International Journal of Human Resource Management and Research (IJHRMR) ISSN 2249-6874 Vol.

3, Issue 1, Mar 2013, 27-46 TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

A STUDY ON RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCUS OF CONTROL AND JOB INVOLVEMENT

S. POONGAVANAM Assistant Professor, Department of Management studies, Ranippettai Engineering College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India

ABSTRACT
Individuals belief about the controllability of what happens to them is a core element of their understanding of how they live in the world. Those who attribute their successes to internal causes have a greater degree of achievement motivation than those who attribute their successes to external causes. Those who attribute their failure to external causes, rather than to internal causes have stronger self esteem and achievement motivation than those who attribute failure to internal causes. Job Involvement refers to the extent, to which workers identify with, and are absorbed in their present jobs. Job Involvement is a specific belief about ones present job and refers to the degree to which ones job can satisfy ones needs (Kanungo, 1982).Individuals with high Job Involvement identify more with their jobs and regard their job as highly important for their lives. This paper deals with relationship between Locus of Control and Job Involvement of bank employees.

KEYWORDS: Internals, Externals, Neither Internals Nor Externals, High Involvement, Low Involvement INTRODUCTION
Human kinds as activator of an organization or company are influenced by many factors, one of these is locus of control concept. Those who attribute their successes to internal causes have a greater degree of achievement motivation than those who attribute their successes to external causes. Those who attribute their failure to external causes, rather than to internal causes have stronger self esteem and achievement motivation than those who attribute failure to internal causes. Job Involvement is people attitude that take sides psychologically to job, and consider the job is the most important in his/her life. Job Involvement is the degree to which a person perceives his total work situation to be an important part of his life and to be central to him and his identity because of the opportunity it affords him to satisfy his important needs. As locus of control is the tendency and job involvement is highly psychological oriented, here an attempt is made to identify the relationship between the two. Three different levels of locus of control is identified among bank employees, namely, external, neither external nor internal and internal. Similarly, the job involvement of bank employees is segmented in to two as low and high. Here, the relationship between two measurement variables is evaluated in three ways. First, the relationship between level of locus of control and level of job involvement is evaluated using Cross tabulation analysis along with non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA test. Second, job involvement scores among bank employee groups with different levels of locus of control are compared using one-way ANOVA (also called F test). The above analyses are carried out sector-wise (public and private sector), work nature wise (mutual fund, insurance and banking work nature) and for combined sample. Thirdly, a unique impact of locus of control on job

28

S.Poongavanam

involvement in the presence of demographic variables is assessed using multiple regression technique for combined sample. The results of the analysis are reported in tabular form and discussed in detail in the following part. Review of Earlier Studies Kimmons & Greenhaus (1976) reported a significant difference in the job involvement (measured by the Lodahl & Kejner, 1965 scale) of internal versus external oriented individuals as measured by 23 items of the Rotter (1966) scale, t = 2.79; p < 0.05. Job involvement is related to three classes of working variables; personal characteristics, situational characteristics and work outcomes. The situational variables appear to have greater effect on the attitudes of low jobinvolved persons than on high-job involved person. Taken together, the tentative profile of the job involved person which emerges as a believer in protestant ethic, is older, has internal (Vs external) Locus of control has strong growth needs, has a stimulating job (high autonomy, variety, task identity and feedback), participates in decisions affecting him, is satisfied with the job, has a history of success, is less likely to leave the organization (Rabinowitz and hall, 1977): Rabinowitz & Hall (1977) have concluded that internality and involvement go hand in hand. Chandhuri (1975) divided 28 bank officers in to four groups in terms of this score on a locus of control measure and their evaluation of the organization in which they worked. He found external with high organizational evaluation (O.E) to have more favourable attitude to work (ATW) and low job tension as compared with internals with high O.E., the date base of this study is too meager to lead to any generalization. Moreover, the dependent measured did not strictly focus on the attitude aspect of job involvement. Reitz & Jewel (1979) investigated the relationships between job involvement (measured by a 45-item Likert-scale by Greene) and locus of control (measured by Rotters Internal-External scale) for males and females from six different countries. The results indicate that the negative correlations between locus of control and job involvement scores imply that internals score higher on job involvement than externals, significantly in the case of males across cultural settings, but only true for females from Yugoslavia. Dailey (1980) Edwards & Walters (1980) Heaven(1994) Knoop(1981);Parasuraman & Alutto(1984) Remondet & Hansson(1991)indicates a positive relationship between internal locus of control and job involvement. Batlis (1980) Noe (1988) Reddy & Rahman (1984) indicates a non-significant relationship between internal locus of control and job involvement. The relationship seems therefore to be uncertain and needs further investigation. Chebat, Jean-Charles (1986) analyses relationship between internal locus of control (LOC) and specific social attitudes--environmental activism (Huebner & Lipsey, 1981; Trigg, 1976), political activism (Carlson & Hyde, 1980), and job involvement (Dailey, 1980). Guastello Stephen, J. & Guastello Denise, D. (1986) investigated the relation between the Rotter (1966) locus of control concept and involvement in automobile accidents. 184 college students completed a survey measuring accident involvement, the Rotter scale, and scales featuring beliefs and behaviors in traffic situations that would be expected from internally oriented persons. No significant relation was found between the Rotter scale and traffic accidents. Accident involvement was best explained by internal beliefs about accident control, and the reported number of near-miss accidents per week. SmithMudrack Peter, E. (1990) uses the use of meta-analytic techniques for investigating the Machiavellianismlocus of control relationship. An awareness of the relationship of Machiavellianism with locus of control helps to place it

A Study on Relationship between Locus of Control and Job Involvement

29

into a broader theoretical framework. For example, a number of work-related variables seem associated with an internal locus of control, such as job involvement, the Protestant work ethic and achievement orientation. Anastasi (1990) referred to locus of control as a term assessing internal versus external control of reinforcement by a person. Internal locus of control refers to the perception of the individual that certain life outcomes are conditional of ones own relatively permanent or stable characteristics. Alternatively external control is seen as the perception that outcome variables are the result of external conditions out of the control of the individual. Both these forms of control could lead to positive or negative reinforcement. This kind of positive or negative reinforcement could possibly also play a role in job involvement. Furnham Adrian, Brewin Chris, R. & O'Kelly Harriet (1994) examined the relationship between work-specific cognitive style, and measures of organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and involvement. One hundred working adults completed the revised Occupational Attributional Style Questionnaire and three validated measures of work attitudes. In general, cognitive style showed few associations with demographic variables, occupational status, and salary. Internality and perception of personal control over positive outcomes were positively correlated with job commitment, involvement, and satisfaction,. Bergada Michelle, A., Faure Corrine, & Perrien Jean. (1995) developed a test to distinguish enduring (continuing) versus situational involvement with shopping and administered to a sample of 712 French adults. Four dimensions of involvement were defined: leisure, economic, social, and apathetic and two sets of variables, socio-demographics and locus of control, were tested as potential antecedent (predecessor) conditions to enduring involvement. Blau Gary (2001) show that professional commitment, job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational support were positively related to accumulated costs than limited alternatives, while externality (locus of control) and lower work ethic were more strongly related to limited alternatives than accumulated costs. Menon Sanjay, T., & Kotze Elize. (2007) in their research work female personnel reported lower levels of goal internalization, delegated responsibilities, job involvement, and organizational commitment compared to male personnel. Black African personnel reported lower levels of perceived control, competence, delegated responsibilities, and consultation by superiors while exhibiting higher levels of goal internalization and job involvement than white personnel. Objectives 1. To identify the significant relationship that exists between Locus of Control and Job Involvement of public sector bank employee and private sector bank employee. 2. To identify the significant relationship that exists between Locus of Control and Job Involvement among the category of bank employees as nature of job. Hypothesis There is no significant relationship between Locus of Control and Job Involvement. Research Methodology Survey method was adopted for the study and the study used both primary and secondary sources of data. The study covered eight banks in Vellore district, both private and public. The banks selected for the study are:

30

S.Poongavanam

Private Sector Banks HDFC Banks ICICI Banks Ltd Karur Vysya Bank Ltd Axis Bank

Public Sector Banks State Bank of India Indian Bank Canara Bank India Overseas Bank The sample respondents were selected from both private and public sector banks situated in Vellore district. Random sampling was adopted to choose the desired sample size. Employees were stratified into Officers and Managers and the respondents 260 (194 officers and 76 managers) were selected from the selected public and private sector banks. The distribution of selected sample respondents is given in the following table: Table - Sample Distribution Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 Total 1 2 3 4 Total Grand Total Name of Bank HDFC Bank ICICI Bank Ltd. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. Axis Bank State Bank India Indian Bank Canara Bank Indian Overseas Bank Sector Private Private Private Private Public Public Public Public Manager 4 2 10 3 19 10 14 8 15 47 66 Officers 17 27 15 21 80 25 38 33 18 114 194 Total 21 29 25 24 99 35 52 41 33 161 260

INSTRUMENTATION
In this study the standard tool developed by Terry Pettijohn was used to find out the Locus of Control among employees of public and private sector banks situated in Vellore district. To find the Job Involvement of bank employees a Questionnaire was developed. The questionnaire consisted of three parts. In the first part certain background data were sought in order to identify the personal and job related variables. In the second part each respondent was asked to respond to the 20 statement pertinent to locus of control, using the Likert type 5 point scoring system ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

A Study on Relationship between Locus of Control and Job Involvement

31

In the third part job involvement of employees was evaluated by using the questionnaire in which 20 statements were incorporated. Here also 5 point scoring system was used for measuring each statement. Limitations of the Study The sample is drawn from eight banks in Vellore district and generalization of result of the study to a wider population should be done with caution. The sample size is limited to 260 and certain difficulties are encountered while collecting data. The study dealt with only two variables, Locus of Control and Job Involvement. Other variables such as job satisfaction, behavioural type, self concept, organizational commitment are not considered.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

An attempt has been made to find out whether there is any relationship between the two. Human kinds as activator of an organization or company are influenced by many factors. One of these is locus of control concept. It is ensured to give contribution to quality of performance on an individual person, i.e. an initial response as basic of further responses. Job Involvement is people attitude that take sides psychologically to job, and consider the job is the most important in his/her life. As locus of control is the tendency and job involvement is highly psychological oriented, here an attempt is made to identify the relationship between the two. Three different levels of locus of control is identified among bank employees, namely, external, neither external nor internal and internal. Similarly, the job involvement of bank employees is segmented in to two as low and high. Here, the relationship between two measurement variables is evaluated in three ways. First, the relationship between level of locus of control and level of job involvement is evaluated using Cross tabulation analysis along with non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA test. Second, job involvement scores among bank employee groups with different levels of locus of control are compared using one-way ANOVA (also called F test). The above analyses are carried out sector-wise (public and private sector), work nature wise (mutual fund, insurance and banking work nature) and for combined sample. Thirdly, a unique impact of locus of control on job involvement in the presence of demographic variables is assessed using multiple regression technique for combined sample. The results of the analysis are reported in tabular form and discussed in detail in the following part of this chapter. Table 1 presents the results of cross tabulation analysis and Kruskal-Wallis (KW) test identifying the relationship between level of locus of control (LOC) and level of job Involvement (JI) of public sector bank employees. Table 1: Relationship between Level of Locus of Control and Level of Job Involvement among PUBLIC Sector Bank Employees Level of Job Involvement Total Low High 15 38 53 External (28.3) (71.7) (100.0) 8 41 49 Neither External Nor Internal (16.3) (83.7) (100.0) 19 40 59 Internal (32.2) (67.8) (100.0) 42 119 161 All Sample (26.1) (73.9) (100.0) Figures in brackets are percentages to Row total. NS Not Significant Level of LOC Kruskal Wallis Test Rank Sum H Value p Value 4198.5 4354.0 4488.5 3.68NS (2,N=161) 0.16

32

S.Poongavanam

It can be seen from table that the job involvement for 71.7 per cent of externals, 83.7 per cent of neither externals nor internals and 67.8 per cent of the internals is high. That is, more number of public sector bank employees with neither external nor internal locus of control with high involvement in there is more compared to those in other locus of control groups. In the entire sample of public sector employees, 73.9 per cent tend to show high job involvement. However, H value obtained from KW test for difference in rank sums of job involvement levels, 3.68 is insignificant. This in turn reveals that the level of job involvement is independent of the level of locus of control for public sector bank employees. Hence the hypothesis there is no significant relationship between locus of control and job involvement is accepted. Table 2: Results of One-Way ANOVA Showing the Effect of Locus of Control on Job Involvement of PUBLIC Sector Bank Employees Level of Locus of Control Externals Neither Externals Nor Internals Internals All Sample Job Involvement Standard Mean Deviation 77.92 10.43 79.31 77.88 78.33 9.43 10.23 10.02

N 53 49 59 161

Sources of Variance Between Within Total NS Not Significant

Results of One-Way ANOVA Sum of Square DF Mean Square 67.28 2 33.64 15992.28 158 101.22 16059.55 160

F Value 0.33NS

p Value 0.72

One way ANOVA is run comparing the job involvement scores of public sector bank employee group with external, neither external nor internal and internal locus of control, and the results of the analysis are shown in Table 6.2. It can be observed from table that mean job involvement score is 79.31 for public sector employee group with neither external nor internal locus of control whereas it is almost same for public sector employee groups with external (Mean = 77.92) and internal locus of control (Mean = 77.88). However, the difference in group mean job involvement scores is not at remarkable level as computed F value is very small and insignificant. That is, variance explained in job involvement of public sector bank employees by their locus of control is very meager and not at notable level. Hence, it is found that there is no impact of locus of control on job involvement of public sector banks. Hence the hypothesis there is no significant relationship between locus of control and job involvement is accepted. Table 3 presents the results of cross tabulation between three levels of locus of control and two levels of job involvement form Private sector bank employees. From the perusal of the table, it is understood that the level of high job involvement increases with increase in the level of locus of control and vice versa. The number of cases with high job involvement is 67.9 per cent among external locus of control group, 74.4 per cent among neither external nor internal LOC group and 78.6 per cent among internal LOC group. That is, number of cases with high job involvement increases with increase in the level of LOC.

A Study on Relationship between Locus of Control and Job Involvement

33

Table 3: Relationship between Level of Locus of Control and Level of Job Involvement among Private Sector Bank Employees Level of Job Involvement Low High Kruskal Wallis Test Total Rank Sum 1318.5 H Value p Value

Level of LOC External

9 19 28 (32.1) (67.9) (100.0) 0.66 11 32 43 2164.5 0.84NS Neither External Nor Internal (25.6) (74.4) (100.0) (2,N=99) 6 22 28 1467.0 Internal (21.4) (78.6) (100.0) 26 73 99 All Sample (26.3) (73.7) (100.0) Figures in brackets are percentages to Row total. NS Not Significant But the difference in the number of cases across private sector employee groups with three different level of Locus of Control is likely due to chance and not significantly statistically as H value obtained fro KW test is insignificant. So, it is concluded that there is no relationship between level of Locus of Control and level of Job Involvement of private sector bank employees. Hence the hypothesis there is no significant relationship between locus of control and job involvement is accepted. Table 4 is depicted with F-test results comparing job involvement scores across three different levels of Locus of Control to identify the impact of Locus of Control on Job Involvement of private sector banks employees. As depicted in table, the mean job involvement score is more for internals (Mean = 79.96) compared to that of those among private sector bank employee groups with external (Mean = 78.18) and neither external nor internal (Mean = 78.16) Locus of Control. Table 4: Results of One-Way ANOVA Showing the Effect of Locus of Control on Job Involvement of Private Sector Bank Employees Level of Locus of Control Externals Neither Externals Nor Internals Internals All Sample Job Involvement Standard Mean Deviation 78.18 10.29 78.16 79.96 78.68 8.37 11.73 9.89

N 28 43 28 99

Sources of Variance Between Within Total NS Not Significant

Results of One-Way ANOVA Sum of Square DF Mean Square 64.72 2 32.36 9520.93 96 99.18 9585.66 98

F value 0.33NS

p Value 0.72

It is apparent that the job involvement is almost equal between two LOC groups other than Internals. However, from small and insignificant F value, it is well apparent that job involvement is same for three LOC groups. Very small F value further indicates that LOC could explain very minimum amount of variance in Job involvement as between sum of square is much less than within sum of square. So, it is deduced that locus of control of the private sector bank employees

34

S.Poongavanam

does not have any influence on their job involvement. Hence the hypothesis there is no significant relationship between locus of control and job involvement is accepted. The relationship between level of Locus of Control and level of Job Involvement of bank managers are analyzed and the results of the analysis are presented in Table 5. Table 5: Relationship between Level of Locus of Control and Level of Job Involvement among Bank MANAGERS Level of Job Kruskal Wallis Test Involvement Total Low High Rank Sum H Value p Value 2 14 16 550.0 External (12.5) (87.5) (100.0) 2 21 23 819.5 1.85NS 0.40 Neither External Nor Internal (8.7) (91.3) (100.0) (2,N=66) 6 21 27 841.5 Internal (22.2) (77.8) (100.0) 10 56 66 All Sample (15.2) (84.8) (100.0) Figures in brackets are percentages to Row total. NS Not Significant Level of LOC An observation of the table shows that number of cases with high job involvement is more among bank manager groups with neither external nor internal Locus of Control (91.3%). Among the bank employees groups with external and internal Locus of Control, 87.5 per cent and 77.8 per cent of the respondents tend to involve highly in their job respectively. In the entire sample comprising managers of both public and private sector banks, 84.8 per cent tend to be with high Job Involvement. The H value comparing the number of low and high job involvement cases across manager groups with three levels of LOC, 1.85 is insignificant. Hence, from the entire above picture it is found that there is no relationship between level of Locus of Control and level of Job Involvement of bank managers. Hence the hypothesis there is no significant relationship between locus of control and job involvement among managers is accepted. The job involvement scores among bank manager groups with external, neither external nor internal and internal Locus of Control are compared using F test to identify the effect of Locus of Control on Job Involvement. The results of the test are reported in Table 6. Table 6: Results of One-Way ANOVA Showing the Effect of Locus of Control on Job Involvement of Bank Managers Job Involvement Standard Mean Deviation 80.19 7.61 80.87 79.33 80.08 5.93 10.82 8.52

Level of Locus of Control Externals Neither Externals Nor Internals Internals All Sample

N 16 23 27 66

Sources of Variance Between Within Total NS Not Significant

Results of One-Way ANOVA Sum of Mean DF Square Square 29.58 2 14.79 4687.05 63 74.4 4716.62 65

F Value 0.20NS

p Value 0.82

A Study on Relationship between Locus of Control and Job Involvement

35

According to table, the job involvement scores are nearly equal between bank manager groups with external (Mean = 80.19) and neither external nor internal Locus of Control (Mean = 80.87). For bank manager group with internal Locus of Control, the Job Involvement score is a bit less compared to that of other two Locus of Control groups. But this difference in Job Involvement between internals and other two Locus of Control groups is almost zero as the F value, is nearly zero (F = 0.20). Very trivial F value further reveals that Locus of Control of bank managers could not explain any of the variation in their Job involvement. Therefore, it is inferred from the entire results that there is no effect of Locus of Control on Job Involvement of bank managers. Hence the hypothesis there is no significant relationship between locus of control and job involvement among managers is accepted. Table 7 depicts the results of cross tabulation and Kruskal Wallis test results eliciting the extent of relationship between Locus of Control and Job Involvements levels for bank officers. Table 7: Relationship between Level of Locus of Control and Level of Job Involvement among Bank Officers Level of Job Involvement Kruskal Wallis Test Total Low High Rank Sum H Value p Value 22 43 65 6088.5 External (33.9) (66.2) (100.0) 17 52 69 7079.5 1.48NS 0.48 Neither External Nor Internal (24.6) (75.4) (100.0) (2,N=194) 19 41 60 5747.0 Internal (31.7) (68.3) (100.0) 58 136 194 All Sample (29.9) (70.1) (100.0) Figures in brackets are percentages to Row total. NS Not Significant Level of LOC As depicted in the table, 66.2 per cent of the externals, 75.4 per cent of neither externals nor internals and 68.3 per cent of internals among bank officers tend to be with high job involvement. It is understood that more number of bank officers with neither external nor internal is likely to be with high Job Involvement compared to that of those in other two Locus of Control groups. Among total bank officers in the sample (all sample), the job involvement cases is 70.1 per cent. From H value of 1.48, which is insignificant, it is apparent that the above difference in number of low / high job involvement cases across bank officer groups with external, neither external nor internal and internal Locus of Control has not been remarkable. This has led to the conclusion that level of Job Involvement among bank officers is independent of their Locus of Control and therefore no relationship between the two. Hence the hypothesis there is no significant relationship between locus of control and job involvement among officers is accepted. The results pertaining to significance of the difference in Job Involvement scores among bank officer groups with three Locus of Control levels are shown in Table 8. Table 8: Results of One-Way ANOVA Showing the Effect of Locus of Control on Job Involvement of Bank Officers Job Involvement Mean Standard Deviation 77.48 10.86 78.07 9.65 78.2 10.74 77.91 10.36

Level of Locus of Control Externals Neither Externals Nor Internals Internals All Sample

N 65 69 60 194

36

S.Poongavanam

Sources of Variance Between Within Total NS Not Significant

Results of One-Way ANOVA Sum of Square DF Mean Square 19.06 2 9.53 20686.45 191 108.31 20705.51 193

F Value 0.09NS

p Value 0.92

An examination of the table indicates that the job involvement score, 77.78 for bank officer group with external Locus of Control is a bit less compared to Job Involvement scores for the groups with neither external nor internal (Mean = 78.07) and internal (Mean = 78.20) Locus of Control. The difference in Job involvement scores among groups is nearly zero as F value is very trivial (0.09). That is, amount of variation explained in Job involvement by LOC for bank officers is absolutely none. So, it is deduced that the Locus of Control of bank officers does not have any impact on their Job Involvement. Hence the hypothesis there is no significant relationship between locus of control and job involvement among officers is accepted. In order to ascertain whether there is any relationship between level of Locus of Control and level of Job Involvement when type of work in the banks for employees vary, the cross tabulation analysis is carried between the two variables for each bank employees groups with mutual fund, insurance and banking as nature of work. To evaluate the effect of Locus of Control on Job Involvement, one-way ANOVA test is also applied for each group of bank employees based on work type. Table 9 is reported with the results of cross tabulation and KW test explaining the extent of relationship between level of Locus of Control and level of Job Involvement among bank employees with Mutual fund as nature of work. As reported in table, 61.5 per cent of the cases with external Locus of Control tend to show high involvement in their job which is less compared to that of those with neither external nor internal (Mean = 82.4%) and internal (Mean = 82.4%) Locus of Control among bank employee group with mutual fund nature of work. It looks as if level of job involvement is more among bank employees with non-external Locus of Control. Table 9: Relationship between Level of Locus of Control and Level of Job Involvement among Bank Employees with Mutual Fund as Work Nature Level of Job Involvement Kruskal Wallis Test Total Low High Rank Sum H Value p Value 5 8 13 266.0 External (38.5) (61.5) (100.0) 3 14 17 431.0 2.22NS 0.33 Neither External Nor Internal (17.7) (82.4) (100.0) (2,N=47) 3 14 17 431.0 Internal (17.7) (82.4) (100.0) 11 36 47 All Sample (23.4) (76.6) (100.0) Figures in brackets are percentages to Row total. NS Not Significant Level of LOC But, it is reported in the table that H value obtained from KW test is not significantly statistically, in turn revealing that the existing difference in the level of job involvement is due to chance and not at mentionable level. On the whole, from the above scenario, it is concluded that the level of Job Involvement among bank employees doing mutual fund nature of work is independent of the Locus of Control levels among them. Hence the hypothesis there is no

A Study on Relationship between Locus of Control and Job Involvement

37

significant relationship between locus of control and job involvement among employees doing mutual fund as nature of job is accepted. Table 10 is presented with the results of F test comparing the Job Involvement scores across external, neither external nor internal and internal Locus of Control groups among bank employees with mutual fund nature of work. Table 10: Results of One-Way ANOVA Showing the Effect of Locus of Control on Job Involvement of Bank Employees with Mutual Fund as Work Nature Level of Locus of Control Externals Neither Externals Nor Internals Internals All Sample N 13 17 17 47 Job Involvement Mean Standard Deviation 77.85 9.39 77.94 11.91 83.06 10.12 79.77 10.69

Results of One-Way ANOVA Sources of Variance Between Within Total NS Not Significant Sum of Square DF Mean Square F Value p Value 288.85 2 144.43 1.28NS 0.29 4965.57 5254.43 44 46 112.85

As per table, mean Job Involvement scores are nearly same between groups with external (Mean = 77.85) and neither external nor internal (Mean = 77.94) Locus of Control but it is less than that of those with internal Locus of Control (Mean = 83.06) among bank employees doing mutual fund as their work nature. The F value obtained from one-way ANOVA test for difference in group mean job involvement scores, 1.28 is insignificant. This in turn elicits the fact that the Locus of Control of bank employees involved mutual fund nature of work does not have influence on their Job Involvement. Hence the hypothesis there is no significant relationship between locus of control and job involvement among mutual fund as nature of job is accepted. Regarding the relationship between level of Locus of Control and level of Job Involvement among bank employees with insurance as work nature, Table 11 reports the results of the cross tabulation and KW test. Table 11: Relationship between Level of Locus of Control and Level of Job Involvement among Bank Employees with Insurance as Work Nature Level of Job Involvement Kruskal Wallis Test Total Low High Rank Sum H Value p Value 8 27 35 1598.5 External (22.9) (77.1) (100.0) 6 20 26 1185.0 2.53NS 0.28 Neither External Nor Internal (23.1) (76.9) (100.0) (2,N=86) 10 15 25 957.5 Internal (40.0) (60.0) (100.0) 24 62 86 All Sample (27.9) (72.1) (100.0) Figures in brackets are percentages to Row total. NS Not Significant Level of LOC As shown in table, the number of cases with high Job Involvement with internal Locus of Control is 60.0 per cent, which is less compared to those with external (Mean = 77.1%) and neither external nor internal (Mean = 76.9%) among

38

S.Poongavanam

bank employees doing insurance nature of work. In the entire sample, 72.1 per cent of the bank employees with above nature of work tend to be with high Job Involvement. The percentage values indicate that there has been decline in the level of Job Involvement with increase in the level of Locus of Control. However, from H value of 2.53, which is not

significant at required hypothetical level, it is evident that the above difference in the Job Involvement level is independent of the level of Locus of Control for bank employees involved in insurance nature of work. Hence the hypothesis there is no significant relationship between locus of control and job involvement among the employees as insurance as a nature of job is accepted. An effect of Locus of Control on Job Involvement of bank employees with insurance as nature of work is evaluated by comparing mean scores of Job Involvement across respondent groups with three different levels of Locus of Control. Table 12 presents the results of comparative analysis. Table 12: Results of One-Way ANOVA Showing the Effect of Locus of Control on Job Involvement of Bank Employees with Insurance as Work Nature Level of Locus of Control Externals Neither Externals Nor Internals Internals All Sample N 35 26 25 86 Job Involvement Standard Deviation 8.97 9.12 12.48 10.16

Mean 78.69 78.92 75.2 77.74

Results of One-Way ANOVA Sources of Variance Sum of Square DF Mean Square F Value p Value Between 228.98 2 114.49 1.11NS 0.33 Within 8553.39 83 103.05 Total 8782.37 85 NS Not Significant According to table, the mean job involvement scores, 78.69 and 78.92 for external and neither external nor internal Locus of Control groups respectively, is higher than the mean job involvement score for internal Locus of Control group (Mean = 75.20). The mean Job Involvement score for internal Locus of Control group is also less than that of entire sample, in turn indicating that the Job Involvement of internals among bank employees with insurance work nature has not been up to the extent of Job Involvement of all those employees. Hence the hypothesis there is no significant relationship between locus of control and job involvement among employees doing insurance as nature of job is accepted. However, statistically the above difference is not at mentionable level as the F values, 1.11 calculated by oneway ANOVA is insignificant. From F values of 1.11 with p-level of 0.33, it is evident that the Locus of Control could nominally explain the variation in the Job Involvement of bank employees with insurance as nature of work, though statistically not at notable level. Overall, from the above picture, it is deduced that there is no impact of Locus of Control on Job Involvement of bank employees involved in insurance nature of work. For bank employees with banking work nature, the relationship between level of Locus of Control and level of Job Involvement is evaluated and the results of the analysis in this regard are shown in Table 13. As shown in the table, number of high Job Involvement cases among externals is 66.7 per cent compared to 79.6 per cent and 73.33 per cent among neither external nor internal and internal Locus of Control groups respectively. In other words, it can be said that the number of cases with low level of Job Involvement is more among external Locus of Control group of bank employees with banking nature of work compared to that of groups with neither external nor internal and internal Locus of Control.

A Study on Relationship between Locus of Control and Job Involvement

39

Table 13: Relationship between Level of Locus of Control and Level of Job Involvement among Bank Employees with Banking as Work Nature Level of Job Involvement Low High 11 22 (33.3) (66.7) Kruskal Wallis Test Rank Sum H Value p Value 1958.0 3309.5 2860.5 1.72NS (2,N=127) 0.42

Level of LOC External Neither External Nor Internal

Total 33 (100.0)

10 (20.4) 12 Internal (26.7) 33 All Sample (26.0) Figures in brackets are percentages to Row total.

39 49 (79.6) (100.0) 33 45 (73.3) (100.0) 94 127 (74.0) (100.0) NS Not Significant

Though there seems to be some relationship between level of Locus of Control and level of Job Involvement, the above such relationship is found to be due to chance and not at remarkable level because H value, 1.72 obtained from KW test is insignificant. So, it is concluded that there is no relationship between level of Locus of Control and level of Job Involvement among bank employees involved in banking nature of work. Hence the hypothesis there is no significant relationship between locus of control and job involvement among employees doing banking as nature of job is accepted. The results of the F test eliciting the extent of difference in Job Involvement scores across group of bank employees doing banking nature of work with external, neither external nor internal and internal Locus of Control. Table 14: Results of One-Way ANOVA Showing the Effect of Locus of Control on Job Involvement of Bank Employees with Banking as Work Nature Job Involvement Mean Standard Deviation 77.36 12.11 78.98 7.74 78.71 9.38 78.46 9.55

Level of Locus of Control Externals Neither Externals Nor Internals Internals All Sample

N 33 49 45 127

Results of One-Way ANOVA Sources of Variance Sum of Square DF Mean Square F Value p Value Between 55.73 2 27.87 0.30NS 0.74 Within 11435.86 124 92.22 Total 11491.59 126 NS Not Significant An observation of the table reveals that the mean job involvement score is less for externals (Mean = 77.36) compared to the mean scores for neither externals nor internals (Mean = 78.98) and internals (Mean = 78.71) among bank employees doing banking nature of work. It is understood that the Job Involvement is very similar between two Locus of Control groups other than externals. However, F value is very trivial (insignificant), in turn exposing the fact that job involvement does not differ by difference in the level of Locus of Control. From very small F value as well as from between sum of square (which is much less than within sum of square), it is apparent that the Locus of Control could not explain any variation in the Job Involvement. Hence, it is found that there is effect of Locus of Control on Job Involvement of bank employees involved in

40

S.Poongavanam

banking nature of work. Hence the hypothesis there is no significant relationship between locus of control and job involvement among employees doing banking as nature of job is accepted. Table 15 is reported with the results of cross tabulation and KW test results identifying the relationship between level of Locus of Control and level of Job Involvement of all bank employees (combined sample of public and private sector employees). Table 15: Relationship between Level of Locus of Control and Level of Job Involvement of All Bank Employees Level of Job Involvement Low External High Kruskal Wallis Test Total Rank Sum 10204.5 H Value 2.24NS (2,N=260) p Value

Level of LOC

24 57 81 (29.6) (70.4) (100.0) 19 73 92 12664.0 Neither External Nor Internal (20.7) (79.4) (100.0) 25 62 87 11061.5 Internal (28.7) (71.3) (100.0) 68 192 260 All Sample (26.2) (73.8) (100.0) Figures in brackets are percentages to Row total. NS Not Significant

0.33

As reported in the table, 70.4 per cent, 79.4 per cent and 71.3 per cent of public and private sector bank employees with external, neither externals nor internal and internal Locus of Control tend to be highly involving in their job respectively. It is understood that more number of bank employees with neither external nor internal is likely to involve highly in their job compared to that of those in other two Locus of Control groups. In the entire sample of bank employees, the number of cases with high Job Involvement is 73.8 per cent. From H value of 2.24, which is insignificant, it is understood that the existing difference in number of low / high Job Involvement cases across bank employee groups with external, neither external nor internal and internal Locus of Control is due to chance along and not at mentionable level. This has led to the finding that there is no relationship between level of Locus of Control and level of Job Involvement among bank employees belonging to both public and private sectors. Hence the hypothesis there is no significant relationship between locus of control and job involvement is accepted. Table 16 depicts the results of F test comparing the Job Involvement scores across external, neither external nor internal and internal Locus of Control groups among employees of both public and private sector banks. An examination of the table reveals that the mean Job Involvement scores, 78.01, 78.77 and 78.55 for external, neither external nor internal and internal Locus of Control groups are very similar. This in turn indicates that the extent of Job Involvement among bank employees is not affected by the external, neither external nor internal and internal Locus of Control. The F value obtained from one-way ANOVA for the difference group mean scores is almost equal to zero. This in turn supports the fact that extent of job involves is very similar for bank employees irrespective of the level of Locus of Control among them.

A Study on Relationship between Locus of Control and Job Involvement

41

Table 16: Results of One-Way ANOVA Showing the Effect of Locus of Control on Job Involvement of All Bank Employees Level of Locus of Control Externals Neither Externals Nor Internals Internals All Sample N 81 92 87 260 Job Involvement Standard Deviation 10.32 8.92 10.71 9.95

Mean 78.01 78.77 78.55 78.46

Results of One-Way ANOVA Sources of Variance Sum of Square DF Mean Square F Value p Value Between 25.9 2 12.95 0.13NS 0.88 Within 25626.71 257 99.71 Total 25652.62 259 NS Not Significant

It is further evident from near Zero F value and also from much less between Sum of Square value that that the locus of control could not explain any variation in the Job Involvement. On the whole, from the entire above interpretation of the results, it is deduced that there is no effect of Locus of Control on Job Involvement of employees in both public and private sector banks. Hence the hypothesis there is no significant relationship between locus of control and job involvement is accepted. Correlation between Locus of Control and Job Involvement The correlation between Locus of Control and Job Involvement scores are calculated separately for each bank employee group (public, private, managers, officers, mutual fund, insurance and banking nature work) as well as for entire sample (combined sample of public and private sector bank employees) in order to find out causal relationship between the two. The results of correlation analysis are shown in Table 17. Table 17: Correlation between Locus of Control and Job Involvement Employee Group Correlation p Value Public 0.0204 0.797 Private 0.0818 0.421 Manager 0.0204 0.797 Officer 0.0818 0.421 Mutual Fund 0.1286 0.389 Insurance -0.1166 0.285 Banking 0.1175 0.188 All Sample 0.0422 0.498 None of the correlation is significant statistically NS Not Significant As shown in table, the correlation for bank employees by categories vary between -0.1166 (Insurance work nature group) and 0.1286 (Mutual fun work nature group). The correlation for entire sample is positive at 0.0422. From the observation of p-values, it is apparent that all correlation values are not significant statistically. Though there is no remarkable association between Locus of Control and Job Involvement, from sign of correlation, which is positive for all employee categories except for employee category with insurance work nature, it is understood that extent of Job Involvement tend to go up with increase in Locus of Control tendency among all bank employee groups except the group with insurance as work nature.From the correlation analysis, it becomes apparent that the association between Locus of

42

S.Poongavanam

Control and Job Involvement for all categories of bank employees is not at significant level. Hence the hypothesis there is no significant relationship between locus of control and job involvement is accepted. Multiple Regression Results for Job Involvement with Locus of Control To know the degree of unique influence of Locus of Control on Job Involvement of the bank employees in the presence of their demographic characteristics, multiple regression analysis is carried out. The results of the analysis are reported in Table 18. Table is reported with the results of three regression models, one full model with all considered explanatory variables and two subset models after eliminating least significant variables through stepwise process. It can be seen that the full regression model with all selected independent variables (variables pertaining to general characteristics in addition to locus of control tendency of bank employees) is not fitted significantly. The explanatory variables in the full model together could explain just 4.51 per cent of the variation before adjusting for degrees of freedom (R2 = 0.0451). The explained variation in the dependent after adjusting for degrees of freedom is near to zero (Adjusted R2 = 0.0027). In order to get the model of best fit, the first subset model after dropping out the explanatory variables with least significant coefficients, namely Dependent, Experience with present position, Experience in bank and Work nature, is run with the help of stepwise method. fitted significantly. Table 18: Multiple Regression Results for Job Involvement with Locus of Control Subset Model Independent Variables Full Model 1 2 89.0198*** 88.6557*** 90.7966*** Constant (12.70) (13.69) (15.97) -0.4683 -0.5043 -0.4541 Age -(0.67) -(0.78) -(0.70) -2.5193* -2.5686* -2.4782* Sex -(1.77) -(1.83) -(1.78) 1.0142 1.0058 1.1560 Marital Status (0.69) (0.71) (0.82) -1.2713 -1.2799 -1.2690 Education -(1.52) -(1.54) -(1.53) -3.2423* -3.2291* -3.3019* Designation -(1.84) -(1.86) -(1.90) -0.0678 Dependent -(0.07) -0.9378 -0.9493 -0.9729 Income -(0.91) -(0.93) -(0.96) -0.1922 Experience in Present Position -(0.20) 0.1237 Experience in Bank (0.14) -0.1823 Work Nature -(0.22) 0.0343 0.0338 Locus of Control (0.70) (0.69) R2 0.0451 0.0447 0.0429 Adjusted R2 0.0027 0.0182 0.0202 F value 1.06NS 1.68NS 1.89* Degrees of Freedom 11, 248 7, 252 6, 253 None of the correlation is significant statistically *Significant at 10% level; ***Significant at 1% level Though there has been little improvement in the value of adjusted R2, this model is also not

A Study on Relationship between Locus of Control and Job Involvement

43

The stepwise method is used again to identify the model with significant F value and improvement in the adjusted R value. But this time, the stepwise process dropped the variable of importance, locus of control. However, without Locus of Control, the second subset model, with only personal variables, is fitted significantly at 10 per cent level. As the coefficient of Locus of Control is insignificant in both full and first subset models, and it is dropped in the second subset model, it is concluded that there is no unique impact of Locus of Control on Job Involvement also. Hence the hypothesis there is no significant relationship between locus of control and job Involvement is accepted.
2

CONCLUSIONS
From the entire inferences of results it is concluded that there is no relationship between level of Locus of Control and level of Job Involvement for employee groups belong to public sector, private sector and all sector banks. It is also identified that there is no relationship between two factors in respect of employee categories based on designation and nature of work. It is also concluded that the Locus of Control among bank employees of all selected categories (by sector, designation and nature of work) does not have any impact on Job Involvement. It is finally elicited from the interpretation of the correlation and regression analysis that there is no causal relationship between two factors and Locus of Control does not have unique influence on Job Involvement.

REFERENCES
1. Riipinen Markku. (1997). The relationship between job involvement and well-being. Journal of Psychology, Vol. 131 Issue 1,p81. 2. Reeve Charlie, L., & Smith Carlla, S. (2001). Refining Lodahl and Kejner's Job Involvement Scale With a Convergent Evidence Approach: Applying Multiple Methods to Multiple Samples.: Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 4 Issue 2,p11-20. 3. Ramsey Rosemary, Lassk Felicia, G., & Marshall Greg, W. (1995). A Critical Evaluation of a Measure of Job Involvement: The Use of the Lodahl and Kejner (1965) Scale with Salespeople. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 15 Issue 3, p65-74. 4. Paullay Irma M., Alliger George M., & Stone-Romero Eugene, F. (1994). Construct Validation of Two Instruments Designed to Measure Job Involvement and Work Centrality. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 Issue 2, p224-228. 5. Ooi Keng Boon, Arumugam Veeri, Safa Mohammad Samaun, & Bakar Nooh Abu. (2007). HRM and TQM: association with job involvement. Personnel Review, Vol. 36 Issue 6, p939-962. 6. Nouri Hossein. (1994). Accounting ,using organizational commitment and job involvement to predict budgetary slack a research note., organizations & society, Vol. 19 issue 3,p289-295. 7. Mudrack Peter, E. (1989). Job Involvement and Machiavellianism: Obsession-Compulsion or Detachment? Journal of Psychology, Vol. 123 Issue 5, p491. 8. Morrow Paula, C., & McElroy James, C. (1986). On assessing measures of work commitment, Journal of Occupational Behavior, Vol. 7 Issue 2, p139-145. 9. Misra Sasi, Kanungo Rabindra, N., Von Rosenstiel Lutz, & Stuhler Elmar, A. (1985). The Motivational Formulation of Job and Work Involvement: A Cross-National Study. Human Relations, Vol. 38 Issue 6, p501-518.

44

S.Poongavanam

10. Mathieu John, E., Farr James, L. (1991). Further Evidence for the Discriminant Validity of Measures of Organizational Commitment, Job Involvement, and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 Issue 1, p127-133. 11. Lambert Susan, J. (1991). The combined effects of job and family characteristics on the job satisfaction, job involvement, and intrinsic motivation of men and women workers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12 Issue 4, p341-363. 12. Knoop Robert. (1995).Relationships among job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment for nurses. Journal of Psychology, Vol. 129 Issue 6, p643. 13. Kirby Susan, L., & Richard Orlando, C. (2000). Impact of Marketing Work-Place Diversity on Employee Job Involvement and Organizational Commitment... Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 140 Issue 3, p367-377. 14. Innes, J. M., Clarke Adrienne. (1985). Job involvement as a moderator variable in the life events stress-illness relationship. Journal of Occupational Behavior, Vol. 6 Issue 4, p299-303. 15. Dimitriades Zoe, S. (2007). The influence of service climate and job involvement on customer- oriented organizational citizenship behavior in Greek service organizations: a survey.: Employee Relations, Vol. 29 Issue 5, p469-491. 16. Carmeli Abraham, (2005). Exploring determinants of job involvement: an empirical test among senior executives. International Journal of Manpower, 2005, Vol. 26 Issue 5, p457-472. 17. Blau Gary, J., Boal Kimberly, B. (1987). Conceptualizing How Job Involvement and Organizational Commitment Affect Turnover and Absenteeism. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12 Issue 2, p288300. 18. Dubios Nicole. (1985). The Dimensionality of Locus of Control Among French Students. Journal of Psychology, Vol. 119 Issue 6, p549. 19. Lao Rosina, C., & Bolen Larry. (1984). Attributions and emotions as functions of locus of control, task, and feedback. Journal of social psychology, vol. 122 issue 2, p285. 20. Dimitrovsky Lilly, & Schapira-Beck Ester. (1994). Locus of control of Israeli women during the transition to marriage. Journal of Psychology, Vol. 128 Issue 5, p537. 21. Abel Bruce, J., Hayslip Jr. Bert.,(1986). Locus of Control and Attitudes Toward Work and Retirement. Journal of Psychology, 120 (5), p479. 22. Agrawal Rita, Kaur Jasbir, (1985). Anxiety and Adjustment Levels Among the Visually and Hearing Impaired and Their Relationship to Locus of Control, Cognitive, Social, and Biographical Variables. Journal of Psychology, 119(3), p265. 23. Beckham Crystal, M., Spray Beverly, J., Pietz Christina, A. (2007). Jurors' Locus of Control and Defendants' Attractiveness in Death Penalty Sentencing. Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 147 Issue 3, p285-298. 24. Boone Christophe, De Brabander Bert. (1993). Generalized Vs.Specific Locus of Control expectancies of chielf executive officers. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14 Issue 8, p619-625.

A Study on Relationship between Locus of Control and Job Involvement

45

25. Bradley Graham, L., Sparks Beverley, A. (2002). Service Locus of Control: Its Conceptualization and Measurement. Journal of Service Research, Vol. 4 Issue 4, p312. 26. Butcher Elizabeth, & Hebert David, J. (1985). Locus of Control Similarity and Counselor Effectiveness: A Matched Case Study. Journal of Counseling & Development, Vol. 64 Issue 2, p103. 27. Chebat Jean-Charles. (1986). Social Responsibility, Locus of Control, and Social Class.. Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 126 Issue 4, p559. 28. Chebat Jean-Charles, Zuccaro Cataldo, & Filiatrault Pierre. (1992). Locus of Control as a Moderator Variable for the Attribution and Learning Processes of Marketing Managers. Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 132 Issue 5, p597-608. 29. Dimitrovsky Lilly, & Schapira-Beck Ester. (1994). Locus of control of Israeli women during the transition to marriage. Journal of Psychology, Vol. 128 Issue 5, p537. 30. Galejs Irma, & Pease Damaris. (1986). Parenting Beliefs and Locus of Control Orientation. Journal of Psychology, Vol. 120 Issue 5, p501. 31. Johnson Avis, L., Luthans Fred, & Hennessey Harry, W. (1984). The role of locus of control in leader influence behavior. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 37 Issue 1, p61-75. 32. Lester David, Castromayor Iris, J., & Ili Tlin. (1991). Locus of Control, Depression, and Suicidal Ideation Among American, Philippine, and Turkish Students. Journal of Social Psychology, Jun91, Vol. 131 Issue 3, p447-449. 33. Lian-Hwang Chiu. (1988). Locus of Control Differences Between American and Chinese Adolescents. Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 128 Issue 3, p411. 34. Magwaza, A. S., & Bhana, K. (1991). Stress, Locus of Control, and Psychological Status in Black South African Migrants. Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 131 Issue 2, p157-164. 35. Nwachukwu Osita, C. (1995). CEO locus of control, strategic planning, differentiation, and small business performance: A test... Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 11 Issue 4, p9. 36. Srinivasan Narasimhan, & Tikoo Surinder. (1992) Effect of locus of control on information search behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 19 Issue 1, p498. 37. Ward Edward, A. (1992). Locus of Control of Small Business Managers. Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 132 Issue 5, p687-689.s