FINAL PROJECT OF

QTB

Submitted too:

Prof. Dr. Qasim Ali

NOOR UL HASSAN 061

Findings
4.1 Demographic Profile

This part of study deals with demographic information covered by survey. Descriptive
statistics includes frequency distribution, percentile description, cumulative percentage,
mean, standard deviation and skewness of all demographic variables as gender, age, and
education level, nature of job and length of service shown in following tables.

Table 1
Demographics
Demographic Variables Categories Frequency Percentage

Gender Male 71 58.2

Female 51 41.8
Age Up to 18-25 17 13.9
26-35 52 42.6
36-45 49 40.2
46-55 4 3.3
Qualification Bachelor's 24 19.7
Master's 26 21.3
PhD 28 23
Others 44 36.1
Job experience 1-5 59 48.4
6-10 59 48.4
11-15 4 3.3
Length of Service Up to 1 Year 13 21.1
2-5 Years 11 47.9
5-10 Years 5 19.3
10+ Years 44 11.8

Table 1 signifies the demographic statistics with respect to gender of respondents in terms of
frequency distribution, percentage and cumulative percentage. Table 1 shows that out of 122
respondents, 58.2% (71) were male and 41.8% (51) were female. Female respondents’ rate is
less than male respondents but still there is large number of women in NGOs sector which
indelicate the women participation is increasing in this sector. Results indicates the
distribution of respondents with respect to age. Survey accounted 13.9% (17) respondents
who had their age up to 25 years. Moreover 42.6% (52) respondents were between age group
36 to 45, 40.2% (49) respondents were between age group 46 to 55 and remaining 3.3% (4)
respondents were more than 56 years age. Results signifies that majority of respondents are
between age group of 26 to 45. Findings demonstrates demographic characteristics of survey
participants in terms of their educational level. It is evident from Table 3 that 19.7% (24) of
the respondents possessed the bachelor degree, 21.3% (26) participants hold the master’s
degree whereas only 23% (28) of the respondents got their PhD degree. Analysis further
implies that majority of participants hold master’s degree.

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics of All Variables (N= 122)
Variables Mean S.D Skewness Kurtosis

Job satisfaction 3.98 0.8061 -0.336 0.056

Self-efficacy 3.80 0.9781 -0.402 -0.81

Social norms 3.92 0.6850 -0.599 1.431

Organization 3.85 0.8353 -0.371 -0.13

citizenship behavior
Intention(task performance) 3.99 0.7530 -0,893 1.453

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of the study variables. It shows the mean values,
standard deviations of all under study variables with acceptable range of skewness and
kurtosis. Mean values of job satisfaction, self-efficacy, social norms, organizational
citizenship and intention towards task performance are 3.98, 3.80, 3.92, 3.85,
3.99respectively. Table 2 also demonstrates skewness and kurtosis values which are in
acceptable range. Normality was examined through skewness, kurtosis and histograms
(Munro, 2005). Scores all constructs were normally distributed because the values for
skewness and kurtosis between -2 to +2 are acceptable to prove the normal distribution.
Table 3
Alpha Reliability Coefficients of All Scales (N= 122)
Variables No. of Items Alpha Coefficient

Job satisfaction 7 0.924

Self-efficacy 16 0.948

Social norms 13 0.926

Organizational citizenship behavior 7 0.903

Intention (task performance) 4 0.831

Reliability implies inter-item consistency of scale. Reliability of instruments assessed by

calculating the alpha coefficients and inter-item correlation of under study variables. Table 7
indicates the reliability analysis by using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. Data of this study
yields the coefficient alpha value are 0.924, 0.948, 0.926, 0.903, and 0.831. All are reliable.

Table 4
Self- Job Social Org Intenti
effica satisfacti norms citizen on(tas
cy on ship k
behavi perfor
or mance
)
1 Self-efficacy 1
2 Job satisfaction 0.65** 1
3 Social norms 0.64** 0.72** 1
4 Organizational citizenship behavior 0.61** 0.73** 0.68** 1
5 Intention(task performance) 0.56** 0.57** .0.65 0.69**
**
1
Correlation Matrix

Table 4 signifies the correlation between under study variables. This correlation matrix
identifies that job satisfaction has highly significant positive correlation with leaders’
emotional exhaustion (r=0.65, p<.05). In addition correlation matrix indicates that display of
social norms has significant positive correlation with self-efficacy (r= -0.72, p<.05).
Organization citizenship behavior also has positive significant correlation with self-
efficacy(r=0.61, p<0.05). Organization citizenship behavior also has positive significant
correlation with job satisfaction(r=0.73, p<0.05). Organization citizenship behavior also has
positive significant correlation with social norms(r=0.68, p<0.05). Intention also has positive
correlation with self-efficacy(r=0.56, p<0.05). Intention also has positive correlation with job
satisfaction(r=0.57, p<0.05). Intention also has positive correlation with social norms(r=0.65,
p<0.05). Intention also has positive correlation with self-efficacy(r=0.69, p<0.05).

4.6 Regression Analysis

Regression analysis conducted to examine the hypothesized relationship between

independent and dependent variables (Cohen et al., 1983). To explore the direct effect of all
independent variables on dependent variables, simple linear regression analysis is applied.
This section is divided into three steps. In first step linear regression is applied to support
hypothesis. In second step moderation and mediation analysis conducted by applying Baron
& Kenny method.

Leaders’ Emotional Labor Strategies and Leaders Emotional Exhaustion

Table 5
Dependent variable: organizational citizenship behavior

Variables B SE β t Sig.
Constant 0.529 0.301 1.758 0.81
Self-efficacy 0.152 0.08 0.147 1.791 0.076
Job satisfaction 0.370 0.07 0.434 4.756 0.000
Social norms 0.334 0.11 0.274 3.026 0.003
R2 = 0.592
F = 57.12

Table 5 signifies the regression analysis of organizational citizenship behavior. Results

divulge the beta coefficient, standard error, t-value, significance value, F value and goodness
of fit. Results show that self-efficacy in-significantly and positively influence the
organizational citizenship behavior (β=0.152, p>.05) thus, H1 is not-supported. P value for
beta coefficient of surface acting is 0.007 which is in-significant at 5% level of significance
and this means that beta coefficient value 0.147 is statistical in-significant. Job satisfaction
significantly and positively influence the organizational citizenship behavior (β=0.370,
p<.05) thus, H2 is supported. P value for beta coefficient of surface acting is 0.00 which is
significant at 5% level of significance and this means that beta coefficient value 0.434 is
statistical significant. Social norms significantly and positively influence the organizational
citizenship behavior (β=0.334, p<.05) thus, H3 is supported. P value for beta coefficient of
surface acting is 0.003 which is significant at 5% level of significance and this means that
beta coefficient value 0.274 is statistical significant Table 5 also divulges that 57.12% of
variance has been explained by self-efficacy in organizational citizenship behavior. So
hypothesis 1 is not supported by results which described that there is a positive relationship
between self-efficacy and organizational citizenship behavior. Hypothesis 2,3 and 4 supports
the dependent variable.

Measurement Model Assessment

Table 6
Convergent Validity
Constructs Items Loadings CR AVE
Intension (task performance) IN1 0.873 0.883 0.656
IN2 0.889
IN3 0.706
IN4 0.757
Job satisfaction JS1 0.915 0.959 0.796
JS2 0.924
JS3 0.918
JS4 0.92
JS5 0.904
JS6 0.76
Self-efficacy SE1 0.761 0.951 0.598
SE2 0.764
SE3 0.811
SE4 0.715
SE7 0.748
SE8 0.749
SE9 0.828
SE10 0.748
SE12 0.778
SE13 0.774
SE14 0.819
SE15 0.783
SE16 0.769
Social norms SN2 0.732 0.931 0.601
SN3 0.78
SN4 0.802
SN5 0.821
SN6 0.805
 SM7 0.719
SN10 0.758
SN11 0.79
SN12 0.764
Organizational citizenship behavior OCB1 0.777 0.923 0.633
OCB2 0.758
OCB3 0.732
OCB4 0.727
OCB5 0.873
OCB6 0.863
OCB7 0.826

Table 6 elaborates the factor loadings, composite reliability (CR) and average variance
extracted (AVE) that were used to check the convergent validity of the constructs. The
validity of the constructs is said to be convergent when items load highly (>0.50) on their
constructs (Hair et al., 2011), and the result reveals that the values of the factor loadings were
greater than 0.50. The convergent validity of the constructs was measured by using the
average variance extracted and the composite reliability. The values of the AVE for all of the
constructs were above 0.50, and the composite reliability was greater than 0.8, indicating that
the convergent validity of the entire construct had been established.

Table 7
Discriminant Validity (HTMT Ratio)
IN JS OCB SE SN
IN  
JS 0.622  
OCB 0.776 0.789  
SE 0.635 0.622 0.647  
SN 0.772 0.708 0727 0.68  

Table 7 shows the HTMT ratio, which is an effective approach to access discriminant
validity. Kline (2011) defined that the HTMT ratio should be less than 0.85 to ensure the
discriminant validity and according to this criterion, all of the ratio values were greater than a
minimum threshold that was the evidence of the discriminant validity.
Table 4
Path Analysis
Relationships Std. beta Std. t-Value R2 Decision
Error
H1 BDA, MC -> IGPD 0.141 0.061 2.320 0.329 Supported

H2 BDA, TC -> IGPD 0.441 0.058 7.572 Supported

 H3 BDA, Tech. C -> IGPD 0.119 0.044 2.691 Supported

H4 BDA, MC -> SCRM 0.003 0.056 0.051 0.384 Not Supported

H5 BDA, TC -> SCRM 0.521 0.063 8.329 Supported

H6 BDA, Tech. C -> SCRM 0.261 0.043 6.055 Supported

Table 5
Indirect Effects
Relationships Std. beta Std. t-Value Decision
Error
H8 BDA, MC -> IGPD -> ILP 0.078 0.035 2.244 Supported
H9 BDA, TC -> IGPD -> ILP 0.243 0.035 6.884 Supported

H10 BDA, Tech. C -> IGPD -> ILP 0.065 0.025 2.64 Supported

H12 BDA, MC -> SCRM -> ILP 0.001 0.018 0.051 Not Supported

H13 BDA, TC -> SCRM -> ILP 0.165 0.032 5.112 Supported

H14 BDA, Tech. C -> SCRM -> ILP 0.082 0.017 4.899 Supported

H16 IGPD -> ILP -> SSCP 0.358 0.031 11.664 Supported

H17 SCRM -> ILP -> SSCP 0.205 0.033 6.257 Supported

To understand the main relationship effects within the constructs, the SEM PLS structural
model analysis was conducted. The study used a bootstrapping procedure to assess the
significance of the path coefficients. The results identified that surface acting was negatively
and significantly related to followers’ emotional engagement (β = 0.227, Leaders’ emotional
labour strategies t = 5.47) and supported H1a. Moreover, there was a positive relationship
between deep acting and emotional engagement (β = 0.115, t = 2.66) and supported H1b.
Additionally, the findings also divulged that surface acting was negatively and significantly
related to perceived transformational leadership (β = 0.266, t = 5.07) and supported H2a.
Meanwhile, there was no significant relationship between deep acting and perceived
transformational leadership (β = 0.09, t = 1.38) and did not support H2b. Similarly, the results
purported a significant relationship between perceived transformational leadership and
emotional engagement (β = 0.526, t = 10.04).
Figure 1: Measurement Model Assessment

Figure 2: Structural Model Assessment