The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1450-21 4.

htm

!tud"-based moderators influencing the relationshi# between organi$ational climate and em#lo"ee%s organi$ation commitment & meta-anal"sis
!chool of (anagement) 'ew *or+ ,nstitute of Technolog") &mman) -ordan .acult" of /usiness and .inance) &merican 0niversit" of (adaba) (adaba) -ordan) and &mman) -ordan
&bstract 2ur#ose 3 This #a#er see+s to measure the relationshi# between organi$ational climate
45678 with organi$ational commitment meta-anal"ticall" and the moderators influencing them. 9esign/methodolog"/a##roach 3 & meta-anal"tic research method was used in this research to determine the strength of relationshi#) fail safe n and #resence of heterogeneit" in stud". .indings 3 The unfavourable 567 46ase 28 4+ :40) n :;;)<1=8 is correlated negativel" with organi$ational commitment with confidence interval range var"ing from .0.552 to .0.5;2. The favourable 567 46ase 18 4+ := ) n :5<.=;58 is correlated #ositivel" with confidence interval range var"ing from 0.50 to 0.521. This research reviewed 10; valid studies after screening from 25; studies. Ten moderators were utili$ed to see the degree of change in relationshi#. 6ase 1 had four moderators namel" gender) tenure) age) educational bac+ground) while for 6ase 2) there were two major moderators namel" tenure and age. 1esearch limitations/im#lications 3 The conclusions of this research are limited to em#lo"ees based in organi$ations located in the 0!& and as such cannot be generali$ed for ver" dissimilar countries/cultures. 2ractical im#lications 3 To minimi$e the unfavourable 567) role conflicts) su#ervisor em#lo"ee relations) leadershi# st"les) decision ma+ing needs to be minimi$ed and focus should be more on favourable climate enhancing variables in order to have substantial em#lo"ee organi$ation commitment or em#lo"ee retention. 5riginalit"/value 3 This stud" combines the #revious available research on relationshi# between 567 and organi$ation commitment and strives to find the stud"-based moderators for com#rehension of meta-anal"sis results. >e"words (eta-anal"sis) .avourable organi$ational climate) 0nfavourable organi$ational climate) 5rgani$ation commitment) (oderators) -ob commitment) ?m#lo"ees behaviour 2a#er t"#e 1esearch #a#er

6limate and em#lo"ee%s commitmen t

'itin &rora and (ohammed T. 'useir Talal T. 'usair 1um" &rora

,ntroduction ?m#lo"ee commitment is an im#ortant factor in the service industr" that is worth" of investigation. ,n this #a#er) the focus is on the relationshi# between organi$ational climate and organi$ational commitment. This integrated a##roach is founded on the

?uro(ed -ournal of /usiness @ol. A 'o. 2) 2012 ##. 201-220 r ?merald Brou# 2ublishing 7imited 95, 10.110=/145021 1211245;15

?(-

A)

belief that organi$ations are com#lex) ambiguous) and #aradoxical and the challenge is in dealing with this com#lexit". ,n fact) the theoretical relevance of the relationshi# clarifies the meaningfulness of organi$ational climate as an im#ortant construct in the stud" of organi$ations. The stud" of the attitudes of the wor+ers is certainl" fruitful from an assessment #oint-of-view) since +nowing wh" these wor+ers are committed can hel# the organi$ation focus their efforts on fixing the root of the #roblem. 2rior studies of wor+ers attitude have focused on the measures of someone%s attitudes about their wor+ environment 4i.e. the job) su#ervisors) cowor+ers8 and related attitudes to one 4i.e. job satisfaction to organi$ational commitment8 or turnover 4&hmad et al.) 20108) another absenteeism) and various other behaviours. Chat has not been studied extensivel" is the #otential role of the organi$ational climates characteristics on their attitudes or how the" res#ond about it in a collective manner. !o) s#ecificall") this stud" has studied factors that collectivel" influence the strength of relationshi#. 5ver the #ast decade) the researches in the organi$ational climate field have focused on several as#ects of organi$ational life. The major reviews in this literature li+e role ambiguit") role conflict 4(ac>en$ie et al.) 1 ==8) leader/su#ervisor relationshi#s with the em#lo"ees 4Dui et al.) 20048) job characteristics) etc. have been influencing the relationshi# between organi$ational climate and organi$ation commitment across the length and breadth of time. ,n #ervious literatures) em#lo"ee #erce#tions were treated as a unidimensional construct. 1esearch in the organi$ational climate literature) however) indicates that em#lo"ee #erce#tions of organi$ational climate are multidimensional. 2ur#ose of research 6ollective variables constituting organi$ational climate are related with organi$ational commitment both #ositivel" and negativel". These multilevel correlational issues discussed in this #a#er are not uniEue to climate and culture researchers. The #roblems arising are of aggregating them and finding a re#resentative statistics that can address this issue. !imilar #roblems have been observed in other areas of organi$ational science) such as leadershi# 4&hmad and *e+ta) 20108) job design) organi$ational technolog" and design) cor#orate #hilanthro#") eEuit" theor") and #artici#ation in decision ma+ing 4(ac>en$ie et al.) 1 ==8. 0nfortunatel") most im#ortant #roblems in organi$ational science #otentiall" involve multilevel #roblems. 9evelo#ments in meta-anal"sis have made it #ossible to re-examine the #ast research studies. The methods that are used in meta-anal"sis allow for statistical aggregation of the em#irical findings. The effect si$es of each stud" and the sam#les can be brought together) ma+ing it #ossible to review the existing literature on these multilevel relationshi#s. The #ur#ose is to utili$e the meta-anal"sis statistical tool to find the collective strength of relationshi# between organi$ation commitment and the two t"#es of organi$ational climates 4favourable and unfavourable8 and finding the stud"based moderators moderating this relationshi#. 7iterature review 5rgani$ational climate &lthough the definition of organi$ational climate has changed over the last 15 "ears) it nearl" alwa"s has been regarded as a #ro#ert" of the organi$ation) as its name suggests. 6limate is defined 4Blic+) 1 =58 as Fa set of attributes s#ecific to a #articular organi$ation that ma" be induced from the wa" that organi$ation deals with its

member

s an

d it

s environment

. 5rgani$ationa

l climat

ei

a cluste

ro

f multi#l

e variables

. ?xclusiv

e focu

so

n th

e individua

l researc

h stud"

)a

s th

e uni

to

f theor

"i

n climat

e researc

hi

s unli+el

"t

ob

ea

s informativ

ea

a stud

" involvin

g multi#l

e unit

so

f theor"

. (ulti#l

e unit

so

f theor"

) i.e

. constituent

so

f organi$ationa

l climat

e shoul

db

e recogni$e

di

n climat

e researc

h fo

a numbe

ro

f reasons

5ne) #s"chological subunit and organi$ational climates ma" differ. ,f there were onl" one unit of theor" in climate research) then there would be no reason to ado#t different labels for organi$ational subunit) and #s"chological climate. F5rgani$ational climateG connotes an organi$ational unit of theor". ,t does not refer to the climate of an individual) wor+ grou#) occu#ation) de#artment) or job. 1esearchers interested in other t"#es of climate should ado#t a##ro#riate labels and units of theor" and anal"sis 4(ac>en$ie et al.) 1 ==8. ,f the unit of theor" for organi$ational climate is the organi$ation) then the unit of observation should also be the organi$ation. .ailure to a##l" this sim#le logic threatens the validit" of organi$ational climate studies that sam#le either individuals or a limited number of similar de#artments in one or two organi$ations. Thus) organi$ational scientists are encouraged to #a" attention to multilevel issues) i.e. organi$ational sub-climate 4,maran al.) 20108. There are various determinants of organi$ational climateet over which the focus could be made but the results of recent meta-anal"ses 46ohen) 1 28 have generall" found that) of the variables #resumed to be antecedents of organi$ational commitment 4/haesajsanguan) 20108) situational characteristics 4e.g. job characteristics) role states) grou#-leader relations8 account for more variance than do #ersonal characteristics 4e.g. demogra#hic variables) #ersonal dis#ositions) #ersonalit"8 4Tseng) 20108. ,t was also argued that individual difference 49aven#ort) 2010H 2ho+ha et al.) 20108 might serve to moderate the influence of situational variables on commitment 4!alami) 200=8. 5rgani$ation commitment & first ste# towards conce#tuali$ing managerial #erce#tions of em#lo"ee organi$ational commitment is to examine existing theor". 6ommitment to an organi$ation reflects the relative strength 41andall) 1 =A8 of an individual%s identification with and involvement in that organi$ation. 7uthans et al. 41 =58 suggest that organi$ational commitment can be #ortra"ed as having three major com#onentsI first) a #erson%s strong belief in and an acce#tance of the organi$ation%s goalsH second) a #erson%s willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organi$ationH and finall") a #erson%s definite desire to maintain membershi#. The stronger the commitment) the stronger is the #erson%s #redis#osition to be guided in actions b" internali$ed standards. & variet" of definitions and measures of organi$ational commitment have been set forth 4!hore et al.) 1 58. &ccording to (e"er et al. commitment to an organi$ation ma" develo# because em#lo"ees% investments in the organi$ation) such as seniorit" and benefits) ma+e leaving too costl". The" called this #henomenon continuance commitment and develo#ed a measure called the continuance commitment scale. & second t"#e of commitment) affective commitment) suggests that em#lo"ees are committed to and remain with an organi$ation because of an emotional attachment to it and identification with its goals. Two #o#ular measures of affective commitment are the organi$ational commitment Euestionnaire and the affective commitment scale. ,nterest in stud"ing organi$ational commitment has continued for a number of reasons 4&shforth and Dum#hre") 1 <8. ,t consistentl" has been shown to be

?(-

A)

related toI first) em#lo"ee behaviours) such as job search activities) turnover 4!angroengrob and Techachaicherdchoo) 20108) absenteeism and) to a lesser extent) #erformance effectiveness 47ichtman) 20108H second) attitudinal) affective) and cognitive constructs such as job satisfaction 42e#e) 20108) job involvement) and job tensionH third) characteristics of the em#lo"ee%s job and role and the learning involved 4*aghoubi et al.) 2010H /alogun et al.) 20108) including autonom" and res#onsibilit") job variet" and tas+ identit" and role conflict 47iu et al.) 200=8 and ambiguit" 4Titu and /ucur) 20108H fourth) #ersonal characteristics of the em#lo"ee) such as age) sex 4Jee et al.) 20108) need for achievement) and job tenureH and finall") D1 #ractices) justice 42are and Trembla") 200AH 2e#e) 20108. The ethical climate #la"s a great role in influencing the commitment and #erformance levels of sales#erson 4 -aramillo et al.) 200;H *ucel et al.) 20108H recognition) wor+-life balance) health" #ractices are im#ortant for universit" em#lo"ees 4Brawitch et al.) 200A8. This range of relationshi#s) cou#led with the belief that organi$ational commitment is a relativel" stable attitude over time when com#ared to job satisfaction) suggests the im#ortance of #ursuing a thorough understanding ofthe thebroader o#eration of thisof major construct. 1ecent literature has tended to focus on conce#t wor+ commitment that includes s#ecific commitment objects such as the organi$ation) wor+ grou#) occu#ation) union) and one%s job. The im#ortance of such research has been em#hasi$ed 46ohen) 1 8 b" 1andall and 6ote) (ueller) Callace) and 2rice who argued that the" are still much in need of conce#tual and anal"tical wor+ in sorting out how forms of commitment are related and how the" relate to wor+ behaviour. The #revious non-meta-anal"tic studies have somehow ignored the stud"-based moderators that ma" also have a moderating influence on this relationshi#. D"#otheses To test and to shed additional light on the nature of the relationshi#) this stud" derived the following h"#othesisI D1. 5rgani$ational commitment will have high #ositive aggregate correlations with the favourable aggregate organi$ational climate. D2. 5rgani$ational commitment will have high negative average correlations with the unfavourable aggregate organi$ational climate. (ethodolog" ,dentification of studies The collection of studies was started b" com#uteri$ed searches of the s#eciali$ed database) such as the 215K0?!T) !!1') Kuestia) Boogle !cholar) -!T51) ?merald) /lac+well) '97T9) #s"chological abstracts) ebrar") and dissertations 4full/ abstracts8. The +e"words used were cor#orate climate) organi$ation attitude) organi$ational culture) em#lo"ee commitment) commitment and organi$ational sub-climate) and organi$ational culture. ,n addition) un#ublished manuscri#ts were solicited from a number of researchers in this field. The search was limited to research #a#ers in ?nglish language. The studies obtained in languages other than ?nglish were rejected due to language barriers. The numbers of studies referred in this stud" is 10;. .ew organi$ational studies were eliminated because of lac+ of data of interest.

@ariabl

selectio

#rocedure was ado#ted wherein the values are believed to be unre#resentative or s#urious) but recoded to more moderate A)2 ones. Third) the variables that are #art of .rom an examination of #revious studies) antecedents of organi$ational commitment the categor" of favourable 4li+e justice) could be #laced into three categoriesI #ersonal characteristics of members) rolefavourable wor+ environment) etc.8 or related characteristics) and wor+ ex#eriences. ,n selecting variables to re#resent each unfavourable of these categories in the #resent stud") several criteria were used. The intention was 4unfavourable wor+ environment) role to ex#lain variation in organi$ational commitment at a level that would #rove conflict/overload/ambiguit") etc.8 significant in #ractical as well as statistical terms with as few #redictor variables as organi$ational #ossible. !econd) an attem#t was made to identif" variables from the three categories climates were included. &n" other that) while broadl" re#resentative of #henomena in their res#ective categories) also climate variables that were #resent in the would #rove to be relativel" inde#endent #redictors of commitment. The studies organi$ational commitment variable includes affective) continuance) normative) collected were not included. affiliation) identification) com#liance) and internali$ation commitment. The 20; organi$ational climate variables were s#ecificall" divided into the following three sub-categoriesI unfavourable wor+ing environment) role conflict/ambiguit"/overload) /rief descri#tions of meta-anal"sis and negative leadershi#. The favourable climate was divided into the following #rocedures categoriesI organi$ational justice) decision 5nce the studies were finali$ed) thema+ing) meta- favourable wor+ing environment) organi$ational su##ort) organi$ational and #ositive leadershi#. anal"tic #rocedures suggested communication) b" Dunter and !chmidt 41 08 were a##lied to the (eta-anal"sis grou# of correlation coefficients. The first (eta-anal"sis is a statistical techniEue that can be used to cumulate research findings ste# in this anal"sis was the com#utation across studies. ,t is used to average sam#le correlations across studies in order to of effect si$e for each stud". Two distinguish variance that is due to statistical artefacts 4e.g. sam#ling) error) error of estimates measurement) restriction in range8 from variances due to the moderator variables. were availableI FdG) recommended b" (eta-anal"sis involves the com#utation of the si$e of effects between the variables of Blass et al. 41 =18H and FrG) interest for each stud". &fter individual effect si$es are com#uted) the" are cumulated recommended for an estimate of the effect over a large number of studies. This estimate can be b" Dunter and !chmidt 41 08. These corrected for statistical sources of variance. statistics direct transformations of The Dunter and are !chmidt 41 08 meta-anal"sis #rocedure was used in this stud" other) but in this stud" FrG was across studies) corrects for the #resence because each it aggregates correlation coefficients chosen becauseand it #rovides the advantage of statistical artefacts) #rovides unbiased estimates of the theoretical #o#ulation that the correlation coefficient has a wellrelationshi#s. !tatistical artefacts controlled for in this meta-anal"sis were sam#ling +nown ?xtreme finite metric ranging .1.00 for both favourable and unfavourable error) outliers. values were from discarded to L1.00. ,n brief) the meta-anal"sis organi$ational sub-climate. 'othing was done for range corrections due to lac+ of in following ste#sI first) essential#roceeded data. /ased on Dunter and !chmidt 41 08) average of correlation values) calculation of the the effect si$es) does not violate the inde#endence assum#tion) it was decided that if sam#le si$e-weighted mean correlation more than one value of interest is more than one in each sam#le stud") it would be studiesH second) correction of the coefficient as or the eEuivalent were re#ortedacross as average correlation. ,n this research used in mean correcting the variation in validities for variabilit" due to differences in correlation coefficient attenuation in #redictor unreliabilities across for studies. &dditionall") it was decided to ado#t 46ohen) the measurement organi$ation 1 28 suggestion to use of confidence interval to inter#ret the generali$abilit" of the result. commitment 4correction using a coefficients) outlier !election criteria for inclusion in the anal"sis anal"sis8H third) examination of the !ince the research on effect of organi$ational climate has been conducted across confidence various disci#lines) the the stud" started b" defining the boundaries of this stud". The title intervals about corrected mean of this correlation stud" #laces several limitations. .irst) a stud" was reEuired to examine coefficientH fourth) test for de#endent variables in the form of organi$ational climate and organi$ational homogeneit" commitment inde#endent !econd) Cindsori$ing 47i#se" and Cilson) 4if notas then calculationvariable. of heterogeneous 20018 distribution of effect si$e 4K value) Table

?(/

,8H fifth) determining random variance com#onent 4v"8 and recalculating all #revious variables and the new enlarged confidence intervalH and finall") calculating the fail safe studies calculations using 5rwin%s formula. (oderator anal"sis ,n addition to summari$ing the domain of research to a mean effect si$e data #oint) measuring #ublication bias existence statisticall") an effective meta-anal"sis also attem#ts to find moderator variables. (oderator variables are those that ma" account for significant variabilit" in effect si$e and the" moderate the relationshi# between the de#endent and inde#endent variables) here organi$ation climate with res#ect to

5 4M8 confidence limits T"#e of organi$ational climate ?!u ?!c 7ower 0##er KNb >' .ail safe FnG v" 0nfavourable organi$ational climate .0.<2;.0.4 .0.5;2 .0.552 1) 0.;A40;;)<1= 5 )224 0.0405 .avourable organi$ational climate 0.542 0.5A 0.50 0.521 2)0;A.;4 05<)=;5 2 )2 4 0.0<=5 'otesI ?!u) effect si$e uncorrectedH ?!c) effect si$e correctedH KNb) heterogeneit" statistic for correlation corrected for attenuationH ') total sam#le si$e across + studiesH fail safe n) is the number of effect si$e studies with a value of 0 needed to reduce the mean effect si$e to criterion effect si$e

Table ,. 1ando meffect model anal"si s

40.1< for favourable and .0.1< for unfavourable8H this value of v" is added to the variance of each effect si$e) i.e. !?0 for further calculation

em#lo"e

commitment

jo

satisfaction

an

turnove

intentions

res#ectivel"

thi

stud"

te

intervention

moderato

variable

wer

identified

namel"

4 5 4 ; 4 A 4 = 4

tenure of em#lo"eeH sam#le si$e of the stud"H length of stud" 4cross-sectional or longitudinal8H gender of em#lo"eeH 418 "ear of #ublicationH age of em#lo"eeH and 428 t"#e of #ublicationH

t"#e of organi$ation 4<8 educational bac+ground of em#lo"eeH 4 4manufacturing/service8. 1 448 wor+ing status of em#lo"ee 4.T/2T8H

threshold of effect si$e criterion 40.1<8. &s it is ver" high 2 )2 4) it signifies the great difficult" in assuming that such large number if un#ublished studies would be still in the drawer of the researcher. 20= 0nfavourable organi$ational climate with organi$ation commitment. 5verall effect si$e is .0.<2; with standard error corrected to be 0.0<41. &t $ value of 1. ; at # :0.05) the $ calculated 41;1.;A8 is larger than the s#ecified 41. ;8 so it was concluded that the mean effect si$e for this sam#le is of studies is significant statisticall". 6orres#ondingl") the 5 #er cent confidence interval around the mean effect si$e 4.0.5;2oxo.0.5528 does not include 0 and reveals the relative #recision of the estimate of mean effect si$e ofof the #o#ulation of studies from The ado#tion these ten interventions for the two cases 4favourable climate and which these 40 are drawn. &s there is no and commitment 3 6ase 28 de#ends commitment 3 6ase 1 and unfavourable climate 0 in-between two limits of ?! value) it for each major categor" to inter#ret on the availabilit" of sufficient data individuall" suggest that earlier inter#retation and anal"se. The effects of selected moderators Fsubgrou#sG are discussed in 1esults section. of negative effect of unfavourable climate on organi$ation commitment is 1esults warrantedH i.e. the direction of relationshi# of variable involved in 4a8 (eta-anal"sis results constituting unfavourable organi$ational The meta-anal"sis results are #resented in Table ,. These results are #resented under climate is negativel" to the two categories ofrelated relationshi#) meta-anal"sis of favourable organi$ational climate organi$ation commitment and with meta-anal"sis the with organi$ation commitmentH of unfavourable organi$ational strength of .0.<2;. This summar" statistics is highlighting the climate correlational with organi$ation commitment. Deterogeniet" of results were measured overall anal"sis of the research 4Table ,8. .avourable climate organi$ation commitment. 5verall effect si$e is 0.542 b" organi$ational w 2 statistic K4df :< with ) # :0.058 with standard error corrected to be 0.021 . &t $ value of 1. ; at # :0.05) the $ calculated :54.5A which was lower than the 41<1.=18 observed is larger than the s#ecified 41. ;8 so it was concluded that the mean effect si$e for this value) thereb" signif"ing sam#le is of studies significant statisticall". #resence of is heterogeneit" and the 6orres#ondingl") the 5 #er cent confidence interval around the mean effect si$e 40.50 oxo0.5218 #reference of random-effect method of does not include 0 and reveals the relative #recisionanal"sis. of the estimate of mean effect si$e of the #o#ulation of studies from which these 0 The heterogeneit" also exists at are drawn. &s there is no 0 in-between two limits of ?! value) it suggest that earlier other ranges of #) namel") K4# :0.18 inter#retation of #ositive effect of favourable climate on organi$ation commitment is :50.;; and K4# :0.0018 :A2.05 warrantedH i.e. the direction of relationshi# of variable involved in constituting favourable signif"ing the #resence of moderators organi$ational climate is related #ositivel" to the organi$ation commitment with the that are influencing the results and correlational strength of #roducing the heterogeneit". The 5rwin b" w 2 statistic K4df := ) # 0.542. Deterogeneit" of results were measured fail safe n for unfavourable 112.02 which is was lower than the observed value) thereb" signif"ing :0.058categor" : also high 5 )224) also #resence of heterogeneit" and the of #reference of random-effect method signif"ing that ver" large number of anal"sis. The heterogeneit" un#ublished studies needed toalso bringexits the at other ranges of #) namel") combined correlation to the: s#ecified K4# :0.18 :10;.5; and K4# 0.0018 :1<; signif"ing the #resence of criteria. The 5rwin fail safe n is the value of reEuired number of un#ublished moderators that are influencing the results and #roducing the 4b8 (oderator anal"sis results studies when added to the current stud" will bring the combined

?(/ A)2

heterogeneit". correlation below the s#ecified

6ase 1I moderator anal"sis results. (ean effect si$es in subgrou#I #ublication "ear 4(oderator 18. ,ncluded in the first moderator was F#ublication "earG such as 1 =0-1 0) 1 0-2000) and 2000-above. The mean effect si$es and confidence intervals were obtained for each subcategor" of the #ublication "ear. Tables ,, and ,,, #resents the mean effect si$es and confidence intervals for different #ublication "ear for both fixed-effect and random-effect model) res#ectivel". &s the table shows) all the three sub-categories consistentl" #roduced strong effect si$e for the outcome 4range from 0.542 to 0.A0; for fixed effect and
!ubgrou# 1 =0-1 0 1 0-2000 2000-above

Table ,,. .ixedeffect model

* 0.A0; 0.;<; 0.542 77* 0.;A1 0.;1; 0.5<2 07* 0.A42 0.;55 0.552 K 150.; ;0 .2 1)1A4

!ummar" effect si$e 1 =0-1 2000-above * 0.5A4 0.;25 0.;24 0.54= Table ,,,. 1ando meffect model

01

0-2000

7l" N 0.5<1 0.<;5 0.525 0.502 0l" N 0.;1A 0.==5 0.A2A 0.5 5 KN 112.142 2.;2A 22. A =;.101

0.54

0.;

fo

rando

effect8

an

wer

significantl

"

differen

fro

9u

th

smal

numbe

studie

'

9ata

categor

"

'

18

wa

no

include

th

anal"ses

Th

statistic

fo

favourabl

climat

an

commitmen

wer

stil

foun

havin

significan

heterogeneit"

Th

effec

si$e

fo

th

rando

mode

anal"si

hav

majorl

"

decrease

exce#

th

categor

"

2000-abov

wher

seem

gro

mino

#ortions

(oreover

th

confidenc

interval

als

hav

increase

rando

mode

result

signif"in

fewe

#recisions

!ubg rou# * 77* 07* K

0n#ublished 0.4;4 0.42< 0.504 <4.2

Thesis 0.4< 0.<=4 0.4AA ;. ;

-ournal 0.5A 0.5A 0.5=A 1) ;A Table ,@. .ixedeffect model

!u !ummar" 0n#ubli Thesi -ournal bg effect si$e shed s ro (ean effect si$es in subgrou#I t"#e of journal 4(oderator 28. 4see Tables ,@ and @8. u# (ean effect si$es in subgrou#I length of journal 4(oderator <8 4see Tables * 0.5A4 0.5<1 0.55 0.40< 0.5= Table @. @, @,,8. (ean effect si$es in subgrou#I gender 4(oderator 48 4see Tables @,,, 7l and 0.;1A 0.< 0.<1A 2 1andom (ean effect subgrou#I 4(oderator 58 4see Tables O and O,8. " and N ,O8. 112.142 0.A1 si$es in 0.4 1 0.5< tenure -effect (ean effect si$es 2.5=A in subgrou#I educational bac+ground 4(oderator ;8 0l <.=24 A model "N 0.;2 K = si$es in subgrou#I age 4(oderator A8 4see Tables O,, and O,,,8. (ean effect N4see Tables O,@ and O@8. 10<. 0 !u bgr ou# * 7l" N 0l" N KN !ummar" effect si$e 7ongitudi nal

6ross-sectional Table @,,. 1andom -effect model

0.5A4 0.5<1 0.;1A 112.142

0.552 0.4<5 0.;;A .<;=A

0.5AA 0.5< 0.;2< .5A=

!ubgrou# 7ongitudinal 6ross-sectional * 0.5;1 0.5A1 77* 0.5<A 0.5;2 07* 0.5=5 0.5= Table @,. K 1 =.1 1)=; .ixed-effect model

?(-

(ea

effec

si$e

subgrou#

sam#l

si$

4(oderato

4se

Table

O@

an

O@,,8

(ea

effec

si$e

subgrou#

em#lo"e

wor

t"#

4(oderato

4se

Table

O@,,

!ummar" Table ,O. 1ando meffect model * 7l" N 0l" N KN 0.5A4 0.5<1 0.;1A 112.142

(ale 0.5; 0.512 0.;25 45.< <

.emale 0.521 0.452 0.5 2;.=<<

A)2

and O,O8. (ean effect si$es in subgrou#I t"#e of organi$ation 4(oderator 108 4see Tables OO and OO,8.

6ann ot tell 0.;<1 0.4A1 0.A 1 1A.A; <

!ubgrou# Table O. .ixedeffect model

1-5 5-10 410 6ann !ubgrou# .emale 6annot "ears (ale "ears "ears tell ot tell * 77* * 0.5= 0.51 0.5<< 0.;;< 0.514 0.41 0.;0; 07 *K 0.50< 0.;4= 0.407* 0.;02 = 0.545 0.;2 .ixed-effect model K ;A< ;;;.1 5 ; 77 * 0.5A; 0.52 0.5=< Table @,,,. 0.5<; 0.;A= 0.52 0.<A <24.= 1)102 25A.1 A 0.4; A.51

!ummar" effect si$e * 7l "N 0l "N K N

Table O,. 1ando meffect model

0.5A4 0.5<1 0.;1A 112.142 6olle ge

1-5 "ear s 0.5< 5 0.4; 4 0.;0 5 <1.4 =A 9i#lo ma

5-10 "ears 0.;1 A 0.5< 2 0.A0 2 < .0 <A

410 "ears

0.51 0.45; 0.5=2 25.A= 2

6an not tell 0.4 14 0.< 5< 0.4 A5 <.A <A 6an not tell 0.5A 4 0.55 2 0.5 ; <.= A

!ubgrou#

(asters and higher

Table O,,. .ixedeffect model

* 77* 07* K

0.5A= 0.5;A 0.5= 1)4 2

0.4=1 0.452 0.511 2.24

0.5AA 0.55A 0.5 A <51.1

6as

0nfavourabl

climat

an

commitment

6as

4unfavourabl

climat

an

commitment

th

moderator

namel"

gende

an

t"#

organi$atio

wer

foun

hav

hig

correlation

al

sub-categorie

base

fixed-effec

mode

whil

th

moderator

namel"

tenur

wa

th

onl

"

on

foun

th

on

havin

moderat

correlatio

0.

an

0.25

6ohen

standard

base

random-effec

mode

!ummar" effect si$e 0.5A4 0.5<1 0.;1A 112.142

6o lle ge 0.5 =A 0.5 25 0.; 5 5A. 15 <

9i# lom a 0.4 A1 0.< =A 0.5 54 11. 1=

(asters and higher 0.5A0 0.4;; 0.;A5 20.A50

6annot tell 0.;; 0.54 4 0.AA ; 12.0 ;= Table O,,,. 1andom -effect model

! u b g r o u # * 7 7
*

6ann ot tell

445 "ears

o25 "ears

25-<5 "ears

<5-45 "ears

6limate and em#lo"ee%s commitmen t

0.5 = 0.5A; 0.;1 1;0. 0.;0; 0.5A 0.;42 12;.= 0.A4< 0.A12 0.AA5 215 0.5<1 0.51A 0.545 4 1.< 0.5;4 0.54 0.5A= =4=.< Table O,@. .ixedeffect model

0 7
*

!ummar" effect si$e

6an not tell 0.; 0.5 5A 0.= 40 1<. =<5

445 "ea rs 0.5 A 0.4 4 0.A 4; ;.= 0<

o25 "ea rs 0.; =1 0.5 1A 0.= 4; =.1 <

0.5A4 0.5<1 0.;1A 112.142 !ubgr ou# * 77* 07* K o<0

25<5 "ea rs 0.5 4= 0.4 A= 0.; 1 <=. =1=

<5-45 "ears

0.5< = 0.4; ; 0.;1 <2.5 A< 4400 0.5<5 0.525 0.545 05.

Table O@. 1andom -effect model

<0-400

0. <= 0. 0< 0. A< <.545

0.5=1 0.5;< 0.5 ;=5.< o<0 <0400

Table O@,. .ixedeffect model

!ummar" effect si$e * 7 l

"

400 and above

N 0 l
"

N K N 0.5A4 0.5<1 0.;1A 112.142

0. <0 1 0.=AA 0. =< 2.=1

0.5AA 0.512 0.;42 55.AA 2

0.5< 0.4=< 0.5 5 4<. ;<

Table O@,,. 1andom -effect model

?(-

4Tabl

OO,,8

term

confidenc

intervals

th

gende

moderato

wa

foun

l"in

th

moderat

regio

4rando

effect

whil

th

t"#

organi$atio

wa

foun

s#rea

!ubgrou# Table O@,,,. .ixedeffect model * 77* 07* K

.ull time and #art time 0.541 0.51 0.5;< 105.

.ull time 0.5 4 0.5=4 0.;04 1);A;

A)2

6ann ot tell 0.4=< 0.4;2 0.505 1 4.

!ummar" effect si$e

totall" in the high region 4fixed effect8. 1est all were found in the moderate to high region both in terms of range of correlations and s#read of confidence intervals 4both in fixed and random anal"sis8.
.T P .T 6ann

Table O,O. 1ando meffect model !ubgrou#

* 7l" N 0l" N KN

ot 9iscussion 2T tell ,n the first h"#othesis) the correlation between organi$ational commitment and 0.5A4 0.5<1 0.522 0.5 2 0.51 favourable organi$ational climate was #redicted to be #ositivel" high. The value of 0.;1A 0.402 0.5< 2 0.542 is highl" significantl" and #ositive ma+ing the first h"#othesis true. The 112.142 0.;42 0.;45 0.41 correlation between commitment and unfavourable organi$ational 12.54< organi$ational A;.15 5 climate was #redicted to 2 be negativel" high) and the result does not su##ort that. The 0.;0 value .0.<2; is moderate and not a high measure of relationshi# strength. The strength 1;.2 of relationshi# is decreased from .0.<2; to .0.4 for unfavourable relationshi# 5; (anufacturin g (ix ed 0.5A 0.55 < 0.;0 5 = .5 4 (i xe d 0. 52 A 0. 4< 0. ;2 < . == 2

!ervice

Table OO. .ixedeffect model

* 77* 07* K

0.5A4 0.5;4 0.5=< 1)A0;

0.52 0.4 2 0.54= 25=. !ervic e (anufact uring

!ummar" effect si$e

Table OO,. 1ando meffect model

* 7l" N 0l" N KN

0.5A4 0.5<1 0.;1A 112.142

0.5;A 0.51A 0.;1= A=. 5

0.;45 0.50 0.A=1 15.< ;

!ubgrou

1ang

correlatio

1ang

confidenc

interva

*ear (oderate to high 4fixed8 (oderate to high 4random8 7ength of stud" (oderate to high (oderate to high Bender Digh (oderate to high Tenure (oderate to high (oderate ?ducation bac+ground (oderate to high (oderate to high &ge (oderate to high (oderate to high T"#e of organi$ation Digh (oderate to high

(oderate to high 4fixed8 (oderate to high 4random8 (oderate to high (oderate to high (oderate to high (oderate (oderate to high (oderate to high (oderate to high (oderate to high (oderate to high (oderate to high Digh (oderate to high

Table OO,,. Kualitative summar" of moderators influence on the relationshi# 46ase 28

while it increased from 0.542 to 0.5A4 for favourable relationshi# after a##lication of meta-anal"sis #rocedures. The #ossible reasons for the moderate strength of relationshi# can be the #resence of moderators in the stud" relationshi# li+e stud" variables 3 sam#le si$e) research design) em#lo"ee%s job #arameters li+e t"#e of organi$ation 4manufacturing/service8) t"#e of job 4full time/#art time/contractual8) em#lo"ee #s"chological built u#. ,n #rimar" studies) a common a##roach to describing the im#act of a covariate is to re#ort the #ro#ortion of variance ex#lained b" that covariate. The index here in metaanal"sis is 12 4variance between grou#s8) which is defined as the ratio of

ex#lained variance to total varianceI 12 : 1 . T2 Q within T2 total

The 12 index onl" ma+es sense if we are using a random-effects model) which allows us to thin+ about ex#laining some of the between-studies variance. ,n fixed-effect model it 4between-studies variance8 is set to 0. The value of 12 ranges from 0 to 100 and in cases the values goes to above the limits on either side it is either set to 0 or to 1 as the case a##lies signif"ing either no variance or ver" high variance. ,n Table OO,,,) highest 12 is in the moderator FgenderG 46ase 1) ==. #er cent8) tenure 46ase 2) = #er cent8. The moderators that were not studied are mar+ed as na 4not a##licable8) i.e. those cases were not studied for those moderators due to data insufficienc" or the emerging calculation errors that were not resolved till the last ste# and hence cannot be inter#reted. This indicates that thea above-mentioned .inall") these stud" findings have direct bearing on moderators #ractice. /"were this able to ex#lain the majorit" of variance observed in the and can stud" have come to measurable understanding of studied the collective be considered as significant moderators. .urther) in Table OO,,,) influence of 2wor+ environments on the em#lo"ee jobthe attitudes. These the lowest 1 is in the moderator "ear of #ublication 46ase 1) ;A.4 #er include famil" friendl" organi$ational #oliciesH wor+ cent8) educational bac+ground 46ase 2) A0 #er cent8 which indicates the least causal factor of variance observed in studies.

?(-

A)

12 6ase 1 .avourable

organi$ation climate and (oderators studied 4#o0.058 *ear of #ublication T"#e of #ublication 7ength of stud" Bender Table OO,,,. Tenure of 2ro#ortion ?ducation variance in &ge moderators !am#le si$e Cor+ t"#e 5rgani$atio n t"#e organi$ation commitment

12 6ase 2 0nfavourab le organi$atio n climate and organi$atio n commitmen t 0.A= na 0.A=

0.;A4 0.A4A 0.A15

0. 5 1 0.=;; 0.= 0.A 0.A0 0.A < 0.=4 0.=4 na 0.A4= na 0.A;A famil" environmentH na friendl" and factors li+e #erceived su##ort) role conflicts) role

ambiguit") leadershi# behaviours) decision-ma+ing involvement) communication) organi$ational justice) #unishment-reward behaviour. The meta-anal"ses re#orted here are also in agreement with a large-scale integration of the organi$ational climate literature that found su##ort for a general factor across different dimensions of organi$ational commitment. 6onclusion The research re#orted in this stud" indicates that various com#onents that ma+e u# the organi$ational climate collectivel" have moderate relationshi# with em#lo"ee commitment. The unfavourable climate factor seems to influence less 4.0.<2;) # :0.058 on commitment levels as com#ared to favourable climate factors 40.542) # :0.058. This gives an insight that during low commitment levels the em#lo"ee ma" #revent it from becoming visible to the outside and hence also not visible in research studies. Though difficult to get extract the real state of em#lo"ee in research) a trend can be surel" extracted in meta-anal"tic research. Biven the #revalence of decreasing level of em#lo"ee commitment in toda"%s wor+#lace and the em#hasis being #laced on em#lo"ee retention) research that more closel" investigates relationshi#s among different t"#es of hurdles on a broader term and #latform li+e meta-anal"sis should The four moderators) namel") gender) tenure) educational bac+ground) and age were #rove worthwhile. found to be the major moderators with strength above =0 #er cent 4based on 128

im#act factor on 6ase 1. This indicates if the organi$ational climate is favourable males have higher commitment levels over female counter#art. Cith res#ect to tenure) the em#lo"ees #ossessing five to ten "ears of tenure in the same organi$ation are more li+el" to remain committed against the em#lo"ees with less than five "ears or more than ten "ears of tenure. ,f we see this relationshi# from the angle of educational bac+ground) it is not sur#rising that em#lo"ees #ossessing (aster%s degree or higher are found to be ex#ressing higher commitment levels and the commitment level decreases with reduction in t"#e of degree. 6ollege degree holders are more committed than di#loma holders which ex#lains that the more instabilit" of jobs for less-educated em#lo"ees. & revealing insight has been discovered if age is seen as the moderator for the given relationshi#. *oung em#lo"ees with age o25 "ears are found to be more lo"al and ex#ress more commitment and is almost close to the em#lo"ees more than 45

"ear

so

f age

. Th

e middl

e categor

" 25-4

5 "ear

s ar

e les

s committe

dt

o th

e organi$ation

. Cithou

t moderator

s th

e relationshi

# wa

s meta-anal"se

d an

d transforme

d int

aa

n aggregat

e figur

e bu

t wit

h moderator

si

t ma+e

s mor

e sens

et

o se

e th

e relationshi

# wit

h multi#l

e angle

s an

d thu

a succes

s fo

ra

n anal"s

t tha

t ma+e

s effort

st

o brin

g meanin

gt

o th

e decade

so

f loosel

" scattere

d researche

s afte

r carefull

" #ic+in

g wit

a commo

n variabl

e relationshi#

s an

d moderators

Tenu re * 77* 07* K

1-5 "ears .0.< . 0.<; . 0.42 215.=

5-10 "ears .0.40; .0.<; . 0.442 55.;24

410 "ears .0.<< .0.2 .0.<; 44.; < Table OO,@. 6ase 2I fixedeffect anal"sisI moderator 3 tenure

The o25 two moderators) namel") !ub 25-<5 <5-45 445tenure and age were found to be the grou "ears "ears "ears "ears major moderators with strength above =0 #er cent 4based on 128 im#act # factor on 6ase 2. 9ue to s#ace limitation , had #resented the overall age * .0.< . .0.4; . of .0.<5 . .0.<4 in Table TableOO,, but in Tables OO,@ and scenario of range correlations 77* 0.<5 . 0.42 . 0.<2< . .0.2; OO@. OO@) the results of onl" .0.4< two moderators are #resented. Tenure 07* 0.44 0.5 0.<A; 6ase 2I moderator indicates that em#lo"ees having one to five "ears or five to K 140.= 5 .= 104.= 2. ; fixed; effect ten "ears have the lowest commitment levels during unfavourable anal"sisI organi$ational climate. &ge moderator results 4Table OO@8 indicates moderator 3 age 7imitation that em#lo"ees in the age brac+et of 25-<5 "ears have the lowest

This stud" has few limitations) and this stud" results should followed be inter#reted commitment levels in unfavourable organi$ational climate b" with cautionI 418 The majorit" ofo25 stud" includes the data collected from 0! the "oungest em#lo"ees) "ears of age. em#lo"ees. Therefore) further #artici#ation-outcome research is needed from em#lo"ees wor+ing in other countries before uneEuivocal conclusions can be reached concerning the moderating 428 &ccording to 1osenthal) the file drawer #roblem ma" have effects of climate on commitment. affected the results re#orted because data collection was restricted to #ublished articles. This leads to biasness in results and ma+es the 4<8 (an" studies inauthentic the current meta-anal"sis did not re#ort the author unable to re#ort results. reliabilit" coefficientsH so it was difficult to determine how accuratel" the various adjusted correlation values interact with the meta-anal"sis #rocedures. The source of most of the data is based on em#lo"ee%s #erce#tion) which shows that the studies have s"stematicall" ignored the consideration of other #ers#ectives) such as the #erce#tions of su#ervisors and cowor+ers. The number of studies on this #ers#ective is almost negligible as com#ared to em#lo"ee%s #ers#ective.

?(-

A)

.uture research directions ,n s#ite of above limitations) the findings of this stud" have im#lications for managers in the service industr". .irst) the various dimensions of organi$ation climate factors that constitute collective organi$ation climate in this stud") namel") su#ervisor" st"le) tas+ characteristics) cowor+ers) wor+ motivation) em#lo"ee com#etence) decision ma+ing) and leadershi# reward/#unishment behaviour were distributed on two sides) i.e. favourable and unfavourable climates. This #articular division is done for the above-mentioned dimensions onl". &n" other #resence of variable that might be of interest to other researchers as a #art of organi$ation climate is not considered here and that might serve as an o##ortunit" for future research stud". This stud" measured climate #erce#tions of the em#lo"ee on commitment but the underline factors were basicall" devoid of #s"chological characteristics of em#lo"ees li+e emotional intelligence) inter#ersonal achievement motivation) career salience) identification) internali$ation) anxieties which are im#ortant for the #racticing managers. ,m#ortantl") when im#act of organi$ation climate is #erceived) these ignored characteristics seem to serve as effective control mechanisms in the organi$ation for various D1 #ractices. This anal"tical evidence would have been more useful. Dence) the #s"chological characteristics as a #otential moderator are o#en to be considered for future research. .uture research should be directed at conducting additional conseEuential job attitude variable) namel") job #erformance) em#lo"ee turnover) and job satisfaction.
1eferences &hmad) !.) !hah$ad) >.) !hams-ur-1ehman) &hmed) '. and 0llah !had) >. 420108) F,m#act of organi$ational commitment and organi$ational citi$enshi# behaviour on turnover intentions of call centre #ersonnel in 2a+istanG) ?uro#ean -ournal of !ocial !ciences) @ol. 1A 'o. 4) ##. 5=5=. &hmad) J.&. and *e+ta) J.&. 420108) F1elationshi# between #erceived organi$ational su##ort) leadershi# behaviour and job satisfactionI an em#irical stud" in ,ranG) ,ntangible 6a#ital) @ol. ; 'o. 2) ##. 1;2-A0. &shforth) /.?. and Dum#hre") 1.D. 41 <8) F?motional labor in service rolesI the influence of identit"G) The &cadem" of (anagement 1eview) @ol. 1= 'o. 1) ##. ==-115. /alogun) !.>.) 5ladi#o) !.?. and 5de+unle) !. 420108) F,nfluence of job esteem and job status on em#lo"ees of selected ban+s in 'igeriaG) &cademic 7eadershi# -ournal) @ol. = 'o. 2) ##. n.#. /haesajsanguan) !. 420108) FThe relationshi#s among organi$ational climate) job satisfaction) organi$ational commitment in the Thai telecommunication industr"G) 6onference 2roceedings of ?-leader 6onference 2010) !inga#ore. 6ohen) &. 41 28) F&ntecedents of organi$ational commitment across occu#ational grou#sI a meta-anal"sisG) -ournal of 5rgani$ational /ehaviour) @ol. 1< 'o. ;) ##. 5< -5=. 6ohen) &. 41 8) F1elationshi#s among five forms of commitmentI an em#irical assessmentG) -ournal of 5rgani$ational /ehavior) @ol. 20 'o. <) ##. 2=5-<0=. 9aven#ort) -. 420108) F7eadershi# st"le and organi$ational commitmentI the moderating effect of locus of controlG) 2roceedings of &!//! &nnual 6onference) 7as @egas) ##. 2AA-=2. Blass) B.@.) (cBaw) /. and !mith) (.7. 41 =18) (eta-&nal"sis in !ocial 1esearch) !age) /everl" Dills) 6&. Blic+) C.D. 41 =58) F6once#tuali$ing and measuring organi$ational and #s"chological climateI #itfalls in multilevel researchG) The &cadem" of (anagement 1eview) @ol. 10 'o. <) ##. ;011;.

Brawitch

(.-.

Trares

an

>ohler

-.(

4200A8

Dealth

"

wor+#lac

#ractice

an

em#lo"e

outcomes

,nternationa

-ourna

!tres

(anagement

@ol

'o

<

##

2A5-=;

Dui) 6.) 7ee) 6. and 1ousseau) 9.(. 420048) F?m#lo"ment relationshi#s in 6hinaI do wor+ers relate to the organi$ation or to the #eo#leRG) 5rgani$ation !cience) @ol. 15 'o. 2) ##. 2<2-40. Dunter) -.?. and !chmidt) ..7. 41 08) (ethods of (eta-&nal"sisI 6orrecting ?rror and /ias in 1esearch .indings) !age) 'ewbur" 2ar+) 6&. ,maran) 1.) !aeed) T.) DaE) (.&.0. and .atima) &. 420108) F5rgani$ational climate as a #redictor of innovative wor+ behaviourG) &frican -ournal of /usiness (anagement) @ol. 4 'o. 15) ##. <<<A-4<. -aramillo) ..) (ul+i) -.2. and !olomon) 2. 4200;8) FThe role of ethical climate on sales#erson%s role stress) job attitudes) turnover intention and job #erformanceG) -ournal of 2ersonal !elling P !ales (anagement) @ol. 2; 'o. <) ##. 2A1-=0. 7ichtman) 1.-. 420108) F?ffects of an organi$ation%s climate on #erformance of su##l" chain managers in (ichiganI a #erce#tion stud"G) ,nternational -ournal of Kualit" and 2roductivit" (anagement) @ol. A 'o. 1) ##. <=-4<. 7i#se") (.C. and Cilson) 9./. 420018) 2ractical (eta &nal"sisH &##lied !ocial 1esearch (ethod !eries) @ol. 4 ) !age 2ublications) 7ondon. 7iu) 6.D.) 7ee) D.C. and 6it") 6.*. 4200=8) F& #ro#osed model of ex#atriates in multinational cor#orationsG) 6ross 6ultural (anagement) @ol. 15 'o. 2) ##. 1A;-==. 7uthans) ..) (c6aul) D.!. and 9odd) '.B. 41 =58) F5rgani$ational commitmentI a com#arison of &merican) -a#anese) and >orean em#lo"eesG) The &cadem" of (anagement -ournal) @ol. 2= 'o. 1) ##. 21<-1 . (ac>en$ie) !./.) 2odsa+off) 2.(. and &hearne) (. 41 =8) F!ome #ossible antecedents and conseEuences of in-role and extra role sales#erson #erformanceG) -ournal of (ar+eting) @ol. ;2 'o. <) ##. =A- =. 2are) B. and Trembla") (. 4200A8) FThe influence of high-involvement human resources #ractices) #rocedural justice) organi$ational commitment) and citi$enshi# behaviours on information technolog" #rofessionals% turnover intentionsG) Brou# P 5rgani$ation (anagement) @ol. <2 'o. <) ##. <2;-4;. 2e#e) (. 420108) FThe im#act of extrinsic motivational dissatisfiers on em#lo"ee level of job satisfaction and commitment resulting in intent to turnoverG) -ournal of /usiness P ?conomics 1esearch 4 -/?18) @ol. = 'o. . 2ho+ha) !.) *asamorn) '. and 2ho+ha) &. 420108) F&ntecedents and conseEuences of organi$ational commitmentI the role of external locus of controlG) 6onference 9igest of ,!??6) 'a+hon#hanom. 1andall) 9.(. 41 =A8) F6ommitment and the organi$ationI the organi$ation man revisitedG) The &cadem" of (anagement 1eview) @ol. 12 'o. <) ##. 4;0-A1. !alami) 5.!. 4200=8) F9emogra#hic and #s"chological factors #redicting organi$ational commitment among industrial wor+ersG) &nthro#ologist) @ol. 10 'o. 1) ##. <1-=. !angroengrob) T. and Techachaicherdchoo) T. 420108) FThe im#act of em#lo"ee%s satisfaction) organi$ation commitment and wor+ commitment to turnover intentionI a case stud" of ,T outsourcing com#an" in ThailandG) 6onference 2roceedings of /&,2010 ,nternational 6onference on /usiness and ,nformation) /ang+o+. !hore) 7.(.) /ar+sdale) >. and !hore) T.D. 41 58) F(anagerial #erce#tions of em#lo"ee commitment to the organi$ationG) The &cadem" of (anagement -ournal) @ol. <= 'o. ;) ##. 15 <-;15. Titu) (.&. and /ucur) @. 420108) FThe anal"sis of the manager%s behaviour in the +nowledgebased organi$ations from the educational s"stemG) 2roceedings of the ,nternational (ulticonference of ?ngineers and 6om#uter !cientists 2010) 1A-1 (arch) @ol. ,,,) Dong >ong.

?(-

A)

Tseng) 7.*. 420108) F& stud" of the relationshi# among em#lo"ee #ersonalit" characteristics) organi$ational culture) leadershi# st"le) organi$ational commitment) and tas+ #erformance 3 with the high-tech industr" in Taiwan as an exam#leG) 6onference 2roceedings of /&,2010 ,nternational 6onference on /usiness and ,nformation) /ang+o+. *aghoubi) (.) 1aesi) &.1.) &fshar) (.) *armohammadian) (.D.) Dasan$adeh) &.) -avadi) (. and &nsari) (. 420108) FThe relationshi# between the learning organi$ation and organi$ational commitment among nursing managers in educational hos#itals of ,sfahan 0niversit" of (edical !ciences in 200=-0 G) ,ranian -ournal of 'ursing and (idwifer" 1esearch) @ol. 15 'o. 2) ##. A=-=2. *ucel) 1.) /ulut) 6.) !en) ?. and Berni) B.(. 420108) FThe effects of accounting and finance staffs% #erce#tions of ethical climate and cor#orate social res#onsibilit" on their job satisfaction and organi$ation commitmentG) ?-2roceedings of ;th ,nternational 6onference on /usiness) 6Sesme) 5ctober) ?conomics and (anagement) ,$mir. Jee) !.(.7.) .o+) 7.*. and Dartman) !.-. 420108) F?m#lo"ee #erce#tions of individual and organi$ational commitment to the green movement and their im#acts between male and female subjectsG) The 6oastal /usiness -ournal) @ol. 'o. 1) ##. 24-<0. .urther reading !aufi) 1.&.) /ala+rsihnan) /.>.2.9. and 2remaru#an) 2.*. 420108) FThe im#act of Eualit" of wor+ life towards em#lo"ees job involvement and affective commitmentG) 6onference 2roceedings of /&,2010 ,nternational 6onference on /usiness and ,nformation) /ang+o+. Cu) -.6.-. and Tsai) T.!.T. 420108) FThe influence of famil"-friendl" #olicies and decent wor+ measures on em#lo"ees% organi$ational commitmentG) 6onference 2roceedings of /&,2010 ,nternational 6onference on /usiness and ,nformation) /ang+o+. &##endix. 6oding (anual 9escri#tionI This document includes the ex#licit coding instructions for each of the variables extracted from the sam#le of meta-anal"ses as well as a descri#tion of each of the variables in the meta-anal"tic dataset. The first column in the dataset is the !tud" ,9. The !tud" ,9 can be used to identif" each meta-anal"sis in the sam#le b" referring to the com#lete stud" listI 1 61 3 !tud" ,d 'umberITTTTTTT

62 3 6ountr" of origin for the sam#le res#ondents in the stud" collectedI

6ategoriesI 1 :0!& 2 :?uro#e < :&sia 4 :(iddle ?ast 5 :&ustralia/'ew Jealand ; :&frica

<. 6< 3 *ear of #ublicationI 6ategoriesI 1 :1 =0- 0 2 :1 0-2000 < :2000 and above 4. 64 3 T"#e of #ublication for the meta-anal"sisI 6ategoriesI 1 :-ournal

Thesi

<

0n#ublishe

0n#ublishe

5. 65 3 6ode based on the Bender of res#ondents. 6ategoriesI 1 :(ale 2 :.emale < :6an%t tell Bender ;. 6; 3 6ode based on Tenure of the em#lo"ee 4in "ears8I 6ategoriesI 1 :1-5 "ears 2 :5-10 "ears < :(ore than 10 "ears A. 6A 3 6ode based on ?ducational /ac+ground of sam#le res#ondents 4em#lo"ees8 in the stud"I 6ategoriesI 1 :9i#loma 2 :6ollege < :(aster%s degree or higher 4 :6an%t tell

=. 6= 3 6ode based on the 2rofessional #osition held b" the sam#le res#ondents in the stud". 6ategoriesI 1 :!enior #osition 4Chite collar8 2 :7ower #osition 4blue collar8 < :(iddle management 4 :(ixed 5 :2osition 6an%t tell

. 610 3 Cor+ !tatus of !am#le res#ondents 4?m#lo"ee%s8I 6ategoriesI 1 :.ull Time em#lo"ee 2 :(ixed 4.ull time and 2art Time8 < :Cor+ !tatus 0n+nown 10. 611 3 T"#e of /usiness sector in which the research stud" is doneI 6ategoriesI 1 :!ervice !ector 2 :(anufacturing !ector < :(ixed 11. 612 3 &ge of !am#le res#ondents 4em#lo"ees8 4in "ears8I 6ategoriesI 1 :7ess than 25 "ears 2 :25-<5 "ear < :<545 "ear 4 :(ore than 45 "ears

?(-

12

61

<

!am#l

!i$

th

stud

"

collected

6ategories

To #urchase re#rints of this article #lease e-mailI re#rintsUemeraldinsight.com 5r visit our web site for further detailsI www.emeraldinsight.com/re#rints

A)2

1 :7ess than <0 2 :/etween <0-400 < :(ore than 400 1<. 614 3 !trength of ?ffect !i$e ?stimate 4correlation value FrG8I 6ategoriesI 1 :Cea+ 1elationshi# 4FrG less than 0.18 2 :(oderate 1elationshi# 4FrG between 0.1 and 0.258 < :!trong 1elationshi# 4FrG more than 0.48 6orres#onding author 'itin &rora can be contacted atI #rof.nitinaroraUgmail.com