OSV combined proved to contribute almost 65% of the variation on the half segment of the CVM. In a summary, the multiple linear regression test undertaken above proved that the null hypothesis 1 is rejected. 4.5.2. Testing of Hypothesis Two (relationships between variables) Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient (r) was used to determine the strength of association between the specific dimensions and domains of OC. Pearson's product moment correlation coefficient (r) is a parametric technique which gives a measure of the strength of association between two variables (Collis & Roger Hussey 2003). 4.5.2.1. Nature & Strength of Relationship As shown in Table 4-11, Involvement, Supervisory Support, Training and Welfare have shown high positive correlation with HRV (r = .736, .868, .766, and .848 at p < 0.01 respectively). In contrast, Integration have shown
78
medium positive correlation with HRV (r = .622) (Collis & Roger Hussey 2003; Patterson et al. 2005). The coefficient of determination, R2 that determines the amount of variability in one variable that is shared by the other (Field 2009), shows that Integration shares 38.7% of the variability in HRV, Involvement shares 54.2% of the variability in HRV, Supervisory Support shares 75.3% of the variability in HRV, Training shares 58.7% of the variability in HRV, and Welfare shares 71.9% of the variability in HRV. Therefore the Condition for hypothesis test is met.
Table 4-11: Pearson Correlations of dimensions with Human Relations Values
Variables HRV Integra tion Involve ment Supervis ory Support Emphasi s on Training Welfare
HRV Integration Involvement Supervisory Support Emphasis on Training Welfare
1 .622** .736** .868** .766** 1 .539** .433** .390** 1 .584** .552** 1 .543** .741** 1 .616** 1
.848** .468** .545** **. Correlation is significant p < 0.01 level (1-tailed).
Source: Researchers own computation Figure 4-2 provides a diagrammatic view of the relationship between the dimensions; Integration, Involvement, Supervisory Support, Training and Welfare with HRV domain.
Dimensions Integration Involvement
Supervisory Support
R2 = .387, p < .01 R2= .542, p < .01 R2 = .753, p < .01 R2 = .587, p < .01 R2= .719, p < .01
Domain
Training Welfare
Human Relations Values (HRV)
Figure 4-2: Relationships of Dimensions of OC with HRV 79
4.5.2.2. Explanation of the hypothesis Null hypothesis 2: The dimensions of OC (Integration, Involvement, Supervisory Support, Training, and Welfare) do not positively related with HRV of flexible orientation. The Pearson's product moment correlation coefficient analyses discussed above indicate that Integration, Involvement, Supervisory Support, Training and Welfare have shown high and medium positive correlation with HRV (r = .622, .736, .868, .766, and .848 at p < 0.01 respectively). Although Integration, Involvement, Supervisory Support, Training and Welfare can account for 38.7%, 54.2% , 75.3% , 58.7% , and 71.9% of the variation in HRV respectively, it does not necessarily cause this variation and this still says nothing about which way causality runs. It can only express in terms of the variance in y accounted for by x , or even the variation in one variable explained by the other (Collis & Roger Hussey 2003; Field 2009). The research findings from the competing values framework perspective proved that the climate strength of all or most climate dimensions within a quadrant intercorrelate highly as a predictor of organizational outcomes (Patterson et al 2005). Previous research conducted in Pakistan work environment by Iqbal (2007) has proved that statistically significant correlations between some dimensions of OC and organizational commitment (r = 0.38, P < 0.01 and r = 0.24, P < 0.01 for Challenge & Involvement and Trust & Openness dimensions respectively), which is consistent with this findings. Above all, the results have shown that employees of public institutions do not only perceive the dimensions of HRV positively but also it has strong effect
80
on their behavioural intentions of HRV such as morale, cohesion, trust and belongingness (Reino & Vadi 2010). The findings also reveal that in relative terms, supervisory support found to be the major dominant factor and Integration is the least dominant factor among the HRV domain in influencing employees perception. This is somewhat contradictorily answered by respondents in the cross-checking question (see APPENDIX- I) whether they do believe their organization is effective in doing its job, the majority respondents suggested that Welfare & Emphasis on training should be viewed as a first intervention strategy in improving the work environment. In a summary, Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient analysis undertaken above proved that the null hypothesis 2 is rejected. 4.5.3. Testing of Hypothesis Three (relationships between variables) Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient (r) was used to determine the strength of association between the specific dimensions and domains of OC. 4.5.3.1. Nature & Strength of Relationship As shown in Table 4-12, Innovation & Flexibility indicates very high positive correlation with OSV (r = .987; p< 0.01). In contrast, Reflexivity, have demonstrated medium positive correlation with OSV (r = .677 at p < 0.01) and Outward Focus have demonstrated low positive correlation with OSV (r = .367 at p < 0.01) (Collis & Roger Hussey 2003; Patterson et al. 2005). The
coefficient of determination, R2 shows that Innovation & Flexibility shares 97.4% of the variability in OSV, Outward Focus shares 13.5% of the variability
81
in OSV, and Reflexivity shares 45.8% of the variability in OSV. Therefore the Condition for hypothesis test is met.
Table 4-12: Pearson Correlations of dimensions with Open Systems Values
Variables OSV Innovation & Flexibility Outward Focus Reflexivity
OSV Innovation & Flexibility Outward Focus
1 .987** .367** .677** 1 .383** .676** 1 .403** 1
Reflexivity **. Correlation is significant p < 0.01 level (1-tailed).
Figure 4-3 provides a diagrammatic view of the relationship between the dimensions; Innovation & Flexibility, Outward Focus, and Reflexivity with OSV domain.
Dimensions Innovation & Flexibility Outward Focus Domain
R 2 = .974, p < .01 R 2 = .135, p < .01 R 2 = .458, p < .01

Open Systems Values (OSV)
Reflexivity
Figure 4-3: Relationships of Dimensions of OC with OSV 4.5.3.2. Explanation of the hypothesis Null hypothesis 3: The dimensions of OC (Innovation & flexibility, Reflexivity, and Outward focus) do not positively related with OSV of flexible orientation. The Pearson's product moment correlation coefficient analyses discussed above indicate that Innovation & Flexibility, Outward Focus, and Reflexivity
82
have shown high, medium and low positive correlation with OSV (r = .987, .677, and .367 at p < 0.01) respectively. Although Innovation & Flexibility, Outward Focus, and Reflexivity can account for 97.4%, 13.5%, and 45.8% of the variation in OSV respectively, it does not necessarily cause this variation and this still says nothing about which way causality runs. It can only express in terms of the variance in y accounted for by x, or even the variation in one variable explained by the other (Collis & Roger Hussey 2003; Field 2009). The research findings from the competing values framework perspective proved that the climate strength of all or most climate dimensions within a quadrant inter-correlate highly as a predictor of organizational outcomes (Patterson et al 2005). Above all, the results have shown that employees of public institutions do not only perceive the dimensions of OSV positively but also it has strong effect on their behavioural intentions of OSV that encompasses values such as flexibility, external organizational orientation, adaptability, the capacity to change, uniqueness and an orientation towards customers (Reino & Vadi 2010). The findings also reveal that in relative terms, Innovation & Flexibility found to be the major dominant factor and Outward Focus is the least dominant factor among the OSV domain in influencing employees perception. This is somewhat contradictorily, tied-up answer obtained in the cross-checking question (see APPENDIX- I) whether they do believe their organization is effective in doing its job, the majority respondents suggested that Innovation & Flexibility should be viewed as a first intervention strategy in improving the work environment. On other hand, the same size respondents suggested Innovation & Flexibility to be considered as the last option. However, the
83
former groups opinion is supported since it seems realistically suggested. In a summary, Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient analysis
undertaken above proved that the null hypothesis 3 is rejected. 4.5.4. Testing of Hypothesis Four (difference between gender) Independent Samples t-test, a test that uses the t-statistic to establish whether two means collected from independent samples differ significantly (Field 2009). The t-test compares two means, when those means have come from different groups of entities and a significant result under Levenes Test for Equality of Variance indicates that the variances are significantly different therefore, the assumption of homogeneity of variances has been violated (Field 2009). If the Sig. value of Levenes test is bigger than .05 then you should look at the row in the table, labelled Equal variances assumed and the F-ratio is, therefore, a measure of the ratio of systematic variation to unsystematic variation (Field 2009). To discover whether the effect is substantive it is important to know about effect sizes by converting a t-value into an r-value using the following formula and a value of .5 is the threshold for a large effect (Field 2009: 332). = t2 t 2 + df
4.5.4.1. Nature & Strength of Difference
Table 4-13 shows the results of Independent-samples t-test, on average, Males experienced greater positive perception to OE (M = 3.53, SE = 0.09) than to Females (M = 3.42, SE = 0.10), greater positive perception to HRV (M = 3.06, SE = 0.06) than to Females (M = 3.05, SE = 0.07), and greater positive perception to OSV (M = 3.04, SE = 0.07) than to Females (M = 2.96, SE = 84
0.09). This difference was not significant, t (209.6) = .829, p > .05 for OE; not significant, t (258) = .151, p > .05 for HRV; and not significant, t (258) = .685, p > .05 for OSV. Table 4-13: Independent-Samples T-test for Gender
Variables Gender N
Group Statistics 3.5266 3.4176 3.0645 3.0503 3.0355

Mean
OE HRV OSV
Males Females Males Females Males Females
169 91 169 91 169
Std. Deviation
1.11126 .95400 .73498 .68793 .86694
Std. Error Mean
.08548 .10001 .05654 .07211 .06669
91 2.9582 Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

Condition F Sig. t
.86949 .09115 t-test for Equality of Means

df Sig. (2-tailed)
Variables
OE
HRV
OSV
Source: Researchers own computation 4.5.4.2. Explanation of the hypothesis Null hypothesis 4: There is no significant difference between employees perception of OC in terms of employees Gender in HRV, OSV and OE across public sectors. The Independent-Samples t-test discussed above indicated that Males experienced greater positive perception to all three variables of OE, HRV and OSV in which, the difference in perception in all cases was not significant (t (209.6) = .829, p > .05), (t (258) = .151, p > .05) and (t (258) = .685, p > .05)
Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed
4.213
.041
.792 .829
258 209.613 258 195.141 258 183.913
.429 .408 .880 .877 .494 .495
.790
.375
.151 .154
.313
.576
.685 .684
85
than to Females respectively. This will lead us to a conclusion that male and female do not differ in their perception of OC and on OE. The research findings proved that consistent result obtained with the previous research conducted by Idogho (2006) on Nigerian academic staff of universities, in which he found that male and female do not differ in their perception of OC [F (1, 4092) = 1.530, P > 0.05)]. In a summary, IndependentSamples t-test undertaken above proved that there is no ground for the null hypothesis 4 to be rejected for OC and OE. 4.5.5. Testing of Hypothesis Five (difference between tenure) One-way independent ANOVA test was used to test for differences between several independent groups. The one-way independent ANOVA compares several means, when those means have come from different groups of people based on respondents Tenure. (Homogeneity test of Variance for grouping variables is annexed see APPENDIX- H) 4.5.5.1. Nature & Strength of Difference Table 4-14 shows there was no significant difference observed in employees perception based on Tenure in terms of OE, F (4, 245) = 1.151, p >.05. There was no significant difference observed in employees perception based on Tenure in terms of HRV, F (4, 245) = .918, p >.05. There was no significant difference observed in employees perception based on Tenure in terms of OSV, F (4, 245) = .864, p >.05. Therefore the Condition for hypothesis test is met.
86
Table 4-14: One-Way Independent ANOVA test for Tenure

Sum of Squares Between Groups OE Within Groups Total Between Groups HRV Within Groups Total Between Groups OSV Within Groups Total 5.030 267.690 272.720 1.958 130.606 132.564 2.520 178.597 181.117 df 4 245 249 4 245 249 4 245 249 .630 .729 .864 .486 .489 .533 .918 .454 Mean Square 1.258 1.093 F 1.151 Sig. .333
4.5.5.2. Explanation of the hypothesis Null hypothesis 5: There is no significant difference between employees perception of OC in terms of employees Tenure in HRV, OSV and OE across public sectors. The One-way Independent ANOVA test discussed above indicate that there was no significant difference in Tenure exhibited in a period of job possession in terms of employees perception of OC and organizational commitment; OE, F (4, 245) = 1.151, p >.05, HRV, F (4, 245) = .918, p >.05, and OSV, F (4, 245) = .864, p >.05. The research findings proved that consistent result obtained with the previous research conducted by Idogho (2006) on Nigerian academic staff of universities, in which he found that no difference exist between young and older academic staff in their perception of OC [F (1, 4092) = 0.002, P > 0.05)]. In a summary, One-way Independent ANOVA test undertaken above proved that there was no ground for the null hypothesis 5 to be rejected for OC factors of HRV & OSV and OE.
87
4.5.6. Testing Hypothesis Six (difference between education level) One-way independent ANOVA test was used to test for differences between several independent groups. The one-way independent ANOVA compares several means, when those means have come from different groups of people based on respondents education level. 4.5.6.1. Nature & Strength of Difference Table 4-15 shows there was no significant difference observed in employees perception based on Education level in terms of OE, F (4, 247) = 1.918, p >.05. There was no significant difference observed in employees
perception based on Education level in terms of HRV, F (4, 247) = .369, p >.05. There was no significant difference observed in employees perception based on Education level in terms of OSV, F (4, 247) = .995, p >.05. Therefore the Condition for hypothesis test is met. Table 4-15: One-Way Independent ANOVA test for Education level
Sum of Squares Between Groups OE Within Groups Total Between Groups HRV Within Groups Total Between Groups OSV Within Groups Total 8.506 273.799 282.305 .786 131.586 132.372 2.940 182.420 185.360 df 4 247 251 4 247 251 4 247 251 .735 .739 .995 .411 .197 .533 .369 .831 Mean Square 2.126 1.108 F 1.918 Sig. .108
88
4.5.6.2. Explanation of the hypothesis Null hypothesis 6: There is no significant difference between employees perception of OC in terms of Education level in human relations, OSV and OE across public sectors. The One-way Independent ANOVA test discussed above indicated that there was no significant difference in Education level exhibited whether the employee is qualified or not in terms of employees perception of OC and organizational commitment. OE, F (4, 247) = 1.92, p >.05, HRV, F (4, 247) = .369, p >.05, and OSV, F (4, 247) = .995, p >.05. The research findings proved that employees background in educational qualification has nothing to do with employees perception towards OC. In a summary, One-way Independent ANOVA test undertaken above proved that there was no ground for the null hypothesis 6 to be rejected for OC factors of HRV & OSV and OE. 4.5.7. Testing Hypothesis Seven (difference between organization type) One-way independent ANOVA test and Independent-sample t-test were used to test for differences between several independent groups. The one-way independent ANOVA compares several means, when those means have come from different groups of people based on respondents organization type. The ttest compares two means, when those means have come from different groups of entities.
89
4.5.7.1. Nature & Strength of Difference Table 4-16 shows there was a significant difference observed in employees perception based on the type of organization in terms of OE, F (5, 254) = 2.395, p <.05 with a mean of OGADT = 3.84, BoTVT = 3.67, BoCTPD = 3.53, BoEPLA = 3.47, BoE = 3.28, and BoWYCA = 3.19. There was no significant difference observed in employees perception based on the type of organization in terms of HRV, F (5, 254) = 2.081, p >.05. There was a significant difference observed in employees perception based on the type of organization in terms of OSV, F (5, 254) = 3.67, p <.05 with a mean of OGADT = 3.39, BoCTPD = 3.09, BoEPLA = 2.99, BoTVT = 2.93, BoE = 2.91, and BoWYCA = 2.65. Therefore the Condition for hypothesis test is met. Table 4-16: One-Way Independent ANOVA test for Organization Type
Sum of Squares 13.059 277.017 290.076 5.248 128.108 133.356 13.115 181.546 194.661 df 5 254 259 5 254 259 5 254 259 Mean Square 2.612 1.091 1.050 .504 2.623 .715 F 2.395 Sig. .038
OE
HRV
OSV
Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total
2.081
.068
3.670
.003
Source: Researchers own computation Table 4-17 shows the result of Independent-sample t-test run for each grouping that 9 out of 45 tests conducted revealed statistically significant differences in the perception of organizational climate. At least two significant differences exist in each factor. At least one significant difference exists for each pair of organization grouping. Organizational climate is, therefore, not uniform, but differential across various groups across organizations.
90
Table 4-17: Strength of difference for organization types

Pair of groups for Organizations BoE Vs BoTVT BoE Vs BoEPLA BoE Vs OGADT BoE Vs BoCTPD BoE Vs BoWYCA BoTVT Vs BoEPLA BoTVT Vs OGADT BoTVT Vs BoCTPD BoTVT Vs BoWYCA BoEPLA Vs OGADT BoEPLA Vs BoCTPD BoEPLA Vs BoWYCA OGADT Vs BoCTPD OGADT Vs BoWYCA BoCTPD Vs BoWYCA t-values OE -1.726 -.778 -2.691** -1.193 .397 .814 -.767 .589 2.152* -1.520 -.249 1.126 1.419 2.948** 1.497 HRV .321 -1.421 -1.724 -.121 1.301 -1.581 -1.839 -.400 .889 -.134 1.212 2.542* 1.479 2.851** 1.312 OSV -.114 -.411 -3.021** -1.041 1.654 -.282 -2.617* -.853 1.733 -1.930 -.426 1.713 1.664 4.603*** 2.548*
Notes: * p<=.05, **p<= .01 and ***p<= .001 Source: Researchers own computation 4.5.7.2. Explanation of the hypothesis Null hypothesis 7: There is no significant difference between employees perception of OC in terms of type of organization in HRV, OSV and OE across public sectors. The One-way Independent ANOVA test discussed above indicate that there is significant difference in employees perception across Organizations in terms of OE (F (5, 254) = 2.395, p <.05) with a mean of OGADT = 3.84, BoTVT = 3.67, BoCTPD = 3.53, BoEPLA = 3.47, BoE = 3.28, and BoWYCA = 3.19 and OSV (F (5, 254) = 3.67, p <.05) with a mean of OGADT = 3.39, BoCTPD = 3.09, BoEPLA = 2.99, BoTVT = 2.93, BoE = 2.91, and BoWYCA = 2.65 of the OC. On other hand, no significance difference observed in HRV (F (5, 254) = 2.081, p >.05) of employees perception across public organizations. OGADT & BoWYCA are the two organizations, which exhibited extreme values in employees 91
perception in both cases that impart significant difference in perception of the OC. Furthermore, the Independent-sample t-test reveals nine (20%) out of 45 tests conducted revealed statistically significant differences in the perception of organizational climate between organizations. The research findings proved that partial result obtained with the previous research conducted by Idogho (2006) on academic staff of Edo state Universities that indicated the existence of significant difference among universities in their perception of OC [F (3, 4091) = 12.545, P < 0.05)], which are not categorized as human relations or open systems values. This makes the obtained result differentiated from the previous researches. In a summary, Oneway Independent ANOVA test undertaken above proved that the null hypothesis 7 can be rejected for OC factor of OSV and OE. However, there is no ground for the null hypothesis 7 to be rejected for OC factor of HRV. 4.5.8. Testing of Hypothesis eight (difference between work groups) Independent Samples t-test was used to determine the difference and its significance by comparing the means of two work groups in which the respondents are working in. 4.5.8.1. Nature & Strength of Difference Table 4-18 shows the results of Independent-samples t-test, on average, employees in Core processes experienced greater positive perception to OE (M = 3.56, SE = 0.08) than to employees in Support processes (M = 3.39, SE = 0.11). On other hand, on average, employees in Support processes experienced greater positive perception to HRV (M = 3.08, SE = 0.07) than to employees in Core processes (M = 3.04, SE = 0.06) and on average, employees in Support 92
processes experienced almost equal positive perception to OSV (M = 3.01, SE = 0.09) with employees in Core processes (M = 3.01, SE = 0.07). However, the differences in OE & HRV were not significant t (258) = 1.291, p > .05 for OE; not significant t (258) = -.381, p > .05 for HRV; and not significant t (258) = -.038, p > .05 for OSV. Therefore the Condition for hypothesis test is met. Table 4-18: Independent-Samples T-test between for Work Processes
Group Statistics
Variables Business Processes N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Core Process 149 3.5615 Support Process 111 3.3904 Core Process 149 3.0449 HRV Support Process 111 3.0792 Core Process 149 3.0067 OSV Support Process 111 3.0108 Levene's Test for Equality of Variances OE
Variables Condition F Sig. t
1.01126 .08285 1.11543 .10587 .68989 .05652 .75583 .07174 .80216 .06572 .95073 .09024 t-test for Equality of Means
df Sig. (2-tailed)
OE
HRV
OSV
Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed
.692
.406
1.291 1.273
258 223.634 258 224.608 258 213.071
.198 .204 .704 .707 .970 .971
.998
.319
-.381 -.376
3.66 9
.057
-.038 -.037
Source: Researchers own computation 4.5.8.2. Explanation of the hypothesis Null hypothesis 8: There is no significant difference between employees perception of OC in terms of work processes in HRV, OSV and OE across public sectors. The Independent-Samples t-test discussed above indicate that employees in Core work processes experienced greater positive perception to OE than employees in Support processes in which, the difference in perception is not 93
significant (t (258) = 1.291, p > .05). On other hand, employees in Support processes experienced greater positive perception to HRV than employees in Core processes in which, the difference in perception is not significant (t (258) = -.381, p > .05). Lastly, employees in Support processes experienced almost equal positive perception to OSV with employees in Core processes in which, their perception is not significant t (258) = -.038, p > .05. The research findings produces contradictory result with previously studied related topics that was conducted on 155 individuals drawn from 27 hospital management teams by N. R. Anderson & M. A. West (1998), which states there is variation in level of agreement both across teams within samples and within teams across particular dimensions. In a summary, IndependentSamples t-test undertaken above proved that there is no ground for the null hypothesis 8 to be rejected for OE as well as for OC factors of HRV and OSV.
94
CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the concluding part of the research project. Section 5.1 provides an introduction to the chapter. Section 5.2 focuses on the major findings while Section 5.3 is the conclusion for the research. Finally, Section 5.4 provides implications and recommendations for future research. 5.2. SUMMARY
Chapter 4 presented the research results that were generated by SPSS software. The results include the demographics of respondents, namely: gender, education level, work groups they are working in and years of experience in the latest organization. The majority of respondents are male (63.2%). The finding is representative of the ANRS public institutions work force at regional level, and is consistent with statistic for civil servants (Bureau of Finance and Economic Development, 2011). The majority of respondents are from core work processes (57.3%) and the majority of respondents were holders of Bachelor degree and above (71.1%). The majority of respondents have worked in the present institution more than 5 years (57.6%). Except for educational level the sample is representative of the distribution of ANRS civil servants at regional level (Bureau of Civil Service 2010). Prior studies have demonstrated that these demographic variables are potential predictors of organizational commitment (Avolio 2004) For testing the eight hypotheses in accordance with the research model in Figure 2-4, various statistical tests were adopted to reject the null hypotheses.
95
For null hypothesis 1, Multiple Linear Regression was used to determine the effects of the two independent variables (HRV and OSV) on the dependent variable (OE) measured indirectly by organizational commitment (Speier & Venkatesh 2002). The results show that the conditions for regression analysis have been met and the independent variables significantly predicted the dependent variable. The Multiple Linear Regression together with the relationship described in Sections 4.5.1.1and 4.5.1.2, demonstrate that Hypothesis 1 was not supported, rather HRV and OSV significantly predicted OE ( = .272, p < .05) and ( = .338, p < .05) respectively. In the regression model summary, R square of .325 indicates 32.5% of the variation in OE is explained by HRV & OSV combined. The remaining 67.5% variation in OE is probably explained by factors not included in the model, essentially, by the other two values in the quadrants of CVM; Rational Goal Values (RGV) & Internal Process Values (IPV) or either explained by the remaining untapped items or both. HRV & OSV contribute around 65% of the variation on the half segment of the CVM if we assume that the full model is split into two segments proportionately. The research finding does not support null Hypothesis 1 and is consistent with prior theory and research in that OC positively & significantly influence on employees perception of their work environment and impacts upon OE (Quinn and Rohrbaugh 1983). Employees psychological capital is positively related to their performance, satisfaction, and commitment and that a supportive climate is related to employees satisfaction and commitment(Bakker & Schaufeli 2008). Moreover, according to CVM about 50% of the variation in OE should
96
have to be explained by HRV & OSV domains (Quinn & Rohrbaugh 1983). However, in this study, 32.5% of the variation was proved been accounted by the two quadrants of CVM; HRV and OSV. This indicates that in the natural system approach employees perceive that OC is important (exhibit high HRV such as morale and cohesion, and high OSV such as flexibility and readiness) and has an impact on their behavioral intentions to give more emphasis on human resource development and growth and resource acquisition. This, in turn, places OC as a leading indicator of organisational performance and as a key motivational factor for organizational change that contributes to OE (Srivastav 2009; Lehman et al. 2002). Since the alternate hypothesis was supported, the research question has been answered, in that the OE of public sectors in ANRS that is measured by employees organizational commitment are highly predicted by the flexible orientation internal & external values of OC. For null hypothesis 2 & 3, Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient (r) was used to determine the strength of association between the specific dimensions and domains of OC. The result indicates that Involvement, Supervisory Support, Training and Welfare have shown high positive correlation with HRV (r = .736, .868, .766, and .848 at p < 0.01 respectively). In contrast, Integration have shown medium positive correlation with HRV (r = .622) accounting with determination of coefficient, R2, of 38.7%, 54.2%, 75.3%, 58.7%, and 71.9% of the variation in sub-scales of Integration, Involvement, Supervisory Support, Training, and Welfare in the HRV of OC respectively.
97
On other hand, Innovation & Flexibility indicates very high positive correlation with OSV (r = .987; p< 0.01). In contrast, Reflexivity have demonstrated medium positive correlation with OSV (r = .677 at p < 0.01) and Outward Focus have demonstrated low positive correlation with OSV (r = .367 at p < 0.01) accounting with determination of coefficient, R2, of 97.4%, 13.5%, and 45.8% of the variation in sub-scales of Innovation & Flexibility, Outward Focus, and Reflexivity in the OSV of OC respectively. The research finding does not support null Hypotheses 2 & 3 and is consistent with prior theory and research conducted on competing values framework that the climate strength of all or most climate dimensions within a CVM quadrant inter-correlate significantly as a predictor of organizational outcomes such as organizational commitment (Iqbal 2007; Patterson et al. 2005) The results have shown that employees of public institutions do not only perceive the dimensions in the HRV and OSV domain of OC positively, but also their perception has strong effect on their behavioural intentions of HRV such as morale, cohesion, trust and belongingness. This is true also for OSV that encompasses values such as flexibility, external organizational orientation, adaptability, the capacity to change, uniqueness and an orientation towards customers (Reino & Vadi 2010). The findings also reveal that in relative terms Supervisory support and Innovation & Flexibility found to be the dominant factors under HRV and OSV domain of OC in influencing employees perception respectively. Integration and Outward Focus are the least among the HRV and OSV domain of OC in influencing employees perception respectively. 98
Since both alternate hypotheses 2 & 3 were supported, the research questions has been answered, in that there is significant positive relationship between the dimensions of OC and both HRV (internal focus) and OSV (external focus) of flexible orientation. For null hypothesis 4 & 8, Independent Samples t-test was used to determine the difference and its significance by comparing the means of two groups of gender and work processes with respect to employees perception towards to OC. It was found that Males experienced greater positive perception to OE (M = 3.53, SE = 0.09) than to Females (M = 3.42, SE = 0.10), greater positive perception to HRV (M = 3.06, SE = 0.06) than to Females (M = 3.05, SE = 0.07), and greater positive perception to OSV (M = 3.04, SE = 0.07) than to Females (M = 2.96, SE = 0.09). However, the difference was not significant, t (209.6) = .829, p > .05 for OE; not significant, t (258) = .151, p > .05 for HRV; and not significant, t (258) = .685, p > .05 for OSV. Employees in Core processes experienced greater positive perception to OE (M = 3.56, SE = 0.08) than to employees in Support processes (M = 3.39, SE = 0.11). On other hand, on average, employees in Support processes experienced greater positive perception to HRV (M = 3.08, SE = 0.07) than to employees in Core processes (M = 3.04, SE = 0.06) and on average, employees in Support processes experienced almost equal positive perception to OSV (M = 3.01, SE = 0.09) with employees in Core processes (M = 3.01, SE = 0.07). However, the differences in perceptions were not significant t (258) = 1.291, p > .05 for OE; not significant t (258) = -.381, p > .05 for HRV; and not significant t (258) = .038, p > .05 for OSV.
99
The research findings was consistent with the previous research that states male and female do not differ in their perception of OC (Idogho 2006). On the contrary, contradictory result obtained with regard to work processes with previously studied related topics that states there is variation in level of agreement both across teams within samples and within teams across particular dimensions (Anderson & West 1998; Srivastav 2009). However, it cannot
arguably be ruled out that the organizational dynamism could have significant impact in todays work environment than long time ago to rely more on latest phenomena. Even though, both null hypotheses 4 & 8 were supported for all factors in the same manner, the research questions has been answered, in that there is no significance difference between employees perception of OC in terms of employees gender and work processes in HRV, OSV and OE across public sectors. For null hypothesis 5, 6 & 7, One-way independent ANOVA test was used to test for differences between several independent groups. The one-way independent ANOVA compares several means, when those means have come from different groups of people based on respondents tenure, education level, and organization type. It was found that based on employees tenure, no significant difference in Tenure exhibited in a period of job possession in terms of employees perception of OC and organizational commitment; OE, F (4, 245) = 1.151, p >.05, HRV, F (4, 245) = .918, p >.05, and OSV, F (4, 245) = .864, p >.05. There was no significant difference observed either in employees perception based on Education level in terms of OE, F (4, 247) = 1.918, p >.05, in terms of HRV, F (4, 247) = .369, p >.05, and in terms of OSV, F (4, 247) =
100
.995, p >.05. On other hand, there is significant difference in employees perception across Organizations in terms of OE (F (5, 254) = 2.395, p <.05) and OSV, F (5, 254) = 3.67, p <.05) of the OC in which nine (20%) out of 45 tests conducted revealed statistically significant differences in the perception of organizational climate between organizations. However, no significance difference observed in HRV, F (5, 254) = 2.081, p >.05) of employees perception across public organizations. The research findings proved that in terms of tenure, consistent result obtained with the previous research conducted on academic staff of universities in which there is no difference exist between young and older academic staff (Idogho 2006). In terms of education level, even though no previous research found to contrast with, the findings proved that employees background in educational qualification has nothing to do with employees perception towards OC. In terms of differences in organization type, partial result obtained with the previous research conducted on academic staff of Universities that indicated the existence of significant difference among universities in their perception of OC (Idogho 2006) even if the unit of analysis are aggregated by human relations or open systems values. The measuring instrument should demonstrate significant differences in employee perceptions across organizations if it is to be useful in discriminating between organizations (Patterson et al 2005). Since, both null hypotheses of 5 & 6 were supported, the research questions has been answered, in that there is no significance difference between employees perception of OC in terms of employees tenure and education level in HRV, OSV and OE across public sectors. On other hand, null hypothesis 7 is partially supported in which the research questions have been answered, in that 101
there is significance difference between employees perception of OC in terms of OE & OSV. However, there is no significance difference between employees perception of OC in terms of organization type in HRV. 5.3. CONCLUSION The ANRS public service management is slow becoming nexus between government deliverables and citizens demand. To maintain efficiency in service delivery in Amhara is somehow illusive because employees have an inherent exposition on how the work environment could be crafted to suit the general public. One such view is OC in which it was described in the introduction part as employees perception of how it feels to work in the unit, and includes specific aspects of the environment that directly affect people's ability to get the job done. The literature review in Chapter 2 indicates that OC can be used as a tool to assess employee perception towards organizational practices in the notion of upholding participatory management. Public institutions around the world, these days, are becoming heavily accountable in their service delivery to bring about customer satisfaction. Investigations have indicated that employees have positive outlook and capable of sharing their responsibilities on the work environment. This is a significant breakthrough for bolstering the
organizational change process that can be achieved within the realm of reform programs. Findings from the literature review indicate that there is a lack of localized empirical research in the country that relates OC to organizational effectiveness, especially in the public service institutions. Therefore, to bridge this gap, the following research questions were developed: (a) To what extent 102
does the OE of public sectors that is measured by organizational commitment of employees are explained by the internal & external values of OC? (b) Is there any significance positive relationship between the dimensions of OC and HRV (internal focus) of flexible orientation? (c) Is there any significance positive relationship between the dimensions of OC and OSV(external focus) of flexible orientation?, and (d) Is there any significance difference between employees perception of OC in terms of employees gender, tenure, education level, organization type, and work processes in HRV, OSVand OE across public sectors? From the research problem and research question, a research model was developed adapted from competing values model. The model adopts HRV and OSV as two aggregated independent variables, which are direct antecedents of OE. Within each aggregated independent variables, there are sub-scales in which for HRV there are Integration, Involvement, Supervisory Support, Emphasis on Training, and Welfare and for OSV, there are Innovation & Flexibility, Outward Focus, and Reflexivity. The last construct is OE as the dependent variable measured by organizational commitment. As part of the research model, eight hypotheses were derived, namely: (a) The aggregated HRV & OSV of OC do not predict the OE that is measured by employees organizational commitment. (b) The dimensions of OC (Integration, Involvement, Supervisory Support, Training, and Welfare) do not positively relate with HRV of flexible orientation. (c) The dimensions of OC (Innovation & flexibility, Reflexivity, and Outward focus) do not positively relate with OSV of flexible orientation. (d) There is no significant difference between employees perception of OC in terms of employees Gender in HRV, OSV and OE across
103
public sectors. (e) There is no significant difference between employees perception of OC in terms of employees Tenure in HRV, OSV and OE across public sectors. (f) There is no significant difference between employees perception of OC in terms of Education level in HRV, OSV and OE across public sectors. (g) There is no significant difference between employees perception of OC in terms of type of organization in HRV, OSV and OE across public sectors. (h) There is no significant difference between employees perception of OC in terms of work processes in HRV, OSV and OE across public sectors. A quantitative cross-sectional mixed research method was use to test the eight hypotheses, and the unit of analysis were the individual, organization and work groups. Standardized and validated questionnaires by Patterson et al (2005) and Speier & Venkatesh (2002) were used to collect the data required for analysis. The questions were adapted from previous studies and are based on Likert scales. The research data was tested using the SPSS Version 16 statistical test utilities namely; multiple linear regression, Pearsons moment-product correlation, Independent samples t-test, and One-way independent samples ANOVA test. The hypotheses testing reveals the following results: (a) the independent aggregate variables (HRV and OSV) positively & significantly predicted the dependent variable (OE) and 32.5% of the variation in OE is explained by HRV & OSV combined; (b) the dimensions Integration, Involvement, Supervisory Support, Training and Welfare have shown significant positive correlation with their respective HRV domain of OC; in addition, it also revealed that in relative terms Supervisory support found to be the dominant and Integration becomes 104
the least influencing factors under HRV domain of OC; (c) the dimensions Innovation & Flexibility, Outward Focus, and Reflexivity have shown significant positive correlation with their respective OSV domain of OC, in addition, it also revealed that in relative terms Innovation & Flexibility found to be the dominant and Outward focus becomes the least influencing factor under OSV domain of OC; (d) there is no significant difference exhibited in employees gender in terms of employees perception of OC and OE; (e) there is no significant difference exhibited in employees tenure in terms of employees perception of OC and OE; (f) there is no significant difference exhibited in employees education level in terms of employees perception of OC and OE; (g) there is significant difference in employees perception in the type of organizations in terms of OE and OSV of the OC. However, no significance difference observed in HRV of employees perception across public
organizations; (f) there is no significant difference exhibited in work groups in terms of employees perception of OC and OE. 5.4. 5.4.1. IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Implications for research Future researchers may consider investigating whether OE and other OC variables have a significant bottom-line impact on firm performance. Investigating these bottom-line influences will help organizations decide whether to allocate scarce resources toward developing positive OC. Moreover, research may find that certain types of individuals behaviours are more susceptible to these OC variables and thus will be more motivated than other types of employees. The implication of this would be a fundamental
105
improvement in efficiency and performance of organizations and reduced turnover of employees. Since this study focused only on direct path relationships, future research should focus on assessing more mediating and moderating relationships. Mediating and moderating relationships between the OC variables and psychological and behavioural outcomes could help shed light on exactly how these relationships vary. The implication of this would be a multidimensional view of organizations and their interaction with the internal and external environment. Examining the association between OC and OE where if the latter is measured in a multi-dimensional manner is also worthwhile. This is because an aggregate unidimensional measure like OC may not help adequately capture the contribution that employee perception may make to different dimensions of OC. 5.4.2. Recommendations for future research This study focused on one of the three axes or value dimensions of OE criterias i.e. on organizational focus, from an internal, micro emphasis on the well-being and development of people in the organization to an external, macro emphasis on the well-being and development of the organization itself (Quinn & Rohrbaugh 1983). The other two, which are related to organizational structure from an emphasis on stability to an emphasis on flexibility, and related to organizational means and ends, and from an emphasis on important processes to an emphasis on final outcomes (Ibid), should be addressed in future studies based on the other two values; rational goal values & internal process values. Because, it enables managers in organizations to assess employees experience over many fundamental dimensions of OC (Patterson et al 2005).
106
Although the sample size had a satisfactory number of respondents to compute all the statistical analyses, it was a randomly sampled from stratified sample based on single-moment This performance an evaluation on change its
implementation
program.
implies
organization
maintain
achievement on change successes consistently for long period, which is unlikely in real situation especially in the countrys creeping organizational change initiatives. Therefore, future research should be conducted keeping these variables constant, or doing studies comparing multiple industries or several organizations with different sampling methodology. Within each organization, this study also used just one data point to gather information regarding the employees perception. For that reason, future research should use multiple data points within one organization (for instance; observe specific leadership behaviour, conduct in depthinterviews with leaders and survey the leaders subordinates). These multiple data points would results in proven generelizability. Furthermore, the examination of employees perceptions about their climate and its impact on OE requires relatively longer period. A longitudinal design would capture the dynamic nature of the perception process and its outcomes in a more comprehensive manner (Imran et al. 2010).
107
REFERENCES
Abay, A. & Perkins, S.J., 2010. Employee Capacity Building and Performance in Ethiopian Public Services. Working paper, (December), pp.83-88. Adenike, A., 2011. Organizational climate as a predictor of employee job satisfaction: evidence from Covenant University. Business Intelligence Journal, 4(1), pp.151-165. Agard, K.A., 2011. Leadership in Non-profit Organizations: A Reference Handbook, USA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Ahmad, J. et al., 2005. Decentralization and Service Delivery. World Bank, (3603), pp.1-29. Ajzen, I., 1991. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, pp.179-211. Allison, M. & Kaye, J., 2005. Strategic Planning for Nonprofit Organizations: A Practical Guide and Workbook 2nd ed., New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Amare, M. et al., 2010. A Contest Report on Change Programs Implementations among 37 ANRS Regional Public Institutions, Bahirdar. Anderson, N.R. & West, M.A., 1998. Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(June 1996), pp.235-258. Araya, E., 2009. Ethiopia Public Sector Capacity Building Program Support Project Results Analysis, Avolio, B.J. et al., 2004. Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, pp.951-968. Bakker, A.B. & Schaufeli, W.B., 2008. Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, pp.147-154. Barbuto, J.E., 2005. Motivation and Transactional, Charismatic, and Transformational Leadership: A Test of Antecedents. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(4), pp.25-40. Beyene, J.S., 2007. The Contribution of Service Delivery Reform in Promoting Good Governance Principles: The Case of Ministry of Trade and Industry. Ethiopian Journal of Public Management and Development, 1(1), p.1.
108
Bhattacherjee, A., 2012. Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices, Tampa, Florida, USA: Global Text Project. BoCS, 2010. Annual Bulletin of Cuvil Servants at Regional Bureaus, Zonal & Woreda levels, Bahirdar. BoCTPD, 2010. Annual Tourism Bulletin, Bahirdar. BoCTPD, 2011. Discover Amhara: The Home of Natural and Historic Wonders. BoFED, 2011. 2009/2010 Budget Year Annual Statistical Bulletin, Bahirdar. BoFED, 2009. Development Indicators of Amhara Region (2009/10), Brown, K., Ryan, N. & Parker, R., 2000. New Modes of Service Delivery in the Public Sector: Commercialising Government Services. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(2), pp.206-221. Brown, S. et al., 2005. Strategic Operations Management 2nd ed., Great Britain: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Burns, T. & Stalker, G.M., 1961. The management of innovation, Chicago: Quadrangle Books. CSA, 2007. Population census, Addis Abeba. CSA, 2011. The 2011 Urban Employment Unemployment Survey, Addis Abeba. Cameron, E. & Green, M., 2009. Making Sense of Change Management: A Complete Guide to the Models, Tools & Techniques of Organizational Change 2nd ed., Great Britain: Kogan Page Limited. Cameron, K. S. & Quinn, R.E., 1999. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. Based on the Competing Values Framework, Massachusetts: Addison - Wesley Longman. Cameron, K.S & Quinn, R.E., 1999. Diagnosing and changing organizational culture, Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. Clegg, S.R. & Bailey, J.R., 2008. Organizational Climate. In International Encyclopaedia of Organization Studies. Thousand oaks, CA: Sage Publications., pp. 1028-1030. Collis, J. & Hussey, Roger, 2003. Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students, Palgrave Macmillan (UK). Cooil, B. et al., 2009. The Relationship of Employee Perceptions of Organizational Climate to Business-Unit Outcomes: An MPLS Approach. , (804), pp.1-49. 109
Denhardt, R.B., 2000. The New Public Service: Serving Rather than Steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), pp.553-556. Doherty, T.L. & Horne, T., 2002. Managing Public Services Implementing Changes: A thoughtful approach to the practice of management, Dooley, D., 1984. Reviewing and Interpreting Research: Assessing Research and Interventions in Human Resource Practice Selected Readings. Ekvall, G., 1996. Organizational climate for Creativity and Innovation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), pp.105123. Entwistle, T. & Martin, S., 2005. From Competition to Collaboration in Public Service Delivery: A New Agenda for Research. Public Administration, 83(1), pp.233-243. FDRE, 1995. Consituition of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Proclamation No.1/1995, Addis Abeba: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Faerman, S., 1990. Supervising New York State: A Framework For Excellence. , pp.1-21. Field, A., 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS 3rd ed., SAGE Publications, Inc. Fitzsimmons, ]ames A. & Fitzsimmons, M., 2006. Service Management: Operations, Strategy, and Information Technology 5th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Forehand, G.A. & Gilmer, B.V.H., 1964. Environmental variation in studies of organizational behaviour. Psychological Bulletin, 62(6), pp.361-382. Furnham, A. & Gunter, B., 1993. Corporate Assessment, Auditing a Companys Personality, New York: Routledge. Gill, H., 2008. Organizational Climate and Academic Staffs Perception on Climate Factors. Humanity & Social Sciences Journal, 3(1), pp.37-48. Gray, J.H. & Densten, I.L., 2006. Towards an integrative model of organizational culture and knowledge management. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 9(2), pp.594-603. Gregopoulos, B., 1965. Normative Structure Variables and Organizational behavior. Human Relations, 18, pp.115-170. Hair, J.F. et al., 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis 5th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 110
Hair, J.F., Money, A. & Samouel, P., 2003. Essentials of business research methods, New Jersey: Wiley Press. Hammer, M. & Champy, J., 1993. Reengineering The Corporation:A Manefesto For Business Revolution, Hammer, M. & Stanton, S.A., 1995. The Reenginering Revolution: The Handbook, HarperCollins Publishers. Harrington, H.J., 1991. Business Process Improvement: The Breakthrough Strategy for Total Quality, Productivity, and Competitiveness, Higgs, M., 2010. leadership and change First., Elsevier Ltd. Hogan, J., Hogan, R. & Kaiser, R.B., 2009. Management Derailment: Personality Assessment and Mitigation. Working paper, pp.1-28. Hussey, J. & Hussey, R., 1997. Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students, MacMillan, London. Idogho, P.O., 2006. Academic Staff Perception of the Organizational Climate in Universities in Edo State, Nigeria. Journal of Social Science, 13(1), pp.7178. Imran, R. et al., 2010. Organizational climate as a predictor of innovative work behavior. African Journal of Business Management, 4(15), pp.3337-3343. Iqbal, A., 2007. Organizational climate and employees commitment: a study of the Pakistani knitwear industry. , pp.1-6. Jones, A.P. & James, L.R., 1979. Psychological Climate Dimensions and Relationships of Individual and Aggregated Work Environmet. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, pp.201-250. Kothari, C.R., 2004. Research Methodology: Methods & Techniques, Kundu, K., 2007. Development of the conceptual framework of organizational climate. Vidyasagar University Journal of Commerce, 12(March). Lancaster, G., 2005. Research Methods in Management: A concise introduction to research in management and business consultancy, Burlington. Lehman, W.E.K., Greener, J.M. & Simpson, D.D., 2002. Assessing organizational readiness for change. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22, p.200. Linden, R.M., 1998. Workbook for seamless Government: A hands-on Guide to implementing Organizational Change, San Francisco, California: JosseyBass Inc. 111
Litwin, G.H. & Stringer, R.A., 1968. Motivation and Organizational Climate, Cambridge, M.A: Harvard Business School, Division of Research. Lok, P. & Crawford, J., 1999. The relationship between commitment and organizational culture , subculture , leadership style and job satisfaction in organizational change and development. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 20(7), pp.365-373. MacCallum, R.C. et al., 1999. Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), pp.84-99. Manly, B.F.J., 2009. Statistics for Environmental Science and Management 2nd ed. R. Smith, ed., New York: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. Mengesha, G.H. & Common, R., 2006. Civil Service Reform in Ethiopia: Success in two ministries. Research Memorandum, (August), pp.1-26. Milner, E. & Joyce, P., 2005. Lessons in leadership: Meeting the Challenges of Public Services Management, New York: Routledge. MoFED, 2012. Growth and Transformation Plan (2010/11-2014/15) Annual Progress Report for F.Y. 2010/11, Addis Abeba. Mullins, L.J., 2005. Management and Organisational Behaviour 7th ed., Neal, A., Griffin, M.A. & Hart, P.M., 2000. The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and individual behavior. Safety Science, 34, pp.99-109. Nunnally, J., 1978. Psychometric Methods, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. OReilly, C. & Chatman, J., 1986. Organizational commitment and psychological attachment:The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), pp.492-499. Patterson, M.G. et al., 2004. Development & validation of an organizational climate measure. , (0121). Patterson, M.G. et al., 2005. Validating the organizational climate measure: links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 408, pp.379-408. Paullay, I.M., Alliger, G.M. & Stone-Romero, E.F., 1994. Construct validation of two instruments designed to measure job involvement and work centrality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(2), pp.224-228. Perry, J.L., Hondeghem, A. & Wise, L.R., 2010. Revisiting the Motivational Bases of Public Service: Twenty Years of Research and an Agenda for the Future. Public Administration Review, pp.681-690. 112
Preziosi, R.C., 1980. Organizational Diagonsis Questionaire: The Handbook for Group Fascilitators J. W. Pfeiffer and J. E. Jones, ed., University Associates Inc., SanDiago. Pugh, D.S. & Hickson, D.J., 1996. Writers on Organizations: An invaluable introduction to the ideas and arguments of leading authorities on management 5th ed., Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books. Punto, S., 2009. Organizational climate in it industry. Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna, Chiang-Mai, Thailand, p.711. Quinn, R.E., 1988. Beyond rational management: Mastering paradoxes and competing demands of high effectiveness, San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. Quinn, R.E. & Rohrbaugh, J., 1983. A Spatial Model of effectiveness criteria: towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29(3), pp.363-377. Raza, S.A., 2010. Relationship between organizational climate and performance of teachers in Public and Private Colleges of Punjab. Reino, A. & Vadi, M., 2010. What factors predict the values of an organization and how? Organization, pp.1-45. Renckly, T.R., 2002. Sampling and Surveying Handbook; Guidelines for planning, organizing, and conducting surveys 5th ed., USA: Air University. Riggle, R.J., 2007. The impact of organizational climate variables of perceived organizational support , workplace isolation , and ethical climate on salesperson psychological and behavioral work outcomes. University of South Florida. Robbins, S.P., 2004. Organizational behavior 10th ed., New Jersey: PrenticeHall Inc. Rose, N., 2005. Human Relations Theory and People Management. Human Relations, pp.43-62. Saad, H.S., Juhdi, N. & Samah, A.J.A., 2008. Employees Perception on Quality Work Life and Job Satisfaction in a Private Higher Learning Institution. International Review of Business Research Papers, 4(3), pp.23-34. Samuel, M.O. & Chipunza, C., 2009. Employee retention and turnover: Using motivational variables as a panacea. African Journal of Business Management, 3(8), pp.410-415.
113
Schein, E.H., 2004. Organizational Culture and Leadership 3rd ed., San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. Schneider, B. & Snyder, R.A., 1975. Some Relationships Between Job Satisfaction and Organizational Climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(3), pp.318-328. Silberman, M., 2001. The Consultants Toolkit, McGraw-Hill, the McGraw-Hill Publishing. Singh, M., 2009. An analysis of 4 South African Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) to determine which internal areas/parts are promoting and inhibiting functioning. Sosik, J.J. & Jung, D.I., 2010. Full Range Leadership Development: Pathways for People, Profit, and Planet, New York: Routledge: Taylor and Francis Group. Speier, C. & Venkatesh, V., 2002. The hidden minefields in the adoption of sales force automation technologies. Journal of Marketing, 66(3), pp.98-111. Srivastav, A.K., 2009. Heterogeneity of Organisational Climate. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 17(2), pp.1-13. Steers, R.M., 1977. Antecedents and Outcomes of Organizational Commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, pp.46-56. Thomas, K.W., 2009. Intrinsic Motivation at Work: What Really Drives Employee Engagement 2nd ed., San Francisco, California: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Toulson, B.P. & Smith, M., 1994. The relationship between organizational climate and employee perceptions of personnel management practices. Public Personnel Management, 23. Vakola, M. & Nikolaou, I., 2005. Attitudes towards organizational change What is the role of employees stress and commitment? Employee Relations, 27(2), pp.160-174. Veaux, D. et al., 2008. Stats Data and Models, New York: Pearson Education Inc. Vijayakumar, V.S.R., 2007. Management Styles, Work Values and Organizational Climate. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 33(2), pp.249-260. Zafft, C.R., Adams, S.G. & Matkin, G.S., 2009. Measuring Leadership in SelfManaged Teams Using the Competing Values Framework. Journal of Engineering Education, (July), pp.273-282. 114
Zhou, J. & George, J.M., 2003. Awakening employee creativity: The role of leader emotional intelligence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, pp.545-568. Zigiaris, S., 2000. Business Process Re Engineering (BPR),
115
APPENDICES
APPENDIX- A: List of Public Institution used for Sampling of Respondents
No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Organizations Bureau of Education Bureau of Justice Urban planning Institute
Bureau of Industry & Urban works development
No employees M 116 56 52 98 46 245 28 16 27 67 51 94 67 41 32 58 32 45 45 48 58 50 146 135 32 138 74 22 79 4 35 42 73 17 47 F 56 44 16 63 19 198 10 28 20 36 35 41 36 25 21 47 15 44 22 35 33 40 54 38 5 44 19 9 53 4 20 35 24 2 15 80 ToT 172 100 68 161 65 443 38 44 47 103 86 135 103 66 53 105 47 89 67 83 91 90 200 173 37 182 93 31 132 8 55 77 97 19 62 234
Perform ance Results 80.55% 74.20% 72.90% 72.30% 71.85% 71.60% 71.45% 71.25% 71.00% 68.75% 67.95% 65.95% 65.60% 64.15% 62.95% 62.55% 61.95% 61.15% 60.90% 60.50% 60.25% 59.01% 58.45% 58.45% 58.20% 58.15% 57.15% 56.80% 55.50% 53.75% 53.05% 52.80% 50.70% 50.15% 50.00% 47.78%
Zscores 2.27 1.48 1.32 1.25 1.19 1.16 1.14 1.12 1.09 0.81 0.71 0.46 0.42 0.24 0.09 0.04 -0.03 -0.13 -0.16 -0.21 -0.24 -0.40 -0.47 -0.47 -0.50 -0.50 -0.63 -0.67 -0.83 -1.05 -1.13 -1.16 -1.42 -1.49 -1.51 -1.79
Bureau of Technical & Vocational Training Office of Prison Administration Cooperatives Promotion Agency Police Commission Bureau of Administration & Security Affairs Bureau of Health Sport Commission Bureau of Finance & Economic Development Bureau of Env/ Protection & Land Adm. Management Institute Office of Communication ANRS Council Office Office of HIV Secretariat Supreme Court Revenue Authority Micro & Small Industries promotion Agency Bureau of Civil service Agricultural Research Institute Bureau of Agriculture Office of General Auditor
Mining and Rural Energy Devt & Promn Agency
Bureau of Water Development

Bureau of Culture Tourism & Parks Development
Bureau of Labour & Social Affairs Bureau of Trade & Transport Office of Militia Secretariat of the Council of the ANRS Bureau of Women, Youth & Children Affairs Office of Food Security & Disaster Prevention Parks Development & Protection Authority Ethics and Anti-corruption Commission Mass media Agency
154 Source: Amhara National Regional State Amare (2010)
116
APPENDIX- B: Determination of Respondents Sample A formula for Sampling (Renckly 2002: 25); = [2 (1)]+ 2 0.25 , OR
384N Z2 0.25
= 384+N, (for d = 0.05 & z = 1.96) Where: n = sample size required N = total population size (known or estimated) d = precision level (usually .05 or .10) Z = number of standard deviation units of the sampling distribution corresponding to the desired confidence level Hence, for our sample, N = 552 n = [0.052 3,656]+ 1.962 0.25 n = 3,511.22/10.10 n = 348 If the total population (N) is 3,656, and we wish a 95% confidence level and 5 percent precision level (d = .05, Z = 1.96 from the table) and the number of distributed questionnaire without adjusting for response rate will be 348. Table of Z values Confidence Level 99.9 99.7 99.5 99.0 98.0 95.5 95.0 90.0 85.0 80.0 Z Factor 3.2905 3.0000 2.8070 2.5758 2.3263 2.0000 1.9600 1.6449 1.4395 1.2816
3,656 1.962 0.25
117
APPENDIX- C: Questionnaire of the Study Questionnaire Dear respondent, My name is Mesfin Raji, I am carrying out a research entitled Employees perception of organizational climate and its implications for organizational effectiveness in Amhara regional PSOs. This forms part of the requirements for the award of Executive Master of Business Administration Degree at Bahirdar University. The aim of the study is to find ways of improvement of the work environment incorporating employees needs. Your participation and views regarding the topic is fundamentally important for the success of the study. I would be grateful for your cooperation in filling the accompanying questionnaire completely. I assure you all replies to this questionnaire are confidential and will be used for statistical purposes only, as part of academic research. Please attempt all questions based on the instructions given below promptly. I appreciate in devoting your valuable time in filling the questions. I really appreciate your Participation in the Study!!
Instructions 1. You dont have to state your name or any other personal identification other than the one you asked to provide in this questionnaire. 2. Read the questions in the left hand of the table and rate parallel to them according to your feeling using the space provided on the right hand side of the table. 3. For Part I, give your answer by ticking or X sign where it best describes you. 4. For Part II, rate each question from least 1 - Strongly Disagree to the most 5 - Strongly Agree using the signs shown in the above instruction number 3. 5. Question 42 will be answered based on your response for Question 41, please dont answer Question 42 if your answer for question for 41 is Yes,
118
Part I Information on demography

1)Gender 2)Work Process are working in you Male Female Core Process Support Process Below 5 Years From 5-10 Years From 11-15 Years From 16-20 Years Above 20 years 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 5
4) Educational level attained 10th 12th and below Certificate Diploma Bachelor Degree Second Degree & above 1 2 3 4 5
3)Tenure within the current organization
Part II Information on the Subject matter

N o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Rating scale: Strongly disagree (1), Disagree (2), Undecided (3), Agree (4), and Strongly agree (5) Questions (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) People are suspicious of other departments* There is very little conflict between departments here People in different departments are prepared to share information Collaboration between departments is very effective There is very little respect between some of the departments here* Management involve people when decisions are made that affect them Changes are made without talking to the people involved in them* People dont have any say in decisions which affect their work* People feel decisions are frequently made over their heads* Information is widely shared There are often breakdowns in communication here* Supervisors here are really good at understanding peoples problems Supervisors show that they have confidence in those they manage Supervisors here are friendly and easy to approach Supervisors can be relied upon to give good guidance to people Supervisors show an understanding of the people who work for them People are not properly trained when there is a new machine or bit of equipment* People receive enough training when it comes to using new equipment The company only gives people the minimum amount of training they need to do their job*
119
No 20 21
Questions
(1) (5) People are strongly encouraged to develop their skills This company pays little attention to the interests of employees* 22 This company tries to look after its employees 23 This company cares about its employees 24 This company tries to be fair in its actions towards employees 25 New ideas are readily accepted here 26 This company is quick to respond when changes need to be made 27 Management here are quick to spot the need to do things differently 28 This organization is very flexible; it can quickly change procedures to meet new conditions and solve problems as they arise 29 Assistance in developing new ideas is readily available 30 People in this organization are always searching for new ways of looking at problems 31 This organization is quite inward looking; it does not concern itself with what is happening in the market place* 32 Ways of improving service to the customer are not given much thought* 33 Customer needs are not considered top priority here* 34 This company is slow to respond to the needs of the customer* 35 The methods used by this organization to get the job done are often discussed 36 There are regular discussions as to whether people in the organization are working effectively together 37 In this organization, time is taken to review organizational objectives 38 I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization. 39 I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization. 40 I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization. 41 Generally, do you believe that your organization is effective in doing its job? Yes ____ No____ 42 If your answer is "No" please rank from 1 to 8 the following possible interventions strategy in their order of priority within the scope of the research 1) Integration 3) Supervisory 5) Welfare 7) Outward Support Focus 2) Involvement 4) Training 6) Innovation 8) Reflexivity & Flexibility Remark: Items marked with an asterisk (*) are reversed. - Items from 1-37 refers OC measures - Items from 38 40 refers Organizational Commitment measures
Rating scale (2) (3) (4)
120
APPENDIX- D: SPSS Chart Outputs of all Variables

Integration
121
Involvement
122
Supervisory Support
123
Emphasis on Training
124
Welfare
125
Innovation & Flexibility
126
Outward Focus
127
Reflexivity
128
Organizational Commitment
129
Human Relations Values
130
Open Systems Values
131
APPENDIX- E: Factor Analysis for Multifactor & Single factor structures
Results for HRV

Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalues Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18
7.320 1.537 1.334 1.174 1.025 .842 .692 .236
38.529 8.091 7.020 6.182 5.397 4.430 3.640 1.243
38.529 46.620 53.639 59.821 65.218 69.648
5.104 2.581 1.763 1.524 1.419
26.865 13.582 9.281 8.021 7.468 for saving
26.865 40.447 49.728 57.749 65.218 space
73.287 Collapsed
98.980
19 .194 1.020 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Results for OSV

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings % Total % of Variance Cumulative %

Componen t Total Initial Eigenvalues % of Variance Cumulative
1 2 3 4 7
3.741 1.516 .766 .577 .315
46.765 18.952 9.579 7.217 3.939
46.765 65.717 75.296 96.545
3.207 2.050
40.088 25.629 for saving space
40.088 65.717
82.513 Collapsed
Results for OE
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings % Total % of Variance Cumulative %

Initial Eigenvalues Component Total % of Variance Cumulative
1 2
2.375 .383
79.181 12.778
79.181 91.959
2.375
79.181
79.181
132
Results for Integration

Initial Eigenvalues Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1.503
75.140
75.140
1.503
75.140
75.140
Results for Involvement


1 2
1.696 .708
56.517 23.608
56.517 80.125
1.696
56.517
56.517
Results for Supervisory Support

1 2 3 4
3.485 .488 .426 .354
69.697 9.769 8.511 7.076
69.697 79.466 87.978 95.053
3.485
69.697
69.697
Results for Emphasis on Training

1 2
1.863 .711
62.106 23.685
62.106 85.792
1.863
62.106
62.106
133
Results for Welfare

Initial Eigenvalues Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 2
2.331 .434
77.705 14.469
77.705 92.174
2.331
77.705
77.705
Results for Innovation & Flexibility

1 2 3 4 5
3.704 .750 .523 .409 .324
61.732 12.505 8.718 6.820 5.405
61.732 74.237 82.955 89.775 95.180
3.704
61.732
61.732
Results for Outward Focus

1 2
2.005 .614
66.835 20.478
66.835 87.313
2.005
66.835
66.835
Results for Reflexivity


1 2
1.962 .544
65.389 18.139
65.389 83.528
1.962
65.389
65.389
134
APPENDIX- F: Item Loading for the Single Factor for HRV & OSV
Rotated Component Matrixa HRV(HRV) Component 1 Qn15 Qn14 Qn16 Qn12 Qn13 Qn24 Qn23 Qn22 revQn21 Qn18 Qn20 Qn6 Qn3 Qn4 revQn5 revQn11 revQn17 revQn7 revQn19 .826 .813 .784 .782 .743 .697 .671 .600 .511 .705 .601 .584 .551 .781 .713 .573 .795 .565 .538 .816 2 3 4 5 Qn27 Qn29 Qn28 Qn26 Qn25 revQn33 revQn32 revQn34 OSV(OSV) Component 1 .816 .815 .784 .769 .764 .861 .801 .741 2
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations. a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations. .804
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy .914 Source: Researchers own computation
135
APPENDIX- G: Item Loading for the Single Factor for Sub-scales of HRV & OSV
Items Component Matrixa Component 1 Integration Qn3 Qn4 .867 Qn22 .867 Qn23 Qn24 .500 Involvement Qn6 revQn9 Qn10 .709 Innovation & Flexibility .789 Qn25 .733 Qn26 .732 Qn27 Qn28 Qn29 Qn30
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy
Component 1 Welfare
Component 1 Organizational effectiveness
.910 Qn38 .898 Qn39 .835 Qn40 .725
.909 .902 .858
.744 .770 .819 .808 .828 .741
.635 Supervisory Support Qn12 Qn13 Qn14 Qn15 Qn16 .814 revQn33 .798 revQn34 .814 revQn32 .887 .859
.856 Outward Focus .874 .790 .785
.874 Emphasis on Training revQn17 Qn18 Qn20 .699 Qn35 .803 Qn36 .855 Qn37
Adequacy
.652 Reflexivity .797 .821 .807
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
.623
.685
136
APPENDIX- H: Reliability Statistics for all Variables Reliability Statistics for HRV
Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Qn3 Qn4 revQn5 Qn6 revQn7 revQn11 Qn12 Qn13 Qn14 Qn15 Qn16 revQn17 Qn18 revQn19 Qn20 revQn21 Qn22 Qn23 Qn24 54.53 54.93 54.91 55.20 54.97 55.27 55.04 55.00 54.88 55.03 54.94 55.11 55.33 55.02 55.24 55.18 55.26 55.53 54.99 Scale Variance if Item Deleted 172.520 168.077 174.756 165.180 172.420 175.981 162.647 165.112 164.430 161.976 161.749 169.363 170.043 181.475 161.773 170.656 161.792 162.435 164.876 Corrected Item-Total Correlation .423 .524 .327 .589 .397 .268 .673 .646 .615 .715 .739 .459 .466 .099 .693 .445 .732 .715 .665 Squared Multiple Correlation .354 .417 .242 .412 .284 .174 .568 .553 .574 .686 .664 .346 .364 .147 .582 .329 .684 .682 .556 Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted .898 .895 .901 .893 .899 .903 .891 .892 .893 .890 .889 .897 .897 .907 .890 .898 .889 .890 .891
Cronbach's Alpha for N of items 19 = .900 Cronbach's Alpha can be improved to .907 but it is not a substantial change if the item is deleted Source: Researchers own computation
137
Reliability Statistics for OSV

Item-Total Statistics Corrected ItemTotal Correlatio n .591 .626 .663 .665 .629 .368 .465 .478 Squared Multiple Correlatio n .497 .539 .557 .545 .530 .359 .464 .364
Scale Mean if Item Deleted Qn25 Qn26 Qn27 Qn28 Qn29 revQn32 revQn33 revQn34 23.02 23.20 23.10 23.00 23.27 22.40 22.40 22.49
Scale Variance if Item Deleted 24.347 23.425 23.005 23.958 24.010 27.300 26.002 25.942
Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted .811 .806 .801 .802 .806 .837 .827 .826
Cronbach's Alpha for N of items 8 = .835 Cronbach's Alpha can be improved to .837 but it is not a substantial change if the item is deleted
Reliability Statistics for Sub-scales of HRV & OSV Reliability Statistics for Integration
Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Qn3 Qn4 3.20 3.60 Scale Variance if Item Deleted 1.448 1.199 Corrected Item-Total Correlatio n .503 .503 Squared Multiple Correlatio n .253 .253 Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted .a .a
Cronbach's Alpha for N of items 2 = .667 Cronbach's Alpha cannot be improved since the value will become negative due to a negative average covariance among items. Source: Researchers own computation
138
Item-Total Statistics Scale Corrected Variance if Item-Total Item Correlation Deleted Reliability Statistics for Involvement Qn6 revQn9 Qn10 6.28 6.20 5.94 3.645 4.006 4.251 .466 .404 .402 Scale Mean if Item Deleted Squared Multiple Correlatio n .217 .167 .167 Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted
.451 .543 .545
Cronbach's Alpha for N of items 3 = .615 Cronbach's Alpha cannot be improved as no better value will be obtained if any item is deleted Reliability Statistics for Supervisory Support Qn12 Qn13 Qn14 Qn15 Qn16 12.67 12.63 12.52 12.67 12.57 17.132 17.955 17.154 16.540 17.033 .707 .685 .706 .805 .765 .501 .491 .514 .664 .608 .873 .877 .873 .850 .860
Cronbach's Alpha for N of items 5 = .891 Cronbach's Alpha cannot be improved as no better value will be obtained if any item is deleted Reliability Statistics for Emphasis on training revQn17 Qn18 revQn19 Qn20 8.81 9.03 8.72 8.94 5.845 5.984 8.535 5.174 .396 .416 -.008 .518 .185 .324 .012 .376 .382 .368 .691 .254
Cronbach's Alpha for N of items 4 = .528 Cronbach's Alpha for N of items 3 if item(revQn19) discarded = .691 Reliability Statistics for Welfare Qn22 Qn23 Qn24 5.74 6.01 5.47 4.447 4.560 5.161 .780 .758 .654 .629 .607 .430 .749 .772 .866
Cronbach's Alpha for N of items 3 = .856 Cronbach's Alpha can be improved to .866 but it is not a substantial change if the item is deleted Source: Researchers own computation
139
Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted .861 .857 .847 .850 .845 .863
Reliability Statistics for Innovation & Flexibility Qn25 Qn26 Qn27 Qn28 Qn29 Qn30 14.89 15.07 14.97 14.87 15.13 15.04 18.707 17.946 17.447 18.436 17.986 18.790 .636 .663 .717 .705 .731 .624 .495 .515 .550 .544 .570 .418
Cronbach's Alpha for N of items 6 = .875 Cronbach's Alpha cannot be improved as no better value will be obtained if any item is deleted Reliability Statistics for Outward Focus revQn32 revQn33 revQn34 7.36 7.36 7.45 2.942 2.417 2.735 .532 .670 .541 .316 .449 .323 .719 .556 .712
Cronbach's Alpha for N of items 3 = .751 Cronbach's Alpha cannot be improved as no better value will be obtained if any item is deleted Reliability Statistics for Reflexivity Qn35 Qn36 Qn37 6.63 6.91 6.83 3.299 3.049 3.253 .543 .576 .557 .296 .332 .312 .667 .628 .651
Cronbach's Alpha for N of items 3 = .735 Cronbach's Alpha cannot be improved as no better value will be obtained if any item is deleted Reliability Statistics for OE Qn38 Qn39 Qn40 7.03 7.11 6.80 4.513 4.737 5.074 .782 .771 .695 .625 .611 .484 .783 .794 .862
Cronbach's Alpha for N of items 3 = .868 Cronbach's Alpha cannot be improved as no better value will be obtained if any item is deleted Source: Researchers own computation
140
APPENDIX- I: SPSS Outputs of Regression Charts
141
APPENDIX- J: Homogeneity test of Variance for Grouping Variable

Variances Levene Statistic 1.305 .983 2.597 Levene Statistic .292 .577 .204 Levene Statistic .621 1.607 df1 5 5 df1 4 4 4
Grouping Variable Education level Grouping Variable Tenure Grouping Variable Organization Type
Variables
df1 4 4 4
df2 247 247 247 df2 245 245 245 df2 254 254
Sig. .269 .418 .037 Sig. .883 .680 .936 Sig. .684 .159
Organizational Commitment Human Relations Values Open Systems Values Variables Organizational Commitment Human Relations Values Open Systems Values Variables Organizational Commitment Human Relations Values Open Systems Values
Pearson Correlation
2.118 5 254 .064 Correlations for regressed variables Human Open Organizational Variables Relations Systems Commitment Values Values Organizational 1.000 Commitment Human Relations Values .523*** 1.000 Open Systems Values .540*** .744*** 1.000
***Correlation significant, p < .001 Sig. (1-tailed) Source: Researchers own computation
142
APPENDIX- K: Suggestion of Intervention Strategies by Respondents

Do you believe that your organization is effective in doing its job? Frequency Valid Yes No Total Missing Total 0 158 82 240 20 260 Percent 60.8 31.5 92.3 7.7 100.0 Valid Percent 65.8 34.2 100.0 Cumulative Percent 65.8 100.0
Integration
For the response No, prioritized intervention strategy suggested by respondents No Valid Missing Total Ranking Variables Suggestion (Mode)
70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70
12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 8
260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260
(4a)3a 3 4 1 2 (8a)1a 7 6
Involvement Supervisory Support Training Welfare Innovation & Flexibility Outward Focus Reflexivity Total
240
a. Multiple modes exist. All values are shown Source: Researchers own computation
143

Employees' Perception of Organizational Climate and Its Implications For Organizational Effectiveness in Amhara Regional Public Service Organs

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Employees' Perception of Organizational Climate and Its Implications For Organizational Effectiveness in Amhara Regional Public Service Organs

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

EMPLOYEES PERCEPTION OF ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS IN AMHARA REGIONAL PUBLIC SERVICE ORGANS

By Mesfin Raji Kiltu

Bahir Dar June 2012

By Mesfin Raji Kiltu Student ID Number: CBE/129/03

Bahir Dar June 2012

Mesfin Raji Kiltu ------------------------------------

BOARD OF EXAMINERS BAHIRDAR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents Page

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE....................... 28

CRITICAL REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES ........................................ 44

CHAPTER III OVERVIEW OF THE ANRS ...................................... 47

3.6.1. 3.6.2. 4.1. 4.2.

CHAPTER IV: DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS .................................... 52

VALIDITY ANALYSIS............................................................................. 60 4.3.1.1. 4.3.1.2. 4.3.1.3. 4.3.1.4. 4.3.1.5.

Open System Values ........................................................................ 65

4.3.2.2. 4.3.2.3. 4.3.3. 4.4. 4.4.1.

Outward Focus ......................................................................... 67 Reflexivity ................................................................................ 67

RELIABILITY ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 69 4.4.1.1. 4.4.1.2. 4.4.1.3. 4.4.1.4. 4.4.1.5.

Open Systems Values ....................................................................... 72

4.4.2.1. 4.4.2.2. 4.4.2.3. 4.4.3. 4.5. 4.5.1.

HYPOTHESIS TESTING ......................................................................... 74 4.5.1.1. 4.5.1.2.

Testing of Hypothesis Two (relationships between variables) ............. 78

Testing of Hypothesis Three (relationships between variables) ........... 81

Testing of Hypothesis Four (difference between gender)..................... 84

Testing of Hypothesis Five (difference between tenure) ...................... 86

Testing Hypothesis Six (difference between education level) ............... 88

Testing Hypothesis Seven (difference between organization type) ....... 89

CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 95

REFERENCES ................................................................................... 108 APPENDICES .................................................................................... 116

CHAPTER I - THE PROBLEM AND ITS APPROACH

BoE BoTVT BoEPLA BoCTPD OGADT BoWYCA

CP 5 SP 5 TOT - 10 CP 4 SP 5 TOT - 9 CP 5 SP 5 TOT - 10 CP 4 SP 5 TOT - 11 CP 5 SP 4 TOT - 9 0 0 0 CP 5 SP 6 TOT - 11

independent variables in which; X1 = HRV, X2 = OSV, 0 = the y-intercept, bi,

(Where: Y = dependent variable of Organizational Effectiveness (OE) and Xi =

regression coefficients of the two factors in explaining Y, and = the Error

Outcome Organizational effectiveness

recommendations for future research outlined.

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

dimensional approach which attempts to classify organizations according to the

Means: Cohesion; Morale Ends: Human Resource Development

Means: Flexibility; Readiness Ends: Growth; Resource Acquisition Outpu t Q lit

Natural System Values

Means: Information Management; Communication Ends: Stability; Control

Means: Planning; Goal Setting Ends: Productivity; Efficiency

RATIONAL GOAL MODEL

Source: Adapted from Faerman (1990:4-5)

Table 2-2: Research Summary Made on OC by various researchers

1) Structure 2) Responsibility 3) Reward 4) Risk 5) Warmth, and 6) Support

Patterson et al. (2005)

Saad, Juhdi, & Samah (2008)

Cooil et al. (2009)

Adenike (2011) adapted from Nicholson and Miljus (1992)

Source: Researchers own compilation 43

CHAPTER III OVERVIEW OF THE ANRS

3.2. DEMOGRAPHIC SITUATION

3.3. NATURAL BEAUTY

3.4. ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

3.5. HUMAN RESOURCE

THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM

CHAPTER IV: DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Source: Researchers own computation 4.2.1.2. Business Processes

Source: Researchers own computation 4.2.1.3. Education

Table 4-3: Descriptive Statistics for Education of Respondents

1 .987 .367 .677 1 .383 .676 1 .403 1