The effects of informal groups on organizational - journal ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ijcrb.webs.comINTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESSAPRIL 2012VOL 3, NO 12Secondly, to make sure that these factors were selected correctly, a five point scalequestionnaire was designed and given to employees. <strong>The</strong>n, the result was analyzed bynormal distribution test at the significance level <strong>of</strong> α = 0.05H0: µ ≤3H1: µ≥3Since z-statistic was 8.71 and the z-table was 1.645 so z falls in the rejection region andnull hypothesis can be rejected at this level <strong>of</strong> confidence. <strong>The</strong>refore, these eight factorswere chosen correctly as the advantages <strong>of</strong> <strong>informal</strong> <strong>groups</strong> in this study. <strong>The</strong>conceptual model is illustrated in figure below:Figure (1): Conceptual frameworkMotivationJob securityInformal groupInnovationInvolvementModifyingIdentityCustomerLearning & growthProcessOrganizationalPerformanceCommunicationEfficiencygroupFinally, according to conceptual framework, a questionnaire consisted <strong>of</strong> 28 questionson a five point scale from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1) was designed. Apilot test <strong>of</strong> 20 respondents was taken to examine the reliability <strong>of</strong> questionnaire that theCronbach Alpha was 0.8735 so the reliability <strong>of</strong> questionnaire was acceptable.4. Findings:Of the 320 questionnaires sent out, 290 were completed and returned and data wasanalyzed by chi-square that the results are shown in table (2) and table (3) below:Table 2: descriptive statisticsFactors n MinimumPointMaximumPointMeanStd.deviationCustomer 290 25 45 35.4069 3.79Process 290 22 45 33.7103 3.97Learning andgrowthOrganizationalperformance290 16 38 27.0379 3.59290 75 114 96.1552 6.62COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute <strong>of</strong> Interdisciplinary Business Research 369
ijcrb.webs.comINTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESSAPRIL 2012VOL 3, NO 12Table 3: chi-square analysisFactorsChi-square (a,b, c, d)dfAsymp.SigCustomer 160.621 19 .000Process 176.400 21 .000Learning andgrowthOrganizationalperformance154.993 18 .000171.228 33 .000a.0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. <strong>The</strong> minimum expected cell frequency is 14.5.b. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. <strong>The</strong> minimum expected cell frequency is 13.2.c. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. <strong>The</strong> minimum expected cell frequency is 15.3.d. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. <strong>The</strong> minimum expected cell frequency is 8.5.According to the above tables it can be said that employees believe <strong>informal</strong> <strong>groups</strong> canaffect customers positively because df=19, so at the 95% level <strong>of</strong> confidence χ2 - table=30.1 which is less than χ2 – statistic (160.621). Moreover, according to the table 1 theaverage point <strong>of</strong> Customer factor is approximately 3.54 that shows respondents had atendency to choose “agree” and “strongly agree” options. For Process factor df=21 andχ2 - table=32.7 so at the 95% level <strong>of</strong> confidence analysis shows that the formation <strong>of</strong><strong>informal</strong> <strong>groups</strong> can improve the process <strong>of</strong> organizations. This result is supported bythe data <strong>of</strong> table 1 too because the average point <strong>of</strong> Process factor (3.37) is more thanthe average point (2.5). <strong>The</strong> same discussion can be cited for third dimension <strong>of</strong> BCSmodel: Learning and growth (df=18, χ2 - table=28.9). However, respondents declaredthe impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>informal</strong> <strong>groups</strong> on this factor is less than others. Learning and growthcould obtain average point <strong>of</strong> 2.7 that is a little more than the average point <strong>of</strong>questionnaire (2.5).Finally, to data, the results <strong>of</strong> three alternatives hypotheses prove that <strong>informal</strong> <strong>groups</strong>can affect organizational performance positively. To ensure more, a chi-square test wasmade separately which confirmed a same outcome, including χ2 - table=46.3 and χ2 –statistic= 171.228 .5. Conclusion:Overall, this paper provides a better understanding <strong>of</strong> the reasons why managers shouldpay attention to <strong>informal</strong> <strong>groups</strong> and their influences. Findings explored that <strong>informal</strong><strong>groups</strong> can strongly improve organizational performance indirectly so managers shouldconsider them as a source <strong>of</strong> high energy. To reach this result, firstly, a frameworkmodel was designed to illustrate how <strong>informal</strong> <strong>groups</strong> can affect organizationalperformance by BSC model. <strong>The</strong>n, the model was tested. <strong>The</strong> literature shows someaspects <strong>of</strong> <strong>informal</strong> group can cause conflict when their goals are not aligned withformal scheduled goals so the way how manager treats <strong>informal</strong> group is important.One alternative <strong>of</strong> this study corroborates the surveys <strong>of</strong> researchers who studied intothe benefits <strong>of</strong> <strong>informal</strong> <strong>groups</strong> like Gray (1996), Björk and Magnusson (2008), andAtkinson & M<strong>of</strong>fat (2005).COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute <strong>of</strong> Interdisciplinary Business Research 370
Page 1 and 2: ijcrb.webs.comINTERDISCIPLINARY JOU
Page 3: ijcrb.webs.comINTERDISCIPLINARY JOU

The effects of informal groups on organizational - journal ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?