Organizational Commitment and Job Involvement among Teaching and Non-Teaching

Staff of Saurashtra University

By:

Yogesh Jogsan

Assistant Professor

Department of Psychology

Saurashtra University
 Organizational Commitment and Job Involvement among Teaching and Non-Teaching
Staff of Saurashtra University

Abstract

The study examines the Difference in Organizational Commitment and Job Involvement among
Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff of Saurashtra University. Here total 120 (60 teaching staff and
60 non-teaching staff) Sample were taken. Measure Their Organizational Commitment,
Organizational Commitment scale was used which was developed by Mavde et al (1974) known
as OCS. Lodhal and Kejnar (1965) was developed Job Involvement scale which was used for
measure Job Involvement on Them. t-Test was applied to check the significance difference of
them. For check the Relation, Karl-Pearson Co-relation was used. Result shows that Significance
difference between Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff in Their Organizational Commitment and
Job Involvement. Reasons will be Teachers Have some Responsibility like Lectures, Push up
students for good education; improve their knowledge, teach morality to students, complete
syllabus in proper time, improve communication with students and other faculties and most
Important Reason is that 6th pay Commission, increases their salary. According to 6th pay
Commission the salary of University professors and IAS cadets is Equivalent. So it’s their
responsibility to give their best to their University and students. Positive Correlation between
Organizational Commitment and Job Involvement.
 Organizational Commitment and Job Involvement among Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff
of Saurashtra University

Organizational commitment is important to organizational success. Organizational

commitment may be viewed as an organizational member's psychological attachment to the
organization. Organizational commitment plays a very large role in determining whether a
member will stay with the organization and zealously work towards organizational goals.
If we know what Organizational Commitment is, first we know organizational commitment
the three-component model (TCM). This model argues that organizational commitment has three
distinctive components:
Affective commitment is our emotional attachment with our organization. If we have a high level
of affective commitment, we enjoy our relationship with the organization and are likely to stay.
We stay because we want to stay with our organization.

Continuance commitment is the degree with which we believe that leaving the organization would
be costly. If we have a high level of continuance commitment, we will stay with an organization
because we feel that we must stay in our organization. For example, we may feel quitting our job
may lead to an unacceptable length of unemployment. On the other hand, we may feel we will lose
a certain degree of status if we leave a well-respected organization or our job such as a top law
firm or research company.

Normative commitment is degree we feel obligated to the organization or believe that staying is
the right thing to do. Here, we believe we are ought to stay.
Always keep in mind that our commitment is not based on just one of these components.
A commitment profile is the interaction between these three components. For example, we may
work as a Researcher at a prestigious medical research company that gives us a good salary and
makes us feel important. We will have affective commitment because we enjoy our work and
want to stay, but we will also have continuance commitment because we don't want to lose the
pay and prestige associated with the work. Finally, given the nature of the work, we may feel we
ought to stay to help with the medical research.
The three components can have a significant effect Organizational Commitment, our work
performance, and member wellbeing. There is a negative relationship between affective,
normative, and continuance commitment with organization and a member's intention to
voluntarily leave an organization. In other words, less affective, continuance and normative
commitment increases the likelihood that a member will leave the organization, while high levels
of affective, continuance and normative commitment are related to high retention rates.
Job involvement is defined as an individual’s psychological identification or commitment to his /
her job (Kanungo, 1982a). It is the degree to ‘which one is cognitively preoccupied with, engaged
in, and concerned with one’s present job (Paullay et al., 1994, p. 224). Job involvement involves
the internalization of values about the goodness of work or the importance of work in the worth of
the individual (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965). As such individuals who display high involvement in jobs
consider His/her work to be a very important part of their lives and whether or not he/she feel good
about themselves is closely related to how they perform on their jobs. In other words for highly
involved individuals performing well on the job is important for his/her self-esteem (Lodahl &
Kejner, 1965). Because of this people who are high in job involvement genuinely care for and are
concerned about their work (Kanungo, 1982b).

The construct of job involvement is somewhat similar to organizational commitment in that she/he
are both concerned with an employee’s identification with his/her work experience. However the
constructs differ in that job involvement is more closely associated with identification with one’s
immediate work activities whereas organizational commitment refers to one’s attachment to the
organization (Brown, 1996). It is possible for example to be very involved in a specific job but not
be committed to the organization or vice versa (Blau & Boal, 1987).

Research shows over the past two decades, which have explored the construct of job involvement,
have approached it from two different perspectives (Sekeran, 1989; Sekeran & Mowday, 1981).
First when viewed as an individual difference variable, job involvement is believed to occur when
the possession of certain needs, values or individual characteristics predispose individuals to
become more or less involved in his/her jobs. For instance Rabinowitz and Hall (1977) in their
review of literature on job involvement found that individual characteristics such as age, education,
sex, tenure, need strength, level of control and values were linked to job involvement. The second
views of job involvement as a response to specific work situation characteristics. In other words
certain types of jobs or characteristics of the work situation influence the degree to which an
individual becomes involved in job.
For example study has demonstrated that job involvement has been related to job characteristics
such as task autonomy, task significance, task identity, skill variety and feedback and supervisory
behaviors such as leader consideration, participative decision making and amount of
communication (Brown, 1996).
Objectives

The main objectives of study were as under:

1. To measure Organizational Commitment in Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff.

2. To measure Job Involvement in Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff.

3. To check correlation between Organizational Commitment and Job Involvement

Null-Hypothesis
To related objectives of this study, null hypothesis were as under:

1. There is no significance difference on Organizational Commitment among Teaching and

Non-Teaching Staff.

2. There is no significance difference on Job Involvement among Teaching and Non-

Teaching Staff.

3. There is no correlation between Organizational Commitment and Job Involvement.

Method

Participants

The total 120 Sample were taking with random Method. Out of 120 there were 60 Teaching
Staff and 60 non-teaching staff has been selected. Samples were selected in Rajkot city (Gujarat).

Instruments

Organizational Commitment scale: The scale was made by Mudve (1974). Total 15 Statements
in this scale. This is two point scale. Sentences no. 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10,13,14 is positive and others are
negative. Reliability and Validity of the scale is very high.

Job Involvement Scale: The scale was developed by Lodhal and Kejnar (1965).Total 20
Statements in this scale. This is four point scale. Sentences no.1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11,12,15,20 is
positive and others are negative. Reliability and Validity of the scale is very high.

Procedure
In this study Randomization sample used. Initial meeting with the participants was made at
University. Total 120 Sample were taken out of 120, 60 were teaching staff and 60 were Non-
Teaching Staff selected. They were informed about the purpose of the study. Upon initial meeting,
each participants was also explained the nature of the study. Participants were informed about the
confidentiality regarding information collected from them. A time for data collection was set up
that was conducive for the participants. Before administering the scale, the purpose of the study
was again explained to the participants. A good rapport was built with the participant for getting
correct response. Some necessary instruction and guidelines were provided to them properly filling
the scale. After this the both scale were provided to them and they were requested to fill up the
both scales as per the instructions given in the scales. After completion of the scale participants
returned the scale and they were thanked for their participation and co-operation.

Research Design

The aim of present research was a study the Organizational Commitment and Job Involvement
among Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff of Saurashtra University. For this total 120 Sample were
from Rajkot City (Gujarat). Out of 120 Sample, there were 60 Teaching Staff and 60 Non-teaching
staff was selected. Here Organizational Commitment scale was used made by Mudve (1974) and
Job Involvement Scale was used developed by Lodhal and Kejnar (1965). To check significance
different’ test was used and to check correlation Karl Pearson ‘r’ method was used. Result and
discussion is as under.

Result and Discussion

The present study attempted to assess the Organizational Commitment and job Involvement among
Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff of Saurashtra University.The t-test was applied for the purpose
of statistical interpretation to test the significance of different between means. While to check
correlation Karl Pearson correlation ‘r’ method used. Result and discussion of the present study is
as under:

Insert Table-1 about here

In Organizational Commitment mean of Teaching staff received 13.15 while Non-teaching staff
received 11.35. Standard deviation of teaching staff received 3.66 and Non-Teaching staff received
3.36. t-value was 2.58 which was significant at 0.01 levels. So we can say that there was significant
difference in Organizational Commitment among teaching staff and non-teaching staff. It means
first hypothesis is rejecting.
 Insert Table-2 about here

In Job Involvement mean of Teaching staff received 62.88 while Non-teaching staff received
59.56. Standard deviation of teaching staff received 7.94 and Non-Teaching staff received 7.77. t-
value was 2.43 which was significant at 0.05 levels. So we can say that there was significant
difference in Job Involvement among teaching staff and non-teaching staff. It means second
hypothesis is rejecting.

Insert Table-3 about here

Correlation between Organizational Commitment and Job Involvement is 0.61. This was positive
correlation. It means Organizational Commitment increases Job Involvement increases and
Organizational Commitment decreases Job Involvement decreases.

Result shows that Significance difference between Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff in Their
Organizational Commitment and Job Involvement. Reasons will be Teachers Have some
Responsibility like Lectures, Push up students for good education; improve their knowledge, teach
morality to students, complete syllabus in proper time, improve communication with students and
other faculties and most Important Reason is that 6th pay Commission, increases their salary.
According to 6th pay Commission the salary of University professors and IAS cadets is Equivalent.
So it’s their responsibility to give their best to their University and students.

Conclusion

There was significant difference in Organizational Commitment and Job Involvement among
Teaching and non-teaching staff. Teaching staff were committed with their job and there for their
involvement in job is high as compare non-teaching staff. There were 0.61 positive correlations
between Organizational Commitment and Job Involvement.

Limitations
This study is not without its limitations, which should be noted. The present investigation was
carried out under the following delimitations.

The study was confined to staff of Saurashtra University only. So generalization of the result might
be unfell here. One most limitation of this study is small sample size of 120 staff. This study was
conducted in Rajkot City (Gujarat). As the study was for 1-2 months (November-December) only,
time was a limiting factor. The findings made in the study May be biased by the incorrect
information given by participants. No other mental except questionnaires had been adopted in the
present research work for the collection of information. In sample selection for this research
Random method was followed. The present research is only a part of the study, thus generalization
should not be consummated, and the scientific is not approached in the selection of sample. The
conclusion of present research is significant so one aspect the limitation reveals that Organizational
Commitment and Job Involvement is internal aspect of a person’s personality and character. There
for in this practical world all persons take differently and act differently.

Suggestion

Endeavour can be executed to analyze move than 120 data of sample to attain better results. For
the accumulation of information, variegated methods except questionnaires can be adopted.
Selection of sample can be accomplished with the intake of different people from different state
and district to ascertain their emotional intelligence. To crown the edifice of the research work,
other method of selecting sample can be appropriated.

Problems of Data Collection and Research

There are several problems faced by researcher some of them are as follows:

• Irrelevant or duplicate data collected.

• Pertinent data omitted.

• Erroneous or misinterpreted data collected.

• Poor documentation from sample.

• Conflicting data.

• Lack of equipment.

• Insufficient interaction.
• Lack of confidence and awareness in participants.

• Lack code of conduct in research in participant.

• Inadequate assistance.

• Improper library management.

• Lack of availability or access to literature.

References
Aamir Ali Chughtai,(2008) “Impact of Job Involvement on In-Role Job Performance and
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour” Dublin City University,Ireland, Copyright © 2008
Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. All Rights Reserved

Ashforth, B.E., and Saks, A.M. (1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer
adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 95-112.

Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-82.

Bateman, T.S., and Organ, D.W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship
between affect and employee citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595.

Blau, G.J., Boal, K.B., (1987). Conceptualising how job involvement and organizational
commitment affect turnover and absenteeism. The Academy of Management Review, 12, 288-300.

Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley Copyright © 2008
Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. All Rights Reserved. 181

Bolger, R., & Somech, A. (2004). Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers organizational
commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in schools.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 277-289.

Borman, W.C., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The
meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99-109.

Brown, S.P., & Leigh, T.W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to
job involvement, effort and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 358-368.

Brown, S.P. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job involvement.
Psychological Bulletin, 120, 235-255.

Chu, C., Lee, M., Hsu, H. and Chen, I. (2005). Clarification of the antecedents of hospital nurse
organizational citizens hip behaviour – an example from a Taiwan regional hospital. Journal of
Nursing Research, 13, 313-324.

Cohen, A,. & Vigoda, E. (2000). Do good citizens make good organizational citizens? An
empirical examination of the relationship between general citizenship and organizational
citizenship behavior in Israel. Administration and Society, 32, 596- 625.

Cohen, A. (1999). Relationships among the five forms of commitment: an empirical analysis”,
Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 20, 285-308.

Cohen, A. (2000). The relationship between commitment forms and work outcomes: A comparison
of three models. Human Relations, 53, 387-417.
Cron, W.L. (1984). Industrial salesperson development: A career stages perspective. Journal of
Marketing, 48, 41-52.

Diefendorff, J., Brown, D., Kamin, A., and Lord, B. (2002). Examining the roles of job
involvement and work centrality in predicting organizational citizenship behaviours and job
performance. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 23, 93- 108.

Dubinsky, A.J., and Hartley, S.W. (1986). A path-analytic study of a model of salesperson
performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 4, 36- 46.

Farh, J.L., Earley, P.C., and Lin, S.C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and
organizational citizens hip behaviour in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42,
421-44.

Hackman, J.R., & Lawler, E.E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 55, 259-286.

Harrison, D.A., and Martocchio, J.J. (1998). Time for absenteeism: A 20-year review of origins,
offshoots and outcomes. Journal of Management, 24, 305-350.

Huselid, M.A., and Day, N.A. (1991). Organizational commitment, job involvement and
turnover: A substantive and methodological analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 380-391.
Copyright © 2008 Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. All Rights Reserved. 182

Janis, N.A. (1989). Organizational commitment, career factors and career/life stage. Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, 10, 247-266.

Kanungo, R.N. (1982a). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77, 341-9.

Kanungo, R. (1982b). Work alienation: An integrative approach. New York: Wiley

Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: Wiley.

Knoop, R. (1986). Job involvement: An elusive concept. Psychological Reports, 59, 451-456.

Konovsky, M.A., & Cropanzano (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor
of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 698 707.

Lassk, F., Marshall, G., Cravens, D., and Moncrief, W. (2001). Salesperson job involvement: a
modern perspective and a new scale. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 21, 291-
302.
Lawler, E.E. (1986). High involvement management: participative strategies for improving
organizational performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lodahl, T., and Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 49, 24-33.

Loui, K. (1995). Understanding employee commitment in the public organization: A study of the
juvenile detention center. International Journal of Public Administration, 18, 1269-1295.

Mudve (1974): Organizational Commitment Scale, Unpublished M.A. dissertation, Dept. Of

Psychology, Saurashtra University, Rajkot, Gujarat.

Meyer, J.P., Paunonen, V., Gellatly, I.R., Goffin, R.D., and Jackson, D.N. (1989). Organizational
commitment and job performance: It’s the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 74, 152-156.

Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., and Steers, R.M., (1982). Employee-organization linkages: the
psychology of commitment, absenteeism and turnover. New York: Academic Press.

Munene, J.C. (1995). Not o n seat: An investigation of some correlates of organizational

citizenship behaviour in Nigeria. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 44, 111-22.

Nunnaly, J.C. & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Organ, D.W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors
of organizational citizenship behaviour. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-800.

Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior. Lexington: D.C. Heath and Co. Paullay,
I., Alliger, G., and Stone -Romero, E. (1994). Construct validation of two instruments designed to
measure job involvement and work centrality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 224-8.
Copyright © 2008 Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. All Rights Reserved. 183

Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Lee, J.L., Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader
behaviours and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship
behaviours. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107 – 142.

Rabinowitz, S., & Hall, D.T. (1977). Organizational research on job involvement. Psychological
Bulletin, 84, 265-288.
Rabinowitz, S., & Hall, D.T. (1981). Changing correlates of job involvement in three career stages.
Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 18, 138-144.
Rotenberry, P.F., & Moberg, P.J. (2007). Assessing the impact of job involvement on performance.
Management Research News , 30, 203-215.

Saal, F.E. (1978). Job involvement: A multivariate approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63,
53-61.

Sekaran, U. (1989). Paths to the job satisfaction of banking employees. Journal of Organizational
Behaviour, 10, 347-359.

Sekeran, U., & Mowday, R.T. (1981). A cross cultural analysis of the influence of individual and
job characteristics on job involvement. International Review of Applied Psychology, 30, 51-64.

Skarlicki, D., Latham, G. (1995). Organizational citizenship behaviour and performance in a

university setting. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 12, 175-81.

Somers, M.J. & Birnbaum, D. (1998). Work-related commitment and job performance: it’s also
the nature of the performance that counts. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 19, 621-34.

Spector, P.E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work:
Myth or significant problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 438-443.

Yousef, D.A. (1998). Satisfaction with job security as a predictor of organizational commitment
and job performance in a multicultural environment. International Journal of Manpower, 19, 184-
194.

Zikmund, W.G. (2003). Business research methods. Ohio: Thomson South-Western.

Result Table-1
Showing The Mean, SD and t-value of Organizational Commitment
(N=120)
Sample N Mean SD t
Teaching Staff 60 13.15 3.66 2.58**
Non-Teaching 60 11.15 3.36
staff
Sig. Level 0.05 = 1.97*
0.01 = 2.58**

Result Table-1
Showing The Mean, SD and t-value of Job Involvement
(N=120)
Sample N Mean SD t
Teaching Staff 60 62.88 7.94
Non-Teaching 60 59.56 7.77 2.43*
staff
Sig. Level 0.05 = 1.97*
0.01 = 2.58**

Result Table-3
Showing the Correlation between Organizational Commitment and Job Involvement
Variable N Mean r
Teaching Staff 60 12.25
0.61
Non-Teaching staff 60 61.22