30.06.2013 Views

View/Open

View/Open

View/Open

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Table 26: Correlation Results when Subordinates rate higher than Supervisors<br />

LMX<br />

Difference AOC TI LMX SLMX<br />

LMX Difference 1<br />

AOC -.243 ** 1<br />

TI .167 * -.423 ** 1<br />

LMX -.342 ** .638 ** -.299 ** 1<br />

SLMX .711 ** .243 ** -.063 .417 ** 1<br />

Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed),<br />

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed), n = 208<br />

Table 27: Correlation Results when Supervisors rate higher than Subordinates<br />

LMX<br />

Difference AOC TI LMX SLMX<br />

LMX Difference 1<br />

AOC -.237 ** 1<br />

TI .211 * -.223 * 1<br />

LMX -.702 ** .479 ** -.258 ** 1<br />

SLMX .105 .412 ** -.132 .635 ** 1<br />

Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed),<br />

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed), n = 126<br />

Further analyses in terms of the demographic sub-groups were undertaken to examine<br />

whether there were any statistically significant differences. Table 28 through to Table<br />

35 presents the data revealing the bivariate correlations among the LMX difference,<br />

the organisation commitment and the turnover intent in the different sub-groups.<br />

84

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!