733030

research-article20172017
SGOXXX10.1177/2158244017733030SAGE OpenKumar and Saha

Article

SAGE Open

Influence of Trust and Participation in

July-September 2017: 1­–13
© The Author(s) 2017
DOI: 10.1177/2158244017733030
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017733030

Decision Making on Employee Attitudes journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo

in Indian Public Sector Undertakings

S. Pavan Kumar1 and Shilpi Saha1

Abstract
Trust is an important component that needs to be present among individuals. Survey data from 712 managerial employees
from public sector undertakings were used to examine the effects of trust and participation in decision making on attitudinal
outcomes. Results indicate that trust is significantly related to job satisfaction, group commitment, and affective commitment.
Participation in decision making is a predictor of job satisfaction and affective commitment, but it did not predict group
commitment. Job satisfaction significantly influences group commitment and affective commitment. Group commitment
predicts affective commitment and acts as a mediator between job satisfaction and affective commitment. These findings
suggest that managers need to facilitate trust and active participation among employees by taking their opinions on different
work aspects. Organizations that allow employees’ participation in decision making and are perceived as trustworthy have
employees who exhibit more attachment and identification with their organization.

Keywords
trust, participation in decision making, job satisfaction, group commitment, affective commitment, employees, public sector
undertakings

Introduction undertakings (PSUs) in India. In a PSU, majority (51% or more)

In the recent past, the Indian government has been encouraging
to spread industrialization across the country, considering the
potential economic benefits they offer. In the present time of
privatization and liberalization, the public sector, in particular,
needs to take a look at its work environment. In this productiv-
ity- and performance-led global economy, participation in deci-
sion making is one of the important mechanisms and if
employees feel that they are not empowered, then the perfor-
mance and competitiveness of the organizations are at stake.
Also, in the rapidly changing business environment, the
employee–employer relationship undergoes a considerable
amount of stress that leads to low commitment and high attri-
tion. Employees form the most important resource of an orga-
nization. The employees in an organization have to be highly
talented to achieve sustainable competitive advantage (Barney,
1991). There is an increasingly diverse nature of workforce in
organizations. They engage in social interactions and economic
transactions within and outside their organizations. Capabilities
and efforts of employees are important sources of competitive
advantage.
It is well known that
organizations that are wholly or partially owned and controlled
by the state government are referred to as public sector
of the paid up share capital is held by central government or by
any state government or partly by the central governments and
partly by one or more state governments. (Public Sector
Undertakings in India, 2017)
The rationale of PSUs is rapid economic development,
reduction of concentration of economic powers, balanced
regional development, generating employment opportuni-
ties, import substitution, export promotion, and resource
mobilization. Government orders for PSUs generally aim at
betterment of the society (Peng, Bruton, Stan, & Huang,
2016). Arms and ammunition, defense equipments, defense
aircrafts, warships, atomic energy, railways transport, heavy
metals, aircraft, ships, petroleum, coal, natural gas, and
power generation come under PSUs in India.
According to Performance Report (2015), in India, “all
public sector undertakings collectively accounted for 23.2
percent of the total market capitalization” and “9 percent of
India’s total export earnings was contributed by these
1
National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal, India
Corresponding Author:
S. Pavan Kumar, Assistant Professor, School of Management, National
Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal 575025, India.
Email: pavankumar@nitk.ac.in

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 SAGE Open
organizations.” A report by the Government of India has
stated that flexibility and autonomy in the PSUs have enabled
them to operate effectively in the competitive market with
outstanding results (Public Enterprises Survey, 2016). Many
of these organizations have significant worldwide presence
and are expanding (Peng et al., 2016). However, these PSUs
do not have their own theory contextualized unlike other
organizations (Srivastava, 2012).
In PSUs, employees from diverse cultural backgrounds
come together. This diversity does not affect them in work-
ing together. They often work collaboratively in taking
day-to-day decisions related to work (Ojasalo & Tähtinen,
2016). Participation in decision making allows individuals
to share influence among themselves who are not hierar-
chically equal (Wagner, 1994). Participative management
practices help to maintain a balance on the involvement of
managers as well as the subordinates in daily tasks and
activities related to the job. Increased levels of participa-
tion in work-related tasks can positively enhance the men-
tal health of employees (Kukenberger, Mathieu, & Ruddy,
2015). Employees have goals that require interaction with
other employees including cooperation and interdepen-
dence (Rogers & Ashforth, 2017). As a result, employees
feel motivated in their work and they feel highly satisfied
with their work. Substantial positive results are obtained in
their performance. In this context, trust and participation
of employees in decision-making processes are the two
important variables worth studying.
In the recent past, scholars have done research on trust as
an important managerial resource across organizations. Trust
is an integral part of daily social activities. It is essentially
considered as a facilitator that reduces transaction effort
(Bromiley & Cummings, 1995). Trust increases interdepen-
dence among individuals and reduces uncertainty among
them (Lleo, Viles, Jurburg, & Lomas, 2017). It is known to
work as a lubricant in functioning of organizations. It may
increase voluntary activities between individuals and organi-
zations. Employees who trust their peers and managers are
more likely to accept organizational goals and they are highly
satisfied and committed to their job. Participation influences
work practices, recognition, and rewards. It is believed that
participation correlates with job satisfaction and affective
commitment (Scott-Ladd, Travaglione, & Marshall, 2006).
The role of job satisfaction as a mediator between trust and
outcome variables needs to be studied.
In India, organizational factors such as management poli-
cies and work environment have been cited as the important
reasons behind affective commitment and alienation of
employees (Sinha, 1990). PSUs are complex because of mul-
tiple goals with conflicting interests of different stakeholders
(Narayan, 2016). An employee with a good amount of affec-
tive commitment will be ready to support the organization
whenever needed. It has been established from a review of
past studies that there are several beneficial outcomes of trust
such as job satisfaction, affective commitment, and group
commitment (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Shore, Tetrick,
Lynch, & Barksdale, 2006).
Morrow (1993) has defined affective commitment as an
attitude that reflects feelings such as attachment, identifica-
tion, or loyalty to the subject of commitment. It has strong
relationship with group-level outcomes and citizenship
behaviors because individuals impart greater effort when
they get motivated by high levels of attachment, identifica-
tion, and internalization (Giri & Kumar, 2013). Employees
exhibit distinguishable levels of affective commitment
toward their organization as well as their work group
(Johnson & Yang, 2010). Hence, the present study has
focused on individual’s affective commitment toward his or
her work group. Affective group commitment has been
labeled as simply group commitment in this study following
the convention in past research (Cohen, 2003).
A work group consists of a group of employees working
collectively to complete organizational goals (Hackman,
1987). Work groups have been believed to facilitate many
positive organizational results such as employees’ motiva-
tion, job satisfaction, and production (Mathieu, Maynard,
Rapp, & Gilson, 2008). A work environment without con-
flicts and with good amount of trust would help in learning
within work groups. In addition, if employees are highly
motivated and engaged in group-level activities, their job
satisfaction levels and satisfaction with coemployees
increase.
Group commitment is relatively less researched for its
antecedents and outcomes (Kukenberger et al., 2015). Group
commitment is attracting research for its importance in orga-
nizations. Impact of group commitment on affective commit-
ment has not been examined to the best of researchers’
knowledge. Relationship between job satisfaction and affec-
tive commitment has to be examined in the presence of group
commitment as a mediator. Also, mediating role of job satis-
faction needs to be studied. To address the paucity of research
in affective commitment toward organizations as well as
gaps in the group commitment literature, a model is described
and represented that has empirically tested the influence of
trust and participation in decision making on job satisfaction,
affective commitment, and group commitment.
Literature Review
Trust and Job Satisfaction
Excellent employment relationship is based on trust in orga-
nization (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Trust between
employees and managers delivers positive outcomes in an
organization. Many studies suggest that the increase of trust
toward superiors is because of favorable perceptions of the
employees (Lau & Sholihin, 2005). Presence of trust enables
long-term stability and well-being of employees (Appelbaum,
Louis, Makarenko, & Saluja, 2013; Cropanzano & Mitchell,
2005). Trust may facilitate well-being of employees as they
Kumar and Saha
have support of organizational members. However, it was
found that trust within management did not predict job satis-
faction in certain organizations (Robertson, Gockel &
Brauner, 2012). It is argued that greater trust in an organiza-
tion may lead to greater job satisfaction of employees in the
organization (Chen, Aryee, & Lee, 2005). The reasoning is
asserted on the basis that management and peers, rather than
any other general aspect, help to get the work done through
sharing knowledge and ideas.
Trust and Group Commitment
Trust between employer and employee is necessary to build
commitment (Rogers, 1995). Trust between work group
members helps members identify themselves with their work
group. It also helps to increase commitment of employees
toward a work group who are members of the group
(Moreland & Levine, 2002; Shore et al., 2006). It has been
suggested that trust among members of a work group helps
in the success of the work group (Cho & Poister, 2014).
Hence, it can be deduced that presence of trust among
employees may generate group commitment among mem-
bers of a work group.
Trust and Affective Commitment
Organizations need to build trust among its employees for
their own well-being at work (Peterson, 1998). Affective
commitment fosters when employees feel they are being
treated and valued for their contributions by the organization
(Nazir & Islam, 2017). Meyer and Allen (1997) opined that
affective commitment comprises of positive feelings of iden-
tification, attachment, and involvement with the organiza-
tion. A recent study had concluded that production and
administrative staff were attached to their organization as
they trusted their management (Lleo et al., 2017). It is antici-
pated that trust of employees in their managers may act as a
means to develop affective organizational commitment of
employees.
Participation in Decision Making and Job
Satisfaction
Participation in decision-making processes gives employees
a sense of belongingness toward the organization by consid-
ering their opinion in important matters. To reciprocate such
privileged actions, employees would exhibit identification
and loyalty with their organization. Research suggests that
employee participation across organizations is increasing
(Saha & Kumar, 2015). Participation improves flow of infor-
mation and, hence, transparent and open communications
occur (Anderson & McDaniel, 1999). Employees whose
opinions are considered for taking work-related decisions
have positive views about their job (Ornoy, 2010). Thus,
employees who view that their organizations are behaving in
3
their interest may experience greater job satisfaction (Parnell,
2003).
Participation in Decision Making and Group
Commitment
Participation in decision making and commitment may be
related to each other as evident in past research (Louis & Smith,
1992). High levels of organizational commitment are observed
in employees who participate in decisions (Giri & Kumar,
2013). Participation in decision making facilitates performance
of a work group (Chen, Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen, & Rosen,
2007). When employees have the ability to participate in deci-
sion making, they perceive it as an organizational support for
their work group to perform better (Kukenberger et al., 2015).
Participation may positively affect group commitment by
bringing the members of a work group close to each other.
Participation in Decision Making and Affective
Commitment
Employees who participate in decision making may be moti-
vated to deliver better performance because they feel very
happy when their opinions are considered while making
decisions (Saha & Kumar, 2015). Affective commitment
arises over time as an individual presents his views and opin-
ion over work matters (Ojasalo & Tähtinen, 2016). Every
employee who is attached to his or her organization would
want to have some form of influence in work-related deci-
sions (Giri & Kumar, 2013). This might strengthen affective
commitment of employees toward their organization.
Job Satisfaction and Group Commitment
Certain tasks in organizations involve working in teams. In
such cases, team spirit or group commitment should develop
among individuals. This gives rise to fair job satisfaction lev-
els of employees (Halepota & Shah, 2011). Randall and Cote
(1991) studied that group commitment evolves from social
ties of individuals and with job satisfaction in an organiza-
tion. When the reference team members provide guidance
and support to an individual, their social ties would improve.
Furthermore, it generally determines satisfaction with group
achievements (Baran & Giderler, 2017). Hence, group com-
mitment of the employee would also increase.
Job Satisfaction and Affective Commitment
Job satisfaction is of interest to employers and continues to
be studied because it is considered to be a desirable outcome
of employment. Job satisfaction is more likely to generate
good levels of group commitment. Highly satisfied employ-
ees would exhibit higher levels of performance and produc-
tivity as they believe in the values of the organization
(Srivastava, 2012). Research indicates that these employees
may become affectively attached to their organizations (Saha
4 SAGE Open
& Kumar, 2015). For example, an individual tends to show
emotional bonding toward his organization when he is satis-
fied with all aspects of his job such as colleagues and work
hours.
Group Commitment and Affective Commitment
Group commitment is defined as attachment of an individual
with other members in the organization (Randall & Cote,
1991). It is very less researched (Morrow, 1993). Most of the
research on group commitment was related to organizational
commitment conceptually or empirically. Work group com-
mitment is responsible for enhancing social involvement
(Randall & Cote, 1991). They explained that an individual
seeks guidance and reassurance from one’s work group.
Social ties between the individual and the organization are
strengthened in this manner. Another reason for analyzing
group commitment as a separate variable together with affec-
tive commitment is the need to demonstrate the distinction
between the two commitments.
Group commitment is believed to have an impact on orga-
nizational commitment (Cohen, 2003). When employees
work in teams, they develop ties among themselves.
Employees of a work group share similar interests. This per-
ception of having similar interests may be associated with
group commitment (Ellemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwerkerk,
1999). To assess the performance and time a work group will
last, it is necessary to understand the impact of group com-
mitment on affective commitment (Ellemers et al., 1999).
Job Satisfaction as a Mediator
According to Baron and Kenny (1986), a variable can act as
a mediator when the following terms are met: (a) significant
levels of variation in the presumed mediator are caused by
varying levels of the independent variable, (b) significant
variations in the dependent variable caused by the presumed
mediator, and (c) a previous significant relation between a
dependent variable and independent variable becomes less
significant due to the presence of presumed mediator.
However, multiple commitments were not included in the
test for mediation.
Organizations emphasize on job satisfaction of employ-
ees. Job satisfaction may promote commitment of an
employee toward his work group (Halepota & Shah, 2011).
An employee needs to trust his colleagues to be able to work
comfortably (Appelbaum et al., 2013). To achieve job satis-
faction, members of a work group should trust each other
(Cho & Poister, 2014). This gives rise to the role of job satis-
faction as a mediator between trust and group commitment.
Group Commitment as a Mediator
Group commitment is a relatively new term (Cohen, 2003).
There is hardly any study that has examined the role of
group commitment as a mediator in organizational behav-
ior literature except one. Paille (2009) reported that group
commitment acts as a mediator between support variables
and commitment. It is beneficial to have employees who
are committed to work and organization. Satisfaction and
commitment with work is considered as a boon by organi-
zations. Job satisfaction may help employees to develop
positive feelings about the job to enhance his affective
commitment (Appelbaum et al., 2013). It may also pro-
mote group commitment of employees who are members
of a work group (Randall & Cote, 1991). This, in turn, may
help employees to build commitment toward the work
group (Cohen, 2003). This gives rise to mediating role of
group commitment between job satisfaction and affective
commitment.
Objectives
To investigate the effects of predictors, trust, and participa-
tion in decision making on outcomes, job satisfaction, group
commitment, and affective commitment, empirical analysis
is needed. In addition, mediating impact of job satisfaction
and group commitment between predictor and outcome is
examined. The objectives are listed below.
1. To find the impact of trust on job satisfaction, group
commitment, and affective commitment;
2. To find the impact of participation in decision mak-
ing on job satisfaction, group commitment, and affec-
tive commitment;
3. To find the impact of job satisfaction on group com-
mitment and affective commitment;
4. To examine the impact of group commitment on
affective commitment;
5. To investigate the mediating role of job satisfaction
between trust and group commitment; and
6. To investigate the mediating role of group commit-
ment between job satisfaction and affective
commitment.
Hypotheses Development
Empirical analysis has been done by developing the follow-
ing hypotheses (Figure 1).
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Trust will be positively related to job
satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Trust will be positively related to
group commitment.
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Trust will be positively related to
affective commitment.
Hypothesis 4 (H4): Participation in decision making will
be positively related to job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 5 (H5): Participation in decision making will
be positively related to group commitment.
Kumar and Saha
Figure 1. Hypothesized model.
Note. TRUST = trust; PDM = participation in decision making; JS = job satisfaction; GC = group commitment; AOC = affective organizational
commitment; + indicates positive impact.
Hypothesis 6 (H6): Participation in decision making will
be positively related to affective commitment.
Hypothesis 7 (H7): Job satisfaction will be positively
related to group commitment.
Hypothesis 8 (H8): Job satisfaction will be positively
related to affective commitment.
Hypothesis 9 (H9): Group commitment will be positively
related to affective commitment.
Hypothesis 10 (H10): Job satisfaction will mediate the
relationship between trust and group commitment.
Hypothesis 11 (H11): Group commitment will mediate
the relationship between job satisfaction and affective
commitment.
Figure 1 demonstrates the hypothesized model based on
the literature review.
Measures
McAllister’s (1995) scale was used to measure trust. It has
10 items (e.g., “I would have to say that we have made con-
siderable emotional investments in our working relation-
ship”). The items are measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale
ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
Participation in decision making was measured using a
scale developed by Van Veldhoven and Meijman (1994)
consisting of eight items (e.g., “Can you discuss work
problems with your superior?”). All items were measured
using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from always to
never.
To assess job satisfaction, Warr, Cook, and Wall’s (1979)
scale was used, which has a total of 15 items (e.g., satisfac-
tion with freedom to choose your own method of working).
All items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale rang-
ing from I am extremely satisfied to I am extremely
dissatisfied.
Affective commitment was measured using Meyer and
Allen’s (1991) scale. It consisted of eight items (e.g., “I
would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this
5
organization”). All items were measured on a 5-point Likert-
type scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
Group commitment was assessed using Ellemers, de
Gilder, and Van den Heuvel’s (1998) scale. It consisted of
seven items (e.g., “I am prepared to do additional work when
this benefits my work team”). All items were measured on a
5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly agree to
strongly disagree. The items to measure the different vari-
ables have been included in the appendix.
Statistical Tools and Techniques Used for Data
Analysis
The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and
WarpPLS were used to analyze the data. The statistical anal-
yses such as obtaining descriptive statistics, developing the
correlation matrix, and calculating Cronbach’s alpha values
of the various measures used in the study have been analyzed
using SPSS. WarpPLS tool was used to perform some
advance statistical techniques such as creating structural
equation models. The hypothesized structural model emerg-
ing from the review of literature was subjected to analysis
and fit tests. For this purpose, a variety of goodness-of-fit
indices as provided by WarpPLS (Pearl, 2009; Wagner, 1982)
were utilized. The hypothesized model was tested and the
conclusions regarding the model fit and acceptance are
reported.
Method
Managerial cadre respondents from four different large-scale
organizations termed as PSUs in India constituted the sam-
ple. These organizations belonged to bauxite, petroleum, and
heavy industries and the states covered were Orissa, Madhya
Pradesh, Delhi, West Bengal, Assam, Maharashtra, and
Karnataka. Data were collected by visiting the organizations
in person. Convenience sampling technique was adopted to
identify organizations. This procedure entails participation
from all regions based on convenience, willingness, interest,
6 SAGE Open
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Coefficients of All
Variables.
Reliability
Variable M SD (Cronbach’s α)
TRUST 4.08 0.52 .84
PDM 3.94 0.61 .80
JS 3.99 0.58 .90
AOC 3.77 0.70 .83
GC 4.23 0.55 .84
Note. TRUST = trust; PDM = participation in decision making; JS = job
satisfaction; AOC = affective organizational commitment; GC = group
commitment.
and availability of respondents to obtain quality responses
(Verma & Duggal, 2015). However, care was taken to include
participation from all regions of India. The sample consists
of employees from different departments, namely, human
resource (HR), finance, electrical, instrumentation, mining,
civil, environment, tender and contract, sales, production,
chemical, lab, research and development, and several other
departments. Participation of employees in this study was
voluntary. Respondents were asked not to disclose their iden-
tities so that the identities are anonymous. They were
requested to respond to all the questions. It took a maximum
of 45 min to completely respond to the questionnaire. The
filled questionnaires were collected over a period of 5 days
from each of the organizations.
Of the 1,200 survey questionnaires distributed, 780 (i.e.,
65%) questionnaires were received back. Few incomplete
questionnaires were rejected and 712 (i.e., 59.33%) ques-
tionnaires were retained for the study. Of these subjects,
95.6% were males and the rest were females; 85% were
reported to be married and the rest were single; 13.3%,
27.9%, 39.3%, and 19.4% were in the age group of 51 to 60
years, 41 to 50 years, 31 to 40 years, and 21 to 30 years,
respectively. There were 44% participants each in entry-
level management and middle-level management; 12.1%
were in senior-level management. The average years of
work experience across all levels of management was 14.14
years. In the overall sample, 61.3% subjects had BE/BTech
as highest qualification, 36.2% had ME/MTech/MBA as
highest qualification, and 2.5% had PhD as highest qualifi-
cation. Among all subjects, the maximum tenure was found
to be 33 years.
Empirical Results
To study the behavior of the variables in the hypothesized
model, statistical analysis was performed using variance-
based structural equation modeling (SEM) by using the par-
tial least squares (PLS) approach.
The data were subjected to statistical analysis to test the
above hypotheses. First, mean, standard deviation, reliabil-
ity, and intercorrelation were computed. Table 1 shows the
mean, standard deviation, and reliability coefficients for all
the measures.
As the values for Cronbach’s alpha are well above the rec-
ommended threshold of .70, the reliability of the measure-
ments is considered valid (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Outer Model/Measurement Model Validation
The relationship of observed variables with their respective
latent constructs comprises the outer model. Indicator reli-
ability, construct reliability, and construct validity (conver-
gent and discriminant validity) are examined. Indicator
reliability is established when the indicator (factor) loading
is greater than .50 (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson &Tatham,
2006). Construct validity is established by composite reli-
ability (CR) values of the construct. CR is considered to be a
superior alternative to Cronbach’s alpha (Chin, 1998). CR
measures the sum of a latent variable’s factor loadings rela-
tive to the sum of the factor loadings plus error variance.
This value ranges from 0 to 1. This value should be greater
than .60 for the validity of a construct. CR values above the
threshold of .70 indicate strong convergent validity (Kline,
2015; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
The CRs of all variables range from .80 to .91 as pre-
sented in Table 2. Moreover, both CR indicators and
Cronbach’s alpha values of all the variables are above the
threshold value of .70. All outer loadings were significant
and were greater than their cross loadings. Hence, measure-
ments have strong convergent validity (Hair,et al., 2006).
Moreover, it is evident from Table 2 that all variance infla-
tion factor (VIF) values are less than 5. VIFs of 3.3 or lower
avoid issues of multicollinearity and high interassociations
among latent variables (Kock & Lynn, 2012).
Table 3 presents the correlations among the latent vari-
ables with square roots of average variance extracted (AVE)
at diagonals. Correlation analysis was employed to examine
the relationship among participation in decision making,
trust, job satisfaction, group commitment, and affective
organizational commitment. For assessing discriminant
validity, square root of AVE of a variable should be greater
than its bivariate correlation with any other variable (Hulland,
1999). The values .94, .95, .94, .96, and .96 are greater than
the correlations in the row for the variables TRUST, PDM,
JS, GC, and AOC, respectively. Thus, discriminant validity
of the variables is established.
Inner Model/Structural Model Validation
Proposed hypothetical model was prepared in a recursive
manner to avoid problems associated with statistical identifi-
cation (Hair et al., 2006).
Figure 2 shows the results of an SEM analysis aimed at
testing the hypothesized effects among the latent variables.
Dotted line arrow represents statistically insignificant effects.
The β coefficients for each link are shown near the arrows,
Kumar and Saha 7

Table 2. Outer Loadings of Indicators, CR, AVEs, and VIFs of All Table 3. Correlations Among Latent Variables With Square
Variables. Roots of AVEs Shown on Diagonals.
Variable Outer loadings SMCs CR AVE VIF Variable TRUST PDM JS GC AOC
TRUST .87 .91 2.04 TRUST .95
TRUST 1 .66 .436 PDM .65 .94
TRUST 2 .52 .270
JS .59 .60 .95
TRUST 3 .61 .372
TRUST 4 .68 .462
GC .52 .48 .62 .96
TRUST 5 .72 .518 AOC .42 .48 .54 .49 .96
TRUST 6 .58 .336
Note. The diagonal elements in shaded gradient are square roots of AVEs
TRUST 7 .56 .314
of the respective latent variables. AVE = average variance extracted;
TRUST 8 .60 .360
TRUST = trust; PDM = participation in decision making; JS = job
TRUST 9 .57 .325 satisfaction; GC = group commitment; AOC = affective organizational
TRUST 10 .66 .436 commitment.
TRUST 11 .66 .436 All correlations are significant at p < .001 level.
PDM .80 .89 2.08
PDM 1 .51 .260
PDM 2 .57 .325 and they refer to the standardized regression path coeffi-
PDM 3 .60 .360 cients associated with statistically significant effects.
PDM 4 .56 .314
The strength of each path of the structural equation model
PDM 5 .72 .518
PDM 6 .72 .518
and the variance (R2 coefficients) of the endogenous vari-
PDM 7 .76 .578 ables should be greater than .1 (Falk & Miller, 1992). Figure
PDM 8 .74 .548 2 shows that the R2 coefficients of endogenous latent vari-
JS .90 .91 2.27 ables are greater than .15 (good amount of variance is
JS 1 .60 .360 explained by the hypothesized variables). TRUST and PDM
JS 2 .65 .422
JS 3 .52 .270
are exogenous variables, so there exists no R2 value. As evi-
JS 4 .67 .449 dent in Figure 2 and Table 4, all the significant path coeffi-
JS 5 .65 .422 cients are above .2 and are significant at p < .001 level except
JS 6 .63 .397 for one path, which is insignificant.
JS 7 .62 .384 Tables 5 and 6 show the results for mediating role of job
JS 8 .69 .476
satisfaction and group commitment based on the suggestions
JS 9 .62 .384
JS 10 .67 .449 of Baron and Kenny (1986) and Sobel (1982). The total
JS 11 .72 .518 mediation effects for all the paths were significant at p <
JS 12 .70 .490 .001. The mediating impact of JS between trust and GC is not
JS 13 .63 .397 supported by results (Sobel z value = 6.83, p > .01). This
JS 14 .74 .550 rejected H10. The results confirm the mediating effect of GC
JS 15 .57 .325
AOC .87 .92 1.57
between JS and GC (Sobel z value = 4.78, p < .001). Thus,
AOC 1 .62 .384 H11 is accepted.
AOC 2 .65 .423
AOC 3 .72 .518
AOC 4 .65 .422 Model Fit of the Structural Model
AOC 5 .76 .578 Table 7 reports the values of all indices—average path coef-
AOC 6 .76 .578
AOC 7 .54 .292
ficient (APC), average adjusted R-squared (AARS),
AOC 8 .74 .550 R-squared contribution ratio (RSCR), and nonlinear bivari-
GC .87 .93 1.84 ate causality direction ratio (NLBCDR)—obtained are within
GC 1 .56 .314 the fit criteria mentioned in the third column. Hence, the
GC 2 .64 .500 model fit is achieved for the present study.
GC 3 .66 .436
GC 4 .69 .476
GC 5 .73 .533 Discussion
GC 6 .83 .689
GC 7 .81 .656 The results of the present study indicate that trust has a sig-
nificant relationship with job satisfaction, which is supported
Note. AVE is calculated as ΣSMC / (∑ SMC + Σstandard measurement error).
CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; VIF = variance by past research (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). This is due
inflation factor; SMC = squared multiple correlation; TRUST = trust; PDM = to the reason that presence of trust among employees helps
participation in decision making; JS = job satisfaction; AOC = affective organizational
commitment; GC = group commitment.
them to have a mutually sharing relationship in which ideas
All outer loadings are significant at p < .001 level. and feelings are freely shared. If an employee has a
8 SAGE Open

Figure 2. Structural equation model and estimated parameters.

Note. β = path coefficients associated with a causal link in the model; R2 = variance explained by the model for a particular endogenous latent variable;
dotted line arrow represents statistically insignificant effects. TRUST = trust; PDM = participation in decision making; JS = job satisfaction; GC = group
commitment; AOC = affective organizational commitment.
*p < .001.

Table 4. Path Coefficients, t Statistics, and Summary of group who consider the work important to be completed on
Hypotheses Verification. time.
A significant relationship between trust and affective
Serial number
commitment is also found. Trust helps to share information
of hypothesis Paths/hypotheses Path coefficients Result
freely. Thus, healthy relationship prevails among all employ-
H1 TRUST → JS .34* Accepted ees (Lleo et al., 2017). They feel happy that their work and
H2 TRUST → GC .24* Accepted experience is valued by their colleagues and managers.
H3 TRUST → AOC .39* Accepted Interactions increase among employees. This creates a trust-
H4 PDM → JS .40* Accepted worthy work environment. The employees develop positive
H5 PDM → GC .06 Refuted feelings for their organization by exhibiting affective com-
H6 PDM → AOC .21* Accepted mitment (Nazir & Islam, 2017).
H7 JS → GC .46* Accepted The results suggest that Indian PSUs are interested in
H8 JS → AOC .31* Accepted
enhancing employee job satisfaction through employees’
H9 GC → AOC .21* Accepted
participation in decision making, which has been supported
Note. TRUST = trust; JS = job satisfaction; GC = group commitment; in previous research (Ornoy, 2010). Affective commitment is
AOC = affective organizational commitment; PDM = participation in determined by the extent of participation of employees in
decision making. day-to-day work-related decisions allowed to them by their
*p < .001.
supervisors. The more the participation, the better will be the
relationship between participation in decision making and
trustworthy relationship, then he feels safe and positive. This affective commitment. Employees are able to identify more
leads to higher job satisfaction. However, if there is no trust, with the organization when they have an active role in mak-
an employee does not feel safe and he is likely to worry. This ing policies and decisions of their organization (Ojasalo &
will have negative effect and there can be no job satisfaction Tähtinen, 2016). This is because participation gives certain
(Chen et al., 2005). amount of satisfaction to the employees. This satisfaction
This study offers a unique understanding of group com- obtained by participation cannot be replaced by any other
mitment with other outcomes. Trust is an important driver of form of involvement. Participation in the decision-making
group commitment as evident in findings. This outcome process also helps employees to understand the functioning
grows with the seed of trust (Moreland & Levine, 2002). It of their organization thoroughly in terms of managerial and
strengthens the social interactions among employees. technical functions. Employees would also be able to under-
Uncertainty among them is reduced. Difficulties and issues stand the managerial and technical issues in a better
related to work are solved easily when there is cooperation manner.
among the employees. Hence, success at work is easily As per the results, participation in decision making did
achieved by the employees. Organizations may choose to not have significant impact on group commitment of employ-
consider group performance important for their growth. ees, in contrast to the findings of Kukenberger et al. (2015).
Hence, employees give more importance to generate effec- This is because participation in decision making can cause
tive group results. Hence, trust is considered by employees many disadvantages in a work group. There can be pressures
as essential to build emotional relationships among them- arising from social systems to dominance by some members
selves. Managers might trust only those members of a work of the group due to unequal distribution of power. An
Kumar and Saha 9

Table 5. Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects for Mediation by JS Between TRUST and GC.

JS GC
Mediation
Hypothesis Paths Variable Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total effect
H10 TRUST → JS → GC TRUST .34* .00 .34* .24* .16 .37 Refuted

Note. JS = job satisfaction; TRUST = trust; GC = group commitment.

*p < .001.

Table 6. Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects for Mediation by GC Between JS and AOC.

GC AOC
Mediation
Hypothesis Paths Variable Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total effect
H11 JS → GC → AOC JS .46* .00 .46* .31* .10 .41* Accepted

Note. GC = group commitment; JS = job satisfaction; AOC = affective commitment.

*p < .001.

Table 7. Model Fit and Quality Indices.

Index Model results Model fit criteria

Average path coefficient (APC) .25, p < .001 p < .001
Average adjusted R-squared (AARS) .42, p < .001 p < .001
R-squared contribution ratio (RSCR) 1.00 ≥.9, ideally = 1
Nonlinear bivariate causality direction ratio (NLBCDR) 1.00 ≥.7

influential member may cause other members to follow the
decisions taken by him, which may be disliked by other
members as stated in leader–member exchange theory.
Hence, indecisiveness, lack of consensus, and group con-
flicts might arise. In such situations, the employee might feel
neglected by his work group. Hence, he may not be able to
identify with his work group to the required extent. The com-
mitment toward his group decreases gradually.
Another finding of note is that job satisfaction exerted
a strong influence on group commitment. This finding is
supported by past research on group commitment
(Knippenberg & Schie, 2000). Thus, the positive associa-
tion between job satisfaction and group commitment
implies that identification and attachment with the group
can be improved by providing supportive work groups and
providing recognition within the reference groups for
good work. Social ties are believed to achieve strong sat-
isfaction level while working in groups. Thus, when the
members of the work group of an individual provide sup-
port and guidance in work, the satisfaction obtained by
good work will help in observing a significant amount of
group commitment.
The results report that job satisfaction has a significant
impact on the magnitude of affective commitment. This
result is at par with past research (Appelbaum et al., 2013).
Employees seek a certain level of satisfaction in the job they
perform. This is possible when they have a certain level of
trust in management. Hence, appreciation from managers
gives satisfaction to the employees. Employees will have a
positive emotional feeling about their job. Their expectations
are met from the job as well as the organization (Rogers &
Ashforth, 2017). This would motivate the employees more
toward their organization. The positive emotional feeling
would give rise to commitment or attachment with the orga-
nization. It creates positive work environment in the organi-
zation. Such positive work environment enhances the
relationship between job satisfaction and organizational
commitment.
As far as group commitment in the PSUs is concerned, the
study shows that it is a significant predictor of affective com-
mitment (Appelbaum et al., 2013). It is also found to mediate
the impact of job satisfaction on affective commitment
shown in the empirical testing supported by a past study
(Paille, 2009). Group commitment is the cohesiveness of an
individual with the members of his or her group. It implies
that an employee who is attached to his work group would be
equally attached to his or her organization. Job satisfaction
can have an indirect influence on affective commitment
when group commitment facilitates this relationship
(Srivastava, 2012). Thus, a part of this study highlights that
group commitment is an equally independent variable as
affective commitment. Thus, it is worthy to study how sig-
nificant amount of group commitment can be achieved with
affective organizational commitment.
10
Implications
The concepts of trust, participation in decision making, job
satisfaction, and affective commitment are given impor-
tance by many researchers. They are of the opinion that
organizational leaders have to emphasize on these concepts
to receive consistent attention (Meyer & Allen, 1997). The
attitudinal outcomes such as group commitment, affective
commitment, and job satisfaction help establish the rela-
tionship of an employee with his or her organization. In this
way, the organization will consider its best interests not
only while making business decisions but also for the wel-
fare of the employee.
The results of this study confirm a set of hypotheses
about the nature of relationship between trust and attitudi-
nal outcomes. Trust can have a strategic role for coping
with uncertainties (Bromiley & Cummings, 1995). Greater
trust among each other implies greater satisfaction with the
job. Trust among members eases group work. In this way, it
enhances commitment with the work group as well as the
whole of organization. These outcomes are essential for an
employee to continue working with the organization. Trust
has an indirect influence on group commitment through job
satisfaction. In this light, it can be inferred that trust should
be viewed and prioritized as an important concept in
organizations.
This study has been able to identify the role of employ-
ees’ participation in decision making on attitudinal out-
comes. Participation in decision making was not
exclusively related to job satisfaction, but it also signifi-
cantly predicted affective organizational commitment.
This is supported by findings from previous researchers
that increasing participation has strong sense of identity
and satisfaction with the job (Kim, 2002). Job satisfaction
also significantly predicted organizational commitment.
The findings of this study are relevant to the managers and
directors of the PSUs in understanding how affective
organizational commitment develops. Several organiza-
tional factors arose to explain the relationship between
trust, participation in decision making, and behavioral
outcomes of employees in organizations. As globalization
and economy are growing, there exists tough competition
for the PSUs. The present study has implemented the rec-
ommendations of Black and Gregersen (1997) that sug-
gest that organizations can enhance employees’ job
satisfaction by improving participation. Participation
allows the management of the organization to tap the
skills and ideas of the employees for better efficiency in
production.
Three important strategies can be derived by the orga-
nizations from the results of this study to enhance their
employees’ job satisfaction. First, employees will extend
their support and efforts more when PSUs develop strate-
gies to support employees’ career interests. Second, these
SAGE Open
organizations can communicate more with employees
about their responsibilities, participation, and perfor-
mance on the job, thus enhancing their job satisfaction
and commitment. In this manner, they will understand
how their present performance and strategies can contrib-
ute to the work. Third, the organizations should make sure
that while working in a group, the junior employees do not
feel less important. It is often observed that the senior
employees do not treat their junior colleagues equally in
terms of recognizing their potential. The managers should
ensure that the junior employees are recognized equally
well as their senior employees for appreciable collective
or group work.
This study has taken research on group commitment, a
very recent variable, to new levels. Predictors of affective
organizational commitment illustrate that emotional attach-
ment of employees with their organization depends on trust,
participation, and how good are their job satisfaction and
cordial relations in a work group. These predictors are
affected by the degree of group commitment. Organizations
should ensure that employees’ skills are enhanced and they
know how to implement latest technological advances. This
will help the PSUs to have sound technical and support
domains. They will also stay at the cutting edge, and remain
competitive in this manner.
Limitations and Scope of Future Research
Few limitations have to be addressed. Only cross-sectional
data have been considered in this study. Future studies can
consider implementing the model with longitudinal data.
However, it is a challenging task to conduct a longitudinal
study as the same respondents may not be available across
different points of time (Stratford, Mulligan, Downie, &
Voss, 1999).
This study is specifically conducted for Indian PSUs.
Thus, the results of the study should be used carefully
while applying to other companies such as multinational
companies (MNCs). Then, a comparison between the
results of the model from two different sectors can be
done. It can be worthwhile in conducting a multilevel
study by generating a conceptual model involving psycho-
logical variables such as trust and participative manage-
ment interventions, and attitudinal variables such as
commitment and job satisfaction. This would allow
researchers to understand the impact of participation
interventions and trust on various organizational and
behavioral outcomes. Future research can also be carried
with samples from different locations across different
industries. In addition, other sectors such as health care,
insurance, and services can implement the model so that
the findings can have larger implications.
Kumar and Saha 11

Appendix Appendix (continued)

Items to Measure Participation in Decision Making. JS 5 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your immediate
boss?
PDM 1 Can you discuss work problems with your superior?
JS 6 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the amount of
PDM 2 Do you have a significant say in decision making at responsibility you are given?
work?
JS 7 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your rate of
PDM 3 Can you participate in decisions affecting issues related pay?
to your work?
JS 8 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your
PDM 4 Can you satisfactorily consult with your superior about opportunity to use your abilities?
your work?
JS 9 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with industrial
PDM 5 Can you participate in decisions about what is and what relations between management and workers in your
is not a part of your work? firm?
PDM 6 Do you participate in decisions about the nature of your JS 10 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your chance of
work? promotion?
PDM 7 Do you have a direct influence on your department’s JS 11 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way the
decisions? organization is managed?
PDM 8 Do you have an influence on the distribution of work JS 12 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the attention
among you and your colleagues? paid to suggestions you make?
JS 13 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your hours of
Items to Measure Trust. work?
JS 14 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the amount of
TRUST 1 I have a sharing relationship with my colleagues. We variety in your job?
freely share our ideas, feelings, and hopes. JS 15 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your job
TRUST 2 I can talk freely to my colleagues about difficulties I security?
am having at work and I know that they will listen.
TRUST 3 I would feel a sense of loss if one of us was
transferred and we could no longer work together. Items to Measure Affective Organizational Commitment.
TRUST 4 If I shared my problems with my colleagues, I know
AOC 1 I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career
they would respond constructively and caringly.
with this organization.
TRUST 5 I would have to say that we have made considerable
AOC 2 I enjoy discussing about my organization with people
emotional investments in our working relationship.
from outside.
TRUST 6 My colleagues approach their jobs with
AOC 3 I really feel as if this organization’s problems were my
professionalism and dedication.
own.
TRUST 7 Given my colleagues’ track records, I see no reason to
AOC 4 I think that I could easily become as attached to another
doubt their competence and preparation for the job.
organization as I am to this one.
TRUST 8 I can rely on my colleagues not to make my job
AOC 5 I do not feel like “part of the family” at my organization.
more difficult by careless work.
AOC 6 I do not feel emotionally attached to this organization.
TRUST 9 Most people, even those who are not close friends
of my colleagues, trust and respect them as AOC 7 This organization has a great deal of personal meaning
colleagues. to me.
TRUST 10 Other colleagues of mine who must interact with AOC 8 I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my
one of the colleagues consider him or her to be organization.
trustworthy.
TRUST 11 If people knew more about this colleague and his or
her background, they would be more concerned Items to Measure Group Commitment.
and monitor his or her performance more closely.
GC 1 I am prepared to do additional work, when this
benefits my work team.
Items to Measure Job Satisfaction. GC 2 I feel at home among my colleagues at work.
GC 3 I try to invest effort into a good atmosphere in my
JS 1 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the physical
team.
working conditions?
GC 4 In my work, I let myself be guided by the goals of
JS 2 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the freedom to
my work team.
choose your own method of working?
GC 5 When there is social activity with my team, I
JS 3 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your fellow
usually help to organize it.
workers?
GC 6 This team lies close to my heart.
JS 4 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the recognition
GC 7 I find it important that my team is successful.
you get for good work?
(continued)
12
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Anderson, R. A., & McDaniel, R. R., Jr. (1999). RN participation in
organizational decision-making and improvements in resident
outcomes. Healthcare Management Review, 24, 7-16.
Appelbaum, S. H., Louis, D., Makarenko, D., & Saluja, J. (2013).
Participation in decision making: A case study of job satisfac-
tion and commitment (part one). Industrial and Commercial
Training, 45, 222-229.
Baran, H., & Giderler, C. (2017). A study on determining the influ-
ence of organizational identification on organizational justice
and organizational silence. International Journal of Asian
Social Science, 7, 242-258.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advan-
tage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator vari-
able distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. (1997). Participative decision mak-
ing: An integration of multiple dimensions. Human Relations,
50, 859-879.
Bromiley, P., & Cummings, L. L. (1995). Transactions costs in
organizations with trust. In R. J. Lewicki, R. J. Bies, & B. H.
Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (pp.
219-247). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007).
A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and perfor-
mance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 331-346.
Chen, Z. X., Aryee, S., & Lee, C. (2005). Test of a mediation model
of perceived organizational support. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 66, 457-470.
Chin, W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation model-
ing. MIS Quarterly, 22, 7-16.
Cho, Y. J., & Poister, T. H. (2014). Managerial practices, trust in
leadership, and performance: Case of the Georgia department
of transportation. Public Personnel Management, 43, 179-196.
Cohen, A. (2003). Multiple commitments in the workplace: An inte-
grative approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange the-
ory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31,
874-900.
Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., & van den Heuvel, H. (1998). Career-
oriented versus teamoriented commitment and behaviour at
work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 717-730.
Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999). Self-
categorisation, commitment to the group and group self-esteem
as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 371-389.
Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling.
Akron, OH: University of Akron Press.
SAGE Open
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error.
Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
Giri, V. N., & Kumar, S. P. (2013). Assessing the impact of partici-
pation in decision making on organizational citizenship behav-
iour: The mediating role of oganisational commitment. In D.
Chatterjee, M. Dhal, & S. P. Pati (Eds.), High-tech people,
high-tech HR: Are we missing the humane touch? (pp. 41-46).
New Delhi, India: Bloomsbury.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham,
R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). New Jersey:
Pearson.
Halepota, J. A., & Shah, N. (2011). An empirical investigation
of organisational antecedents on employee job satisfaction
in a developing country. Transforming Government: People,
Process and Policy, 5, 280-294.
Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strate-
gic management research: A review of four recent studies.
Strategic Management Journal, 20, 195-204.
Johnson, R. E., & Yang, L. Q. (2010). Commitment and motivation
at work: The relevance of employee identity and regulatory
focus. Academy of Management Review, 35, 226-245.
Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction:
Lessons for management leadership. Public Administration
Review, 62, 231-241.
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling. New York: Guilford.
Knippenberg, D., & Schie, E. (2000). Foci and correlates of organi-
zational identification. Journal of occupational and organiza-
tional psychology, 73(2), 137-147.
Kock, N., & Lynn, G. S. (2012). Lateral collinearity and misleading
results in variance-based SEM: An illustration and recommen-
dations. Journal of the Association for Information Systems,
13, 546-580.
Kukenberger, M. R., Mathieu, J. E., & Ruddy, T. (2015). A cross-
level test of empowerment and process influences on mem-
bers’ informal learning and team commitment. Journal of
Management, 41, 987-1016.
Lau, C. M., & Sholihin, M. (2005). Financial and nonfinancial per-
formance measures: How do they affect job satisfaction? The
British Accounting Review, 37, 389-413.
Lleo, A., Viles, E., Jurburg, D., & Lomas, L. (2017). Strengthening
employee participation and commitment to continuous
improvement through middle manager trustworthy behav-
iours. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 28,
974-988.
Louis, K. S., & Smith, B. (1992). Cultivating teacher engagement:
Breaking the iron law of social class. In F. Newmann (Ed.),
Student engagement and achievement in American secondary
schools (pp. 119-152). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008).
Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advance-
ments and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management,
34, 410-476.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect and cognition based trust as founda-
tions for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy
of Management Journal, 38, 24-59.
Kumar and Saha
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component concep-
tualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource
Management Review, 1, 61-89.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace:
Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (2002). Socialization and trust
in work groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 5,
185-201.
Morrow, P. C. (1993). The theory and measurement of work com-
mitment. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Narayan, A. K. (2016). An ethical perspective on performance mea-
surement in the public sector. Pacific Accounting Review, 28,
364-372.
Nazir, O., & Islam, J. U. (2017). Enhancing organizational commit-
ment and employee performance through employee engage-
ment: An empirical check. South Asian Journal of Business
Studies, 6, 98-114.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Ojasalo, J., & Tähtinen, L. (2016). Integrating open innovation
platforms in public sector decision making: Empirical results
from smart city research. Technology Innovation Management
Review, 6(12), 38-48.
Ornoy, H. (2010). Correlates of employees’ attitudes towards partic-
ipation in decision making. The IUP Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 9, 7-15.
Paille, P. (2009). The relationship between support, commitment
and intent to leave team. Team Performance Management: An
International Journal, 15, 49-62.
Parnell, J. A. (2003). Propensity for participative decision-making,
job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational
citizenship behaviour and intentions to leave among Egyptian
managers. The Multinational Business Review, 11, 45-65.
Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Peng, M. W., Bruton, G. D., Stan, C. V., & Huang, Y. (2016).
Theories of the (state-owned) firm. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 33, 293-317.
Performance Report. (2015). Annual report on the performance of
Central Public Sector Enterprises. Retrieved from http://dpe.
nic.in/publication/annual-reports
Peterson, R. (1998). Trust for quality. The TQM Magazine, 10, 413-
416.
Public Enterprises Survey. (2016). Public sector and government
in transformation. Retrieved from http://www.ey.com/IN/en/
Industries/Government—Public-Sector
Public Sector Undertakings in India. (2017). Spotlight. Retrieved from
http://www.archive.india.gov.in/spotlight/spotlight_archive.
php?id=78
Randall, D. M., & Cote, J. A. (1991). Interrelationships of work
commitment constructs. Work and Occupation, 18, 194-211.
Robertson, R., Gockel, C., & Brauner, E. (2012). Trust your
teammates or bosses? Differential effects of trust on transac-
tive memory, job satisfaction, and performance. Employee
Relations, 35, 222-242.
Rogers, K. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2017). Respect in organizations:
Feeling valued as “we” and “me.” Journal of Management, 43,
1578-1608.
Rogers, R. W. (1995). The psychological contract of trust—Part I.
Executive Development, 8, 15-19.
13
Saha, S., & Kumar, S. P. (2015). Assessing the relationship between
participation in decision making, job satisfaction and multiple
commitments. OPUS: HR Journal, 6, 18-37.
Scott-Ladd, B., Travaglione, A., & Marshall, V. (2006). Causal
inferences between participation in decision making, task attri-
butes, work effort, rewards, job satisfaction and commitment.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27, 399-
414.
Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Lynch, P., & Barksdale, K. (2006).
Social and economic exchange: Construct development and
validation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 837-867.
Sinha, J. B. P. (1990). Work culture in the Indian context. New
Delhi, India: Sage.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in
structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological
methodology (pp. 290-312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Srivastava, S. (2012). Workplace passion as a moderator for
workplace deviant behaviour–job satisfaction relationship: A
comparative study between public sector and private sector
managers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and
Innovation, 8, 517-523.
Stratford, R., Mulligan, J., Downie, B., & Voss, L. (1999). Threats to
validity in the longitudinal study of psychological effects: The
case of short stature. Child: Care, Health and Development,
25, 401-419.
Van Veldhoven, M., & Meijman, T. (1994). The measurement of
psychosocial job demands. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: NIA.
Verma, H. V., & Duggal, E. (2015). Retail service quality in India:
Construct exploration and measure development. South Asian
Journal of Global Business Research, 4, 129-148.
Wagner, C. H. (1982). Simpson’s paradox in real life. The American
Statistician, 36, 46-48.
Wagner, J. A., III. (1994). Participation’s effect on performance and
satisfaction: A reconsideration of research evidence. Academy
of Management Review, 19, 312-330.
Warr, P. B., Cook, J. D., & Wall, T. D. (1979). Scales for the mea-
surement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological
well-being. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 129-148.
Author Biographies
S. Pavan Kumar is an assistant professor at School of Management,
National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal, India. He has
obtained BE (CSE), MTech (HRDM) and PhD (HRDM) from IIT
Kharagpur. He has published several papers in national and interna-
tional journals and conducts workshops on Structural Equation
Modeling. His research interests include Organization Development,
Human Resource Analytics and Information Systems.
Shilpi Saha is a PhD graduate of National Institute of Technology
Karnataka, Surathkal, India. She has earned BTech from SRM
University and MBA from IIIT-Allahabad. Her recent publica-
tions include “Empirical Validation of Dimensionality of Quality
of Work Life for Indian Public Undertakings” which was pub-
lished by International Journal of Applied Business and Economic
Research (2016); Impact of Demographics on Multiple
Commitments: Empirical Evidence from Indian Public Sector
Undertakings" published by Prabandhan: Indian Journal of
Management (2016). Her research interests include Organization
Behaviour, Organization Development and Human Resource
Management.