DATA PREPARATION AND MEASUREMENT MODEL
5.3 Descriptive Analysis of Measurement Scales
This section focuses on how the respondents answered the survey questions relating to the constructs of the research model (business strategies [quality, cost, and innovation], TM, TM outcomes [commitment, satisfaction, and POS], employee performance [task, contextual, adaptive, and counterproductive] and intention to quit).
Descriptive statistics have a number of uses: first, to explain the characteristics of the sample; second, to test the variables for any violation of the assumptions underlying the statistical methods that were employed to address the research questions (Pallant, 2010). These descriptive statistics include central tendency measures such as mean, median, and mode; and variability (dispersion) measures such as standard deviation (SD) and range of scores (Hair et al., 2010; Tabachnick and Fidell, 2014). In this section, the mean and the SD are described. The mean is the sum of the measurements divided by their number; it is the most frequently-used method to find the accurate average of a set of data. The SD measures how far away each value in a set of data is from their mean.
Table 5.2 presents the questionnaire items associated with all of the measures of the study and their mean and SD. The responses to all the items were placed on a six-point Likert scale in which 1 = “Strongly disagree” and 6 = “Strongly agree”.
Table 5.2 shows that the mean scores of business strategies in the various banks were more than the average or the midpoint of the scale. This shows that on the average these banks that the individuals’ represents have actually implemented these business strategies. In terms of SD, it can be seen that business strategies items were lower than 1.0, showing little variation in the answers to these items.
The data presented in table 5.2 also revealed that the mean scores of the TM practice items were also above average. This clearly indicates that on the average these items constituted important TM practices of the respondents. The SD of all of the items measuring TM were lower than 1.0, indicating little variations in the responses of the respondents. With regards to TM outcomes, the mean scores of the items measuring satisfaction, and commitment were above average. This gives an indication that TM practices lead to satisfaction, and commitment that are antecedents of employee performance. In terms of SD, the items measuring satisfaction, and commitment varied slightly among the respondents, as on the average the items had a SD value of 0.2. However, the mean of the items measuring POS were below average and the SD also varies widely among the respondents. Thus, respondents appear not to perceive much support from the TM system of their bank.
With reference to employee performance, the mean scores of the items were above average. Thus, the items measuring task, contextual, and adaptive performances were on average 4.2. This appears to show that there was a strong positive relationship between TM and these aspects of employee performance. Similarly, the SD of these items was on average less than 1.0, indicating that there was less variation in the responses. However, the mean scores of the items measuring counterproductive work behaviours were below average (2.6). This means that TM practices have a negative relationship with counterproductive behaviours. In other words, talented employees may not engage in negative or behaviours that harm their organisation.
The SD of the items measuring counterproductive behaviours were on the average above 0.5, showing little variation in the responses.
Lastly, the mean of items measuring intention to quit were below the average point of the scale (2.5), which indicated that on the average, the respondents were likely to leave their current bank. However, the SD of these items were above 1.0, showing variations in the responses to the intention to quit items. Overall, the mean values of the variables were close to the mean values, which indicated that there was a high effect of extreme scores on the mean and that there was no problem with outliers.
Also, all of the SD values indicated that the data were normally distributed and concentrated around the mean and were less more spread. The descriptive analysis of the measurement scale is shown in table 5.2.
Table 5.2 Questionnaire Items and Descriptive Statistics
Construct Items Description Mean SD
Quality Quali1 Quali2
My bank stresses being a high quality producer
My bank competes primarily on the basis of quality
4.32 4.24
0.22 0.26 Cost
Reduction
Cost1 Cost2 Cost3
My bank stresses being a low-cost producer My bank charges higher prices than competitors
My bank stresses charging the lowest prices in the market
5.07 4.95 5.06
0.88 1.03 0.95 Innovative Inno1
Inno2 Inno3
My bank introduces many new products to the market
My bank introduces more new products than competitors
My bank offers a wide variety of products in its product line
4.41 3.60 4.43
0.35 0.37 0.35 TM Practices TM1 My competencies are in sync with my job
description
4.70 0.40 TM2 I have the opportunity to fully utilize my
knowledge and skills
4.36 1.23 TM3 I have the necessary competencies needed
to perform my job
4.50 0.46 TM4 I can try my own methods/ideas to do the
job
3.95 0.50 TM5 Development programs are available to me
least once a year
4.58 1.31 Satisfaction Satis1 In general, I like working in this bank 4.31 0.23 Satis2 In general, I don’t like my job (R) 3.40 0.34 Satis3 At work, I have the opportunity to do what I
do best
4.25 0.27 Commitment Comit1 I feel emotionally attached to this bank 4.24 0.22
Comit2 I really feel as if this bank’s problems are my own
4.16 0.16 Comit3 I feel a strong sense of belonging to my
bank
4.18 1.15 POS POS1 My bank cares about my opinions 2.92 1.44 POS2 My bank really cares about my well-being 2.74 1.32 POS3 My bank strongly considers my goals and
values
2.81 1.33 POS4 Help is available from my bank when I have
a problem
2.77 1.32 POS5 My bank would forgive an honest mistake
on my part
2.22 1.18 POS6 My bank is willing to help me if I need a
special favour
2.19 1.13 Task Task1 My quantity of work is higher than average 4.47 1.07
Task2 My quality of work is much higher than average
4.25 1.05
Table 5.2 (Continued)
Construct Items Description Mean SD
Task3 My efficiency is much higher than average 4.24 0.17 Task4 I uphold the highest professional standards 4.22 0.20 Task5 My work quality is higher than the formal
standard
3.72 0.23 Contextual Cont1 I often start new tasks myself, when my old
ones are finished
4.20 1.19 Cont2 I take on challenging tasks, when available 4.25 0.21 Cont3 I take initiative when something has to be
organised
3.97 0.23 Cont4 I am able to fulfil my responsibilities 4.13 1.13 Cont5 I take initiative when there is a problem to
be solved
3.92 0.44 Cont6 I accept and learn from feedback 4.64 0.32 Cont7 I cooperate well with colleagues at work 3.71 1.13 Cont8 I communicate effectively with colleagues
at work
3.96 0.21 Adaptive Adapt1 I work at keeping my job knowledge up to
date
4.22 0.18 Adapt2 I easily adjust to changes in my work 3.19 1.13 Adapt3 I recover fast after difficult situations or
setbacks at work
3.94 0.14 Adapt4 I always come up with creative solutions to
new problems
3.73 0.18 Adapt5 I have demonstrated flexibility 3.85 1.03 Adapt6 I cope well with uncertainty and
unpredictability at work
4.12 0.11
CPWB Count1 I purposely work slowly 2.66 0.56
Count2 I purposely make mistakes 2.69 0.56 Count3 I focus on the negative aspects of a work
situation
2.66 0.57 Count4 I complain about unimportant matters at
work
2.65 0.60 Intention
to quit
Quit1 Quit3 Quit3 Quit4
I would prefer another more ideal job to the one I have now
I won’t be working for this bank a year from now
I have seriously thought about leaving this bank
I don’t intend to remain with this bank for long
2.24 2.18 2.18 2.26
1.51 1.53 1.53 1.44
Note: N= 232, SD= SD, R = Reverse Scored, POS = Perceived Organisational Support, CPWB= Counter-productive Work Behaviours