View/Open

More documents

Recommendations

Info

supervisors’ industry experience is 17.5 years and more. This correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). Table 34: Supervisor Job-Role Experience Fewer than 12 years: LMX Difference 1 LMX Difference AOC TI AOC -.390 ** 1 TI .211 ** -.529 ** 1 12 years and more: LMX Difference 1 AOC -.298 ** 1 TI .170 -.415 ** 1 Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Below 12 years: n = 153, 12 years and above: n = 118 The bivariate correlation analysis results of the sub-groups in which supervisors’ job- role experience are fewer than 12 years, is compared with those where the supervisors’ job-role experience are 12 years and more. The results presented in Table 34 indicate that LMX difference is correlated to subordinates’ organisational commitment, and there are no significant differences in the results. This implies that the differences in supervisor’s job - role experience do not have any influence on the relationship between LMX agreement and subordinates’ organisational commitment. The correlations in both the sub-groups are significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). The results further reveals that there is a small correlation (.211) between LMX difference and the subordinate’s turnover intent among the group in which supervisors’ job - role experience is fewer than 17.5 years. This correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). 91
From the results presented in Table 28 through to Table 34, it is evident that subordinates’ organisational commitment is moderately correlated to the LMX difference among all the sub-groups. The LMX difference variable is highly correlated with organisation commitment when the supervisors have lesser tenure with the organisation (-.429) and in sub-groups were the supervisors have vast industry experience (-.475). Furthermore, the direction of correlation remains unchanged and is similar to the overall correlation results established in Table 25. As a result there are no statistically significant differences in the correlation between LMX agreement and subordinates’ organisation commitment among the sub-groups. It is further observed that, when bivariate correlation is performed individually among the sub-groups, the correlation significance level of subordinates’ turnover intent with the LMX difference variable is drastically reduced. The analyses show that the correlation among the LMX difference variable and the turnover intent variable is comparatively high in the sub-groups of older managers (.254) and those managers who have less position experience (.211). Nevertheless, though level of correlation between the LMX difference and the turnover intent was low, it was predominantly similar to the overall correlation level of LMX difference and turnover intent. As a result there are only marginal statistical significant differences in the correlation between LMX agreement and subordinates’ turnover intent among the sub-groups. Finally, bivariate correlation analyses were conducted individually with the responses from the lodging group and the dining group. Table 35 indicate the bivariate correlation among the lodging group and the dining group respectively. 92
Page 1 and 2:
An examination of the relationship
Page 3 and 4:
3.2 Research Paradigms ............
Page 5 and 6:
LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Measures of
Page 7 and 8:
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Conceptua
Page 9 and 10:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I take this opport
Page 11 and 12:
employees and help human resource d
Page 13 and 14:
Several leadership theories can be
Page 15 and 16:
1.2 Research Objective This study d
Page 17 and 18:
1.5 Definitions of Key Terms Leader
Page 19 and 20:
2.2 Characteristics of the Hospital
Page 21 and 22:
satisfaction, as employees have a v
Page 23 and 24:
The theories that focus on follower
Page 25 and 26:
Colquitt, Lepine and Wesson (2011)
Page 27 and 28:
elationships with the organisation.
Page 29 and 30:
In particular, Grestner and Day (19
Page 31 and 32:
Martin, 2004; Kenney, Blascovich, &
Page 33 and 34:
2.5.1.5 Egocentric bias Egocentric
Page 35 and 36:
The foregoing sections reviewed the
Page 37 and 38:
(1993)analysed the relationship bet
Page 39 and 40:
etter organisational commitment whe
Page 41 and 42:
Turnover is a topic of intense rese
Page 43 and 44:
poor working conditions and unsatis
Page 45 and 46:
group, they will regard themselves
Page 47 and 48:
3.1 Introduction CHAPTER 3 - METHOD
Page 49 and 50:
present study is consistent with a
Page 51 and 52: hospitality literature have been co
Page 53 and 54: Table 1: Measures of Subordinate LM
Page 55 and 56: Table 3: Measures of Turnover Inten
Page 57 and 58: English (Manjunath & Kurian, 2009).
Page 59 and 60: and a Participant Information Sheet
Page 61 and 62: 3.8.1.2 Support for the Difference
Page 63 and 64: dependent or independent (Székely
Page 65 and 66: CHAPTER 4 - RESULTS The research in
Page 67 and 68: 1. Gender: Lodging: All of the 161
Page 69 and 70: are marginally more experienced wit
Page 71 and 72: Table 9: Industry Experience of Sub
Page 73 and 74: Table 10: Job Function of Subordina
Page 75 and 76: Table 11: Hospitality Education of
Page 77 and 78: 4.1.2 Supervisors The supervisors w
Page 79 and 80: 3. Tenure: All supervisors from bot
Page 81 and 82: Table 16: Industrial Experience of
Page 83 and 84: experience among the supervisors in
Page 85 and 86: among these supervisors ranged from
Page 87 and 88: This hypothetical supervisor will h
Page 89 and 90: Figure 2: Scree Plot 78
Page 91 and 92: supervisor LMX score of each partic
Page 93 and 94: On the other hand, supervisor LMX i
Page 95 and 96: Table 26: Correlation Results when
Page 97 and 98: Table 29: Subordinate Tenure Fewer
Page 99 and 100: a moderate correlation (.322) betwe
Page 101: Table 33: Supervisor Industry Exper
Page 105 and 106: 5.1 Introduction CHAPTER 5 - DISCUS
Page 107 and 108: findings suggest that behaviours re
Page 109 and 110: agreement with the organisational c
Page 111 and 112: In addition, the research used two
Page 113 and 114: commitment. It is evident that comm
Page 115 and 116: science study, where perceptions of
Page 117 and 118: REFERENCES Adler-Milstein, J., Sing
Page 119 and 120: BLS. (2011). Job openings and labor
Page 121 and 122: De Matos, C. A., Henrique, J. L., &
Page 123 and 124: Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1
Page 125 and 126: Kara, D. (2012). Organisational com
Page 127 and 128: Lord, R. G., & Emrich, C. G. (2001)
Page 129 and 130: Pellegrini, E. K., Scandura, T. A.,
Page 131 and 132: Sin, H. P., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morg
Page 133 and 134: Vecchio, R. P. (1998). Leader-membe
Page 135 and 136: Kindly complete the following quest
Page 137 and 138: Appendix 2: Supervisor Questionnair
Page 139 and 140: Appendix 3: Participant Information
Page 141 and 142: The only cost to you is your time:
Page 143 and 144: Appendix 5: Participant Information
Page 145 and 146: How do I agree to participate in th
show all

View/Open

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?