THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT
4.10 Measures
The operationalisations of the constructs for this study are discussed in this section. All of the variables in this study are composite measures consisting of multiple items derived from the extant literature. However, because of the pre-testing some adjustments and minor changes were made to the original items to suit the context of the study. However, these minor changes did not affect or alter the content of constructs. Below is a description of the measures and their source.
4.10.1 Business Strategies
Business strategies were measured with generic business strategies (cost reduction, quality enhancement, and innovation). To measure this, the study adopted
the measurement instrument developed and validated by Zahra and George (2000) in their examination of the effects of business strategy on performance of manufacturing ventures in the USA. The instrument consists of eight (8) items corresponding to the three dimensions: two for quality, (e.g. ““My bank stresses being a high-quality producer”); three for product innovation (e.g. “My bank introduces many new products to the market”), and three for cost reduction (e.g. My pursues market leadership by being a low-cost producer”). The respondents were asked to rate their business strategies on these scales, reflecting their bank’s actual rather than planned or desired activities. These items were measured using a six-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree).
4.10.2 Talent Management
TM is basically about managing talented employees in pivotal and strategic positions in the organisation. This is basically done with the use of appropriate HR architecture (Boudreau and Ramstad, 2005; Collings and Mellahi, 2009) for improving the performance of talented employees. TM was measured with five (5) items adopted from Luna-Arocas and Morley (2015), representing five dimensions of TM: talent alignment, talent application, talent competency, talent autonomy, and talent development. The items were assessed using a six-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). Sample items included “My personal values and the bank’s values are quite similar.”
4.10.3 Talent Management Output
In this study TM outputs served as mediating variables through which TM leads to employee performance and the intention to quit. A detailed review of the extant literature produced the following variables: employee commitment, satisfaction and POS. The measurements of these variables in this study are explained as follows.
Satisfaction: Employee satisfaction was assessed using a six-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree) with three items developed by Seashore, Lawler, Mirvis, and Camman (1982). Sample items included “In general, I like working at this bank.”POS: POS was measured using a six item scale adapted from Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, and Lynch (1997). The respondents indicated the
extent of their agreement with each item using a six-point Likert type scale ranging from (1), “strongly disagree” to (6), “strongly agree.”Sample items include “My bank cares about my opinions.”
Commitment: As mentioned in Chapters 2 and 3, employee commitment in this study was regarded as affective commitment. In contrast to continuous and normative commitment, affective commitment has been found to have the strongest and most favourable associations with both employee and organization relevant outcomes (Meyer, Stanley, Hercovitch and Topolnytsky, 2002). Affective commitment was measured using three items from the scale developed by Meyer, Allen, and Smith (1993). These items were measured on a six-point Likert scale ranging from (1),
“strongly disagree” to (6) “strongly agree”. Sample items included “I feel emotionally attached to this bank.”
4.10.4 Employee-Level Performance
Employee performance is a multi-dimensional concept (Borman and Motowildo, 1993; Sonnentag and Frese, 2002). For instance, Borman and Motowildo (1993) divided performance into task and contextual while others (Allworth and Hesketh, 1999; Pulakos et al., 2000; Griffin et al., 2007) added adaptive performance.
In recent years counterproductive behaviours were added (Viswesvaran and Ones, 2000; Rotundo and Sackett, 2002; Koopmans et al., 2011; Koopmans et al., 2012).
This study therefore used these four dimensions to measure employee performance.
Task performance: Task performance was measured through the use of a five-item (5) scale developed by Koopmans et al. (2012). These five items were selected based on their appropriateness (suitability) for the context of this study. A six-point Likert scale ranging from (1), “strongly disagree” to (6) “strongly agree” was used. Sample items included, “My quantity of work is higher than average.”
Studies that involve contextual performance have often perceived the concept as multi-dimensional (Van Scotter and Motowidlo, 1996; Motowidlo, Borman, and Schmit, 1997). For instance, Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996) divided contextual performance into two separate dimensions: interpersonal facilitation and job dedication. They argued that interpersonal facilitation consists of interpersonal
orientation behaviours that contribute to organizational goals while job dedication centres on self-disciplined behaviours.
Koopman et al. (2012) divided contextual performance into the interpersonal and organizational, which is just similar to the division suggested by Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996). Contextual performance was measured with eight (8) items developed by Koopmans et al. (2012). These items covered the two dimensions of contextual performance. A six-point Likert scale ranging from (1), “strongly disagree”
to (6) “strongly agree” was used. Sample items included, “I often start new tasks myself, when my old ones are finished.”
Adaptive performance was measured using six (6) items adopted from Koopmans et al. (2012). A six-point Likert scale ranging from (1), “strongly disagree”
to (6), “strongly agree” was used. Sample items included “I work at keeping my job knowledge up to date.”Although counterproductive work behaviours are often seen as a one-dimensional construct, a number of authors have divided them into two sub- dimensions based on the target of the behaviour; namely, towards other individuals and towards the organisation (Mount, Ilies, and Johnson, 2006; Berry, Ones and Sackett, 2007). Counterproductive work behaviour was measured using four (4) items developed by Koopmans et al. (2012). These items succinctly captured negative work behaviours regarding both other individuals and the organization. A six-point Likert scale ranging from (1), “strongly disagree” to (6), “strongly agree” was used. Sample items included “I purposely work slowly.”
4.10.5 Intention to Quit
Intention to quit was measured using four (4) items developed by O’Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell (1991). The items were measured on a six-point Likert scale ranging from (1), “strongly disagree” to (6) “strongly agree.” Sample items included
“I would prefer another more ideal job to the one I have now.” Table 4.6 provides a summary of the measurement instruments, their source, and the number of items.
Table 4.6 Measurement Instrument and Their Source
Section Measure Source No. of Items
I Business Strategy Zahra and George (2000) 8
II Talent Management Luna-Arocas and Morley (2015) 5 III TM Output
POS Eisenberger et al. (1997) 6
Commitment Meyer, Allen and Smith (1993) 3
Satisfaction Seashore et al. (1982) 3
IV Employee Performance
Task Tsui et al. (1997) 5
Contextual Koopmans et al. (2012) 8
Adaptive Koopmans et al. (2012) 6
Counterproductive Koopmans et al. (2012) 4
V Intention to Quit O’Reilly et al. (1991) 4
VI Respondents’
background
Designed by the author 6