Question
Outline the research instruments (questionnaires) used in this study and their statistical coefficients of reliability and validity, as motivation for the authors' choice. Hypothesis being
Outline the research instruments (questionnaires) used in this study and their statistical coefficients of reliability and validity, as motivation for the authors' choice. Hypothesis being tested are the following:
Hypothesis 1: Job security and leadership empowerment behaviour
predict employee engagement.
Hypothesis 2: Low employee engagement predicts turnover
intention.
Hypothesis 3: Employee engagement mediates the relationship
between job insecurity and leadership empowerment behaviour
on the one hand, and turnover intention, on the other hand
Case study provided hereunder:
Research approach
This study can be classified as quantitative, because it relies on
measurements to compare and analyse different variables. A
correlational design was used. Data about job insecurity, the
empowerment behaviour of leaders (as perceived by employees
who report to them), employee engagement, and turnover
intention was collected at a single point in time, with the primary
aim of establishing relationships between variables.
Research method
Participants
The participants constituted a convenient sample of employees
working in a petrochemical laboratory. A total population of 240
employees was targeted. A response rate of 169 (70.42%) was
achieved, and 168 responses (99%) could be utilised. Descriptive
information of the sample is given in Table 1.
The study population consisted mainly of male (62.5%)
employees. A total of 44.6% of the participants were between the
ages of 25 and 35. The majority of the participants held either a
grade 12 certificate (52.4%), or a post-school diploma (32.14%).
A total of 32.1% worked in the routine section of the laboratory.
Almost one third were on a non-management level, with 2-5
years working experience in the laboratory.
Measuring battery
A biographical questionnaire was developed to gather
information about the demographical characteristics of the
participants. Information gathered included age, gender, race,
education, and number of years employed.
The Job Insecurity Inventory (JII) (De Witte, 2000) was used to
measure job insecurity. Although the JII consists of 11 items, a
factor analysis, which was conducted for the purposes of this
study, showed that only 9 items loaded significantly on one
factor. This factor was labelled 'Job Insecurity'. The items are
rated on a Likert scale varying from 1 ('strongly disagree') to 5
('strongly agree'). Examples of items include: 'I fear that I might
get fired' (reversed scored); 'I feel uncertain about the future
of my job' (reverse scored); and 'I am certain/sure of my job
environment'. A Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.92 was recorded
by De Witte (2000). Reynders (2005) obtained an alpha coefficient
of 0.82 for the scale. These results confirm the reliability of the JII.
The Leader Empowering Behaviour Questionnaire (LEBQ)
(Konczak et al., 2000) was used to measure leadership
empowerment behaviour. The scale is one-dimensional
but measures six dimensions of leadership empowerment
behaviour: the delegation of authority, the emphasis on
accountability for outcomes, self-directed decision-making,
information sharing, skills development, and coaching
for innovative performance. It consists of 19 items that are
arranged along a Likert-type scale varying from 1 ('strongly
disagree') to 7 ('strongly agree'). Mar (2007) found that the
LEBQ consisted of one factor. The LEBQ has shown acceptable
internal consistency (Konczak et al., 2000). Tjeku (2006) obtained
an alpha coefficient of 0.92 in her study of a South African steel
manufacturing organisation.
The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) (Schaufeli et al.,
2002) was used to measure employee engagement. The scale
consists of 17 items that measure vigour (six items), dedication
(five items) and absorption (six items). High levels of these
three scales indicate that a person experiences a high level of
engagement. Items are arranged along a Likert scale varying
from 0 ('never') to 6 ('every day'). Examples of items include
'I am enthusiastic about my work' and 'My job inspires me'.
For the purposes of this study, a principal factor analysis
performed on the 17 items of the UWES resulted in one factor
that explained 49.49% of the total variance. The one-factor
structure is supported by Rathbone (2006), who obtained a onefactor
structure among employees in the South African mining
industry.
Intention to leave was measured by two items, namely 'How
often do you think about leaving the job?' and 'How likely
are you to look for a new job within the next year?' Items are
arranged along a 5-point scale varying from 1 ('very often') to 5
('rarely or never'). One factor was extracted, explaining 78.68%
of the total variance. Items loading on this factor were related
to intention to leave. Firth et al. (2004) obtained a one-factor
structure, which supports the findings of this analysis. Firth et
al. (2004) have shown that this measure has satisfactory internal
reliability estimates (a = 0.75).
Research procedure
The researchers obtained permission from the laboratory
management to conduct the study. The researcher administered
hard copies of the questionnaires. They were collected directly
after they had been completed by the participants. The
participants completed the questionnaires anonymously. The
researchers explained to the participants that the questionnaires
would be treated confidentially.
Statistical analysis
The statistical analysis was carried out with the SPSS
(2007) program. Descriptive statistics (e.g. means, standard
deviations, skewness and kurtosis) were used to analyse the
data. Cronbach alpha coefficients were used to determine the
internal consistency of the measuring instruments (Clark &
Watson, 1995). Product-moment correlation coefficients were
used to specify the relationships between the variables. In
terms of statistical significance, it was decided to set the value
at a 95% confidence interval level (p 0.05). Effect sizes (Cohen,
1988) were used to determine the practical significance of the
findings. A cut-off point of 0.30 (medium effect, Cohen, 1988)
was set for the practical significance of correlation coefficients.
A series of multiple regression analyses were performed to test
whether job insecurity and leadership empowerment behaviour
predict employee engagement and turnover intention and to
test whether employee engagement mediates the relationship
between job insecurity and leadership empowerment
behaviour on the one hand, and turnover intention, on the
other hand. Baron and Kenny (1986) recommend three steps to
test for mediation. According to these authors, beta coefficients
of different regression equations must be compared. Firstly,
the mediator should be predicted by the independent variable.
Secondly, the dependent variable should be predicted by
the mediator and the independent variable and, lastly, the
dependent variable should be regressed on the independent
variable, controlling for the mediator. If all steps prove
significant, perfect mediation holds when controlling for
the mediator, the independent variable does not predict the
dependent variable.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics and correlations
The descriptive statistics, alpha coefficients, and product-
moment correlations of the scales are reported in Table 2.
Table 2 indicates that Cronbach alpha coefficients, varying
from 0.73 to 0.96 were obtained. These alpha coefficients were
acceptable compared to the guideline of > 0.70 (Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994). Job insecurity was statistically significantly
and negatively related to leadership empowerment behaviour.
Leadership empowerment behaviour was statistically and
practically significantly related to employee engagement
(medium effect). Leadership empowerment behaviour was
statistically, practically significantly and negatively related to
intention to leave (both medium effects). Employee engagement
was statistically, practically significantly and negatively related
to intention to leave (large effect).
Multiple regression analyses
Multiple regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses
of this study. The results of a multiple regression analysis,
with employee engagement as dependent variable, and
Job Insecurity and leadership empowerment behaviour as
independent variables
The results of a multiple regression analysis with turnover
intention as dependent variable, and employee engagement as
independent variable, are reported in Table 4.
Table 4 shows that 26% of the variance in turnover intention
is predicted by employee engagement (F = 53.06, p < 0.05).
Employee engagement contributed statistically significantly to
low turnover intention ( = -0.51). Hypothesis 2 is supported by
this finding. Furthermore, it provides evidence for the second
requirement for mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986), namely that
the dependent variable (turnover intention) should be predicted
by the mediator (employee engagement).
Next, multiple regression analyses were carried out with
turnover intention as dependent variable. In the first step,
job insecurity and leadership empowerment behaviour
were entered into the regression analysis. In the second step,
employee engagement was added as an independent variable.
The results are reported in Table 5.
Table 5 shows that 12% of the variance in turnover intention
is predicted by Job insecurity and leadership empowerment
behaviour (F = 9.67, p < 0.05). Leadership empowerment behaviour
contributed statistically significantly to low turnover intention
( = -0.32). This finding provides evidence for the third
requirement for mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986) - that the
dependent variable (turnover intention) should be predicted by
the independent variable (leadership empowerment behaviour).
Table 5 also shows that a statistically significant model
(F = 19.20, p < 0.05) resulted when employee engagement was
entered in the second step of the regression analysis. The
increase in R2 was statistically significant when employee
engagement was entered into the regression equation with
Job insecurity and leadership empowerment behaviour
(DR2 = 0.16). The standardised regression coefficient for leadership
empowerment behaviour in step 1 of the regression analysis
( = -0.32, p < 0.01) decreased to ( = -0.16, p < 0.05) in step 2. The
standardised regression coefficient of employee engagement
in step 2 was statistically significant ( = -0.44, p < 0.01). These
results indicate that employee engagement partially mediates
the relationship between leadership empowerment behaviour
and turnover intention. These findings provide partial support
for Hypothesis 3.
Step by Step Solution
There are 3 Steps involved in it
Step: 1
Get Instant Access to Expert-Tailored Solutions
See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success
Step: 2
Step: 3
Ace Your Homework with AI
Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance
Get Started