Impact of Feedback Environment on Employee Commitment

Impact of Feedback purlieu on Employee cargoThis research paper examines the effect of feedback environment on employee trueness, with subprogram lucidity world the mediating varying in the public and private sectors organizations of Islamabad Rawalpindi city. From the previous researches a link was found betwixt feedback environment and employee shipment at workplace, this test attempts to explore this link in the context of Islamabad. To create employee payload amongst organizational members has become increasingly important in todays dynamic line of work environment, because this chemical element leads to employee holding and a low leg of turnover. For this instruction a sample size of 200 was taken and diametrical private and public sector organizations were cover in the research work. The research was of hypothesis-testing in nature and responses were collected use standardized questionnaires for each variable. both lead variables executive programy and coworker feedback and piece clarity prove to be positively associated with employee commitment with the feedback from coworker line of descent being the strongest in creating employee commitment followed by role clarity and feedback from supervisor obtain. The mediating effect of role clarity was non found to be significant and there is still an opportunity for further research in this area to explore this link. However the positive stand of role clarity with employee commitment represents its importance in creating employee commitment, though its contribution is small, but this very dimension must not be ignored by the managers of the twenty-first century.Chapter 1INTRODUCTIONIt has become necessary for business firms to satisfy all of their study stakeholders (consumers, employees, clients etc) to re primary(prenominal) competitive in todays dynamic business environment. The satis detailion and commitment take of a firms employees is of key importance in determining its h uman resource strength, which in turn leads to their retention and make an organization able to satisfy the needs of its customers, consumers and clients in both the production and service sectors. Many variables have an impact on the level of commitment of a firms employees, some of which are moving in satisfaction level (with intrinsic and extrinsic factors), the quality of leader-member exchange and the overall feedback environment that an employee workings in.Many researchers put emphasis on providing feedback to employees in rules of order to satisfy them and consider providing feedback to employees to be essential for maintaining and increasing employee motivation and satisfaction. Traditionally the yearly buckram performance appraisal/review in private sector organizations and Annual Confidential Report (ACR) in public sector organizations have been considered as the exemplar platform for postgraduateer authorities (departmental/organizational heads, supervisors, immedi ate bosses) to provide feedback to employees about how they view their performance. But employees generally report problems and shortfalls regarding the current methodologies used to asses their performance and dispose the overall process as being too practically restricted to a performance appraisal degree and involving only one feedback source (departmental/organizational heads, supervisors, and immediate bosses).A qualitative case study by Longenecker and Nykodym (1996) in the public sector illustrated some of the problems associated with traditional performance appraisal method. Employees noted that feedback in performance appraisal was problematic for improving employee motivation and performance, and as a communications tool to improve the manager/subordinate race and suggested that managers shouldmake to a greater extent time available for providing performance feedback,increase their knowledge of actual performance,better clarify performance expectations,put greater emph asis on employee development,not stop on negatives,provide more ongoing feedback, andincrease two-way communicationThese suggestions indicate that supervisors/immediate bosses might adopt a number of specific behaviors to fend for feedback processes in the organization, which in turn might lead to an enhanced manager/subordinate human relationship and increased employee satisfaction and hence employee commitment. Here we can understand that feedback only after some specified interval and with formal sessions is not sufficient to improve work outcomes ( furrow satisfaction, productivity, employee commitment, organizational citizenship behavior etc). Considering this very fact steelman, Levy and Snell (2004) proposed a scale, known as Feedback Environment Scale (FES) with a validation study to demonstrate how different facets of feedback sources (supervisor and coworkers) constitute the overall feedback environment indoors an organization. This new instrument measures a much m ore comprehensive view of the feedback environment and is more relevant to the organizations of today and the responsibilities of 21st-century managers. FES may also be delimit as a multifaceted construct with two major factors (Supervisor and Coworker) manifested in septet facets. Together, these seven facets reflect the contextual aspects surrounding the transmission of channel performance feedback on a recurrent or daily basis (Steelman et al, 2004).In general Employee commitment is ones psychological attachment to his or her organizations. The higher the level of Employee Commitment of an individual, the lower are the chances of his/her psychological and physical job withdrawal. Moreover committed employees are generally productive and go beyond their job descriptions in improving their organizations products and services. inquiryers have found a positive link between Feedback Environment Scale and Employee commitment. This link is intermediate by a third variable called a ffair Clarity, which is defined as the subjective feeling of having as much or not as much role relevant information as the person would like to have Lyons (1971). This study is aimed to explore this link in a Pakistani context and more specifically in the context of Islamabad, After the confirmation of such(prenominal) a link, mangers can adopt a number of measures to improve employees satisfaction, their level of productivity and employee commitment. investigate ObjectivesTo measure the level of performance feedback (from supervisors and coworkers) received by the employees of different organizations, both of public and private sector operating in Islamabad city.To Measure the level of employee commitment of employees working in different organizationsTo explore the link between feedback environment and employee commitmentTo suggest specific measures to be adopted in order to increase the overall feedback environment and employee commitment in organizationsChapter 2LITERATURE REVI EW2.1 Feedback EnvironmentIn the past, the feedback environment has been defined as the type of job performance information that employees perceive as being available to them (Herold Parsons, 1985).but according to the refined and most up-to-date definition the feedback environment refers to the contextual aspects of day-to-day supervisor-subordinate and coworker-coworker feedback processes sooner than to the formal performance appraisal feedback session (Steelman et al, 2004). Consequently, up to now, an organizations feedback environment has been defined as the amount and availability of positive and negative feedback from different sources (Steelman et al, 2004).2.2 Measurement of Feedback EnvironmentFeedback environment in an organization is measured through with(predicate) a new multifaceted instrument, the Feedback Environment Scale (FES), which helps inform the feedback process in organizations. This new instrument measures a much more comprehensive view of the feedback env ironment and is more relevant to the organizations of today and the responsibilities of 21st-century managers. FES may also be defined as a multifaceted construct with two major factors (Supervisor and Coworker) manifested in seven facets. Together, these seven facets reflect the contextual aspects surrounding the transmission of job performance feedback on a recurrent or daily basis (Steelman et al, 2004).It is clear that employees receive feedback information from various sources (Greller, 1980 Morrison, 1993) but some authors suggest that supervisor and coworker feedback sources are the most practical and relevant from the feedback recipients point of view (Ashford, 1989). Thus, the FES postulates two factors called Supervisor Source and Coworker Source and the chase seven specific facets within each of those source factors source credibility, feedback quality, feedback delivery, frequency of favorable feedback, frequency of unfavorable feedback, source availability, and promoti ng feedback seeking (Steelman et al, 2004).Source Credibility is conceptualized as the feedback sources expertise and trustworthiness (Giffin, 1967). Consistency and usefulness have been demonstrated to be important aspects of feedback quality (Greller, 1980 Hanser Muchinsky, 1978 Herold, Liden, Leatherwood, 1987). A feedback recipients perceptions of the sources intentions in giving feedback will affect reactions and responses to the feedback (Fedor, Eder, Buckley, 1989). Favorable feedback is conceptualized as the perceived frequency of positive feedback such as compliments from supervisors and/or coworkers when from the feedback recipients view, his or her performance does in fact warrant positive feedback. Correspondingly, unfavorable feedback is conceptualized as the perceived frequency of negative feedback such as expressions of dissatisfaction and criticism from supervisors and/or coworkers when from the feedback recipients view, his or her performance warrants such feedbac k (Steelman et al, 2004). Supervisor and/or coworker source availability is operationalized as the perceived amount of contact an employee has with his or her supervisor and/or coworkers and the ease with which feedback can be obtained (Steelman et al, 2004). Feedback seeking is defined as the extent to which the environment is supportive or unsupportive of feedback seeking. It is the extent to which employees are further or rewarded for seeking feedback and the degree to which employees feel comfortable asking for performance feedback (Williams et al, 1999).2.3 Role ClarityLyons (1971) defines role clarity as the subjective feeling of having as much or not as much role relevant information as the person would like to have. The importance of having role clarity ( cognize the tasks and expectations of a job) has been shown in previous research that used both emotional and performance- cogitate measures (Abramis, 1994 Jackson Schuler, 1985 Tubre Collins, 2000). Role clarity is a pr erequisite for harmonious interactions with others in the role destine (Mcgrath, 1976). The absence of role clarity leads to stress, intrapersonal tension and lowered job satisfaction (Cooper, Sloan Williams, 1988 Hall, 2004).Breaugh Colihan (1994) defined role equivocalness to be job ambiguity and indicated that job ambiguity possesses three distinct aspects work methods, scheduling, and performance criteria.2.4 Employee CommitmentIt is recognized that an employees commitment to an organization can be expressed in three particular ship canal emotional, continuance, and normative. Affective commitment is focused on an emotional attachment to the organization (Herscovitch, 2002). On the other hand, continuance commitment is when an employee stays with an organization based on a perceived cost of leaving (Herscovitch, 2002). In this case, the employee is staying because he/she thinks it will cost more to go find work elsewhere. Lastly, normative commitment refers to an employees incorrupt obligation to stay with the organization (Herscovitch, 2002). This can arise due to the employee feeling that the organization has treated him/her well and therefore, he/she owes the organization a continued period of employment. In one sense, each type of commitment just about ties the individual to the organization however, each impacts differently on the manner in which the employee conducts him/herself in the workplace. For example, an employee with an affective commitment will often go above and beyond what is required of his/her position in order to assist the organization in meeting its goals. Employees with high affective commitment tend to be absent from work less frequently and display a higher work motivation and organizational citizenship (McShane, 2001). law of continuation commitment, however, is negatively related to performance whereby employees tend to do simply what is required, have higher rates of absenteeism, and low motivation (Johns and Saks, 1996 ).2.5 Feedback Environment, Role Clarity/Ambiguity and Employee CommitmentOver recent years, there has been a surge of interest in the effects of the feedback environment on work-related outcomes (e.g. Norris-Watts Levy, 2004 Rosen et al., 2006). A favorable feedback environment is positively related to supervisory reported organizational citizenship behavior and that this relationship is partially liaise by affective commitment (Norris-Watts Levy, 2004). Another study tested a mediated model suggesting that the effects of the feedback environment on job satisfaction, and supervisory rated in-role and extra-role performance are mediated by perceptions of organizational politics. In general, this model was supported, again demonstrating the relationship between the feedback environment and several work-related outcomes (Rosen et al., 2006). A field experiment conducted by Tziner and Latham (1989) revealed increased work satisfaction and employee commitment when a goal-setting and feedback program was introduced, but it is not possible to draw the conclusion that this effect emanates from feedback only.Researchers have found a relationship between feedback and role ambiguity (Herold et al, 1987, Peiro et al, 1994, Sawyer, 1992, Teas, 1983, Vredenburgh, 1983). So, even though previous studies conduct support to the hypothesis that feedback affects attitudes towards work, there is also a possibility that the uncertainty reducing effect of feedback is the link between feedback and work attitudes, through the intervening invite of role ambiguity. Resultantly, there is also support to hypothesize that feedback only indirectly affects attitude towards work with role ambiguity as a mediating variable (Anders et al, 1999).Mathieu Zajac (1990) conducted a meta-analysis of 48 studies and found that overall employee commitment was low when employees were unsure about what was expected of them (Role Ambiguity). In nine studies, Dunham, Grube, Castaneda (1994) found t hat employees understanding about the significance of their tasks were somewhat positively related to affective commitment, but not related to normative or continuance commitment.Workers need role clarity to be able to fly on their own. To improve the opportunity for self feedback there appears a need to strengthen the connection between the individuals work and the organizational goals (Anders et al, 1999).Chapter 3THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKOn the basis of literature review, a relationship between feedback environment and employee commitment was found, being mediated by a third variable, Role Clarity. The adjacent hypothetical link between the variables was drawn and tested.3.1 Operational Definitions3.1.1 Feedback Environment (Independent inconsistent)Feedback Environment has been taken as the freelance variable for this study which is defined by Steelman et al (2004) as the amount and availability of positive and negative feedback from different sources.As the feedback environment in organizations is generally measured using the Feedback environment Scale (FES) proposed by Steelman et al (2004), the same will be employed to measure the quality of feedback environment that takes into account two major feedback sources which areSupervisor sourceCoworker sourceFeedback from each source has seven dimensions which are3.1.1.1- Source credibilityGiffin (1967) defined source credibility as the feedback sources expertise and trustworthiness. Perception of trustworthiness an individual imparts to other people. Factors that influence source credibility are expertise and reputation for honesty.3.1.1.2- Feedback qualityFeedback quality refers to its torso and usefulness which are important aspects of feedback (Greller, 1980 Hanser Muchinsky, 1978 Herold, Liden, Leatherwood, 1987).3.1.1.3- Feedback deliveryIt refers to the feedback environment in terms of sources consideration and intentions in his or her delivery of the feedback (Steelman et al 2004). In simple words this dimension is related to the extent of empathy of the feedback source.3.1.1.4- Favorable feedbackSteelman et al (2004) defined favorable feedback as the perceived frequency of positive feedback such as compliments from supervisors and/or coworkers when from the feedback recipients view, his or her performance does in fact warrant positive feedback3.1.1.5- Unfavorable feedbackUnfavorable feedback is conceptualized as the perceived frequency of negative feedback such as expressions of dissatisfaction and criticism from supervisors and/or coworkers when from the feedback recipients view, his or her performance warrants such feedback (Steelman et al, 2004).3.1.1.6- Source availabilitySupervisor and/or coworker source availability is defined as the perceived amount of contact an employee has with his or her supervisor and/or coworkers and the ease with which feedback can be obtained (Steelman et al, 2004).3.1.1.7- Promoting feedback seekingWilliams et al (1999) defined Feedback seeki ng is defined as the extent to which the environment is supportive or unsupportive of feedback seeking. It is the extent to which employees are encouraged or rewarded for seeking feedback and the degree to which employees feel comfortable asking for performance feedbackResponses about each dimension relating to both the sources will be gathered using the FES Questionnaire, proposed by Steelman et al (2004) in their validation study of the FES.3.2 Employee Commitment (Dependent Variable)For the purpose of this study employee commitment has been defined as an employees psychological attachment to his/her organization. Mainly the three component model of employee commitment by Herscovitch (2002) is used, which says that the commitment level itself consists of three parts affective, continuance and normative commitment. Somers (1995) defined Affective commitment as an employees emotional attachment to an organizational goals and values. Normative commitment is a perceived duty to suppor t the organization and its activities, whereas continuance commitment is however interacted with affective commitment in predicting job withdrawal intentions and absenteeism.The level of employee commitment was measured using the employee commitment questionnaire by John Meyer Natalie Allen (1991).Figure 3.1 The Theoretical Relationship between Feedback Environment and Employee Commitment with the Mediating Effect of Role Clarity/Ambiguity3.3 Role Clarity/Ambiguity (Mediating Variable)Role clarity is defined as the subjective feeling of having as much or not as much role relevant information as the person would like to have Lyons (1971). Or simply knowing the tasks and expectations of ones job is known as Role Clarity.From the previous studies there appeared a relationship between feedback and employee commitment with the mediating effect of role clarity/ambiguity, and it was conceived in this study that the quality of feedback environment leads to role clarity or ambiguity as feed back serves the purpose of clarifying an employees role which leads to employee commitment (Mathieu Zajac 1990, Dunham, Grube, Castaneda 1994).Role Clarity was measured using the standardized questionnaire proposed by Rizzo et al (1970).3.4 HypothesesThe following seven hypotheses were tested to explore the link between the followingSupervisory Feedback and represss Role ClarityCoworker Feedback and Incumbents Role ClarityFeedback Environment and Employee commitmentRole Clarity and Employee commitment3.5 Hypotheses Statements conjecture 1 Ho in that location is no relationship between supervisory feedback and subordinates role clarityHypothesis 1 H1There is a relationship between supervisory feedback and subordinates role clarityHypothesis 2 HoThere is no relationship between coworker feedback and employee role clarityHypothesis 2 H1There is a relationship between coworker feedback and employee role clarityHypothesis 3 HoThere is no relationship between feedback environment and e mployee role clarityHypothesis 3 H1There is a relationship between feedback environment and employee role clarityHypothesis 4 HoThere is no relationship between supervisory feedback and employee commitmentHypothesis 4 H1There is a relationship between supervisory feedback and employee commitmentHypothesis 5 HoThere is no relationship between coworker feedback and employee commitmentHypothesis 5 H1There is a relationship between coworker feedback and employee commitmentHypothesis 6 HoThere is no relationship between feedback environment and employee commitmentHypothesis 6 H1There is a relationship between feedback environment and employee commitmentHypothesis 7 HoThere is no relationship between employee role clarity and employee commitmentHypothesis 7 H1There is a relationship between employee role clarity and employee commitmentChapter 4RESEARCH METHODOLOGYResearch Design is a master plan specifying the methods and procedures for collecting and analyzing needed information.Having i dentify the variables of the study and developing the theoretical framework, the next step was to design the research in a way that the required data could be gathered and canvas to arrive at a solution.A Survey was conducted, based on a questionnaire. The term questionnaire refers to a list of questions, usually printed, and submitted for replies that can be analyze for usable information.4.1 Purpose of the StudyThe research was of hypothesis-testing in nature. The characteristics of variables and their relationship were defined in the previous section. Hypotheses were formulated on the basis of relationships between the two main variables (feedback environment and employee commitment). Researches have shown that there is positive relationship between feedback environment and employee commitment. Those studies were conducted in different parts of the world and the current research is based on the hypotheses which are to be tested to find if there is a positive relationship between the said variables.4.2 Type of InvestigationThe purpose of our research was to find out if there is relation between variables, the type of investigation chosen was correlation.4.3 Extent of Researcher Interference with the StudyThe primary data was collected through the questionnaire. The data was collected in natural environment and the researchers interference was minimal.4.4 Study SettingsThe research was conducted in natural environment where work reappearance normally, i.e. in non-contrived settings. The study was based on Field Experiment where all activities were occurring in natural work environment.4.5 Unit of AnalysisIn this study, individuals were studied separately. Research team studied the feedback received from the two sources (supervisor and coworker) and through the questionnaire investigated the relevant variables and their relationship.4.6 SamplingA sample is a subset of a larger population that contains its major characteristics. In this step the following dec isions were takenWho is to be sampled (sampling unit)How large a sample should be (sample size)How will sample units be selected (sampling technique)4.7 Sampling UnitTo get the example from all levels of management and all types of organizations, employees form each layer of management were selected as sample from different organizations ranging from manufacturing to service, both from public and private sectors. Responses were gathered from the employees of the following organizationsAskari Bank, Balochistan Teachers Training Academy, Balochistan University of Information Technology, Engineering Management Sciences (BUITEMS), Cantonment Hospital, Chiltan Ghee Mills, Civil Secretariat, Concern Worldwide, Habib Bank Ltd, Mercy Crops, National Bank, PTCL, Islamabad Electric Supply Company (QESCO), SME Bank, Sui southerly Gas Company Ltd (SSGC), Telecard, Telenor, UNDP and Warid Telecom4.8 Sample SizeThe sample size for the study was 200. Employees from each of the above-mentioned or ganization were asked to respond the questionnaires.4.9 Sampling Technique prospect sampling was used for the research in such type of sampling each member of population has an equal chance of becoming a sample.4.10 The QuestionnaireThe Questionnaire had the following sections4.10.1 Section-1 (Demographics)The first section investigated about the respondents demographical characteristics includingAgeGenderMarital StatusQualificationManagerial levelNature of work palpate in yearsThe respondents were not asked to mention their names or disclose their identity and it was ensured to keep the information confidential.4.10.2 Section-2 3 (Supervisory and Coworker Feedback Measurement)These sections contained questions about the supervisory and coworker feedback received by the respondents focusing on the following dimensionsSource credibilityFeedback qualityFeedback deliveryFavorable feedbackUnfavorable feedbackSource availabilityPromoting feedback seekingThe items of this section were ob tained from the validation study of feedback environment (Steelman et al, 2004).4.10.3 Section-4 (Employee commitment Measurement)This section contained questions about the level of employee commitment of the respondents.4.10.4 Section-5 (Role Clarity Measurement)This section contained questions measuring the Role Clarity of the respondents.4.11 Data CollectionIn this strain the research moved from papers to the field. Data was gathered in the form of responses from the respondents. Questionnaire was used as a tool to collect data and 100% of the respondents were surveyed through it.As mentioned above different organizations from public and private sector were visited to collect the responses. Questionnaires were distributed and taken back from the respondents after two to three days. Total time taken to complete the data collection process was two weeks. The respondents were guided about filling the questionnaires and the queries were responded properly.Chapter 5RESULTS AND DISCUS SION5. Hypothesis interrogationAll seven hypotheses of the study were tested on the following parametersConfidence level (1-) = 0.95 (95%)Level of Significance = 0.05Statistic used t-statisticSample size n = 200Table 5.1 Results of Hypothesis TestingHypothesest-calculatedt-tabulatedComputationResult12.20+1.96tcalttabRejected Ho21.97+1.96tcalttabRejected Ho32.13+1.96tcalttabRejected Ho43.74+1.96tcalttabRejected Ho56.88+1.96tcalttabRejected Ho66.18+1.96tcalttabRejected Ho71.99+1.96tcalttabRejected HoWheretcal = the calculated value of t-statisticttab = the tabulated value of t-statisticIt is clear from the results of table 5.1, that all seven alternative hypotheses were accepted as the value of t-calculated found be higher than the value of t-tabulated regarding each hypothesis. This shows that there is a link between each of the independent variable (feedback from supervisor and coworker source, feedback environment and role clarity) with the dependent variable (employee commitment ).5.1 Correlation AnalysisThe second analysis involved regressing each of the predictors on the outcome variable i.e. employee commitment. The results are presented in table 5.2A correlation matrix was developed for Supervisory Feedback, Coworker feedback and Role clarity with Employee Commitment. According to the results, all the three variables were positively associated with Employee Commitment. The association represents a positive linear relationship between the dependent variable Employee Commitment and each of the independent variables.Table 5.2 Correlation Matrix for Employee CommitmentVariableSupervisory FeedbackCoworker feedbackRole ClarityCommitmentSupervisory Feedback1.0000.534**0.123**0.257**Coworker feedback0.534**1.0000.139**0.439**Role Clarity0.123**0.139**1.0000.097**Commitment0.257**0.439**0.097**1.000** pCoworker feedback was most strongly associated with Employee Commitment (0.439), followed by supervisory feedback (0.257) and role clarity (0.097). All relationsh ips were statistically significant at p The correlation analysis of employee commitment as shown in table 5.1 indicates that all the associations (between x and y variables) were positive. This signifies that a positive linear relationship exists between x and y variable. Coworker feedback was most strongly related with employee commitment, followed by role clarity and supervisory feedback. All relations were statistically significant at 0.01 levels.5.3 Regression AnalysisThe value of R2 was 0.195. The first independent variable, coworker feedback 0.419, P Table 5.3 Regression Analysis of Feedback Environment at workplace (Dependent Variable= Employee CommitmentVariableCoefficientStandard ErrorStandardized BetaIntercept1.783**0.262-Supervisory Feedback0.029**0.0770.029Coworker feedback0.388**0.0710.419Role Clarity