Results from correlation tests

Values obtained from the Spearman’s rho indicates either a positive or a negative monotonic relationship between the variables (Pallant, 2007). This implies that as one value increases or decreases, the correlated value also increases or decreases based on the p-value obtained. The closer to 1.00 a p-value is attained, the stronger the monotonic relationship will be (Pallant, 2007).

Correlation statistics were done across all companies across all construct groupings on the different sub-constructs associated to the inducement and expectation constructs. The level of significance, as shown by the p-value in the Sig. (2-tailed) column, is used to determine if a correlation exists between the two constructs. A level of significance below 0.05 would indicate a correlation between the sub-constructs assessed. A level of significance equal to or greater than 0.05 would however indicate that there is no correlation between the sub-constructs.

In Table 4-22 below, the level of significance is indicated together with the correlation coefficient. From the results obtained, it appears that there is some correlation between most sub-constructs. Using the correlation coefficient, the strength of the correlation can be determined for those variables that appear to correlate with one another.

Table 4-22

Nonparametric correlations using Spearman’s rho

Sub-construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Ethical behaviour (—)

2. Employability 0.230* (—)

3. Flexibility 0.162 0.144 (—)

4. Loyalty 0.272** 0.319** 0.218* (—)

5. In-and-extra role beh. 0.482** 0.294** 0.364** 0.400** (—)

6. Work-life balance 0.292** 0.246** 0.335** 0.255* 0.338** (—)

7. Org. policies 0.520** 0.336** 0.096 0.298** 0.407** 0.497** (—)

8. Career development 0.339** 0.337** 0.181 0.378** 0.540** 0.448** 0.712** (—)

9. Job content 0.288** 0.347** 0.386** 0.457** 0.659** 0.374** 0.446** 0.594** (—)

10. Social atmosphere 0.456** 0.266** 0.238* 0.311** 0.655** 0.395** 0.527** 0.599** 0.479** (—)

11. Financial rewards 0.305** 0.340** 0.136 0.151 0.359** 0.591** 0.486** 0.564** 0.420** 0.517** (—)

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

The scale used to describe the strength of the correlations was first proposed by Cohen (Cohen, 1988). As discussed in Pallant (2007), this scale can be applied to correlation strengths in the following way:

Strong: Where the Spearman rho correlation coefficient is between 0.50 and 1.0 Medium: Where the Spearman rho correlation coefficient is between 0.30 and 0.49 Small: Where the Spearman rho correlation coefficient is between 0.10 and 0.29

Strong correlations are displayed in bold in Table 4-22. Of the 50 comparisons made, 11 fall within the classification of strong correlation. The remaining majority of comparisons fall within the categories of medium and small strength correlations. All correlations between the 11 inducement and expectation sub-constructs are significant positive correlations.

Referring to the correlations provided in Table 4-22, there were no strong correlations between any of the expectation sub-constructs to other expectation sub-constructs.

Only four significantly strong correlations of expectation sub-constructs to inducement constructs were evident. Correlations between the different inducement sub-constructs to other inducement sub-sub-constructs, as shown in Table 4-22, revealed various significant correlations of strong and medium strength.

Significant strong correlations between inducement and expectation constructs were obtained in only four correlations. The first of these is where the Ethical behaviour expectation sub-construct was strongly correlated to the Organisational policies inducement sub-construct (r = 0.520; p = 0.01). This possibly implies that specific organisational policies items could be correlated to ethical behaviours being exhibited.

The second significant strong correlation was observed between the in-and-extra role behaviour expectation sub-construct and the three inducement sub-constructs of career development (r = 0.540; p = 0.01), job content (r = 0.659; p = 0.01) and social atmosphere (r = 0.655; p = 0.01). This implies that specific inducement items offered by employers about the job content, career development and social atmosphere may elicit specific types of in-and-extra role behaviours to be exhibited by employees.

There is one significant strong correlation between each of the inducement sub-constructs correlated to the other inducement sub-sub-constructs. As per Table 4-22, work-life balance is strongly correlated to financial rewards (r = 0.591; p = 0.01), Organisational policies to Career development (r = 0.712; p = 0.01), Career development to Social atmosphere (r = 0.599; p = 0.01), Job content to Career development (r = 0.594; p = 0.01) and Social atmosphere to Financial rewards (r = 0.517; p = 0.01).

Not all sub-construct comparisons were however correlated. Table 4-23 below, indicates non-significant correlations identified. These non-significant correlations are also shown in italics in Table 4-22. Correlations between sub-constructs of Organisational policies and flexibility (r = 0.096; p = 0.349), Flexibility and Employability (r = 0.162; p = 0.111), Financial rewards and Loyalty (r = 0.151; p = 0.138), Financial rewards and Flexibility (r = 0.136; p = 0.182), Flexibility and Ethical behaviour (r = 0.162; p = 0.111) and Career development and Flexibility (r = 0.181; p

= 0.075).

Table 4-23

Non-Parametric Spearman correlations between sub-constructs with no correlations

Sub-constructs Sig. (2-tailed)

Organisational policies Flexibility 0.349

Flexibility Employability 0.156

Financial rewards Loyalty 0.138

Financial rewards Flexibility 0.136

Flexibility Ethical behaviour 0.111

Career development Flexibility 0.075

Considering the level of significance of the Spearman rho correlation as in Table 4-22 and excluding those sub-constructs that are not correlated, the majority of correlations given are at the 0.01 level of significance. Refer to Appendix table 6-1 for all correlation strengths obtained. As per Appendix table 6-1, of the 44 correlations made, only five comparisons, which are small in strength, are at the 0.05 level of significance.

Subsequently the remaining 39 correlations and can be considered to be statistically significant and correlating at the 0.01 level of significance.

With the findings completed and results obtained, interpretations can be made. In the next chapter, interpretations are made in answer to the research questions. Limitations of this study as well as areas for future research are also considered.

Discussion

In this chapter, discussions of the results obtained are provided from the statistical analysis performed. This is followed by the limitations of the current study as well as recommendation for future studies. A final conclusion is given at the end of this chapter.