USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Loyalty of online faculty

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Loyalty of online faculty a work design perspective of the impact of a telecommuting work environment on employee loyalty
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Pereira, Kenneth N
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Online work
Intent to turnover
Job satisfaction
Social interaction
Trust
Dissertations, Academic -- Industrial and Management Systems Engineering -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT This study empirically evaluates the theoretical impact of a telecommuting or online work environment on employee loyalty. While the concept of employee loyalty has been extensively researched, the concept of the impact of the work environment on employee loyalty is fairly new. Specifically, this study operationally defines the work environment characteristics that contribute to employee loyalty and examines the impact of the online or telecommuting work environment on employee loyalty. A survey instrument is utilized to collect perceptual data about the psychological components of the work environment and their impact on employee loyalty from the employee's perspective. Multiple linear regression analysis is used to analyze the data from one hundred and three respondents to determine correlation between the work environment characteristics and employee loyalty.Additional statistics utilized in the analysis of the data include: factor analysis, t-test, K-S test, and Cronbach's Alpha. While the study's findings confirm that the three work environment factors (job satisfaction, social interaction, and trust) contribute to employee loyalty as represented by the surrogate, intent to turnover, the dynamics underlying the perceptions of telecommuting and traditional collocated employees is complex. Telecommuting employees, as hypothesized, demonstrate higher levels of intention to turnover, the key construct in the study, than do traditional onsite employees. Similarly, job satisfaction is much lower for telecommuters. No statistically significant differences were found in trust or social interaction. When exploring casual impacts of satisfaction, social interaction and trust on intention to turnover, very different dynamics emerged between the telecommuting and traditional.In particular, job satisfaction, while very important to the traditional workers, was insignificant to intention to turnover to telecommuter employees. In addition, telecommuters apparently had derived alternative mechanisms to allow for social interactions, other than face-to-face ones. Trust, in both groups, is an overriding factor in ameliorating intention to turnover. This research adds to current perspectives on the effects of the work environment on employee loyalty. This research will enhance insights into this increasingly prevalent work environment, and organization researchers and managers will be able to use these results to enhance understanding of the impact on work environment. These contributions may help to decrease turnover and enhance the satisfaction derived in telecommuting work environments. The study ends with a discussion of limitations and suggestions for future research.
Thesis:
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2009.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Kenneth N. Pereira.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 130 pages.
General Note:
Includes vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 002222788
oclc - 652998311
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0002983
usfldc handle - e14.2983
System ID:
SFS0027300:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200397Ka 4500
controlfield tag 001 002222788
005 20100805173806.0
007 cr bnu|||uuuuu
008 100805s2009 flua ob 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002983
035
(OCoLC)652998311
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
T56 (Online)
1 100
Pereira, Kenneth N.
0 245
Loyalty of online faculty
h [electronic resource] :
b a work design perspective of the impact of a telecommuting work environment on employee loyalty /
by Kenneth N. Pereira.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
2009.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 130 pages.
Includes vita.
502
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2009.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
520
ABSTRACT This study empirically evaluates the theoretical impact of a telecommuting or online work environment on employee loyalty. While the concept of employee loyalty has been extensively researched, the concept of the impact of the work environment on employee loyalty is fairly new. Specifically, this study operationally defines the work environment characteristics that contribute to employee loyalty and examines the impact of the online or telecommuting work environment on employee loyalty. A survey instrument is utilized to collect perceptual data about the psychological components of the work environment and their impact on employee loyalty from the employee's perspective. Multiple linear regression analysis is used to analyze the data from one hundred and three respondents to determine correlation between the work environment characteristics and employee loyalty.Additional statistics utilized in the analysis of the data include: factor analysis, t-test, K-S test, and Cronbach's Alpha. While the study's findings confirm that the three work environment factors (job satisfaction, social interaction, and trust) contribute to employee loyalty as represented by the surrogate, intent to turnover, the dynamics underlying the perceptions of telecommuting and traditional collocated employees is complex. Telecommuting employees, as hypothesized, demonstrate higher levels of intention to turnover, the key construct in the study, than do traditional onsite employees. Similarly, job satisfaction is much lower for telecommuters. No statistically significant differences were found in trust or social interaction. When exploring casual impacts of satisfaction, social interaction and trust on intention to turnover, very different dynamics emerged between the telecommuting and traditional.In particular, job satisfaction, while very important to the traditional workers, was insignificant to intention to turnover to telecommuter employees. In addition, telecommuters apparently had derived alternative mechanisms to allow for social interactions, other than face-to-face ones. Trust, in both groups, is an overriding factor in ameliorating intention to turnover. This research adds to current perspectives on the effects of the work environment on employee loyalty. This research will enhance insights into this increasingly prevalent work environment, and organization researchers and managers will be able to use these results to enhance understanding of the impact on work environment. These contributions may help to decrease turnover and enhance the satisfaction derived in telecommuting work environments. The study ends with a discussion of limitations and suggestions for future research.
538
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
590
Co-Advisor: Michael Weng, Ph.D.
Co-Advisor: Paul McCright, Ph.D.
653
Online work
Intent to turnover
Job satisfaction
Social interaction
Trust
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Industrial and Management Systems Engineering
Doctoral.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.2983



PAGE 1

Loyalty of Online Faculty: A Work Desi gn Perspective of th e Impact of a Telecommuting Work Environment on Employee Loyalty by Kenneth N. Pereira A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Industrial and Ma nagement Systems Engineering College of Engineering University of South Florida Co-Major Professor: Michael Weng, Ph.D. Co-Major Professor: Paul McCright, Ph.D. Member: Kingsley Reeves, Ph.D. Member: Dewey Rundus, Ph.D. Member: Jerry Goolsby, Ph.D. Date of Approval: April 14, 2009 Keywords: Online Work, Intent to Turnover, Job Satisfaction, Social Interaction, Trust Copyright 2009, Kenneth Noel Pereira

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation is an ec ho of the many steps that I have taken, the memorable events and experiences, and the companions that have supported a nd joined me on this journey of personal growth. Like all journeys, this one could not have been made without the guidance and support of mentors, friends, and family. Along the way, I have gathered the treasures each of you provi ded and contributed. I have been enriched by each of you in your own way. I have had the privilege of working with a team of creative and supportive faculty who contributed knowledge, understanding, enco uragement, advice and direction. I would like to express my deepest appreciati on to each of my faculty committee members: Michael Weng, Paul McCright, Kingsley Reev es, Dewey Rundus, and Jerry Goolsby. I owe a special thanks to Anita Callahan who understood my dreams and ambitions. She embraced them and sought to help them grow in to reality. I will always be grateful to these people for joining me on my journey. I have been fortunate and blessed to have my closest friend, my wife, and my soul mate accompany me on this journey. Terri you have always embraced and believed my dreams. Your trust and belief in me and unwavering and constant support have strengthened and comforted me along the way. Thank you for your endless love that allows me to take such journeys and pursue my dreams.

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ iv LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................vi ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................... v ii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION..................................................................................1 Background..............................................................................................................1 Relevance of the Topic to Practitioners...................................................................2 Relevance of the Topic to Researchers....................................................................3 Purpose of this Study.............................................................................................. 4 Organization of the Research...................................................................................6 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW......................................................................8 Chapter Overview....................................................................................................8 Introduction............................................................................................................. 9 Rationalization for Constructs Included in the Research.......................................10 Defining Collocated Work Environments.............................................................19 Defining Telecommuting Work Environments.................................................... 20 Defining Employee Loyalty.................................................................................. 22 The Relationship between Intent to Turnover and Employee Loyalty..................26 Defining the Components of a Work Environment Related to Employee Loyalty..................................................................................................29 Job Satisfaction..........................................................................................30 Social Interaction.......................................................................................32 Trust...........................................................................................................33 Chapter Summary .................................................................................................35 CHAPTER THREE RESE ARCH METHODOLOGY....................................................37 Chapter Overview..................................................................................................37 Introduction............................................................................................................39 Construct and Scale Item Construction..................................................................41 Group Determination.................................................................................43 Job Satisfaction..........................................................................................45 Social Interaction.......................................................................................47 Trust...........................................................................................................48 Intent to Turnover......................................................................................49 Demographic Characteristics.....................................................................50 Survey Instrument Construction................................................................51 Study Subjects........................................................................................................53 i

PAGE 4

Pilot Study..............................................................................................................55 Data Collection......................................................................................................56 Survey Instrument..................................................................................................57 Validity..................................................................................................................59 Content Validity.........................................................................................59 Criterion Related Validity..........................................................................60 Construct Validity......................................................................................61 Statistical Analysis.................................................................................................61 Chapter Summary..................................................................................................62 CHAPTER FOUR ANALYSIS........................................................................................63 Chapter Overview..................................................................................................63 Distribution and Collection of the Survey Instrument...........................................65 Non-response Bias.................................................................................................65 Representativeness of Sample................................................................................68 Factor Analysis......................................................................................................71 Factor Analysis of Likert Perceptual Items...............................................72 Factor Loading of Scale Items...................................................................73 Factor 1: Intent to Turnover......................................................................75 Factor 2: Trust...........................................................................................76 Factor 3: Social Interaction.......................................................................77 Factor 4: Job Satisfaction..........................................................................78 Regression Analysis...............................................................................................83 Chapter Summary..................................................................................................86 CHAPTER FIVE RESULTS, CONT RIBUTIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH.....................................................87 Chapter Overview..................................................................................................87 Results....................................................................................................................89 Hypothesis Regarding In tent to Turnover..................................................90 Hypothesis Regarding Job Satisfaction.....................................................91 Hypothesis Regarding Social Interaction...................................................93 Hypothesis Regarding Trust......................................................................95 Summary of Evaluati on of Hypothesis......................................................96 The Contributions of this Study.............................................................................99 Contributions to the Development of Theory..........................................100 Contributions to the Practice....................................................................102 Limitations of the Research.................................................................................108 Suggestions for Future Research.........................................................................109 Chapter Summary................................................................................................111 REFERENCES................................................................................................................112 ii

PAGE 5

iii APPENDICES.................................................................................................................122 Appendix A. Survey Instrument.........................................................................123 ABOUT THE AUTHOR...................................................................................... End Page

PAGE 6

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Group Determination Items as Modified for Survey..........................................45 Table 2. Unmodified Group Determination Survey Items................................................45 Table 3. Job Satisfaction Survey Items.............................................................................46 Table 4. Social Interaction Survey Items as Modified for Survey....................................48 Table 5. Unmodified Social Interaction Survey Items......................................................48 Table 6. Trust Survey Items..............................................................................................49 Table 7. Intent to Turnover Items.....................................................................................50 Table 8. Demographic Items.............................................................................................51 Table 9. Reversed Worded Items......................................................................................52 Table 10. T-tests of First 25% and Last 25% of Respondents...........................................67 Table 11. Demographic Responses....................................................................................68 Table 12. Human Resource Data.......................................................................................69 Table 13. K-S Test on Gender...........................................................................................70 Table 14. K-S Test on Degree............................................................................................70 Table 15. Eigenvalues of the Reduced Correlation Matrix................................................73 Table 16. Initial Rotated Factor Pattern with All Items.....................................................74 Table 17. Final Rotated Factor Pattern with Items Removed............................................75 Table 18. Factor Analysis on Items 26-29.........................................................................76 Table 19. Factor Analysis on Trust Items 22-25................................................................76 Table 20. Factor Analysis on Social Interaction Items 16-18............................................77 iv

PAGE 7

v Table 21. Factor Analysis of Job Satisfaction Items 10-12, 14, and 15............................78 Table 22. Correlation Matrix of All Responses.................................................................80 Table 23. Correlation Matrix of Responses from Face-to-Face Faculty...........................80 Table 24. Correlation Matrix of Responses from Online Faculty.....................................80 Table 25. Cronbachs Alpha for Job Satisfaction Items....................................................81 Table 26. Cronbachs Alpha for Social Interaction Items.................................................81 Table 27. Cronbachs Alpha for Trust Items.....................................................................81 Table 28. Cronbachs Alpha for Intent to Turnover Items................................................82 Table 29. T-test of All Responses with Variable for Type Included.................................82 Table 30. Regression Analysis of All Respondents.......................................................... 84 Table 31. Regression Analysis of Face-to-Face Faculty Responses..................................85 Table 32. Regression Analysis of Online Faculty Responses............................................86 Table 33. Conclusions to Hypotheses................................................................................99

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Expectancy Theory.............................................................................................14 Figure 2. Open Organization System.................................................................................16 Figure 3. Aspects of the Work Environm ent Related to Employee Attitudes Regarding Loyalty..............................................................................................17 Figure 4. The Relationship of Voice and In tent to Turnover to Employee Loyalty .........27 Figure 5. Likert Scale.........................................................................................................58 Figure 6. Modified Likert Scale.........................................................................................59 vi

PAGE 9

Loyalty of Online Faculty: A Work De sign Perspective of the Impact of a Telecommuting Work Environment on Employee Loyalty Kenneth N. Pereira ABSTRACT This study empirically evaluates the theo retical impact of a telecommuting or online work environment on employee loyalty. While the concept of employee loyalty has been extensively researched, the concept of the impact of the work environment on employee loyalty is fairly new. Specifical ly, this study operationally defines the work environment characteristics that contribute to employee loyalty and examines the impact of the online or telecommuting work environment on employee loyalty. A survey instrument is utilized to collect perceptual data a bout the psychological components of the work environment and their impact on employee loyalty from the employees perspective. Multiple linear regression analysis is used to analyze the data from one hundred and three respondents to determine correlation between the work environment characteristics and employee loyalty Additional statistics utilized in the analysis of the data include: factor analys is, t-test, K-S test, an d Cronbachs Alpha. While the studys findings confirm that th e three work environment factors (job satisfaction, social interaction, and trust) contribute to employee loyalty as represented by the surrogate, intent to turnover, th e dynamics underlying the perceptions of telecommuting and traditional collocated employees is complex. Telecommuting employees, as hypothesized, demonstrate higher levels of intention to turnover, the key construct in the study, than do traditional onsite employees. Similarly, job satisfaction is vii

PAGE 10

viii much lower for telecommuters. No statistical ly significant differences were found in trust or social interaction. When exploring casua l impacts of satisfacti on, social interaction and trust on intention to tu rnover, very different dynamics emerged between the telecommuting and traditional. In particular, job satisfaction, while very important to the traditional workers, was insignificant to inten tion to turnover to telecommuter employees. In addition, telecommuters apparently had de rived alternative mechanisms to allow for social interactions, other than face-to-face ones. Trust, in both groups, is an overriding factor in ameliorating in tention to turnover. This research adds to current perspectives on the effects of the work environment on employee loyalty. This research will enhanc e insights into this increasingly prevalent work environment, and organization researchers and managers will be able to use these results to enhance understanding of the impact on work environment. These contributions may help to decrease turnove r and enhance the satisfaction derived in telecommuting work environments. The study ends with a discussion of lim itations and suggestions for future research.

PAGE 11

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION All of these electronic innovations email, shared screens, video conferencing, and video phone callsa re ways of overcoming physical separation. By the time they beco me commonplace, they will have changed not just the way we work toge ther but also dis tinctions now made between the workplace and everywhere else. (Gates, Myhrvold, and Rinearson, 1995, p. 151-152) Background Since the industrial revolution, most employ ees have worked together in the same work environment. This physical proximity of employees to each other is also known as being collocated (Ensign, 1998). Technologica l advances have created the opportunity to expand our ability to work together without being bound by office walls. The advances of technology have formed the infrastructure that makes it possible to function in a work environment that transcends distance, time zones, and traditiona l conceptual work environment boundaries (Bailyn, 1988; Harring ton and Ruppel, 1999). This new work environment was first identified as teleworking or telecommuting by Niles in the 1970s. Niles (1994) went on to describe telecommuting as the ability to complete work without traveling to a traditional work environmen t or the completion of work in a working environment that exists outside and away fr om a traditional work environment. This different approach to work environments br ought with it changes in the way employees interact within the work setting. 1

PAGE 12

Significant research has been completed in the areas of employ ees perceptions of the work environment. The research efforts have been focused on traditional work environment paradigms. A thorough review of the literature indicates that the relationship between employee percepti ons regarding the telecommuting work environment and employee loyalty has not yet be en empirically examined. This lack of research into the influence of the work envi ronment on employee loyalty is the area that the focus of this study addressed Relevance of the Topic to Practitioners The introduction of technologies such as personal computers, desktop software business applications, and th e advances in networking t echnologies that enabled communication between computers made the move to a telecommuting work environment a practical reality (U.S. De partment of Transportation, 1993). As technological advances have facilitated th e move to telecommuting, other factors have driven the adoption of the new work envir onment and propelled organizations and their employees to experiment with telecommu ting (Daniels, Lamond, and Standen, 2000). This concept of a non-collocated work envi ronment was initially considered by some organizations as a solution to the OPEC driv en fuel shortages of the 1970s (Tolbert & Simons, 1994). The possibility of addressing the anticipated costs associated with the fuel shortage and rising fuel prices sparked serious consider ation of telecommuting work environments. Recent increases in fuel costs are again focusing interest on telecommuting. 2

PAGE 13

In addition to being a solution to rising fuel cost, telecommuting also provides employers the opportunity to recruit and re tain employees. This work environment uniquely provides the opportunity to include previously geographically non-collocated employees in organizational efforts (Huw s, Korte, and Robinson, 1990). This is particularly important when dealing with em ployees who possess specialized skills, are in high demand, or for personal reasons may not wi sh to relocate. Or ganizations that are able to offer telecommuting as a benefit are often perceived as highly desirable by employees. In addition, telecommuting also appears to contribute to reduced levels of perceived intention to tur nover in employees (Huws, Korte, and Robinson, 1990). The retention of employees is important to organizations due to the associated cost of recruiting and training and the need to retain employee expertise. This is a vital goal of any organization. To achieve this goal, organizations n eed to be able to manage employee expectations and needs with re gard to the work environment. Effective management of employee expectations and needs requires a fuller understanding of employee attitudes associated with the work setting. Relevance of the Topic to Researchers Scholars have studied employees perceptions regarding traditional work environments. Changes in the nature and cons tructs of work environments necessitate a fresh look at how employees attitudes and pe rceptions can be impacted by these new and innovative non-traditional work environmen ts that are not based on collocation of employees. 3

PAGE 14

Notions of job satisfaction, social interacti on, trust and intent to turnover must be reexamined in the light of new work envi ronments. Thus, a gap has opened up in the literature that must be filled. This gap is partially described by Lipnack and Stamps (1997) as they described challenges that telecommuting teams encounter. A major reason that many of todays teams are ineffective is that they overlook the implications of the obvious. People do not make accommodations for how different it really is when they and their colleagues no longer work face-to-face. Teams fail when they do not adjust to this new reality. (L ipnack and Stamps, 1997, p. 7) This acknowledgement of the gap in the area of work design for teleworkers is echoed by Birchall and Lyons (1995). Organizations are using IT to suppor t the move to the more mobile and flexible workforce. It is maki ng possible the location-independent workforce, but we stress that without an effective strategic approach business is unlikely to achieve the possible benefits. The benefits will result from sound implementation and in clude a radical rethink of the role of the traditional office. (Birchall and Lyons, 1995, p. 5) Purpose of this Study The purpose of this study is to close the gap above in the literature and provide managerial insights that will allow for better performance, increased satisfaction, etc. in the workplace. In addition, this study will advance current understanding and explore aspects of the relationship between employees perceived attitudes regarding their work environment and their loyalty levels. More specifically this study will explore this relationship with regard to a non-collocated or telecommuting work environment. This area of study has not been adequately addre ssed in the literature and subsequently this study addresses this gap in research. The re searcher of this study compared and tested 4

PAGE 15

specific linkages in the characteristics of the traditional collocated work environment and the non-traditional, non-collocated work environment. The specific focus of this study is the correlation between perceived employee perceptions and attitudes rega rding characteristics of work environments and employee loyalty. With this relationship in mind, the additional focus of this research is to determine if the relationships between empl oyee perceptions of the work environment and employee loyalty are notably altered in a non-collocated wo rk environment. To what degree does the teleworking envi ronment contribute to a positive, negative, or mixed change in the psychological interaction and perceived loya lty of a teleworking employee for the organization? With th e intent of making a contribution to a more complete and comprehensive understanding of the impact of the work environment on employee perceptions, the purpose of this study is to: 1. Examine the critical theoretical charac teristics of work environments with regard to employees perceived attitudes that have been studied in traditional environments and examine if the relationships found in management literature hold in non-collocated work environments. The identification and examination of the characteristics will be based on the existing literature. The characteristics will be considered in both a traditional collocated work environment and non-traditional, non-collo cated work environment. What are the pertinent relationships between th ese characteristics that influence employee attitudes? 2. Empirically examine these relationships in a work environment that allows for comparisons and contrasts. A study will be executed for the purpose of 5

PAGE 16

statistically analyzing th ese relationships, so that the theoretical linkages between constructs can be examined. 3. Create and modify an instrument for the measurement, testing, and estimation of the impact of the work environment on employee attitudes based on work done in previous research. The remainder of this chapter consists of an overview of the research followed by an outline denoting the contents of each chapter in the study. Organization of the Research This dissertation consists of five distinct chapters. The following is a descriptive outline of each chapters content. Chapter One is an introduction describing the extent and intent of the research. Chapter Two is a review of the relevant l iterature that is pert inent to the study of collocated work environments, including li terature in the areas of management, sociology, psychology, and engineer ing management. Included in this review is an examination of the identified characteristics of traditional work environments that have been studied. The intent of the examination is to establish the cu rrent state of knowledge for understanding the impact of the work environment characteristics on employees attitudes and then translate that understanding to show how collocated work environments might be impacted. This review will also evaluate interactions between the characteristics of work environments, especi ally in regard to how they might affect employees working in a non-collocated work environment. A set of hypotheses based on the extant literature are developed. These hypotheses will underpin the theoretical model 6

PAGE 17

7 examined in this dissertation and demons trate the contribution to knowledge of the overall work. Chapter Three is an outline of the me thodology used for this research including the development of the data collection instrume nt, the data sample, an explanation of the data collection methods and processes, and the design and foundation of the statistical experiment(s) and associated statistical analysis. Chapter Four presents the results of th e study and the statistical evaluation of these results. The theoretical implications of the study will be revi ewed and evaluated in context of the results of the study. Chapter Five includes a discussion of th e results of this study, the conclusions drawn from the research, and th e overall contributions of this study. Within this chapter there is an overview of the research, lim itations of the study, implications for further research, and a brief review of what has been gained from this study.

PAGE 18

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW Any group of people who need each other to take effec tive action for the company can do so immediately wit hout regard for organization or location. Mark Armentrout, Mana ger of Information Technology Arco Exploration and Production (Fis her and Fisher, 2001, p. ix) Chapter Overview The contribution of this di ssertation to the literature is the examination of the impact of non-collocated work environments on relationships that have been studied in traditional work environments, so as to ascertain the impact of collocating on dimensions of job outcomes and worker attitudes. This chap ter will review the relevant literature that underpins the study and thereby establishes the foundations an d contributions of this work. The selection of constructs studied in the research will be justified from the vast management literature. To make a contribution to that literature in regard to the impact of non-collocating work environments, a review is undertaken and relationships that have been established over the past fifty years or more of management research will be summarized. Rather than review the enti re body of this vast literature, the study examines summary articles and conclusions th at have been reached on each construct studied. The study identifies importan t psychological constructs that make up employee attitudes regarding the work environment loca tion that are related to perceived employee loyalty. The proposed constructs of the work environment are tested with data from a 8

PAGE 19

work environment with collocated employees Accordingly, the literature review examines an extensive array of pertinent publications on the s ubject of perceptions of the work environment location and the relationshi p of this factor to perceived employee loyalty. Further analysis of the literature has reve aled that researchers have neglected the issue of developing sound empirical theories that specifically examine the relationship between employee work environments and empl oyee loyalty. In fact, there is little empirical and comprehensive evidence that explains the extent of the work environments contribution to perceived employee loyalty. The studies that do exist provide limited explanations of the characteristics of the work environment and how they contribute and relate to employee perceptions regarding empl oyee loyalty. This re view has led to the identification of a gap in the existing lit erature regarding the impact of the work environments on perceptions and attitudes that relate to employee loya lty. This gap in the literature provi des the purpose for this research study. Introduction Few scholars have written on the topic of the relationship between the work environment location and perceived employ ee loyalty. While several scholars have examined the topic of individual employee loya lty extensively, there has been little focus on the influence of the work location on perceived employee loyalty. The body of research that exists on employee loyalty, typically under the subj ect of turnover and intention to turnover, fills numerous volumes. While this research is instructive to the research underlying this di ssertation, it does not speak au thoritatively to collocation 9

PAGE 20

impacts on loyalty issues to companies. The recent prevalence of collocating strategies being used in organizations makes the topic ri pe for research, so that practitioners can make informed decisions about collocating a nd its impacts. Because of its relative newness, collocating research has not rece ived the scientific scrutiny that work environment has received. This literature re view is focused on the contributions made by leading academicians and practitioners on the subject of workplace environments and the impact of those environments on loyalty to the firm. The objective of the literature search is to form a basis for the rese arch outlined within this document. In an effort to gain an understanding of perceived employee loyalty as it relates to the work environment location this sections in tent is a review of the pertinent available literature on the current state of knowledge of work environments and perceived employee loyalty. The research of this li terature review falls into the following categories: rationalization for constructs incl uded in this research, definitions of work environment locations, the relationship of in tent to turnover to employee loyalty, the dimensions of employee loyalty, and the com ponents of the work environment locations that contribute to perceived employee attitudes. Rationalization for Constructs Included in the Research Since the second decade of the 20th century, organizational th eorists, researchers, and scientists have studied the impact of the work environment on employee performance; the goal being to understand how workers and the organizations interact. The ultimate goal, nevertheless, was to unders tand how organizations can perform better by using people effectively, while appreci ating and recognizing the impacts of the 10

PAGE 21

organization on employees. In essence, the literature suggests that the human impact on organizational performance is determined by the interaction between employees and the work environment. This pe rspective is supported by the wo rk and findings of several experts in this field including those identified below. Because of his seminal impact, almost ever y review of management theory begins with the work of Fredrick W. Taylor. Tayl or (for summary see Taylor, 1967) theorized that by analyzing and studying the work pro cess that the most efficient manner of accomplishing the task would be identified. Because the industrial management knowledge base of the time was insufficien t and undeveloped, Taylor believed that an optimal management effort could be generated and that the best resu lts would come from a joint effort between a trained and qua lified management and a cooperative and innovative workforce. His most memorable contribution was to the field of time-motion studies. Taylor would analyze the work to be accomplished, break it into its collective component parts and then measure each base d on time increments (Taylor, 1912). The application of Taylor's theory is often referred to as T aylorism. His scientific management theory consisted of four general principles. The first was to replace rule-ofthumb work methods with techniques based on a scientific study of the tasks. The second was to scientifically select, train, and devel op each employee instead of passively leaving them to train themselves. The third was to provide specific and detailed training, instructions, and management of each worker in the performance of that worker's task (Montgomery 1989). The fourth was to as much as possible equally divide the work between management and employees; the goal being to allow managers to apply the scientific management principles in the pla nning of the work and allow the employees to 11

PAGE 22

perform the tasks. The work done by Taylor in time-motion studies opened the door for others. A second major stream of work is cr edited to the Gilbreths (see 1973 for summary) for bringing together two streams of management thinking. They followed work in time and motion studies pioneer ed by Taylor and developed their own independent theory involving motion studies They were strong proponents of the scientific method and proclaimed it to be the only management method consonant with the psychological health and development of employees. They are also credited with the development of the study of workplace psyc hology (Gilbreth, 1914). The Gilbreths have been credited with sparking a new and grow ing interest in the area of industrial psychology, particularly in the area of employ ees perceptions and attitudes regarding the work environment. A third stream of management thought can be traced to industrial psychology initiated by Frederick Herzberg (see 1982, 1987 for summary). His Motivation-Hygiene theory focused on the components of the inte ractions that the employee had with the organization on two distinct levels. The first level was the hygiene level or the components of the relationship that relate to the employees adjustment to the environment for survival and comfort. Th ese components of the relationship include: policy and administration, supervision, interperso nal relationships, working conditions, compensation, status, and security. Herzberg (1982, 1987) asserted that the lack of these components could lead to job dissatisfaction. However, he also believed that the amelioration of these factors did not lead to job satisfaction. 12

PAGE 23

The second level of Herzbergs theory involved the on-the-job motivating factors that included the nature of the tasks the em ployee performs and hi s/her opportunities to be challenged by the arrangement and organization of these tasks (Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman, 1959; Herzberg, 1982, 1987; R obbins and Judge, 2007). These factors encompassed the employees perceptions of achievement, sense of accomplishment, recognition for achievement, interesting and m eaningful work, appropriate responsibility, opportunity for advancement, and personal gr owth. While there have been some criticisms of Herzbergs theory, it has brought to the forefront specific concepts regarding work environments. Recently Herzbergs th eory has been reconsidered as emerging research from the field of positive psychology has been shown to be fairly consistent with the basic concepts of the motivation-hygiene theory (Sachau, 2007). Herzbergs theory laid the ground work for others that fo llowed in the area of industrial psychology. Similarly to Herzberg, Vroom devel oped a theory based on the employees perception of the work environment and his/ her interaction with it. Vrooms (1964) expectancy theory remains a widely accep ted explanation of employee motivation. Vrooms expectancy theory is grounded in th e assumption that an employees behavior is the result of the employee making conscious choices with the intent of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. Expectancy theory is based on the persp ective that an employees tendency to act or behave in a particular manner is depe ndent on the extent to which the employees expectation is that the specific act wi ll be followed by a given outcome and the desirability of the outcome to the empl oyee (Robbins and Judge, 2007). The theory 13

PAGE 24

predominantly focuses on three aspects of the relationship between the employee and the organization shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Expectancy Theory (Robbins and Judge, 2007) The first of these relationships is the effort to performance linkage. This relationship is based on the concept that ther e is a probability perceived by the employee that committing a certain amount of effort w ill lead to performance. The second is the performance to reward linkage. This relationship is a result of the employees belief that performing at a certain level will result in a desired output. The thir d and final aspect of the relationship between the employee and the organization is the rewards-personal goals linkage. This is the level to which the employee perceives that the organizational rewards will satisfy his/her goals and the level to which the employee values the rewards (Robbins and Judge, 2007). In a similar fashion McClellands theo ry of needs focused on an employees needs for achievement, power, and aff iliation (McClelland, 1961, 1975; Atkinson and Raynor, 1974; Stahl, 1986; Robins and Judge 2007). The needs were identified as follows. The need for achievement was defined as the compulsion to excel in comparison to a set baseline of expectations. The need fo r power was identified as a 14

PAGE 25

desire to compel and/or influe nce others to behave in a manner that they would not have behaved in otherwise (Riggio, Murphy, a nd Pirozzolo, 2002). Finally the need for affiliation was described to be the intrinsic de sire to participate in friendly and close interpersonal relationships. These needs are tied to the employees ability to achieve them. An employees ability to achieve is tie d to and evident in th e foundations of the individual characterist ics of the employee. These individual employee characteristics have been defined by Robbins and Judge (2007) as ability, biographical, and lear ning. Ability includes both intellectual and physical abilities. The primary focus with re gard to ability is expressed by Robbins and Judge as ability-job fit. Ability -job fit is related to how well an employee is suited for a particular job. Most significantly they indicated that ability-job fit is related to an employees job satisfaction level based on th e employees perception of how well his/her skills are matched to a particular job (Ri ggio, Murphy, and Pirozzolo, 2002; Lubinski and Benbow, 2004). The biographical component is related to fact ors that have an impact on an employees production including turnover, so cial interaction or citizenship, and job satisfaction (Cotton and Tuttle, 1986). Finally the learning component is defined as any change in behavior that occu rs as a result of experience within the work environment (Dunnette and Hough, 1990; Robbins and Judge, 2007) This facet has implications in that it suggests that employees may experien ce some event in their work environment that could initiate changes in their percep tions regarding their relationship with the organization and how they behave or interact within the organization. This vastly extensive knowledge base can be summarized in the following model adapted from models proposed by Megginson, Mo sley, and Pietri (1992) and Hellriegel, 15

PAGE 26

Slocum, and Woodman (1986) shown in Figure 2. The model shows the work environment to be a system with environmenta l forces or factors constantly interacting with the environment. These factors re lated to and interacting with the work environment also interact with employees wo rking in the environment and impact their perspectives regarding the work environment. Figure 2. Open Organization System As stated previously, the overriding purpose of the dissertation is to uncover the impact of non-collocated work environments on worker performance, as well as to study the associated impacts on worker attitudes. Drawing from the vast literature summarized ever so briefly above, the following model in Figure 3 was distilled. The model was developed as a culmination of the literature reviewed, personal prof essional experience from over a decade in this field and interaction with colleagues. This researcher believes 16

PAGE 27

that this model is the one most worthy of expl oration given the status of the literature on impact of collocated work environments on em ployees and more importantly the lack of information on the impact of non-collocati on on employee attitudes and perceptions. Figure 3. Aspects of the Work Environment Related to Employee Attitudes Regarding Loyalty In the following sections, collocated and non-collocated work environments will be discussed and the linkages between each of the variables in the model will be explicated based on the extant literatu re which was created based on non-commuting environments, and hypotheses will be derived based on the impact of telecommuting on 17

PAGE 28

that relationship. Because parsimony is a virtue in doing research, only the most relevant variables were chosen. Multiple aspects of the work environment that are related to an employees perception of his/her relations hip to the organization are depicted in Figure 3. These aspects or characteristics of the work envir onment are interrelated in how they contribute to the formation and continuity of an employ ees attitude regarding his/her loyalty to the organization. The perceived work environment factors of job satisfaction, social interaction, and trust are impor tant aspects of the work environment that impact the employees viewpoints and or ganizational loyalty. The concept of work environment contri buting to an employ ees perceptions and attitudes regarding loyalty is fairly new, and it is impor tant that there should be a comprehensive review of the lite rature. One of the requirement s of this review is that it must describe what the academic community has put forth on the subject of each of the work environment characteristics that are perc eived to contribute to employee loyalty and intent to turnover. In order to utilize th e theorized relationship between employee loyalty and intent to turnover, the review must al so include academic literature regarding the linkage between perceived employee loyalty and intent to turnover. Clearly, each of the work environment factors and dimensions act as a contributory aspect to the formation of employee attitudes. The following section will consider the stru cture of traditional work environments followed by a section discussing the dimens ions of non-traditional or telecommuting work environments. These dimensions of both work environments include physical 18

PAGE 29

structure, location, component s of social interaction, a nd a brief perspective of managerial challenges each work environment presents. Defining Collocated Work Environments A traditional work environment typica lly includes a fundamental framework regardless of the industry (Hill, Ferris, and Martinson, 2003). This framework includes a common work environment with immedi ate physical access to co-workers and management. Employees that work in a common work environment are referred to as being collocated. In other words, the tradit ional work environment is key to how a group of individuals are brought toge ther to complete a predetermined function (Ensign, 1998). Rapert and Wren (1998) descri be the traditional work environment as inclusive of policies, a perceived hierarchy, work roles, and the underlying administrative support structure. They identified these characteristics of the traditional work environment to be crucial to the control, coordination and conduct of the work activities. Collocation is the underlying foundation of the traditional work environment characteristics. Immediate physical access to co-workers, obvious physical oversight of management, corporate policies and processe s, and other factors contribute to an employees perspective regarding his/her relationship to the organization. Similarly managers in a traditional environment are typically well skilled in managing collocated employees. Traditional ma nagement skills are often based on the assumption that the employees are located just do wn the hall; that they are all there at the same time; and that they share a co mmon culture (Fisher and Fisher, 2001). 19

PAGE 30

As can be seen from the descriptions of Fisher and Fisher (2001), Ensign (1998), and Rapert and Wren (1998), there are several characteristics of a traditional work environment. The most significant characteri stic of a traditional work environment is that employees are collocated. This affects not only the employees ability to interact but his/her sense of belonging and contribution to the organization (Ensign, 1998; Rapert and Wren, 1998; Fisher and Fisher, 2001). As previously outlined, the following sect ion will review the dimensions of nontraditional or telecommuting work environments. This will include a clear definition of a non-collocated work environment and the challenges this work environment presents to management and employees. Defining Telecommuting Work Environments A telecommuting work environment in a general sense is a no n-collocated work environment that removes employees from the traditional office (Hill, Ferris, and Martinson, 2003). More precisely, telecommu ting can be broadly defined as a working environment that exists independently from a traditional office structure. The most easily identifiable and distinct difference from a traditional work environment is that a telecommuting work environment typically lacks normal opportunities for physical collaboration and interaction (Gates, Myhr vold, and Rinearson, 1995). In other words, the telecommuting work environment ex ists without the structure provided by collocation. This lack of collocation presents a unique set of challenges with regard to managing employees (Daniels, Lamond, and St anden, 2000). In fact, the telecommuting work environment requires a unique managerial effort by the organization due to the 20

PAGE 31

absence of collocation that is inherent to th e traditional work envi ronment. This unique effort must include a relationship with the em ployee that compensates for both the lack of the structure and constraints of a collocated work environment and the need to nurture the psychological well-being or perceived attit udes of the teleworki ng employee (Daniels, Lamond and Standen, 2000). There are a variety of telecommuting work environments available to organizations and employees. The most commonly thought of telecommuting work environment is the employees home. In fact, many telecommuters simply create office space in their homes equipped w ith technologies specifically selected to augment their work effort. Telecommuting can also in clude the use of remote offices. Many telecommuters take advantage of wide ar ea network (WAN) technologies and utilize locations that are implementing technologies th at allow for Internet connectivity such as coffee shops, libraries and other locations (Hill, Ferris and Martinson, 2003). In summary, the telecommuting work envi ronment is one in which employees are no longer collocated. In addition, the inhere nt isolation of employees working in a telecommuting work environment brings to light the need to address the perceived attitudes of employees with regard to their work environment and loyalty. In the next section, the lit erature is reviewed regard ing aspects of perceived employee loyalty in order to more clearl y define the dynamics of the relationship between the work environm ent and employee loyalty. 21

PAGE 32

Defining Employee Loyalty Loyalty can be generally defined as th e employees multifaceted perception of the relationship that he/she engages in with the organization (Eskildsen and Nussler, 2000). While most individuals possess a personal de finition of loyalty, th ese definitions are varied and based on perspective. Employees typically define loyalt y as their dedication to an organization based on or regulated by their relationship with the organization. As defined by Carbone (1997), loyalty can be considered to be faithfulness to agreements made between two or more parties or behaving in a fashion that sustains or exceeds conditions that are agreed to by two or more pa rties. More simply, loyalty is the glue or binding of the relationship between the organi zation and the employee. Carbone (1997) also described loyalty to be a response or reaction to goodwill or ki nd behavior generated by a single person, party, or organization. The importance and critical nature of em ployee loyalty is clearly of significance to organizations. The significance is evident in statements from chief executive officers that describe loyalty as a mutually beneficial relationship requiring re ciprocation to retain validity and as caring without doubtful consid eration or questioning of the relationship (Tiffany 1997). These executives realize the importance of maintaining the bi-directional attribute of the relationship between the employee and the organization identi fied as loyalty. Labbs (1998) describes loyalty as a delicat e balance of consid eration between the employee and the employer. When asked to describe loyalty, the subjects in a study on loyalty conducted by McCusker and Wolfman (1 998) stated that loyalty is the attitude that binds them to the organization and is the foundation of their commitment to the 22

PAGE 33

organization. Satmetrix Systems (2002) c onsiders this topic so significant to the organization that in a recent corporate white paper, they defined employee loyalty as a process where attitudes give rise to behaviors. They go on to define an attitude as a psychological tendency realized as an expression of favor or disfavor and a behavior as the action directly influenced by the attitude (Satmetrix Syst ems, 2002). In other words, negative or unfavorable perceptions rega rding the organization can influence an employees perception of loyalty and lead to actions that result in turnover. Loyalty is the manifestation of the re lationship between the employee and the organization that transcends current circumstances and provides longevity to the relationship (Carbone, 1997). Clancy (1999) described loyalty as peoples innate requirement to become affiliated and joined with something larger than the employees themselves. We all need a connection to something if we are to fulfill our very natures (Clancy 1999). The impact that an employees loyalty ha s on other characteristics related to the work environment is far-reaching (Eskildsen and Nussler, 2000). While it has been suggested that an employees perception of loyalty is direc tly impacted and affected by changes in characteristics of the work envi ronment such as job satisfaction and trust, these characteristics can recipr ocally be impacted by an em ployees sense of loyalty to the organization. Chen (1995) indicated that an employees loyalty le vel will directly or indirectly influence a myriad of other perceived factors of th e work environment. Clancy (1999) describes loyalty as cr itical to the employees themselves and their existence within the organization. He goes on to describe loyalty as an empowering perception of 23

PAGE 34

the employees that allows and encourages them to openly voice their beliefs and opinions, becoming an internal voice of the organization (Clancy, 1999). It is hypothesized that employees will use their perception or f eeling of loyalty as a foundation for the development or as a contribut ing factor to intent to turnover. This concept will be further explored later in this research. Chen and Kroeger (2001) supported this concept and desc ribed loyalty as the source of information that employees draw on to develop corresponding job attitude The job attitudes affected by loyalty include job satisfaction. Th e relationship between job sa tisfaction and loyalty is considered to be reciprocal. Some studies in work commitment have suggested that organization commitment or loyalty can be corr elated to levels of job satisfaction (Becker 1992, Williams and Hazer, 1986). This is dem onstrated from the perspective of an employee in the evaluation of his/her j ob or job experiences (Locke, 1976). Similarly, Karsh, Booske and Sainfort (2005) indicated that employee loyalty levels are the result of how employees perceive the work environment. More specifically, they related how employees per ceived the job characte ristics of social interaction and trust related to the work environment to directly contribute to employee commitment and loyalty (Karsh, Booske and Sainfort, 2005). Meyer and Allen (1991) developed a mode l for organizational commitment or loyalty that is based on three components that they described as affective, continuous, and normative. They defined the affectiv e component of loyalty as an employees emotional association with the organization. The continuation component of loyalty is related to the personal costs the employee pe rceives are associated with leaving the organization. The normative component of l oyalty is identified as the employees sense 24

PAGE 35

of obligation to the organizati on. The distinct nature of th ese components is relative to interaction with the organi zation (Meyers and Allen, 1991). Loyalty levels are fluid and ever-changing. Due to the notable levels of layoffs, mergers, down-sizing, and talent wars, employee loyalty is no longer based on longevity with the organization. Satmetrix (2002) describes an employees per ception of loyalty as evolving and constantly changing. Ugboro (2006) goes on to describe this ever-changing employee commitment or loyalty as responsible and contributory to intent to turnover. He more fully describes employee commitment or loyalty as a psyc hological state that characterizes the re lationship the employ ee has with the organization (Ugboro, 2006). Hajdin (2005) describes loyalty as a meas urement of an employees commitment in a relationship that is continuously and inherently in need of justifi cation. He goes on to point out that loyalty requires co ntinuous reciprocity (Hajdin, 2005). This concept of continuous need for ju stification and reciprocity was confirmed by Howard (1998) who indicated that loyalty to the organization can be affected and diminished by an employees sense of self worth. He also indicated that an employees sense of self worth is based in part on how loyal the employee perceives the organization is to him/her (Howard, 1998). The importance of the organizations commitment to engender and encourage employee loyalty is apparent as declining loyalty can lead to undesired states in the relations hip with the employee. Greco (1998) described a change in an em ployees loyalty for the organization as an inverse relationship. As the employ ee experiences declining loyalty to the organization he/she inversely e xperience increased levels of loyalty at a personal level. An employees personal loyalty or loyalty to himself/herself, re places organizational 25

PAGE 36

loyalty. This higher level of personal loyalty tends to cr eate a notable and significant entrepreneurial perspective within the employee. This entrepreneurial attitude and spirit changes the employees perspective with re gard to his/her relationship with the organization. The shift from organizational loya lty to personal loyalty typically results in higher levels of employee intent to turnover (Greco, 1998). For the purposes of this research, loyalty is operationally defined as a dynamic indicator of an employees relationship with the organization that is influenced by the employees perception of work environment characteristics. These work environment characteristics that influence an employee s perception of loyalty are job satisfaction, trust, and social interaction (Karsh, Booske and Sainfort, 2005). Due to the fluid and dynamic nature of loyalty, intent to turnover is used as a surrogate indicator of employee loyalty (Hirschman, 1970; Boroff and Le win, 1997; Lee and Whitford, 2007). This relationship is further explai ned in the following section. The Relationship between Intent to Turnover and Employee Loyalty In this section, the literature is review ed to identify linkages between perceived employee loyalty and intent to turnover. The relationship between inte nt to turnover and perceived employee loyalty is examined and explained. Karen Boroff and David Lewin (1997) desc ribe intent to tu rnover as being an aspect of employee loyalty. They graphi cally explained their perception of the relationship that exists between Hirschmans (1970) exit (int ent to turnover), voice, and loyalty. Employee loyalty is perceived to c over a range from low or poor loyalty to high loyalty. The components of Hirschmans theory (Exit, Voice, and Loyalty) indicates that 26

PAGE 37

voice is an expression of employee attitudes resu lting in high loyalty and that intent to turnover is an expression of employee attit udes resulting in low loyalty. Both are shown to be extreme aspects of the spectrum of empl oyee loyalty. This relationship is shown in Figure 4. High Loyalty Low Loyalty Voice Exit (Intent to turnover) Figure 4. The Relationship of Voice and In tent to Turnover to Employee Loyalty Similarly, Linda Stroh, Jeanne Brett and A nne H. Reilly (1996) defined intent to turnover to be an expression of disloyalty or low loyalty. Hi gher loyalty was shown to be a deterrent to intent to turnover by SooYoung Lee and Andrew B. Whitford (2007) and lower levels of loyalty were noted to be cont ributory to intent to turnover. Additional literature sources indicate that intent to tur nover is inversely linked to employee loyalty. Hirschman (1970) explained this relationship by expounding that an employees intent to turnover would increase as the employees lo yalty level decreases. As proposed by Meyer and Allen (1991), the continuation component of lo yalty is related to an employees perceptions regarding intent to turnover. In ot her words, the component of employee loyalty related to an employees long evity with the organization is related to 27

PAGE 38

the employees attitude regarding his/her in tent to turnover. Ugboro (2006) identified employee loyalty as having significant imp lications in the employees decision to continue or terminate the rela tionship with the organization. In summary, an inverse linkage has been shown to exist between employee loyalty and intent to turnover. The lower an employees loyalty levels are, the greater the potential for the employee to experience a hi gher intent to turnover (Karen Boroff and David Lewin, 1997; Stroh, Brett, and Reill y, 1996; Lee and Whitford, 2007; Hirschman, 1970; Meyer and Allen, 1991). As shown above, a change in employee loyalty is contributory to the employees perception and attitude regarding intent to turnover. Thus as depicted in Figure 3, H0: Employees attitudes and perceptions regarding his/her loyalty, as conceptualized being composed of job satisfaction, social interaction and trust, will affect an employees intent to turnover, and that impact will be different based on telecommuting versus traditional work environments. Hypothesis0 In the following sections the characteristics of the work environment that are perceived to contribute to an employees attitudes regardi ng loyalty were defined and examined in the literature. These characteristics incl ude job satisfaction, social interaction, and trust. 28

PAGE 39

Defining the Components of a Work Environment Related to Employee Loyalty Reichheld (1996) identified a relationship between em ployee perceptions of the work environment and employee loyalty. An examination of the pertinent literature has identified several characteristics of the work environment that are given consideration by employees as they form and shape their pers pective loyalty level. The characteristics identified to be part of an employees per ception of loyalty are j ob satisfaction, social interaction, and trust. Williams and Hazer (1 986) and Becker (1992) indicated that an employees perception regarding job satisfaction is additive to the employees loyalty. Borzaga and Tortia (2006) described employee job satisfaction as a significant contributor to an employees perception regarding loyalty. Matzler and Renzl, (2006) confirmed the concept that job satisfaction is perceived to be contri butory or additive to an employees loyalty. Karsh, Booske, and Sainfort, (2005) rela ted employee perceptions of social interaction and trust to employee commitment and loyalty. Social interaction has been identified as a contributor to the forma tion of an employees sense of loyalty and propensity to leave (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978; Chen and Kroeger, 2001; Kunda, 2006). Matzler and Renzl, (2006) identified an influential link between employee trust and employee loyalty. Coutu ( 1998) described the need for em ployees to feel certain in the relationship with th e organization as an important factor to the longevity of the relationship. Each of these perceived wo rk environment related attr ibutes are examined below to determine the contribution made by each to the formation of employee attitudes regarding loyalty. Serge Lamarche, the Vi ce President of Client Services for ADP 29

PAGE 40

Canada describes the work environment as contributory to employee loyalty (Lamarche, n.d.). Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction can be generally defined as a gestalt attitude that employees have about their jobs (Turner and Brown, 2004). The attitude results from the employees perception of his/her job and the degree to which the employee perceives a good fit between himself/herself and the organizati on (Ivancevich, Olekalns and Matteson, 1997; Chen and Kroeger, 2001). As job satisfaction is considered to be refl ective of the attitude that workers have about their jobs and the relationship between the employees and the organization, it can easily be linked and perceived to contribute to employee loyalty. Edwin Locke (1976, 1984) identified job satisf action to be a partial contributor to loyalty. Previously, Price and Mueller (1981) had shown in a study of teleworkers that job satisfaction served as an influence on loya lty. This was again confirmed by Mueller, Wallace and Price (1992) and by Locke (1976, 19 84). In addition, as telecommuting has spread into organizations and the number of employees involved has increased, the increased significance of job satis faction as a contributor to loyalty of telecommuters has been reported. In contrast to earlier studies, 97% of the subjects in a study on loyalty conducted by McCusker and Wolfman (1998) in dicated that the most important factor contributing to their loyalty levels was job satisfaction. In conjunction with the shif t in perceived job satisfac tion, the definition of job satisfaction has also changed. McCusker and Wolfman (1998) reported that the study respondents indicated that they perceived job satisfaction to include challenging and 30

PAGE 41

interesting work, opportunities for advancemen t, personal and professional growth and development, recognition and most importa ntly respect. It should be noted that teleworkers report career concerns and is olation as personally and professionally inhibiting. In a study conducted with 62 managers, telecommuting employees specifically cited concerns regarding oppor tunities for advancement, personal and professional growth and professional de velopment (Khan and Tung, 1997). More recently Borzaga and Tortia (2006) in a st udy of over 2000 public and non-profit workers identified employee job satisfaction to be among the most significant contributors to employee loyalty. Matzler and Renzl, (2006) described employee job satisfaction as a driver of employee loyalty. In summary, job satisfacti on is a reflection of how employees perceive the value of their contribution to the or ganization. If an employee per ceives that his/her value to the organization has diminished or that he/s he is experiencing any negative impact of opportunity costs associated with working in a telecommuting work environment, then the probability exists that he /she will experience a related change in perceived loyalty (Locke, 1976, 1984; Borzaga and Tortia, 2006). Due to the disconnected nature of the non-collocated work environment an empl oyee could experience a noted change in his/her perception or attitude regarding job satisfaction. Thus as shown in Figure 3, H1: The work environment of telecommuters versus traditional workers can affect employee attitudes and perceptions of job satisfaction. Hypothesis1 31

PAGE 42

Social Interaction Salanciks and Pfeffers (1978) theory of social information processing suggests that social interaction contributes to the fo rmation of an employees sense of loyalty, job satisfaction, and propensity to leave (Salan cik and Pfeffer, 1978; Chen and Kroeger, 2001). Kunda (2006) links organizational rituals that comprise social interaction to perceived employee loyalty. The subject s in a study on loyalty conducted by Deb McCusker and Hene Wolfman (1998) indicated that the second and third most important factors identified that directly impacted thei r sense of perceived loya lty levels were their relationship and interaction w ith organizational management and interaction with their coworkers respectively. In a similar sense, Christopher Wright (1995) identified that commitment to the organization is positively and strongly associated with interpersonal organizational citizenship and loyalty. In ot her words, interpersonal interaction is a critical component and cont ributor to employee loyalty. In summary, interpersonal interaction can be perceived as significant to employee loyalty within the organization. Clearly interpersonal interaction is one of the cornerstones of employee loyalty. Specifically, interpersonal interaction is identified as the physical connection that ties an empl oyee to an organization. More importantly, interpersonal interaction is considered to be a contributor to employee loyalty and to intent to turnover (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978; Chen and Kroeger, 2001; Wright, 1995; Kunda, 2006). In a collocated work environment, social interaction ha s been identified to be crucial to the long term development of a relationship with the employee that engenders loyalty, job satisfacti on, and moderates the employees propensity to leave. In 32

PAGE 43

a non-collocated work environment social in teraction clearly becomes a challenge for employees due to geographic dislocation or separation. Thus as shown in Figure 3, H2: The work environment of telecommuters versus traditional workers can affect employee attitudes and perceptions of so cial interaction. Hypothesis2 Trust Regardless of the work environment, for em ployees to work effectively, they need to trust one another (Dennocen zo, 2006). Matzler and Renz l (2006) identified trust as strongly influential in the formation of employee perceptions regarding loyalty. Trust is built on empathy and shared values. It implic itly requires that an employee be able to understand circumstances from another employee s perspective. Employees need to be able to understand the motivations and underlying reasons for their coworkers behavior. Employees need to be confident that their coworkers, management, and organization will fulfill their obligations and act in a consistent and predictable manner (Coutu, 1998). Trust can be described as the state of a relationship between employees and the organization for which they work. Trust is a relationship that evolves over a period of time. One of the major factors in the development of trust is based on direct face-toface interaction that is inherent in em ployee relationships in traditional work environments. Many facets of the relationship that result in building trust are relayed or communicated via body language and other at tributes of physical interaction. 33

PAGE 44

In a teleworking environment the opport unity for face-to-face interaction is limited at best, for most situations negligible, and as a rule simply does not take place. Instead of evolving slowly over a period of tim e, trust in teleworking environments tends to be established from the moment that an employee enters into a teleworking environment (Coutu, 1998). Chapdelaine (1998) described trust as a resu lt or factor of credibility. Credibility engenders and fosters trust, which encourages and cultivates free dom, which results in employee empowerment. Chapdelaine stated that in order to build a culture or relationship of trust the orga nization cannot expect employ ees to accept a relationship that requires commitment to the organizati on without equitable commitment from the organization. This commitment requires trus t based on credibility. The employees must know that the commitment from the organizatio n is not just a hollow verbalization. Trust of this type requires a validati on of the organizations intent to be credible and trustable (Chapdelaine, 1998). Matzler and Renzl (2006 ) in a study of 131 subjects confirmed a substantial and influential link betwee n employee trust and employee loyalty. In summary, employee trust is crucial to maintaining the relationship between the employee and the organization (Matzler and Re nzl, 2006). If this relationship is not maintained, it is feasible that the employees will perceive themselves as less connected to the organization. This perception of a disc onnected relationship w ith the organization can potentially and significantly impact employee loyalty (Coutu, 1998; Chapdelaine 1998; Matzler and Renzl, 2006). As face-to-f ace interaction has b een identified as a crucial component of employee trust in a collocated work environment, it can be theorized that a non-collocated work e nvironment would present a challenge to 34

PAGE 45

developing and maintaining employee attitudes a nd perceptions regarding trust. Thus as shown in Figure 3, H3: The work environment of telecommuters versus traditional workers can affect employee attitudes and perceptions of trust. Hypothesis3 Chapter Summary Regardless of the structure, traditional or te lecommuting, there are characteristics of a work environment that affect employee loyalty (Warr, 1990, 1994). In the traditional work environment one of the more obvious of these characteristics is interpersonal interaction. In the telecommu ting work environment physical interpersonal interaction is diminished at best and non-existent in most cases. This change in interpersonal interaction can directly result in a change in employee loyalty (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978; Chen and Kroeger, 2001; Matzler and Renzl, 2006; Wright, 1995). Changes such as this also contribute to a change in the employees rela tionship with the organization (Daniels, 1999; Daniels, Brough, Guppy, Peters -Bean, and Weatherstone, 1997; Daniels, Lamond, and Standen, 2000). The result of th e change in an employees relationship with the organization can lead to a change in the level of the employees loyalty. In turn, changes in loyalty levels can result in higher levels of empl oyee turnover (Sagie, Birati, and Tziner, 2002; Hirschman, 1970). Loyalty levels are cr itical to long term re tention of employees and are critical to and inversely related to intent to turn over. As shown above, employee attitudes 35

PAGE 46

36 regarding loyalty are impacted by employee perceptions of job satisfaction, social interaction, and trust as rela ted to the work environment (Turner and Brown, 2004; Chen and Kroeger, 2001; Dennocenzo, 2006). These characteristics of the work environment location, which affect employee loyalty and in tu rn are related to inte nt to turnover, are components that can potentially be addressed vi a work design efforts. Effective work design can impact the function of an orga nization and more importantly employee loyalty. As shown above, for this study the work environment components of job satisfaction, social interaction, and trust have been identified as an employees perception of loyalty. Although literally do zens of other potentia l variables could have been selected for study, these appear to be the most rele vant and worthy of study in this fledgling literature of collation. Because th e purpose of this research is to evaluate these work environment characteristics and the resulting in fluence they have on intent to turnover in both a collocated and non-collocated wo rk environment, this study includes an examination of the perceived levels of in tent to turnover resulting from reported perceptions of job satisfaction, so cial interaction, and trust in both work environments. In the next chapter, the research design to test the relationships derived from the literature and theory is described.

PAGE 47

CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A major reason that many of todays teams are ineffective is that they overlook the obvious. People do not make accommodations for how different it really is when they and their colleagues no longer work faceto-face. (Lipnack and Stamps, 1997, p. 7) Chapter Overview To test the hypotheses proposed in Ch apter Two, empirical examination is required. The intent is to collect and analy ze data to determine if employees working in a non-collocated work environment experi ence a decline in their loyalty to the organization. Appropriate statistical analyses will be used to determine if perceived employee attitudes regarding the factors that have been associated in the literature review with employee loyalty are affected by th e telecommuting or non-collocated work environment. Intent to turnover, a surrogate indicator for employee loyalty will be examined to determine if employees attitude s were substantially altered by exposure to the non-collocated work environment. The focus of this effort was to assure that the empirical examination would yield results that were generali zable and make a contributi on to the knowledge base and practice. In addition, this e ffort was undertaken with the desire to be suitable for retesting and validation by others. To accomp lish the empirical examination appropriate data were needed. The components of this effort included determination of the data needed for analysis, an instrument suitable fo r collecting the data, selection of subjects in 37

PAGE 48

the study, administration of the in strument to the subjects, and finally statistical methods suitable for testing the hypotheses via analysis of the collected data. Substantial consideration was given to how the data should be obtained; specifically where, from whom and how shoul d it be gathered. The ideal environment data gathering would have been one that included employees who were engaged in working in a non-collocated work environment at varying levels. In addition, the ideal environment would also have employees e ngaged in the same type of work in a collocated work environment. The second cons ideration regarding the gathering of data also needed to be addresse d: the development and admini stration of an appropriate instrument suitable for gathering the data required. A survey instrument was determined to be the ideal and optimal instrument based on the ability to adequately administer the delivery and collection of the instrument a nd ability to garner the data desired for examination. The sections following address in detail the operationalization of the constructs, specific items that were considered for selec tion and inclusion in the survey instrument, creation of the final instrument, how the subj ects were identified and selected, the method for distribution and collection of the instrume nt and finally how the data were analyzed for the purposes of testing the hypot heses proposed in this study. 38

PAGE 49

Introduction This chapter describes the development of the survey instrument, scale validation, sample determination, the data collection pro cedure and the statistical techniques used in this study. This study has been designed to meet two primary objectives. The first objective was to develop and examine theory regarding employee loyalty in an on-line or telecommuting work environment. This objective was accomplished utilizing a comprehensive literature revi ew to achieve an understanding of the current status of theory. This understanding of the published literature culminated in the proposed theory regarding the influence of an on-line or telecommuting work environment on employee loyalty. The theory was de veloped representing three co mponents (job satisfaction, social interaction, and trust), one moderati ng factor associated with the online work environment, and one indicating factor (inten t to turnover) that se rves as a secondary indicator of employee loyalty. These co mponents and the moderating factor are perceived to influence employee loyalty. Th e indicator factor is perceived to be a surrogate of employee loyalty. Each of these components and the factor are perceived to have a relationship with an employees loyalty. The second objective was to design and deve lop an empirical test of the theory proposed by this study regarding employee loyalt y in an online work environment. This was accomplished by the analysis and evaluation of survey data that were collected via an online survey instrument. A survey instrument was selected as th e most appropriate research method for securing the data. A survey instrument wa s described by Fink (2003) as a systematic 39

PAGE 50

collection of information from or about peopl e that describe s, compares, and explains perceived attitudes and behavior. A surv ey methodology was appropriate for this research, since the purpose of the research is to examine the feelings, opinions, and perceptions of subjects in a work environment using non-collocated staffing. A survey methodology is particularly well suited for examining a large number of subjects who have shared experiences or communal situat ions or problems. Surveys are the method most used by researchers studying organiza tions and are also conformable to the examination and evaluation of subjects in thei r work environment and to the study of the effects of the work environment on them (Fink, 2003). The survey was distributed and data collected using an online methodology. This method was used in lieu of a mail survey to minimize inconvenience of subjects and to improve the likelihood of cooperation and response. As with any research project, subjects were obtained based on potential access and those with the insights needed to test the proposed theories. An opportunity was presented to engage subjects that are empl oyed as faculty at a state higher learning institution that is involved in both traditio nal on campus-in class-face-to-face instruction and involved in non-traditional off campus onlin e instruction. Obtaining perceptions of both groups allows for testing of differences in perceptions of loyalty with varying levels of collocation, while controlling for any spur ious effects that might be due to the organization itself. That is by using employees in one or ganization who are at varying levels of collocation, the effect of collocat ion on loyalty can be studied without concern to other overarching organizational effects that might be present using a multiple organizational study. 40

PAGE 51

The survey utilized in this study included items that were identified as specifically suitable for the acquisition of information rega rding characteristics or constructs of the work environment identified in Chapter Two (job satisfaction, social interaction, and trust) that are related to employee loyalty and specific social-economic demographics, such as age, gender, profession, income, and ethnicity. While the demographic data are not anticipated to be direc tly associated with employ ee loyalty, responses will be gathered to provide future re searchers with a description of demographic characteristics that can be used for cross-comparison pur poses, should they be needed, as well as provide possible confirmations of the samples correspondence to known population characteristics. Construct and Scale Item Construction To study and analyze the proposed influe nce of a teleworking or online work environment on employee loyalty, the characteri stics of the work environment that are thought to influence employee loyalty must be operationally defined. In this section, each construct is operationally defined and s ources of the scale items used revealed. The survey instrument used in this st udy was constructed by using the paradigm for developing better measures defined by Zikmund (2003), who identified the first question a researcher must answer as: What is to be measured? Fo r this research, this was completed though an extensive review of the literature that resulted in the identification of the problem and the a ssociated concept to be investigated. A variety of academic studies from engineering, philos ophy, management and psychology specific to this study were reviewed and exam ined for their respective content. As a result of the 41

PAGE 52

review of the literatu re, conceptual specifications of the constructs determining what should be included in each of the domai ns of the study were developed. Zikmund dictates that the concepts relevant to the pr oblem studied must be identified prior to the initiation of the measurement process. Zikm und defines a concept (or construct) to be a generalized idea about a set of attributes (Zikmund, 2003). The concepts relevant to the problem studied in this research were defined in Chapter Two. With the identification and definition of the constructs, a substantial pool of items consisting of statements and questions was generated for the survey instrument. Items were specifically selected that envel oped the domain of th e defined constructs The items related to job satisfa ction, trust, social interaction, intent to turnover and specific demographics were utilized from other research efforts. The origin of each item will be explained later in this chapter. Each item was reviewed to assure appropriateness, understandability, clarity, and effectiveness for retrieving the desired response. Items were also reviewed and evaluated for soci al desirability. Items were modified and corrected as necessary to a ssure understandability, appropriate wording, and eliminate any ambiguity and unneeded duplication. Specific changes to items that were modified will be discussed later in this chapter. Upon completion of this effort the survey item pool was operationalized as a measurement instrument. Groups of items were assembled for de termining a subjects group membership (face-to-face or online), each of the constructs in conj unction with the constructs operational definition, and demographic informa tion on each subject. Each construct was addressed as described in the following sections. 42

PAGE 53

Group Determination In order to test the hypothesis identified in Chapter Two, two groups were required; a group that worked in a face-to-face environment and a group that worked in an online environment. Group determination is operationally define d to be based on the extent to which a participant worked in a specific work environment. The items were designed to divide the subjects into tw o sample groups. These sample groups are anticipated to provide a substa ntial representation of faculty that either works in a traditional educational environment that meet s face-to-face and teleworking faculty that work in an off campus nontraditional edu cational environment, in this case teaching courses online. The first sample group was the collocated or face-to-face group. This group was identified as the faculty who taught in a tr aditional work environm ent (i.e., not through teleworking). Specifically, this group was co mprised of instructors who only teach faceto-face as previously defined. The second sample group was the online group. The online group was comprised of instructors who taught in an online work environment (i.e., teleworking). Specifically, this group was comprised of instructors who only teach online as previously defined. It should be noted that both groups were comprised of faculty members that teach a minimum 75% of the time in a specific work environment. As full time faculty status is designated as teaching 5 courses, the demarca tion of 75% was selected to capture data from faculty members whose primary role is teaching predominantly in a specific work environment. 43

PAGE 54

The selection process (method used) to de termine membership in either the faceto-face group or online group was conducted using a dual layered screening technique within the data collection survey instrument. The first layer or item was used to insure that the faculty member was a full time f aculty member as previously defined. The second layer or item determined the work ing environment and confirmed that the participant worked 75% or more in a specific work environment. Additional items were utilized to gather informati on regarding involvement in a sp ecific work environment. The items used for collecting information regarding group membership are shown in Table 1. Several of the items in this sect ion were derived from two items used in a dissertation by Mary McCarthy on role conf lict experienced by telecommuting workers (McCarthy, 2001). Fink notes that the viabil ity of survey items utilized from other sources with minor modifications is typically not affected (Fink, 2003). The original form of the items that were modified is show n in Table 2. These items were modified to be applicable to the subjects work environm ent. The modifications were minor and were not considered as a functional a lteration to the structure or intent of the item. In several of the items the terms telework or online environment were substituted for homework or telework option to make the item more applicable. 44

PAGE 55

Table 1. Group Determination It ems as Modified for Survey I am a full time faculty member. Yes ___ No ___ Are you presently teaching at least 75% of the time in a telework or online environment? Yes ___ No ___ How long has it been since you started teaching in a tele working or online environment? ___ Months ___ Years How much time on average are you working in a teleworking or online teaching environment? Time per week? ____ % Days per week? ____ Are you presently teaching at least 75% of the time in a traditional face-to-face teach ing environment? Yes ___No ___ How long has it been since you started teaching in a trad itional face-to-face teaching environment? __ Months__ Years How much time on average are you working in a traditional face-to-face teaching environment? Time per week? ____ % Days per week? ____ Table 2. Unmodified Group Determination Survey Items (McCarthy, 2001) How much time, on average are you working in your home per week as part of the home work or telework option? Number of days per week ___. How long has it been since you started the home work (telework) option? Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction is operationally defined to be the quality of the relationship that the employee perceives to exist between him/ her and the job (Ivancevich, Olekalns and Matteson, 1997; Chen and Kroeger, 2001). Job satisfaction is perceived to be dynamically fluid and dependant on the employees attitude regarding his/her job or work environment. Job satisfaction can be expr essed as the continuu m of the employees perception of his/her ability to interact with the work content and the work environment (Herzberg, 1982). For example, an empl oyee with high job satisfaction sees himself/herself as working in a position of responsibility completing meaningful work that results in recognition of hi s/her achievements. He/she is eager to engage in the work environment and to be at work. In contrast an employee with low job satisfaction thinks 45

PAGE 56

of himself/herself as an underutilized employ ee that is doing meni al unchallenging work and is well below the radar scope of ma nagements recognition. This employees involvement at work is primarily based on pers onal need for compensation. He/she does not desire to be involved with or associated with the work environment. For the purposes of this study it was important to determine the attitude of the subjects regarding job satisfaction with respect to this operational definition. To garner information from the participat ing subjects regarding job satisfaction as defined, suitable survey items were identifie d and adapted for this research. The items used for collecting information regarding j ob satisfaction are shown in Table 3. These items were derived from Hackmans & Ol dhams job satisfaction survey without modification (Hackman and Oldham, 1980). Subj ects were asked to respond to each of the items utilizing a nine-point Likert scale where 1 equals extremely disagree or extremely low and 9 equals extremely agree or extremely high. Table 3. Job Satisfaction Survey Items My opinion of myself goes up when I do this job well. Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with this job. I feel a great sense of personal satisfaction when I do this job well. The work I do on this job is very meaningful to me. I feel bad and unhappy when I discover th at I have performed poorly on this job. I feel I should take the credit or the blam e for the results of my work on this job. I am generally satisfied with the kind of work I do in this job. 46

PAGE 57

Social Interaction Social interaction is operationally defined to be the face-to-face interaction that workers experience in the completion of thei r work (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978; Chen and Kroeger, 2001). Social interaction is pe rceived to be the mixture of the employees relationship and interaction w ith organizational management and interaction with his/her coworkers respectfully (McCusker & Wolfman, 1998). Examples of social interaction include water-cooler discussions, lunc h with colleagues, and the face-to-face interaction that leads to the development of relationships and becomes the gel that cements the employee to the organization. For the purposes of this study it was important to determine the attitude of the subjects rega rding social interaction with respect to this operational definition. To garner information from the participat ing subjects regarding social interaction as defined, suitable survey items were identifi ed and adapted for this research. The items used for collecting information regarding soci al interaction are show n in Table 4. These items were derived from McCarthy (2001) and were modified from the original items shown in Table 5. The items were modified to be applicable to the subjects work environment. The modifications were minor and were not considered as a functional alteration to the structure of the item. The minor changes made in several of the items included substituting the terms student(s) a nd classroom for coworkers and office to make the item more applicable. Subjects were asked to respond to each of the items utilizing a nine-point Likert scale where 1 equals extremely disagree or extremely low and 9 equals extremely agree or extremely high. 47

PAGE 58

Table 4. Social Interaction Survey Items as Modified for Survey Do you find yourself missing the regular face-to-face contac t you used to have with your coworkers and students? How does it feel when you go into the office? Do you feel like you are missing out on information? Do you feel like your opportunity for advancement is nega tively affected as in out of sight, out of mind? How does it feel when you teach in an online classroom? Specifically do you find yourself missing the regular contact you used to have with your students? How has working in a telework or online teaching environmen t affected your ability to communicate with coworkers? How has working in a telework or online teaching environm ent affected your ability to communicate with students? Table 5. Unmodified Social Interaction Survey Items (McCarthy, 2001) Do you find yourself missing th e regular contact you used to have with your coworkers? How does it feel when you go into the office? Specifically do you feel like you ar e missing out on information? Do you feel like your opportunity for advancement is nega tively affected as in out of sight, out of mind? With regard to teleworking: Do you find yourself missing th e regular contact you used to have with your coworkers? How has teleworking affected the way of means thr ough which you communicate with others in the office? How has teleworking affected the way or means thr ough which you communicate with others in the office? Trust Trust is operationally define d to be the firm belief or confidence in the honesty, integrity, reliability, and faith that an employee perceives and experiences in the relationship with the organiza tion (Coutu, 1998). Trust can be described as the state of a relationship between employees and the orga nization they work for as the employees believe it to exist. An employee will experience a high trust level if he/she believes that the integrity of the relationship he/she sh ares with the organization has not been compromised. As the employees belief in the integrity of this relationship wanes, then his/her trust level diminishes. For exampl e, an employee who has been promised an increase in compensation and received it with in a reasonable time frame will have a high 48

PAGE 59

trust for the organization. However, an em ployee who has been repeatedly promised an increase in compensation and even after seve ral inquiries regardi ng the increase has not received it will experience a low trust level with regard to the integrity of his/her relationship with the organization. For the purposes of this study it was important to determine the attitude of the subjects regarding trust with respect to this operational definition (Coutu, 1998; Chapdelain e 1998; Matzler and Renzl, 2006). To garner information from the particip ating subjects regarding trust as defined, suitable survey items were identified and adap ted for this research. The items used for collecting information regardi ng trust are shown in Table 6. These items were derived from Philippe (2002) on corporate hypocri sy. These items were used without modification to determine an employees trus t level with regard to the organization. Table 6. Trust Survey Items I trust that my organization has my best interests at heart. There is a difference between what my organization says and what it does. The organization says things th at I do not expect to happen. I believe that my organization is fair. Intent to Turnover Intent to turnover has been operationally defined as a surrogate indicator of employee loyalty (Karen Boroff and David Lewin, 1997; Stroh, Brett, and Reilly, 1996; Lee and Whitford, 2007; Hirschman, 1970; Meyer and Allen, 1991). An employees intent to turnover is inversely linked to employee loyalty. As an employees loyalty levels decrease, the employees intent to tu rnover typically increases (Hirschman, 1970). Intent to turnover is the m easurement of an employees desire to separate from the 49

PAGE 60

organization regardless of the reason (Hirschm an, 1970). For example, an employee with a high desire or intent to tu rnover as a result of a low loyalty level will leave the organization at the earliest acceptable opportuni ty. An employee with a low intent to turnover as a result of a high loyalty level, most likely wi ll not leave the organization in the near future or possibly at all (Hirschma n, 1970). For the purposes of this study it was important to determine the attitude of the subjects regarding inte nt to turnover with respect to this operational definition (Hirschman, 1970). To garner information from the participat ing subjects regarding intent to turnover as defined, suitable survey items were identifi ed and adapted for this research. The items used for collecting information regarding intent to turnover are shown in Table 7. These items were used unaltered from a longitudinal study by Kelloway, Gottlieb, and Barham (1999) regarding the telecommuting work environment and family conflict. Table 7. Intent to Turnover Items I am thinking about leaving this organization. I am planning to look for a new job. I intend to ask people about new job opportunities. I dont plan to be with this organization much longer Demographic Characteristics General demographic information was colle cted for future researchers and to establish validity of the derived sample. The information was collected utilizing unaltered items from McCarthy (2001), so as to allow easy comparison across studies. The items used for collecting demographic information are shown in Table 8. 50

PAGE 61

Table 8. Demographic Items Gender: Male ____ Female ____ Which range reflects your current age? ____ 24 to 30 years ____ 46 to 50 years ____ 31 to 35 years ____ 51 to 60 years ____ 36 to 40 years ____ 61 and above ____ 41 to 45 years What is the highest level of education your have completed? ____ Bachelors Degree ____ Honors Degree ____ Post Graduate Study ____ Masters Degree ____ Doctorate Degree Marital Status ____ Single ____ Married/Living with partner ____ Divorced/Separated ____ Widowed If you have a partner, what is his/her Occupation ______________________________ What is your employment cla ssification or job title? ________________________ How long have you been working for the organization/institution? ___ Years ___ Months Survey Instrument Construction Using the scale items listed above and items related to demographic characteristics, the survey instrument was crea ted. This section describes the issues used in creating the survey to ensure valid and reliable data and, th ereby, dependable results. For this study a nine point Likert scale wa s used to allow for finer distinctions in options than offered by a five or seven point scal e. It was also anticip ated that the use of the nine point scale would provide a greater level of insight into the respondents attitudes regarding the identif ied constructs (Cox, 1980). Response bias occurs when a subjects responses either consciously or unconsciously answer in a certain direction or pattern. Any resu lting distortion in the 51

PAGE 62

measurement due to the respondents answer s for whatever reason being falsified or misrepresented is a form of error known as response bias (Zikm und, 2003). To address the possibility of occurrence of pattern respons e bias, a portion of the survey items were subjected to additional refining e fforts. Refining efforts to avoid response bias included recasting some items into reverse worded biased statements. The rewording of items served to limit a subjects tendency to res pond to the items with similar responses and also tended to keep the subjects alert a nd engaged with the items (Churchill, 1979). The items shown in Table 9 were originally cast into revers e worded biased statements. They were adopted for this research without modification. The rating for these items was reversed (larger numbers mean more) to simp lify interpretation and analysis. The first item in Table 9 is item numbers 12 from the j ob satisfaction section of the survey and the second two items in Table 9 are item number s 22 and 23 from the trust section of the survey. Table 9. Reversed Worded Items I feel bad and unhappy when I discover th at I have performed poorly on this job. The organization says things th at I do not expect to happen. I believe that my organization is fair Scale reliability and validity analysis is discussed in greater detail in conjunction with the results in Chapter F our through empirical analysis. The data collection survey instrument is constructed in three basic components or sections. The first component is a two layer fi ltering of subjects to insure their inclusion in the appropriate sample group; the faceto-face group or the online group. The second 52

PAGE 63

component is the composition and operationali zation of the three theoretical constructs (job satisfaction, social intera ction, and trust), the moderati ng factor (involvement in the work environment) and the surrogate indica tor (intent to turnover) for employee loyalty. The measurement items of the second section require an individual response from each of the subjects regarding th e level or magnitude to which he/s he agrees or disagrees with the topic of the item. The statements are rated wi th a nine point Likert scale. The responses of the subjects indicated thei r perspectives on how each item related to their relationship to their specific work environment. The th ird section includes items that focus on determining the specific demographic in formation of each individual respondent. Study Subjects The subjects used for this study were faculty at a four year coll ege in the state of Florida. The faculty group targeted incl uded instructors involved in on campus traditional in class, face-to-face instruction and instruct ors significantly involved in online instruction. Faculty members who wo rk only in a traditional environment were included in the survey to serve as the f ace-to-face group. Instructors who engage in telework or online instruction are included in the survey to serve as the online group, i.e., non-collocated. These two sample groups are anticipated to pr ovide a substantial representation of faculty that either works in a traditional educational environment that meets face-to-face and teleworking faculty that work in an off-campus nontraditional educational environment. 53

PAGE 64

The online group was comprised of instru ctors who teach at a minimum 75% of the time in an online work environment, as previously defined. The experimental treatment was defined as the onl ine work environment. The selection process to determine member ship in either the face-to-face group or online group was moderated using a dual layered screening technique within the data collection survey instrument. A target of 50 responses from each of the groups was determined to be sufficiently large sample to test for meaningful differences across the groups on the key dependent variable, intenti on to turnover. A mi nimum sample size of 30 is considered to be sufficient for the law of large numbers to activate (Nunnally, 1970). To confirm the effect of the online work environment on employee loyalty, faculty teaching in both a tr aditional face-to-face work environment and an online telecommuting work environment were eval uated and compared. The evaluation and comparison was conducted on employees that comprise specific sample groups. Membership in a specific sample group was determined by identifying if faculty members were working in either a traditional work environment or a telecommuting work environment as defined in the following operational definitions. The first sample group is operationally defined as full time permanent faculty teaching in person 75% or more of the tim e on campus. This group will serve as the faceto-face group for this research. The second sample group is operationally de fined as full time permanent faculty teaching a minimum of 75% or more in an online work environment. This group will serve as the online group for this research. 54

PAGE 65

It should be noted that this researcher s affiliation and relationship with this institution enabled participation of the faculty in this study. In a ddition, the relationship also facilitated the so licitation of the subjec ts cooperation and response rates. While the researchers affiliation may have biased coope ration in a positive direction, there is no compelling reason to believe that the affiliation biased responses or had any halo effect as the survey items are unrelated to the research ers area of responsibil ity. In addition, all responses were anonymous, and the researcher does not have manage rial control over any of the subjects. Pilot Study Once the measurement instrument was completed, a pilot test was conducted to assure the viability of the instrument. The pilot test included a limited panel of subjects from the participating instituti on that fit the operational defi nition of both the face-to-face group and the online group of respondents. During the pilot study the instrument was administered in person. The pilot study yiel ded a significant understanding regarding the appropriateness of the measurement instrument. The administration of the pilot study allowed each participant to be interview after completing the survey to determine his/her perception and understanding of the item in view of the intent of the item. This allowed for a final critique of each item for understa ndability and appropria teness. In addition, the pilot study also provided an indication and assurance of the relevancy of each item as it relates to the theoretical constructs. The time required to complete the instrument was measured at between ten and fifteen minutes, a range suitable for cooperation needed for desirable completion and response levels. 55

PAGE 66

Data Collection The data collection was completed via an on-line survey provided to the two sample groups comprised of faculty that work in a traditional in -class environment and faculty who work in a telecommuting or online work environment. The survey consists of scale items described above regarding each of the identified independent constructs (job satisfaction, social intera ction, and trust) and the depe ndent construct (intent to turnover), as well as demographi c classification variables. Also as described above, the responden ts in this study are faculty members employed full-time by a four year college in the state of Florida that participates in both traditional and teleworking environments. The basis for selecting this group for data collection is that this institution employs facu lty that are currently engaged in a full-time, permanent capacity, working in their respectiv e work environments in accordance with the operational definitions provide d earlier in this chapter. As a notable number of the faculty employed at this institution posse ss graduate degrees, these subjects were considered capable of producing the data sets and desired number of responses required. The number of subjects in each of the sample groups was sufficient to perform the desired statistical analyses (Nunnally, 1970). The sampling process that was utilized in this study is to administer the survey via an online delivery system. The online surv ey instrument was developed utilizing Zoomerangs survey tool. The survey was distributed and collected utilizing an online delivery system. It is possible that using an on-line format for data collection could bias the research slightly toward those subject s who are more comfortable with computerbased communication. The Zoomerang survey mechanism is used for many other 56

PAGE 67

purposes on the campus and is a common format today for collecting survey responses. As such, the potential for bias should not be of such magnitude to warrant concern. Participation in this study was completely voluntary with all responses remaining anonymous. As with all research, there wa s a concern regarding the existence of any non-response bias associated with survey data. Non-response bias refers to the concept that the perception of the subjects that res pond could be different fr om the perception of the subjects that did not respond (Arm strong and Overton, 1977; Lambert and Harrington, 1990). As the survey instrume nt was conducted anonymously, it was not possible to solicit a response from non-responde nts. Nevertheless, non-response bias will be discussed in Chapter Four based on compar isons of demographics of early and late respondents. The responses were received in response to two separate solicitations. The solicitations were issued approxi mately one month apart. Survey Instrument The online survey instrument was devel oped using scale items described above. A printed version of the final survey instrume nt is contained in Appendix A. The survey included appropriate instructions including the completion of th e survey and the return of the survey. The first section of the measurement inst rument, items 1 9, is a dual layered set of items designed to determine a respondents membership in either the sample group comprising the face-to-face group or the sample group comprising the online group. In addition, this set of items also, in the case of online instructors, determines their tenure and frequency in the online work environment. 57

PAGE 68

The second section of the measurement inst rument is comprised of items related to the three constructs, the moderating fact or and the surrogate indicator regarding employee loyalty. The remainder of the measurement instrume nt is comprised of items necessary to develop the respondents perceived individual characteristic s and associated demographics. These included gender, age, a nd highest level of e ducation, and a response with regard to the moderating factors of te nure and frequency of te lecommuting or online work. The items for section two were written as statements in which the subjects responded on a 9-point Likert scale. For items 10 th rough 18 and 22 through 27 the responses were identified as indicated in Figure 5 below 1 2 3 5 4 6 9 8 7 Extremely Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Neither Disagree Nor Agree Strongly Agree Extremely Agree Figure 5. Likert Scale 58

PAGE 69

For items 19 through 21 the wording for the re sponses to each item was modified for appropriateness as indicated in Figure 6 below. 1 2 3 5 4 6 9 8 7 Extremely Low Significantly Low Low Somewhat Low Somewhat High High Neither Low Nor High Significantly High Extremely High Figure 6. Modified Likert Scale Validity Validity assessment is crucial to the dete rmination of how accu rately the chosen indicators measure a particular construct. Measure validity can be divided into three classifications; content validity, criterion va lidity, and construct validity. Content validity is associated with the domain of conten t, criterion validity is associated with the accuracy of the study outcome, and construc t validity is associated with accurate measurement of traits and other participan t characteristics (Pedhazur and Schmelkin, 1991). Content Validity For the purpose of this study, content va lidity refers to the assessment of the instruments suitability to accu rately reflect what it is inte nded to study. Content validity is assured through a comprehensiv e review of the literature and theory to determine that the study captures variables a nd content needed to guarant ee readers that the studys conclusions are relevant and c over the current status of th eory and explanation of the phenomena studied (Zikmund, 2003). The thorough review of the literature as presented 59

PAGE 70

in Chapter Two served as the underpinning of the study and provides assurance that the study does cover variables considered by expe rts to be relevant to issues surrounding loyalty in the workplace. The subjects in the pilot study examine, appraise and confirm the items to be appropriate indicators of the studys constructs. The researchers extensive work experience in working clos ely in technology utilization in collocated environments also confirms that the study captures the content need ed to understand the impact of collocating. Utilizing accepted methodologies, the cons tructs identified in this study are appropriately genera ted with content validity. Criterion Related Validity Criterion related validity can be desc ribed as predictive validity. Predictive validity is established when an attitude measure predicts a further event (Zikmund, 2003, p. 303). In this st udy criterion-related validity is the extent to which the constructs of the work environment that are perceived to affect l oyalty are associated with the measured outcome. For the purposes of this study, criterion validity is to be established via theory and previous research that doc ument the interaction and relationships between and amongst trust, soci al interaction, job sa tisfaction, loyalty and intention to quit ones job. R eaders can be assured that th e impact of collocating on the key variable in the study, loyalty, results from capturing phenomena commonly studied and analyzed in this general context. 60

PAGE 71

Construct Validity Construct validity is confirmed by the level to which the measure confirms a hypothesis generated from a theory based on a co ncept. Construct validity is established as a result of the statistical analysis of the data collected (Zikmund, 2003). Construct validity can also be characterized as the exte nt to which the empirical evidence reflects that the items in a scale measure the same cons truct. In the simplest terms, if the items studied follow a pattern of inter-correlat ion with other variables then there is a substantiation of construct validity (Zikm und, 2003). Because this study uses scales validated in previous researc h, construct validity should not be of concern. Construct reliability, a minimum standard for construct validity, will be examined in Chapter Four through empirical analysis. Statistical Analysis To test the hypotheses outlined in Ch apter Two, statistical analyses will be conducted to ascertain if a m eaningful difference exists between the face-to-face group and the online group on perceived loyalty to th e organization. Statistical testing of differences across classificati on groups is appropriately co nducted using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and in the case of multiple variables MANOVA. Regression analysis, a specific test of linear relationship in data, is one type of analysis of variance. As such, the statistical analysis describe d in Chapter Four will be based on ANOVA, MANOVA or regression analys is, as is appropriate. Data collected in this study are essentially ordinal level data, meaning that the intervals between scale points are not necessa rily equidistant. Neve rtheless, regression 61

PAGE 72

62 analysis is robust against violatio ns in the assumption that all data are interval level. It is common practice in social scie nce research to use regression analysis on data obtained through Likert-type scale points. The most appropriate statistical analys is methodology for this study is multiple linear regression analysis, as it allows for the simultaneous investigati on of the effect of several independent variables such as job sa tisfaction, trust, soci al interaction, and a moderating factor on a single in terval scaled dependent vari able, such as loyalty as represented by intent to turnover (Zikmund, 2003). Multiple linear regression analysis is well suited for the analysis of the variance of interval scaled data associated with both the independent and dependent variables. Appropriate t-test, F-test, and other analysis will be preformed on the data collected (Zikmund, 2 003). Chapter Four presents the results of statistical analysis. Chapter Summary The purpose of this chapter was to define the process utilized to generate the measurement instrument. The measurement instrument was designe d and developed in keeping with and founded on constructs that were identified within the academic literature. The pilot stud y was included to evaluate, improve, and clarify the appropriateness of the measurement instrume nt. The chapter concluded with a brief description of the sample and the methodology including distribution a nd retrieval of the survey instrument and data collection proce sses, appropriate components of validity and the statistical techniques sele cted for use in the evaluation and assessment of the data collected.

PAGE 73

CHAPTER FOUR ANALYSIS Loyalty is the gold standard for meas uring the quality of a relationship. True loyalty endures through the best of times and the worst and melds mutual interests into shared goals. (Reichheld, 2001, p. 5) Chapter Overview This chapter provides the empirical testi ng of the hypotheses revealed in Chapter Two. In addition to examining the relati onships uncovered rega rding each hypothesis, this chapter also examines the sample and m easurement characteristics of the data, so as to ensure that no unnecessary contamination or corruption of the data has occurred and that the results reported are de pendable based on the datas quality. These efforts were accomplished via an examination of the delivery and retrieval of the survey instrument, a thorough inspection of the data, appropriate treatment of any poten tial coding errors, proper addressing of potential response bi as, presentation of the responses, and completion and reporting of statistical analysis. The data examination and statistical an alysis that were completed included a visual inspection of the data to identi fy any un-thoughtful responses, such as a Christmas Tree or all nines responses. Un-thoughtful responses are perceived by the researcher to not provide a viable repres entation of the participants perceptions regarding the independent vari able and the dependent variable. The data were found to be free of such responses. 63

PAGE 74

Paired t-tests were conducted for each survey item based on early and late responders to identify any potential non-respons e bias. The results of the t-tests indicated that there were no compelling reasons to believe that any non-response bias was significant enough to influence th e results of the survey. The demographic data were reviewed a nd tabularized for a clearer understanding of the respondents. The data revealed a popul ation profile similar to the known profile of the population, using a Kolmogrov-Smirnoff Test. Factor analysis was completed on each multi-item scale to determine the unidimensionality of each scale, and therefore to validate the use of each scale in further regression analysis. The result of these analys es confirmed the internal integrity of each subscale construct and it s unidimensionality. Once summates were created for subscales a correlation matrix was created to examine the independent, unidi rectional relationshi p between constructs, and Cronbachs Alpha was calculated as a final test of relia bility. Then, a regression analysis, which included all job loyalty variab les studied (job satisfaction, so cial interactio n, and trust), were conducted to determine if these aspect s of job loyalty contributed an employees intent to turnover based on membership in a telecommuting or traditional work environment. Regression analysis allows for simultaneous examination of relationships, while allowing for variance due to the influenc e of other subscales. The results of each of these statistical examinations are explained in the following sections. 64

PAGE 75

Distribution and Collection of the Survey Instrument Over a three-month time span the survey instrument was made available to the 222 full-time faculty members at the particip ating institution. The distribution and collection occurred in two waves. The firs t distribution event occurred in October 2007 and resulted in 76 responses. Due to the waning of responses and a desire to have a larger response rate, a second distribution was in itiated approximately a month later in November of 2007, with an encouragement fo r any members of th e population set that had not previously responded to do so at that time. The second distribution resulted in 27 additional responses. A total of 103 responses from the then current sample population of 222 were received following the proce dure outlined in Chapter Three. This corresponds to a 46.4% response rate. This re sponse rate is considered acceptable for such survey research and is sufficiently la rge to warrant further analysis, assuming the sample is representative of the overall popula tion. To ensure representativeness of the overall population and the trustwor thiness of the data further analyses were conducted. Non-response Bias As stated in Chapter Three, non-response bias refers to th e concept that the perception of the subjects th at respond could be different from the perception of the subjects that did not respond (Armstrong and Overton, 1977; Lambert and Harrington, 1990). To identify potential non-response bias, paired t-tests were conducted on survey items 10 29 that specifically addressed the ar eas of job satisfaction, social interaction, trust, and intent to turnover the key variables used in hypot hesis testing, as well as key demographic variables. As suggested by Armstrong and Overton (1977), the paired t65

PAGE 76

tests were conducted using the data collected from the first 25% of the respondents and the last 25% of the respondents. The result s of the t-tests are shown in Table 10. The ttests were conducted on the firs t 26 and last 26 responses received for each survey item by comparing the means of the responses. As can be seen in Table 10, all values of the calculated t-statistics are less than the t-critical value at a confidence level of 95%. Overall, the results of the t-te sts indicate that there is no stat istical difference in the means of the first 26 respondents when compared to the last 26 respondents. Therefore there is no compelling reason to believe that any notable amount of non-respons e bias exist in the data. As such, non-response bias wa s eliminated as a potential concern. 66

PAGE 77

Table 10. T-tests of First 25% and Last 25% of Respondents Items No. of Resps. Mean Var. Obsrvs. Pearson Cor. Hypoth. Mean Diff. df t Stat P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail Type of Env First 26 1.38 0.2462 26 -0.329 0 25 -1.99 0.05762 2.05954 Last 26 1.69 0.2215 26 Yrs Wkg in Env First 26 14.9 158.87 26 -0.07 0 25 1.445 0.16086 2.05954 Last 26 9.92 132.07 26 % of Time in Env First 26 0.86 0.0095 26 0.2088 0 25 0.4367 0.66606 2.05954 Last 26 0.85 0.0064 26 Days per wk First 26 4.46 8.6585 26 0.5208 0 25 -0.775 0.4457 2.05954 Last 26 4.85 1.4954 26 10 First 26 7.73 1.6446 26 -0.204 0 25 -0.586 0.56323 2.05954 Last 26 7.92 0.7138 26 11 First 26 7.85 0.3754 26 0.6237 0 25 1.5475 0.13432 2.05954 Last 26 7.65 0.6354 26 12 First 26 7.88 0.5862 26 -0.12 0 25 0.8167 0.42181 2.05954 Last 26 7.69 0.7015 26 13 First 26 7.19 1.5215 26 0.7567 0 25 -1.69 0.1034 2.05954 Last 26 7.5 1.94 26 14 First 26 7.04 2.6785 26 -0.179 0 25 0.953 0.34972 2.05954 Last 26 6.58 2.4938 26 15 First 26 7.85 1.3354 26 -0.261 0 25 0.1347 0.89389 2.05954 Last 26 7.81 0.4015 26 16 First 26 5.5 1.78 26 0.1894 0 25 0.7354 0.46893 2.05954 Last 26 5.23 2.5046 26 17 First 26 5.65 1.9154 26 0.0543 0 25 -0.29 0.77395 2.05954 Last 26 5.77 2.4246 26 18 First 26 6.27 2.6046 26 0.1404 0 25 0.7362 0.46846 2.05954 Last 26 5.96 2.6785 26 19 First 26 5.69 2.3815 26 0.2496 0 25 0.6895 0.49688 2.05954 Last 26 5.42 2.8938 26 20 First 26 5.96 2.4385 26 0.3092 0 25 0.892 0.38089 2.05954 Last 26 5.62 3.2062 26 21 First 26 6.42 2.9738 26 0.0813 0 25 0.6237 0.53847 2.05954 Last 26 6.15 2.2954 26 22 First 26 4.81 1.6015 26 -0.142 0 25 0.5448 0.5907 2.05954 Last 26 4.58 2.4938 26 23 First 26 6.77 1.1446 26 -0.009 0 25 0.4709 0.64181 2.05954 Last 26 6.62 1.6062 26 24 First 26 6.46 1.6185 26 0.5409 0 25 0.1532 0.87946 2.05954 Last 26 6.42 1.9338 26 25 First 26 5.42 1.5338 26 0.0075 0 25 0.7621 0.45311 2.05954 Last 26 5.15 1.7354 26 26 First 26 4.69 3.5015 26 0.5003 0 25 0 1 2.05954 Last 26 4.69 4.3015 26 27 First 26 4.62 4.9662 26 0.4365 0 25 0.167 0.86868 2.05954 Last 26 4.54 4.8185 26 28 First 26 4.81 4.2415 26 0.5526 0 25 0.0996 0.92147 2.05954 Last 26 4.77 4.4246 26 29 First 26 4.5 4.42 26 0.3789 0 25 0 1 2.05954 Last 26 4.5 5.22 26 Gender First 26 1.46 0.3385 26 -0.283 0 25 02252 0.82366 2.05954 Last 26 1.42 0.2538 26 Age First 26 4.31 4.0615 26 -0.051 0 25 1.5115 0.14321 2.05954 Last 26 3.42 4.4138 26 Education First 26 4.12 1.4662 26 -0.143 0 25 -1 0.32689 2.05954 Last 26 4.38 0.2462 26 Marital Status First 26 1.62 0.5662 26 0.341 0 25 -0.647 0.52334 2.05954 Last 26 1.73 0.6846 26 Yrs at Institution First 26 10.7 66.925 26 -0.025 0 25 1.6823 0.10495 2.05954 Last 26 7.15 47.815 26 67

PAGE 78

Representativeness of Sample To further ensure that non-response bias is not present, demographic information was collected via the survey for the purpos es of identifying any potential statistical significance related to demogra phics such as gender, age, and education, (see Table 11) and the resulting profile was compared to the known characteris tics of the population provided by the participating institution. Table 11. Demographic Responses Demographic Information Response Male 42 Female 57 Non-Responsive Regarding Gender 4 College Degree 101 Bachelors 7 Masters 56 Ph.D. 38 Non-Responsive Regarding College Degree 2 Mean Age 44.2 24 30 Years Old 8 31 35 Years Old 7 36 40 Years Old 8 41 45 Years Old 13 46 50 Years Old 24 51 60 Years Old 29 61 Older 9 Non-Responsive Regarding Age 5 Mean Number of Years at Institution 10.7 Range of Years at Institution 1-34 Non-Responsive to Number of Years at Institution 7 Mean Number of Years Teaching On-Line 5.4 Range of Years Experience Teaching On-Line 1-13 Non Responsive to Years of Experience Teaching On-Line 3 Mean Number of Years Teaching Face-to-Face 19.8 Range of Years Experience Teaching Face-t o-Face 1-40 Non Responsive to Years of Expe rience Teaching Face-to-Face 2 To ensure that the sample is similar to the known population, the Human Resources Department of the participating instit ution was contacted for any known population characteristics on any of the descriptive sta tistics collected in th e study. Unfortunately, 68

PAGE 79

only gender and education levels are colle cted and publicly available. These two variables were available for comparison; a Kolmogrov-Smirnoff (K-S) test was executed. The K-S test, a nonparametric statistical techni que, was used because the comparisons are made from two different sets of data with potentially different response functions and underlying distributions. The KS test is considered to be appropriate and conservative when comparing data from two studies. The KolmogorovSmirnov statistic provides quantification between the dist ribution of the survey sample and the distribution of the known reference sample. This statistic is calculated based on th e concept that the samples are drawn from and representative of the same distribution. The two-sample K-S test is one of the most useful and gene ral nonparametric methods for comparing two samples, as it is sensitive to differences in both location and sh ape of the empirical cumulative distribution functions of the two samples (Adams, 1977). The Human Resource Department provided the information shown in Table 12. It should be noted that at the time of the dist ribution of the survey th e total number of full time faculty was 222. The data provided by the Human Resource Department is comprised of annual totals. Table 12. Human Resource Data Information Provided By Human Resources Gender (Full Time Faculty Only) Male 136 Female 180 Education (All Faculty) Bachelor's 37 Master's 228 Doctorate 121 69

PAGE 80

The demographic information provided wa s utilized to complete a KolmogrovSmirnoff test of comparison to the survey data. Two tests were completed on first the gender information (Table 13) and then the education/degree earned information (Table 14). Table 13. K-S Test on Gender Data Entry Sums Category Observed Frequency Expect ed Frequency Expected Proportion Observed Frequency Female 57 56.3924050 0.56962025 99 Male 42 42.6075949 0.43037974 Expected Frequency 99 Expected Proportion 1.0 Cumulative Proportions Observed Expected | O E | Dmax Female 0.576 0.57 0.006 0.006 Male 1.0 1.0 0 Critical Values of Dmax for n = 99 Level of Significanc e (non-directional) 0.05 0.01 0.1367 0.1638 Table 14. K-S Test on Degree Data Entry Sums Category Observed Frequency Expected Freque ncy Expected Proportion Observed Frequency Bachelor 7 9.6813471 0.09585492 101 Master 56 42.6075949 0.59067357 Doctorate 38 31.6606218 0.31347150 Expected Frequency 101 Expected Proportion 1.0 Cumulative Proportions Observed Expected | O E | Dmax Bachelor 0.069 0.096 0.027 0.064 Master 0.623 0.687 0.064 Doctorate 1 1 0 Critical Values of Dmax for n = 101 Level of Significanc e (non-directional) 0.05 0.01 0.1353 0.1622 Both tests indicate that the sample data are not statistically different from the known data regarding gender and highest degree earned. These comparisons between 70

PAGE 81

gender and education indicate that the data collected is similar to the data overall population. This comparison also substantiate s the validity and trustworthiness of the data in terms of its relation to the entire sample. Factor Analysis To test the hypotheses outlined in Chapter Two, multiple linear regression analysis will be used. Prior to conduc ting the regression anal ysis, the underlying structure of the constructs was examined to ensure that the measures used had both internal consistency and external discrimi nation. To do so, a factor analysis was conducted using SAS to determine the number of factors, make refinements and further examine the dimensionality of the data. As is typical in such research, a Scree plot examination and the eigenvalues greater than one rule was used to determine the number of factors as suggested by the Kaiser rule (Rummel, 1970). The factor analysis was conducted in two phases. First, all twenty Likert-type scale items related to the test ing of the hypotheses were subjected to a factor analysis. The underlying test was to determine if th e variables created to measure individual phenomena would load together and distinctly from variab les associated with other constructs. If the structure (f ocus) of the data is verifie d, four factors should emerge corresponding to intention to turnover, j ob satisfaction, socia l interaction, and trust. Any purification (such as eliminati on of items) of the scales needed from this analysis would be done and then additional factor analyses conducted until the structure is verified and clean. 71

PAGE 82

Second, the variables in each purified individual construc t were then subjected to an individual factor analysis to ensure that the construct is unidimensional (measuring only one factor such as job satisfaction) and th at all variables are loading at a high level. Loadings above .3 are considered acceptabl e based on the work of Nunnally (Nunnally, 1970). Once each item was verified as measuri ng a consistent and distinct phenomenon, a summation of the items associated with each factor was created to obtain an individual scale score for each respondent. Summates we re created by summing the responses for a specific factor such as job satis faction. These summates will th en be used as input to the regression analyses. Factor Analysis of Likert Perceptual Items The Scree plot for the perceived employ ee loyalty theory scale revealed four eigenvalues exceeding one. Table 15 reveals the first six eigenvalues, explaining 100% of the variance. The concept of retaining only components with an Eigenvalue above 1 is commonly based on the Cattell (1966) Scree plot and the Kaiser (1960) rule. Catell recommended that only components above th e point of inflection on a plot of the eigenvalues ordered by diminishing size be retained. Kaiser (1960) recommends retaining components that have eigenvalues equal to or greater than 1. 72

PAGE 83

Table 15. Eigenvalues of the Reduced Correlation Matrix Eigenvalue Difference Proportion Cumulative 1 7.93827772 6.31489092 0.5976 0.5976 2 1.62338681 0.15654298 0.1222 0.7198 3 1.46684383 0.36083017 0.1104 0.8302 4 1.10601366 0.31557362 0.0833 0.9134 5 0.79044003 0.42393988 0.0595 0.9729 6 0.36650016 0.08499163 0.0276 1.0005 Based on these factor extractions, there appears to be four meaningful factors, explaining 91% of the variance. This provided support for the four factors that were predetermined and conceptualized. Factor Loading of Scale Items To examine the dimensionality of the Em ployee Loyalty construct, the data were subjected to factor analysis, using an obli que (Promax) rotation, so as to maximize the interpretation of item loading by allowing factors to correlate. This method is often used to establish the unidimensionality of each construct, especially when factors are hypothesized to correlate with other factors of co nstructs. Unexpectedly, an initial analysis revealed five, instead of the expect ed four factors (see Table 16). This was caused by three items in the social interaction scale loading separatel y, instead of together with the other items expected to define the construct. Further analysis of the items revealed that the wording of three of these items related to social interaction limited the responses to reflect only pe rceptions experienced in an online environment and not perceptions experienced in a face-to-face environment as well. Because of these unexpected wording issues, the decision wa s made to drop these three items. 73

PAGE 84

As previously described, only scale items with factor loadings of .33 or greater were retained (see Table 16), because an item with less than .33 is only sharing approximately 10% (.332) of its variance with the associated factor. Based on this common decision rule, one of the items relate d to job satisfaction was dropped. Based on the reduced number of scale items (n=16), th e factor analysis wa s again conducted (see Table 17). Table 16. Initial Rotated Fact or Pattern with All Items (Standardized Regression Coefficients) Rotated Factor Pattern (Standar dized Regression Coefficients) Factor Item 1 2 3 4 5 10 -0.14324 -0.05972 -0.14358 0.09226 0.57174 11 0.06047 0.04158 0.21226 0.00355 0.73726 12 0.14697 0.02296 0.12556 -0.08143 0.70641 13 -0.13543 0.02971 0.15406 -0.01901 -0.00200 14 -0.06352 -0.12639 0.17680 -0.11312 0.33194 15 -0.15413 0.17747 -0.18559 0.01068 0.52089 16 0.10310 0.12370 0.04602 0.73605 -0.04704 17 -0.01166 -0.18001 -0.00448 0.83797 0.07195 18 0.00915 0.01452 -0.07104 0.77449 -0.01070 19 0.06916 0.20610 0.67820 -0.05085 -0.04078 20 -0.16718 0.02573 0.81625 0.05414 -0.05020 21 -0.08689 -0.14981 0.70447 -0.01027 0.07132 22 -0.12782 0.65901 0.12091 0.03968 0.04972 23 0.06676 0.93847 -0.06939 -0.03333 -0.00100 24 -0.11294 0.79795 -0.02350 0.01806 0.07369 25 -0.11015 0.72898 0.03453 0.01171 -0.09486 26 0.89555 -0.03901 -0.12471 -0.07840 -0.01523 27 0.91572 0.01361 -0.07383 0.03322 0.00717 28 0.85438 -0.11280 0.05506 0.09524 -0.04394 29 0.77923 -0.09415 -0.11337 0.09065 0.02128 74

PAGE 85

Table 17. Final Rotated Factor Pattern with Items Removed (Standardized Regression Coefficients) Rotated Factor Pattern (Standar dized Regression Coefficients) Factor Item 1 2 3 4 10 -0.06979 -0.03117 0.15767 0.54747 11 -0.01486 0.00748 -0.05346 0.77185 12 0.11225 0.00308 -0.12159 0.68785 14 -0.10526 -0.13080 -0.16974 0.34815 15 -0.07530 0.21352 0.08334 0.40314 16 0.07796 0.10209 0.71945 -0.01308 17 -0.02216 -0.18494 0.84063 0.04948 18 0.03668 0.01145 0.77575 -0.04096 22 -0.17923 0.63315 -0.00560 0.04013 23 0.09790 0.92628 -0.02240 -0.03031 24 -0.09058 0.78157 0.01489 0.10453 25 -0.13678 0.71704 0.00120 -0.12344 26 0.96340 -0.01018 -0.06228 -0.04873 27 0.96094 0.02644 0.03132 0.00778 28 0.84327 -0.11533 0.05666 -0.02540 29 0.82365 -0.08685 0.11084 0.02514 Factor 1: Intent to Turnover Factor 1 contained 4 items that concentrated around the theme of intent to turnover; as a result, this fact or was named intent to turnover Items that typified this factor included I am planning to look for a new job or I am thi nking about leaving this organization. Factor loadings on this item ranged from .77 to .91 (Table 16). The range of the loadings changed slight ly after the selected items were removed to be .82 to .96 (Table 17). This provided evidence that the va riances for the items related to intent to turnover were contributed by the fact or of intent to turnover. In addition, a factor analysis was run on onl y the items that cont ributed to Factor 1 to examine the factors unidimensionality (Tab le 18). The factor analysis resulted in all items related to intent to turnover lo ading on one factor only confirming the undimensionality of the factor called intent to turnover. 75

PAGE 86

Table 18. Factor Analysis on Items 26-29 Initial Factor Method: Principal Factors Factor Pattern Item Factor 1 q26 0.93735 q27 0.96297 q28 0.94646 q29 0.93640 Factor 2: Trust Factor 2 consisted of four items. Typical items related to this factor included I believe that my organization is fair or I trust that my orga nization has my best interests at heart. Factor loadings on this item range d from .65 to .93 (Table 16). The range of the loadings changed slightly after the identified items were removed to be .71 to .92 (Table 17). This suggests that this factor contributed unique information to the construct of perceived trust. In addition, a factor analysis was conducte d on only the items that contributed to Factor 2 in order to examine the factors unidimensionality (Table 19). The factor analysis resulted in all items related to trust loading on one factor only confirming the undimensionality of the factor called trust. Table 19. Factor Analysis on Trust Items 22-25 Initial Factor Method: Principal Factors Factor Pattern Item Factor 1 q22 0.78383 q23 0.85014 q24 0.85014 q25 0.77310 76

PAGE 87

Factor 3: Social Interaction Factor 3 contained three items that co ncentrated around the theme of social interaction; as a result, this factor was named social interact ion. Examples of this factor included How does it feel when you go into the office; do you feel like you are missing out on information or How does it feel when you go into the office; do you feel like your opportunity for advancement is negatively a ffected as in out of sight, out of mind. Factor loadings on this item ranged from .67 to .83 (Factors 3 and 4 shown in Table 16). The range of the loadings on the three items remaining changed slightly and resulted in a loading on only one factor after the three items specific to online environments were removed to be .71 to .84 (Table 17). It s hould be noted that the summates for social interaction initially split across factors 3 and 4 in Table 16. The items were re-inspected and items 19 21 were determined to be specifically targeted to the online group. As previously stated the three items were re moved and the factor analysis was rerun resulting in the loading shown in Tabl e 17. This provided evidence of unique contribution of Factor 3 to the perc eived social inte raction construct. In addition, a factor analysis was con ducted on the items that contributed to Factor 3 to examine the factors unidimensi onality (Table 20). The factor analysis resulted in the items related to social inte raction loading on one factor only confirming the undimensionality of the factor called social interaction. Table 20. Factor Analysis on Social Interaction Items 16-18 Initial Factor Method: Principal Factors Factor Pattern Item Factor 1 q16 0.69798 q17 0.86803 q18 0.79662 77

PAGE 88

Factor 4: Job Satisfaction Factor 4 originally contained 6 items th at concentrated around the theme of job satisfaction; as a result, this factor was named job satisfaction. Items that typified this factor included Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with this job or I feel a great sense of personal satisfaction when I do this job well. Factor loadings on this item ranged from .67 to .83 (Table 16). The range of the loadings on the items remaining changed slightly to be .71 to .84 (Table 17) This provided evidence that the variances for the items related to job satisfaction were contributed by th e factor of job satisfaction. In addition, a factor analysis was run on onl y the items that cont ributed to Factor 4 to examine the factors unidimensionality (Tab le 21). The factor analysis resulted in all items related to job satisfaction load ing on one factor only confirming the undimensionality of the fact or called job satisfaction. Table 21. Factor Analysis on Job Satisfaction Items 10-12, 14, and 15 Initial Factor Method: Principal Factors Factor Pattern Item Factor 1 q10 0.51650 q11 0.77879 q12 0.75688 q14 0.33873 q15 0.59900 The factor analysis conducted on individual items related to each specific factor resulted in items loading on only one factor fo r each group of items. The factor analysis validates the unidimensionality of each factor and supports the conceptualization of the variables as dictated under the theory in Chapter Two. As a result, summates were 78

PAGE 89

created for each subscale. Then, summates were used to create a correlation matrix (Table 22), and then summates were again us ed as input in the regression analyses described below. The correlation matrices we re also determined for each of the groups separately (Table 23 and Table 24). Cronbachs Alpha was then calculated to determine the reliability of each scale. Finally, before completing the regression analyses for testing the hypotheses, ttests were conducted between each group on ea ch summated variable in the study, to ascertain if a difference exists be tween the means of each group. 79

PAGE 90

Table 22. Correlation Matrix of All Responses Pearson Correlation Coefficients, N = 103 Prob > |r| under H0: Rho=0 Intent to Turnover Job Satisfaction Social Interaction Trust Intent to Turnover 1.00000 Intent to Turnover Job Satisfaction -0.40033 1.00000 Job Satisfaction <.0001 Social Interaction 0.47715 -0.28760 1.00000 Social Interaction <.0001 0.00320 Trust -0.62246 0.35276 -0.45041 1.00000 Trust <.0001 0.00030 <.000 Table 23. Correlation Matrix of Responses from Face-to-Face Faculty Pearson Correlation Coefficients, N = 55 Prob > |r| under H0: Rho=0 Intent to Turnover Job Satisfaction Social Interaction Trust Intent to Turnover 1.00000 Intent to Turnover Job Satisfaction -0.48196 1.00000 Job Satisfaction 0.00020 Social Interaction 0.49216 -0.36202 1.00000 Social Interaction 0.00010 0.00660 Trust -0.61027 0.33142 -0.47088 1.00000 Trust <.0001 0.01340 0.00100 Table 24. Correlation Matrix of Responses from Online Faculty Pearson Correlation Coefficients, N = 48 Prob > |r| under H0: Rho=0 Intent to Turnover Job Satisfaction Social Interaction Trust Intent to Turnover 1.00000 Intent to Turnover Job Satisfaction -0.25030 1.00000 Job Satisfaction 0.08620 Social Interaction 0.45570 -0.18745 1.00000 Social Interaction 0.00110 0.20200 Trust -0.65033 0.36460 -0.39325 1.00000 Trust <.0001 0.01080 0.00500 As a final determination of the stab ility and reliability of each summate, Cronbachs Alpha was calculated for all items of a specific factor. As can be seen in 80

PAGE 91

Tables 26, 27, 28, and 29, the Cronbachs Alphas for each of the standardized variables for all items were all well-above .6, the cu toff point suggested by Nunnally (1970). Table 25. Cronbachs Alpha for Job Satisfaction Items Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for Job Satisfaction Items Variables Alpha Raw 0.678688 Standardized 0.734956 Cronbach Coefficient Alpha with Deleted Variable Raw Variables Standardized Variable Deleted Correlation Correlation Variable with Total Alpha with Total Alpha Label q10 0.408722 0.640161 0.433614 0.712655 q10 q11 0.625121 0.572831 0.656837 0.625060 q11 q12 0.564288 0.591194 0.609403 0.644569 q12 q14 0.284435 0.741661 0.293065 0.762513 q14 q15 0.484525 0.608877 0.513430 0.682551 q15 Table 26. Cronbachs Alpha for Social Interaction Items Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for Social Interaction Items Variables Alpha Raw 0.847431 Standardized 0.849116 Cronbach Coefficient Alpha with Deleted Variable Raw Variables Standardized Variable Deleted Correlation Correlation Variable with Total Alpha with Total Alpha Label q16 0.638221 0.857534 0.641521 0.860375 q16 q17 0.806632 0.698770 0.802534 0.706142 q17 q18 0.718776 0.791094 0.714704 0.792352 q18 Table 27. Cronbachs Alpha for Trust Items Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for Trust Items Variables Alpha Raw 0.884299 Standardized 0.885674 Cronbach Coefficient Alpha with Deleted Variable Raw Variables Standardized Variable Deleted Correlation Correlation Variable with Total Alpha with Total Alpha Label q22 0.737180 0.856102 0.739308 0.857271 q22 q23 0.793375 0.835134 0.791152 0.837315 q23 q24 0.746465 0.853031 0.747086 0.854311 q24 q25 0.722978 0.861256 0.723668 0.863185 q25 81

PAGE 92

Table 28. Cronbachs Alpha for Intent to Turnover Items Cronbach Coefficient Alpha fo r Intent to Turnover Items Variables Alpha Raw 0.972726 Standardized 0.972761 Cronbach Coefficient Alpha with Deleted Variable Raw Variables Standardized Variable Deleted Correlation Correlation Variable with Total Alpha with Total Alpha Label q26 0.920184 0.967015 0.920233 0.967038 q26 q27 0.948390 0.959051 0.948664 0.959065 q27 q28 0.933440 0.963277 0.933181 0.963420 q28 q29 0.922578 0.966394 0.922391 0.966437 q29 In addition a t-test was conducted on all responses to determine if there was a significant difference between the means of each variable for each group (Table 29). The analysis shows that, while a statistically significant difference exists between groups in regard to intention to tur nover and job satisfaction, no diffe rence in means is detected with social interaction and trust. Table 29. T-test of All Responses with Variable for Type Included The TTEST Procedure on All Responses With Type Variable Included Statistics Variable Type N Mean Std Dev DF t Value Pr > |t| Std Err Intent to Turnover Face-to-Face (1) 55 3.3500 2.2062 0.2975 Intent to Turnover Online (2) 48 4.8594 2.2396 0.3233 Intent to Turnover Diff (1-2) -1.5090 2.2218 101 -3.4400 0.0009 0.4389 Job Satisfaction Face-to-Face (1) 55 7.8655 0.5889 0.0794 Job Satisfaction Online (2) 48 7.5792 0.7360 0.1062 Job Satisfaction Diff (1-2) 0.2863 0.6614 101 2.1900 0.0307 0.1306 Social Interaction Face-to-Face (1) 55 5.0000 2.0154 0.2718 Social Interaction Online (2) 48 5.3542 1.5595 0.2251 Social Interaction Diff (1-2) -0.3540 1.8175 101 -0.9900 0.3262 0.3590 Trust Face-to-Face (1) 55 4.8818 1.7009 0.2294 Trust Online (2) 48 4.5156 1.3333 0.1924 Trust Diff (1-2) 0.3662 1.5408 101 1.2000 0.2317 0.3043 Having confirmed the appropriateness of th e sample, eliminated concerns related to potential non-response bias, de termined the conformance of the underlying structure of 82

PAGE 93

the data to theory, established the unidimensionality of each scale, and verified the reliability of each scale, regression analysis was then conducted to explore the relationships projected in each hypothesis. Regression Analysis A linear regression analysis was performe d on the data received from both the face-to-face faculty respondents and the online faculty respon dents. Three separate analyses were conducted. Firs t, a regression analysis wa s conducted on all respondents with a dummy variable (Telecommuters) incl uded that blocked (differentiated between) face-to-face and online instructors. The signi ficance of the coefficient of this dummy variable will verify that a statistically significant difference exists between the two groups. In addition, this analysis will conf irm the overriding theory brought from the literature that the independent variables do relate, as con ceptualized, to the dependent variable, intention to turnover. Then, two separate regression analyses were conducted on each group independently. The purpose of this analys is was to explore the dynamics of the relationships inside of each group, thereby to ascertain rela tionships among the variables inside of each group. The multiple index of determination, R2, and F values for each regression were determined for each analysis to determine how much of the variance in the dependent variable are explained by th e independent variables. Table 30 exhibits the results of the re gression on all respondents, with a dummy variable (telecommuters) include d to indicate membership in either the online group or 83

PAGE 94

the face-to-face group. All re sponses from members of the face-to-face group were coded with a zero and all res ponses from members of the online group were coded with a one (Table 30). Including this variable in the regression analysis resulted in a t-value for telecommuters of 3.04, p< .003 (Table 30), indica ting that the groups are indeed different, as suggested by correlation matric es and t-tests. The results of this analysis supports the suggestion that employee loyalty levels are related to the work environment; and more specifically that loyalty levels for faculty wo rking in an online work environment differ from loyalty levels of faculty that work in a face-to-face or traditi onal work environment. As can be seen in Table 30 the t-valu e of the independent (dummy) variable Telecommuters is over 3 which indicates that a significant difference exists in the perceptions of the online faculty re garding intent to turnover. Table 30. Regression Analysis of All Respondents Regression Analysis of All Responses Dependent Variable = Intent to Turnover Paramete r Standard Variable DF Estimate Error t Value Pr > |t| 95% Confidence Limits Intercept 1 8.92824 2. 26276 3.95 0.0001 4.43785 13.41862 Telecommuters 1 1.02988 0.33836 3.04 0.0030 0.35842 1.70134 Job Satisfaction 1 -0.45757 0.27008 -1.69 0.0934 -0.99353 0.07839 Social Interaction 1 0. 27431 0.10325 2.66 0.0092 0.06941 0.47921 Trust 1 -0.68638 0.12442 -5.52 <.000 1 -0.9333 -0.4394 R2 0.5085 F-Statistic 25.3445 As expected, social interaction and trust are significantly related to intention to turnover. As social interaction increases a nd trust decreases, inten tion to turnover rises. Surprisingly, however, the t-value for j ob satisfaction suggests an insignificant relationship to intention to turnover. This result is at odds with theory and common 84

PAGE 95

sense, as job satisfaction should certainly rela te to intention to turnover and has in most every study. As a result of this surprising re sult, especially given co rrelation coefficients examined earlier, further examination was conducted in the regressions on each group, presented below, specifically the face-toface group (Table 31) and the online group (Table 32). The regression analysis for the face-t o-face group provided an interesting depiction. Table 31. Regression Analysis of Face-to-Face Faculty Responses Regression Analysis of Face-to-Face Faculty Dependent Variable = Intent to Turnover Parameter Standard Variable DF Estimate Error t Value Pr > |t| 95% Confidence Limits Intercept 1 12.97881 3.45294 3.76 0.0004 6.04674 19.91087 Job Satisfaction 1 -1.01101 0. 41098 -2.46 0.0173 -1.83608 -0.18594 Social Interaction 1 0. 20988 0.12842 1.63 0.1083 -0.04793 0.4677 Trust 1 -0.55843 0.15034 -3.71 0.0005 -0.86025 -0.2566 R2 0.4872 F-Statistic 16.1494 These results suggest that j ob satisfaction is significantl y related to intention to turnover, as was expected from theory, wh ile social interactio n has fallen out of significance for this group. Such stark differences were not expected, even though correlation coefficients and t-tests might have hinted at them. The picture becomes even more interesti ng with the regression analysis on the online group. 85

PAGE 96

Table 32. Regression Analysis of Online Faculty Responses Regression Analysis of Online Faculty Dependent Variable = Intent to Turnover Parameter Standard Variable DF Estimate Error t Value Pr > |t| 95% Confidence Limits Intercept 1 7.33451 2.90321 2.53 0.0152 1.48348 13.18554 Job Satisfaction 1 -0.00972 0.35905 -0.03 0.9785 -0.73334 0.7139 Social Interaction 1 0.33944 0. 17161 1.98 0.0542 -0.00642 0.68529 Trust 1 -0.93429 0.21175 -4.41 <.0001 -1.36104 -0.5075 R2 0.4702 F-Statistic 13.0187 Again surprisingly, job satisfaction falls comp letely out of significance with the group, while social interaction is not technically significant and trust has an extremely large effect. The three regression analyses present an interesting canvas of insights discussed in the final chapter. Chapter Summary The analyses discussed in this chap ter were conducted to establish the appropriateness of the data collected, the dimens ionality of the underlying structure of the data, and coefficients, both correlations and beta coefficients from regression, needed to explore the hypotheses developed in Chapter Tw o. In Chapter Five, these analyses will be used to examine the testing of these hypothese s, as well as to discuss the insights that arose from the study. 86

PAGE 97

CHAPTER FIVE RESULTS, CONTRIBUTI ONS, LIMITATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Certainly there are no shortages of challenging opportunities today. In these extraordinary times, the cha llenges seem to be increasing and through our responses, we have the potential to profoundly change the world in which we live and work (Kouzes and Posner, 2002, p. xvii) Chapter Overview This chapter summarizes and concludes the research conducted in this dissertation. The overriding purpose of this study is to determine if employees working in an online or telecommuting work environment will demonstrate a lower loyalty level than employees working in a traditional face-to-face wo rk environment. As a preface to this purpose, characteristics of the work environmen t that were perceived as affecting loyalty were selected. These characteristics were id entified via the literatu re search to be job satisfaction, social interaction, a nd trust. In addition, intent to turnover was identified as a surrogate measurement of employee loyalty. To operationalize this process, the s ubjects of the study were identified and separated into two distinct groups: those working in a trad itional face-to-face work environment and those working in an online telecommuting environment. Both groups were administered an identical survey instrument. In Chapter One several questions were pos ed with regard to work design. The principal question: Does working in a tel ecommuting or online work environment have a causal impact, directly or indi rectly, on an employees loyalty to an organization? If so, 87

PAGE 98

what effects does the change of environm ent have on the employees loyalty? The answers to these questions were determined and revealed through an extensive review of the literature and a statistical analysis of collected data. As a component of addressing these questions, this effort includes the identification and definition of the work e nvironment characteristics that should be included in the study of work environmen t impact on employee loyalty. The study described in this dissertation tested the three proposed constructs of the work environment that impact employee loyalty and their proposed linkages. These work environment characteristics were identified via a thorough review of the literature in Chapter Two. Job satisfaction, social interacti on, and trust were presented as the factors effecting employee loyalty associated with the work environment in Chapter Two. The next step of this research effort was the construction of a methodology to collect pertinent data and determine if this theory and proposed c onstructs are supported through empirical analysis. For the purposes of this research, a measurement instrument was developed to assess the impact of the work environment characteristics on employee loyalty as represented by intent to turnover. In addition, this instrument served to collect data regarding each of the work environment characteristics, which were identified to contribute to employee loyalty. The inte raction and linkage between each of the characteristics were examined through data analysis. The measurement instrument was adopted and derived from the existing research that spanned each of the identified work environment characteristics and the surrogate (intent to turnover) fo r employee loyalty. Data were gathered via the survey instru ment (Appendix A) that was delivered to full time faculty members at a community college substantially invested into online 88

PAGE 99

learning and submitted for analysis on the internet. The survey was distributed in soft format and online to 222 full time faculty me mbers at the institution. One hundred and three usable responses were gathered for this study resulti ng in a response rate of 46.4%. The reliability and validity of these indi vidual items was estab lished in each of these research efforts. The validity of this studys measurement instrument implementation of these items was re-confirme d both qualitatively and quantitatively. A thorough review of the literatu re in conjunction with the s cale development served to establish content validity. Measurement ite ms that evaluated an employees job satisfaction, social interaction, tr ust, and loyalty as represente d by intent to turnover were used to establish criterion validity. The su rvey instrument was reviewed by experts and determined to support content validity. Aspects of each item were reviewed for appropriateness and applicability. The reliabil ity and trustworthiness of the data were confirmed via inspection, tests for non -response bias, and comparisons to known population parameters. The dimensionality of the scales used in the study was confirmed via factor analysis, and a purif ication process was used to ensure that measures were unidimensional. The analysis of the data was documented in Chapter Four. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to ex amine the hypotheses proposed by theory. The analysis of the data is pres ented here for discussion. Results In this section, each of the hypotheses cons tructed in Chapter Two are reviewed in conjunction with the statistical analysis documen ted in Chapter Four. The review revisits each of the constructs in relationship to the appropriate hypothesis. 89

PAGE 100

Hypothesis Regarding Intent to Turnover H0: Employees attitudes and perceptions regarding his/her loyalty, as conceptualized being composed of job satisfaction, social interaction and trust, will affect an employees intent to turnover, and that impact will be different based on telecommuting versus traditional work environments. Hypothesis0 The hypotheses in Chapter Two identified intent to turnover as a surrogate for employee loyalty. The concept that intent to turnover (employee loyalty) is dependent in part on the work environment as represented by the three characteristics identified in this study was presented in Chapter Two as well. Th e predictions regarding intent to turnover as related to the work environment are suppor ted by this study as initially hypothesized. In addition, this study also supports the linkage s between the characteristics of the work environment and employee loyalty as re presented by intent to turnover. Regression analysis was conducted on all responses and then on both groups as they were outlined in Chapter Three. The first group was defined as employees who work in a traditional work environment (t he face-to-face group). The second group was defined as employees who work in an online or telecommuting work environment (the online group). Both groups exhibi ted relatively low to moderate scores ( Face-toFace = 3.35, Face-to-Face = 2.206157, Online = 4.86, Online = 2.239578) on a possible 9point scale on items regarding intent to tur nover. A t-test examining the difference in these means yielded a t-value of 2.22, signi ficant at less than .01, confirming, as hypothesized, that the groups are indeed different. Furthermore, a regression analysis using membership in each group as a dummy va riable confirmed the difference (t=3.04). As anticipated, the face-to-face group indicated a lower level of intent to turnover, as 90

PAGE 101

workers in a traditional work environment we re expected to feel a greater sense of attachment to the organization through a more established physical presence. The regression analysis of all the responses clea rly confirmed the fact that the face-to-face group reflected a lower intent to turnover than the online group. These results support the theory and the hypotheses in Chapter Two regarding the structure of the work environment on employee loyalty. The responses of both groups indicate that changes in the work environment can potentially have a significant effect on employee loyalty. The groups differed on the degree to which each of the factors of the wo rk environment influenced loyalty levels. While the statistical tests point to differences in intention to tur nover, the surrogate for loyalty, the job environment factors that cause these differences ar e quite different and interesting, even unexpected, to which the discussion now turns. Hypothesis Regarding Job Satisfaction H1: The work environment of telecommuters versus traditional workers can affect employee attitudes and perceptions of job satisfaction. Hypothesis1 The first of the three characteristics of the work environment is job satisfaction. This construct examines the employees percep tion of his/her satisfaction with the work environment. The work environment is perceived as an amorphous existence in which the employee can thrive or diminish. The employees concept of the work environment and interaction with the work environment result in his/her se nse of job satisfaction. The predictions regarding job satisfaction and its effect on employee loyalty are supported by 91

PAGE 102

this study as initially hypothesized. In addition, this study does support the linkages between job satisfaction and employee loyalty as represented by intent to turnover as shown in Chapter Four. For the most part both groups had high scores ( Face-to-Face = 7.87, Face-to-Face = .58885268, Online = 7.58, Online = .73599212) on 9-point scal e items regarding job satisfaction. T-tests suggest th at the groups perceptions of job satisfaction are different (p=.03), with the face-to-face gr oup predictably exhibiting the st atistically higher scores. Nevertheless, regression analysis un covered a much more complex dynamic underlying job satisfaction. Surprisingly, in a regression of all respondents, job satisfaction fell slightly out of statistical si gnificance. When separate regressions were conducted on each group, job satisfaction had virtually no impact whatever on the intent to turnover for the online group (t=-.03, p=.978), while the effect was large (t=-2.46, p=.017) for the face-to-face group. While commonal ities exist in attrib utes of the work environment that form the basis of this per ception, some of the at tributes of the work environment that employees relate to job sati sfaction are endemic to their specific work environment, which differs in this study base d, at least in part, on location. Both groups are aware of their respectiv e work environments and embrace a perception of the respective job satisfaction based on their own personal perspective of the work environment. So, while both groups are re latively satisfied, even though one more than the other, the impact of sa tisfaction on intention to turnover is profoundly different. As work environment characteristics aff ect employees, job satisfaction provides an employees perspective of how the wo rk environment affects him/her. The characteristic, job satisfaction contributes to an employees sense of loyalty but only for 92

PAGE 103

the face-to-face group. Because both groups are drawn from the same organization, a reasonable assumption is that other organiza tional characteristics such as pay, benefits, opportunities for advancement, etc. will affect job satisfaction of employees in both groups identically. This infers that the per ception of job satisfacti on should be relatively consistent across the population of subjects, further suggesting that the noted differences are due to the respective work environments. Hypothesis Regarding Social Interaction H2: The work environment of telecommuters versus traditional workers can affect employee attitudes and perceptions of social interaction. Hypothesis2 The characteristic of the work environment identified as social interaction, deals with an employees ability to interact w ith coworkers, management, and customers (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978; Chen and Kroeger, 2001; Wright, 1995; Kunda, 2006). This interaction contributes to the nature of th e relationship that the employee experiences with the organization. The hypothesis H2 in Chapter Two identified this work environment characteristic as a significan t contributor to employee loyalty. The predictions regarding social interaction and its effect on employee loyalty are not supported by this study as initially hypothesized. Furthermore, this study does not support the linkage between the social interact ion and employee loyalty as represented by intent to turnover. Both groups had moderate scores ( Face-to-Face = 5, Face-to-Face = 2.015373, Online = 5.35, Online = 1.559545) on items regarding social in teraction. Notabl y, there is not a 93

PAGE 104

significant level of difference between the level of social interaction associated with the work environment experienced by the onlin e group than the face-to-face group (t-.99, p=.326). Even though a face-to-face work e nvironment provides a more substantial opportunity to interact with coworkers, ma nagement, and customers, no difference was found between the online and face-to-face group. Again, an interesting portrayal emerge s from the examination of correlation coefficients and regression analyses of the relationship between social interaction and intention to turnover. Concer ning the analysis of all responde nts, social interaction is related positively and statistica lly to intention to turnover, as hypothesized by theory. A Pearson product moment corr elation of .477 (p<.001) betwee n social interaction and intent to turnover suggests that more social interactions are associated with more intention to turnover. In a regression anal ysis of all respondents, social interaction emerges a significant predictor of intention to turnover (t=2.66, p<.01), as was suggested by the correlation coefficient. A surprising result emerges inside of each group. Correlation coefficients suggest a positive relationship across both face -to-face (r=.491, p<.001) and online (r=.446, p<.001) groups. Yet, in the regression analys is of both groups, social interaction falls out of significance. For the face-to-face group, the t-value of the beta coefficient was 1.28 (p>.10), and for the online group, the corres ponding value was 1.98 (p=.052). Repeated analyses confirmed these results, and the reason for the regression results remains a mystery. A potential explanation may relate to the social in teraction that emerges from internet and other electronic communicati on versus physical, faceto-face conversations. At this point, however, that is merely speculation. 94

PAGE 105

Hypothesis Regarding Trust H3: The work environment of telecommuters versus traditional workers can affect employee attitudes and perceptions of trust. Hypothesis3 The final hypothesis dealt with the trust. This characteristic of the work environment deals with the employees perception of the state of his/ her relationship with the organization (Coutu, 1998; Chapdelaine 1998; Matzler and Renzl, 2006). The predictions about this work environment char acteristic were supporte d more substantially than initially antic ipated. In addition, this study s upports the linkages between employee trust and employee loyalty as repr esented by intent to turnover. For the most part both the face-to-f ace and online groups had relatively moderate scores ( Face-to-Face = 4.88, Face-to-Face = 1.700936, Online = 4.52, Online = 1.333295) on items regarding trust. The perceptions of trust with regard to the work environment are not statistically different (t= 1.2, p=.232) across the groups. The impact of trust on intention to tur nover is consistent and significant across groups and respondents. The correlation coeffi cient of -.622 (p<.001) is very large. Similarly, the beta coefficient in the regres sion analysis for all respondents is large (t=5.52, p<.001). Each group exhibits similar effects in isolation. The face-to-face group shows a correlation of -.610 (p<.001) and a beta coeffici ent with a t-value of -.371 (p<.001). The online group exhibits a correla tion of -.650 (p<.001) and a beta coefficient with a t-value of -4.41 (p<.001). All effects are large and in the direction expected. These results indicate that trust is reflect ive of the employees relation to the work environment and more importantly supports th e notion that the change in this work 95

PAGE 106

environment characteristic is contributory to employee loyalty. Because the subjects are from a single organization, the perception of trust should be relativ ely consistent across the population of subjects. Because no differen ces emerge across groups, trust, as a work environment component, remains stable in its influence, even though the online group does not have the day-to-day physic al connection to the organization. Summary of Evaluation of Hypothesis As in the past, current economic circum stances are inducing organizations to reconsider the potential for in corporation of teleworking or online work environments. This research and the resulting findings have major implications in the organizational and managerial decision to embrace and include teleworking or online work in the organizational work environment. While the lo gistics of engaging in these types of work environments have been refined, the cri tical work design of the non-tangible components of the work environment has not been addressed. This work design effort is necessary to optimize the potential for main taining levels of employee job satisfaction, social interaction, and trust w ith the anticipated result of in suring high levels of employee loyalty. Employee loyalty is extremely important in that it is instrumental in securing and cementing the employees relationship with the organization. This research has supported the concept that com ponents of the work environment, job satisfaction, social interaction and trust, contribute to employee loyalty. This expectation of consistency can be described as a concept that members of both groups, for the most part, perceive th e work environment characteristics that 96

PAGE 107

contribute to loyalty to be similar. A consistent perspective of the work environment and the identified characteristics supports the concept that ch anges in the work environment can result in changes in empl oyee loyalty levels. The resu lts of this study support the theory that employee loyalty is in part based on the employees perception of his/her work environment. More importantly, this research supports the theory that employees working in an online telecommuting work e nvironment may experien ce lower levels of loyalty as represented by a higher indicati on of intent to turnover than employees working in a traditional face-to-f ace work environment. In addressing these theories, this research also supports the con cept that job satisfaction, social interaction, and trust are components of the work environment that contri bute to an employees sense of loyalty. This study presents a profound perspective for organizations that are engaging or considering engaging in moving employees from a traditional work environment to an online or telecommuting work environment. Results confirm that employees in face-toface work environments perceive their organizations very differently and in a more complex way than imagined. The online groups, as anticipated, had a significantly lower level of loyalty to the organization than did the workers in a traditi onal work environment. This lower loyalty was also reflected in lower levels of j ob satisfaction. Surprisingly, however, social interaction and trust, while still important to the formation of loyalty, were not significantly different across the work environments. In addition, the underlying dynamics reflect ed how satisfaction, trust and social interaction affect loyalty, through regression analysis, proved to be far more complex than initially expecte d. Job satisfaction does not impact perceptions of loyalty in the 97

PAGE 108

online group, while it remains critical to th e face-to-face group. Furthermore, social interactions do not differentially affect l oyalty across groups, which suggest that the online group has found surrogates, perhaps online communication, as a mechanism for bonding with other people in the organizati on. Finally, trust, although essential for loyalty, does not differentially affect the gr oup, suggesting that the organizations culture has somehow managed to provide a uniform pe rception of trust, independent of work environment. As previously stated, the logistics of an employees involvement in an online or telecommuting work environment are well establis hed; the aspects of work design for this work environment have not been perfected. For leaders, this means that they must invest a considerable effort in establishing a wo rk environment that will promote high job satisfaction, encourage social inte raction, and engender trust. The result of this effort will be sustainable employee loyalty. If employees are left to work in an online or telecommuting work environment without ap propriate consideration given to work design, then it is significantly probable that they will experience lower levels of employee loyalty. If appropriate work design efforts are initiated, then orga nizations should reap the rewards of higher leve ls of employee loyalty. The observations reported in this document support the theories outlined in this research regarding the impact of the work environment on employee loyalty. Organizations cannot simply place employees in an online or telecommuting work environment without serious consideration being given to the design of the work environment. Employees cannot be left to the isolation of an online or telecommuting work environment. The organization must make efforts to compensate for the lack of the 98

PAGE 109

constructs found in a traditional work environment. This is an investment and consideration that the organiza tion cannot afford to bypass, as the results of lower loyalty are too costly. The insights into the relationship betw een the work environment and employee loyalty that are presented and supported by the data from th is study are critical to the continued expansion by organizations in to the online or telecommuting work environment. The results of this study are in tended to represent an intermediate stage in the development of a comprehensive theory of work design for telecommuting employees. Table 33 summarizes the re sults of the hypothesis testing. Table 33. Conclusions to Hypotheses Hypothesis Conclusion H0 Job satisfaction, social interaction and trust, will affect an employ ees intent to turnover, and that impact will be different base d on telecommuting versus trad itional work environments. Accept H1 The Work Environment of telecommuters versus traditional workers can affect employee attitudes and perceptions of Job Satisfaction. Accept H2 The Work Environment of telecommuters versus traditional workers can affect employee attitudes and perceptions of Social Interaction. Reject H3 The Work Environment of telecommuters versus traditional workers can affect employee attitudes and perceptions of Trust. Reject The Contributions of this Study The findings of this study provide a new awareness of the subtle nuances of the work environments effect on employee loya lty. This research identifies several implications for the practitione r and for continued th eoretical development in the area of work design with a focus on loyalty of online and telecommuting employees. The resulting contributions of this research are addressed belo w in regard to theory and practice. 99

PAGE 110

Contributions to the Development of Theory This research provides some interesting insights, both in support and against, current theoretical underpinnings from the literature. As organization researchers probe these more common telecommuting environmen ts, this study provides some interesting support and challenges to the cu rrent status of theory. As theory would dictate, indeed profound differences were found in face-to-face and online work environments. This was esp ecially true in regard to loyalty and job satisfaction. Beyond the surface level differe nces, however, a much more complex and interesting dynamic was found below the surf ace, suggesting that employees perceptions are very different acros s the two groups. As theory would dictate, telecommuti ng employees feel less loyalty than do traditional employees, and this insight, while expected, is still disturbing in that employers need to retain good employees, and an online work envir onment presents very real challenges toward bolstering loyalty. The study confirms those concerns and the need for attention in the literature. Also, a theory would dictate online employees experience less satisfaction than do traditional environment employees. Surprisingly, however, and still somewhat a mystery, job satisfaction, while critical to employees in a face-to-face environment, is not significant in predicting loyalty among online workers. This insight, if confirmed in other studies and not a mere measurement artifact or anomaly, should provide theorists with an interesting challenge since satisfaction, while highl y correlated to loyalty, falls out of significance in a regression analysis. 100

PAGE 111

Social interaction, which would be expected to impact loyalty differentially across the face-to-face and online groups, did not in this study. Apparently, workers have expanded the notion of social in teraction to include non-physical interactions. At least as operationalized in this researc h, social interaction, while impor tant, is not distinct across the two groups. Researchers and theorists ma y want to use this st udy as a springboard for reconceptualizing the definitions and opera tionalization of the social interaction construct, as online employees in this study have apparently found a mechanism for capturing social interaction wit hout physical contact. Importa ntly, social interaction is still critical to the formation of loyalty, but the lack of differen ce either perception or impact on loyalty across the two groups s uggests that the underlying mechanisms of social interaction are more complex than currently configured in theory. Trust, as dictated by theory, is ubiquit ous in the formation of loyalty, and the work environment, at least in this organi zation and this study, does neither impact the employees perceptions of trust nor impact th e formation of loyalty differentially. This research is only the first step in id entifying the impact of the characteristics of the work environment on employee loyalty. Theorists have examined employee loyalty from a variety of perspectives and at a variety of levels. This study is notably unique in that its conclusions are based on data developed from two distinct groups working at the same organization. The results drawn from statistical analysis of the data may be viewed as the formation of a basi s of theoretical framework for evaluating employee loyalty. In addition, the results are contributory to a d eeper understanding of how work environments affect employee loyalty. 101

PAGE 112

The measurement instrument employed for the purposes of this study was developed to gather data pertinent to the effect of the work environment on employee loyalty. This study added to the development and comprehension of a measurement instrument for the purposes of measuring th e relationship between a work environment and employee loyalty. The measurement instru ment that resulted from this research provides a notable initial and additive contribution to the continuing development of an instrument for the study of employee loyalty. Contributions to the Practice The impact of employee loyalty, or lack thereof, on the organization requires serious consideration, as employee turnover and training costs are tremendous. This study reveals several aspects of the effect of the work envi ronment on employee loyalty. The first of these aspects is the cost cons iderations when stationing employees in a telecommuting or online work environment are dichotomous. While telecommuting has been shown to save an organization and employees the investment each makes in a formal or traditional work environment, the trade-off inherently costs the organization and the individual. The cost to the organi zation is realized in the loss of loyalty, dedication, and retenti on of expertise. Th e cost to the individual is a sense of disassociation and distance with the organization. The imp lications of this study are obvious in the cost of dissolution of the relati onship or intent to turnover. Turnover of employees is extremely costly to the organi zation and as shown by this study can be the result of the impact of the work environment on employee loyalty. 102

PAGE 113

Another of the aspects is that employee l oyalty is a fluid and constantly changing measure of the employees tie to the organiza tion. Similarly to the manner in which high employee loyalty results in a long term relationship between the employee and the organization, low employee loyalty often re sults in a dissolution of the relationship between the employee and the organization. A third insight that the resu lts of this research provid es is the understanding that an employees perception of the identified wo rk environment characteristics is based on the work environment. This is shown in the subtle differences noted in the data regarding employees perception of social interacti on and job satisfaction. The loyalty of employees working in a face-to-face work e nvironment is shaped in part, by how these characteristics are perceived by employees in re lationship to the work environment. In an online or telecommuting work environment, these characteristics are perceived differently in a subtle fashion. Due to the work environment, the impact of work environment constructs that are viable and stronger in a face-to-face work environment become negligible or non-existent in an on line or telecommuting work environment, as the work environment is unable to support them. Management bears the responsibility of implementing work design techniques that contribute to higher employee loyalty. This study indicates that managements work design effort should be tailored to align with the structure of the work environment. It should be noted that one reason for the fluidity of loyalty is that em ployees are constantly monitoring and evaluating the work environm ent and, as a result, are responding to the design of the work environment and constan tly altering their perception of loyalty. Employees monitoring of the work environmen t starts when they join the organization 103

PAGE 114

and continues until they separate from the organization. The employees perceptions are modified on a moment-to-moment basis. When it comes to work environments, one size does not fit all. In light of these results, organiza tions should re-evaluate their perspectives to work design, especially with regard to the online or telecommuting work environment. The results of this study i ndicate that the identified characteristics of the work environment contribute to an em ployees loyalty as represented by intent to turnover. In addition, the results of this study make salient the concept that loyalty levels of workers engaged in an online or telecommuting work environment are notably lower than the loyalty levels of employees working in a faceto-face work environment. In an effort to design an online or telecommuting work environment that encourages higher levels of employee loyalty, management should consider the following: 1. Job satisfaction is typically a goal of every organization, but this study suggests that the impact of job satisf action on intention to turnover is much more complex than originally thought. While job satisfaction is virtuous in and of itself, the dynamic through which it affects loyalty is possibly not as straightforward in an online environm ent as common sense might dictate. 2. Social interaction, while important to loyalty, may also be complex in telecommuting work environments, and workers may be finding innovative ways to find social interaction that does not require face-to-f ace interaction. With the advent of inexpensive telec onferencing equipment, technological surrogates for social interaction may become easier in the future. In this study, apparently, workers have already amassed some mechanisms to fill a 104

PAGE 115

social interaction need, and those mech anisms are sufficient to both provide a similar level of fulfillment, as well as to suffice in not deleteriously impacting loyalty, relative to employees in tr aditional work environments. For managers, social interaction represents a new frontier in which traditional definitions may not be applicable. This study suggests that creative employees will fill the need for so cial interaction through mechanisms available to them. 3. The results of this study suggest that trust can be maintained independent of work environment, probab ly through consistent po licies and with a culture founded on integrity. Work environment does not need to affect the foundation and experience of tr ust. Management must assure that there is not a difference between what they say and wh at they do. It is important to note that in the case of an online or te lecommuting employee, omissions of the truth could be as damaging to the em ployees trust level as an out-right deception. Above all, consistency is paramount to maintaining employee trust. 4. As telecommuting becomes increasingly important, managers might want to monitor perceptions, and the instrument created for this research could be a good starting point. Even informal mana gerial evaluations of an employees state of job satisfaction and intent to turnover could help mitigate dissatisfaction and increase loyalty. Most importantly, managers should remain vigilant for any changes in attit ude from an employee, as this dynamic telecommuting environment is constantly changing. 105

PAGE 116

5. Finally, equity should be a priority, as expressed in trust, for telecommuting employees. They must perceive that they are more to the organization than a remotely located asset. At an organizational level, this study sugge sts that following might be implemented: 1. Make sure that all employees have a se nse of being part of the organizational family. This could be accomplished in part by periodic targeted communications that address each employees contribution and importance to the organization. 2. Include input from online or teleco mmuting employees in organizational decisions. This could be accomplished in part by soliciting feedback from these employees on a variety of issues. 3. Be open to the concept that employees working in distinctly different work environments may require different types of encouragement, interaction, and feedback from the organization. Th e work environment for employees working in an online or telecommuting work environment should be constructed with a unique set of wo rk environment characteristics. Remember, One size does not fit all. 4. Seek opportunities to tie the online or telecommuting employees to the organization. This may include es tablishing an online or telecommuting rotation among interested employees. This would contribute to the periodical physical re-integration of employees into the organization. When implementing any recommendations, it is prudent that a practitioner exercise a careful and patient implementati on so that employees do not perceive the 106

PAGE 117

changes to the work environment as threaten ing but rather as beneficial. If these recommendations are implemented in a care less and unplanned fashion, the result will usually be a decrease in job satisfaction, gene ration of suspicion regarding the nature of social interaction, lower levels of trust, and most importantly a lowering of employee loyalty. Positive results typically take an extended period to implement and accomplish. Negative results are nearly instantaneous with regard to impact on employee perceptions. With regard to the measurement instrumen t:, it can potentially be of use to the practitioner as a work design dia gnostic tool. It is the opinion of this researcher that the instrument should be expanded to include a more granular assessment of employee perceptions of work environment characteris tics and the linkages between them. More in-depth information about the work e nvironment characteristics and their interrelationships may serve as an indicator to practitioners regarding the level to which perceptions of the work environment may in fluence employee loyalty. This information would contribute to the practit ioner becoming more fully awar e of the work design effort necessary to assure an environment that at the very least does not negatively affect employee loyalty. If appropria tely applied, it could potentially result in the fostering employee loyalty. This refined instrument could be engaged periodically to gather information and an assessment of employee loyalty. Practitioners could use the information gathered by this assessment to evaluate their work design efforts and adjust them appropriately. Practitioners should consider including employees in the development of adjustments to the work environment to secure their buy-in to the effort. This would result in the em ployees being open and committed to the alterations in their work environment and strengthen the trust 107

PAGE 118

component of the relationship between the employees and th e organization. In addition, this joint effort could potentially resu lt in generating highe r loyalty levels. Limitations of the Research This study, like all others, has some inhere nt limitations that ma y bias or affect the inferences made based on the results. The limitations of this study and their associated implications ar e discussed below: 1. Some limitations of this effort ar e due to the collection of data via a perception-based survey instrument. Subjects in this study may have developed misperceptions regarding thei r individual work environment. The response provided could have been ta inted by misconceptions regarding the work environment or the organizations intent. The respondent could be expressing a perception that has been inte rnalized to the point that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and influen ces the response. The respondent may also have misinterpreted th e intent of the specific it em or misreported his/her perception of the item. 2. Measures of job satisfaction, social in teraction, trust, and intent to turnover were solicited and obtained in this stu dy using single instrument self-reporting techniques. The potential exists that data obtained in this fashion from respondents could possibly be biased. This potential bias could be reduced or eliminated if the data collected via the use of these measures were obtained using additional accepted tr aditional methodologies. 108

PAGE 119

3. The subjects in this st udy are all working in an academic environment. This could inject some preconceptions an d expectations regarding the work environment. The work environment from which subjects in both sample groups were selected presents the op portunity for exposure to higher-level concepts. This in itself could impl y a bias that could be addressed by repeating of the experiment with employees who are not employed by an academic organization. 4. The data used in this study were co llected from a single organization. While this methodology has the virtue of holdi ng all organizational-wide influences constant, it has the disadvantage of i nhibiting the genera lizability of the results. Applying these results to another work environment without confirmation of more cro ss-sectional studies is potentially perilous. Suggestions for Future Research A number of additional research opport unities were identified in the limitations section of this chapter. Thes e additional research opportunities could be additive to this effort or address areas not touched by this research. The opportunities for further research are expansive, as the area of work design for online or telecommuting work environments has been previously subjected to limited examination. The theoretical dependency of work environment characteristi cs on the work environment has not been examined or addressed. For example, can th e nature and makeup of job satisfaction be considered to remain constant between work environments as disper sedly different as a traditional work environment and an online work environment? To be more precise, how 109

PAGE 120

can work environments be designed that engender greater levels of employee loyalty? Employee turnover is one of the most costly impacts to organizations. Determining solutions that limit intent to turnover are cr itically important to both the practitioner and academic researchers. The measurement instrument holds potenti al as the initial step in additional studies of work design with emphasis on crea ting work environments that foster and ensure employee loyalty. This research instrument needs to be more expanded and enhanced to include the examination of the nature of work environment characteristics within a specific work environment. For example, is the source and nature of job satisfaction the same in an online or telecommuting work environment as it is in a traditional face-to-face work envi ronment? With further refinements and modifications, this instrument could be used as a gene rally accepted measurement instrument for evaluating employee loyalty as it relates to the work environment. The basis of this research instrument is a sound review of the fundamental lite rature and accepted theoretical methodologies. This review was used to evaluate and substantiate the identified characteristics of the work envir onment and the associated impact they have on employee loyalty. To assure the viability of this research instrument, it should be used and applied in additional resear ch; especially in industries ot her than academia. Prior to this expansion of use of the survey instru ment, it would be prudent to assure its refinement via an evaluation utilizing discriminate anal ysis and other statistical techniques to confirm its viability in evalua ting employee loyalty as it relates to the work environment in other industries and with varying data sample sets. 110

PAGE 121

Chapter Summary This chapter serves to draw this study to a close. It includes an overview and a summary of the results of this research. It includes an in-depth discussion of the contributions of this study to theoretical development and applicable insights for use for general practitioners. The lim itations of the study are iden tified and generally examined in this chapter with the intent to suggest pot ential solutions for the limitations that could be incorporated into future research. Potent ial future research efforts are discussed to provide insights into them. This research is considered an initial step in devel oping a greater understanding of the impact that the work environment has on employee loyalty and the development of work design efforts to address this impact. Th e results are significant to theories and real life applications regarding wo rk design and the implications for employee loyalty. This research confirms the need for new and innova tive efforts with rega rd to work design, particularly in the online or telecommuting work environment. This research potentially engenders significant excitement and interest in the area of wo rk design and the effect of the work environment on employee loyalty. The results of this study generate significant implications for management and organizations Further research has the potential for providing managers with a more substantia l understanding of how the work environment they create can affect their employees percep tions of the value of the relationship they are engaged in with the organization. This valuable relationship is defined as loyalty. 111

PAGE 122

REFERENCES Adams, T. F. (1977). A Survey of the Se yfert Galaxies Based on Large-Scale ImageTube Plates. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series Vol 33, 19. Armstrong-Stassen, M. (1998). Alternative work arrangements: Meet ing the challenges. Canadian Psychology 39: 1-2, 108-123. Armstrong, J. S. and Overton, T S (1977). Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research. Vol.14 (3), 396. Atkinson, J. W. and Raynor, J. O. (1974). Motivation and Achievement. Washington, D.C.: Winston. Bailyn, L. (1988). Freeing work from th e constraints of location and time. New Technology, Work, and Employment 3,143-165. Baruch, Y. (2000). Teleworking: Benefits a nd pitfalls as perceive d by professionals and managers, New Technology, Work and Employment 15, 34-49. Baruch, Y. and Nicholson, N. (1997). Home sweet work: Requirements for effective home working, Journal of General Management 23, 15-30. Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making?. Academy of Management Journal, Mar Vol 35(1) 232-244. Belanger, F. (1999). Communication patterns in distributed work groups: A network analysis. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 42, 21-275. Birchall, D. and Lyons, L. (1995). Creati ng Tomorrows Organization: Unlocking the Benefits of Future Work London, England: Pitman Publishing. Boroff, K. and Lewin, D. (1997). Loyalty, Vo ice, and Intent to Exit a Union Firm: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis. Industrial and Labor Relations Review Vol. 51, No. 1, (Oct., 1997), 50-63. Borzaga, C. and Tortia, E. (2006). Worker Motivations, Job Satisfaction, and Loyalty in Public and Nonprofit Social Services. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly Vol. 35, No. 2, 225-248 Carbone, J. H. (1997). Loya lty: subversive doctrine? The Academy of Management Executive 11(3): 80-87. 112

PAGE 123

Cascio, W. (1973). Value Orientation, Orga nizational Rewards and Job Satisfaction. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Rochester. Catell, R. B. (1966). The Scree Test for the Number of Factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research 1, 629-637. Caudron, S. (1992) Working at home pays off. Personnel Journal 71, 40-49. Chapdelaine, G. R. (1998). Lessons from yesterday on building employee loyalty today. Nations Restaurant News 34-35. Chen, C, (1995). New trends in reward allocation preferences: A Sino-U.S. comparison. Academy of Management Journal 38, 408-428. Chen, S. and Kroeger, J. W. (2001) T echnological Adoption to Combat Burnout. ISECON Proceedings 2001, 18, 15b. Churchill, G A. (1979). A paradigm for de veloping better measures of marketing concepts. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 1: 64-73 Clancy, J. J. (1999). Is loya lty really dead? (includes re lated article on the US labor market) (Employer loyalty). Across the Board 36(6): 14-20. Cotton, J. I. and Tuttle, J. M. (1986). Empl oyee Turnover: A Meta-Analysis and Review with Implications for Research. Academy of Management Review January, 5570. Cox, E. P. (1980). The Optimal Number of Response Alternative for a Scale: A Review. Journal of Marketing Research November, 17, 4: 407-422. Coutu, D. L. (1998). Trust in Virtual Teams. Harvard Business Review 76.n3 (MayJune 1998): 20(2). Daniels, K., Brough, P. Guppy, A., Peters-Bean, K. M., and Weatherstone, L. (1997). A note on the modifications to Warrs measures of affective well being at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 129-38. Daniels, K. (1999). Home based teleworking and mobile teleworking: a study of job characteristics, well-being, and negative carry-over. Work Science Report Series 13/14, 1535-6 Tokyo: Institute of Science of Labour. Daniels, K., Lamond, D. A., and Standen, P. (2000). Managing Telework. Perspectives from Human Resource Management and Work Psychology London, England: Business Press. 113

PAGE 124

Dennocenzo, D. A. (2006). How to Lead From a Distance. Dallas, Texas: The Walk the Talk Company. Di Martino, V.D., and Wirth, L. ( 1990). Working at a distance. The Worklife Report 9, 9-9. Dunnette, M. D. and Hough, L. M. (1990). Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Cons ulting Psychologists Press, 172-173. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Agency theo ry: an assessment and review. Academy of Management Review 14, 57-74. Ensign, P.C. (1998). Interdependence, coordination, and structure in complex organizations: implications for organization design. The Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business, 34, 5-22. Eskildsen, J. K. and Nussler, M. L. (2000) The Managerial Drivers of Employee Satisfaction and Loyalty. Total Quality Management Vol 11, Numbers 4.6, 1 July 2000, 581-588. Finegold, D., Mohrman, S., Spreitzer, G. (2002). Age effects on the predictors of technical workers commitment and willingness to turnover. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(5), 655-674. Fink, A. (2003). The Survey Handbook; 2nd edition Thousands Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Fisher, K. and Fisher, M. D. (2001). Th e Distance Manager: A Hands-On Guide to Managing Off-Site Employees and Virtual Teams. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill. Frolick, M., Wilkes, R., and Urwiler, R. (1993). Telecommuting as a workplace alternative: An identification of significant factors in American firms determination of work-at-home policies. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 2, 3, 206-222. Furger, R. (1989). The growth of the home office. Infoworld, 45-49. Gates, B., Myhrvold, N., and Rinearson, P. (1995). The Road Ahead. New York, New York: Penguin Books. Gerbing, D.W., and Anderson, J. C. (1988). An Updated Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Unidimensionality and its Assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 2: 186-192. Gilbreth, F. B. (1973). The Primer of Scientific Management New York: Easton. 114

PAGE 125

Gilbreth, L. M. (1914). Psychology of Management: the Function of Mind in Determining, Teaching, and Installing Methods of Least Waste. New York: Sturgis and Walton Company. Gordon, G.E. and Kelly, M.M. (1986). Teleworking: How to make it Work for You and Your Company Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Gussow, D. (2006). Teleworking: Businesse s have more reasons to embrace what used to be called telecommuting. June 5, St. Petersburg Times, St. Petersburg, FL. Gray, M., Hodson, N., and Gordon G. (1993). Teleworking Explained. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Greco, J. (1998). Americas changing workfor ce. (includes relate d article on recruiting challenges in the US) Journal of Business Strategy 19(2): 43-47. Hackman, J. R. and Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work Redesign Philippines: AddisonWesley Publishing Company, Inc. Hajdin, M. (2005). Employee Loyalty: An Examination. Journal of Business Ethics 59: 259-280. Hamilton, C.A. (1987). Telecommuting. Personnel Journal 66, (April), 91-101. Harrington, S. I. and Ruppel, C. P. (1999). Tele commuting: A test of trust, competing values, and relative advantage, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 42, 223-239. Hartman, R. I. and Stoner, C.R. (1991). An i nvestigation of selected variables affecting telecommuting productivity and satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 6, 207-225. Hartman, R. I., Stoner, C. R., and Aror a, R. (1992). Developing successful organizational telecommuting arrangem ents: Workers perceptions and managerial prescriptions. SAM Advanced Management Journal, Summer, 35-42. Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J. W., and Woodman, R. W. (1986). Orga nizational Behavior, 5th ed. New York: West Publishing. Herzberg, F.I., Mausner, B., and Snyderma n, B. (1959). The Motivation to Work. New York: Wiley. Herzberg, F.I. (1982). The Managerial Choice: To Be Efficient and To Be Human. Homewood, Illinois: Dow Jones-Irwin. 115

PAGE 126

Herzberg, F.I. (1987). One more time: How do you motivate employees?, Harvard Business Review Sep/Oct87, Vol 65 Issue 5, 109-120. Hill, E. J., Miller, B. C., Weiner, S. P., and Colihan, J. (1998). Influences on the virtual office on aspects of work and work/life balance, Personnel Psychology 51, 667683. Hill, E. J., Ferris, M., and Martinson, V. (2003). Does it matter where you work? A comparison of how three work venues (tradi tional office, virtual office, and home office) influence aspects of work and personal/family life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol 63, Issue 2, October 2003, 220-241. Hirschman, A.O. (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard Press. Howard, C. (1998). Be true to your cr ew. (Corporate employee loyalty) Canadian Business, 71(18) 127-128. Huws, U., Korte, W.B., and Robinson, S. (1990). Telework: Towards the Elusive Office. New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Ivancevich, J., Olekalns, M., and Matteson, M. (1997). Organizational Behavior and Management. Sydney: McGraw-Hill. Kahn, M. B, and Tung, L. L. (1997). Teleco mmuting: Comparing Singapore to Southern California. Human Systems Management 01672533, 1997, Vol 16, Issue 2. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The Application of Electronic Computers to Factor Analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20, 141-151. Karsh, B., Booske, B.C., and Sainfort, F. (2005) Job and organizational determinants of nursing home employee commitment, job satisfaction, and intent to turnover. Ergonomics Vol 48, No. 10, 15. Kelloway, K. E., Gottlieb B. H., and Barham, L. (1999). The Source, Nature, and Direction of Work and Family Confli ct: A Longitudinal Investigation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 4, 337-346. Koenig, B. E., Henderson, D. K., and Mokhtarian, P. I. (1996). The travel and emissions impact of telecommuting for the State of California Telecommuting Pilot Project, Transportation Research Record C, 4, 13-32. Kouzes, J. M., Posner, B. Z. (2002). The L eadership Challenge. San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass. 116

PAGE 127

Kunda, G. (2006). Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-tech Corporation. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Labbs, J. (1998). They want more support inside and outside of work. (includes related article on employee loyalty) (work and family issues facing employees), Workforce, in press. Lamarche, S. (n.d.). Employee Loyalty: an effective solution for labour shortage. Retrieved August 8, 2008, from www.adp.ca/upload/Employee_Retention_CQCD.pdf. Lambert, D. M., and Harrington, T. C (1990). Measuring non-response bias in customer service mail survey. Journal of Business Logistics, Oak Brook, 11( 2), 5-26. Lee, Soo-Young and Whitford, Andrew B. (2007). Exit, Voice, Loyalty and Pay Evidence from the Public Workforce. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, doi:10.1093/jopart/mum029 Lipnack, J. and Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual Teams: Reaching Across Space, Time, and Organizations with Technology. New Yo rk, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Locke, E. A. (1976). The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1297-1343. Locke, E. A. (1984). Job Satisfaction. Social Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 93-117. Lubinski, D. and Benbow, C. P. (2004) An Opportunity for Empiricism. PsycCRITIQUES. Manning, R.A. (1985). Control Data Corporatio n: Alternative work site programs. Office Workstations in the Home 38-50, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Matzler K. and Renzl B. (2006). The Relationship between Interpersonal Trust, Employee Satisfaction, and Employee Loyalty Total Quality Management & Business Excellence Vol 17, No. 10. (2006), 1261-1271. McCarthy, M. E. (2001). Exploring the impact of Blurred Boundaries in Teleworkers. Unpublished Dissertation, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia. McClelland, D. C. (1961). The Achieving Society. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The Inner Experience. New York: Irvington. 117

PAGE 128

McCusker. D. and Wolfman, I. (1998). Loyalty in the eyes of employers and employees. Workforce, in press Megginson, L.C., Mosley, D. C. and Pietri, P. H. (1992). Management: Concepts and Applications. New York, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component c onceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review 1, 61-89. Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. (1992). Economics, Organization, and Management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Mokhtarian, P.L. and Salomon, I. (1996). Modeling the choice of teleworking: Identifying the choice set and estimati ng binary choice models for technologybased alternatives. Environment and Planning 28, 1877-994. Montgomery, D. (1989). The Fall of the Hous e of Labor: The Workplace, the State, and American Labor Activism, 1865-1925. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Mueller, C. W., Wallace, J. E. and Price J. L. (1992). Employee commitment: Resolving some issues. Work and Occupations 19: 211-236. Niles, J.M. (1994). Making Telecommuti ng Happen: A Guide for Telemanagers and Telecommuters. New York, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Nunnally, J. C. (1970). Introduction to Ps ychological Measurement. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L.P. (1991). Measurement, Design, and Analysis: an Integrated Approach. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Philippe, T.W. (2002). Organizational H ypocrisy: An Employee Perspective on Consistency. Unpublished Dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida. Price, J. L. and Mueller, C. W. (1981). Professional Turnover, The Case of Nurses Ramsower, R.M. (1985). Telecommuting : The Organizational and Behavioral Affects of Working at Home. Ann Arbor: Univer sity of Michigan Research Press. 118

PAGE 129

Rapert, M.I. and Wren, B.M. (1998). Recons idering Organizational Structure: A Dual Perspective of Frameworks and Processes. Journal of Managerial Issues 10, 2873023. Reichheld, F. F. (1996). The Loyalty Effec t: The Hidden Force Behind Growth, Profits, and Lasting Value. Boston, Ma.: Harvard Business School Press. Reichheld, F. F. (2001). Loyalty Rules: How Todays Leaders Build Lasting Relationships. Boston, Ma.: Harvard Business School Press. Reinsch, N.L. (1997). Relationships be tween telecommuting workers and their managers: An exploratory study. The Journal of Business Communication 34, 343-369. Riggio, R. E., Murphy, S. E., and Pirozzolo, F. J. (2002). Multiple Intelligences and Leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 119-138. Robbins, S. P. and Judge, T. A. (2007). Or ganizational Behavior. Upper Saddle, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Rummel, F.J. (1970). An Introduction to Res earch Procedures in Education. New York: Harper & Row. Sachau, D. A. (2007). Resurrecting the Mo tivation-Hygiene Theory: Herzberg and the Positive Psychology Movement. Human Resource Development Review 2007; 6; 377. Sagie, A., Birati, A., Tziner, A. (2002). Assessing the cost of behavioral and psychological withdrawal: A new mode l and an empirical illustration. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51(1), 67-89. Salancik, G.R. and Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information proce ssing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly 23, 224-253. Satmetrix Systems (2002). Measuring Empl oyee Loyalty. A Satm etrix Systems White Paper. Scott, C.R. and Timmeran, C.E. (1999). Communication technology use and multiple workplace identifications among organizati onal teleworkers with varied degrees of virtuality. IEEE Transactions on Prof essional Communications 42, 240-260. Sparrow, P.R. (1996). Transitions in the psychological contract in U.K. banking. Human Resource Management Journal 6, 75-92. Stahl, M. J. (1986). Managerial and T echnical Motivation: Assessing Needs for Achievement, Power, and Affiliation. New York: Praeger. 119

PAGE 130

Standen, P., Daniels, K., and Lamond, D. (1999). The home as a workplace: Workfamily interaction and psychologi cal well-being in telework. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 4, 4, 368-381. Stroh, L. K., Brett, J. M., Reilly, A. H. (1996). Family Structure, Glass Ceiling, and Traditional Explanations for the Differe ntial Rate of Turnover of Female and Male Managers. Journal of Vocational Behavior Vol 49, Issue 1, August 1996, 99-118. Taylor, F. W. (1912). Disc ussion of the Present State of the Art of Industrial Management, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Transactions Vol 34, 1194-201. Taylor, F. W. (1967). The Principles of Sc ientific Management. New York, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. Teo, T.S.H., Lim, V.K.G., and Har, W. S. (1999). Assessing attitudes towards teleworking among information technology (IT) personnel. Singapore Management Review 21, 33-49. Tiffany, S. (1997). Corporate commitment boosts morale, Candy Industry, 162(5): 2627. Tolbert, P. S. and Simons, T. (1994). The impact of working at home on career outcomes of professional employees. (Working Paper 94-04) Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Center for Adva nced Human Resource Studies. Townsend, A.M., DeMarie, S. and Hendric kson, A.R. (1998). Virtual Teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management Executive 12, August, 17-29. Turner, J. H., Brown, G. (2004). An Impr oved Job Dimension Scale to Measure Job Satisfaction in Sales Reps, Journal of the Academy of Business and Economics March, 2004. US Department of Transportation (1993) Transportation Implications of Telecommuting, April. Washington, D.C. Ugboro, I. O. (2006). Organizational Commitment, Job Redesign, Employee Empowerment and Intent to Quit Am ong Survivors of Restructuring and Downsizing. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management May 2006. Van Ommeren, J.N. (1998). Telework in Europe, in Teleworking Environments: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Telework. Turku, Finland. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley. 120

PAGE 131

121 Warr, P. (1990). The measurement of well-be ing and other aspects of mental health. The Journal of Occupational Psychology 63, 193-210. Warr, P. (1994). A conceptual framework for the study of work and mental health. Work and Stress 8, 84-97. Whetten, D.A. (1989). What const itutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 490-495. Wilkes, R., Frolick, M., and Urwiler, R. (1994) Critical issues in developing successful telework programs. Journal of Systems Management Sept., 31-34. Williams, L. J. and Hazer, J. T. (1986). Ant ecedents and consequences of satisfaction and commitment in turnover models: A re-ana lysis using latent variable structural equations models. Journal of Applied Psychology 71, 219-231. Wright, C. (1995). The Management of La bor: A History of Au stralian Employers. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press. Zedeck, S. (1992). Work, Families, and Orga nizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Zikmund, W. G. (2003). Business Research Me thods. Fort Worth, Texas: The Dryden Press, Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

PAGE 132

APPENDICES 122

PAGE 133

Appendix A: Survey Instrument Section One 1. I am a full time faculty member. Yes ___ No ___ 2. Are you presently teaching at least 75% of the time in a telework or online environment? Yes ___ No ___ If you answer no proceed to question number 5. The following questions 3-4 were derived from a dissertation by Mary McCarthy on role conflict experienced by telecommu ting workers. (McCarthy, 2001) 3. How long has it been since you started teaching in a teleworking or online environment? ___ Months ___ Years (Original question: How long has it been since you started the home work (telework) option?) The wording of th is question is changed to reflect the academic work environment. 4. How much time on average are you working in a teleworking or online teaching environment? a. Time per week? ____ % b. Days per week? ____ (Original question: How much time, on average ar e you working in your home per week as part of the home work or te lework option? Number of days per week ___.) The wording of this question is cha nged to reflect the academic work environment. 123

PAGE 134

Appendix A. (Continued) 5. Are you presently teaching at least 75% of the time in a traditional face to face teaching environment? Yes ___ No ___ The following questions 6-7 were derived from a dissertation by Mary McCarthy on role conflict experienced by telecommu ting workers. (McCarthy, 2001) 6. How long has it been since you started teaching in a traditional face-to-face teaching environment? ___ Months ___ Years (Original question: How long has it been since you started the home work (telework) option?) The wording of this question is changed to reflect the academic work environment. 7. How much time on average are you working in a traditional face-to-face teaching environment? c. Time per week? ____ % d. Days per week? ____ (Original question: How much time, on average ar e you working in your home per week as part of the home work or te lework option? Number of days per week ___.) The wording of this question is cha nged to reflect the academic work environment. 124

PAGE 135

Appendix A. (Continued) Section Two Job Satisfaction Questions 8-14 are directed at determining an employees job satisfaction level. These questions were derived from Hackmans & Ol dhams job satisfaction survey without modification. (Hackman and Oldham, 1980). 8. My opinion of myself goes up when I do this job well. 9. Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with this job. 10. I feel a great sense of personal sa tisfaction when I do this job well. 11. The work I do on this job is very meaningful to me. 12. I feel bad and unhappy when I discover th at I have performed poorly on this job. 13. I feel I should take the cr edit or the blame for the results of my work on this job. 14. I am generally satisfied with the kind of work I do in this job. 125

PAGE 136

Appendix A. (Continued) Social Interaction The following questions 15-19 are from Mary McCarthys dissertation. (McCarthy, 2001) 15. Do you find yourself missing the regular f ace-to-face contact you used to have with your coworkers and students? (Original question: Do you find yourself missing the regular contact you used to have with your coworkers?) The wording of this questi on is changed to reflect the academic work environment. 16. How does it feel when you go into the office? e. Do you feel like you are missing out on information? f. Do you feel like your opportunity for advancement is negatively affected as in out of sight, out of mind? (Original question: How does it feel when you go into the office? Specifically do you feel like you are missing out on information? Do you feel like your opportunity for advancement is negatively affected as in out of sight, out of mind?) The wording of this question is changed to reflect the academic work environment. 17. How does it feel when you teach in an online classroom? Specifically do you find yourself missing the regular contact you us ed to have with your students? (Original question: With regard to te leworking: Do you find yourself missing the regular contact you used to have with your coworkers?) The wording of this question is changed to reflect the academic work environment. 126

PAGE 137

Appendix A. (Continued) 18. How has working in a telework or onl ine teaching environment affected your ability to communicate with coworkers? (Original question: How has telework ing affected the way of means through which you communicate with others in the offi ce?) The wording of this question is changed to reflect the academic work environment. 19. How has working in a telework or onl ine teaching environment affected your ability to communicate with students? (Original question: How has telework ing affected the way or means through which you communicate with others in the office?) The wording of this question is changed to reflect the academic work environment. Trust Questions 20 23 are from a dissertation by Tom Philippi on corporate hypocrisy. These questions were used without modifica tion to determine an employees trust level with regard to the organization. (Philippi, 2002). 20. I trust that my organization has my best interests at heart. 21. There is a difference between what my organization says and what it does. 22. The organization says things th at I do not expect to happen. 23. I believe that my organization is fair. 127

PAGE 138

Appendix A. (Continued) Intent to Turnover The following questions, 24-27, are used unaltered from a longitudinal study by Kelloway, Gottlieb, and Barham regar ding the work and family conflict. (Kelloway, Gottlieb, and Barham, 1999) 24. I am thinking about leaving this organization. 25. I am planning to look for a new job. 26. I intend to ask people about new job opportunities. 27. I dont plan to be with this organization much longer. Section Three Demographic Information Questions 28-30 are used unaltered from Mary McCarthys dissertation and were designed to collect related demogr aphic information. (McCarthy, 2001) 28. Gender: Male ____ Female ____ 128

PAGE 139

Appendix A. (Continued) 29. Which range reflects your current age? ____ 24 to 30 years ____ 46 to 50 years ____ 31 to 35 years ____ 51 to 60 years ____ 36 to 40 years ____ 61 and above ____ 41 to 45 years 30. What is the highest level of education your have completed? ____ Bachelors Degree ____ Honors Degree ____ Post Graduate Study ____ Masters Degree ____ Doctorate Degree Marital Status ____ Single ____ Married/Living with partner ____ Divorced/Separated ____ Widowed If you have a partner, what is his/her Occupation ______________________________ Highest level of education completed ____ Bachelors Degree ____ Honors Degree ____ Post Graduate Study ____ Masters Degree ____ Doctorate Degree 129

PAGE 140

130 Appendix A. (Continued) 31. What is your employment cl assification or job title? ________________________ 32. How long have you been working for the organization/institution? ___ Years ___ Months

PAGE 141

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Kenneth N. Pereira obtained a Bachelor of Science in Engineering Information Systems from the University of South Florida. He received his Master of Science, in Engineering Management, from the Un iversity of South Florida. His research interests are management of technical professionals and work design. Kenneth has over 25 years working in the te chnology industry expe rience both in the private and public sectors. He is curren tly serving as the Di rector of Learning Management and Student Support Systems at Saint Petersburg College. Kenneth completed work on his Ph.D. as a participant in an innovative project, initiated by the Industrial and Management Systems Department in the College of Engineering at the University of South Fl orida. This project provided the unique opportunity for professionals to engage in graduate studies on a part time basis. Kenneth Noel Pereira received his Ph.D. from th e University of South Florida in 2009.