Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: daixieit

22LLP207 Research Methods for IIE & IIM

Assignment 2: Quantitative research approaches and data analysis (50%)

Submission: 13^th June 2023 by 1500hrs

1. Introduction

Positive organizational studies focus on the relationship between positive human capacities and desirable individual level outcomes and how these may be promoted at work. Central to this body of work is the concept of psychological capital (PsyCap) shown to comprise the psychological capacities of resilience, self-efficacy, hope, and optimism.  Since its conceptualization, PsyCap has been linked to employee attitudes, behaviours and performance at different levels of analysis (Newman et al., 2014). A recent meta-analysis by Avey et al. (2011) found a sizeable number of empirical studies which yielded significant predictive validity of PsyCap in positive individual outcomes at work. It is therefore hardly surprising that PsyCap continues to attract a great many interests from academics and practitioners alike.

2. Hypotheses development

2.1 PsyCap and performance at work

Performance outcomes as the outworks of PsyCap have received considerable attention since positivity began to make inroads in organisational studies. In a study of employees in the financial services industry Avey et al. (2010b) also found a positive relationship between PsyCap and both financial and manager-rated performance. Similarly, Peterson et al. (2011) concluded that employee PsyCap was positively related to both supervisor-rated performance and their financial performance. These findings appear to be consistent across a number of cultures such as Vietnam (Nguyen & Nguyen, 2012) and China (Luthans et al., 2008a). The superior performance of individuals high in PsyCap has been attributed to them having access to broader and more impactful resources resulting from the combination of the unique and common motivational processes of each facet that enables performance (Luthans et al., 2007). As Blustein et al. (1995: 426) put it, “those work behaviours that foster the development of personal competence involve many of the same sets of dynamics that are inherent in our early strivings for mastery over our environment.”

H₁: Psycap is positively related to work performance

2.2 PsyCap and job satisfaction

In the PsyCap literature job performance and satisfaction are treated as almost two peas in a pod. Alongside job performance, satisfaction is often considered as a variable in the nomological network of PsyCap (e.g., Luthans et al., 2007). It is believed that the positive psychological states associated with PsyCap motivate individuals to exert greater effort and perform well in their job which in turn enhance their satisfaction (Newman et al., 2014). The link between PsyCap and satisfaction is indeed evident in a large number of empirical works (Avey et al., 2010b; Luthans et al., 2007).

H₂: Psycap is positively related to job satisfaction

2.3 Psycap and Innovativeness

Luthans et al. (2011) argue that PsyCap and its constituent positive resources are likely to be related to innovation. They believe that the agentic capacity, indexed in hopeful thinking for instance, offers a broader range of pathways which can be particularly relevant for innovatively developing a wider range of higher quality solutions when faced with obstacles. It has also been suggested that individuals with a strong internal locus of control (optimism) tend to see opportunities to improve their skills base and have the confidence to try new techniques (Gist et al., 1989). Extant empirical works do indeed link positive PsyCap with innovation at the individual level (e.g., Babalola, 2009; Luthans et al., 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2011) as well as with creative performance (e.g., Rego et al., 2012; Sweetman et al., 2011) in the workplace. All the evidence taken together makes for a strong case connecting autonomous reflexivity with innovative behaviour.

H₃: PsyCap is positively related to innovativeness at work.

Summary

Figure 1 below is a summary of the hypotheses discussed above.

Figure 1: Conceptual framework linking PsyCap with performance, job satisfaction and innovativeness

3. Data collection

Data for this study was collected by employing an online questionnaire. The company (Research Now) was instructed that the study sample should be representative in terms of age, gender, education level, and job type of UK working adults. In line with previous studies involving PsyCap, the aim of this type of sampling was to try and capture as inclusive a socio-demographic coverage as was reasonably possible. Potential respondents were provided a link via electronic mail to an online secure server containing embedded links. A filter was put in place to screen out respondents who had been in their current employment for less than six months. This was necessary given the nature of some of the questions, in particular those relating to performance and job satisfaction. It was felt that the study would benefit more from employees with at least 6 months of work experience in their current job. A filter was also set to screen out self-employed respondents as the survey was aimed at understanding behaviour in an organisational context. The link to the questionnaire went live on the 15 July 2014 and after almost 3 weeks the limit set for completed questionnaire was achieved. Following screening, 340 responses were retained.

3.1 Study variables

i. Psychological capital

The PsyCap (Avey et al., 2010a; Luthans et al., 2007) construct is conceptualised in the literature as a second order construct made up of 4 facets, first order constructs, constituting self-confidence (or efficacy), hope, resilience and optimism. Each of the 4 facets of the PsyCap construct is measured by 6 items in the 24 item PsyCap Questionnaire (PCQ) developed by Luthans et al. (2007), adapted from existing validated scales and meeting the inclusion criteria for PsyCap. The hope scale was adopted from the work of Snyder et al. (1996), resilience from the work of Wagnild and Young (1993), optimism from Scheier and Carver (1985), and self-confidence from the work of Parker (1998).

ii. Task performance

Task performance was operationalised by adapting the task performance scale from the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire (IWPQ). The IWPQ is contemporary having been rigorously validated by Koopmans and her colleagues in a recent cross-cultural study funded by the Netherlands’ Organisation of Scientific Research (ibid.). The questionnaire was designed as a self-rated instrument and the task performance scale is made up of 5 items anchored on a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (seldom) to 7 (always). Sample of the items included: “I was able to plan my work so that I finished on time” and “I kept in mind the work result I needed to achieve.”

iii. Job satisfaction

Andrews and Withey’s (1976) Satisfaction Scale was used to assess the respondents’ level of job satisfaction. This measure is made up of 5 items (MacDonald et al., 2014) example which included: “How do you feel about your job?” Responses to the items were recorded on a verbally anchored rating ranging from 1 (“terrible”) to 7 (“delighted”).

iv. Innovative behaviour

The Scott and Bruce’s instrument was adapted to measure innovative behaviour in this study. In measuring innovativeness, respondents were asked to provide an overall rating on the extent they agree or disagree on a scale of 1-7 with statements such as: “I search out new technologies, processes, techniques, and/or product ideas” and “I promote and champion ideas to others.”

v. Control variables

The effects of education, tenure in current position, tenure in current organization, age, and sex were controlled for. From the onset the term gender was preferred; however, some respondents pointed out the socially constructed nature of the word ‘gender’ and suggested sex as a less ambiguous term.

4. Tasks

By employing SPSS or any other statistical tool download the file assignment 2.sav from Learn (assignment 2 folder). The following assumptions about the dataset apply:

a. The data sample is normally distributed.

b. The sample contains no missing data.

Once downloaded perform the following tasks and report your findings:

1. Use the descriptive statistic function to calculate the relevant descriptive for the sample demographic variables (age, sex and tenure in current post, tenure in current organization). Provide a short description of the outputs. (10 marks)

2. Verify the internal reliability of each of the first order multi-item variable (report the mean, standard deviation and the Cronbach alpha). Provide a short commentary on the internal reliability of the variables used in the study. (20 marks)

3. Compute scale score for each of the first order multi-item variable (resilience, self-confidence, optimism, hopefulness, innovativeness, task performance and job satisfaction). (10 marks)

4. Create 7 first order variables, use the name shown in the conceptual framework to record them in the dataset. (5 marks)

5. Create the 2^nd order PsyCap variable and check its internal reliability, report the mean, standard deviation and the Cronbach alpha of the 2^nd order PsyCap variable. Provide a short commentary on the internal reliability of the PsyCap construct. (10 marks)

6. Prepare a correlation matrix to include all the study variables including the control variables. Discuss any interesting relationships. (10 marks)

7. Perform a regression analysis to test the hypotheses, report your findings in a table format. (25 marks)

8. Discuss the practical and theoretical implications of the findings. (10 marks)

5. Report Structure

It is recommended that the report is structured into four sections as follows:

I. Introduction

II. Analysis

III. Findings

IV. Discussion

V. Conclusion