Relationship Between Perceived Organizational Support And Trust With Teachers Commitment By Dr. Tang Keow gang (tang@usm.

my) School of Educational Studies Universiti Sains Malaysia 11800 Minden Penang, Malaysia The purpose of this study is to identify the relationship between perceived organizational support and trust with teachers commitment. Eventually the study also aims to identify the moderation effect of trust on the relationship between the perceived organizational supports and teachers commitment. In relation with this, a total of 418 trained teachers were selected randomly from 65 daily based secondary schools from the state of Penang as the sample of this study. The questionnaire was utilized as the method in acquiring response from the respondents. The data collected from the respondents was analyzed at school level and the testing of hypothesis was conducted using the descriptive statistic, t test, Pearson correlation and multiple regression. The findings of the study indicate that a total of 59 schools (90.8%) have moderate level of trust upon the organization. Meanwhile 53 schools (81.5%) show a median level of principals support upon the teachers. Thus, there is an existence of significant relationship between principals support with teachers organizational commitment (r = 0.756; p = 0.00) with apparent negative relation with the intention of teachers to leave (transfer) (r = -0.518; p = 0.00). The findings indicates that there is significant relationship between the perceived principals support with the teachers trust on organization (r = 0.751; p = 0.00). Moreover it was found that there is significant existence of trusts with teachers organizational commitment (r = 0.751; p = 0.00). Meanwhile negative relationship obtained with the intent to leave (r = -0.528; p = 0.00). Lastly, it was found that the organizational trust functions as moderator in the relationship between organizational support and teachers commitment but not on the teachers intention to leave. Pertaining to the findings of the study, recommendation and implication of the study for practice and research was discussed further for future study. Introduction The major challenge that faced by Malaysian Educational System is to prepare an excellent and quality educational service in order to produce potential, knowledgeable human capital (Dzulkifli Abdul Razak, 2005). If universities are to be successfully providers in this huge new global market, they will have to adopt sweeping changes in governance, leadership, and structure (Rhodes, 2001). In order to tackle this challenge, school as a most important social institution in human resource development should operate excellently because quality and excellence are generally required for educational system development.

For a school to be effective and to improve it needs to have successful reformation; the relationship or interaction between the school principal and the teachers is of great importance. One of the factors involved would be the teachers trust towards the principal. Through his/her support and communication with teachers, trust will be increased among the teachers. As according to Bryk and Schineider (2003), good schools depend heavily on cooperative endeavors. Relational trust is the connective tissue that binds individual together to advance the education and welfare of students. On the other hand, concern and care about teachers from the school principal will lead to teachers commitment to the school. Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) found that when the organization values the employees contribution and cares about their well-beings, it serves an important source of socio-emotional resources (such as respect, caring); these would increase employees felt obligation to help the organization reach its objectives. Employees affective commitment to the organization, and their expectation that improved performance would be rewarded. In schools, Blas and Blas (1997) suggested that effective school principal can also promote teachers work through supportive personnel characteristics. This study emphasized the importance of a good relationship between school principal and teachers. However, most principals do not see or understand the long-reaching effects of this relationship. There are those who feel constraint by the very nature of their work; for example the unlimited paper work and rules and regulations of the Ministry of Education. There are also those who can see and understand, but lack the skills needed to build and develop a good relationship, especially perceived school principals support and school principal-teacher communication in building teachers trust in him/her (Lim Sothea, 2005). If certain decision made perceived to be fair and supported by the organization members, therefore can cause the increment of teachers motivation, attitude, performance and commitment and at the same time reducing the teachers intention to leave. Statement of Problems The importance of school principal in school cannot be denied. School principal is not only the administrator, head, and the role model, but also the catalyst in all the happenings and relationships in school. Seeing that the Malaysian educational system is one of centralization, most school principals seem to think that their most important and only duty is to carry out instructions/directives from the ministry of education, state/district education department. While the school principals used to follow order and assume that teachers should do the same. They also mainly concern with the academic achievement of students. Most principals do not seem to see the need to allocate time to develop their relationship with the teachers. On top of that, the management of schools centralized, school principals seem to think that there is little chance for initiatives and creativity. The purpose of education is to enable the Malaysian society to have a command of knowledge, skills and values necessary in this world that is highly competitive and

global, arising from the impact of rapid development in science, technology and information (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2001). Therefore, new reforms are also taking place in the local scene and the importance of good school principal-teacher relationship should be realized and emphasized. School principal as the school leader should know how to build teachers trust in him/her. The absence of trust not only brings negative school climate, but also possible conflict to schools, and then affect to new reforms (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2000). When entering a working relationship, the school principal has to deal with teachers as individuals who carry with them a complex set of norms and expectations that guide their behavior and thinking (Zaidatol Akmaliah Lope Pihie, 2003). Rosnani Jusoh (2003) concluded that teachers are the pulse and the motivator to achieve the school aims need to be well managed and the role for this should be carried out by the principal or headmaster as personnel manager as in school in alignment with the role of personnel manager in other organizations. Therefore, school principals should realize the importance of having a good relationship with the teachers and should learn the skills needed to do so. With the increased of school principals support, the teachers trust in their principals and teachers commitment will also be enhanced greatly. Research Objectives The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between the perceived school principals support and teachers trust in school principal with teachers commitment. . In more specific terms, the aims of the study are: 1. To identify the level of teachers trust in school principal. 2. To identify the level of perceived school principals support. 3. To study the relationship between the perceived principals support with teachers commitment. 4. To study the relationship between perceived principals support with teachers trust in school principal. 5. To study the relationship between teachers trust in school principal with teachers commitment. 6. To identify moderation effect towards the relationship between perceived principals support with teachers commitment. Methodology Research Design This cross sectional study utilizing ex-post facto research methodology and co relational in nature is carried out in 65 daily based secondary schools from the state of Penang. The sample comprised of 418 trained teachers was selected randomly. The researcher used multi-stage sampling method to select the schools and respondents. Random sampling method was used to select the trained teachers from the list provided by the schools administration while convenience sampling was used to select the respondents as the researcher did not have any influence in the selection process. Cochrans (1977) sample

size formula and finite population adjustment (Lohr, 1999) was used to determine the sample size. The data collected from the respondents was analyzed at the school level. Although there are 67 daily based secondary schools from the state of Penang has chosen to become sample, but only 65 schools have returned the questionnaire. Therefore the response rate was 97 percent. A total of 469 questionnaires were distributed to achieve the 418 completely filled questionnaires, hence, the response rate was 89%. Measures The questionnaire consists of four sections were used. Section A used to collect personal background information in terms of respondents gender, age, service categories, teaching session and experience. A total of eight items in Section B was modified from the short form of Perceived Organizational Support Scale developed by Eisenberger et al., (1986) to measure perceived organizational support. The construct of organizational support consists of six sub scale namely satisfaction with teachers performance, appreciation of the teachers extra effort, teachers satisfaction on the job, teachers wellbeing, responses to the teachers possible complaint and improved performance. To measure trust, the subscale of trust to principal from the Omnibus T-Scale (Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 2003) was used for Section C. There are six sub scale under organizational trust namely vulnerability, benevolence, reliability, competence, honesty and openness. However, in this research the organizational trust considered as a whole without considering the sub scale. To determine the level of teachers trust in school principal, the Hoy and Tschannen-Morans Trust Scale computation is used. The computation involves the following steps: a. Compute the average score for every item Sum the scores of each item and divide by number of subjects. For this study, since data will be analyzed by schools, the aggregated data has already completed this step. b. Compute the standardized score Convert the scores to the standardized scores with a mean of 500 and a standard deviation of 100. Use the following formulas: Standard score for Trust in the Principal = 100(TP-4.42)/0.725+500 The range of standard scores adapted/simplified for this study is as follow: scores between 200-400 is low, 401-600 is average, and above 600 is high. To measure teachers commitment toward organization adapted from Mowday, Steers and Porters (1982) Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ). A total of 15 items in Section D used to measure teachers commitment (10 items) and teachers intention to leave (5 items). Research Findings Level of Teachers Trust in School Principal From Table 1, the figure indicates that the overall mean score of teachers trust in school principal is 473.00 median score is 466.21 and mode score is 414.98. Generally means that the level of teachers trust in school principal rated by their teachers is average only. The teachers trust in school principal score is as shown below.

Table 1: The Mean, Median, Mode and Standard Deviation of Teachers Trust in School Principal Score ( = 65) Mean Median Mode Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum 473.00 466.21 414.98 57.13 341.18 628.28

However, by adapting Hoy and Tschannen-Morans (2003) trust score, the level of teachers trust in school principal has been categorized. From Table 2 below, the figure indicates that there are 4 or 6.2% of schools which have low level of teachers trust in principal; 59 or 90.8% of schools are average, and only 2 or 3.1% of schools have high level of teachers trust in principal. It means that most of the principals have an average level of teachers trust in school principal. Table 2: Category of Teachers Trust in School Principal Level ( = 65) Category Low (200-400) Average (401-600) High (above 600) Frequency (f) 4 59 2 Percentage (%) 6.2 90.8 3.1

Level of Perceived School Principals Support From Table 3 below, the figure indicates that overall mean score of perceived school principals support is about 3.61, median score is 3.86, mode score is 3.51, and standard deviation is 0.49. Generally means that the level of perceived school principals support is average. However, according to Eisenberger et al. (1986) the support scale range from 1-5. The range of standard score for perceived school principals support is as followed: if scores is between 1.00 to 2.33 categorized as low, if scores between 2.34 to 3.66 categorized as average and if score between 3.67 to 5.00 categorized as high Table 3: The Mean, Median, Mode and Standard Deviation of Perceived School Principals Support ( = 65) Mean Median Mode Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum 3.61 3.86 3.51 0.49 2.52 4.93

From Table 4 below, the figure indicates that there are 53 or 81.5% have an average level of perceived school principals support, and 12 or 18.5% of schools have high level of perceived school principals support. It means that all the schools are at average and high level of perceived school principals support. Table 4: Category of Perceived School Principals Support Level ( = 65) Category Low Average High Frequency (f) 0 53 12 Percentage (%) 0 81.5 18.5

The Relationship between the Level of Perceived School Principals Support with Teachers Commitment Findings from Table 5 showed that there is a strong and significant relationship between perceived school principals support with teachers commitment toward organization (r=0.756; p=0.00). Besides, perceived school principals support also possess a negative but moderate relationship with teachers intention to leave (r=-0.518; p=0.00). Additionally, all sub-scales of perceived school principals support such as satisfaction with teachers performance (r=0.607; p=0.00); appreciation of the teachers extra effort (r=0.563; p=0.00); teachers satisfaction on the job (r=0.654; p=0.00); teachers wellbeing (r=0.643; p=0.00); responses to the teachers possible complaint (r=0.613; p=0.00); and improved performance (r=0.568; p=0.00) have significant and moderate relationships with teachers commitment toward organization. On the other hand, teachers intention to leave also possess negative, significant but moderate or weak relationship with the sub-scales of perceived school principals support except teachers well being such as satisfaction with teachers performance (r=-0.429; p=0.00); appreciation of the teachers extra effort (r=0.304; p=0.00); teachers satisfaction on the job (r=-0.467; p=0.00); responses to the teachers possible complaint (r=-0.569; p=0.00); and improved performance (r=0.359; p=0.00). Table 5: Correlation between Perceived School Principals Support and Teachers Commitment ( =65) Perceived Principals Support Satisfaction with teachers performance Appreciation of the teachers extra effort Teachers satisfaction on the job Teachers Commitment r p .607** .000 .563** .654** .000 .000 Teachers Intention to Leave r P - .429** .000 - .304* - .467** .014 .000

Teachers well being Responses to the teachers possible complaint Improved performance Overall

.643** .613**

.000 .000

- .148 - .569**

.241 .000

.568** .756**

.000 .000

- .359** - .518**

.003 .000

The Relationship between the Level of Perceived School Principals Support with Teachers Trust in School Principal The results from Table 6 showed that there is a strong and significant relationship between overall perceived school principals support and teachers trust in school principal (r=0.885; p=0.00). Specifically, all the sub-scale of perceived school principals support have significant relationship with teachers trust in school principal. They ranged from highest, teachers satisfaction on the job (r=0.794; p<0.01) to lowest, appreciation of the teachers extra effort (r=0.614; p<0.01). Table 6: Correlation between Perceived School Principals Support and Teachers Trust in School Principal ( =65) Teachers Trust in School Principal r P Satisfaction with teachers performance .786** .000 Appreciation of the teachers extra effort .614** .000 Teachers satisfaction on the job .794** .000 Teachers well being .643** .000 Responses to the teachers possible complaint .703** .000 Improved performance .649** .000 Overall .885** .000 The Relationship between the Teachers Trust in School Principal with Teachers Commitment The results showed that there is significant and strong relationship between teachers trust with teachers commitment toward organization (r=0.751; p=0.00). However, the relationship between teachers trust with teachers intention to leave is negative but moderate (r=-0.528; p=0.00). Table 7: Correlation between Teachers Trust in School Principal and Teachers Commitment ( =65) Teachers Commitment r p .751** .000 Teachers Intention to Leave r P - .528** .000 Perceived Principals Support

Teachers Trust in

School Principal Moderation Effect towards the Relationship between Perceived School Principals Support with Teachers Commitment Hierarchical moderated multiple regression that suggested by Cohen and Cohen (1975) has been used to study whether there is any trust factor that react as moderator in the relationship between perceived school principals support with teachers commitment. While implementing hierarchical moderated multiple regression, all the independent variables are putting into the regression equation hierarchically. At the first level, perceived school principals support variable will be the first variable to put into, followed by both variables namely perceived school principals support variable and trust variable at the second level. Finally, interaction variables namely variable support * trust at the third level. Findings showed at Table 8 and Table 9 below. Table 8 explained the moderation effect of trust factor towards the relationship between perceived principals support with teachers commitment toward organization. Table 8: Moderation Effect of Trust Factor toward Relationship between Perceived School Principals Support with Teachers Commitment ( =65) Variables 1st Level: f(Xsupport) Principal Support 2nd Level: f(Xsupport, Xcom) Principal Support Teacher Trust 3rd Level: f (Xsupport, Xcom, Xsupport, Xcom) Support*Trust *significant level p<0.05 Teachers Commitment Adjusted R2 Adjusted R2 0.564

F value

83.84*

0.589

0.025

46.84*

0.602

0.011

58.64*

The above table showed that while adding in interaction variable support * trust at the third level in the regression equation, there is a significant change in adjusted R2. The results implied that the relationship between principals support with teachers commitment have to rely on teachers trust which possess significant moderation effect. Therefore teachers trust has reacted as a moderator in the relationship between principals support with teachers commitment. This means that while teachers trust toward organization increase therefore will encourage principals support effect toward teachers commitment. Table 9 indicated the moderation effect of trust factor toward the relationship between principals support with teachers intention to leave. The results showed that by adding interaction variable support * trust at the third level in this analysis did not show any significant change in adjusted R2. Findings showed that the relationship between

principals support and teachers intention to leave did not rely on teachers trust. Therefore teachers trust variable fail to react as a moderator in relationship between principals support with teachers intention to leave. Table 9: Moderation Effect of Trust Factor toward Relationship between Perceived School Principals Support with Teachers Intention to Leave ( =65) Variables 1st Level: f(Xsupport) Principal Support 2nd Level: f(Xsupport, Xcom) Principal Support Teacher Trust 3rd Level: f (Xsupport, Xcom, Xsupport, Xcom) Support*Trust *significant level p<0.05 Teachers Commitment Adjusted R2 Adjusted R2 0.256

F value

23.06*

0.267

0.011

12.67*

0.267

0.000

12.67*

Discussion Research findings showed that majority of the schools (90.8 percent) are at moderate level of trust toward organization. There are only 3.1 percent of the schools found to be at the high level of trust. This result proofed that principals are able to build trust toward organization though at moderate level, especially through empowerment practices. Under this condition, the principals work attitude should be open, transparent and ready to share information in order to raise the teachers trust level toward organization. Findings showed that a total of 53 schools (81.5 percent) of school possess moderate support level while 12 schools (18.5 percent) are at high support level. Findings showed that teachers agree that principals support in the aspects of performance, satisfaction, extra effort and improved performance are high but not in the aspect of teachers well being. Furthermore, suggestion given by Eisenberger, Fasolo, and Davis-LaMastro (1990) was employer should show organizational support in term of praise and recognition, promotion, given empowerment to the subordinates and involve subordinates while making decision or policy but take care of subordinates welfare should not neglected. Results showed that there is strong and significant relationship between perceived principals support with teachers commitment whereas having negative relationship but moderate relationship with teachers intention to leave. This finding found to the same with longitudinal study done by LaMastro (2003) among 251 teachers in New Jersey and Eisenberger, Stinghamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, and Rhoades (2002) among 314 university staff.

Past research findings done by Polly (2002), Thompson, Raftery and Thompson (2003) and also Mentor (2004) found to be the same as this result, there is strong relationship between organizational trust with organizational support. Subordinates build trust based on their organization and employer who give support, appreciate their contribution and concern about their welfare as a token to their contribution to the organization. Relationship between organizational trust with teachers commitment found to have strong and significant however negative but moderate relationship exists with teachers intention to leave. This result supported the past findings by Eisenberger et al. (2002). Thus it explains an honest and tolerance principal toward his/her teachers feeling may encourage the teachers to work hard in order to help the school to achieve its goal. Lashchinger and Finegan (2005) [in Zawiyah Yusoff, 2006] found out that if subordinates feel that his/her leader can be trusted, will work hard. So if the decision made perceived to be fair and supported the organizational members, can caused the positive attitude, motivation, performance and commitment and at the same time can reduce the tendency of the individual to leave the organization. Regression analysis showed that teachers trust variable can react as a moderator in the relationship between principals support with teachers commitment. In other word, the increase of teachers trust toward organization, will affected principals support towards teachers commitment. However trust variable fails to react as a moderator in the relationship between principals support with teachers intention to leave. This result further strengthens the past findings done by Lester & Brower (2003) and Model Dirks & Ferrin (2001). References Blas, J. and Blas, J. (1997). The micropolitical orientation of facilitative school principals and its effects on teachers sense of empowerment. Journal of Educational Administration, 35(2), 138-164 Bryk, A.S. and Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform. Educational Leadership. 60(6), 40-44 Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques. (3rd. ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Cohen, J., and Cohen, P. (1975). Applied Multiple Regression / Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Science. Holsdale, NJ. Erlbaum. Dirks, K.T., and Ferrin, D.L. (2001). The Role of Trust in Organizational Settings Consequences. SAGE Publications, Inc. Dzulkifli Abdul Razak (2005). Revolution of Education. Minden: Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo P, and Devis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived Organizational Support and Employee Diligence, Commitment, and Innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51-59. Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I., and Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived Supervisor Support: Contributions to Perceived Organizational Support and Employee Retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565-573. Hoy, W.K. and Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). The Conceptualization and Measurement of Faculty Trust in Schools: The Omnibus T-Scale. In W.K. Hoy & C.G Miskel, Studies in Leading and Organizing School. Information Age Publishing: Greenwich, CT, 181-208.. LaMastro, V. (2003). Commitment and Perceived Organizational Support. Available: Http://nationalforum.com/tocaer10e3.html. Lester, S.W., and Brower, W.H. (2003). Not Seeing Eye to Eye: Differences in Supervisor and Subordinate Perceptions of and Attributions for Psychological Contract Breach. Journal of Organizational Commitment. 23:39-56. Lim Sothea (2005). Correlation Between Perceived School Principals Support and School Principal-Teachers Communication with Teachers Trust in School Principal. Unpublished masters project paper, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Minden. Lohr, S.L. (1999). Sampling: Design and analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press. Mentor, K.W. (2004). Organizational Commitment and the Perception of Organizational Support. Master thesis. Creative Commons License. Ministry of Education Malaysia (2001). Education in Malaysia. A journey to excellence. Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., and Steers, R.M. (1982). Employee Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover. New York: Academic Press. Polly, L.B. (2002). Effective Human Relations: Personal and Organizational Applications. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Rhoades, L., and Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714. Rhodes, F.H.T. (2001). The Creation of the Future: The Role of American University. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Rosnani Jusoh (2003). Personnel management in education. In Zaidatol Akmaliah Lope Pihie & Foo Say Fooi (Eds.), Educational Management & Leadership: One step to front. Serdang: Penerbit Universiti Putra Malaysia. Thompson, N.J., Raftery, J., and Thompson, K.E. (2003). Client Conditions of Trust, within Virtual Organizations: An Application of Butlers Condition of Trust Inventory in the UK Construction Sector. Http://mubs.mdxac.uk/Research/Discassion-Papers/Marketing. Tschannen-Moran, M., and Hoy, W.K. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70, 547593. Zaidatol Akmaliah Lope Pihie (2003). Effective educational management. In Zaidatol Akmaliah Lope Pihie & Foo Say Fooi (Eds.), Educational Management & Leadership: One step to front. Serdang: Penerbit Universiti Putra Malaysia. Zawiyah Yusoff (2006). Relationship Between Perceived Organizational Support and Trust with Teachers Commitment. Unpublished masters project paper, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Minden.