You are on page 1of 42

Table of Contents

Acknowledgement....i
Executive Summary.....ii
List of Tables.iii
List of Abbreviation......iv
CHAPTER 1.....................................................................................................................12
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................12
1.1 Background........................................................................................................12
1.2 Problem Statement.............................................................................................13
1.3 Research Objective............................................................................................13
1.4 Significance of Study..........................................................................................13
CHAPTER 2.....................................................................................................................15
LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................................................15
2.1 Locus of Control.................................................................................................15
2.2 General Locus of Control and its Dimensions....................................................16
2.3 Work Locus of Control........................................................................................17
2.4 Organizational Commitment...............................................................................17
2.5 Relationship between Work Locus of Control and Organizational Commitment
..................................................................................................................................19
2.6 Organizational Identification...............................................................................20
2.7 Work Locus of Control and Organizational Identification...................................21
2.8 Organizational Identification and Organizational Commitment..........................22
2.9 Organizational Identification as a Mediator between Work Locus of Control and
Organizational Commitment.....................................................................................22
2.10 Theoretical Framework.....................................................................................23
2.11 Hypothesis........................................................................................................24
CHAPTER 3.....................................................................................................................25
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................25
3.1 Sampling Process..............................................................................................25
3.2 Research Design................................................................................................25
3.3 Sampling Population..........................................................................................25
3.4 Sample Size.......................................................................................................25
3.5 Research Instrument..........................................................................................26

3.6 Data Collection Method......................................................................................26


3.8 Data Analysis......................................................................................................26
3.9 Time Horizon......................................................................................................26
CHAPTER 4.....................................................................................................................27
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION.....................................................................27
1.1 Descriptive Analysis...........................................................................................27
1.2 Correlation Analysis............................................................................................27
1.3 Linear Regression..............................................................................................32
CHAPTER 5.....................................................................................................................42
CONCLUSION AND RECCOMENDATION.....................................................................42
5.1 Conclusion..........................................................................................................42
5.2 Recommendations.............................................................................................43
5.3 Limitations..........................................................................................................43
REFERENCES................................................................................................................44
APPENDIX-I.....................................................................................................................47
Questionnaire...........................................................................................................47

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The main objective of research project is to examine the impact of work locus of control
on organizational commitment in non-government organizations of Pakistan. After
extensive literature review and research it is examined that there is significance positive
relationship between work locus of control and organizational commitment.
In order to measure the impact of work locus of control and organizational commitment,
a sample of 100 employees from different non-government organizations was drawn
through convince sampling technique .Questionnaire was adopted, starting from
strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Data analysis was carried out through SPSS software package. Correlation and linear
and multiple regression analysis were carried out to test the predictive nature of
independent variable i.e. work locus of control and its impact on dependent variable i.e.
organizational commitment and its three types.
The research concluded that the work locus of control indicate positive influence on
organizational commitment and the three types of organizational commitment such as
affective, continuous and normative commitment.

List of Tables
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics...........................................................................................27
Table 2 Correlations.........................................................................................................27
Table 3 Correlations.........................................................................................................28
Table 4 Correlations.........................................................................................................28
Table 5 Correlations.........................................................................................................29
Table 6 Correlations.........................................................................................................29
Table 7 Correlations.........................................................................................................30
Table 8 Correlations.........................................................................................................30
Table 9 Correlations.........................................................................................................31
Table 10 Correlations.......................................................................................................31
Table 11 Model Summary................................................................................................32
Table 12 ANOVA..............................................................................................................32
Table 13 Coefficients (a)..................................................................................................32
Table 14 Model Summary................................................................................................33
Table 15 ANOVA(b)..........................................................................................................33
Table 16 Coefficients(a)...................................................................................................34
Table 17 Model Summary................................................................................................34
Table 18 ANOVA(b)..........................................................................................................34
Table 19 Coefficients(a)...................................................................................................35
Table 20 Model Summary................................................................................................35
Table 21 ANOVA(b)..........................................................................................................35
Table 22 Coefficients(a)...................................................................................................36
Table 23 Model Summary................................................................................................36
Table 24 ANOVA(b)..........................................................................................................37
Table 25 Coefficients(a)...................................................................................................37
Table 26 Model Summary................................................................................................37
Table 27 ANOVA(b)..........................................................................................................38
Table 28 Coefficients(a)...................................................................................................38
Table 29 Model Summary................................................................................................39
Table 30 ANOVA(b)..........................................................................................................39
Table 31 Coefficients(a)...................................................................................................39
Table 32 Model Summary................................................................................................40
Table 33 ANOVA(b)..........................................................................................................40
Table 34 Coefficients(a)...................................................................................................41

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Worldwide the work and its possible future effects is changing with time and also
organization demands for having best performance and competitive edge which leads to
work on workforce emotional welfare stated by De Witte, 1999.
Rotter in 1966, examined the relationship of locus of control and organizational
commitment but Specter in 1988, developed work locus of control scale and examined
work locus of control with organizational commitment. Specter has done more study on
work locus of control and job satisfaction but his work provides us grounds to consider
that work locus of control will have strong relationship with organizational commitment.
Early studies explained organizational commitment has no dimensions but Meyer and
Allen in 1991 recommended that organizational commitment has three types, Affective,
Continuous and Normative commitment. They developed a scale on it .Affective
commitment refers to an emotional involvement with workplace (person wants to stay
with workplace)Continuous commitment refers to the cost bearing by leaving workplace
as person need to stay as he has not alternates. Normative commitment refers to the
responsibility to continuous work with workplace. These three types of commitment is
important because these types of commitment reduces the chances of leaving a
workplace.
Due to the effect of affective commitment and continuous commitment on the
functions of workplace, anything that can bring improvement in our perception of
variables can be helpful for workplace.
Meyer and Allen also stated that different variables of individuals also contribute
in the growth of affective commitment. Different studies shows that those having internel
wok locus of control mostly have affective commitment with their workplace (Luthans
1987)
The universal control beliefs are measured by work locus of control, stated by
(Honegger & Appelbaum, 1998). In several researches the researchers focused on the

issues that add value in the development of relationship of work locus of control and
organizational commitment. The reason of this study is to examine the correlation
between work locus of control and organizational commitment and with its types,
focusing the employee in nongovernmental organizations in Pakistan. Although many
researchers have done work on the relationship of work locus of control and
organizational commitment but not in Pakistan so there exist some research space and
this study contributes to fill this research space.
This research shows that work locus of control has positive relation with
organizational commitment.(Chang 1990) stated that employees with internal work
locus of control will be more committed to the workplace and if not ,they will try to leave
the workplace but when they stay in workplace they are forced or they needed to stay.
Those having internal work locus of control think that their achievements depends upon
their own deeds (Fairly & Tosi, 1989).

1.2 Problem Statement


What is the impact of work locus of control on organizational commitment and its
types using organizational identification as mediator?

1.3 Research Objective


The main objective of our research project is to know the impact of work locus of
control on organizational commitment and its types using organizational identification as
mediator in Pakistan and to find:

The relationship of work locus of control and organizational commitment.


Importance of work locus of control and organizational commitment.
The effect of implementing work locus of control on organizational
commitment and its types such as affective, continuous, and normative
commitment.

1.4 Significance of Study


The research has following importance:

It will help us to know that either work locus of control help in enhancing

organizational commitment or not.


How work locus of control is related to organizations and how it will affect the

commitment and loyalty of employees in organizations.


It will also help us to know that to which extent work locus of control is related to
the types of organizational commitment in Pakistan.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Locus of Control
Brownell (1981) defined locus of control as an individuals opinion about the level
of control a person can have over the actions of his or her life. Triandis (1995) described
individualism as a trend for people to examine themselves as separate entities who are
mostly provoked by the objectives and priorities of their own.
Locus of control is defined as an indication of the autonomous identity by Markus
and Kitayama (1998) and a term of requirement for independence by Kagitgibasi
(1994). Phares (1976) stated that thinking about control can be changed across some
fields of life. On the other hand, if someone's interest is related to working issues, it is
obvious to value the workplace control instead of general control.
Core self-evaluations have four dimensions which are neuroticism, self-efficacy,
self-esteem and one is locus of control. Judge Locke and Durham (1997) were the first
who examined the perception of core self-evaluation and it has been proven that people
have the abilities to forecast different work results.
Rotter (1966) defined locus of control as a degree to which people think that they
can control the actions of their lives. He divided locus of control as internal locus of
control and External locus of control. Those people having internal locus of control think
that events of their lives are controlled by their own behaviours and judgements while
the people who have an external locus of control think that they cannot control whatever
happens to them. They think that it is a result of luck or fate.
Rotter (1966) also stated that locus of control can be measured with the
Internal/External (I-E) Scale which presents external locus of control by high scores and
internal locus of control by low scores.
According to Rotter (1966) locus of control is the extent to which people think that
results are driven either by their own deeds or by the outside forces which create a
range with external locus of control at one side and internal locus of control at other
side.

According to Spector (1982), Wickens and Hollands (2000) and Ng, Sorensen
and Eby (2006), those people who have internal locus of control frequently think that
they can control a tense condition for which they can use different problem solving
tactics while those having external locus of control think that situations are not possible
to be changed or transformed.
All those people who think that whatever happens to them are controlled by the
workplace surroundings are the one who have external locus of control and are more
sensitive to the workplace support. This is stated by Chiu, Lin, Tsai and Hsiao (2005).

2.2 General Locus of Control and its Dimensions


Chen, Gorddard and Casper (2004), Lefcourt (1976), Phares (1976), and Rotter
(1975) stated that locus of control has been defined as a hierarchical construct with high
level of general locus of control present with in this hierarchy.
Locus of control is a broader concept. Levenson (1981) defined general locus of control
as degree to which individuals generally relate the outcomes to their own actions
instead of any outside forces like fate or luck.
There are some dimensions of general locus of control depending upon the
situations like Health locus of control stated by Wallston, Kaplan and Maides (1976),
marital locus of control by Miller et al (1983), and Parental locus of control by Campis et
al (1986). All of them exist at lower level of organizational structure. Spector (1988)
gave the concept of one more dimension called Work locus of control on which the
recent researches are particularly focused.
Locus of control has been noticed for wide studies within some sub dimensions
of psychology such as medical, developmental and societal psychology. These studies
showed that locus of control is connected to different variables like Marital problem
solving stated by Miller, Lefcourt and Ware (1983), Educational achievements by
Crandall and Katkovsky (1965), Longevity by Krause and Shaw (2000) and quality of
Parent-child relationships which is stated by Campis, Lyman and Prentice-Dunn (1986).
A study done by Ng, Sorensen and Eby (2006), gives a current analysis of the study
which shows the importance of locus of control in the organization. This study also
shows that both work locus of control and general locus of control have similar

connection with working criteria. They also stated that the analysis proved that internal
locus of control was directly connected to the degree of common interest and to the
affective responses associated with work.

2.3 Work Locus of Control


Spector (1988) defined work locus of control as the degree or point to which
workers quality rewards at their jobs to their own conduct (for example work locus of
control matters contain those workers are rewarded who do well at their jobs and If
workers make attempts, most of them are competent to do their jobs soundly
Spector (1988) also assumes or propose that those workers who have an internal locus
of control will act better in the job state of affairs as they have strong faith in their own
capabilities and also in promising prizes. We anticipated that instead of general locus of
control, work locus of control would show high level of interaction with working criteria.
Pretorius & Rothman (2001) explained the Work locus of control as the opinion of
individuals having about the connection between their own performance and the
outcomes of incentive or penalty. Those people who have an internal locus of control
consider that the outcomes of their doings can be controlled by themselves, while those
having an external locus of control suppose that there is an external force by which their
outcomes are controlled.
According to Schmit et al (1995), Hunthausen et al (2003), Bing et al (2004),
Leivens et al (2008), this forecast is becoming more reliable with the mounting literature
on situation effects, which propose that asking/inquiring the people about their
performance at job are more powerfully linked with working criteria instead of general
locus of control.

2.4 Organizational Commitment


In the journalism on business and organizational psychology, the perception of
organizational commitment has developed in fame stated by Cohen, 2003. Studies
done before by Porter, Steers, Mowday and Boulian (1974) on organizational
commitment make a vision of the concept that it has a single measurement or element

which stands on an attitudinal outlook/perception, accepting classification, association


and devotion.
Organizational commitment is termed by Mowday,Steers and Porter (1982) as a
strong relationship of individual identification and attachment in a specific workplace.
Organizational commitment has been broadly recognized by Allen and Meyer (1990)
that it has not only a single measurement but it is multidimensional.
Organizational commitment is described by Meyer and Allen (1991) as a mental
state which distinguishes the correlation of worker with the workplace and has
proposition for the choice to leave or not to leave the workplace. They classified
organizational commitment into three different/diverse parts which are named as
Affective

commitment,

Continuous

commitment

and

Normative

commitment

respectively.
Affective commitment is defined as the psychological association of workers to the
recognition with and attachment to the workplace. Workers with a positive affective
commitment will not leave the workplace as they feel like doing it.
Continuous commitment is defined as the knowledge and understanding of expenses
linked with leaving the workplace. Workers with strong continuous commitment stay in
workplace as their most important relation to workplace is based on continuous
commitment and because its their requirement.
Normative commitment is defined as the feelings of commitment and responsibilities
to carry on the job. Workers having strong/positive normative commitment believe that
they should stay with the workplace.
Allen and Meyer (1997) stated that organizational commitment can be
deliberated by using Affective, Continuous and Normative commitment scale. According
to Hrebiniak and Alutto (1972), normative perception is defined as the loyalty of a
worker to carry on the job for his or her workplace is on the basis of the concept of
thinking about the benefits of cost of parting from the workplace.

Mathieu and Zajac (1990) and Meyer, Allen, and Smith (1993) stated that organizational
commitment can be described as a connection between the worker and his or her
workplace. Organizational commitment is very important to the workplace because it is
connected to many different and attractive results like work performance, reduce
turnover, lower the purpose to exit, decreases absenteeism (stated by Mathieu and
Zajac in 1990 and Jaros in 1997) but Begley and Czajka (1993) also added one more
outcome to it which is minimizing the stress levels.
Similarly Yousef (2000) explained further the point of Begley that organizational
commitment is directly manipulated by job performance and indirectly controlled by job
stress (stated by Sager, 1990).

2.5 Relationship between Work Locus of Control and Organizational


Commitment
First see that Spector (1988) defined work locus of control as a character
inconsistency. He stated that organizational commitment is a comprehensive
anticipation that the result of their work done in life can be restricted by two ways, one
by their own deeds which is called Internal work locus of control and other by outside
forces which means External work locus of control.
The work done which is related to work locus of control and organizational
commitment is very rare. A lesson performed by TColeman, Irving and Cooper (1999)
on the correlation between the work locus of control and organizational commitment
which shows the conclusion that internal work locus of control was correlated to
affective commitment and external work locus of control was correlated to continuous
commitment.
A study is done by Robbins (2001) in large quantity on the evaluation of internal
work locus of control and external work locus of control which constantly revealed that
people who have high level of internal work locus of control are more pleased/contented
with their work and having less absenteeism rate, more attached to their jobs and are
on good terms from the job surroundings than the people having high level of external
work locus of control.

Spector (1988) also assumes that employees will complete their work in a better
way in working conditions because they have strong faith in the capabilities they have
and the outcomes of it.
In three of the studies done by Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979), they stated
the association between work locus of control and organizational commitment. In these
studies they reported that there were small relationships of work locus of control and
organizational commitment while the work locus of control and satisfaction relations was
bigger. This is possibly because Spector considered organizational commitment with
only two things from Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) due to which the
result is not placed/conclude effectively. Yet Spector (1988) concluded from work locus
of control and job satisfaction that it provides us a cause to consider that the work
dimension of locus of control will be positively correlated to organizational commitment.

2.6 Organizational Identification


One the former of using the idiom Organizational Identification was Phillip
Tompkins (2005) and is the founder of the research on organizational commitment.
Simon (1947) was also one of those who were praised for launching Organizational
Identification in assumptions and research.
The philosophy of Organizational Identification is broader in general. Cheney and
Tompkins (1987) did studies for many years in organizational identity and identification
which finally made clear the function of these perceptions in the workplace. They further
stated that Organizational Identification is type of organizational control which took
place when a decision maker who belongs to a workplace, wants to select one of the
best option which support the supposed benefits of that workplace.
According to Ashforth and Mael (1989) Organizational Identification is the
observation of feeling of being alone and belongingness to the workplace.
The concept of Organizational Identification is expressed as emotional and motivational
procedures by OReilly and Chatman (1986) who quarreled about Organizational
Identification that it occurs from the magnetism and aspiration to retain a psychologically
pleasing connection with the workplace.

The attractiveness of the perception of identity and identification is that they give
us a method to have a look on the human behavior in their workplace structure.
Organizational Identification is the internal concept that means the worker point of view
about the workplace. This concept was stated by Albert, Ashforth and Dutton (2000).
According to Dutton, Duckerich and Herguail (1994) and Hatch and Schultz
(2000), the worker identification with the workplace is based on the Organizational
Identity. And Pratt (1998) stated that the whole concept of Organizational Identification
is connected to one question that is What is my relation to my workplace?
The satisfaction and worker behavior can be influenced by Organizational
Identification and the value of workplace is also affected. It is stated by Lee (1971), then
by Hall and Schneider (1972), OReilly and Chatman (1986), Ashforth and Mael (1989)
and by Albert et al (2000).

2.7 Work Locus of Control and Organizational Identification


The studies related to work locus of control and organizational identification is
scarce but the small amount of study shows that organizational identification has a
strong/positive relation with work locus of control.
Cheney (1983) and Scott, Corman and Cheney (1998) explained that
organizational identification make an optimistic/positive relation with the work attitudes
and behaviors such as job performance, satisfaction and motivation, worker dealings
and retentions and also decision making.
Cheney (1983) expressed that organizational identification is connected to all
those results or outputs which are in the support of workplace. McGregor (1967) stated
that organizational identification is linked to workers loyalty to common objective of
workplace. And according to Patchen (1970) organizational identification is also linked
to workers relations with one another.
A study was done by Lee (1971) in which he found that all those scientists who
have a positive/strong organizational identification established positive attitudes towards
their work, workplace and career, instead of those scientists having negative relation
with organizational identification.

2.8 Organizational Identification and Organizational Commitment


According to Tompkins (2005), organizational identification is a very significant
field of study as organizational identification and organizational commitment has a
connection between them.
By narrowing the scale of the founder, Knippenberg and Sleebos (2006) have
made an effort to split organizational identification and affective organizational
commitment. They stated that identification is a perceptual construct which shows the
relation of oneself and commitment shows the attitude towards the workplace and its
workers. They further added that identification involves the emotional attachment to the
workplace but commitment means the connection between workplace and worker in
which they are considered separate units.
The

level

of

relationship

of

organizational

identification

and

affective

organizational commitment was observed by Riketta (2005) by observing 96 separate


samples and he creates an important and a very positive and direct relationship
between organizational identification and affective commitment. According to his study
the correlation is equal to 0.78 which shows that the standard research of organizational
identification had a major level of correlation with affective organizational commitment.
Lee (1971) also stated that high level of organizational identification will create a high
level of organizational commitment. The workers will be more committed if they have a
positive organizational identification.

2.9 Organizational Identification as a Mediator between Work Locus of


Control and Organizational Commitment
Organizational identification creates a strong and positive relation as a mediator
between work locus of control and organizational commitment because has a direct
relation with both work locus of control and organizational commitment so it will affect
the relationship of work locus of control and organizational commitment positively.
The little research about the relationship of organizational identification and work locus
of control shows that it has a direct relation. According to Cheney (1983), organizational
identification is connected to the variety of attitudes, behaviors and results that are
related to work and support workplace.

Similarly according to Lee (1971), the worker having strong organizational


identification will have a strong organizational commitment. So as a mediator
organizational identification will strengthen the effect of work locus of control and
organizational commitment.

2.10 Theoretical Framework

2.11 Hypothesis
H1: Work locus of control is positively related to organizational commitment
H2: Work locus of control is positively related to affective commitment
H3: Work locus of control is positively related to continuous commitment
H4: Work locus of control is positively related to normative commitment
H5: Organizational identification strengthen the relationship of work locus of control and
organizational commitment
H6: Organizational identification strengthen the relationship of work locus of control and
affective commitment
H7: Organizational identification strengthen the relationship of work locus of control and
continuous commitment
H8: Organizational identification strengthen the relationship of work locus of control and
normative commitment

CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Sampling Process
Sampling is the act, process, or technique of selecting a representative part of a
population for the purpose of determining the characteristics of the whole population
and authenticity of outcome is only possible when there is proper technique
development used for sampling. For our research we have chosen convenient sampling
technique to get ideal results so the number of employees who will participate is not
predetermined employees are given questionnaire and given complete information and
guidance to fill that questionnaire so that the outcome of results are authentic.

3.2 Research Design


This study is conducted in the natural work environment of the organization .variables
are neither controlled nor manipulate.

3.3 Sampling Population


In this study the population of study includes the employees of Engro food and
compulogic in Islamabad.
Sample size is nether too large nor too small we are running test on the employees of
Engro food and compulogic only .sample size was not pre determined thats why
convenient sampling technique was used.

3.4 Sample Size


Sample size of our research consists of 60 employees from Engro food and 40
employees from compulogic, these organizations are operating in Pakistan.

3.5 Research Instrument


Questionnaire is used to collect data which is filled by the employees of Engro food and
compulogic in Pakistan.

3.6 Data Collection Method


The data is collected through questionnaire, in which there are 39 questions to know the
affect of of work locus control on organizational commitment and on its types which are
Affective,Normative and Continuous commitment and organizational identification using
employee relation/climate as a mediator.

3.7 Measurement Scale


For this study we have used Spector work locus of control scale and Meyer and Allen
scale of organizational commitment.

3.8 Data Analysis


SPSS software is used to run the data in which we used different statistical methods in
order to check the data some of the techniques we used are correlation analysis and
regression analysis to check the impact of work locus control on organizational
commitment and on its types which are Affective, Normative and Continuous
commitment and organizational identification using employee relation/climate as a
mediator.

3.9 Time Horizon


All the employees have given questionnaires and after filling these questionnaires by
the employees we will not be consulted again to them so this study is a cross sectional.

CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
1.1 Descriptive Analysis
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics
Age
Gender

N
100
100

Minimum
1
0

Maximum
4
1

Mean
1.54
.73

Std. Deviation
.744
.446

Education

100

1.86

.711

Income

100

3.80

1.589

Experience

100

1.96

.909

Valid N (listwise)

100

Testing Hypothesis
One of the main purposes of research project is to find out the impact of work locus of
control on organizational commitment. The outcomes of hypothesis testing and analysis
are organized under the following headings.

1.2 Correlation Analysis


Correlation of work locus of control and organizational commitment
Table 2 Correlations
WLOCMEAN

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

OCMEAN

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

WLOCMEAN
1

OCMEAN
.607(**)
.000

100

100

.607(**)

.000

100
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

100

The pearson correlation is 0.607 which shows that the two variables work locus of
control and organizational commitment are strongly correlated with each other. This
means that changes in work locus of control are strongly correlated with changes in
organizational commitment.

The sig. (2-tailed) is 0.00 which means there is statistically significant correlation
between both variables and increase or decrease in work locus of control is highly
related to increase or decrease in organizational commitment.
Work locus of control and Affective organizational commitment
Table 3 Correlations
WLOCMEAN

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

ACMean

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)

WLOCMEAN
1

ACMean
.387(**)
.000

100

100

.387(**)

.000

100
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

100

The pearson correlation is 0.387 which shows that the variables work locus of control
and affective commitment have weak relationship with each other in comparison to
other types of commitment. The sig. (2-tailed) is 0.00 which means there is statistically
significant correlation between both variables and increase or decrease in work locus of
control is highly related to increase or decrease in affective commitment.
Work locus of control and continuous commitment
Table 4 Correlations
WLOCMEAN

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

CCMean

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

WLOCMEAN
1

CCMean
.587(**)
.000

100

100

.587(**)

.000

100
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

100

The pearson correlation is 0.587 which shows that work locus of control and continuous
organizational commitment are comparatively strongly correlated with each other. This
means that changes in work locus of control are strongly correlated with changes in
continuous commitment.

The sig. (2-tailed) is 0.00 which means there is statistically significant correlation
between both variables and increase or decrease in work locus of control is highly
related to increase or decrease in continuous commitment.
Work locus of control and normative commitment
Table 5 Correlations
WLOCMEAN

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)

WLOCMEAN
1

NCMean
.522(**)
.000

100

100

.522(**)

N
NCMean

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

100
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

100

The pearson correlation is 0.522 which shows that work locus of control and normative
organizational commitment have comparatively less stronger relationship with each
other. This means that changes in work locus of control are strongly correlated with
changes in normative commitment.
The sig. (2-tailed) is 0.00 which means there is statistically significant correlation
between both variables and increase or decrease in work locus of control is highly
related to increase or decrease in normative commitment.
Work locus of control and organizational identification
Table 6 Correlations
WLOCMEAN

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

OIMean

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

WLOCMEAN
1

OIMean
.545(**)
.000

100

100

.545(**)

.000

100
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

100

The pearson correlation is 0.545 which shows that work locus of control and
organizational identification are strongly correlated with each other. This means that

changes in work locus of control are strongly correlated with changes in organizational
identification.
The sig. (2-tailed) is 0.00 which means there is statistically significant correlation
between both variables and increase or decrease in work locus of control is highly
related to increase or decrease in organizational identification.
Organizational identification and organizational commitment
Table 7 Correlations
OIMean
OIMean

N
OCMEAN

OCMEAN
.408(**)
.000

100

100

.408(**)

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

100
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

100

Organizational identification and organizational commitment are positively correlated


with each other as shown in table (pearson correlation is 0.408). The sig. (2-tailed) is
0.00 which means there is statistically significant correlation between both variables and
increase or decrease in organizational identification is highly related to increase or
decrease in organizational commitment.
Organizational identification and affective commitment
Table 8 Correlations
OIMean
OIMean

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

ACMean

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

ACMean
.201(*)
.044

100

100

.201(*)

.044

100
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

100

Organizational identification and affective commitment have comparatively weak


relationship than with other types of commitment as shown in table (pearson correlation
is 0.201). The sig. (2-tailed) is 0.044 which means there is statistically significant

correlation between both variables and increase or decrease in organizational


identification is highly related to increase or decrease in affective commitment.
Organizational identification and continuous commitment
Table 9 Correlations
OIMean
OIMean

N
CCMean

CCMean
.339(**)
.001

100

100

.339(**)

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)

.001

100
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

100

Organizational identification and continuous commitment have comparatively stronger


relationship than affective commitment as shown in table (pearson correlation is 0.339).
The sig. (2-tailed) is 0.001 which means there is statistically significant correlation
between both variables and increase or decrease in organizational identification is
highly related to increase or decrease in continuous commitment.
Organizational identification and normative commitment
Table 10 Correlations
OIMean
OIMean

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

NCMean

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

NCMean
.487(**)
.000

100

100

.487(**)

.000

100
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

100

Organizational identification and normative commitment have comparatively stronger


relationship than both affective and continuous commitment as shown in table (pearson
correlation is 0.487). The sig. (2-tailed) is 0.000 which means there is statistically
significant correlation between both variables and increase or decrease in
organizational identification is highly related to increase or decrease in normative
commitment.

1.3 Linear Regression


Work locus of control and organizational commitment
Table 11 Model Summary
Adjusted Std. Error
Mod
R
R
of
the
el
R
Square Square
Estimate
1
.607(a) .368
.362
.44469
a Predictors: (Constant), WLOCMEAN
This table shows the value of R and R Square, where R represent the simple correlation
and in this case R=0.607 which means that there is positive correlation between work
locus of control and organizational commitment. R Square is 36.2% which represents
the total number of variation in organizational commitment can be explained by work
locus of control and it shows that it is not very large.
Table 12 ANOVA
Mod
el
1

Sum of
Squares df

Mean
Square

Regressi
11.299
1
11.299
on
Residual 19.379 98
.198
Total
30.678 99
a Predictors: (Constant), WLOCMEAN
b Dependent Variable: OCMEAN

Sig.

57.136

.000(a)

This table reports how well the regression equation fits the data. In the regression row
Sig. is 0.000 and is less than 0.05 which indicates that this regression model statistically
is a good fit for the data.
Table 13 Coefficients (a)

Mod
el
1

Unstandardized
Coefficients
Std.
B
Error
(Constant) .979
.304

Standardiz
ed
Coefficients t
Beta

B
3.221

Sig.
Std.
Error
.002

WLOCME
.654
.086
AN
a Dependent Variable: OCMEAN

.607

7.559

.000

This table gives us the information to determine the contribution of independent variable
statistically significantly to the model. Here Beta is equal to 0.607 which shows that
work locus of control positively influence the dependent variable which is organizational
commitment.
Work locus of control and affective commitment
Table 14 Model Summary
Adjusted Std. Error
Mod
R
R
of
the
el
R
Square Square
Estimate
1
.387(a) .149
.141
.59754
a Predictors: (Constant), WLOCMEAN
This table shows the value of R and R Square, where R represent the simple correlation
and in this case R=0.387 which means that there is positive correlation between work
locus of control and affective organizational commitment. R Square is 14.9% which
represents the total number of variation in affective commitment can be explained by
work locus of control and it shows that it is not very large.
Table 15 ANOVA(b)
Mod
el
1

Sum of
Squares Df

Mean
Square

Regressi
6.147
1
6.147
on
Residual 34.991 98
.357
Total
41.138 99
a Predictors: (Constant), WLOCMEAN
b Dependent Variable: ACMean

Sig.

17.215

.000(a)

This table reports how well the regression equation fits the data. In the regression row
Sig. is 0.000 and is less than 0.05 which indicates that this regression model statistically
is a good fit for the data.

Table 16 Coefficients(a)
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Mod
Std.
el
B
Error
1
(Constant) 1.411
.408
WLOCME
.482
.116
AN
a Dependent Variable: ACMean

Standardiz
ed
Coefficients t
Beta

B
3.458

Sig.
Std.
Error
.001

.387

4.149

.000

This table gives us the information to determine the contribution of independent variable
statistically significantly to the model. Here Beta is equal to 0.387 which shows that
work locus of control positively influence the dependent variable which is affective
commitment.
Work locus of control and continuous commitment
Table 17 Model Summary
Adjusted Std. Error
Mod
R
R
of
the
el
R
Square Square
Estimate
1
.587(a) .345
.338
.58872
a Predictors: (Constant), WLOCMEAN
In this case R=0.587 which means that there is positive correlation between work locus
of control and continuous organizational commitment. R Square is 34.5% which
represents the total number of variation in continuous commitment can be explained by
work locus of control and it shows that it is not very large.
Table 18 ANOVA(b)
Mod
el
1

Regressi
on
Residual
Total

Sum of
Squares Df

Mean
Square

Sig.

17.875

17.875

51.574

.000(a)

33.966
51.841

98
99

.347

a Predictors: (Constant), WLOCMEAN


b Dependent Variable: CCMean
This table reports how well the regression equation fits the data. In the regression row
Sig. is 0.000 and is less than 0.05 which indicates that this regression model statistically
is a good fit for the data.
Table 19 Coefficients(a)
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Mod
Std.
el
B
Error
1
(Constant) .370
.402
WLOCME
.822
.115
AN
a Dependent Variable: CCMean

Standardiz
ed
Coefficients T
Beta

B
.920

Sig.
Std.
Error
.360

.587

7.181

.000

Here Beta is equal to 0.587 which shows that work locus of control positively influence
the dependent variable which is continuous commitment.
Work locus of control and normative commitment
Table 20 Model Summary
Adjusted Std. Error
Mod
R
R
of
the
el
R
Square Square
Estimate
1
.522(a) .273
.265
.53316
a Predictors: (Constant), WLOCMEAN
Here R=0.522 which means that there is positive correlation between work locus of
control and normative organizational commitment. R Square is 27.3% which represents
the total number of variation in normative commitment can be explained by work locus
of control and it shows that it is not very large.
Table 21 ANOVA(b)

Mod
el
1

Sum of
Squares df

Mean
Square

Regressi
10.449 1
10.449
on
Residual 27.858 98
.284
Total
38.307 99
a Predictors: (Constant), WLOCMEAN
b Dependent Variable: NCMean

Sig.

36.759

.000(a)

This table reports how well the regression equation fits the data. In the regression row
Sig. is 0.000 and is less than 0.05 which indicates that this regression model statistically
is a good fit for the data.
Table 22 Coefficients(a)
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Mod
Std.
el
B
Error
1
(Constant) 1.256
.364
WLOCME
.629
.104
AN
a Dependent Variable: NCMean

Standardiz
ed
Coefficients t
Beta

B
3.448

Sig.
Std.
Error
.001

.522

6.063

.000

Here Beta is equal to 0.522 which shows that work locus of control positively influence
the dependent variable which is continuous commitment.
Organizational identification as a mediator between Work locus of control and
organizational commitment
Table 23 Model Summary
Adjusted Std. Error
Mod
R
R
of
the
el
R
Square Square
Estimate
1
.614(a) .377
.364
.44396
a Predictors: (Constant), OIMean, WLOCMEAN
This table shows the value of R which is equal to 0.614 and it shows that organizational
identification positively affects the correlation between work locus of control and

organizational commitment. R Square is equal to 37.7% which means there is a little


increase in the total number of variation in organizational commitment due to the
mediator organizational identification.
Table 24 ANOVA(b)
Mod
el
1

Sum of
Squares df

Mean
Square

Regressi
11.559
2
5.779
on
Residual 19.119
97
.197
Total
30.678 99
a Predictors: (Constant), OIMean, WLOCMEAN
b Dependent Variable: OCMEAN

Sig.

29.322

.000(a)

Here Sig. is 0.000 which shows that this regression model statistically is a good fit for
the data. the effect of mediator is positive.
Table 25 Coefficients(a)
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Mod
Std.
el
B
Error
1
(Constant) .826
.331
WLOCME
.589
.103
AN
OIMean
.103
.090
a Dependent Variable: OCMEAN

Standardiz
ed
Coefficients t
Beta

B
2.494

Sig.
Std.
Error
.014

.547

5.722

.000

.110

1.149

.253

Here Beta is 0.547 for work locus of control and Beta is 0.110 for organizational
identification which means that organizational identification positively influences the
relationship of work locus of control and organizational commitment.
Organizational identification as a mediator between Work locus of control and
affective commitment
Table 26 Model Summary

Adjusted Std. Error


Mod
R
R
of
the
el
R
Square Square
Estimate
1
.387(a) .150
.132
.60057
a Predictors: (Constant), OIMean, WLOCMEAN
This table shows the value of R which is equal to 0.387 and it shows that organizational
identification positively affects the correlation between work locus of control and
affective commitment. R Square is equal to 13.2% which means there is a little
decrease in the total number of variation in affective commitment due to the mediator
organizational identification.
Table 27 ANOVA(b)
Mod
el
1

Sum of
Squares df

Mean
Square

Regressi
6.152
2
3.076
on
Residual 34.986 97
.361
Total
41.138 99
a Predictors: (Constant), OIMean, WLOCMEAN
b Dependent Variable: ACMean

Sig.

8.528

.000(a)

Here Sig. is 0.000 which shows that this regression model statistically is a good fit for
the data. The effect of mediator is positive.
Table 28 Coefficients(a)
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Mod
Std.
el
B
Error
1
(Constant) 1.432
.448
WLOCME
.491
.139
AN
OIMean
-.014
.122
a Dependent Variable: ACMean

Standardiz
ed
Coefficients t
Beta

B
3.198

Sig.
Std.
Error
.002

.394

3.525

.001

-.013

-.117

.907

Here Beta is 0.394 for work locus of control and Beta is -0.013 for organizational
identification which means that organizational identification has very little influence on
the relationship of work locus of control and affective commitment.
Organizational identification as a mediator between Work locus of control and
continuous commitment
Table 29 Model Summary
Adjusted Std. Error
Mod
R
R
of
the
el
R
Square Square
Estimate
1
.588(a) .345
.332
.59150
a Predictors: (Constant), OIMean, WLOCMEAN
The value of R is equal to 0.588 and it shows that organizational identification positively
affects the correlation between work locus of control and continuous commitment. R
Square is equal to 33.2% which means there is a little decrease in the total number of
variation in continuous commitment due to the mediator organizational identification.
Table 30 ANOVA(b)
Mod
el
1

Sum of
Squares df

Mean
Square

Regressi
17.902 2
8.951
on
Residual 33.938 97
.350
Total
51.841 99
a Predictors: (Constant), OIMean, WLOCMEAN
b Dependent Variable: CCMean

Sig.

25.584

.000(a)

Here Sig. is 0.000 which shows that this regression model statistically is a good fit for
the data. the effect of mediator is positive.
Table 31 Coefficients(a)
Mod
el

Unstandardized
Coefficients

Standardiz t
ed
Coefficients

Sig.

Std.
B
Error
1
(Constant) .320
.441
WLOCME
.801
.137
AN
OIMean
.034
.120
a Dependent Variable: CCMean

Beta

B
.727

Std.
Error
.469

.572

5.840

.000

.027

.281

.780

Here Beta is 0.572 for work locus of control and Beta is 0.027 for organizational
identification which means that organizational identification positively influences the
relationship of work locus of control and continuous commitment.
Organizational identification as a mediator between Work locus of control and
normative commitment
Table 32 Model Summary
Adjusted Std. Error
Mod
R
R
of
the
el
R
Square Square
Estimate
1
.575(a) .331
.317
.51403
a Predictors: (Constant), OIMean, WLOCMEAN
R is equal to 0.575 which shows that organizational identification positively affects the
correlation between work locus of control and normative commitment. R Square is equal
to 33.1% which means there is an increase in the total number of variation in normative
commitment due to the mediator organizational identification.
Table 33 ANOVA(b)
Mod
el
1

Sum of
Squares df

Mean
Square

Regressi
12.676 2
6.338
on
Residual 25.630 97
.264
Total
38.307 99
a Predictors: (Constant), OIMean, WLOCMEAN
b Dependent Variable: NCMean

Sig.

23.988

.000(a)

Here Sig. is 0.000 which shows that this regression model statistically is a good fit for
the data. the effect of mediator is positive.

Table 34 Coefficients(a)
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Mod
Std.
el
B
Error
1
(Constant) .809
.383
WLOCME
.440
.119
AN
OIMean
.302
.104
a Dependent Variable: NCMean

Standardiz
ed
Coefficients t
Beta

B
2.110

Sig.
Std.
Error
.037

.366

3.690

.000

.288

2.903

.005

Here Beta is 0.366 for work locus of control and Beta is 0.288 for organizational
identification which means that organizational identification positively influences the
relationship of work locus of control and normative commitment.

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECCOMENDATION

5.1 Conclusion
The above study has been conducted to examine the impact of work locus of control on
organizational commitment and its types which are affective, normative and continuous
commitment in the public organization of the Pakistan. For that survey we choose Engro
food, non-government organizations and Compulogic Company. The result of survey
show different perception regarding work locus of control.
It is obvious from the result and discussion that there is a positive relationship between
work locus of control and organizational commitment. One of the main factor that can
enhance organization performance is work locus of control, by providing employees
favorable climate lead the organization to success because it enhance the commitment
of employees toward their organization.
The findings of the survey shows that work locus of control have different impact on
different dimensions of organizational commitment such as affective, normative and
continuous commitment. Workers with a positive affective commitment will not leave the
workplace as they feel like doing it. Workers with strong continuous commitment stay in
workplace as their most important relation to workplace is based on continuous
commitment and because its their requirement. Workers having strong/positive
normative commitment believe that they should stay with the workplace and work locus
of control has high interaction with working criteria.

5.2 Recommendations
According to our research, following are the recommendations that can be given to all
organizations either public or private in order to motivate the employees to do their work
in a better way which will lead to maximize employees outcomes, employees
commitment towards the organization.
These recommendations are:
Managers should provide such climate which in return increases the productivity

of the organization.
Manager should give their employees carrier opportunities and rewards which

can motivate them and they become loyal with the organization.
If the manager treat their subordinates with care, trust and motivate them then
they shows greater level of commitment and innovative behavior.

Managers should give the opportunity to their subordinates to participate in

decision making.
Manager should not be very rigid with their employees he should have to be
supportive and trust worthy which will help them to be more motivated and

committed.
Give incentives and benefits to their employees that will also increase their
motivation and commitment to the organization.

5.3 Limitations
Following are the limitation we have face while doing that research:
i.

The sample size of 100 is small to examine the impact of work locus of control

ii.

and organizational commitment in private organizations.


Limited access to employees of organizations and having limited time for the

iii.

research work.
As the result has been drawn on the basis of the information provided by the

iv.

respondent therefore there are high chances of errors.


Each respondent may have different perception regarding questionnaire that
ways gap of perception may be occurred.

v.

The research is based on selected variables which are mentioned in the


questionnaire any other variable are not taken into the investigation.

REFERENCES
1. Locus of control and well-being at work: how generalizable are western findings?
PAUL E. SPECTOR--University of South Florida Academy of Management
Journal 2002, Vol. 45. No. 2, 453-466.
2. Relationship of Organizational Commitment, Locus of Control, and Readiness to
Change among Nurses By Santi Julita and Wan Rafaei Abdul Rahman
3. WORK LOCUS OF CONTROL AND DISPOSITIONAL OPTIMISM

AS

ANTECEDENTS TO JOB INSECURITY By J BOSMAN , J H BUITENDACH, SA


Journal of Industrial Psychology, 2005, 31 (4), 17-23 ans SA Tydskrif vir
Bedryfsielkunde, 2005, 31 (4), 17-23
4. 8-1-2011 --Influence of Locus of Control and Job Satisfaction on Organizational
Commitment: A Study of Medical Records Personnel in University Teaching
Hospitals in Nigeria By Bruno I. Igbeneghu and S. O. Popoola
5. 2009--Health locus of control, self-efficacy, and multidisciplinary intervention for
chronic back pain By Nicole Hochhausen Keedy --University of Iowa
6. Journal of Applied Psychology 2010, Vol. 95, No. 4, 761768---A Meta-Analytic
Examination of Work and General Locus of Control By Qiang Wang, Nathan A.
Bowling, and Kevin J. Eschleman Wright State University
7. Work locus of control as a mediator of the relationship between sources and
consequences

of

occupational

stress

among

university

teachers

ANA

SLIKOVI, DARJA MASLI SERI and IRENA BURI---Review of


Psychology,2011, Vol. 18, No. 2, 109-118
8. Begley, T. M. & Czajka, J. M. (1993). Panel analysis of the moderating effects of
commitment on job satisfaction, intent to quit, and health following organisational
change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (4), 552-556.
9. Brownell, P. (1981). Participation in budgeting, locus of control and organizational
effectiveness. The Accounting Review, 56, 844 - 860.
10. Chiu, C-K., Lin, C-P., Tsai, Y. H., Hsiao, C-Y. (2005). Modeling turnover intentions
and their antecedents using the locus of control as a moderator: A case of
customer service employees. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16 (4),
481-99.
11. Judge, T. A., Thoreson, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welboume, T. M. (1999). Managerial
coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, 710-720.

12. Iverson, R. D. (1996). Employee acceptance of organizational change: The role


of organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 7 (1), 122-49.
13. Meyer, J. P. & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory,
research, and application. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication, Inc.
14. Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organisations and
occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 75(4), 538-5
15. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control
of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (1), 1-28.51.
16. Spector, P. E. (1988). Development of the work locus of control scale. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 61, 335-340.
17. Yousef, D. (2000). Organizational commitment and job satisfaction as predictors
of attitudes toward organization change in a non-western setting. Personnel
Review, 29, 5-6, 6-25.
18. Sager, J. K. (1990). How to retain salespeople.

Industrial Marketing

Management, 19, 155-66.


19. Albert, Stuart., Blake E. Ashforth., and Janet E. Dutton. (2000). Organizational
identity and identification: charting new waters and building new bridges.
Academy of Management Review 25 (1), 13-17.
20. Albert, Stuart., and David A. Whetten. (1985). Organizational identity. In Larry L.
Cummings., and Barry M. Staw (eds.), Research in organizational behavior. An
annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews, 263-295. Greenwich: JAI
Press.
21. Ashforth, Blake E., and Fred Mael. (1989). Social identity theory and the
organization. Academy of Management Review 14 (1), 20-39.
22. The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Organizational Commitment:
Exploring Multiple Mediation Mechanisms Omer Farooq Marielle Payaud
Dwight Merunka Pierre Valette-Florence Received: 2 November 2012 /
Accepted: 14 October 2013

APPENDIX-I
Questionnaire
A Survey on Employees Work Locus of Control and its relationship with
Organizational Commitment.
Dear Sir/Madam!
I am conducting a research survey on Employees Work Locus of Control and its
relationship with Organizational Commitment In this regard I will be thankful for your
cooperation and participation in this survey.
Part A
Please tick the appropriate checkbox below.
Age
21-30
31-40
above

41-50
51 and

Gender

Highest Level of Education

Male
Female

Bachelors
Masters

Income Level
Below 10,000
31,000-40,000
11,000-20,000
41,000-50,000
21,000-30,000
50,000

MS/M.Phil
PhD

Work Experience

Above

Less than year 6-10


yrs.
1-5 yrs.
10 or
above

Part B
Please circle the appropriate number against each statement, according to the
scale given below.
Scale

Strongly
Disagree
1

Disagree
2

1. A job is what u make of it

Indifferent/Neu
tral
3

Agree
4

Strongly
Agree
5
2

2. On most jobs, people can pretty much accomplish


whatever they set out to accomplish
3. If you know what you want out of a job, you can find a
job that gives it to you.
4. If employees are unhappy with a decision made by their
boss, they should do something about it.

5. Getting the job you want is mostly a matter of luck.

6. Most people are capable of doing their jobs well, if they


put effort in it.

7. Making money is primarily a matter of good fortune.

8. In order to get a really good job, you need to have family


members or friends in high places

9. Promotions are usually a matter of good fortune.

17. What the organization stands for is important for me.

18. I share the values and goals of the organization.

19. My membership of the organization is important for me.

20. I feel strong ties with the organization.

21. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career in


this organization.

22. I really feel as if this organizations problem are my own.

10. To make a lot of money, you need to know the right


people.
11. It takes a lot of luck to be an outstanding employee on
most jobs.
12. People, who perform their jobs well, generally get
rewarded.
13. Most employees have more influence on their
supervisors than they think they do.
14. The main difference between people who make a lot of
money and people who make a little money is luck.
15. My employment in the organization is a big part of who I
am.
16. I consider myself as an organization person.

23. I dont feel like part of the family in my organization

24. I dont feel emotionally attached to this organization.

25. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning


for me.

26. I dont feel strong sense of belongingness to my


organization.
27. It would be very hard for me to leave this organization,
even if I wanted to.
28. Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I
wanted to leave my organization.
29. Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of
necessity as much as desire.

30. I believe, I have too few options to consider leaving this


organization.
31. One of the few negative consequences of leaving this
organization would be the scarcity of available
alternates.
32. One of the major reasons, I continue to work for this
organization is that leaving would require considerable
personal sacrifice: another organization may not match
the overall benefits that I have here.
33. If I had not put already so much of myself into this
organization, I might consider working elsewhere.
34. I dont feel any obligation to remain with my current
employer.
35. Even if it were to my advantage, I dont feel it would be
right to leave my organization now.
36. I would feel guilty if I left my organization now.
37. This organization deserves my loyalty.
38. I would not leave my organization right now because I
have a sense of obligation to the people in it.
39. I owe a great deal to my organization.
Thank you.