10.12.2012 Views

Challenges in the Era of Globalization - iaabd

Challenges in the Era of Globalization - iaabd

Challenges in the Era of Globalization - iaabd

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Challenges</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Era</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Globalization</strong><br />

Edited by Emmanuel Obuah<br />

The results from <strong>the</strong> table 1 above <strong>in</strong>dicate that <strong>the</strong> data on <strong>the</strong> composite variables has a fairly normal<br />

distribution based on <strong>the</strong> skewness and kurtosis which are all with<strong>in</strong> acceptable range (Field, 2006). The<br />

mean scores for <strong>the</strong> variables reveal a moderate existence <strong>of</strong> organizational resilience (mean = 3.36),<br />

organizational adaptation (mean = 3.62), organizational competitiveness (mean= 3.48), organizational<br />

value (mean = 2.98). The overall reliability for organizational resilience is very high item <strong>in</strong>ternal<br />

consistency (α = .89) and its constructs also had high item <strong>in</strong>ternal consistency (α = .80 for organizational<br />

adaptation, α = .78 for organizational competitiveness) with an exception <strong>of</strong> organisational value which<br />

had an alpha below .7 but above .6 which is an acceptable <strong>in</strong>ternal consistency (alpha <strong>of</strong> above .6),<br />

especially <strong>in</strong> exploratory studies. Items OA6 and OV3 were deleted to improve <strong>the</strong> alpha and were not<br />

<strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> factor analysis.<br />

Table 2: Exploratory Factor Analysis Results<br />

VARIABLE FACTORS<br />

EXTRACTED<br />

Organisational<br />

Resilience<br />

Organisational<br />

Adaptation<br />

Organisational<br />

Competitiveness<br />

Organisational<br />

Value<br />

ITEMS LOADINGS KMO BARTLETT’S<br />

OC6<br />

OA4<br />

OA1<br />

OV2<br />

OA2<br />

OA5<br />

OC5<br />

OA3<br />

OV5<br />

OV7<br />

OC1<br />

OC4<br />

OV1<br />

OC3<br />

OC2<br />

OA7<br />

OV6<br />

OV4<br />

.891<br />

.859<br />

.849<br />

.848<br />

.834<br />

.801<br />

.791<br />

.773<br />

.695<br />

.585<br />

.878<br />

.773<br />

.589<br />

.522<br />

.519<br />

.865<br />

.852<br />

.783<br />

.865<br />

TEST<br />

Sig.= .0000<br />

VARIANCE<br />

EXPLAINED<br />

(%)<br />

69.699<br />

Alpha CVI<br />

The results <strong>in</strong> table 2 above show that most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> items that were believed to be measur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> constructs<br />

have <strong>in</strong>deed been found to be valid as <strong>the</strong>y loaded on correspond<strong>in</strong>g factors which is a sign <strong>of</strong> convergent<br />

validity, and <strong>of</strong> course o<strong>the</strong>r items did not load on <strong>the</strong> correspond<strong>in</strong>g factors which also <strong>in</strong>dicates<br />

discrim<strong>in</strong>ant validity (Field, 2006; Hair, 1998). We also found an acceptable content validity (CVI = 771)<br />

for organizational resilience. The pr<strong>in</strong>cipal components analysis extracted three <strong>in</strong>terpretable factors with<br />

eigen values greater than one that accounted for 69.7% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> variance expla<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> organizational<br />

resilience. We named <strong>the</strong> first factor organizational adaptation because most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> adaptation items<br />

loaded on it though some items <strong>of</strong> competitiveness (OC5 and OC6 which are <strong>in</strong> appendix 1) and <strong>of</strong> value<br />

(OV2, OV5, OV7 which are <strong>in</strong> appendix 1) loaded on adaptation. The explanation for this change <strong>of</strong><br />

load<strong>in</strong>g could be that; OC5 and OC6 that measured achievement <strong>of</strong> strategies and results respectively<br />

could have been <strong>in</strong>terpreted by respondents as ways <strong>of</strong> cop<strong>in</strong>g which implies adaptation. For OV2 which<br />

is about stakeholder satisfaction could occur due to realization <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir needs – probably a sign <strong>of</strong> cop<strong>in</strong>g.<br />

The same could apply to OV5 that measured m<strong>in</strong>imum compla<strong>in</strong>ts. Will<strong>in</strong>gness to fund (OV7) could have<br />

loaded on adaptation probably because parastatal flexibility to funder demands. We named <strong>the</strong> second<br />

factor organizational competitiveness because items OC2, OC3, and OC4 had loaded on it with an<br />

.893<br />

.771<br />

413

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!