Defining the Individual Constructs and Single Scale Constructs

As discussed, the data was collected via an online survey which consisted of individual constructs, themselves comprising a number of single scale constructs, used to measure responses from individuals. The Likert rating-scale was used for this having been identified in existing research as a tool which would offer comparison between the possible choices which could be selected (Likert, 1932). The Likert-scale has a large body of existing literature which addresses both its reliability and validity in recording the measurement of attitudes in research (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Joy, 2007; Likert, 1932), and is widely used as such within general literature, and also that which is pertinent and used throughout this thesis. In few instances, the wording of the questions was gently edited to simplify the understanding of the question, in order for them to be comprehended by all levels of individual in the sample (Belson, 1981; Oppenheim, 1992).

Likert scales offer respondents the ability to choose a pre-defined level of response along a linear scale for each individual item being measured. The scale has often been referred to as a bipolar scaling method, given that it does not offer a simple affirmative or negative option of response, but a varying degree of whatever response is deemed suitable for the study (Allen and Seaman, 2007). Most studies which make use of a Likert scale may offer a neutral choice, for example where the scale varies from

“strongly agree”, to “strongly disagree”, the neutral choice option would be “neither agree nor disagree” (Armstrong, 1987). However, to avoid distortion or an easy “get-out” for respondents, some surveys may opt to force the individuals’ response by removing the neutral option. Further instances of distortion in data can occur, though, if the person completing the survey does not truthfully answer to an extreme value, instead opting for “agree” instead of “strongly agree”, or similar (Allen and Seaman, 2007). Along the varying scale, there is no fully identified number of graded values, however either three or five, are deemed to be the most normal to offer (Allen and Seaman, 2007; Armstrong, 1987; Matell and Jacoby, 1971).

Single-item scales are used in research to measure the attribute of constructs (Bergkvist and Rossiter, 2007), as opposed to the alternative of a multiple-item scale (Abdel-Khalek, 2006). Single-item scales do offer the researcher a few advantages, in so much as it is a fairly simple structure to present for data collection which is less likely to result in a stressful or confusing situation for the respondent (Hair et al., 2014; Russell et al., 1989). Along with the simplicity factor, the single-item scale is a more cost-conscious

method of presenting respondents with a survey, and more likely to incite completion (Gorsuch and McFarland, 1972; Hair et al., 2014; Sarstedt and Wilczynski, 2009).

Single-item scales create less desire to refuse completion amongst respondents, given the simplicity of their question structure and design (Rossiter, 2002). With limited response options, the single-item scale is arguably fitted to research and data collection when the respondents appreciate the simplicity of what the researcher is trying to draw from them (Bergkvist and Rossiter, 2007; Hair et al., 2014; Rossiter, 2002).

Multiple-item scales have been used since the early 20th century to collate data from respondents in relation to attitudes and behaviours (Bock, 1997; Schiavone, 2011), represented on a numerical Likert scale. This offers a range of response parameters possible to the respondent for each question asked from the corresponding survey (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). As an alternative option to a single-item scale, a multiple item method offers a number of advantages to the researcher (Hair et al., 2014).

Constructs within the research can be represented more completely by a set of multiple items and creating groups of items which represent a construct reduces influence of any specific single item. It is also suggested that a model based on multiple-item scale has increased reliability and ability to predict based on sample studied, and a continuous scale in the survey can potentially distinguish more fully amongst respondents, identifying more true traits or behaviours in groups of people (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1978).

Using such scales, it is possible to use identified central tendencies in the results to prove continuous or interval variables, and also to calculate any resulting variances amongst the respondent groups (James et al., 1984). These scales also permit additional analysis by means of factor analysis to identify similar groups, regression modelling, and measuring internal consistency using Cronbach’s Alpha (Hair et al., 2014; Tavakol and Dennick, 2011).

Motivation

There has long been an interest in the relationship between people and their workplace, and the measurement of what makes people wish to interact, commit, and complete tasks. Additionally there has been great interest over time of workers subsequent desire to develop their skills and work-rate or personal development within the business or career path they have chosen to enter. The study of motivation has received great

analysis and may attempts made to pin down what makes people commit on a personal and organisational level, what needs must be met, how people can be “encourage” to act positively in the workplace in order to achieve (indeed, over-achieve) work rate and development (Wiley, 1997).

Over the past 60 or so years, numerous surveys have been created in order to analyse the challenge that is employee motivation (Wiley, 1997). From early works, Kovach (1987) collected additional data in order to identify trends over time, and the constructs which truly mattered to people in the workplace, in relation to personal motivation (Kovach, 1980, 1987; Wiley, 1997). The list of measurable items in the survey was used to identify the samples from the contextual setting, and the possibility of individuals becoming stagnant, and deflated in their work, which may have a knock on effect to their levels of immersion and commitment (Wiley, 1997).

Deviant Behaviour

Deviant workplace behaviour is the actualization of individuals (or groups of) violating the normal standard operations of the organisation, thus threatening not only the business overall, but the other members of the workforce (Bennett and Robinson, 2000;

Robinson and Bennett, 1995). Deviance is related to motivation, in so much as the act of deviant behaviour in the workplace is a result of a lack of motivation to adhere to the social norms or organisational standards (Kaplan, 1975; Kaplan, 1976).

The moral and community, or workplace, standards are all consistent as part of the organisations normal code of practice, or conduct. There will be both formal and informal standards of behaviour which are expected to be met by all people engaging in the arena, to enable a suitable, safe environment for people to work in, ensuring activities can be completed in order to maintain appropriate levels of productivity, and social well-being in the workplace (Bennett and Robinson, 2000; Duffy et al., 2012).

From an extended study, Bennett and Robinson (2000) identified a list of items based on correlation and variances. As scales should represent a composition of prominently interrelated items (DeVellis, 2012), they identified those which are theoretically within behavioural family groups to be in the subscale used here (Bennett and Robinson, 2000).

Commitment

Since the early 1980’s, job satisfaction and organisational commitment have been measured and analysed to identify the relationship between the two constructs (Bateman and Strasser, 1984; Williams and Anderson, 1991). Further studies have identified the relationship between behaviour and job satisfaction, resulting in commitment from employees (Organ and Konovsky, 1989). Building citizenship through commitment in the workplace is achieved by reviewing cognitive parts of job satisfaction, pointing toward the importance of measuring what people value in the workplace (García-Bernal et al., 2005; Henne and Locke, 1985; Williams and Anderson, 1991).

Following the early studies of O'Reilly and Chatman (1986), Williams and Anderson offer suggestion of the single items used. The 12 item scale offers measurement of three different foci of interest to this thesis via collection of data relating to psychological attachment (commitment) of the individual to the organisation through;

differing levels of personal compliance, based on reward; commitment by an intrinsic human desire to be affiliated and acknowledged as part of the organisation; or, immersing oneself in identity of aligned values with the organisation (O'Reilly and Chatman, 1986; Williams and Anderson, 1991).

Spirituality

Spirituality demonstrates the belief and caring for other people and it considers a number of additional constructs which enable a level of spirituality to be established.

Commitment, forgiveness, and spiritual experiences have previously been used to identify levels of individual spirituality and a connectedness to wellbeing (Cohen et al., 1997; Groen, 2001; Idler et al., 2003; Oxman et al., 1995). From existing literature (of Cohen et al., 1997; Groen, 2001; Oxman et al., 1995) Idler et al. (2003) prepared a 33 item scale nationally representative survey, which was applicable as a self-ranking response method, and has been used accordingly in this thesis to identify the levels of spirituality experienced by the individual respondents.

The scale items used in the thesis for this construct were selected in order to identify the respondents experience between spirituality itself, and the association with their commitment to the people around them. Spirituality, far removed now from its traditional affiliation with religion, can still have many of the similar nuances applied to the workplace, and has been identified as a workplace commitment theory following the

greed bound era of the 1980’s, during which people were indeed able to earn vast sums of income from the money markets, trading, and exploitation, however they were also privy to the effects which could diminish inherent personal values (Idler et al., 2003).

These items were selected with the purpose of identifying if people working in the sample, were indeed prone to such effects themselves, and whether there was a connection between what motivates them, makes them feel belonging in the workplace, and also whether there is a relationship between these and their levels of commitment.

Flow

Since the inception of Flow by Csikszentmihalyi (1975), researchers have continued to develop methods of identifying ways of identifying aspects of the construct, so that they may be researched empirically, and measured in relation to job satisfaction and commitment (Bakker, 2008; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, 1997; Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi, 2002; Petri et al., 2010).

Several earlier studies of flow, and flow-state, made way for Bakker (2008) to argue his Work Related Flow model (WOLF) which identifies three sub-constructs, each comprising a number of single items which permit the measurement of a person’s individual flow-state. In other words, Bakker identified a simple scale which would measure how immersed, or fulfilled, on acknowledges being when completing tasks.

The benefit of this to the organisation being discussed earlier in the thesis, in relation to seeking additional challenges, developing ones skills, increasing productivity, to name but a few.