TABLE OF CONTENT Sl.no | Topics2 | Page No. | 1 | Abstract | 3 | I | Literature review | 3-13 | II | Research methodology | 14-20 | III | Tools used in the study | 20 | IV | Analysis &Interpretation | 21-35 | | Demographics | 22-25 | | SEM PLS | 26-34 | | Hierarchical Regression | 35 | V | Findings | 36-38 | VI | Conclusion | 39 | VII | Reference | 40-45 | VIII | Annexure | 44-48 |
ABSTRACT
The study on Psychological Capital, Job Satisfaction & Organisational Citizenship Behaviour explores the association of employees psychological capital with there job satisfaction and organisational citizenship behaviour in IT sector. The study also tries to examine the mediating role played by job satisfaction between psychological capital and Organisational citizenship behaviour.
A self reported paper based questionnaire survey will be conducted on employees working in IT firms in Kochi.
The study was conducted among employees who were team leaders and entry level engineers employed at IT firms in Kochi. The employee with positive psychological capital and job satisfaction will exhibit organisational citizenship behaviour. Many studies have been conducted previously to identify the relationship between the variables such as on Psychological Capital, Job Satisfaction & Organisational Citizenship Behaviour. The research showed positive relation among the three variables and job satisfaction having partial mediation between psychological capital and organisational citizenship behaviour.
LITERATURE REVIEW
I. LITERATURE REVIEW
Information technology is playing a major role in India today and has transformed India's image from a slow moving bureaucratic economy to a land of innovation. The IT sector in India is generating 2.5 million direct employment. The rise of the IT industry in India must be understood within the larger political economic context, as an outcome of globalisation, the spread of new information and communication technologies, and the liberalisation process. With the most human resource in IT industry work environment in IT industry has to given a great focus. Candidates with a certain blend of technical, social, and cultural skills are selected by IT companies, but after they join the workforce they are further moulded through intensive technical as well as ‘soft skills’ training. IT companies have imported a ‘new age’ management ideology based on flat structures, lack of bureaucracy, openness, flexibility, and employee empowerment. For better end results organisations’ are trying to manage and retain the best employees for better productivity and are conducting studies to understand how effectively the employees can be best understood and treated. In order to understand the involvement of each employee, the level of organisational commitment an employee conveys, and level of job satisfaction in the right job role in the organisation are now conducting different studies every day. Each individual employees are given importance and trained and rewarded according to their roles.
The concept of psychological capital (psycap) came to be known with the growing importance of human-centric approaches in organizational context. The level of focus has gradually shifted from physical capital to human capital and then, to social capital over the past few decade. Psychological capital is a relatively new addition to this development and refers to a positive outlook of an individual about his job and organization. The concept draws from the core of positive psychology that emphasizes on strengths and virtues, rather than dysfunctions and weaknesses (Peterson & Seligman, 2005; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) of people.
Ealier , it was primarily linked to productivity but later, its positive relationship with desirable (Luthans et al., 2007 ) and negative relationship with undesirable (Bakker & Demerouti,2006) workplace attitudes and behaviour were empirically established. Later, researchers suggested that the benefits of this capital arenot restricted to individuals only and , at aggregate level, can be a source of competitive advantage for the entire organisation (Luthans & Youssef,2004).
Change with time is one of the distinctive characteristics of new age organisations after globalisation (Friedman, 2005). Due to the fast changing external business scenario, the rules are turning more flexible , internal boundaries increasingly blurred and, as a result , job demand more uncertainty and malleability, we need to look beyond personality traits, relatively stable individual dispositions. Psychological capital captures this dynamism and determines the ability to quickly respond to emerging situations with a sanguine mental frame comprising hope optimism, confidence and resilience. In the study the association of Psychological capital with Job satisfaction and OCB , and also the association of job satisfaction with OCB.
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour
OCB, also known as “good soldier syndrome” (Organ, 1988) is the behaviour exhibited by the committed employees in the organization. This type of behaviour includes punctuality, helping others, innovating, volunteering (Organ, 1988), as well as the tendency to refrain from undesirable actions such as complaining, arguing and finding fault with others. Though OCB is related to job it is not linked to any formal reward system. But it helps in the effective functioning of the organization.
Organ’s (1988) conceptualization of OCB includes five behaviour types – altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, conscientiousness and civic virtue – all necessary for effective organizations and enhancing effectiveness of the organizations. OCB cannot be demanded by force. Employees cannot be forced to perform or exhibit OCB. Similarly, the employees do not or cannot expect any kind of formal rewards for exhibiting OCB. However, OCB doesn’t go unnoticed. Organ (1997) has noted, the supervisors do regularly take into account and reward OCB exhibited by the subordinates both directly and indirectly (e.g. preferential treatment, performance ratings, promotions, etc). Another important assertion, especially in Organ's (1988) work on OCB, is that these behaviours are often internally motivated, arising from within and sustained by an individual's intrinsic need for a sense of achievement, competence, belonging or affiliation. OCB is defined by Organ as “contributions to the maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological context that supports task performance” (Organ, 1997).Organ’s (1988) five dimension framework that highlights five specific categories of citizenship behaviours will be used to measure OCB in this study. The five dimensions are as:
• Altruism—Refers to behaviours that have the effect of helping another person with work related task or problem. For example, helping a coworker and catch up with the backlog of work.
• Courtesy—Refers to the behaviour aimed at preventing work related problems. For example, touching base with people before committing to actions that will affect them.
• Sportsmanship—Refers to the willingness of employees to tolerate the inevitable inconveniences and impositions at work without complaining and filing grievances. For example not complaining about trivial matters, maintaining a positive attitude even when the things do not go on their way.
• Civic virtue—Refers to the behaviours that indicate responsible participation in political process of the organization. It represents a macro level interest in the organization as a whole. For example, attending meetings, keeping abreast of organizations issues are instances of civic virtue.
• Conscientiousness—Refers to the behaviours that go well beyond the minimum role requirements of the organization in terms of attendance, punctuality, etc.
Psychological Capital
Psychological capital is proposed as one of important subsets of human capital which can help to address some of the human issues in the organizations. Psychological capital can be defined as an individual’s positive psychological state of development, which consists of four dimensions: self-efficacy/confidence, hope, optimism, and resiliency.The emergence of the positive psychology movement provided an increased awareness on the relative importance that positive psychological strengths and capacities can have on human functioning.
Positive psychology as a field of study focuses on the positively oriented human strengths and human capacities (Seligman, 1998). Over the years considerable research attention has been given to the study of positive psychological capacities in the workplace. Avolio and Luthans (2006) suggest that psychological capital can be viewed as who you are and what you can become in terms of positive development and is to be differentiated from human capital (what you know), social capital (who you know), and financial capital (what you have).Psychological capital is a composite construct consisting of four dimensions – confidence (efficacy), hope, optimism and resilience (Luthan, Luthans, &Luthans, 2004), a brief explanation of the dimensions is presented below:
Confidence/ Self-efficacy: It refers to people’s convictions about their own capacity for successfully executing a course of action that leads to a desired outcome (Bandura,1997). Self confidence people choose challenging task and endeavor to successfully accomplish their goals. Confident people achieve goals and persevere in the face of obstacles. Bandura (2000) has noted that selfefficacy plays a critical role in important human performance determinants such as goals, aspirations, and the perceived opportunities of a given project. Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) conducted a meta-analysis of 114 studies and 21,616 subjects and found a positive and highly significant .38 weighted average correlation between self-efficacy and performance outcomes.
Hope: It is the sum of ‘‘willpower’’ and ‘‘way power.’’ Snyder (2000) demonstrates that hope is a multidimensional construct comprised of both an individual’s determination to set for and maintain effort toward goals and that individual’s ability to discern alternative courses of action to attain those goals. It is a motivational state that has three elements – goal, agency and pathways. Hopeful people have the desire or agency to achieve goals and have the capability to develop various pathways or strategies toward goal accomplishment.
Optimism: Luthans and Youssef (2004) defines optimism as” explanatory style that attributes positive events to internal, permanent and pervasive causes and negative events to external, temporary and situation specific one’s”. Optimistic people take credit for good things that happen to boost morale and distance themselves from bad things that happen. Optimism has been associated with the improvement of performance (Martin, Sarrzon, Peterson & Famose, 2003).
Resilience: It refers to having the capacity to bounce back from adversity, failure or even seeming overwhelming positive changes such as increased responsibility. Resilient individuals possess a ‘staunch acceptance of reality, a deep belief, often buttressed by strongly held values, that life is meaningful and an uncanny ability to improvise’ (Coutu, 2002). Recent analysis by organizational scholars suggests that resilient people can thrive and grow through setbacks and difficulties.
The authors investigated whether a process of employees' positivity will have an impact on relevant attitudes and behaviors. Specifically, this studies were from a broad cross-section of organizations and jobs and found: (a) Their psychological capital (a core factor consisting of hope, efficacy, optimism, and resilience) was related to their positive emotions that in turn were related to their attitudes (engagement and cynicism) and behaviors (organizational citizenship and deviance) relevant to organizational change; (b) mindfulness (i.e., heightened awareness) interacted with psychological capital in predicting positive emotions; and (c) positive emotions generally mediated the relationship between psychological capital and the attitudes and behaviours, which ultimately shows that there is positive organizational change.
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is a positive feeling towards one’s job. In the works of Newstrom (2007), ‘Job Satisfaction is a set of favourable or unfavourable feelings and emotions with which employees view their work.’ An employee’s interpretation of values may vary regarding satisfaction or dissatisfaction. For example, some employees may feel a sense of accomplishment in their jobs while other employees may not. The finding by Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) was found to be similar. They surveyed blue and white-collar workers and determined that completing interesting tasks was not as important as job security and compensation for blue-collar employees.
Job satisfaction has attracted a considerable amount of interest from researchers. It is one of the most studied concepts in the organizational behavior literature, and until the 1990’s more than 12000 studies on job satisfaction were published (Ghazzawi, 2008). One of the reasons of this popularity is the belief that job satisfaction may affect a variety of behaviours and contribute to the well being of employees (Jones & George, 2008). Locke (1995) defines a job “as combination of tasks, roles, responsibilities, relationships, benefits and rewards pertaining to a particular person in a particular organization” . According to Locke (1995) and Taber and Alleger (1995), job satisfaction is based on judgments of all components of the job such as work itself, the colleagues, and organizational context. It also depends on the employee’s dispositional traits. According to Locke and Weiss (2001), job satisfaction is “a pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job; an affective reaction to one’s job; and an attitude towards one’s job” . George and Jones (2008) define it as “the collection of feelings and beliefs the people have about their current jobs”.
The classification of the antecedents of job satisfaction differs in the literature. For psychologists and management scholars the importance of the sources of job satisfaction varies significantly. Kreitner and Kinicki (2007) pointed out that “researchers estimate that 30% of an employee’s job satisfaction is associated with dispositional and genetic components” .Studies emphasizing the importance of individual innate dispositions have shown that job satisfaction is stable over time even though the employee changed his/her occupation and employer. By using longitudinal database, Staw and Ross (1985) found that job satisfaction was stable over a five year period of time even though the employees changed employers and occupations. Likewise, Steel and Rentsch (1997) did a longitudinal analysis and provided support for Staw and Ross (1985). But Steel and Rentsch found that stability for employees working in similar jobs were higher than for those working in different jobs, which indicated the importance of both intrinsic sources (i.e., personality traits) and extrinsic sources (i.e., work characteristics and work environment). There are research that highlights the importance of situational factors such as characteristics of the job, management practices, pay, tenure, conditions, relations with coworkers, and opportunities that work provides. For example, intrinsically satisfying tasks, which provide a sense of responsibility, recognition, advancement, good supervision, flexibility, and job security improve job satisfaction while unfair treatment, unpleasant physical working conditions, and routine tasks reduce job satisfaction. In case of the absence of job satisfaction employee turnover and absenteeism may increase (Koys, 2001; Mossholder, Settoon, & Henagan, 2005)
ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR AND JOB SATISFACTION
An individual is known to be committed to his oganisations if he is happy with what he is doing in the organisation. Organ (1998) and Munene (1995) indicates a strong link between organizational citizenship behavior and job satisfaction when the latter is used to mean “a state of fairness.” Fairness or unfairness is determined by the employee’s satisfaction with the job and a given satisfaction level influences behavior, conduct and actions. In distribution and sharing of organizational resources for example, those who perceive that equity has obtained in distribution of resources are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs and behave with a sense of citizenship (Organ, 1998). Job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviour are commonly determined by the relationship between the subordinates and the boss, relationship among employees of a given work group and individual characteristics. Research findings by O’Driscoll and Randel (1999) cited in Tumwesigye (2003) show a uniform positive correlation between job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior over a period of time.
According to Organ (1990), the basis of the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB is social exchange theory which states that when certain conditions are present people reciprocate those who benefit them. Blau (1964) suggested that the link between employee and organization is based on exchange relationship and he identified two types of exchange relationship: social and economic. As cited by Coyle-Shapiro (2002) what is central to social exchange theory is the norm reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) according to which people feel obliged to respond positively to favorable treatment of others. Social exchange theory emphasizes the socio-emotional aspects of the link between employee and organization, such as feelings of obligation and trust, whereas economic exchange emphasizes more tangible means of exchange such as pay and benefits (Shore, Tetrick, Lynch, & Barksdale, 2006;
Song, Tsui, & Law 2009). Social exchange theory suggests that human interactions can be conceptualized as business transactions. People exchange resources by expecting to gain profits from these transactions. Reciprocity is seen as the key component of this exchange relationship in which both parties give resources to each other (Penner, Midili, & Kegelmeyer, 1997). In case of high quality social relationships employees are motivated to engage in behaviors that have favorable consequences for their organizations and they feel relational obligation to support their organization’s wellbeing (Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner, 2007). In case of when people are not able to reciprocate by working harder and producing more output, they tend to show OCBs. Thus when people are satisfied with their jobs, they will reciprocate with positive behaviors to benefit the organization. Owing to the rationale that Organ (1977, 1988) suggested for the relationship between satisfaction and OCB the “satisfaction causes performance” hypothesis gained respectability (Farh, Podsakoff, & Organ,1990). Based on this rationale, studies such as Bateman and Organ (1983), Smith and coauthers (1983), Organ and Lingl (1995) suggested that job satisfaction is strongly and positively related to OCB. Williams and Anderson (1991), Lapierre and Hackett (2007), and Bowling (2010) also provided support for the positive effects of job satisfaction on OCB. The quantitative meta-analysis of Organ and Ryan (1995) and of Judge and colleagues (2001) also supported the positive relationship between job satisfaction and OCB.
Another quantitative review by Hoffman and associates (2007) on OCB proposed that job satisfaction significantly accounted for the variation in OCB.
PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL AND JOB SATISFACTION
Every individual has different attitude and affections towards anything varies person to person. So, it is inevitable that employees’ perception of organizational conditions and their patterns of behavior differ from each other. Thus, psychological capital that can be designated as revealing and improving employees’ strong and positive aspects (Luthans, 2002a: 59) and as personal traits contributing to individual efficiency (Gohel, 2012: 35) plays an important role in processes employees develop attitudes for their jobs.
Some research exhibit positive relationship between psychological capital and job satisfaction. The study carried out by Youssef and Luthans (2007) in manufacture, service, public and private sector showed that there was a positive relationship between resiliency and job satisfaction, optimism and job satisfaction, and hope and job satisfaction The study performed by Luthans et al., (2007) in middle east of the United Nation in college students and employees working in technology companies inferred that there was a positive relationship between psychological capital and job satisfaction. The study fulfilled that employees work indicated that there was a positive relationship between psychological capital and job satisfaction.
Previous research has found PsyCap to be positively associated with job performance and satisfaction (Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007) and negatively associated with organizational cynicism and turnover intentions (Avey et al., 2010). Based on its definition, individuals with high PsyCap are believed to possess the cognitive capacity of self-regulation (Bandura, 1997) that offers the initiative, energy, and self-discipline necessary to reach one’s goals (Luthans & Youssef, 2007). Thus, we believe that being personal and psychological in nature, PsyCap will have similar effects on outcomes as those observed in U.S. settings. PsyCap, especially hope and self-efficacy, gives individuals more confidence and stimulates positive thinking, which should result in better performance, higher satisfaction, and lower possibility of leaving the job. Therefore it showed that Psychological capital will be negatively related to turnover intentions and positively related to job satisfaction and job performance.
PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR
Research on positive organizational behaviour has documented that employees psychological capacities play a significant role in successful completion of work (Luthans, 2002a; Nelson and Cooper, 2007; Wright, 2003; Wright and Cropanzano, 2007; Luthans and Youssef , 2004; Luthans and Jensen, 2002). In the contemporary world of work, to compete effectively,companies not only must recruit the top talent, but must also inspire and enable employees to apply their full capabilities to their work (Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011). Psychologicalcapital is a second order construct comprising of self-efficacy, hope, optimism and resilience. Research studies done in the area of self efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience, seen from an individualistic perspective, indicates that they all have a significant relationship with job and work attitudes (Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007; Luthans and Youssef, 2004; Youssef & Luthans, 2007; Luthans and Jensen, 2002; Peterson and Luthans, 2003;Adams, Snyder, Rand, King, Sigmon, and Pulvers, 2003; Luthans, Zhu, & Avolio, 2006; Luthans, Avolio, Walumba and Li, 2005). Contemporary organizations need employees who are psychologically connected to their work; who are willing and able to invest themselves fully in their roles; who are proactive and are willing to work beyond their job description (Podsakoff & Mackenzie, 1994). They need employees who feel energetic, and are committed to high quality performance standards (Bakker & Leiter, 2010). Based on this discussion, the first hypothesis of the study is formulated.
It showed that after controlling for the demographic variables (gender and age), employees' hope, optimism, and resiliency separately had positive impacts on their job performance, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Employees' psychological capital (a combined construct of hope, optimism, and resiliency) had positive impacts on their job performance, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. The positive relationship between psychological capital and employees' outcomes was also tested. The research results indicated that psychological capital had positive impacts on employee's performance, organizational commitment, and OCB. In order to enhance the competitive advantages of both employees and organization, one of the available and sustainable ways can be to invest, manage, and develop the employees' psychological capital.
Individuals higher in PsyCap would seem to be more likely to engage in OCBs than would those with lower PsyCap, for several reasons. In general, employees who are more positive would seem to exhibit more OCBs than employees who tend to be negative. Several relevant mechanisms could provide support for the conceptualization of this relationship. For example, Fredrickson’s (2003) model supports a broadening contribution of positive emotions, in which people experiencing those emotions use broader thought–action repertoires, increasing the potential for proactive extrarole behaviors such as sharing creative ideas or making suggestions for improvement. There are also recent organizationally based studies that have used this broaden-and-build model to test the role of positively oriented psychological well-being as a moderator of both the relationship between job satisfaction–job performance (Wright, Cropanzano, & Bonett, 2007) and job satisfaction–employee turnover (Wright & Bonett, 2007). Besides this research support for the role of positive well-being for both in-role performance and turnover behaviors, the specific characteristics of the positive psychological resources that constitute PsyCap—namely, hope, resilience, optimism, and efficacy—may, we propose, lead to more frequent engagement in extrarole (i.e., broaden-and-build) OCBs.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
II : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Problem Statement
Organizations are facing rapid changes in their environment which may alter employees job demand and their level of expectations resulting changes in employees job satisfaction and mental strain.
Significance of the study
The study helps to understand the association of employees’ Psychological capital with their job satisfaction and OCB. Helping managers to how effectively meet the needs of the employees and retain them in the organization
Title
A Study on Psychological Capital, Job Satisfaction & Citizenship Behaviour
General Objective:
To find whether the relationship between PsyCap and Organizational citizenship behaviour is mediated through Job Satisfaction
Objective : * To find the relationship between Psychological Capital (psycap) and employees Job Satisfaction. * To find the relationship between Psychological Capital and Organizational citizenship behaviour. * To find the relationship between employees Job Satisfaction and Organizational citizenship behaviour.
Scope of the study
To study the association of employees’ Psychological capital with their job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviour.It attempts to examine the mediating role played by Job satisfaction between Psychological capital and organizational citizenship behaviour. A self reported paper based questionnaire survey will be conducted on employees working in IT firms in Kochi.
Variables
Independent variable: Psychological capital
Dependent variable: Organizational citizenship behaviour.
Mediating Variable: Job Satisfaction
Theoretical Definitions :
Psychological Capital
Psychological capital is a micro level state like construct that can be measured, developed and effectively managed for performance improvement, it stresses on the strengths of the people rather than weaknesses (Luthans, 2002).
Job satisfaction
According to Locke and Weiss (2001), job satisfaction is “a pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job; an affective reaction to one’s job; and an attitude towards one’s job”.
Organizational citizenship behaviour
OCB is defined by Organ as “contributions to the maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological context that supports task performance” (Organ, 1997).Organ’s (1988) five dimension framework that highlights five specific categories of citizenship behaviours will be used to measure OCB in this study. The five dimensions are as:
• Altruism—Refers to behaviours that have the effect of helping another person with work related task or problem.
• Courtesy—Refers to the behaviour aimed at preventing work related problems.
• Sportsmanship—Refers to the willingness of employees to tolerate the inevitable inconveniences and impositions at work without complaining and filing grievances
• Civic virtue—Refers to the behaviours that indicate responsible participation in political process of the organization. It represents a macro level interest in the organization as a whole. • Conscientiousness—Refers to the behaviours that go well beyond the minimum role requirements of the organization in terms of attendance, punctuality, etc.
Operational Definitions
Psychological Capital is defined as the positive and developmental state of an individual as characterized by high self-efficacy, optimism, hope and resiliency. Within the framework of Hobfoll’s (2002) psychological resources theory, Luthans, Youssef and Avolio (2007) define Psychological capital as ‘an individual’s positive psychological state of development, characterised by: (1) having confidence (self-efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering towards goals, and when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resiliency) to attain success’.
Job satisfaction:
Job Satisfaction is a set of favourable or unfavourable feelings and emotions with which employees view their work. Crany et al.(1992) proposed: “it’s an affective reaction to ones job resulting from incumbents comparison of actual outcomes with those that are desired(expected, deserved, and so on). A pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job as achieving or facilitating ones job values.
Organizational citizenship behaviour:
Organizational citizenship behaviour is defined as “individual behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988).
Altruism:
Altruism means helping other members of the organization in their tasks. For e.g. voluntarily helping new employees, helping co-workers who are overloaded, assisting workers who were absent, guiding employees to accomplish difficult tasks et al. Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) defined altruism as voluntary behaviours where an employee provides assistance to an individual with a particular problem to complete his or her task under unusual circumstances. Altruism refers to a member helping other members of the organization in their work.
Conscientiousness:
Conscientiousness is a discretionary behaviour that goes well beyond the minimum role requirement level of the organization, such as obeying rules and regulations, not taking extra breaks, working extra-long days (MacKenzie et al, 1993). Conscientiousness is a prototype of going well beyond minimally required levels of attendance, punctuality, and housekeeping, penchant towards conserving resources, and overall giving an impression of being a responsible citizen of the organization. If the employee is highly conscientious it implies that he is highly responsible and needs less supervision (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1997)
Sportsmanship:
Sportsmanship is defined as “a willingness to tolerate the inevitable inconveniences and impositions of work without complaining.” (Organ, 1990). It refers to person’s desire not to complain when experiencing the inevitable inconveniences and abuse generated in exercising a professional activity. Sportsmanship refers to avoid complaining unnecessarily about the difficulties faced in the workplace, being positive and tolerant towards problems experienced in the workplace. Sportsmanship is exhibition of willingness to tolerate minor and temporary personnel inconveniences and impositions of work without grievances, complaints, appeals, accusations, or protest. This helps to conserve organizational energies for accomplishment of task and to a large extent relieves managers of unnecessary load/stress (Organ and Ryan, 1995, Organ 1990).
Courtesy :
Courtesy refers to the gestures that help others to prevent interpersonal problems from occurring, such as giving prior notice of the work schedule to someone who is in need, consulting others before taking any actions that would affect them (Organ, 1990). Courtesy or gestures are demonstrated in the interest of preventing creations of problems forco-workers (Organ, 1997). For e.g. leaving the copier or printer in good condition for other workers’ use is an example of courtesy at work (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006).
Civic virtue
Civic virtue refers to the constructive involvement in the political process of the organization and contribution to this process by freely and frankly expressing opinions, attending meetings, discussing with colleagues the issues concerning the organization, and reading organizational communications such as mails for the well being of the organization. Civic virtue is behaviour on the part of an individual that indicates that employee dutifully participates in, is actively involved in, and is concerned about the life of the company (Podsakoff et al, 1990). Civic virtue represents a macro level interest in, or commitment to, to the organization.
Hypotheses
H1: Psychological capital is positively related to employees job satisfaction.
H2: Psychological capital and Organizational citizenship behaviour is positively related.
H3: Employees Job Satisfaction and Organizational citizenship behaviour is positively related.
H4: Relationship between PsyCap and OCB is mediated through job satisfaction.
Model :
Job Satisfaction
OCB
PsyCap
Methodology:
Population
Team leaders and entry level engineers employed at IT firms in Kochi. * Sample Size Data will be collected from 60 team leaders and 140 entry level engineers. * Sampling unit
Team leaders and team members are the sampling unit. * Sampling Method
Convenience sampling method will be used for selecting the sample of 60 team leaders and 140 entry level engineers. Data will be collected using a structured questionnaire.
III.TOOLS USED IN THE STUDY
Questionnaire
The study is conducted by using a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed for the three variables that are psychological capital, job satisfaction and organisational citizenship behaviour. The responses of all the variables are taken on a 5-point Likert-scale with anchors ranging from 1= “ Strongly disagree”, 2= “Disagree”, 3= “Neutral”, 4= “Agree” and 5= “Strongly agree”. The structured questionnaire was adopted from different people as mentioned below: * Psychological capital Questionnaire(PCQ) designed by Luthans et al.(2007) had 24 questions. * Job Satisfaction Questionnaire by Andrew and Whitney(1979) had 5 questions. * Organisational citizenship behaviour questionnaire by Podsakoff (1990) had 24 questions.
Statistical tools used
The statistical tools used for the study is hierarchical Regression analysis.
Structured equation modelling was also used to test the mediation.
ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION
IV: ANALYSIS INTERPRETATION
SAMPLE PROFILE
1.1 GENDER
This shows the classification of respondents on the basis of their gender as male and female. All the respondents are taken into consideration and classification is done on the basis of gender.
(GENDER) | GENDER | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | MALE | 100 | 50 | FEMALE | 100 | 50 | Total | 200 | 100 |
Table 1.1 Table showing the profile of respondents on the basis of their gender
Figure 1.1 Figure showing the profile of respondents on the basis of their gender
Inference
The sample population consist 50% of female respondents and 50% of male respondents. There is equal no.of male and female respondents.
2.2. Age of the employees age of the employee | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | 18-22 | 26 | 13.0 | 13.0 | 13.0 | | 23-27 | 135 | 67.5 | 67.5 | 80.5 | | 28-32 | 36 | 18.0 | 18.0 | 98.5 | | 33-37 | 2 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 99.5 | | 38-42 | 1 | .5 | .5 | 100.0 | | Total | 200 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
Table 1.2 Table showing the profile of respondents on the basis of their age
FIG. 1.2 Table showing the profile of respondents on the basis of their age
Inference
The above chart shows that 67% of employees are of the age group between 23 to 27, and 18% of employees are of the age group between 28 to 32.
2.3. Designation of the employee
| Respondents | Percentage | Team member | 140 | 70 | Team leader | 60 | 30 | Total | 200 | 100 |
Table 1.3 Table showing the profile of respondents on the basis of their designation
FIG 1.3. Table showing the profile of respondents on the basis of their designation
Inference The above chart shows that 70% respondents are team member and the rest 30 % are team leaders.
2.4. For how many years you have been working in this organisation?
| Respondents | Percentage | Less than 1 year | 45 | 22.5 | 1to 2 years | 103 | 51.5 | 3 to 4 years | 50 | 25 | 5 to 6 years | 2 | 1 | Total | 200 | 100 |
Table 1.4 Table showing the profile of respondents on the basis of tenure
FIG. 1.4. Table showing the profile of respondents on the basis of tenure
Inference
According to the above chart 25% have been working for 3-4 years and 51.5% of employees has an experience of 1-2 years.
Structured equation modelling
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) is a second generation multivariate data analysis. It can test theoretically supported linear and additive causal model .It can visually examine the relationships that exist among variables. Unobservable, hard to measure, latent variables can be used in SEM. Two sub models in SEM are inner model (structural model) and outer model (measurement model).Inner model specifies relationship between independent variable and outer model specifies relationship between latent variables and observed indicators.
Various approaches can be used to perform SEM like * Covariance Based SEM ( CB SEM) which is done using AMOS, EQS,LISREL & Mplus * Partial Least Square SEM (PLS SEM) which is done using PLS graph ,Visual PLS, Smart PLS and Warp PLS * Component Based SEM also known as generalised structure component analysis (GSCA) using Visual GSCA or GSCA web based.
PLS SEM does not make any assumptions. It is much better than covariance based SEM. The sample size used in this case is very small. Predictive accuracy is paramount and correct model specifications can’t be ensured. It requires high value path co-efficient if sample size is small. Problems with multi collinearity are not well handled. It may create large mean square errors in estimating path co-efficient loading.
PLS is useful for structural equation modeling in applied research projects especially when there are limited participants and that the datadistribution is skewed, e.g., surveying female senior executive or multinational CEOs. PLS-SEM has been deployed in many fields, such as behavioral sciences, marketing , organization , management information system , and business strategy
P value
The P value or calculated probability is the estimated probability of rejecting the null hypothesis (H0) of a study question when that hypothesis is true.If P value is less than 0.05, hypothesis is accepted or probability of rejecting is less
Path coefficients
It is the fraction of the standard deviation of the dependent variable (with the appropriate sign) for which the designated factor is directly responsible. It indicates the amount of expected change in the dependent variable as a result of a unit change in the independent variable.
R-squared coefficient.
This is a measure calculated only for endogenous latent variables, and that reflects the percentage of explained variance for each of those latent variables. The higher the R-squared coefficient, the better is the explanatory power of the predictors of the latent variable in the model, especially if the number of predictors is small.
Reliability
Reliability is a measure of the quality of a measurement instrument; the instrument itself is typically a set of question-statements. A measurement instrument has good reliability if the question-statements (or other measures) associated with each latent variable are understood in the same way by different respondents. a) Cronbach’s Alpha
This is a measure of reliability associated a latent variable. It usually increases with the number of indicators used, and is often slightly lower than the composite reliability coefficient
b) Composite reliability coefficient.
This is a measure of reliability associated with a latent variable. Another name for it is Dillon–Goldstein rho coefficient. Unlike the Cronbach’s alphacoefficient,, the composite reliability coefficient takes indicator loadings into consideration in its calculation. It often is slightly higher than the Cronbach’s alphacoefficient.
Analysis using SEM PLS The basic model is evaluated using SEM PLS in Warp PLS 4.0 for overall fit of the model, to find the relationships among the variables and various other factors.
2.5. PValues for correlations
P values for correlations
-------------------------
PsyCap OCB JobSat
PsyCap 1.000 <0.001 <0.001
OCB <0.001 1.000 <0.001
JobSat <0.001 <0.001 1.000
Table 1.5. showing P Values for correlation by performing SEM Analysis using Warp PLS
Inference
Since the P values is P<0.001, there is correlation between all the three variables.
1.6.The model for the study
FIG 1.6 showing the SEM analysis of IT firms using warp pls The figure shows the model indicating path co-efficient (β) ,P value and R squared value. It shows that * Psychological capital has a positive effect on Job Satisfaction (H1) * Psychological capital has positive effect on Organisational Citizenship Behaviour.(H2) * Employees Job Satisfaction has positive effect on Organisational Citizenship Behaviour.(H3) * All the hypothesis hence proves to be true.
Model fit and quality indices
-----------------------------
Average path coefficient (APC)=0.535, P<0.001
Average R-squared (ARS)=0.630, P<0.001
Average adjusted R-squared (AARS)=0.627, P<0.001
Average block VIF (AVIF)=3.333, acceptable if <= 5, ideally <= 3.3
Average full collinearity VIF (AFVIF)=3.019, acceptable if <= 5, ideally <= 3.3
Tenenhaus GoF (GoF)=0.651, small >= 0.1, medium >= 0.25, large >= 0.36
Sympson's paradox ratio (SPR)=1.000, acceptable if >= 0.7, ideally = 1
R-squared contribution ratio (RSCR)=1.000, acceptable if >= 0.9, ideally = 1
Statistical suppression ratio (SSR)=1.000, acceptable if >= 0.7
Nonlinear bivariate causality direction ratio (NLBCDR)=1.000, acceptable if >= 0.7
TABLE 1.6 Showing the Model Fit and Quality indices
1.7. P VALUES | PsyCap | OCB | JobSat | PsyCap | | | | OCB | <0.001 | | 0.028 | JobSat | <0.001 | | |
Table 1.7 . Table showing P Values by performing SEM Analysis of IT firms using Warp PLS
Inference
If P value is less than 0.05 hypothesis is accepted or probability of rejecting is less.Hence here all the hypothesis from H1 to H3 are acceptable since it shows a value p< 0.05.
1.8. PATH COEFFICIENTS | PsyCap | OCB | JobSat | PsyCap | | | | OCB | 0.564 | | 0.079 | JobSat | 0.617 | | |
Table 1.8 . Table showing Path Co-efficient by performing SEM Analysis using Warp PLS
Inference
It indicates the amount of expected change in the dependent variable as a result of a unit change in the independent variable. That is it is the slope of the regression line.i.e. for example β = 0.617 between Psychological Capital and Job Satisfaction ,which means for unit change in Psychological capital ,Job satisfaction changes by 0.617.
Psychological capital has highest influence of β=0.564 on Organisational Citizenship behaviour while Job Satisfaction has least effect of β=0.079 on Organisational Citizenship behaviour.
1.9. R-SQUARED COEFFICIENT. PsyCap | OCB | JobSat | | 0.643 | 0.617 |
Table 1.9 . Table showing R-squared Co-efficient by performing SEM Analysis using Warp PLS
Inference
R square = 0.643 for Organisational Citizenship behaviour i.e. Organisational Citizenship behaviour is influenced 64.3 % by psycap and Job Satisfaction, remaining 35.7% is affected by various other factors.. Similarly the least value is for psycap ,R square = 0.617 i.e. psycap is only 61.7 % influenced by Organisational Citizenship behaviour and job satisfaction ,remaining 38.3% is affected by various other factors.
1.10. RELIABILITY
Reliability is a measure of the quality of a measurement instrument; the instrument itself is typically a set of question-statements
a) Cronbach’s Alpha
This is a measure of reliability associated a latent variable. It usually increases with the number of indicators used, and is often slightly lower than the composite reliability coefficient. PsyCap | OCB | JobSat | 0.918 | 0.751 | 0.826 |
Table 1.10.a.Table showing Cronbach’s Alpha Co-efficient by doing SEM Analysis using Warp PLS b) Composite reliability coefficient.
This is a measure of reliability associated with a latent variable. PsyCap | OCB | JobSat | 0.942 | 0.854 | 0.878 |
Table 1.10.b . Table showing Composite Reliability Co-efficient by performing SEM Analysis using Warp PLS
Condition :
Both the compositive reliability and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients should be equal to or greater than 0.7.
The more relaxed version of this criterion, which is widely used, is that one of the two coefficients should be equal to or greater than 0.7. This typically applies to the composite reliability coefficient, which is usually the higher of the two (Fornell&Larcker, 1981).
Here both cronbach’s alpha value and composite reliability co-efficient of variables psycap, Organisational Citizenship behaviour and Job Satisfaction , have value greater than 0.7. the condition .If the condition that either cronbach alpha or composite reliability co-efficient of variable need to have value greater than 0.7,then also the condition is satisfied.
1.11. MEDIATING EFFECT
a) Effect of Psychological Capital on Organisation Citizenship Behaviour FIG.1.11 a) showing the effect of Psychological Capital on Organisation Citizenship Behaviour
Inference
As shown in the figure p < 0.01,which says that path between Psychological Capital has a significant direct effect on Organisational Citizenship Behaviour. * When Job Satisfaction acts as the mediating variable FIG.1.11. b) showing the effect of Psychological Capital on Organisation Citizenship Behaviour through Job Satisfaction When Job Satisfaction acts as a mediating variable the path between Psychological Capital and Organisational Citizenship Behaviour ,the Psychological Capital and Job Satisfaction is significant (p<0.01). Also path between Job Satisfaction and Organisational Citizenship Behaviour is significant since p<0.03.Thus Job Satisfaction acts as a mediating variable between Psychological Capital and Organisational Citizenship Behaviour since all three criteria are satisfied.
The path between Psychological Capital and Job Satisfaction is also significant since p<0.01.Hence Job Satisfaction shows only a partial mediation between Psychological Capital and Organisational Citizenship Behaviour. Hence the hypothesis H4 is acceptable
1.12.Indirect effects for paths with 2 segments | Psycap ocb jobsat | Psycap | | Ocb | 0.088 | Jobsat | |
Table 1.12 .Table showing the path co-efficient of indirect effect of Psychological Capital on Organisational Citizenship Behaviour through Job Satisfaction.
1.13. P values of indirect effects for paths with 2 segment | Psycap ocb jobsat | Psycap | | Ocb | 0.017 | Jobsat | | Table 1.13 .Table showing the path co-efficient of indirect effect of Psychological Capital on Organisational Citizenship Behaviour through Job Satisfaction . The indirect effect of Psychological Capital on Organisational Citizenship Behaviour has a significant path value of p< 0.001 and path co-efficient 0.088 as shown in the table hence there is a mediation effect .While direct effect of Psychological Capital on Organisational Citizenship Behaviour has p<0.01.Hence it has a partial mediation. Hence the hypothesis H4 is acceptable.
1.14 Hierarchical regression Analysis
Value of change in R-square in Hierarchical regression Analysis Variables | altruism | Conscientiousness | courtesy | Civic virtue | sportsmanship | Ocb | ControlR2 | .024 | .012 | .003 | .009 | .028 | .009 | (Psycap ) R2 R2 | .542.518*** | .443.431*** | .562.559*** | .436.427*** | .034.006*** | .581.572*** | JobsatisfactionR2 R2 | .558.016*** | .447.004*** | .579.017*** | .439.003*** | .041.007*** | .587.006*** |
Table 1.14 showing the Value of change in R-square in Hierarchical regression Analysis
Hierarchical regression analysis was carried out where different dimensions of OCB were treated as dependent variable in separate test with demographic variables( age, gender, tenure &designation),psycap and job satisfaction entered as independent variables. R2 was calculated at each step. It was found that demographic variables had relatively smaller predictive power (from 0.3% to 2.8 %) for OCB as compared to other variable. Psycap showed better predictive power for courtesy and altruism as compared to civic virtue, conscientiousness and sportsmanship. It explained 51.8% and 55.9% variance in altruism and courtesy respectively. The same for other three dimensions varied from 0.6% for sportsmanship,42.7% for civic virtue and 43.1% for conscientiousness . job satisfaction explained lower variance for OCB dimensions that varied from 0.3% to 1.8%. V. FINDINGS * The sample population consist 50% of female respondents and 50% of male respondents. There is equal no.of male and female respondents.67% of employees are of the age group between 23 to 27, and 18% of employees are of the age group between 28 to 32.70% respondents are team member and the rest 30 % are team leaders.25% have been working for 3-4 years and 51.5% of employees has an experience of 1-2 years.
* All the three variables are significantly correlated as the P values is P<0.001.
* Psychological capital has a positive effect on Job Satisfaction (H1). Psychological capital has positive effect on Organisational Citizenship Behaviour.(H2). Employees Job Satisfaction has positive effect on Organisational Citizenship Behaviour.(H3)
* The value β = 0.617 between Psychological Capital and Job Satisfaction ,which means for unit change in Psychological capital ,Job satisfaction changes by 0.617.
* Psychological capital has highest influence of β=0.564 on Organisational Citizenship behaviour while Job Satisfaction has least effect of β=0.079 on Organisational Citizenship behaviour.
* R square = 0.643 for Organisational Citizenship behaviour i.e. Organisational Citizenship behaviour is influenced 64.3 % by psycap and Job Satisfaction, remaining 35.7% is affected by various other factors.. Similarly the least value is for psycap ,R square = 0.617 i.e. psycap is only 61.7 % influenced by Organisational Citizenship behaviour and job satisfaction ,remaining 38.3% is affected by various other factors.
* The measurements were acceptable in terms of reliability .
* The path between Psychological Capital has a significant direct effect on Organisational Citizenship Behaviour as the p<0.01.
* When Job Satisfaction acts as a mediating variable the path between Psychological Capital and Organisational Citizenship Behaviour ,the Psychological Capital and Job Satisfaction is significant (p<0.01). Also path between Job Satisfaction and Organisational Citizenship Behaviour is significant since p<0.03.Thus Job Satisfaction acts as a mediating variable between Psychological Capital and Organisational Citizenship Behaviour since all three criteria are satisfied.
* The path between Psychological Capital and Job Satisfaction is also significant since p<0.01.Hence Job Satisfaction shows only a partial mediation between Psychological Capital and Organisational Citizenship Behaviour.
* The indirect effect of Psychological Capital on Organisational Citizenship Behaviour has a significant path value of p< 0.001 and path co-efficient 0.088 as shown in the table hence there is a mediation effect .While direct effect of Psychological Capital on Organisational Citizenship Behaviour has p<0.01.Hence it has a partial mediation.
* R2 was calculated at each step. It was found that demographic variables had relatively smaller predictive power (from 0.3% to 2.8 %) for OCB as compared to other variable. Psycap showed better predictive power for courtesy and altruism as compared to civic virtue, conscientiousness and sportsmanship. It explained 51.8% and 55.9% variance in altruism and courtesy respectively. The same for other three dimensions varied from 0.6% for sportsmanship,42.7% for civic virtue and 43.1% for conscientiousness . job satisfaction explained lower variance for OCB dimensions that varied from 0.3% to 1.8%.
VI. CONCLUSION According to the study there is positive relationship between all the three variables i.e. Psychological capital of an employee is positively related to employee’s job satisfaction, Psychological capital of an employee is positively related to employees and Organizational citizenship behaviour. Employees Job Satisfaction and Organizational citizenship behaviour is also positively related. Job Satisfaction shows only a partial mediation between Psychological Capital and Organisational Citizenship Behaviour. Higher the psychological capital there will be increase the level of job performance of each employee in the organisation, which will hence have higher employee job satisfaction leading to higher organisational commitment.
VII. REFERENCE
* Avey, James B., Tara S. Wernsing, and Fred Luthans. "Can positive employees help positive organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and behaviors." The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 44.1 (2008): 48-70
* Hughes, Larry W. "A correlational study of the relationship between sense of humor and positive psychological capacities." Economics & Business Journal: Inquiries & Perspectives 1.1 (2008): 46-55.
* http://www.pls-sem.com/
* Jena, R. K., and R. Goswami. "Measuring the Determinants of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour." Global Business Review 15.2 (2014): 381-396.
* Luthans, Fred, et al. "The mediating role of psychological capital in the supportive organizational climate—employee performance relationship." Journal of organizational behavior 29.2 (2008): 219-238.
* Luthans, Fred, et al. "The development and resulting performance impact of positive psychological capital." Human resource development quarterly 21.1 (2010): 41-67.
* Luthans, Fred, et al. "Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction." Personnel psychology 60.3 (2007): 541-572. * Luthans, Fred, and Carolyn M. Youssef. "Emerging positive organizational behavior." Journal of management 33.3 (2007): 321-349.
* Luthans, Fred, et al. "Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction." Personnel psychology 60.3 (2007): 541-572.
* Luthans, Fred. "The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior."Journal of organizational behavior 23.6 (2002): 695-706.
* Mowday, Richard T., Richard M. Steers, and Lyman W. Porter. "The measurement of organizational commitment." Journal of vocational behavior14.2 (1979): 224-247.
* MacKenzie, Scott B., Philip M. Podsakoff, and Nathan P. Podsakoff. "CHALLENGE‐ORIENTED ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIORS AND ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS: DO CHALLENGE‐ORIENTED BEHAVIORS REALLY HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ORGANIZATION'S BOTTOM LINE?." Personnel Psychology 64.3 (2011): 559-592.
* McCook, Keith Douglas. Organizational perceptions and their relationships to job attitudes, effort, performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Diss. Louisiana State University, 2002.
* Odoch, Hojops, and Sudi Nangoli. "Organizational citizenship behavior and job satisfaction." Unique Journal of Business Management Research 1.4 (2013): 49-54.
* Organ, Dennis W. "Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time." Human performance 10.2 (1997): 85-97. * Organ, Dennis W. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books/DC Heath and Com, 1988.
* Organ, Dennis W. "Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time." Human performance 10.2 (1997): 85-97.
* Podsakoff, Philip M., and Scott B. MacKenzie. "Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestion for future research." Human performance 10.2 (1997): 133-151.
* Podsakoff, Philip M., et al. "Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research." Journal of management 26.3 (2000): 513-563.
* Perform Sem Analysis and View Results with Warp PLS –You tube
* Ryan, John J. "Work values and organizational citizenship behaviors: Values that work for employees and organizations." Journal of business and psychology 17.1 (2002): 123-132
* Shahnawaz, M. G., and Md Hassan Jafri. "Psychological capital as predictors of organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviour." Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology 35 (2009): 78-84.
* Srivastava, Shalini. "Job satisfaction and organizational commitment relationship: Effect of personality variables." Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective 17.2 (2013): 159-167.
* Seligman, Martin EP, et al. "Positive psychology progress: empirical validation of interventions." American psychologist 60.5 (2005): 410.
* Tambe, Sukhada, and Meera Shanker. "A Study of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) and Its Dimensions: A Literature Review." (2014).
* Upadhya, Carol, and A. R. Vasavi. "Work, Culture and Sociality in the Indian Information Technology (IT) Industry: A Sociological Study." (2006). * www.ebsco.com * www.sage.com * www.pls-sem.com/?q=node/22 * www.sagepub.com/books/Book23734 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_equation_modeling * www.scriptwarp.com/warppls/UserManual_v_4_0.pdf * www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM4nXvP5Bo * www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHOLF6tyMVc * www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgA8qY63dX0 * www.researchgate.net/publictopics.PublicPostFileLoader.html?id
VIII. ANNEXURE
A Study on Psychological Capital, Job Satisfaction & Citizenship Behaviour.
Dear All,
You are invited to participate in the survey [A Study on Psychological Capital, Job Satisfaction & Citizenship Behaviour].Your participation is voluntary and will help me complete my dissertation. Your survey response will be confidential and complete anonymity is assured.
Thanking you
Vishi Viswanathan
PGDM
Rajagiri Business School,Kochi.. 1. Name : 2. Email.id : 3. IT company you are working: 4. 5. Gender : * Male Female 6. Age : * 18-22 * 23-27 * 28-32 * 33-37 * 38-42 7. Designation : * Team member * Team leader 8. For how many years you have been working in the current organization? * Less than 1 year * 1 to 2 years * 3 to 4 years * 5 to 6 years * More than 6 years
Please rate your level of agreement and disagreement with the following statements concerning your employment at your current organization. Sl No: | | Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly agree | 1 | I feel confident in analyzing a long-term problem to find a solution. | | | | | | 2 | I feel confident contacting people outside the company (e.g., suppliers, customers) to discuss problems. | | | | | | 3 | Although supervisor assigns me an extra job which I never had done it, I still believe in my ability that I can do it. | | | | | | 4 | I am confident in my performance that I can work under pressure and challenging circumstances. | | | | | | 5 | I feel confident that I can accomplish my work goals. | | | | | | 6 | If organizations transform new working system which is difficult to understand, I am still confident that I can learn new things from this system. | | | | | | 7 | I'm optimistic about what will happen to me in the future as it pertains to work. | | | | | | 8 | At work, I always find that every problem has a solution. | | | | | | 9 | I believe that all the problems occurring at work always have a bright side. | | | | | | 10 | If I have to face with bad situation, I believe that everything will change to be better. | | | | | | 11 | I believe that success in the current work will occur in the future. | | | | | | 12 | I always stuck with the problem and found that the problem cannot do anything. | | | | | | 13 | At the present time, I am energetically pursuing my work goals. | | | | | | 14 | I have several ways to accomplish the work goal. | | | | | | 15 | When I found that my performance appraisal was less than the expected goal, I am trying to find the ways to improve, and then start to do better. | | | | | | 16 | Now, I feel that I am energetic to accomplish the work goal. | | | | | | 17 | When I set goals and plan to work, I will be concentrated to achieve the goal. | | | | | | 18 | I work as the goals set by the belief that “Where there is a will, there is a way”. | | | | | | 19 | I usually manage difficulties one way or another at work. | | | | | | 20 | I usually take stressful things at work in stride. | | | | | | 21 | Although my work is failed, I will try to make it success again. | | | | | | 22 | Although too much responsibility at work makes me feel awkward, I can go through to work successfully. | | | | | | 23 | I am undiscouraged and ready to face with difficulties at work. | | | | | | 24 | When I faced with disappointment at work, “I fell but I could quickly get through”. | | | | | | 25 | I feel good about my job | | | | | | 26 | I feel good about the people I work with-my co-workers. | | | | | | 27 | I feel good about the work i do on my job-the work itself | | | | | | 28 | I like where I work - the physical surroundings, the hours, the amount of work I am asked to do | | | | | | 29 | I feel good about what i have available for doing my job – I mean equipment, information, good supervision, and so on | | | | | | 30 | I Help in orienting new employees even though it is NOT required. | | | | | | 31 | I Help others who have been absent. | | | | | | 32 | I Helps others who have heavy workloads. | | | | | | 33 | I am always ready to lend a helping hand to those around me. | | | | | | 34 | I Willingly help others who have work related problems. | | | | | | 35 | My Attendance at work is above the norm. | | | | | | 36 | I Believe in giving an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. | | | | | | 37 | I Do NOT take extra breaks. | | | | | | 38 | I am one of the most conscientious employee. | | | | | | 39 | I Obey company rules and regulations even when no one is watching. | | | | | | 40 | I Consider the impact of my actions on co-workers. | | | | | | 41 | I Don’t abuse the rights of others. | | | | | | 42 | I am mindful of how my behaviour affects other people's jobs. | | | | | | 43 | I Take steps to try to prevent problems with other workers. | | | | | | 44 | I Try to avoid creating problems for co-workers. | | | | | | 45 | I Attend functions that are NOT required, but help the company image. | | | | | | 46 | I Attend meetings that are NOT mandatory, but are considered important. | | | | | | 47 | I Keep abreast of changes in the organization. | | | | | | 48 | I Read and keep up with organization announcements, memos, and so on. | | | | | | 49 | I Always find fault with what the organization is doing. | | | | | | 50 | I Always focus on what's wrong, rather than the positive side. | | | | | | 51 | I Consume a lot of time complaining about trivial matters. | | | | | | 52 | I am the classic "squeaky wheel" that always needs greasing. | | | | | | 53 | I Tend to make "mountains out of molehills." | | | | | |
Thank you 