The Impact of Perceived Organizational Support on Job Performance, the Mediation of Job Engagement. A Study of Commercial Banks in Viet Nam

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY NGÔ VĂN QUẰN The Impact of Perceived Organizational Support on Job Performance, the Mediation of Job Engagement A Study of Commercial Banks in Viet Nam MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Ho Chi Minh City, 2012 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY NGÔ VĂN QUẰN The Impact of Perceived Organizational Support on Job Performance, the Mediation of Job Engagement A Study of Commercial Banks in Viet Nam MAJOR: BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Code: 60.34.01.02 MASTER THESIS Supervisor: Dr PHẠM QUỐC HÙNG Ho Chi Minh City, 2012 ACKNOWLEGEMENT First, I would like to thank to our supervisor of this study, PhD Pham Quoc Hung for his valuable guidance and advice He inspired me greatly to work in this study His willingness to motivate me contributed tremendously to my study I also would like to thank him for providing me valuable documents, information as the guidance of my study Besides, I would like to thank all teachers of the Ho Chi Minh City of Economics (EUH) for providing me and student like us with a valuable knowledge, good environment and facilities to complete our researches I also would like to thank Mr Nhat Truong, from The Poly-Technique University Ho Chi Minh City for supporting me to analyze the research data by using Amos with statistical technique SEM My thanks and appreciations also go to my colleague in developing the project and people who have willingly helped me with their abilities Finally, I would like to express my gratitude and thanks towards my parents, sistsers, friends for their understanding, kind co-operation and encouragement which help me in completion of MBA programe and this study, for their support in giving me such attention and time Without helps of the particular that mentioned above, I would face many difficulties while doing this study INDEX Page CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Executive abstract .1 1.2 Purpose of the study 1.3 Questions of the study .3 1.4 Scope of the study 1.5 Framework of the study CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .4 2.1 Perceived organizational support (POS) 2.2 Job engagement - Physical engagement (PE) - Emotional engagement (EE) - Cognitive engagement (CE) .8 2.3 Job performance (JB) 2.4 Related theories and antecedent researches .10 2.5 Hypothesis development 16 * Research model .18 CHAPTER RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .18 3.1 Research design .19 3.2 Questionnaire development 20 3.3 Translation of the questionnaires 22 3.4 Variable control .23 3.5 The pilot study 24 3.6 Target population .25 3.7 Sample size .26 3.8 Selecting the sample and collecting data 26 3.9 Methods of data analysis 28 3.9.1 Data Screening 28 3.9.2 Normal Distribution Examining 28 3.9.3 Reliability .28 3.9.4 Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) & Structural equation modeling (SEM) 28 CHAPTER 4: RESULT OF DATA ANALYSIS 37 4.1 Descriptive statistics 37 4.2 Normal Distribution Examining 41 4.3 Reliability 42 4.4 Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) 45 4.5 Structural equation modeling (SEM) 49 4.6 Sumary of model test .55 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 57 5.1 Summary of all hypotheses .57 5.2 Conclusions and implications 58 5.3 Limitations and recommendations 62 CHAPTER 6: LIST OF REFERENCES 63 APPENDIX 67 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Executive abstract In the context of the international economic tendency, WTO integration, Vietnam now has both opportunities and challenges for organizations to raise pressure on the competitiveness of the product, services, brand, and human resources In particular, human resources is considered a key advantage for organizations to develop their businesses, it is a valuable asset to help organizations improve their competitiveness and performance Currently, the reciprocity responsibility norms were popular applied in organization in Viet Nam, however majority of organizations have not sufficiently invested interest and improve the system of human resource management in the area of relation between between perceived organizational support and job performance Due to this reason, there remain areas that both employers and employees not have in common As a result, the consequence of this shortcoming in HR Management, to some extent, has caused employees were not motivated to compensate beneficial treatment and the organizations did not obtain expected business outcome According to previous studies such as studies of (Pfeffer J 1998); (Huselid, MA 1995), (Guest 1997), (D Hartog and RM Verburg 2004), (Singh K 2004), human resource practices have important influence on the performance of the business By studying factors contributing to the effective human resource management, it proves that preceived organizational support (POS) takes an important position in this area POS contributes to increase employees’ performance (POS) to help organizations reach their objectives The behavioral outcomes of POS mentioned herewith include increases, decrease in role and Job performance The study of effective Human resource (HR) management, specifically relationship between perceived organizational support (POS) and job performance also measures of man-power resource to achieve set targets of organizations; help managers with solutions to encourage and motivate employees to work effectively in conditions of tight labour market, where changing knowledge management practices and global convergence of technology has redefined the nature of work, and in the context of limited talent resources in manpower market By studying the impact of Perceived Organizational Support on Job Performance it has been seen that there are mediation factors also contribute to establishing relation between Perceived Organizational Support on Job Performance Following Kahn (1990) people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, emotionally and mentally during role performances” By This reason this study also analyzes related mediation factors to support to the relation of Perceived Organizational Support on Job Performance As we know that there is little theory or empirical observation accounts for the role of perceived organizational support, engagement as a means through which organizations can create competitive advantage In particular, not many researches examine the role of engagement as mechanism that links employee characteristic and organizational factors to job performance This can be explained why the situation is the same in Viet Nam, not many research and specific study on the Perceived Organizational Support and Job Performance Also, almost no research and no specific study on the Perceived Organizational Support and Job Performance in Viet Nam The majority of organizations in Viet Nam has not yet invested interest and improves their system of human resource management in this specific area Due to this reason, the topic we choose for our thesis is studying “The Impact of Perceived Organizational Support on Job Performance, the Mediation of Job Engagement - A Study of Commercial Banks in Viet Nam By this study, we will expect to find out solution on how to improve manpower resource management in commercial banks in Viet Nam, especially solutions relating to factors affecting the impact of Perceived Organizational Support on Job Performance, the Mediation role of Job Engagement in Commercial Banks in Viet Nam For the result, the study is expected to explain how bank community should respond to challenges of human resource so as to get satisfactory staff’s performance and satisfactory business outcome through the factors of Perceived Organizational Support and Job Engagement 1.2 Purpose of the research The purpose of this research is to study the impact of Perceived Organizational Support on Job Performance and related mediation factors to the relation of POS–Job Performance (JB) in commercial banks in Viet Nam, specifically: - Relationship between perceived organizational support and job performance in banks in Viet Nam - Investigating mediation factors that are affecting relationship between perceived organizational support and job performance in banks in Viet Nam - Evaluating affect of find factors that are positively affecting job performance in banks in Viet Nam; find factors that are positively affecting relationship between perceived organizational support and job performance in banks in Viet Nam - Offer measures to improve the impact of perceived organizational support to job performance in banks in Viet Nam, help banks to improve business performance and enhance their ability to attract, motivating, satisfying and keep qualified employees, encourage the employee to work in an effective way 1.3 Questions of the research With the above mentioned background, there arise question required to be studied so as to have solution as follows: What is the common relationship between perceived organizational support and job performance in commercial banks in Viet Nam? Which factors can be applied to improve the impact of perceived organizational support and job performance in commercial banks in Viet Nam, which are key factors? Can the improvement of relation of perceived organizational support and job performance promote and develop competitive advantage and performance outcome of commercial bank in Viet Nam? 1.4 Scope of the research Study subjects: staffs and managers of commercial banks in Vietnam Since HR Management is a very broad research theme, this research only focuses on studying scientific basis to help managers understand the factors that relationship between perceived organizational support and job performance so that they can implement these tools in banks This research is limited in the scope of the Impact of Perceived Organizational Support on Job Performance, related Mediation of Job Engagement (PE) in commercial banks in Viet Nam 1.5 Framework of the study Introduction Research problem Research questions Research objectives Literature review Hypothesis Empirical model Data collection Descriptive statistic Data analysis Conclusion, recommendation and limitation CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW Chapter is to review theories of Perceived Organizational Support on Job Performance and related mediation factors to the relation of POS–Job Performance (JB) including Physical engagement (PE), Emotional engagement (EE), Cognitive engagement (CE), and Job performance (JB) This Chapter also presents related theories, antecedent researches; hypothesis development and proposed research model Most of the research in Organizational behavior has been concerned with three attitudes: job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment Other attitudes are also attracting attention from the researchers, including perceived organizational support (POS) and employee engagement In our research we concentrate in studying the relation of organizational support, employee engagement and job performance in the context of commercial bank in Viet Nam: 2.1 Perceived organizational Support (POS): As one of definition, POS is the degree to which employees believe that their organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being (Eisenberger, Huntington & Sowa, 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) POS is generally thought to be the organization’s contribution to a positive reciprocity dynamic with employees, as employees tend to perform better to pay back POS (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) Research on perceived organizational support observed if managers are concerned with their employees’ commitment to the organization, employees are focused on the organization’s commitment to them For employees, the organization serves as an important source of socioemotional resources, such as respect and caring; and tangible benefits, such as wages and medical benefits Being regarded highly by the organization helps to meet employees’ needs for approval, esteem, and affiliation Positive valuation by the organization also provides an indication that increased effort will be noted and rewarded Employees therefore take an active interest in the regard with which they are well taken care of by their employer Organizational support theory (OST: Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Shore & Shore, 1995) indicated that in order to meet socioemotional needs and to assess the benefits of increased work effort, employees form a general perception concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being Such perceived organizational support (POS) would increase employees’ felt obligation to help the organization reach its objectives, their affective commitment to the organization, and their expectation that improved performance would be rewarded Behavioral outcomes of POS would include increases in in-role and extra-role performance and decreases unexpected outcome and behaviors from employees Although there were relatively few studies of POS until the mid 1990’s, research on the topic has developed in the last few years Rhoades and Eisenberger’s (2002) metaanalysis covered some 70 POS studies carried out through 1999, and over 300 studies 69 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 921 Item Statistics Mean Std Deviation N POS 4.76 1.262 200 POS 5.04 1.354 200 POS 4.95 1.214 200 POS 4.67 1.292 200 POS 4.58 1.412 200 POS 4.62 1.479 200 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation if Item Deleted POS 23.85 34.209 712 915 POS 23.57 33.151 727 914 POS 23.65 33.825 780 907 POS 23.93 32.453 829 900 POS 24.03 31.296 825 900 POS 23.98 31.100 790 906 Scale Statistics Mean Variance 28.60 Std Deviation 46.321 N of Items 6.806 Scale: PE Case Processing Summary N Cases Valid a Excluded Total % 200 100.0 0 200 100.0 a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha 921 N of Items 70 Item Statistics Mean Std Deviation N PE.1 5.91 1.110 200 PE 5.95 1.048 200 PE 5.83 1.010 200 PE 6.12 980 200 PE.5 6.12 1.003 200 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation if Item Deleted PE.1 24.01 13.030 741 915 PE 23.97 12.808 840 894 PE 24.09 13.455 773 908 PE 23.79 13.363 821 899 PE.5 23.80 13.269 811 900 Scale Statistics Mean Variance 29.91 Std Deviation 20.203 N of Items 4.495 Scale: EE Case Processing Summary N Cases Valid a Excluded Total % 200 100.0 0 200 100.0 a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 928 Item Statistics Mean Std Deviation N EE.1 5.95 1.126 200 EE 5.77 1.142 200 EE 5.52 1.211 200 EE 5.48 1.203 200 EE 5.49 1.178 200 EE 5.20 1.239 200 71 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation if Item Deleted EE.1 27.45 27.575 696 926 EE 27.62 27.352 705 925 EE 27.88 25.557 821 911 EE 27.91 25.469 837 908 EE 27.91 25.684 838 908 EE 28.20 25.062 845 907 Scale Statistics Mean Variance 33.39 Std Deviation 37.073 N of Items 6.089 Scale: CE Case Processing Summary N Cases Valid a Excluded Total % 200 100.0 0 200 100.0 a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 918 Item Statistics Mean Std Deviation N CE 5.86 1.004 200 CE 5.89 1.076 200 CE 5.57 1.040 200 CE 5.91 985 200 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation if Item Deleted CE 17.36 7.939 814 894 CE 17.33 7.567 816 893 CE 17.65 7.949 772 908 CE 17.31 7.871 852 881 72 Scale Statistics Mean Variance 23.21 Std Deviation 13.554 N of Items 3.682 Scale: JP Case Processing Summary N Cases Valid a Excluded Total % 200 100.0 0 200 100.0 a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 917 Item Statistics Mean Std Deviation N JP 5.94 972 200 JP 6.06 944 200 JP 5.77 1.016 200 JP 5.95 955 200 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation if Item Deleted JP 17.78 7.097 784 901 JP 17.66 7.011 841 882 JP 17.95 6.937 773 906 JP 17.77 6.944 844 880 Scale Statistics Mean 23.72 Variance 12.104 Std Deviation 3.479 N of Items 73 APPENDIX No UNIDIMENSIONALITY (TÍNH ĐƠN HƯỚNG/ ĐƠN NGUYÊN) Factor Analysis: POS KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy Bartlett's Test of Sphericity 884 Approx Chi-Square 874.459 Df 15 Sig .000 Communalities Initial Extraction POS 1.000 644 POS 1.000 652 POS 1.000 727 POS 1.000 788 POS 1.000 781 POS 1.000 736 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Total Variance Explained Compone Initial Eigenvalues nt Total Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings % of Cumulativ Variance e% 4.327 72.120 72.120 574 9.573 81.693 418 6.971 88.664 282 4.701 93.365 209 3.483 96.848 189 3.152 100.000 dimension0 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Total 4.327 % of Variance 72.120 Cumulative % 72.120 74 Component Matrix a Component POS 887 POS 884 POS 858 POS 853 POS 808 POS 802 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis a components extracted Factor Analysis: PE KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy Bartlett's Test of Sphericity 871 Approx Chi-Square 732.331 Df 10 Sig .000 Communalities Initial Extraction PE.1 1.000 691 PE 1.000 814 PE 1.000 734 PE 1.000 794 PE.5 1.000 782 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings % of Total dimension0 Variance Cumulative % 3.816 76.311 76.311 398 7.954 84.264 360 7.203 91.467 252 5.032 96.499 175 3.501 100.000 Total 3.816 % of Variance 76.311 Cumulative % 76.311 75 Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings % of Total dimension0 Variance Cumulative % 3.816 76.311 76.311 398 7.954 84.264 360 7.203 91.467 252 5.032 96.499 175 3.501 100.000 Total % of Variance 3.816 76.311 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Component Matrix a Component PE 902 PE 891 PE.5 885 PE 857 PE.1 831 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis a components extracted Factor Analysis: EE KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx Chi-Square Df Sig Communalities Initial Extraction EE.1 1.000 607 EE 1.000 619 EE 1.000 780 EE 1.000 799 EE 1.000 800 EE 1.000 810 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis .887 987.884 15 000 Cumulative % 76.311 76 Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings % of Total Variance Cumulative Cumulative % 4.414 73.571 73.571 725 12.077 85.648 261 4.342 89.990 235 3.921 93.911 197 3.288 97.199 168 2.801 100.000 Total % of Variance 4.414 73.571 dimension0 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Component Matrix a Component EE 900 EE 894 EE 894 EE 883 EE 787 EE.1 779 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis a components extracted Factor Analysis: CE KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx Chi-Square df Sig Communalities Initial Extraction CE 1.000 806 CE 1.000 809 CE 1.000 757 CE 1.000 848 853 577.012 000 % 73.571 77 Communalities Initial Extraction CE 1.000 806 CE 1.000 809 CE 1.000 757 CE 1.000 848 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigenvalues Total Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings % of Cumulative Variance % 3.219 80.487 80.487 323 8.063 88.550 262 6.550 95.101 196 4.899 100.000 Total % of Cumulative Variance % 3.219 80.487 dimension0 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Component Matrix a Component CE 921 CE 900 CE 898 CE 870 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis a components extracted Factor Analysis: JP KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx Chi-Square df Sig .829 581.916 000 80.487 78 Communalities Initial Extraction JP 1.000 775 JP 1.000 836 JP 1.000 760 JP 1.000 838 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings % of Total Variance Cumulative % 3.209 80.219 80.219 374 9.339 89.558 224 5.599 95.157 194 4.843 100.000 Total 3.209 dimension0 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Component Matrix a Component JP 916 JP 914 JP 880 JP 872 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis a components extracted APPENDIX No CONVERGENT VALIDITY (GIÁ TRỊ HỘI TỤ) Regression Weights and P-values Factor anlysis: JB Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) Estimate JP.2 < - JP JP.1 < - JP JP.4 < - JP JP.3 < - JP 1.000 973 1.012 995 S.E C.R P 062 15.668 *** 058 17.374 *** 066 15.082 *** Label % of Cumulative Variance % 80.219 80.219 79 Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) Estimate JP.2 < JP.1 < JP.4 < JP.3 < - JP JP JP JP 887 838 888 821 Factor anlysis: POS Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) Estimate POS.6 < - POS POS.5 < - POS POS.4 < - POS POS.3 < - POS POS.2 < - POS POS.1 < - POS S.E 1.000 995 903 784 816 745 C.R .063 058 057 066 062 P 15.808 15.597 13.728 12.391 12.015 Label *** *** *** *** *** Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) Estimate POS.6 < POS.5 < POS.4 < POS.3 < POS.2 < POS.1 < - POS POS POS POS POS POS 843 878 871 805 752 736 Factor anlysis: PE Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) Estimate PE.3 < - PE PE.4 < - PE PE.2 < - PE PE.1 < - PE PE.5 < - PE S.E 1.000 1.036 1.130 1.052 1.063 073 077 086 074 C.R 14.289 14.693 12.261 14.326 P Label *** *** *** *** Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) Estimate PE.3 < PE.4 < PE.2 < PE.1 < PE.5 < - PE PE PE PE PE 809 864 881 774 866 80 Factor anlysis: EE Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) Estimate EE.4 < - EE EE.3 < - EE EE.2 < - EE EE.5 < - EE EE.6 < - EE EE.1 < - EE S.E 1.000 996 727 966 1.029 706 054 063 052 054 062 C.R P 18.562 11.615 18.463 19.022 11.364 Label *** *** *** *** *** Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) Estimate EE.4 < EE.3 < EE.2 < EE.5 < EE.6 < EE.1 < - EE EE EE EE EE EE 896 886 686 884 895 676 Factor anlysis: CE Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) Estimate S.E C.R CE.3 CE.2 CE.1 CE.4 < < < < - CE CE CE CE P Label 1.000 1.111 078 14.299 *** 1.023 073 14.028 *** 1.066 070 15.182 *** Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) Estimate CE.3 CE.2 CE.1 CE.4 < < < < - CE CE CE CE 808 868 856 909 Factor anlysis: PE Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) Estimate JP.2 < - JP JP.1 < - JP JP.4 < - JP JP.3 < - JP 1.000 973 1.012 995 S.E C.R P Label 062 15.668 *** 058 17.374 *** 066 15.082 *** Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) Estimate JP.2 < JP.1 < JP.4 < JP.3 < - JP JP JP JP 887 838 888 821 81 APPENDIX No CONVERGENT VALIDITY - CALCULATING CR and AVE Lamda = Li: Standardized factor loading ei: measurement error = [1 – (standardized loading)2] The Perceived organizational support POS Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) POS.6 POS.5 POS.4 POS.3 POS.2 POS.1 < < < < < < - POS POS POS POS POS POS SUM Lamda Lamda^2 1-Lamda^2 0.835 0.866 0.88 0.804 0.759 0.746 4.89 0.697225 0.749956 0.7744 0.646416 0.576081 0.556516 4.000594 0.302775 0.250044 0.2256 0.353584 0.423919 0.443484 1.999406 (Total lamda)^2 23.9121 Construct Reliability (CR) AVE 0.923 0.800 Construct Reliability (CR) AVE 0.923 0.706 Construct Reliability (CR) AVE 0.930 0.828 Construct Reliability (CR) AVE 0.920 0.594 Construct Reliability (CR) AVE 0.918 0.590 The Physical engagement PE Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) PE.5 PE.4 PE.3 PE.2 PE.1 < < < < < - PE PE PE PE PE SUM Lamda Lamda^2 1-Lamda^2 0.849 0.854 0.819 0.89 0.785 4.197 0.720801 0.729316 0.670761 0.7921 0.616225 3.529203 0.279199 0.270684 0.329239 0.2079 0.383775 1.470797 (Total lamda)^2 17.614809 The Emotional engagement EE Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) EE.6 EE.5 EE.4 EE.3 EE.2 EE.1 < < < < < < - EE EE EE EE EE EE SUM Lamda Lamda^2 1-Lamda^2 0.891 0.888 0.878 0.861 0.731 0.716 4.965 0.793881 0.788544 0.770884 0.741321 0.534361 0.512656 4.141647 0.206119 0.211456 0.229116 0.258679 0.465639 0.487344 1.858353 (Total lamda)^2 24.651225 The Physical engagement & Cognitive engagement CE Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) CE.4 CE.3 CE.2 CE.1 < < < < - CE CE CE CE SUM Lamda Lamda^2 1-Lamda^2 0.894 0.818 0.876 0.856 3.444 0.799236 0.669124 0.767376 0.732736 2.968472 0.200764 0.330876 0.232624 0.267264 1.031528 (Total lamda)^2 11.861136 The Job performance JP Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) JP.4 JP.3 JP.2 JP.1 < < < < - JP JP JP JP SUM Lamda Lamda^2 1-Lamda^2 0.878 0.814 0.893 0.849 3.434 0.770884 0.662596 0.797449 0.720801 2.95173 0.229116 0.337404 0.202551 0.279199 1.04827 (Total lamda)^2 11.792356 82 APPENDIX No GOF INDICES (Joseph F Hair, Jr William C Black Barry J Babin, Rolph E Anderson Multivaria teData Analysis, 7/e Copyright 2010 by Pearson Prentice Hall All rights reserved.) 83 APPENDIX No COMPONENTS EXTRACTED FROM CONSTRUCTS (1) POS The Bank really cares about my well-being The Bank values my contribution to its well-being The Bank is willing to help me if I need a special favor (2) PE I work with intensity of my job I exert my full effort to my job I try my hardest to perform well on my job I strive as hard as I can to complete my job (3) EE I am energic at my job I am interested in my job I am excited about my job (4) CE At work, my mind is focus on my job At work, I focus a great deal of attention on my job At work, I concentrate on my job (5) JB I meet formal performance requirements of the job I fulfill responsibilities specified in job description I adequately complete assigned duties —————/)—————