Data Analysis

CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
Profile of the Research Participants

A total of 507 faculty members and administrators were invited to participate in
this
study. Of those invited, 249 responded to this invitation or an equivalent of
49.11% of the
proposed population.
Table 3. Profile of Respondents by Sexual Orientation, Employment Status, Academic

Rank, Length of Service, Designation and Collegial Affiliation
VARIABLE
Sex
Employment status
Academic rank
Length of service
CATEGORY
Female
Male
Total
Fulltime permanent
Fulltime probationary
Part-time
Total
Lecturer
Professional lecturer
Instructor
Assistant professor
Associate professor
Full professor
Total
Did not indicate
0 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
16 to 20 years
21 to 25 years
26 to 30 years
31 years and over
Total
Did not indicate
N
146
103
249
130
31
88
247
23
39
27
90
13
19
211
38
93
49
37
24
16
3
3
225
22
%
58.6
41.4
100.0
52.2
12.4
35.3
100.0
10.9
18.5
12.8
42.7
6.2
9.0
100.0
41.3
21.8
16.4
10.7
7.1
1.3
1.3
100.0
Designation
Faculty
Department/Level chair
Dean
Others
Total
Did not indicate
213
20
4
2
239
10
89.1
8.4
1.7
0.8
100.0
College
CAS
CBA
EDUC
ENG'G
NURSING
Total
Did not indicate
108
62
5
30
42
247
2
43.7
25.1
2.0
12.1
17.0
100.0
Although the study initially intended to conduct a total enumeration in view of it

being a
pioneering study, some constraints were encountered which led to a retrieval rate
of less than
50% in spite of repeated follow ups using the required protocol for surveys. This
was, however,
still beyond the required sample size of 224 using Slovin’s formula at 5% margin of
error.
Profile of Participants According to Sexual

Orientation
Female
Male
41%
59%
Figure 3. Profile of Participants according to Sexual Orientation
33 | P a g e
The findings of the study indicated that 146 (59%) of the research participants
were
female. More than half (52%) of these faculty members were on fulltime permanent
status, 35%
were part-timers while 13% or 31 of them were on fulltime probationary status.
Profile of Participants according to

Employment Status
Part-time
35%
Fulltime
permanent
52%
Fulltime
probationary
13%
Figure 4. Profile of Participants According to Employment Status

In terms of academic rank, the research participants had varied qualifications
ranging
from a bachelor’s degree (for Lecturers and Instructors) to a doctoral degree (for
Full Professors
and some Professional Lecturers). More than half of the combined fulltime faculty
members
(both probationary and permanent) had an academic rank of Assistant Professor (43%)
or
Associate Professor (6%) indicating that they have earned their master’s degree and
a similar
observation can be made of the part-timers with 39 of them occupying a rank of
Professional
Lecturer, a rank that could only be earned after they have completed either their
master’s or
doctoral degrees. However, a number of the research participants were still in the
process of
earning or completing their master’s degree such as in the case of the Lecturers
(11%) and the
Instructors (13%). In addition, a total of 38 research participants were not able
to indicate their
academic rank, hence their responses were not captured in the summary of analysis.
34 | P a g e
Profile of Participants according to
Academic Rank
6%
9%
11%
Lecturer
18%
Instructor
43%
13%
Assistant professor
Associate professor
Full professor
Figure 5. Profile of Participants according to Academic Rank
With the exception of 22 research participants who were not able to indicate their
responses, the length of service of these research participants was estimated to
range from a low
of 0-5 years to a high of more than 31 years. As can be observed from Figure 6,
more than half
(41% for 0-5 years and 22% for 6-10 years) of the faculty members had only been
with the
institution for a maximum of ten years indicating a relatively young faculty corps
with only a
small percentage (3%) of these faculty members serving the institution for more
than 25 years.
35 | P a g e
Profile of Participants according to Length of
Service
1% 1%
11%
0 to 5 years
7%
41%
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
17%
16 to 20 years
22%
21 to 25 years
26 to 30 years
31 years and over
Figure 6. Profile of Participants according to Length of Service
Discounting the 10 research participants who did not indicate their designation, it
can be
seen from Table 4 that approximately 10% of the research participants held
positions such as
Department/Level Chairs (8.4%), Deans (1.7%) and other designations (0.8%). Faculty
members from the five colleges of the institution participated in the study with
43.7% of them
coming from the College of Arts and Sciences which served the general education
needs of the
other colleges, followed by the College of Business and Accountancy (25.1%) which
was the
biggest college in terms of student population, the College of Nursing composing
17.0% of the
research participants, the College of Engineering comprising 12.1% of the
respondents and the
College of Education (2.0%) which had the fewest number of students and faculty
members.
36 | P a g e
Table 4. Profile of Participants according to Designation and Collegial Affiliation
DESIGNATION
COUNT
PERCENT
213
20
4
2
239
10
89.1
8.4
1.7
0.8
100
COUNT
PERCENT
108
62
5
30
42
247
2
43.7
25.1
2
12.1
17
100
Faculty
Dean
Others
Total
Did not indicate
COLLEGIAL AFFILIATION
CAS
CBA
EDUC
ENG'G
NURSING
Total
Did not indicate
Primary Predictors Influencing the Commitment of Faculty and Administrators
In classifying and interpreting the results of the study, the following scale of
interpretation was used inasmuch as the responses were considered as integers
instead of
continuous numbers:
Table 5. Scale of Interpretation of the Mean Rating
SCALE OF INTERPRETATION OF THE MEAN

RATING
1.00 to 1.49
1.50 to 2.49
2.50 to 3.49
3.50 to 4.49
4.50 to 5.49
5.50 to 6.49
6.50 to 7.00
STRONGLY DISAGREE
DISAGREE
WEAKLY DISAGREE
NEUTRAL
WEAKLY AGREE
AGREE
STRONGLY AGREE
37 | P a g e
There are thirteen (13) proposed predictors of organizational commitment, namely:
1)
economic factors, 2) job satisfaction, 3) participation in meetings, 4) intent to
stay, 5) perceived
influence on institutional policies, 6) perceived governance, 7) working
conditions, 8) job
embeddedness, 9) professional development, 10) professional commitment, 11)
credentials, 12)
induction and 13) institutional reputation.
Table 6. Summary of the Mean Scores of the Predictors of Organizational Commitment
INDEX
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
PREDICTORS
Economic
Job Satisfaction
Participation in Meetings
Intent to Stay
Perceived Influence on Institutional
Policies
Perceived Governance
Working Conditions
Job Embeddedness
Professional Development
Professional Commitment
Credentials
Induction
Institutional Reputation
MEAN SCORE
SD
INTERPRETATION
5.74
5.24
5.73
5.32
0.983
Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
4.97
1.16
Weakly Agree
5.40
5.71
5.67
4.95
6.3
6.24
5.62
5.90
1.09
Weakly Agree
Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
0.884
0.85
1.36
0.82
1.02
1.09
0.81
Of these predictors, the lowest mean rating was in the area of professional
development
with a mean rating of 4.95 while the highest mean rating was registered in the area
of
professional commitment with a mean score of 6.30. Additionally, the research
participants
indicated that they weakly agreed with 5 of the 13 predictors of organizational
commitment,
namely: 1) job satisfaction (5.24), 2) intent to stay (5.32), 3) perceived
influence on institutional
policies (4.97), 4) perceived governance (5.40) and professional development
(4.95). On the
other hand, they signified that they agreed with the remaining predictors of
organizational
commitment, which includes: 1) economic factors (5.74), 2) participation in
meetings (5.73), 3)
38 | P a g e
working conditions (5.71), 4) job embeddedness (5.67), 5) professional commitment
(6.30), 6)
credentials (6.24), 7) induction (5.62) and institutional reputation (5.90).
The results imply that on the whole, all thirteen (13) predictors were found to be
important and relevant predictors of organizational commitment. However, 8 of these
predictors
showed more weight in terms of influencing organizational commitment as
demonstrated by the
statements and the mean ratings given by the research participants. In fact, based
on the mean
ratings provided by the research participants, the following could be considered as
their top five
predictors of organizational commitment: 1) professional commitment, 2)
credentials, 3)
institutional reputation, 4) economic factors and 5) participation in meetings.
Principal Predictors Influencing the Commitment according to Specific Groupings

According to Sexual Orientation. Generally, the male faculty members had higher
mean
ratings for all the predictors of organizational commitment relative to the female
faculty
members. Based on this attribute, the mean scores ranged from a low of 4.72 (weakly
agree for
perceived influence on institutional policies) to a high of 6.38 (agree for
professional
commitment). For the male faculty members, the five principal predictors included:
1)
professional commitment (6.38), 2) credentials (6.25), 3) induction/institutional
reputation
(6.02), 4) working conditions (5.92) and economic factors (5.88). Four of these
five predictors
were also reflected in the principal predictors of their counterparts; however,
there was a slight
variation in the ranking. The female faculty members highlighted 1) credentials
(6.23), 2)
professional commitment (6.20), 3) institutional reputation (5.70), 4)
participation in meetings
(5.62) and 5) working conditions (5.56) as their principal predictors as summarized
in Table 7.
39 | P a g e
Table 7. Mean Scores of the Predictors of Organizational Commitment according to
Sexual Orientation
PREDICTORS
SEX
MEAN INTERPRETATION P-VALUE SIGNIFICANCE
Male
5.88
Agree
Female
5.54
Agree
Male
5.39
Weakly Agree
Female
5.14
Weakly Agree
Male
5.81
Agree
Female
5.62
Agree
Male
5.33
Weakly Agree
Female
5.31
Weakly Agree
Male
5.14
Weakly Agree
Female
4.72
Weakly Agree
Male
5.55
Agree
Female
5.18
Weakly Agree
Male
5.92
Agree
Female
5.56
Agree
Male
5.81
Agree
Female
5.47
Weakly Agree
Professional
development
Male
5.19
Weakly Agree
Female
4.62
Weakly Agree
Professional
commitment
Male
6.38
Agree
Female
6.20
Agree
Male
6.25
Agree
Female
6.23
Agree
Male
6.02
Agree
Female
5.39
Weakly Agree
Male
6.02
Agree
Female
5.70
Agree
Economic
Job Satisfaction
Participation in
meetings
Intent to stay
Perceived influence on
institutional policies
Perceived governance
Working conditions
Job embeddedness
Credentials
Induction
Institutional reputation
0.01
Highly significant
0.014
Significant
0.112
Not significant
0.923
Not significant
0.005
Highly significant
0.01
Highly significant
0.002
Highly significant
0.003
Highly significant
0.001
Highly significant
0.1
Not significant
0.852
Not significant
0.008
Highly significant
0.004
Highly significant
40 | P a g e
It can be further be gleaned from Table 5 that when the mean ratings were grouped
according to this attribute, the differences were highly significant in 8 areas,
namely: 1)
economic factors (at p=0.01), 2) perceived influence on institutional policies (at
p=0.005), 3)
perceived governance (at p=0.01), 4) working conditions (at p=0.002), 5) job
embeddedness (at
p=0.003), 6) professional development (at p=0.001), 7) induction (at p=0.008) and
8)
institutional reputation (at p=0.004). There was a significant difference in the
mean rating in the
area of job satisfaction (at p=0.014) while no significant difference in the
ratings of this group
could be established in the areas of: (1) participation in meetings, (2) intent to
stay, (3)
professional commitment and (4) credentials.
The result of this study corroborated the findings of the study conducted by
Marsden,
Kalleberg & Cook (1993). The Work Organizations Module of the General Social Survey
revealed a small but significant tendency for employed men to display higher
organizational
commitment than employed women do. They found that the primary explanation for the
gender
difference was that men are more likely than women to hold jobs with commitment-
enhancing
features.
On the other hand, in a study conducted by Bogler (2004) and Somech (2004), gender
showed no significant difference (p>0.05) between teacher empowerment and
organizational
commitment. While in some studies, the relationship of gender and organizational
commitment
showed different results (Arbor & Kesken, 2005; Aven, Parker and McEnvoy, 1993;
Simsek,
2002 in Aydin, Sarier and Uysal, 2011). Hence, there was no conclusive evidence
that a specific
gender influences organizational commitment.
According to Employment Status. Table 6 shows that insofar as employment status was
concerned, the fulltime probationary faculty members had the highest mean ratings
in 8 of the 13
41 | P a g e
predictors, namely: 1) economic factors, 2) participation in meetings, 3) perceived
influence on
institutional policies, 4) perceived governance, 5) working conditions, 6) job
embeddedness, 7)
credentials and 8) induction. The highest ratings for (1) job satisfaction, (2)
intent to stay, (3)
professional commitment and (4) institutional reputation could be attributed to the
part-timers
while the highest rating in the area of professional development was given by the
fulltime
permanent faculty members. The means scores based on this attribute were lowest at
4.54
(weakly agree for professional development) and highest at 6.34 (agree for
professional
commitment).

Employment Status
PREDICTORS
Economic
Job satisfaction
Participation in
meetings
Intent to stay
Perceived influence
on institutional
policies
EMPLOYMENT
STATUS
MEAN INTERPRETATION P-VALUE SIGNIFICANCE
Full-time permanent
5.64
Agree
Full-time probationary
5.99
Agree
Part-time
5.81
Agree
Full-time permanent
5.07
Weakly Agree
5.54
Agree
Part-time
5.52
Agree
Full-time permanent
5.7
Agree
6.18
Agree
Part-time
5.62
Agree
Full-time permanent
5.32
Weakly Agree
5.19
Weakly Agree
Part-time
5.39
Weakly Agree
Full-time permanent
4.74
Weakly Agree
5.41
Weakly Agree
Part-time
5.15
Weakly Agree
Full-time permanent
5.22
Weakly Agree
5.71
Agree
0.146
Not significant
0.001
Highly
significant
0.008
Highly
significant
0.771
Not significant
0.004
Highly
significant
0.025
Significant
42 | P a g e
Working conditions
Job embeddedness
Professional
development
Professional
commitment
Credentials
Induction
Institutional
Reputation
Part-time
5.54
Agree
Full-time permanent
5.65
Agree
5.93
Agree
Part-time
5.9
Agree
Full-time permanent
5.52
Agree
5.98
Agree
Part-time
5.79
Agree
Full-time permanent
5.21
Weakly Agree
5.00
Weakly Agree
Part-time
4.54
Weakly Agree
Full-time permanent
6.28
Agree
6.30
Agree
Part-time
6.34
Agree
Full-time permanent
6.27
Agree
6.32
Agree
Part-time
6.19
Agree
Full-time permanent
5.54
Agree
5.79
Agree
Part-time
5.68
Agree
Full-time permanent
5.76
Agree
6.02
Agree
Part-time
6.03
Agree
0.063
Not significant
0.007
Highly
significant
0.001
Highly
significant
0.847
Not significant
0.787
Not significant
0.473
Not significant
0.034
Significant
The five principal predictors for the fulltime permanent faculty included: 1)
professional
commitment (6.28), 2) credentials (6.27), 3) institutional reputation (5.76), 4)
participation in
meetings (5.70) and 5) working conditions (5.65). Four of these five predictors
could also be
found in the priority list of the fulltime probationary faculty, although there was
a slight
difference in the ranking. For this group of research participants, the relevant
predictors
included: 1) credentials (6.32), 2) professional commitment (6.30), 3)
participation in meetings
(6.18), 4) institutional reputation (6.02) and (5) economic factors (5.99). The top
three
43 | P a g e
responses of the part-timers mirrored the choices made by the fulltime permanent
faculty, with
the remaining predictors being shared responses by both the fulltime permanent and
probationary
faculty members, respectively. The part-time faculty members considered the
following
predictors as important: 1) professional commitment (6.34), 2) credentials (6.19),
3) institutional
reputation (6.03), 4) working conditions (5.90) and economic factors (5.81).
An analysis of the differences in the mean ratings in this group shows that the
differences
were highly significant in 5 areas, namely: 1) job satisfaction (at p=0.001), 2)
participation in
meetings (at p=0.008), 3) perceived influence on institutional policies (at
p=0.004), 4) job
embeddedness (at p=0.007) and 5) professional development (at p=0.001). The mean
ratings
were significantly different in the areas of perceived governance and institutional
reputation but
considered to be insignificant in the aspects of: 1) economic factors, 2) intent to
stay, 3) working
conditions, 4) professional commitment, 5) credentials and 6) induction.
While this study shows highly significant differences in five areas, a related
study on
perceived organizational support and work status, (Gakovic & Tetrick, 2003)
reported that there
were no significant differences between the 2 groups (parttime and fulltime) in
terms of social
exchange relationships, the levels of their organization’s relational and
transactional obligations
to them and the level of continuance commitment, findings contrary to the result of
this one.
Furthermore, decision making, self-efficiency and status were more significant
predictors of
organizational citizenship behavior, which partly corroborates the result of this
study.
According to Academic Rank. When the research participants were grouped according
to their academic rank, the group of Lecturers and Full Professors topped the mean
ratings in 5
areas each as shown in Table 9. The mean scores for the predictors based on this
attribute
ranged from 4.36 (neutral for perceived influence on institutional policies) to
6.66 (strongly
44 | P a g e
agree for professional commitment). The highest mean scores in the areas of 1)
economic
factors, 2) job satisfaction, 3) perceived influence on institutional policies, 4)
perceived
governance and 5) working conditions came from the group of Instructors. Whereas
the top
ratings in the aspects of: 1) participation in meetings, 2) professional
development, 3)
professional commitment, 4) credentials, and 5) induction were given by the group
of Full
Professors.

Academic Rank
PREDICTORS
Economic
Job
satisfaction
Participation in
meetings
Intent to stay
ACADEMIC RANK
MEAN
INTERPRETATION
Did not indicate

Lecturer
Professional
lecturer
Instructor
Assistant professor
Associate professor
Full professor
Did not indicate
Lecturer
Professional
lecturer
Instructor
Assistant professor
Associate professor
Full professor
Did not indicate
Lecturer
Professional
lecturer
Instructor
Assistant professor
Associate professor
Full professor
Did not indicate
Lecturer
5.62
5.9
Agree
Agree
5.74
Agree
6.16
5.59
5.78
5.89
5.3
5.48
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
5.49
Weakly Agree
5.56
5.11
5.17
5.15
5.87
5.81
Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Agree
5.39
Weakly Agree
5.91
5.69
5.75
5.96
5.24
5.65
Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
P-VALUE
SIGNIFICANCE
0.193
Not significant
0.042
Significant
0.159
Not significant
0.044
Significant
45 | P a g e
Professional
lecturer
Instructor
Assistant professor
Associate professor
Full professor
Did not indicate
Lecturer
Professional
Perceived
lecturer
influence on
Instructor
institutional
policies
Assistant professor
Associate professor
Full professor
Did not indicate
Lecturer
Professional
lecturer
Perceived
Instructor
governance
Assistant professor
Associate professor
Full professor
Did not indicate
Lecturer
Professional
lecturer
Working
Instructor
conditions
Assistant professor
Associate professor
Full professor
Did not indicate
Lecturer
Professional
lecturer
Job
embeddedness Instructor
Assistant professor
Associate professor
Full professor
Did not indicate
Lecturer
Professional
Professional
development
lecturer
Instructor
5.29
Weakly Agree
4.56
5.43
5.73
5.5
5.01
5.22
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
5.22
Weakly Agree
5.33
4.79
4.36
4.82
5.22
5.54
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Neutral
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
5.53
Agree
5.84
5.31
4.97
5.33
5.77
5.87
Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Agree
5.78
Agree
6.23
5.66
5.71
5.55
5.69
6
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
5.72
Agree
5.87
5.57
5.07
5.74
4.64
4.54
Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
4.8
Weakly Agree
4.82
Weakly Agree
0.071
Not significant
0.167
Not significant
0.109
Not significant
0.044
Significant
0.046
Significant
46 | P a g e
Professional
commitment
Credentials
Induction
Institutional
reputation
Assistant professor
Associate professor
Full professor
Did not indicate
Lecturer
Professional
lecturer
Instructor
Assistant professor
Associate professor
Full professor
Did not indicate
Lecturer
Professional
lecturer
Instructor
Assistant professor
Associate professor
Full professor
Did not indicate
Lecturer
Professional
lecturer
Instructor
Assistant professor
Associate professor
Full professor
Did not indicate
Lecturer
Professional
lecturer
Instructor
Assistant professor
Associate professor
Full professor
5.08
5.22
5.75
6.13
6.37
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
6.31
Agree
6.04
6.36
6.31
6.66
6.06
6.16
Agree
Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Agree
5.91
Agree
6.33
6.46
6.17
6.35
5.29
5.79
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
5.77
Agree
5.95
5.54
5.14
5.96
6
6.06
Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
5.9
Agree
6.05
5.73
5.7
6.05
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
0.199
Not significant
0.123
Not significant
0.076
Not significant
0.249
Not significant
The group of Lecturers indicated their principal predictors to include the

following: 1)
professional commitment (6.37), 2) credentials (6.16), 3) institutional reputation
(6.06), 4) job
embeddedness (6.00), and 5) economic factors (5.90). The Professional Lecturers
reiterated the
47 | P a g e
significance of these predictors when they reflected four of these in their list,
namely: 1)
professional commitment (6.31), 2) credentials (5.91), 3) institutional reputation
(5.90), 4)
working conditions (5.78) and 5) job embeddedness (5.72). Instructors, on the other
hand, found
the following predictors to be important: 1) credentials (6.33), 2) working
conditions (6.23), 3)
economic factors (6.16), 4) institutional reputation (6.05) and professional
commitment (6.04).
The Assistant Professors also shared four of the responses of the Instructors. To
them, the
relevant predictors comprised of: 1) credentials (6.46), 2) professional commitment
(6.36), 3)
institutional reputation (5.73), 4) participation in meetings (5.69) and 5) working
conditions
(5.66). Associate Professors found (1) professional commitment (6.31) at the top of
their list as
did the Lecturers and Professional Lecturers. This was followed closely by: 2)
credentials
(6.17), 3) economic factors (5.78), 4) participation in meetings (5.75) and 5)
intent to stay (5.73)
which was the only time that this predictor figured in the list based on this
attribute. Just like the
Associate Professors, Full Professors also found (1) professional commitment (6.66)
as their
principal predictor. Additionally, their list also contained: 2) credentials
(6.35), 3) institutional
reputation (6.05), 4) induction (5.96) which also came out only for the first time
in this listing
and 5) economic factors (5.89). Apparently, professional commitment and credentials
always
figured in the top 5 predictors in this group.
Kiyak and others (1997) mentioned that those who occupy higher status positions,
which
providedmore opportunities for involvement in decision making, report higher job
satisfaction
and greater commitment. Rank has previously been found to be significantly related
to
organizational commitment. Associate professors exhibited the lowest organizational
commitment while assistant and full professors exhibited equal and higher levels of
commitment
(Harschbarger, 1989 and Finaly-Neumann, 1990). While the results of these
researches cited
48 | P a g e
that rank and organizational commitment were directly related, another research on
predictors of
organizational commitment contented that more educated employees showed lower
levels of
commitment, most likely because they have higher expectations or greater job
opportunities,
which somehow appears to be contrary to the findings of the study. (Gran et al,
1991; Kacmar,
Carlson & Brymen, 1999; Kiyak et al, 1997; Price and Mueller, 1981 in Simmons,
2005)
Table 9 also reveals that based on this grouping, the differences in the mean
scores were
significant in 4 of the 13 predictors and were not significant for the rest of
these predictors. The
four predictors were: 1) job satisfaction (at p=0.042), 2) intent to stay (at
p=0.044), 3) job
embeddedness (at p=0.044) and professional development (at p=0.046).
According to Length of Service. In terms of length of service, the mean scores

ranged
from a low of 4.05 (neutral for perceived influence on institutional policies) to a
high of 6.69
(strongly agree for professional commitment). Faculty members who served the
institution for
more than 30 years topped the mean scores in 9 of the 13 predictors, namely: 1)
economic
factors, 2) participation in meetings, 3) perceived influence on institutional
policies, 4) perceived
governance, 5) working conditions, 6) job embeddedness, 7) professional
development, 8)
induction and 9) institutional reputation. The mean score for job satisfaction was
topped by the
faculty members who served the institution for five years or less, the highest mean
score for
intent to stay went to those who served the institution for 26-30 years, those who
served the
institution for 21-25 years figured highest in the area of professional commitment
and credentials
was highly rated by those served the institution for 11-15 years.
49 | P a g e
Length of Service
PREDICTORS
Economic
Job
satisfaction
Participation in
meetings
Intent to stay
Perceived
influence on
institutional
policies
LENGTH OF
SERVICE
Did not indicate
0 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
16 to 20 years
21 to 25 years
26 to 30 years
31 years and over
Did not indicate
0 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
16 to 20 years
21 to 25 years
26 to 30 years
31 years and over
Did not indicate
0 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
16 to 20 years
21 to 25 years
26 to 30 years
31 years and over
Did not indicate
0 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
16 to 20 years
21 to 25 years
26 to 30 years
31 years and over
Did not indicate
0 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
16 to 20 years
MEAN
INTERPRETATION
5.8
5.89
5.73
5.46
5.52
5.69
5.21
6.34
5.6
5.48
5.13
5.12
4.89
5.2
5.21
5.33
5.93
5.75
5.72
5.72
5.45
5.73
5.33
6.48
5.64
5.08
5.06
5.71
5.72
5.32
6.22
5.68
5.06
5.18
4.91
4.66
4.55
Agree
Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
P-VALUE
SIGNIFICANCE
0.243
Not significant
0.007
Highly significant
0.43
Not significant
0.065
Not significant
0.05
Significant
50 | P a g e
21 to 25 years
26 to 30 years
31 years and over
Did not indicate
0 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
Perceived
governance
16 to 20 years
21 to 25 years
26 to 30 years
31 years and over
Did not indicate
0 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
Working
conditions
16 to 20 years
21 to 25 years
26 to 30 years
31 years and over
Did not indicate
0 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
Job
embeddedness 16 to 20 years
21 to 25 years
26 to 30 years
31 years and over
Did not indicate
0 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
Professional
development 16 to 20 years
21 to 25 years
26 to 30 years
31 years and over
Did not indicate
0 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
Professional
commitment 11 to 15 years
16 to 20 years
21 to 25 years
5.07
4.05
5.83
5.06
5.68
5.33
5.24
5.15
5.18
4.33
5.96
5.95
5.95
5.67
5.5
5.67
5.53
5.41
6.13
5.83
5.84
5.57
5.39
5.49
5.73
4.87
6.17
4.76
4.66
5.03
4.99
5.22
5.86
4.67
5.91
6.31
6.25
6.14
6.31
6.54
6.69
Weakly Agree
Neutral
Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Neutral
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
0.031
Significant
0.096
Not significant
0.042
Significant
0.027
Significant
0.294
Not significant
51 | P a g e
Credentials
Induction
Institutional
reputation
26 to 30 years
31 years and over
Did not indicate
0 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
16 to 20 years
21 to 25 years
26 to 30 years
31 years and over
Did not indicate
0 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
16 to 20 years
21 to 25 years
26 to 30 years
31 years and over
Did not indicate
0 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
16 to 20 years
21 to 25 years
26 to 30 years
31 years and over
6
6.5
6.13
6.21
6.03
6.59
6.26
6.48
6.06
6.17
5.61
5.72
5.54
5.42
5.54
5.7
5.5
6.67
6.09
6.02
5.87
5.7
5.67
5.84
4.64
6.07
Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Weakly agree
Agree
0.356
Not significant
0.665
Not significant
0.027
Significant
For faculty members who served the institution for 0-5 years, their principal
predictors
included: 1) professional commitment (6.25), 2) credentials (6.21), 3)
institutional reputation
(6.02), 4) working conditions (5.95) and economic factors (5.89). Those who spent
6-10 years
with the University reflected the top three choices of the earlier group, namely:
1) professional
commitment (6.14), 2) credentials (6.03), 3) institutional reputation (5.87)
followed by 4)
economic factors (5.73) and 5) participation in meetings (5.72). At 11-15 years of
service, the
relevant predictors composed of: 1) credentials (6.59), 2) professional commitment
(6.31), 3)
participation in meetings (5.72), 4) intent to stay (5.71) and institutional
reputation (5.70). For
52 | P a g e
those who have served the institution for 16-20 years, their top 2 choices were
similar to those
who have been with the University for 10 years or less, namely: 1) professional
commitment
(6.54), 2) credentials (6.26) followed by 3) intent to stay (5.72), 4)
institutional reputation (5.67)
and induction (5.54). At 21-25 years, faculty members also saw 1) professional
commitment
(6.69) and 2) credentials (6.48) were highly relevant in addition to 3)
professional development
(5.86) which was the only time it figured in the list for this group, 4)
institutional reputation
(5.84) and participation in meetings (5.73). At 26-30 years, 1) intent to stay
(6.22) became the
primary consideration, which was kind of different compared to the previous
responses, followed
by 2) credentials (6.06), 3) professional commitment (6.00), 4) induction (5.50)
and 5)
participation in meetings (5.33). For the few who have been with the institution
for more than 30
years, 1) induction (6.67), which was also a relatively different topmost choice,
was of utmost
consideration in addition to 2) professional commitment (6.50), 3) participation in
meetings
(6.48), 4) economic factors (6.34) and job embeddedness (6.17). Consistently
reflected in the top
five choices for this group were professional commitment and credentials.
Accordingly, older employees and employees with longer organizational tenure,
tended
to be more committed than younger individuals or those with a shorter
organizational tenure.
(Gran et. Al, 1991; Kacmar, Carson & Bryman, 19991; Kiyak et. Al, 1997; Price and
Mueller,
1981 in Simmons, 2005). Senior faculty members were more committed than either
early career
or mid-career stage faculty (Fjortoft, 1993). Fjortof’s (1993) finding was affirmed
by Salami
(2008) by retorting that older workers were more committed to the organization than
the younger
workers. Also married workers and workers with higher educational goals were more
committed
to the organization. Workers who had higher job tenure had more commitment than
newlyemployed workers. These findings were partly corroborated by the results of
the study.
53 | P a g e
Table 10 shows further that an analysis of the differences in the means scores in
this
group indicated that it was highly significant in terms of job satisfaction (at
p=0.007), significant
in terms of 1) perceived influence on institutional policies (at p=0.050), 2)
perceived governance
(at p=0.031), 3) job embeddedness (at p=0.042), 4) professional development (at
p=0.027) and
institutional reputation (at p=0.027) while insignificant for the seven of the
predictors, namely:
1) economic factors, 2) participation in meetings, 3) intent to stay, 4) working
conditions, 5)
professional commitment, 6) credentials and 7) induction.
In a research on collegiality in education (Sing and Manser, 2002), the respondents
stressed that participation of teachers in the decision-making process created a
sense of
ownership that in turn enhanced the prospects of successful implementation of
policies.
Members of the organization who wished to be active players in the organization
have an impact
on what is going on with it. They felt that they have status within it and are
ready to contribute
beyond what is expected of them. (Yosef, 2000 in Bogler and Somech, 2004). In this
case,
when leaders are perceived as participative, employees feel more committed to the
organization,
express higher levels of job satisfaction and their performance is high. (Bogler
and Somech,
2004). Researches shows that greater participation in decision making is strongly
associated
with higher levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Laschiger, et
al, 2000) as
has been highlighted in the findings of this study.
According to Designation. Insofar as designation is concerned, the Deans topped the

means scores in 10 of the 13 areas, namely: 1) economic factors, 2) job
satisfaction, 3)
participation in meetings, 4) perceived influence on institutional policies, 5)
perceived
governance, 6) working conditions, 7) job embeddedness, 8) professional commitment,
9)
induction and 10) institutional reputation. The top scores in the three remaining
areas went to
54 | P a g e
the Department/Level Chairs. The mean scores ranged from a low of 4.63 (weakly
agree for
intent to stay) and a high of 6.75 (strongly agree for professional commitment).

Designation
PREDICTORS
Economic
Job
satisfaction
DESIGNATION
MEAN
INTERPRETATION
Faculty
Department/Level
chair
5.74
Agree
5.73
Agree
Dean
6.15
Agree
Faculty
5.29
Weakly Agree
5.19
Weakly Agree
5.46
Weakly Agree
5.68
Agree
Agree
Dean
6.35
Agree
Faculty
5.31
Weakly Agree
Department/Level
chair
5.84
Agree
Dean
4.63
Weakly Agree
Faculty
4.92
Weakly Agree
Department/Level
chair
5.19
Weakly Agree
Dean
5.43
Weakly Agree
Faculty
5.38
Weakly Agree
Department/Level
chair
5.32
Weakly Agree
Dean
5.7
Weakly Agree
Faculty
5.78
Agree
Department/Level
chair
5.74
Agree
Dean
5.94
Agree
5.67
Agree
5.65
Agree
Department/Level
chair
Dean
Faculty
Participation in
meetings
Intent to stay
Perceived
influence on
institutional
policies
Perceived
governance
Working
conditions
Department/Level
chair
Faculty
Job
embeddedness Department/Level
chair
P-VALUE
SIGNIFICANCE
0.709
Not significant
0.778
Not significant
0.107
Not significant
0.113
Not significant
0.447
Not significant
0.818
Not significant
0.915
Not significant
0.961
Not significant
55 | P a g e
Professional
development
Professional
commitment
Credentials
Induction
Institutional
reputation
Dean
5.78
Agree
Faculty
Department/Level
chair
4.89
Weakly Agree
5.1
Weakly Agree
Dean
4.98
Weakly Agree
Faculty
6.26
Agree
Department/Level
chair
6.38
Agree
Dean
6.75
Strongly Agree
Faculty
6.21
Agree
Department/Level
chair
6.43
Agree
Dean
6.33
Strongly Agree
Faculty
5.57
Agree
Department/Level
chair
5.86
Agree
Dean
6.19
Agree
Faculty
5.87
Agree
5.8
Agree
6.33
Agree
Department/Level
chair
Dean
0.809
Not significant
0.429
Not significant
0.669
Not significant
0.318
Not significant
0.496
Not significant
For the faculty members, the principal predictors included: 1) professional

commitment
(6.26), 2) institutional reputation (5.87), 3) working conditions (5.78), which
figured only once
in the list of this group, 4) economic factors and 5) participation in meetings
(5.68). For the
Department/Level Chairs, the top predictor was 1) credentials (6.43) followed by 2)
professional
commitment (6.38), 3) participation in meetings (6.00), 4) induction (5.86) and
intent to stay
(5.84) which was the only time this predictor figured in this group’s list. Similar
to the faculty
members, the Deans also valued 1) professional commitment (6.75) as a primary
predictor with
participation in meetings (6.35), credentials (6.33), induction (6.19), and
economic factors (6.15)
in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th place, respectively. This group also had relatively
higher ratings at above
6.00 for their top five predictors. Participation in meetings and professional
commitment always
56 | P a g e
figured in the top five choices in this group. A further look at Table 11 also
confirms that none
of these mean scores were significantly different to each other in this group for
all 13 predictors.
According to Collegial Affiliation. Finally, in terms of college affiliation, the

mean
scores registered lowest at 4.25 (neutral for intent to stay) and highest at 6.60
(strongly agree for
credentials). Five colleges were represented in this research undertaking and the
College of
Education gave relatively higher ratings in 7 of these predictors, namely: 1)
economic factors, 2)
job satisfaction, 3) intent to stay, 4) perceived influence in institutional
policies, 5) perceived
governance 6) professional development and 7) credentials. The highest mean scores
for 1)
participation in meetings, 2) job embeddedness and 3) induction came from the
research
participants of the College of Business and Accountancy while the highest mean
scores for 1)
working conditions, 2) professional commitment and 3) institutional reputation
could be traced
to the College of Nursing.

Collegial Affiliation
PREDICTORS
Economic
Job satisfaction
Participation in
meetings
COLLEGE
MEAN
INTERPRETATION
CAS
CBA
Education
Engineering
Nursing
CAS
CBA
Education
Engineering
Nursing
CAS
CBA
Education
Engineering
5.71
5.84
6.17
5.46
5.82
5.27
5.58
5.66
4.72
5.26
5.74
5.86
5.74
5.27
Agree
Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
P-VALUE
SIGNIFICANCE
0.362
Not significant
0.001
Highly significant
0.045
Significant
57 | P a g e
Intent to stay
Perceived
influence in
institutional
policies
Perceived
governance
Working
conditions
Job
embeddedness
Professional
development
Professional
commitment
Credentials
Nursing
CAS
CBA
Education
Engineering
Nursing
5.82
5.59
5.56
5.67
5.17
4.25
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Neutral
CAS
4.99
Weakly Agree
CBA
Education
Engineering
Nursing
CAS
CBA
Education
Engineering
Nursing
CAS
CBA
Education
Engineering
Nursing
CAS
CBA
Education
Engineering
Nursing
CAS
CBA
Education
Engineering
Nursing
CAS
CBA
Education
Engineering
Nursing
CAS
CBA
Education
Engineering
5.2
5.65
4.27
4.97
5.48
5.44
6.28
4.63
5.55
5.63
5.94
6.04
5.39
6.13
5.71
5.77
5.73
5.25
5.71
4.98
4.8
5.62
4.61
5.22
6.29
6.31
6.3
6.28
6.32
6.3
6.13
6.6
6.25
Weakly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
0.001
Highly significant
0.005
Highly significant
0.001
Highly significant
0.001
Highly significant
0.085
Not significant
0.252
Not significant
0.999
Not significant
0.788
Not significant
58 | P a g e
Induction
Institutional
reputation
Nursing
CAS
CBA
Education
Engineering
Nursing
CAS
CBA
Education
Engineering
Nursing
6.21
5.61
5.79
5.44
5.31
5.62
5.84
5.97
5.77
5.51
6.14
Agree
Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
0.465
Not significant
0.019
Significant
For the faculty members and administrators of the College of Arts and Sciences, the
principal predictors included: 1) credentials (6.30), 2) professional commitment
(6.29), 3)
institutional reputation (5.84), 4) participation in meetings (5.74) and 5)
economic factors
(5.71). For the mentors and officers of the College of Business and Accountancy
four of these
five predictors were also reflected in their preferences with professional
commitment (6.31) as
the topmost predictor followed by 2) credentials (6.13), 3) institutional
reputation (5.97), 4)
working conditions (5.94) and 5) economic factors (5.84). In the College of
Education, the
relevant predictors were composed of: 1) credentials (6.60), 2) professional
commitment, 3)
perceived governance (6.28) which was the only time that this predictor figured in
this group, 4)
economic factors (6.17) and 5) institutional reputation. This college affirmed four
of these
predictors that were common to the two other colleges so far. For the College of
Engineering, 1)
professional commitment (6.28) was still a top choice together with 2) credentials
(6.25), 3)
institutional reputation (5.51), 4) economic factors (5.46) and working conditions
(5.39). The
top five choices for this college were exactly what were previously mentioned by
the College of
Business and Accountancy except for a slight difference in ranking in their 4 th
and 5th choices.
The faculty members and administrators of the College of Nursing also saw 1)
professional
59 | P a g e
commitment (6.32) as a primary predictor in addition to 2) credentials (6.21), 3)
institutional
reputation (6.14), 4) working conditions (6.13) and economic factors (5.82). These
choices and
rankings were mirror images with that of the College of Business and Accountancy.
In addition,
four of these predictors always figured in the top choices of the different
colleges, namely: 1)
economic factors, 2) professional commitment, 3) credentials and 4) institutional
reputation.
Comparing the mean scores by colleges, Table 9 reveals that the differences in
these
scores were highly significant for five of these predictors, namely: 1) job
satisfaction (at
p=0.001), 2) intent to stay (at p=0.001), 3) perceived influence on institutional
policies (at
p=0.005), 4) perceived governance (at p=0.001) and 5) working conditions (at
p=0.001). The
mean scores were also significantly different in terms of participation in meetings
(at p=0.045)
and institutional reputation (at p=0.019), while insignificantly different for the
rest of the
predictors, among them: 1) economic factors, 2) job embeddedness, 3) professional
development,
4) professional commitment, 5) credentials and induction.
Overall Types of Commitment and According to Specific Aggrupations
Organizational commitment is classified into five types, namely: 1) affective

commitment, 2) continuance commitment, 3) normative commitment, 4) collegial
commitment
and 5) institutional commitment. The scale used for interpreting the mean scores
for the different
types of commitment was similar with the one used for the proposed predictors.
60 | P a g e
Table 13. Summary of the Mean Scores of the Different Types of Organizational
Commitment
INDEX
1
2
3
4
5
TYPE OF COMMITMENT
Affective
Continuance
Normative
Collegial
Institutional
MEAN SCORE
5.27
4.48
4.75
5.63
6.04
SD
INTERPRETATION
Weakly Agree
Neutral
Weakly Agree
Agree
Agree
Of these types of commitment, continuance commitment generated the lowest mean

rating at 4.48 while institutional commitment garnered the highest mean score of
6.04. It can
also be further gleaned from Table 13 that the faculty members showed some degree
of
neutrality when it came to continuance commitment. They weakly agreed with
affective
commitment (5.27) and normative commitment (4.75) and remarked that they agreed
with
collegial commitment (5.63) and institutional commitment (6.04). This may indicate
that while
the faculty members were relatively uncertain about continued employment with the
institution,
they have a strong commitment towards their college and colleagues as well as to
the institution.
It also implies that the top three types of commitment demonstrated by the faculty
members of
the institution included: 1) institutional commitment, 2) collegial commitment and
affective
commitment.
In a study of the relationships among the person-organization (P-O) fit and
affective,
normative, and continuance commitments, the hypothesis that the P-O would be
positively
associated with affective and normative organizational commitment was statistically
supported
(C, J.M. 2003), findings that were partly corroborated by this study. The same
study revealed
that not only normative and affective commitments have strong correlation to the P-
O fit,
continuance commitment in fact has a stronger association (C, J.M. 2003), which was
kind of
61 | P a g e
opposite to the results of this study. In the case of the present study continuance
commitment
generated the lowest mean rating compared to the other types of commitment.
According to Sexual Orientation. It can be gleaned from Table 14 that based on the
responses of the male and female faculty members, the mean scores for the different
types of
commitment ranged from a low of 4.39 (neutral for continuance commitment) to a high
of 6.19
(agree for institutional commitment). It can also be observed that at all levels of
commitment,
the male faculty members had relatively higher mean scores, although both male and
female
faculty members shared the same rankings in their top three types of commitment,
namely: 1)
institutional commitment (6.19 for male and 5.93 for female), 2) collegial
commitment (5.78 for
male and 5.52 for female) and 3) affective commitment (5.43 for male and 5.15 for
female).
Additionally, the differences in their mean scores were highly significant for
institutional
commitment (at p=0.005) and collegial commitment (at p=0.010), significant in terms
of affective
commitment (at p=0.017) and insignificant differences in their mean scores for
continuance
commitment and normative commitment.
Table 14. Mean Scores of the Different Types of Organizational Commitment according
to Sexual Orientation
TYPE OF
COMMITMENT
Affective
Continuance
Normative
Collegial
SEX
MEAN
INTERPRETATION
Male
5.43
Weakly Agree
Female
5.15
Weakly Agree
Male
4.61
Weakly Agree
Female
4.39
Neutral
Male
4.85
Weakly Agree
Female
4.68
Weakly Agree
Male
5.78
Agree
P-VALUE
SIGNIFICANCE
0.017
Significant
0.092
Not significant
0.115
Not significant
0.01
Highly
significant
62 | P a g e
Institutional
Female
5.52
Agree
Male
6.19
Agree
Female
5.93
Agree
Highly
significant
0.005
Relatedly, it was revealed in another survey that there was no significant

difference
between the job satisfaction and the levels of organizational and occupational
commitment of the
academics based on the gender variable (Munevver, 2006), which was not entirely
supported by
the current findings of the study. While in this study the men had relatively
higher mean scores,
another study however, negated these results saying that the females were more
committed
compared to the males (Farooq, 2011) . Cramer, 1993; Harrison & Hubbard, 1998;
Mowday,
1982 in Farooq, 2011) also supported that as compared to the men, the women were
more
devoted and committed to their organization. Similarly Ioscocco (1989) did a
research in
manufacturing industry and recommended that the female employees were more
committed as
compared to their male counterparts.
According to Employment Status. In terms of employment status, Table 15 shows that

the mean scores ranged from a low of 4.51 (weakly agree for continuance commitment)
and a
high of 6.19 (agree for institutional commitment). Three of the highest scores
could be traced to
the fulltime probationary faculty members in the areas of: 1) continuance
commitment, 2)
collegial commitment and 3) institutional commitment while the highest mean score
ratings for
affective commitment and normative commitment were given by the part-time faculty
members.
63 | P a g e
Table 15. Mean Scores of the Different Types of Organizational Commitment According
to Employment Status
TYPE OF
COMMITMENT
Affective
Continuance
Normative
Collegial
Institutional
EMPLOYMENT
STATUS
Full-time permanent
Full-time
probationary
Part-time
Full-time permanent
Full-time
probationary
Part-time
Full-time permanent
Full-time
probationary
Part-time
Full-time permanent
Full-time
probationary
Part-time
Full-time permanent
Full-time
probationary
Part-time
MEAN
INTERPRETATION
5.24
Weakly Agree
5.23
Weakly Agree
5.47
4.51
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
4.65
Weakly Agree
4.51
4.69
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
4.83
Weakly Agree
4.9
5.55
Weakly Agree
Agree
5.91
Agree
5.77
6
Agree
Agree
6.19
Agree
6.18
Agree
P-VALUE SIGNIFICANCE
0.149
Not significant
0.763
Not significant
0.151
Not significant
0.028
Significant
0.132
Not significant
In this group, the choices for the top three types of commitment were identical,
namely:
1) institutional commitment (at 6.00 for FT permanent, 6.19 for FT probationary and
6.18 for
part-timers), 2) collegial commitment (at 5.55 for FT permanent, 5.91 for FT
probationary and
5.77 for part-timers) and 3) affective commitment (at 5.24 for FT permanent, 5.23
for FT
probationary and 5.47 for part-timers). Their mean scores were significantly
different only in
terms of collegial commitment (at p=0.028) and were insignificantly different for
the remaining
types or levels of commitment.
According to Academic Rank. With regards to academic rank, the mean scores ranged
from a low of 4.29 (neutral for continuance commitment) and a high of 6.33 (agree
for
64 | P a g e
institutional commitment). The highest mean score ratings for affective commitment
and
normative commitment were given by the Lecturers while the Instructors provided the
highest
mean score in terms of continuance commitment. Full Professors, on the other hand,
figured
highest in terms of the mean scores for collegial commitment and institutional
commitment as
summarized in Table 16.
to Academic Rank
TYPE OF
COMMMITMENT
Affective
Continuance
Normative
Collegial
ACADEMIC RANK
MEAN
Did not indicate

Lecturer
Instructor
Assistant professor
Associate professor
Full professor
Did not indicate
Lecturer
Instructor
Assistant professor
Associate professor
Full professor
Did not indicate
Lecturer
Instructor
Assistant professor
Associate professor
Full professor
Did not indicate
Lecturer
Instructor
Assistant professor
Associate professor
5.26
5.56
5.55
5.09
5.24
5.25
5.38
4.57
4.55
4.53
4.59
4.54
4.4
4.29
4.84
4.92
4.8
4.58
4.74
4.82
4.9
5.55
5.93
5.77
5.72
5.56
5.5
INTERPRETATION P-VALUE SIGNIFICANCE

Weakly Agree
Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Neutral
Neutral
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
0.318
Not significant
0.967
Not significant
0.777
Not significant
0.131
Not significant
65 | P a g e
Institutional
Full professor
Did not indicate
Lecturer
Instructor
Assistant professor
Associate professor
Full professor
5.99
6.09
6.22
6.22
5.97
6
5.91
6.33
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
0.319
Not significant
The findings in this study negated the findings and explanations made on faculty
commitment in Saudi Arabian universities. Educational level which was tantamount to
academic
rank, was found to be negatively associated with the organizational commitment
(Iqbal, 2011).
Iqbal’s (2011) findings imply that the less educated the faculty is, the more
likely he or she is
committed to the KSA universities than are the highly educated ones. He argued that
education
is an investment which would encourage the individual to seek better return on
investment by
searching for better jobs (Al-Kahtani, 2004 in Iqbal 2011).
Joiner and Bakalis (2006) further contended that highly educated employees were
likely
to perceive fewer obstacles in finding alternative employment and were, therefore,
less likely to
feel “locked into” the organization. However, the same study said that graduate
study with the
employing university clearly enhanced the academics’ affective and continuance
commitment
(Joiner and Bakalis, 2006). With respect to affective commitment, it was likely
that the values of
these academics were more congruent with the values of the university, hence they
stayed on.
It is noteworthy, however, that in the same group, the top three choices in terms
of types
of commitment were still consistently given in the areas of: 1) institutional
commitment (at 6.22
for Lecturers and Professional Lecturers, 5.97 for Instructors, 6.00 for Assistant
Professors, 5.91
for Associate Professors and 6.33 for Full Professors), 2) collegial commitment (at
5.93 for
Lecturers, 5.77 for Professional Lecturers, 5.72 for Instructors, 5.56 for
Assistant Professors,
66 | P a g e
5.50 for Associate Professors and 5.99 for Full Professors) and 3) affective
commitment (at 5.56
for Lecturers, 5.55 for Professional Lecturers, 5.09 for Instructors, 5.24 for
Assistant Professors,
5.25 for Associate Professors and 5.38 for Full Professors). When the mean scores
were further
analyzed for this group, it could be noticed from the same table that these scores
were not
significantly different in all types of commitment.
Collegial commitment was high among lecturers, professional lecturers, instructors,
assistant professors, associate professors and full professors. As operationally
defined, collegial
commitment referred to one’s participation in the college’s various academic and
non-academic
programs. Participation in these programs was strong when academic administrators
supported
the work environment that enhanced the dimensions of affective commitment. Other
findings
suggested that the turnover intention was more likely to occur if the faculty
experience poor
working relationships with their academic unit head and co-workers, unclear work
expectations
and disagreement on relevant norms. Alternately, if the faculty experience positive
working
relationships, the urnover retention may be less likely to be experienced (Gormley
& Kennerly,
2011).
According to Length of Service. To determine whether the length of service affects

the
levels of commitment of the faculty members, a similar process was conducted and as
seen in
Table 17, there was a slight variation in the ranking. The mean scores for the
types of
commitment registered lowest at 4.33 (neutral for normative commitment) and highest
at 6.44
(agree for institutional commitment). Three of these types of commitment generated
their
highest mean score ratings from the group of faculty members who were with the
institution for
31 years or more, namely: 1) affective commitment, 2) normative commitment and 3)
institutional commitment. Whereas the top mean score ratings for continuance
commitment and
67 | P a g e
collegial commitment could be traced to faculty members who have been with the
institution for
26 to 30 years and 21 to 25 years, respectively.
to Length of Service
TYPE OF
COMMITMENT
Affective
Continuance
Normative
Collegial
LENGTH OF
SERVICE
Did not indicate
0 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
16 to 20 years
21 to 25 years
26 to 30 years
31 years and
over
Did not indicate
0 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
16 to 20 years
21 to 25 years
26 to 30 years
31 years and
over
Did not indicate
0 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
16 to 20 years
21 to 25 years
26 to 30 years
31 years and
over
Did not indicate
0 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
16 to 20 years
21 to 25 years
MEAN
INTERPRETATION
5.34
5.30
5.17
5.37
5.12
5.80
4.50
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
6.30
Agree
4.56
4.56
4.42
4.30
4.75
4.50
5.43
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Neutral
Neutral
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
4.80
Weakly Agree
4.81
4.79
4.75
4.77
4.64
4.99
4.33
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Neutral
5.06
Weakly Agree
5.64
5.80
5.47
5.70
5.37
6.02
Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
PVALUE
SIGNIFICANCE
0.025
Significant
0.491
Not significant
0.839
Not significant
0.062
Not significant
68 | P a g e
Institutional
26 to 30 years
31 years and
over
Did not indicate
0 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
16 to 20 years
21 to 25 years
26 to 30 years
31 years and
over
5.35
Weakly Agree
5.84
Agree
6.13
6.13
6.02
6.04
5.97
6.23
5.48
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
6.44
Agree
0.579
Not significant
In finding the impact of demographics on organizational commitment, Iqbal (2011)

found that length of service was highly significant and positively associated with
organizational
commitment in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia universities. An increased length of
service to an
organization increased the personal investment such as time, efforts promotion,
pay, friendships
and position. Accordingly, long service employees were willing to exert a level of
efforts that
exceeds what was expected from them to achieve success for their organizations (Al-
Kahtani,
2004 in Iqbal 2011). Suliman and Lies (2000) noted that the employee who was
affectively
attached to his or her organization, valued his or her investments in it and felt a
moral obligation
to maintain membership. The literatures say that when individuals spend most of the
time in the
organization, they became more committed to the organization (Farooq, 2011).
Not
surprisingly, years in position, years in industry, and organizational tenure were

all significantly
positively correlated. While most of the experience variables are positively
correlated with the
affective and normative commitments, the correlations were not statistically
significant (C.J.M.
2003).
Additionally, Munevver (2006) said that, faculty members whose working experience
were 1-5 years tended to have lower level of continuance commitment compared to
those with 669 | P a g e
10 years, 16-20 years and 21 years and over. It could be said that the lower is the
number of
years the faculty has in the university, the lower is his or her level of
commitment. Other
findings said that, the individual was concerned with the need for security and
whether his
expectations will be met or not during the first year and when the faculty reached
the maturity
stage after the fifth year he or she had a high level of commitment (Buchanan 1974,
in
Munevver, 2006). The type of commitment Buchanan (1974) referred to here was
related to the
findings on affective and normative commitment.
This was the first sub-grouping where a variation of the top three types of
commitment
shows. In Table 17, five of the seven categories shared the same rankings, namely
the groups of
faculty members who were with the institution for: 1) 0 to 5 years, 2) 6 to 10
years, 3) 11 to 15
years, 4) 16 to 20 years and 5) 21 to 25 years of service. Their rankings also
reflected the top
three choices of the sub-groupings by sexual orientation, employment status, and
academic rank.
For these groups, the three major types of commitment were: 1) institutional
commitment (at
6.13 for 0-5 years, 6.02 for 6-10 years, 6.04 for 11-15 years, 5.97 for 16-20
years, 6.23 for 21-25
years, 5.48 for 26-30 years and 6.44 for 31 years and above), 2) collegial
commitment (at 5.80
for 0-5 years, 5.47 for 6-10 years, 5.70 for 11-15 years, 5.37 for 16-20 years,
6.02 for 21-25
years, 5.35 for 26-30 years and 5.84 for 31 years and above) and 3) affective
commitment (at
5.30 for 0-5 years, 5.17 for 6-10 years, 5.37 for 11-15 years, 5.12 for 16-20 years
and 5.80 for
21-25 years). While the first (1st) and third (3rd) choices for faculty members who
have been
with the institution for 26 to 30 years and 31 years and above were identical,
namely:
institutional commitment as their top choice (at 5.48 and 6.44, respectively) and
collegial
commitment as their third choice (at 5.35 and 5.84, respectively), they differed in
their 2 nd choice
of type of commitment. For those who have been with the University for 26 to 30
years,
70 | P a g e
continuance commitment (at 5.43) was a consideration, the only time this type of
commitment
was reflected as among the top choices in the different sub-groupings, while for
faculty members
who have been with the University for 31 years or more, affective commitment (at
6.30) was a
second choice. Analyzing the differences in their mean scores further shows that
this was
significant only in terms of affective commitment (at p=0.025) and insignificant
for the other
types of commitment.
According to Designation. Grouping the research participants in terms of their

designation revealed that the mean scores ranged from a low of 4.35 (neutral for
continuance
commitment) and a high of 6.64 (strongly agree for institutional commitment). Table
18
indicates further that the Deans gave the highest mean score ratings in four of the
five levels of
commitment, namely: 1) continuance commitment, 2) normative commitment, 3)
collegial
commitment and 4) institutional commitment while the group of faculty members
provided the
highest rating in terms of affective commitment.
to Designation
TYPE OF
COMMITMENT
Affective
Continuance
Normative
DESIGNATION
MEAN
INTERPRETATION
Faculty
Department/Level
chair
Dean
Faculty
Department/Level
chair
Dean
Faculty
Department/Level
chair
Dean
5.30
Weakly Agree
5.28
Weakly Agree
5.54
4.53
Agree
Weakly Agree
4.35
Neutral
4.66
4.76
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
4.87
Weakly Agree
5.34
Weakly Agree
P-VALUE
SIGNIFICANCE
0.86
Not significant
0.748
Not significant
0.313
Not significant
71 | P a g e
Collegial
Institutional
Faculty
Department/Level
chair
Dean
Faculty
Department/Level
chair
Dean
5.64
Agree
5.87
Agree
5.95
6.06
Agree
Agree
6.11
Agree
6.64
Strongly Agree
0.351
Not significant
0.274
Not significant
The choices of the top three types of commitment were identical in this group and
also
resonated with the choices in the earlier sub-groupings, namely: 1) institutional
commitment (at
6.06 for faculty, 6.11 for Department/Level Chairs and 6.64 for Deans), 2)
collegial commitment
(at 5.64, 5.87 and 5.95, respectively) and 3) affective commitment (at 5.30, 5.28
and 5.54,
respectively). An analysis of the differences in their mean scores indicated that
these were not
significant for all types of commitment.
According to Collegial Affiliation. Lastly, in terms of collegial affiliation, a

closer look
at Table 19 shows that the mean score ratings reflected a low of 4.42 (neutral for
continuance
commitment) and a high of 6.20 (agree for institutional commitment). The faculty
members and
administrators of the College of Business and Accountancy registered relatively
higher ratings in
three areas, namely: 1) normative commitment, 2) collegial commitment and 3)
institutional
commitment while the higher scores for affective commitment and continuance
commitment can
be traced to the Colleges of Arts and Sciences and College of Education/College of
Nursing,
respectively.
72 | P a g e
to Collegial Affiliation
TYPE OF
COMMITMENT
Affective
Continuance
Normative
Collegial
Institutional
COLLEGE
CAS
CBA
Educ
Eng'g
Nursing
CAS
CBA
Educ
Eng'g
Nursing
CAS
CBA
Educ
Eng'g
Nursing
CAS
CBA
Educ
Eng'g
Nursing
CAS
CBA
Educ
Eng'g
Nursing
MEAN
INTERPRETATION
5.39
5.38
5.58
5.08
5.16
4.49
4.42
4.68
4.62
4.68
4.75
4.85
4.55
4.54
4.94
5.77
5.89
5.62
4.92
5.61
6.15
6.20
6.10
5.69
6.01
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Neutral
Neutral
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Weakly Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
P-VALUE
SIGNIFICANCE
0.291
Not significant
0.69
Not significant
0.243
Not significant
0.001
Highly Significant
0.023
Significant
The top three choices of types of commitments were similar across all colleges with
a
slight variation in ranking for the College of Engineering in their second and
third choices. For
the colleges of Arts and Sciences, Business and Accountancy, Education and Nursing,
these three
choices were: 1) institutional commitment (at 6.15 for CAS, 6.20 for CBA, 6.10 for
Education
and 6.01 for Nursing), 2) collegial commitment (at 5.77, 5.89, 5.62 and 5.61,
respectively) and
73 | P a g e
affective commitment (at 5.39, 5.38, 5.58 and 5.16, respectively). The faculty
members and
administrators of the College of Engineering, on the other hand, saw 1)
institutional commitment
as a top choice (at 5.69) followed by affective commitment (at 5.08) and collegial
commitment (at
4.92).
In terms of the differences in the mean scores throughout these colleges, the
differences
were highly significant in terms of collegial commitment (at p=0.001) and
significant insofar as
institutional commitment (at p=0.023). The differences in these scores, however,
were not
significant for affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative
commitment.
One study said that the sense of allegiance to the unit where one is assigned to
was
dependent on a number of factors. These factors could be in the form of job
embeddedness,
working relationship, supervisor support, shared-values and the overall working
condition.
According to Joiner & Bakalis (2006), strong co-worker and supervisor supports both
contributed to affective commitment. Moreover, formal and informal socialization,
as well as
ongoing forums to promote coworker interaction and communication, may further
enhance the
sense of belonging and loyalty to the University (Joiner & Balkis, 2006).
Connectedly, Lowenstein, Fernandez & Crane (2007) conducted a study on the
prevalence and predictors of intent to leave academic careers of medical school
faculty. Their
study highlighted the importance of colleague relationships which in this study
referred to
collegial relationship. They found out that faculty were less likely to consider
leaving if they
were affiliated with an inter-department research or clinical center which was
perhaps a
reflection of closer colleague networks and stronger sense of academic community.
Lemaster (2004) further suggested that there was a correlation between the
individualculture congruence and affective commitment at overall university and
work-unit subculture
74 | P a g e
levels. Literatures say that for every organizational culture, a sub-culture
exists. As applied to
this study, this sub-culture was the culture that existed in every college. This
study shows that
there existed high levels of collegial commitment in some of the colleges.
The Correlation between the Levels of Commitment and their Predictors
The thirteen predictors of organizational commitment may be further collapsed into

six
categories, namely: 1) economic predictors which included salaries and benefit
package, 2)
behavioral predictors which referred to job satisfaction, participation in meetings
and intent to
stay, 3) political predictors which comprised of perceived influence on
institutional policies and
perceived governance, 4) structural predictors which took into account working
conditions and
job embeddedness, 5) professional predictors consisting of professional
development,
professional commitment, credentials, rank and induction and 6) institutional
reputation.
In order to determine the extent of correlation between the different types of
organizational commitment and its predictors, the following interpretative scale
was used:
Table 20. Scale of the Interpretation of Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient
Size of Correlation
0.90 to 1.00 (+/-)
0.70 to 0.90 (+/-)
0.50 to 0.70 (+/-)
0.30 to 0.50 (+/-)
0.00 to 0.30 (+/-)
Interpretation
Very high (positive/negative) correlation
High (positive/negative) correlation
Moderate (positive/negative) correlation
Low (positive/negative) correlation
Little if any correlation
Using the Pearson Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation (r), all the predictors
were
positively correlated with the different types of organizational commitment with
varying degrees
of relationship. In terms of affective commitment, two predictors were found to be
of little if any
positive correlation with this type of commitment, namely: professional development
(r = 0.166
75 | P a g e
and p =.009) and credentials (r = 0.25 and p =.001) both of which were found to be
highly
significant at 99% confidence level. There was also low positive correlation
between affective
commitment and 9 other predictors, namely: economic predictors (r = 0.333 and p
=.001), job
satisfaction (r = 0.457 and p =.001), participation in meetings (r = 0.358 and p
=.001), intent to
stay (r = 0.305 and p =.001), perceived influence on institutional policies (r =
0.399 and p =.001),
perceived governance (r = 0.437 and p =.001), working conditions (r = 0.363 and p
=.001),
professional commitment (r = 0.336 and p =.001) and induction (r = 0.398 and p
=.001), all of
which were highly significant at 99% confidence level. There were 2 predictors that
had
moderate positive correlation with affective commitment, among these: job
embeddedness (r =
0.564 and p =.001) and institutional reputation (r = 0.527 and p =.001), both of
which were also
highly significant at 99% confidence level. This means, that in spite of the
varying degrees of
positive correlation between affective commitment and the different predictors, all
of these were
highly significant at a confidence level of 99%, therefore, rejecting the null
hypothesis that there
is no correlation between affective commitment and the different predictors. Thus,
while there
were degrees of correlation between affective commitment and the six categories of
the
predictors, indeed, these economic, behavioral, political, structural and
professional predictors
including institutional reputation had important implications on affective
commitment.
Table 21. Correlation Matrix of the Predictors and the Different Types of
Organizational
Commitment
CORRELATION MATRIX
PREDICTORS
Economic
Job satisfaction
TYPES OF COMMITMENT
Affective
0.333
0.001
0.457
0.001
Continuance
0.145
0.024
0.006
0.93
Normative
0.271
0.001
0.373
0.001
Collegial
0.515
0.001
0.551
0.001
Institutional
0.522
0.001
0.497
0.001
76 | P a g e
Participation in meetings
Intent to stay
Perceived influence in
institutional policies
Working conditions
Job embeddedness
Professional development
Professional commitment
Credentials
Induction
0.358
0.001
0.305
0.001
0.399
0.001
0.437
0.001
0.363
0.001
0.564
0.001
0.166
0.009
0.336
0.001
0.25
0.001
0.398
0.001
0.527
0.001
0.028
0.667
0.019
0.771
0.158
0.013
0.192
0.003
0.11
0.087
0.256
0.001
0.239
0.001
0.227
0.001
0.066
0.308
0.201
0.002
0.175
0.006
0.239
0.001
0.214
0.001
0.329
0.001
0.363
0.001
0.317
0.001
0.411
0.001
0.155
0.016
0.302
0.001
0.093
0.146
0.324
0.001
0.476
0.001
0.532
0.001
0.16
0.014
0.557
0.001
0.593
0.001
0.566
0.001
0.712
0.001
0.174
0.007
0.416
0.001
0.296
0.001
0.552
0.001
0.692
0.001
0.491
0.001
0.165
0.011
0.544
0.001
0.609
0.001
0.549
0.001
0.714
0.001
0.175
0.006
0.471
0.001
0.278
0.001
0.543
0.001
0.748
0.001
In fact, these findings were supported by the study of Sonia, particularly in the
area of
economic factors. According to Sonia (2008), employee perception of economic
dependence
was shown to be a possible generator of affective commitment.
With regards to continuance commitment, in spite of the differences in the values
for
Pearson’s coefficient of correlation, all of these values fell within the range of
0.00 to 0.30,
implying little if any positive correlation with this type of commitment. These
results were
consistent with the responses of the faculty members that they were neutral insofar
as
continuance commitment was concerned and thus, it was not among their top three
choices of the
different types of organizational commitment.
77 | P a g e
Of the 13 predictors, 6 were found to be highly significant at 99% level of
confidence,
namely: 1) perceived governance (r = 0.192 and p =.003), 2) job embeddedness (r =
0.256 and p
=.001), 3) professional development (r = 0.239 and p =.001), 4) professional
commitment (r =
0.227 and p =.001), 5) induction (r = 0.201 and p =.002) and 6) institutional
reputation (r =
0.175 and p =.006). The correlation between continuance commitment and economic
factors (r =
0.145 and p =.024) and perceived influence on institutional policies (r = 0.158 and
p =.013) were
found to be significant at 95% level of confidence while the remaining 5 predictors
were not
significantly correlated with continuance commitment, namely: 1) job satisfaction
(r = 0.006
and p =.93), 2) participation in meetings (r = 0.028 and p =.667), 3) intent to
stay (r = 0.019 and
p = .771), 4) working conditions (r = 0.11 and p =.087) and 5) credentials (r =
0.066 and p
=.308). In other words, the null hypothesis that there is no correlation between
continuance
commitment and the different predictors could only be rejected with all of the
behavioral
predictors (job satisfaction, participation in meetings and intent to stay), one of
the structural
predictors (working conditions) and another one of the professional predictors
(credentials). In
other words, these predictors did not have important implications on continuance
commitment.
In terms of normative commitment, although all the values for Pearson’s coefficient
of
correlation registered positive values, there were 5 predictors that had little if
any positive
correlation with this type of commitment, among these: 1) economic factors (r =
0.271 and p
=.001), 2) participation in meetings (r = 0;239 and p =.001), 3) intent to stay (r
= 0.214 and p
=.001), 4) professional development (r = 0.155 and p =.016) and 5) credentials (r =
0.093 and p
=.146). However, the first 3 predictors were found to be highly significantly
correlated with
normative commitment at 99% level of confidence whereas the last 2 predictors were
not
significantly correlated with normative commitment. Additionally, the remaining
predictors had
78 | P a g e
low positive correlation with normative commitment and these included: 1) job
satisfaction (r
=0.373 and p =.001), 2) perceived influence on institutional policies (r = 0.329
and p =.001), 3)
perceived governance (r = 0.363 and p =.001), 4) working conditions (r = 0.317 and
p =.001), 5)
job embeddedness (r = 0.411 and p =.001), 6) professional commitment (r = 0.302 and
p =.001),
7) induction (r = 0.324 and p =.001) and 8) institutional reputation (r = 0.476 and
p =.001), all of
which were highly significant at 99% level of confidence. Thus, it may be safe to
say that
insofar as normative commitment in concerned, all the six categories of predictors
(economic,
behavioral, political, structural, professional and institutional reputation) had
important
implications.
Insofar as collegial commitment was concerned, there were 3 predictors that had
little if
any positive correlation with this type of commitment, among these: 1) intent to
stay (r = 0.16
and p =.014), 2) professional development (r = 0.174 and p =.007) and 3)
credentials (r = 0.296
and p =.001) with the first predictor and the last 2 predictors being significantly
and highly
significantly correlated with collegial commitment, respectively. Moreover,
professional
commitment had a low positive correlation with collegial commitment (r = 0.416 and
p =.001)
which was highly significant at 99% level of confidence. There were 8 predictors
that had
moderate positive correlation with collegial commitment, namely: 1) economic
factors (r =.0515
and p =.001), 2) job satisfaction (r = 0.551 and p =.001), 3) participation in
meetings (r = 0.532
and p =.001), 4) perceived influence on institutional policies (r = 0.557 and p
=.001), 5)
p =.001), 7)
induction (r = 0.552 and p =.001) and 8) institutional reputation (r =0.692 and p
=.001) with all
of these predictors being highly significantly correlated with collegial commitment
at 99% level
of confidence. There was one predictor that had a high positive correlation with
collegial
79 | P a g e
commitment and this was job embeddedness (r = 0.712 and p =.001) which was highly
significant. In order words, as among the top 3 manifestations of organizational
commitment for
the faculty members of the University of St. La Salle, the six categories of the
different
predictors also had important implications on collegial commitment.
The fifth type of organizational commitment is institutional commitment and this
was in
the top choice of commitment of the faculty members. There were 3 predictors that
had little if
any positive correlation with institutional commitment, among these: 1) intent to
stay (r = 0.165
and p =.011), 2) professional development (r = 0.175 and p =.006) and 3)
credentials (r = 0.278
and p =.001) with the first predictor and the last 2 predictors being significantly
and highly
significantly correlated with institutional commitment, respectively. There were 3
predictors that
had low positive correlation with institutional commitment, namely: 1) job
satisfaction (r =
0.497 and p =.001), 2) participation in meetings (r = 0.491 and p =.001) and 3)
professional
commitment (r = 0.471 and p =.001), all of which were highly significantly
correlated with
institutional commitment at 99% level of confidence. There were 5 other predictors
that had
moderate positive correlation with institutional commitment composed of: 1)
economic factors (r
= 0.522 and p =.001), 2) perceived influence on institutional policies (r = 0.544
and p =.001), 3)
p =.001) and
5) induction (r = 0.543 and p =.001), all of which were also highly significantly
correlated with
institutional commitment. There were also 2 predictors that had high positive
correlation with
institutional commitment which were job embeddedness (r = 0.714 and p =.001) and
institutional
reputation (r = 0.748 and p =.001), both of which were highly significantly
correlated with
institutional commitment at 99% level of confidence. Thus, such as in the case of
collegial
commitment, the six categories of the predictors also had important implications on
institutional
80 | P a g e
commitment. This tendency seemed to be consistent for 4 of the 5 types of
organizational
commitment with the exception of continuance commitment.
In a related literature, (Lasun & Nwosu, 2011) said that the intention to quit was
probably
the most important immediate antecedent of turnover decisions. According to Ajzen
(1991),
turnover intention was used instead of actual turnover because in general the
theory of planned
behavior suggested that behavioral was a good predictor of actual behavior.
Researchers have
found intent to leave or stay as the strongest predictor of factual turnover
(Hendrix, Robbins, &
Summers, 1999 & Liu, 2007 in Gbadamosi & Chinaka). Other results on the study of
the
relationship between turnover intentions and actual turnover have extended support
and evidence
on the significant relationship between these variables (Lambert et al, 2001 in
Lasun & Nwosu,
2011). The results of this study, however, did not seem to entirely support this
relationship.
On another analysis, this study resonated with the findings of Sonia (2008)
especially
with regards to the relational norms of flexibility, participation and information
exchange. These
factors significantly influenced affective commitment. It seemed that solidarity
among
colleagues in the firm was not enough to engender affective commitment, whereas the
employee’s perception that agreements showed flexibility, that opinions were taken
into account
and that there was a frequent exchange of information with the firm could create
the emotional
ties included in affective commitment (Sonia 2008).
Multiple Regression Analysis of the Relationship between the Different Types of

Commitment and their Predictors
In an attempt to quantify the magnitude of the relationship for each type of
commitment
and its predictors, a multiple regression analysis was conducted for each of these
types of
commitment which resulted to the generation of a regression equation with
regression
81 | P a g e
coefficients (s) that measured the magnitude of the relationship between a
specific type of
commitment and its predictors. Each regression equation reflected the regression
coefficients as
well as the computed t-values which served as basis for determining whether these
coefficients
were significant at least at 95% level of confidence (p < .05). These coefficients,
however, did
not really have to be taken at nominal or face value but instead served as guide to
reinforce the
earlier process of establishing the correlation between organizational commitment
and its
predictors. The computation of the values for the regression coefficients and their
t-values were
done through the use of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).
Affective Commitment. As can be observed from Table 22, affective commitment had 4
relevant predictors, 3 of which were highly significant and 1 of which was
significant. These
predictors were: 1) job embeddedness ( = 0.331 and p =.001), 2) institutional
reputation ( =
0.274 and p =.010), 3) intent to stay ( = 0.141 and p =.001) and 4) job
satisfaction ( = 0.170
and p =.036). All of these significant predictors were positively related with
affective
commitment. Among these predictors, job embeddedness had the highest positive
effect on this
type of commitment while intent to stay had the lowest positive effect on affective
commitment.
With regards to the 9 remaining predictors, these were not found to be
significantly related with
affective commitment (their p-values were greater than 0.05) and therefore, the
null hypothesis
that their ’s are equal to zero (’s = 0) was accepted for these predictors.
82 | P a g e
Table 22. Summary of the Regression Analysis for Affective Commitment
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Dependent variable: Affective Commitment
Model
Constant
Economic
Job satisfaction
Intent to stay
Working conditions
Job embeddedness
Credentials
Induction
Beta
t
0.481 0.983
-0.079 -1.25
0.17
2.109
0.014 0.203
0.141 3.762
0.016 0.248
0.032
0.44
-0.082 -0.981
0.331
3.21
0.03
0.788
0.022 0.315
0.036 0.725
-0.04 -0.652
0.274 2.603
p-value
0.327
0.213
0.036
0.839
0.001
0.804
0.66
0.328
0.002
0.432
0.753
0.469
0.515
0.01
Significance
Not significant
Not significant
Significant
Not significant
Highly significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Highly significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Highly significant
Continuance Commitment. Table 23 summarizes the regression details for continuance

commitment. Based on the results of the regression analysis that was run using
SPSS, it can be
seen there were only 3 significant predictors, namely: 1) job embeddedness ( =
0.353 and p
=.016), 2) job satisfaction ( = -0.253 and p =.028) and 3) professional
development ( = 0.133
and p =.013). Job embeddedness and professional development both had positive
relationships
with continuance commitment with job embeddedness having a relatively higher
positive effect
on continuance commitment. On the other hand, job satisfaction was negatively
related with
continuance commitment which did not seem to be theoretically consistent. The
remaining 10
predictors were not found to be significantly related with continuance commitment,
thus, the null
hypothesis for these predictors was accepted.
83 | P a g e
Table 23. Summary of the Regression Analysis for Continuance Commitment
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Dependent variable: Continuance Commitment
Model
Constant
Economic
Job satisfaction
Intent to stay
Working conditions
Job embeddedness
Credentials
Induction
Beta
3.319
0.056
-0.253
-0.165
-0.025
0.014
0.076
-0.106
0.353
0.133
0.154
-0.08
0.007
0.04
4.834
0.634
-2.217
-1.725
-0.453
0.159
0.744
-0.906
2.44
2.508
1.596
-1.136
0.078
0.273
pvalue
0.001
0.527
0.028
0.086
0.651
0.873
0.458
0.366
0.016
0.013
0.112
0.257
0.938
0.785
Significance
Highly significant
Not significant
Significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Significant
Significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Some studies say that job satisfaction, occupational and organizational commitments
were not completely unrelated. Organizational commitment was an answer to the
belief in
organization and job satisfaction was an answer to certain duties and experience
(Glisson &
Durick, 1988 in Munever, 2006). Balay, (2000 in Munevver 2006) said that these two
were very
much related. An individual may be unhappy about some duties and experiences but
can be very
strong in terms of committing oneself to the organization. The research findings of
Meyer et al
(2001) stated they had found the strongest correlation between affective and
normative
commitment to both occupation and the organization, but was negatively related with
continuance. This study shows that job satisfaction was negatively related with
continuance
commitment which seemed to support Meyer’s study.
84 | P a g e
Normative Commitment. With regards to normative commitment, only 2 of the
predictors were relevant as shown in Table 24. These were: 1) institutional
reputation ( =
0.341 and p =.002) which was highly significant and 2) intent to stay ( = 0.084
and p =.028)
which was significant. Both of these predictors were positively related with
normative
commitment although institutional reputation had a relatively higher positive
effect on this type
of commitment. Of the 13 predictors, 11 were found to be not significantly related
with
normative commitment and therefore, the null hypothesis for these predictors was
accepted.
Table 24. Summary of the Regression Analysis for Normative Commitment
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Dependent variable: Normative Commitment
Model
Constant
Economic
Job satisfaction
Intent to stay
Working conditions
Job embeddedness
Credentials
Induction
Beta
1.196
-0.048
0.135
-0.051
0.084
0.028
0.027
0.01
0.047
0.038
0.115
-0.076
-0.014
0.341
t
2.409
-0.744
1.653
-0.731
2.215
0.436
0.36
0.124
0.449
1.004
1.648
-1.502
-0.232
3.188
p-value
0.017
0.458
0.1
0.466
0.028
0.663
0.719
0.901
0.654
0.317
0.101
0.135
0.817
0.002
Significance
Significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Highly significant
Collegial Commitment. When it came to collegial commitment, as indicated in Table

25,
3 of these predictors were relevant, 2 of which were highly significant and the
remaining being
significant. These predictors included: 1) job embeddedness ( = 0.225 and p
=.003), 2)
participation in meetings ( = 0.141 and p = .004) and 3) institutional reputation
( = 0.183 and
85 | P a g e
p = .016). These predictors were positively related with collegial commitment with
job
embeddedness having the relatively greater positive effect on collegial commitment.
While the
remaining 10 predictors, on the other hand, had p-values greater than 0.05 (p >
0.05) meaning the
null hypothesis was accepted for these predictors.
Table 25. Summary of the Regression Analysis for Collegial Commitment
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Dependent variable: Collegial Commitment
Model
Constant
Economic
Job satisfaction
Intent to stay
Working conditions
Job embeddedness
Credentials
Induction
Beta
0.558
0.013
0.097
0.141
0.021
0.047
0.041
0.024
0.225
-0.008
0.093
0.007
0.016
0.183
t
1.595
0.277
1.677
2.892
0.779
1.026
0.792
0.412
3.051
-0.306
1.897
0.195
0.361
2.436
p-value
0.112
0.782
0.095
0.004
0.437
0.306
0.429
0.681
0.003
0.76
0.059
0.846
0.718
0.016
Significance
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Highly significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Highly significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Significant
Institutional Commitment. For the remaining type of organizational commitment,

Table
26 reveals that institutional commitment had 3 highly significant predictors,
namely: 1)
institutional reputation ( = 0.366 and p =.001), 2) job embeddedness ( = 0.191
and p =.004)
and 3) professional commitment ( = 0.142 and p = .002). These 3 predictors were
positively
related with institutional commitment with institutional reputation showing
relatively higher
positive effect on this type of commitment. The 10 remaining predictors did not
appear to be
86 | P a g e
significantly related with institutional commitment and therefore, the null
hypothesis (’s = 0)
for these predictors was accepted.
Table 26. Summary of the Regression Analysis for Institutional Commitment
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Dependent variable: Institutional Commitment
Model
Constant
Economic
Job satisfaction
Intent to stay
Working conditions
Job embeddedness
Credentials
Induction
Beta
1.076
0.013
0.015
0.066
0.03
0.017
0.06
0.001
0.191
-0.011
0.142
-0.006
-0.025
t
3.412
0.322
0.292
1.512
1.268
0.417
1.276
0.023
2.901
-0.455
3.212
-0.2
-0.65
p-value
0.001
0.748
0.77
0.132
0.206
0.677
0.204
0.982
0.004
0.65
0.002
0.842
0.516
Significance
Highly significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Highly significant
Not significant
Highly significant
Not significant
Not significant
Across the different types of organizational commitment, there were a total of 7 of

the 13
predictors that were either significantly or highly significantly related with
organizational
commitment. There were 2 predictors that showed up in four (4) types of
organizational
commitment, namely: 1) institutional reputation (in affective, normative, collegial
and
institutional commitment) and 2) job embeddedness (in affective, continuance,
collegial and
institutional commitment). There were 2 other predictors that proved relevant in 2
of the 5 types
of organizational commitment, among these: 1) job satisfaction (in affective and
continuance
commitment) and 2) intent to stay (in affective and normative commitment). The last
3 predictors
demonstrated in a specific type of organizational commitment and these were: 1)
professional
87 | P a g e
development (in continuance commitment), 2) participation in meetings (in collegial
commitment) and 3) professional commitment (in institutional commitment).
Some literatures say that employees who were satisfied with their jobs were likely
to stay
with the company and negatively influence their decisions or intentions to leave.
Caldarola
(2010) says that the theory of job embeddedness posits that work and non-work
dimensions of
links, fit and sacrifice tie employees to their role in the organization. Although
job
embeddedness has been theorized to predict the key outcomes of both intent to leave
and
voluntary turnover, it has been connected to recent discussions of retention and
intent to stay.
On another aspect of commitment, the results of this study also suggested that
participation in meetings is a predictor of collegial commitment which supports the
findings of
Henryhand (2009). His study found that the perceptions of employee engagement had a
significant impact on overall job satisfaction and intent to leave the
organization. The level of
satisfaction with recognition and engagement practices was a significant predictor
of the turnover
intentions or intentions to stay.
While intent to stay was a strong predictor of affective and normative commitments,
it
too was influenced by other variables. Some beliefs like open communication with
institutional
leaders and an effective voice in governance were strong predictors of intent to
leave academic
medicine (Lowenstein, Fernandez, & Crane). According to one faculty, “there are
opportunities in our school for faculty to voice opinions, but it isn’t clear that
anybody at the top
is listening”. This sentiment was somehow shared by some faculty members in this
study.
They, for example, suggested that, “there should be an open communication between
the
administration and the faculty members. Some felt that the faculty had “nobody up
there to
defend them. If they openly communicated with administration, it became
misinterpreted. The
88 | P a g e
formulation and implementation of institutional policies should follow a process of
consultdeliberate-vote.”
Still, other studies found out that employee recognition and employee engagement
had a
significant impact on overall job satisfaction and intent to leave the organization
(Henryhand,
2009). Henryhand’s (2009) findings supported the theory that the level of
satisfaction with
recognition and engagement practices was a significant predictor of turnover
intentions.
Commitment Indices
In a desire to provide even more meaningful analysis and interpretations to the
different
predictors of organizational commitment, the researchers explored the possibility
of formulating
a commitment index through the use of the principal component analysis or the
principal factor
analysis. The mean scores for the different types of commitment as well as for the
overall
organizational commitment were determined and their corresponding standard
deviations were
used to establish the range of scores which were then converted into three (3)
levels of
commitment, namely: 1) low, 2) average and 3) high.
Table 27. Summary of the Range of the Mean Scores of the Different Types of
Organizational Commitment
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS: COMMITMENT

Affective
Continuance
Normative
Collegial
Institutional
Overall
MIN
1.75
1.00
2.00
2.53
3.06
2.84
MAX
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
6.63
MEAN
5.3167
4.5241
4.7808
5.6731
6.086
5.2764
SD
0.89639
1.00898
0.79885
0.77529
0.7178
0.58612
89 | P a g e
Table 27 shows the minimum, maximum and mean scores for the different types of
organizational commitment, their corresponding standard deviation and defined
ranges for the
different levels of commitment. As can be gleaned from Table 28, there are ranges
of scores.
The range of scores in between the two other columns referred to the average level
of
commitment which was equivalent to one (1) standard deviation above and below the
mean score
for each type of commitment (  ). When this range of score had been determined,
the range
of scores below its lower limit was referred to low level of commitment while the
range of scores
above its upper limit was referred to high level of commitment.
Using these values, it can also be observed that continuance commitment (4.5241)
had the
lowest mean value while institutional commitment (6.0860) had the highest mean
value.
Additionally, continuance commitment (1.00898) and overall commitment (0.58612)
generated
the highest and lowest standard deviation, respectively, in the group. The type of
commitment
that had the broadest range of values (institutional commitment) for low level of
commitment led
to a smaller range of values for high level of commitment and vice versa
(continuance
commitment).
Table 28. Summary of the Range of Values across Different Types and Levels of
Organizational Commitment
COMMITMENT INDEX
LEVELS OF COMMITMENT
TYPES OF COMMITMENT
Affective
Continuance
Normative
Collegial
Institutional
Overall
LOW
1.00-4.49
1.00-3.50
1.00-4.00
1.00-4.90
1.00-5.37
1.00-4.69
AVERAGE
4.50-6.29
3.51-5.50
4.01-5.60
4.91-6.45
5.38-6.80
4.70-5.86
HIGH
6.30-7.00
5.51-7.00
5.61-7.00
6.46-7.00
6.81-7.00
5.87-7.00
90 | P a g e
On the basis of these values, the overall responses of the research participants
vis-à-vis
the different types of commitment were located in these ranges of values and their
levels of
commitment were identified correspondingly. The percentage share of each level of
commitment for each type of commitment was then summarized as shown in Table 29.
Table 29. Summary of the Percentage Share of the Types and Levels of Commitment
TYPES OF COMMITMENT
Affective
Continuance
Normative
Collegial
Institutional
Overall
LOW
16.6
15.1
19.1
15.8
11.2
14.4
PERCENTAGE SHARE
AVERAGE
HIGH
70.4
13
72.2
12.7
63.4
17.5
66.8
17.4
68.9
19.9
69.1
16.5
TOTAL
100
100
100
100
100
100
While the majority of the ratings tended or converged towards the average level of
commitment for all types of commitment, it is interesting to look at the
composition of the
groupings at each level of commitment. For example, looking at the percentage share
for the low
level of commitment, institutional commitment (11.2%) had the smallest percentage
share of
research participants that were identified as belonging to this group while
normative commitment
(19.1%) had the highest percentage share of faculty and administrators classified
as having low
level of commitment. Insofar as the average level of commitment was concerned,
normative
commitment (63.4%) had the lowest percentage share while continuance commitment
(72.2%)
had the highest percentage share of research participants indicating average level
of commitment.
In terms of the high level of commitment percentage sharing, continuance commitment
(12.7%)
had the smallest share while institutional commitment (19.9%) had the highest
percentage share
91 | P a g e
which reinforced the earlier findings where the research participants rated
themselves lowest and
highest in the areas of continuance commitment and institutional commitment,
respectively.
The commitment index was also further disaggregated across sex, employment status,
academic rank, length of service, designation and college affiliation to determine
whether there
were significant differences in their commitment indices.
According to Sexual Orientation. Table 30 summarizes the responses of the research

participants into a comparative presentation of the commitment indices across the
male and
female participants. Once again, the tendency of the scores to converge towards the
average
level of commitment was consistent for both sexes across the different types of
commitment
although the male participants consistently had bigger percentage shares under this
area relative
to the female participants. Furthermore, with the exception of normative
commitment, there were
also bigger percentage shares of highly committed male participants relative to the
female
participants.
Table 30. Summary of the Commitment Index according to Sexual Orientation
AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT
Sex
Low
Average
n
%
n
Female
18
12.3
105
Male
23
22.8
69
Total
41
16.6
174
Chi-square p-value = .045 (Significant)
%
71.9
68.3
70.4
High
n
23
9
32
%
15.8
8.9
13
Total
n
146
101
247
%
100
100
100
CONTINUANCE COMMITMENT
Sex
Low
n
%
n
Female
18
12.4
106
Male
19
19
71
Total
37
15.1
177
Chi-square p-value = .262 (Not Significant)
Average
%
73.1
71
72.2
High
n
21
10
31
%
14.5
10
12.7
Total
n
145
100
245
%
100
100
100
92 | P a g e
NORMATIVE COMMITMENT
Sex
Low
Average
n
%
n
Female
22
15.1
99
Male
25
25
57
Total
47
19.1
156
%
67.8
57
63.4
High
n
25
18
43
%
17.1
18
17.5
Total
n
146
100
246
%
100
100
100
COLLEGIAL COMMITMENT
Sex
Low
Average
n
%
n
Female
17
11.6
103
Male
22
21.8
62
Total
39
15.8
165
%
70.5
61.4
66.8
High
n
26
17
43
%
17.8
16.8
17.4
Total
n
146
101
247
%
100
100
100
INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT
Sex
Low
Average
n
%
n
Female
10
7
104
Male
17
17.3
62
Total
27
11.2
166
%
72.7
63.3
68.9
High
n
29
19
48
%
20.3
19.4
19.9
Total
n
143
98
241
%
100
100
100
OVERALL COMMITMENT
Sex
Low
n
%
n
Female
15
10.4
100
Male
20
20.2
68
Total
35
14.4
168
Average
%
69.4
68.7
69.1
High
n
29
11
40
%
20.1
11.1
16.5
Total
n
144
99
243
%
100
100
100
Additionally, using the Chi-square test, the results indicated that the commitment
indices
between the male and female research participants were significantly different in
three types of
commitment. These types of commitment included: 1) affective commitment (p=0.045),
2)
institutional commitment (p=0.042) and overall commitment (p=0.033).
93 | P a g e
20.2
Male
68.7
10.4
Female
11.1
69.4
20
40
Low
20.1
60
Average
80
100
High
Figure 7. Summary of the Commitment Index according to Sexual Orientation

A study on the moderating effects of tenure and gender on the relationship between
perception of organizational politics and commitment and trust “supported previous
findings
that employees’ gender, tenure, and demographic characteristics had effects on
their perceptions
of equity”(Kotabe et a, 1992; and Tansky et al, 1997 as cited in Indartono & Chen,
2011).
Though in this study the male participants showed higher percentages on the
different
aspects of commitment as compared to the female participants, Al-Ajmi (2006), found
that “the
relationship between gender and organizational commitment has also remained
unclear. Mixed
results have been reported on the relationship between gender and commitment in
previous
studies” (P.36). Hence, the findings partly negated the results of the findings of
Al-Ajmi (2006).
A qualitative study on how gendered is organizational commitment utilized a
grounded
theory approach. The research found out that the existing measures of
organizational
commitment were biased and were not appropriate measures of the commitment of women
and
some men in contemporary workplaces. Fisher, Boyle and Fulop (2010) said that
studying
94 | P a g e
organizational commitment using an interpretive approach allowed a more realistic
picture to
emerge. Current approaches focused on measurement rather than understanding the
nature of
organizational commitment. As a consequence, the commitment of women, and some men,
was
not accurately and clearly understood in many workplaces. The lack of understanding
led to the
perception that women, and some men, were lacking in commitment to their
organization.
According to Employment Status. Table 31, on the other hand, summarizes the
commitment indices of the participants across their employment status.
Consistently, the
tendency of the majority to converge towards the average level of commitment was
manifested
with the fulltime probationary and part-time faculty members garnering the bigger
percentage
shares in three types of commitment each, namely: affective commitment (86.7%),
continuance
commitment (75.9%) and normative commitment (75.9%) for the fulltime probationary
faculty
and collegial commitment (69.3%), institutional commitment (72.9%) and overall
commitment
(79.1%) for the part-time faculty member. These findings reinforced the earlier
statements
which indicated that the fulltime probationary and part-time faculty members tended
to be more
committed relative to the fulltime permanent faculty members and administrators.
Table 31. Summary of the Commitment Index according to Employment Status
Status
Low
Average
n
%
Full-time permanent
30
23.1
3
10
Part-time
8
9.2
Total
41
16.6
n
83
26
65
174
%
63.8
86.7
74.7
70.4
High
n
17
1
14
32
%
13.1
3.3
16.1
13
Total
n
130
30
87
247
%
100
100
100
100
Status
Low
Average
High
Total
95 | P a g e
n
%
Full-time permanent
21
16.3
3
10.3
Part-time
13
14.9
Total
37
15.1
Chi-square p-value = .932 (Not significant)
n
93
22
62
177
%
72.1
75.9
71.3
72.2
n
15
4
12
31
%
11.6
13.8
13.8
12.7
n
129
29
87
245
%
100
100
100
100
Status
Low
Average
n
%
Full-time permanent
34
26.2
3
10.3
Part-time
10
11.5
Total
47
19.1
Chi-square p-value = 0.046 (Significant)
n
75
22
59
156
%
57.7
75.9
67.8
63.4
High
n
21
4
18
43
%
16.2
13.8
20.7
17.5
Total
n
130
29
87
246
%
100
100
100
100
Low
n
%
Full-time permanent
25
19.2
3
10.3
Part-time
11
12.5
Total
39
15.8
Chi-square p-value = 0.161 (Not significant)
Status
Average
n
87
17
61
165
%
66.9
58.6
69.3
66.8
High
n
18
9
16
43
%
13.8
31
18.2
17.4
Total
n
130
29
88
247
%
100
100
100
100
Status
Low
n
%
Full-time permanent
19
15
2
6.9
Part-time
6
7.1
Total
27
11.2
Average
n
83
21
62
166
%
65.4
72.4
72.9
68.9
High
n
25
6
17
48
%
19.7
20.7
20
19.9
Total
n
127
29
85
241
%
100
100
100
100
OVERALL COMMITMENT
Status
Low
n
%
Full-time permanent
26
20.3
2
6.9
Part-time
7
8.1
Total
35
14.4
Average
n
80
20
68
168
%
62.5
69
79.1
69.1
High
n
22
7
11
40
%
17.2
24.1
12.8
16.5
Total
n
%
128
100
29
100
86
100
243
100
96 | P a g e
With regards to the low levels of commitment, the fulltime permanent research
participants had bigger percentage shares in all areas of commitment. When it came
to the high
levels of commitment, the biggest percentage shares in terms of affective (16.1%),
continuance
(13.8% shared with the fulltime probationary respondents) and normative commitment
(20.7%)
were the part-timers. In the three remaining types of commitment, referring to
collegial
(31.0%), institutional (20.7%) and overall commitment (24.1%), the fulltime
probationary
research participants showed relatively higher percentage shares.
Part-time
8.1
6.9
79.1
12.8
Low
69
24.1
Average
High
20.3
Full-time permanent
62.5
20
40
60
17.2
80
100
Figure 8. Summary of the Commitment Index according to Employment Status

Furthermore, using the Chi-square technique once again, the results show that the
commitment indices across employment status were significantly different in three
areas, namely:
1) affective commitment (p=0.018), 2) normative commitment (p=0.046) and overall
commitment
(p=0.034).
97 | P a g e
According to Academic Rank. Table 32 encapsulates the commitment indices across
academic rank. Repeatedly, the tendency for the majority scores to converge towards
the
average level of commitment was shown with the Professional Lecturers garnering the
bigger
percentage shares in the areas of affective commitment (78.9%), normative
commitment (70.3%),
institutional commitment (72.2%) and overall commitment (77.8%), while the
Associate
Professors and Lecturers led the pack in the average level of commitment among the
participants
in the areas of continuance commitment (92.3%) and collegial commitment (73.9%),
respectively.
Table 32. Summary of Commitment Index according to Academic Rank

Rank
Low
Average
n
%
Did not indicate
7
18.4
Lecturer
1
4.3
Professional Lecturer
2
5.3
Instructor
5
18.5
Assistant Professor
21
23.6
Associate Professor
2
15.4
Full Professor
3
15.8
Total
41
16.6
n
27
18
30
20
56
9
14
174
%
71.1
78.3
78.9
74.1
62.9
69.2
73.7
70.4
High
n
4
4
6
2
12
2
2
32
%
10.5
17.4
15.8
7.4
13.5
15.4
10.5
13
Total
n
%
38
100
23
100
38
100
27
100
89
100
13
100
19
100
247
100
Rank
Low
n
%
Did not indicate
7
18.4
Lecturer
4
17.4
6
16.2
Instructor
4
14.8
Assistant Professor
13
14.6
Associate Professor
1
7.7
Full Professor
2
11.1
Total
37
15.1
Average
n
24
16
24
17
69
12
15
177
%
63.2
69.6
64.9
63
77.5
92.3
83.3
72.2
High
n
7
3
7
6
7
0
1
31
%
18.4
13
18.9
22.2
7.9
0
5.6
12.7
Total
n
%
38
100
23
100
37
100
27
100
89
100
13
100
18
100
245
100
98 | P a g e
Rank
Low
Average
n
%
Did not indicate
5
13.2
Lecturer
3
13
4
10.8
Instructor
8
29.6
Assistant Professor
22
24.7
Associate Professor
2
15.4
Full Professor
3
15.8
Total
47
19.1
n
29
15
26
16
50
7
13
156
%
76.3
65.2
70.3
59.3
56.2
53.8
68.4
63.4
High
n
4
5
7
3
17
4
3
43
%
10.5
21.7
18.9
11.1
19.1
30.8
15.8
17.5
Total
n
%
38
100
23
100
37
100
27
100
89
100
13
100
19
100
246
100
Rank
Low
Average
n
%
Did not indicate
7
18.4
Lecturer
1
4.3
5
13.2
Instructor
3
11.1
Assistant Professor
18
20.2
Associate Professor
3
23.1
Full Professor
2
10.5
Total
39
15.8
n
27
17
25
19
57
7
13
165
%
71.1
73.9
65.8
70.4
64
53.8
68.4
66.8
High
n
4
5
8
5
14
3
4
43
%
10.5
21.7
21.1
18.5
15.7
23.1
21.1
17.4
Total
n
%
38
100
23
100
38
100
27
100
89
100
13
100
19
100
247
100
Rank
Low
n
%
Did not indicate
4
10.8
Lecturer
2
8.7
2
5.6
Instructor
3
11.5
Assistant Professor
12
13.6
Associate Professor
3
23.1
Full Professor
1
5.6
Total
27
11.2
Average
n
27
16
26
17
60
8
12
166
%
73
69.6
72.2
65.4
68.2
61.5
66.7
68.9
High
n
6
5
8
6
16
2
5
48
%
16.2
21.7
22.2
23.1
18.2
15.4
27.8
19.9
Total
n
%
37
100
23
100
36
100
26
100
88
100
13
100
18
100
241
100
OVERALL COMMITMENT
Rank
Low
Average
High
Total
99 | P a g e
n
%
Did not indicate
4
10.5
Lecturer
2
8.7
2
5.6
Instructor
5
18.5
Assistant Professor
17
19.1
Associate Professor
3
23.1
Full Professor
2
11.8
Total
35
14.4
n
31
17
28
19
56
7
10
168
%
81.6
73.9
77.8
70.4
62.9
53.8
58.8
69.1
n
3
4
6
3
16
3
5
40
%
7.9
17.4
16.7
11.1
18
23.1
29.4
16.5
n
38
23
36
27
89
13
17
243
Looking at the low levels of commitment summary, the Associate Professors generated
bigger percentage shares in three (3) areas of commitment, namely: 1) collegial
commitment
(23.1%), 2) institutional commitment (23.1%) and overall commitment (23.1%) while
the
Lecturers indicated bigger percentage shares in the area of continuance commitment
(17.4%), the
Assistant Professors registered higher percentage share in the area of affective
commitment
(23.6%) while the bigger percentage share for normative commitment (29.6%) could be
traced to
the Instructors. On the other hand, when it came to high levels of commitment, the
Associate
Professors and Full Professors garnered bigger percentage shares in two areas each,
namely:
normative (30.8%) and collegial commitment (23.1%) for the Associate Professors and
institutional (27.8%) and overall commitment (29.4%) for the Full Professors. While
the
Lecturers and Instructors led the group in terms of high levels of committed
faculty members
and administrators in the areas of affective (17.4%) and continuance commitment
(22.2%),
respectively.
100 | P a g e
%
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
7.9
81.6
10.5
17.4
16.7
73.9
77.8
8.7
5.6
11.1
18
23.1
70.4
62.9
53.8
18.5
19.1
23.1
29.4
58.8
High
Average
11.8
Low
Figure 9. Summary of the Commitment Index according to Academic Rank
The results showed some similarities to the earlier results indicating that the
group of
Lecturers, Instructors and Full Professors had relatively higher mean ratings.
However, no
significant differences in the commitment indices could be established across the
different types
commitment based on this specific disaggregation.
According to Length of Service. In the area of length of service, Table 33

indicates the
tendency or pattern for the commitment index ratings to converge towards average
levels of
commitment was disrupted in the areas of affective commitment (33.3% as opposed to
66.7% for
low level of commitment) and overall commitment (33.3% across the three levels of
commitment).
The research participants with 0-5 years and 31 or more years of service showed
bigger
percentage shares in two areas each, namely: affective commitment (76.9%) and
overall
commitment (74.7%) for the 0-5 years of service and normative (100.0%) and
institutional
commitment (80.0%) for those who have stayed with the institution for 31 years or
more.
101 | P a g e
Table 33. Summary of the Commitment Index according to Length of Service
Length of service
Low
Average
n
%
Did not indicate
3
13.6
0 to 5 years
11
12.1
6 to 10 years
11
22.4
11 to 15 years
5
13.5
16 to 20 years
7
29.2
21 to 25 years
2
12.5
26 to 30 years
2
66.7
31 years and above
0
0
Total
41
16.6
n
16
70
32
27
15
10
1
3
174
%
72.7
76.9
65.3
73
62.5
62.5
33.3
60
70.4
High
n
3
10
6
5
2
4
0
2
32
%
13.6
11
12.2
13.5
8.3
25
0
40
13
Total
n
22
91
49
37
24
16
3
5
247
%
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Length of service
Low
n
%
Did not indicate
3
13.6
0 to 5 years
15
16.5
6 to 10 years
7
14.6
11 to 15 years
7
18.9
16 to 20 years
2
8.3
21 to 25 years
2
13.3
26 to 30 years
0
0
31 years and above
1
20
Total
37
15.1
Average
n
17
61
36
28
17
13
2
3
177
%
77.3
67
75
75.7
70.8
86.7
66.7
60
72.2
High
n
2
15
5
2
5
0
1
1
31
%
9.1
16.5
10.4
5.4
20.8
0
33.3
20
12.7
Total
n
22
91
48
37
24
15
3
5
245
%
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Length of service
Low
n
%
Did not indicate
2
9.1
0 to 5 years
14
15.4
6 to 10 years
14
29.2
11 to 15 years
7
18.9
16 to 20 years
6
25
21 to 25 years
3
18.8
26 to 30 years
1
33.3
31 years and above
0
0
Total
47
19.1
Average
n
17
62
23
24
14
9
2
5
156
%
77.3
68.1
47.9
64.9
58.3
56.3
66.7
100
63.4
High
n
3
15
11
6
4
4
0
0
43
%
13.6
16.5
22.9
16.2
16.7
25
0
0
17.5
Total
n
22
91
48
37
24
16
3
5
246
102 | P a g e
%
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Length of service
Low
Average
n
%
Did not indicate
4
18.2
0 to 5 years
9
9.8
6 to 10 years
11
22.9
11 to 15 years
6
16.2
16 to 20 years
6
25
21 to 25 years
1
6.3
26 to 30 years
1
33.3
31 years and above
1
20
Total
39
15.8
n
14
65
31
23
17
10
2
3
165
%
63.6
70.7
64.6
62.2
70.8
62.5
66.7
60
66.8
High
n
4
18
6
8
1
5
0
1
43
%
18.2
19.6
12.5
21.6
4.2
31.3
0
20
17.4
Total
n
22
92
48
37
24
16
3
5
247
%
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Length of service
Low
n
%
Did not indicate
2
9.5
0 to 5 years
6
6.7
6 to 10 years
7
15.2
11 to 15 years
5
13.9
16 to 20 years
3
12.5
21 to 25 years
3
18.8
26 to 30 years
1
33.3
31 years and above
0
0
Total
27
11.2
Average
n
15
67
32
23
16
7
2
4
166
%
71.4
74.4
69.6
63.9
66.7
43.8
66.7
80
68.9
High
n
4
17
7
8
5
6
0
1
48
%
19
18.9
15.2
22.2
20.8
37.5
0
20
19.9
Total
n
21
90
46
36
24
16
3
5
241
%
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
OVERALL COMMITMENT
Length of service
Low
n
%
Did not indicate
3
13.6
0 to 5 years
10
11
6 to 10 years
8
17
11 to 15 years
6
16.7
16 to 20 years
6
25
21 to 25 years
1
6.7
26 to 30 years
1
33.3
31 years and above
0
0
Total
35
14.4
Average
n
17
68
31
24
15
9
1
3
168
%
77.3
74.7
66
66.7
62.5
60
33.3
60
69.1
High
n
2
13
8
6
3
5
1
2
40
%
9.1
14.3
17
16.7
12.5
33.3
33.3
40
16.5
Total
n
22
91
47
36
24
15
3
5
243
103 | P a g e
%
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Insofar as low levels of commitment were concerned, the bigger percentage shares
were
dominated by those who have been with the institution for 26-30 years except in the
area of
continuance commitment. While in terms of high levels of commitment, those who have
been
with the University for 21-25 years showed bigger percentage shares in three areas,
namely:
normative (25.0%), collegial (31.3%) and institutional commitment (37.5%). Whereas
those
who have served the institution longest (≥ 31 years) were highly committed in the
areas of
affective (40.0%) and overall commitment (40.0%). The most highly committed group
in terms
of continuance commitment (33.3%) was those who have been with the institution for
26-30
years. These results corroborated the earlier findings that those who gave
relatively higher
commitment ratings were also the most committed groups and these were faculty
members and
administrators who have served the institution between 21-30 years. However, the
commitment
indices were not significantly different at all types of commitment across the
different categories
of length of service.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
9.1
14.3
17
16.7
12.5
33.3
77.3
74.7
66
66.7
62.5
33.3
33.3
High
60
13.6
11
17
16.7
40
60
33.3
25
6.7
Average
Low
0
Figure 10. Summary of the Commitment Index according to Length of Service

104 | P a g e
Indartono & Chen (2011) concluded that tenured employees showed greater commitment
than junior employees. Previous researchers have proposed evidence of a positive
association
between tenure and commitment (Mottaz, 1998; Gregersen and Black, 1992 cited in
Indartono
& Chen ,2011). The length of service in an organization was positively related to
the level of
internalization of organizational values, resulting in greater commitment on the
part of members
(Dick and Metcalfe, 2007 as cited in Indartono & Chen ,2011). Other previous
studies have also
indicated that organizational commitment increases with tenure.
In a related study on effects of service tenure and nature of occupation on
organizational
commitment and job satisfaction, Natarajan & Nagar (2011) claimed that the main
effect of
service tenure was found to influence commitment and job satisfaction. It was seen
that
managers with longer tenure reflected higher affective commitment, normative
commitment and
intrinsic job satisfaction as compared to their counterparts. Those who stayed in
the organization
adapted themselves to the organization and attained maturity. Thus, affective and
normative commitment were high when the employee joined the organization newly.
This phase
corresponded to the infancy stage of development. Thereafter, the commitment and
job
satisfaction dropped which corresponded to the adolescent stage of development, and
finally,
over longer service tenure both commitment and job satisfaction stabilized,
corresponding to
adulthood or maturity stage of development.
According to Designation. When grouped according to their designation, Table 34

shows that with the exception of institutional commitment (50.0% or equally shared
between
average and high levels of commitment), the tendency of the levels of commitment to
converge
towards average levels of commitment held true. The bigger percentage shares at
this level went
to the Deans in four types of commitment, namely: affective (75.0%), continuance
(100.0%),
105 | P a g e
normative (75.0%) and overall commitment (75.0%). While in terms of low levels of
commitment, the bigger percentage shares could be traced to the Department or Level
Chairs
also in four areas, which included: affective (30.0%), normative (26.3%),
institutional (21.1%)
and overall commitment (15.8%). The highest levels of commitment were often
registered by the
group of Department or Level Chairs, also in four areas, including normative
(26.3%), collegial
(36.8%), institutional (31.6%) and overall commitment (36.8%). While the faculty
members’
high levels of commitment in the areas of affective (12.3%) and continuance
commitment (13.7%)
was noteworthy.
Table 34. Summary of the Commitment Index according to Designation

Low
Designation
Average
n
%
Faculty
32
15.1
6
30
Dean
1
25
Total
39
16.5
n
154
12
3
169
High
%
72.6
60
75
71.6
n
26
2
0
28
Total
%
12.3
10
0
11.9
n
212
20
4
236
%
100
100
100
100
CONTINUANCE COMMMITMENT
Low
Designation
Average
n
%
Faculty
34
16
2
10.5
Dean
0
0
Total
36
15.3
n
149
16
4
169
High
%
70.3
84.2
100
71.9
n
29
1
0
30
Total
%
13.7
5.3
0
12.8
n
212
19
4
235
%
100
100
100
100
Designation
Faculty
Dean
Total
Low
n
40
5
0
45
Average
%
18.9
26.3
0
19.1
n
137
9
3
149
High
%
64.6
47.4
75
63.4
n
35
5
1
41
Total
%
16.5
26.3
25
17.4
n
%
212
100
19 100
4 100
235
100
106 | P a g e
Designation
Low
Average
n
%
Faculty
34
16
3
15.8
Dean
1
25
Total
38
16.1
n
148
9
2
159
%
69.5
47.4
50
67.4
High
n
31
7
1
39
Total
%
14.6
36.8
25
16.5
n
213
19
4
236
%
100
100
100
100
Designation
Low
n
%
Faculty
23
11.1
4
21.1
Dean
0
0
Total
27
11.7
Average
n
147
9
2
158
%
71
47.4
50
68.7
High
n
37
6
2
45
Total
%
17.9
31.6
50
19.6
n
207
19
4
230
%
100
100
100
100
OVERALL COMMITMENT
Designation
Low
n
%
Faculty
31
14.8
3
15.8
Dean
0
0
Total
34
14.6
Average
n
150
9
3
162
%
71.4
47.4
75
69.5
High
n
29
7
1
37
Total
%
13.8
36.8
25
15.9
n
210
19
4
233
The results, however, were not as conclusive relative to the earlier findings which
indicated that the Deans registered higher mean ratings and were found to be
relatively more
committed. Once again, no significant differences in the commitment indices could
be
established across the different types of commitment when the research participants
were
grouped according to their designation.
107 | P a g e
%
100
100
100
100
100%
90%
13.8
25
36.8
80%
70%
60%
50%
High
71.4
40%
47.4
Average
75
Low
30%
20%
10%
14.8
15.8
Faculty
Department/Level
chair
0%
0
Dean
Figure 11. Summary of the Commitment Index according to Designation

According to Collegial Affiliation. Finally, the researchers attempted to provide
more
meaningful information with regards to the commitment index by disaggregating the
results
across colleges. As shown in Table 35, with the exception of collegial commitment
(the College
of Engineering had higher percentage share in the low level of commitment at
53.6%), the
tendency to converge towards average levels of commitment was also observed across
the
colleges with the College of Education taking on bigger percentage shares in four
(4) areas,
namely: 1) continuance commitment (100.0%), 2) normative commitment (80.0%), 3)
collegial
commitment (80.0%) and institutional commitment (100.0%).
Table 35. Summary of the Commitment Index according to Collegial Affiliation
College
CAS
CBA
Educ
Eng'g
Low
n
14
8
1
9
%
12.8
12.9
20
31
Average
n
80
46
3
18
%
73.4
74.2
60
62.1
High
n
15
8
1
2
%
13.8
12.9
20
6.9
Total
n
%
109
100
62
100
5
100
29
100
108 | P a g e
Nursing
9
21.4
Total
41
16.6
27
174
64.3
70.4
6
32
14.3
13
42
247
100
100
Low
College
Average
n
%
CAS
17
15.7
CBA
10
16.1
Educ
0
0
Eng'g
4
14.3
Nursing
6
14.3
Total
37
15.1
n
79
43
5
20
30
177
%
73.1
69.4
100
71.4
71.4
72.2
High
n
12
9
0
4
6
31
%
11.1
14.5
0
14.3
14.3
12.7
Total
n
%
108
100
62
100
5
100
28
100
42
100
245
100
Low
College
Average
n
%
CAS
21
19.3
CBA
9
14.5
Educ
1
20
Eng'g
9
32.1
Nursing
7
16.7
Total
47
19.1
n
77
37
4
15
23
156
%
70.6
59.7
80
53.6
54.8
63.4
High
n
11
16
0
4
12
43
%
10.1
25.8
0
14.3
28.6
17.5
Total
n
%
109
100
62
100
5
100
28
100
42
100
246
100
Low
College
Average
n
%
CAS
14
12.7
CBA
3
4.8
Educ
1
20
Eng'g
15
53.6
Nursing
6
14.3
Total
39
15.8
Chi-square p-value = 0.001 (Highly significant)
n
72
45
4
13
31
165
%
65.5
72.6
80
46.4
73.8
66.8
High
n
24
14
0
0
5
43
%
21.8
22.6
0
0
11.9
17.4
Total
n
%
110
100
62
100
5
100
28
100
42
100
247
100
College
CAS
CBA
Low
n
10
4
Average
%
9.2
6.6
n
73
43
%
67
70.5
High
n
26
14
%
23.9
23
Total
n
%
109
100
61
100
109 | P a g e
Educ
0
0
Eng'g
8
30.8
Nursing
5
12.5
Total
27
11.2
5
16
29
166
100
61.5
72.5
68.9
0
2
6
48
0
7.7
15
19.9
5
26
40
241
100
100
100
100
OVERALL COMMITMENT
College
Low
n
%
CAS
14
13.1
CBA
6
9.7
Educ
1
20
Eng'g
8
29.6
Nursing
6
14.3
Total
35
14.4
Average
n
76
45
3
18
26
168
%
71
72.6
60
66.7
61.9
69.1
High
n
17
11
1
1
10
40
Total
n
%
107
100
62
100
5
100
27
100
42
100
243
100
%
15.9
17.7
20
3.7
23.8
16.5
On the other hand, when it came to the low levels of commitment, it was the College
of
Engineering that had bigger percentage shares in five of the six (5 of 6) types of
commitment
which included: 1) affective commitment (31.0%), 2) normative commitment (32.1%),
3)
collegial commitment (53.6%), 4) institutional commitment (30.8%) and 5) overall
commitment
(29.6%). While in terms of the high levels of commitment, the faculty and
administrators of the
College of Business and Accountancy registered bigger percentage shares in three
(3) areas,
namely: continuance (14.3%), normative (25.8%) and collegial commitment (22.6%).
The
College of Education generated bigger percentage shares in terms of affective
(20.0%) and
overall commitment (20.0%) while the high level of commitment in terms of
institutional
commitment (23.9%) could be traced to the College of Arts and Sciences.
110 | P a g e
Nursing
14.3
Eng'g
61.9
29.6
23.8
66.7
3.7
Low
Educ
20
60
20
Average
High
CBA
9.7
CAS
13.1
0%
20%
72.6
17.7
71
15.9
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 12. Summary of the Commitment Index according to Collegial Affiliation

Using the Chi-square test, this was the first time that significant differences in
the
commitment indices were established. These included the commitment indices for
collegial
(p=0.001) and institutional commitment (p=0.033) where the differences were highly
significant
and significant, respectively.
One of the major objectives of the study was to find out which of the types of
commitment was predominant when the participants were grouped according to college.
The
study showed mixed results. In the College of Business & Accountancy, for example,
continuance commitment was very strong, while affective commitment and
institutional
commitment were strongest in the College of Education and in the College of Arts
and Sciences,
respectively.
A plethora of studies on organizational commitment seemed to support the results of
this
study. According to a study conducted by Iles & Suliman (2000) the multidimensional
approach
to conceptualizing organizational commitment (OC) assumed that OC “does not develop
simply
through emotional attachment, perceived cost or moral obligation, but through the
interplay of
111 | P a g e
all these three components”. Furthermore, Kelman (1958, as cited in Iles & Suliman
2000)
argued that “the underlying process in which an individual engages when he adopts
induced
behavior may be different, even though the resulting overt behavior may appear the
same”
(p.53). Lawrence (1958 as cited in Randall, 1987), on the other hand said that,
“ideally, we
would want one sentiment to be dominant in all employees from top to bottom, namely
a
complete loyalty to the organizational purpose” (p. 208). However, Reichers (1985,
as cited in
Iles & Suliman, 2000) maintained that, “researchers must ignore the global view of
OC and
focus on specific commitments to various entities within the organization”. Allen
and Meyer
(1990, as cited in Iles & Suliman, 2000) contended that “the net sum of a person’s
commitment
to the organization reflects each of the separable psychological states (affective
attachment,
perceived costs and obligation)” (p.4). Iles and Suliman (2000) put forward a new
look in
commitment-performance relationship saying that, “different types of commitment
have different
relationships to organizational behavior and that research has consistently
demonstrated that
affective, continuance and normative commitments are conceptually and empirically
distinct.”
112 | P a g e

Data Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Data Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

Profile of the Research Participants

Table 3. Profile of Respondents by Sexual Orientation, Employment Status, Academic

Although the study initially intended to conduct a total enumeration in view of it

Profile of Participants According to Sexual

Figure 3. Profile of Participants according to Sexual Orientation

Profile of Participants according to

Figure 4. Profile of Participants According to Employment Status

Figure 5. Profile of Participants according to Academic Rank

Figure 6. Profile of Participants according to Length of Service

Primary Predictors Influencing the Commitment of Faculty and Administrators

SCALE OF INTERPRETATION OF THE MEAN

Principal Predictors Influencing the Commitment according to Specific Groupings

MEAN INTERPRETATION P-VALUE SIGNIFICANCE

Table 8. Mean Scores of the Predictors of Organizational Commitment according to

MEAN INTERPRETATION P-VALUE SIGNIFICANCE

Table 9. Mean Scores of the Predictors of Organizational Commitment according to

Did not indicate

The group of Lecturers indicated their principal predictors to include the

According to Length of Service. In terms of length of service, the mean scores

According to Designation. Insofar as designation is concerned, the Deans topped the

Table 11. Mean Scores of the Predictors of Organizational Commitment according to

For the faculty members, the principal predictors included: 1) professional

According to Collegial Affiliation. Finally, in terms of college affiliation, the

Table 12. Mean Scores of the Predictors of Organizational Commitment according to

Overall Types of Commitment and According to Specific Aggrupations

Organizational commitment is classified into five types, namely: 1) affective

Of these types of commitment, continuance commitment generated the lowest mean

Relatedly, it was revealed in another survey that there was no significant

According to Employment Status. In terms of employment status, Table 15 shows that

Did not indicate

INTERPRETATION P-VALUE SIGNIFICANCE

According to Length of Service. To determine whether the length of service affects

In finding the impact of demographics on organizational commitment, Iqbal (2011)

surprisingly, years in position, years in industry, and organizational tenure were

According to Designation. Grouping the research participants in terms of their

According to Collegial Affiliation. Lastly, in terms of collegial affiliation, a

The Correlation between the Levels of Commitment and their Predictors

The thirteen predictors of organizational commitment may be further collapsed into

Multiple Regression Analysis of the Relationship between the Different Types of

Continuance Commitment. Table 23 summarizes the regression details for continuance

Table 24. Summary of the Regression Analysis for Normative Commitment

Collegial Commitment. When it came to collegial commitment, as indicated in Table

Institutional Commitment. For the remaining type of organizational commitment,

Across the different types of organizational commitment, there were a total of 7 of

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS: COMMITMENT

According to Sexual Orientation. Table 30 summarizes the responses of the research

Figure 7. Summary of the Commitment Index according to Sexual Orientation

Figure 8. Summary of the Commitment Index according to Employment Status

Table 32. Summary of Commitment Index according to Academic Rank

According to Length of Service. In the area of length of service, Table 33

Figure 10. Summary of the Commitment Index according to Length of Service

According to Designation. When grouped according to their designation, Table 34

Table 34. Summary of the Commitment Index according to Designation

Figure 11. Summary of the Commitment Index according to Designation

Figure 12. Summary of the Commitment Index according to Collegial Affiliation

You might also like