The Relationship between Teachers’ Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction and Whistleblowing
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Conceptual Framework
2.1. Organizational Commitment
2.2. Job Satisfaction
- Hackman and Oldman [19] defined job satisfaction as feeling glad about the job done.
- Job satisfaction is one of the most important factors for the productivity and activity of business organizations. The rationale behind job satisfaction is the happiness of a satisfied employee; a happy employee is a successful employee [20].
- Job satisfaction is the financial gain and happiness in which the employee produces an output together with his colleagues with whom s/he likes working [21].
- Job satisfaction is a condition related with the level of meeting the expectations of attitudes towards various aspects of work and the outputs gained [22].
- Job satisfaction is the feeling of contentment as a result of positive attitudes towards factors such as business and social environment, wages, working conditions, opportunities of improvement [23].
- Job satisfaction is the total satisfaction of a job with all its aspects [24].
- The fact that job satisfaction is related to conditions such as commitment to the job and organization, alienation to the job, performance, being punctual and leaving work on time, highlights the importance of this concept for organizations [25].
2.3. Whistleblowing
2.4. The Correlation between Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction and Whistleblowing
- According to teachers’ perception, what is the realization level of organizational commitment, job satisfaction and whistleblowing behaviours?
- According to teachers’ perception, what is the level of correlation between organizational commitment, job satisfaction and whistle blowing?
- According to teachers’ perception, do the behaviours of organizational commitment, job satisfaction and whistleblowing behaviours have a significant difference according to
- 3.1.
- Gender,
- 3.2.
- Age,
- 3.3.
- Seniority,
- 3.4.
- Marital Status,
- 3.5.
- Educational Status,
- 3.6.
- Training Level,
- 3.7.
- Branch?
3. Method
3.1. Research Model
3.2. Universe and Sample
3.3. Data Collection Tools
3.4. Collection and Analysis of Data
3.5. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
6. Recommendations
- Present managers should be able to analyze the expectations of employees very well and make an effort to help them feel emotional organizational commitment rather than normative and continuity commitment.
- Managers should develop some practices that would increase emotional commitment.
- Managers should give the employees autonomy and responsibility in their jobs.
- Managers should increase job satisfaction and organizational commitment using some incentive rewards such as salaries, bonuses and premiums.
- Managers should give feedback and performance assessments regularly, on time and impartially.
- Managers should perform some motivating activities.
- The effect of psychological and structural factors should be evaluated in whistleblowing.
- Managers should always keep communication channels open with their stakeholders.
- In order to gain awareness about ethical values in the organization, all the employees should be provided with an effective training.
- Taking whistleblowing rate in our country into account, this behaviour should be encouraged in organizations by making it perceived as a positive behaviour and making it work in the organizations.
- Whistleblowing behaviour should be transformed into an internal auditing mechanism; misbehaviours could be settled before making it known externally.
- The relationship between organizational commitment, job satisfaction and whistleblowing should light the way for sustainability and the relationship between education and management.
- The relationship between organizational commitment, job satisfaction and whistleblowing should ensure organizational aims are reached and resources effectively used and play an effective role in carrying out the economical process of life-long learning in the institution and in detecting and solving the problems in the institution for the sustainability of the organization.
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Erdoğan, D. Resmi İlköğretim Okullarındaki Sınıf Öğretmenlerinin Örgütsel Bağlılık Düzeylerinin İncelenmesine Yönelik Bir Araştırma. Master’s Thesis, Beykent Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Turkey, 2009. in press (In Turkish). [Google Scholar]
- Mirels, J.E.; Garrett, D.M. A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates and consequences of organizational commitment. Physcological Bull. 1976, 108, 171–194. [Google Scholar]
- Greenhaus, M.W.; Simon, P.E. Principals and job satisfaction. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 1977, 12, 196–202. [Google Scholar]
- Lodahl, R.; Kejner, E.R. Age, education, job tenure, salary, job characteristics, and job satisfaction: A multivariate analysis. Hum. Relat. 1965, 38, 781–791. [Google Scholar]
- Dubin, A. Antecedents of organizational commitment across occupational groups: A Meta-Analysis. J. Organ. Behav. 1956, 13, 539–554. [Google Scholar]
- Mowday, R.; Steers, R.; Porter, L. The measurement of organizational commitment. J. Vocat. Behav. 1979, 12, 224–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porter, L.; Steers, R.; Mowday, R.; Boulian, P. Organizational commitment, job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians. J. Appl. Psychol. 1974, 13, 603–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morrow, D.J. Occupational commitment, education, and experience as a predictor of ıntent to leave the nursing profession. Nurs. Econ. 2006, 24, 86–90. [Google Scholar]
- Salancik, G.R. Commitment and The Control of Organization Behaviorand Belief, New Directions in Organization Behavior; İllionis St. Clair Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1977; pp. 1–54. [Google Scholar]
- Wiener, Y. Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1982, 7, 418–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheldon, C.R. Information, cognitive biases and commitment to a course of action. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1986, 11, 300–310. [Google Scholar]
- Mathieu, J.E.; ve Hamel, D. A Cause Model of the Antecedents of Organizational Commitment among Professionals and Non-Professionals. J. Vocat. Behav. 1989, 34, 299–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, J.P.; Allen, N. Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application; Sage Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1997; pp. 5–8. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, A. Multiple Commitments in the Workplace; Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2003; pp. 12–15. [Google Scholar]
- Meyer, J.P.; Allen, N.; Smith, C. Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. J. Appl. Psychol. 1993, 8, 538–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suma, S.; Lesha, J. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment: The case of shkodra municipality. Eur. Sci. J. 2013, 9, 41–51. [Google Scholar]
- Hackett, R.D.; Bycio, P.; Hausadorf, P. Further assessment of Meyer and Allen’s 1991 three components model of organizational commitment. J. Appl. Psychol. 1994, 17, 340–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, A. On the discriminant validity of the Meyer and Allen measure of organizational commitment: How does ıt fit with the work commitment construct. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1996, 56, 494–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hackman, J.; Oldham, G. Development of the job diagnostic survey. J. Appl. Psychol. 1975, 60, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aziri, B. Job satisfaction: A litarature review. Manag. Res. Pract. 2011, 3, 77–86. [Google Scholar]
- Şimşek, M.Ş.; Akgemci, T.; Çelik, A. Davranış Bilimlerine Giriş ve Örgütlerde Davranış; Adım Matbaacılık: Konya, Turkey, 2003; pp. 18–22. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
- Eren, E. Örgütsel Davranış ve Yönetim Psikolojisi; Beta Yayınları: Istanbul, Turkey, 2014; pp. 18–22. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
- Çetin, F.; Basım, N. Psikolojik dayanıklılığın iş tatmini ve örgütsel bağlılık tutumlarındaki rolü. İş Güç Endüstri İlişkileri Ve İnsan Kaynakları Derg. 2011, 13, 79–94. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
- Kabir, Y.K. Eğitim Yönetimi: Kuram Ve Türkiye’deki Uygulama; Bilim Yayınları: Ankara, Turkey, 2011; pp. 33–38. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
- Eryılmaz, C. Bir iş doyumu ölçümü olarak iş betimlemesi ölçeği geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikol. Derg. 2017, 12, 25–55. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
- Telman, N.; Ünsal, P. Çalışan Memnuniyeti; Epsilon Yayıncılık: İstanbul, Turkey, 2004; p. 55. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
- Güven, S.; Bakan, D.; Yeşil, H. İlköğretim okulu öğretmenlerinin iş tatmini ile örgütsel bağlılığı arasındaki ilişki. Uşak Üniversitesi Sos. Bilimler Derg. 2005, 3, 74–89. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
- Çetin, B. İlköğretim Okulu Öğretmenlerinin Performansları Ve İş Doyum Düzeyleri. Master’s Thesis, Yeditepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul, Turkey, 1999. (In Turkish). [Google Scholar]
- Şimşek, M.; Çelik, A.; Akgemci, T. Davranış Bilimlerine Giriş ve Örgütlerde Davranış; Eğitim: Konya, Turkey, 2016; pp. 22–26. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
- Başaran, İ. Örgütsel Davranış İnsansın Üretim Gücü; Siyasal Basın: Ankara, Turkey, 2008; pp. 56–57. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
- Samadov, S. İş Doyumu Ve Örgütsel Bağlılık: Özel Sektörde Bir Uygulama. Master’s Thesis, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İzmir, Turkey, 2006. (In Turkish). [Google Scholar]
- Barnett, T. A Preliminary investigation of the relationship between organizational characteristics and external whistle-blowing by employees. J. Bus. Ethics 1992, 11, 949–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Callahan, E.S.; Collins, J.W. Employee attitudes toward whistleblowing: Management and public policy implications. J. Bus. Ethics 1992, 11, 939–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Near, J.; Miceli, M. Organization dissidance the case of whistle blowing. J. Bus. Ethics 1985, 4, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miceli, M.P.; Near, J.P.; Schwenk, C.R. Who blows the whistle and Why? Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 1991, 45, 113–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miceli, M.P.; Near, J.P. Relationships among Value Congruence, Perceived Victimization, and Retaliation against Whistleblowers: The Case of Internal Auditors’. J. Manag. 1994, 20, 773–794. [Google Scholar]
- Miceli, M.P.; Rehg, M.; Near, J.P.; Ryan, K.C. Can laws protect whistle-blowers? Results of a naturally occurring field experiment. Work Occup. 1999, 26, 129–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keenan, J. Comparing Indian and American managers on whistleblowing. Empl. Responsib. Rights J. 2002, 14, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Near, J.P.; Rehg, M.T.; Scotter, J.R.V.; Miceli, M.P. Does type of wrongdoing affect the whistleblowing process? Bus. Ethics Q. 2004, 14, 219–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Groeneweg, S. Three Whistleblower Protection Models: A Comparative Analysis of Whistleblower Legislation in Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom; Public Service Commision of Canada: Halifax, NS, Canada, 2001; pp. 33–36. [Google Scholar]
- Vinten, G. Whistleblowing in the Health-Related Professions. Indian J. Med. Ethics 1996, 4, 108–111. Available online: http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org (accessed on 1 January 2011).
- Robinson, S.; Bennett, R. A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Acad. Manag. J. 1995, 38, 555–572. [Google Scholar]
- Miceli, M.P.; Near, J.P. Standing up or standing by: What predicts blowing the whistle on organizational wrongdoing? Res. Pers. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2005, 24, 95–136. [Google Scholar]
- Greene, A.D.; Latting, J.K. Whistleblowing as form of advocacy: Guidelines for the practitioner and organization. Soc. Work. 2004, 49, 219–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, J.; Chiu, R.; Wei, L. Decision-making process of internal whistleblowing behavior in China: Empirical evidence and implications. J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 88, 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nayir, D.; Herzig, H. Value orientations as determinants of preference for external and anonymous whistleblowing. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 107, 197–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verschoor, C. Is this the age of whistleblowers? Strateg. Financ. 2005, 86, 17–18. [Google Scholar]
- Dozier, J.B.; Miceli, M.P. Potential predictors of whistle-blowing: A prosocial behavior perspective. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1985, 10, 823–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miceli, M.P.; Scotter, J.R.V.; Near, J.P.; Rehg, M.T. Individual Differences and Whistle-blowing. 2001. Available online: https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/apbpp.2001.6133834 (accessed on 5 August 2019).
- Park, H.; Blenkinsopp, J.; Oktem, M.K.; Omurgonulsen, U. Cultural orientation and attitudes toward different forms of whistleblowing: A comparison of South Korea, Turkey, and the U.K. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 82, 929–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Currivan, D. The causal order f job satisfaction and organizational commıtment in models of employee turnover. Hum. Resour. Manag. 1999, 9, 495–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mueller, C.; Wallace, J.; Price, J. Employee commitment resolving some issues. Work Occup. 1992, 19, 211–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karasar, N. Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi; Nobel Yayınevi: Ankara, Turkey, 2014; pp. 32–36. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
- Çokluk, Ö.; Şekercioğlu, G.; Büyüköztürk, Ş. Sosyal Bilimler İçin Çok Değişkenli İstatistik, SPSS ve LISREL Uygulamaları; Pegem: Ankara, Turkey, 2012; pp. 15–16. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
- Büyüköztürk, Ş.; Çakmak, E.K.; Akgün, Ö.E.; Karadeniz, Ş.; Demirel, F. Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri; Pegem: Ankara, Turkey, 2011; p. 25. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
- Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford publications: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 38–42. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
- Sümer, Ü. İşgörenlerin örgütsel bağlılıklarının meyer ve allen tipolojisiyle analizi: Kamu ve özel sektörde karşılaştırmalı bir araştırma. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sos. Bilimler Derg. 2007, 7, 224–247. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
- Gökçe, A. Okullarda bilgi uçurma: Iş doyumu ve örgütsel bağlılık ilişkisi. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Derg. 2014, 22, 261–282. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
- Near, J.P.; Miceli, M.P. Effective Whistle-blowing. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 679–708. [Google Scholar]
- Celep, C. Eğitimde Örgütsel Adanma ve Öğretmenler; Anı Yayıncılık: Ankara, Turkey, 2000; p. 15. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
- Erdaş, Y. Denizli İl Merkezinde Çalışan İlköğretim Öğretmenlerinin Örgütsel Bağlılık Düzeyleri. Master’s Thesis, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Denizli, Turkey, 2009. in press (In Turkish). [Google Scholar]
- Poyraz, K.; Kama, B. Algılanan iş güvencesinin, iş tatmini, örgütsel bağlılık ve işten ayrılma niyeti üzerindeki etkilerinin incelenmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Derg. 2008, 13, 143–164. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
- Sharma, J.P.; Bajpai, N. Organizational commitment and ıts ımpact on job satisfaction of employees: A comperative study in public and private sector in India. Int. Bull. Bus. Adm. 2010, 9, 7–19. [Google Scholar]
- Mahmudoğlu, A. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Merkez Örgütünde İş Doyumu ve Örgütsel Bağlılık. Ph.D. Thesis, Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Bolu, Turkey, 2007. in press (In Turkish). [Google Scholar]
Variable | Category | n | % |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 128 | 21.3 |
Female | 473 | 78.7 | |
Total | 601 | 100 | |
Age | 21–30 | 12 | 2 |
31–40 | 114 | 19 | |
41–50 | 277 | 46.1 | |
51+ | 198 | 32.9 | |
Total | 601 | 100 | |
Seniority (working years) | 1–10 | 33 | 5.5 |
11–20 | 148 | 24.6 | |
21–30 | 318 | 52.9 | |
31+ | 102 | 17 | |
Total | 601 | 100 | |
Marital status | Married | 499 | 83 |
Single | 59 | 9.8 | |
Widow/divorced | 43 | 7.2 | |
Total | 601 | 100 | |
Educational Status | Associate degree (2–3 years) | 46 | 7.7 |
Undergraduate | 485 | 80.7 | |
Graduate | 62 | 10.3 | |
Doctorate | 8 | 1.3 | |
Total | 601 | 100 | |
Training level | Primary | 184 | 30.6 |
Secondary | 417 | 69.4 | |
Total | 601 | 100 | |
Branch | Primary School Teacher | 184 | 30.6 |
Science and Maths | 128 | 21.3 | |
Social Sciences | 191 | 31.8 | |
Fine Arts-Physical Education | 98 | 16.3 | |
Total | 601 | 100 |
Factor/Matter | n | S | |
---|---|---|---|
Emotional Commitment | 3.14 | 0.55 | |
1. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my professional life in this organization. | 601 | 3.82 | 1.10 |
2. I don’t feel emotionally attached to this organization. | 601 | 3.51 | 1.33 |
3. I really feel the problems of this organization as my problems. | 601 | 3.86 | 1.00 |
4. I don’t feel like a part of the family in my organization. | 601 | 3.48 | 1.31 |
5. This organization has a special meaning to me. | 601 | 3.68 | 1.09 |
6. I don’t have a strong sense of belonging towards my organization. | 601 | 3.54 | 1.30 |
Commitment to Continuity | 3.31 | 0.67 | |
7. I don’t feel obliged to continue working with my current employer. | 601 | 3.61 | 1.23 |
8. Even if it is advantageous for me, I don’t feel it is right to leave right now. | 601 | 3.61 | 1.16 |
9. I would feel guilty if I leave my organization now. | 601 | 3.15 | 1.33 |
10. This organization deserves my loyalty. | 601 | 3.73 | 1.07 |
11. I don’t intend to leave my organization right now since I feel obliged to people here. | 601 | 3.70 | 1.10 |
12. I owe a lot to my organization. | 601 | 3.28 | 1.17 |
Normative Commitment | 2.79 | 0.90 | |
13. I have to stay in my organization although I do not want to. | 601 | 2.66 | 1.33 |
14. It’s hard to leave my organization right now even if I want to. | 601 | 3.08 | 1.30 |
15. If I decide to leave my organization right now, most of my life will be upside down. | 601 | 2.72 | 1.31 |
16. I think I have few options to consider leaving this organization. | 601 | 2.75 | 1.26 |
17. One of the few negative consequences of leaving this organization would be lack of alternative. | 601 | 2.72 | 1.18 |
18. If I hadn’t given myself that much into this organization, I might have considered working somewhere else. | 601 | 2.81 | 1.20 |
General | 3.08 | 0.50 |
Factor/Matter | n | S | |
---|---|---|---|
1. My job is like a hobby to me. | 601 | 3.27 | 1.43 |
2. I think I’m happier than most of the people in my organization. | 601 | 3.88 | 1.08 |
3. I think that my current job is more interesting than any other job I can find. | 601 | 3.62 | 1.22 |
4. I enjoy my job a lot. | 601 | 4.01 | 1.03 |
5. My job satisfies me in general. | 601 | 3.86 | 1.08 |
General | 3.73 | 0.92 |
Factor / Matter | n | S | |
---|---|---|---|
Inside Whistleblowing | 3.29 | 0.94 | |
1. I report this event directly to the manager I work with. | 601 | 3.30 | 1.23 |
2. I report directly to senior management. | 601 | 2.94 | 1.23 |
3. I report directly to the other senior executives. | 601 | 2.98 | 1.21 |
4. I report directly to whom they want us to communicate verbally. | 601 | 3.57 | 1.16 |
5. I act according to the procedures we use in the organization. (record keeping, petitioning etc.) | 601 | 3.67 | 1.13 |
Supportive Whistleblowing | 3.33 | 0.99 | |
6. I report this event to my colleagues who are experiencing or observing the same problem (without any formal action) | 601 | 3.25 | 1.16 |
7. I report this to any of my colleagues whom I think will feel responsible for correcting the actions | 601 | 3.33 | 1.12 |
8. I report this event to a colleague who can directly be effective in solving the problem (without any formal action) | 601 | 3.35 | 1.18 |
9. I report this to any of my colleagues whom I feel close to. | 601 | 3.38 | 1.16 |
Secret Whistleblowing | 2.62 | 1.07 | |
10. I give my real name on condition that my identity is kept confidential. | 601 | 2.90 | 1.27 |
11. I report the event without giving my name but specifying the group/institution/unit to which I belong. | 601 | 2.56 | 1.18 |
12. I report the event without giving any information about my identity. | 601 | 2.42 | 1.18 |
External Whistleblowing | 2.50 | 1.05 | |
13. I report the event to any other similar institution. | 601 | 2.44 | 1.24 |
14. I report the event to the legal authorities of my institution. | 601 | 2.83 | 1.27 |
15. I make other institutions informed about the event. | 601 | 2.58 | 1.21 |
16. I make a public announcement through press. | 601 | 2.13 | 1.12 |
General | 2.94 | 0.75 |
χ2 | (χ2/sd) * | RMSEA | SRMR | NNFI | CFI | GFI | AGFI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
76.97 | 4.53 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.89 | 0.93 | 0.98 | 0.96 |
Latent/Observed Variables | t-Value * | Standardized Loads | R2 |
---|---|---|---|
Organizational Commitment | |||
Emotional Commitment | 6.41 | 0.41 | 0.17 |
Continuity Commitment | 3.27 | 0.62 | 0.39 |
Normative Commitment | 2.95 | 0.42 | 0.18 |
Job Satisfaction | |||
Job Satisfaction | 0.72 | 0.52 | |
Whistleblowing | |||
Internal Whistleblowing | 0.51 | 0.26 | |
Supportive Whistleblowing | 9.25 | 0.57 | 0.32 |
Secret Whistleblowing | 8.05 | 0.78 | 0.61 |
External Whistleblowing | 9.06 | 0.68 | 0.46 |
Structural Relations | t-Value * | Standardized Loads | |
Organizational Commitment → Job Satisfaction | 3.14 | 0.49 | |
Organizational Commitment → Whistleblowing | 3.08 | 0.39 | |
Job Satisfaction → Whistleblowing | −2.00 | −0.18 | |
Structural Equations | R2 | ||
Job Satisfaction = 0.36 x Organizational Commitment | 0.24 | ||
Whistleblowing = 0.30 x Organizational Commitment | 0.09 | ||
Whistleblowing = −0.24 x Job Satisfaction + 0.39 x Organizational Commitment | 0.12 |
Gender | N | S | sd | t | p * | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Man | 128 | 3.14 | 0.53 | 599 | 1.60 | 0.11 |
Woman | 473 | 3.06 | 0.49 | |||
Primary school | 184 | 3.08 | 0.50 | 599 | 0.16 | 0.88 |
Secondary school | 417 | 3.07 | 0.49 |
Variable | Category | n | S | sd | F | p * | Significant Difference | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 21–30 | 12 | 2.92 | 0.36 | 3 | 1.14 | 0.33 | - |
31–40 | 114 | 3.02 | 0.45 | 597 | ||||
41–50 | 277 | 3.10 | 0.54 | |||||
51 and up | 198 | 3.09 | 0.48 | |||||
Seniority | 1–10 years(A) | 33 | 2.94 | 0.43 | 3 | 4.01 | 0.01 * | B–D |
11–20 years (B) | 148 | 2.99 | 0.47 | 597 | ||||
21–30 years (C) | 318 | 3.10 | 0.49 | |||||
31 years and up(D) | 102 | 3.19 | 0.57 | |||||
Marital Status | Married | 499 | 3.08 | 0.49 | 2 | |||
Single | 59 | 3.07 | 0.55 | 598 | 0.14 | 0.87 | - | |
Widow/Divorced | 43 | 3.04 | 0.48 | |||||
Education | associate (2–3 years) | 46 | 3.16 | 0.53 | 3 | 0.89 | 0.45 | - |
undergraduate | 485 | 3.08 | 0.50 | 597 | ||||
graduate | 62 | 3.04 | 0.47 | |||||
Doctorate | 8 | 2.90 | 0.36 | |||||
Area | Primary school teacher | 184 | 3.08 | 0.50 | 3 | 1.25 | 0.29 | |
Science and Maths | 128 | 3.11 | 0.49 | 597 | ||||
Social Sciences | 191 | 3.03 | 0.44 | - | ||||
Fine arts-physical education | 98 | 3.13 | 0.59 |
Gender | N | S | sd | t | p * | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Man | 128 | 3.73 | 0.97 | 599 | 0.06 | 0.95 |
Woman | 473 | 3.72 | 0.91 | |||
Primary school | 184 | 3.86 | 0.89 | 599 | 2.31 | 0.02 * |
Middle school | 417 | 3.67 | 0.93 |
Variables | Cathegory | n | S | sd | F | p * | Significant Difference | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 21–30 | 12 | 3.77 | 0.87 | 3 | 2.57 | 0.06 | - |
31–40 | 114 | 3.55 | 0.96 | 597 | ||||
41–50 | 277 | 3.71 | 0.93 | |||||
51 age and up | 198 | 3.85 | 0.88 | |||||
Seniority | 1–10 years (A) | 33 | 3.56 | 0.92 | 3 | 6.96 | 0.00 * | A–D, B–D, C–D |
11–20 years (B) | 148 | 3.53 | 0.99 | 597 | ||||
21–30 years (C) | 318 | 3.74 | 0.89 | |||||
31 years and up (D) | 102 | 4.05 | 0.85 | |||||
Marital Status | Married | 499 | 3.72 | 0.91 | 2 | |||
Single | 59 | 3.75 | 1.10 | 598 | 0.08 | 0.92 | - | |
Widow/Divorced | 43 | 3.78 | 0.76 | |||||
Education | Associate (2–3 yıl) (E) | 46 | 4.11 | 0.92 | 3 | 3.50 | 0.02 * | E-F |
undergraduate (F) | 485 | 3.71 | 0.91 | 597 | ||||
graduate (G) | 62 | 3.65 | 0.94 | |||||
Doctorate (H) | 8 | 3.28 | 1.24 | |||||
Area of education | Primary school teacher | 184 | 3.86 | 0.88 | 3 | 2.19 | 0.09 | |
Science and maths | 128 | 3.67 | 0.91 | 597 | ||||
Social sciences | 191 | 3.63 | 0.97 | - | ||||
Fine arts-physical education | 98 | 3.75 | 0.90 |
Gender | n | S | sd | t | p * | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Man | 128 | 2.89 | 0.70 | 599 | 0.79 | 0.43 |
Woman | 473 | 2.95 | 0.76 | |||
Primary school | 184 | 2.87 | 0.71 | 599 | 1.39 | 0.17 |
Secondary school | 417 | 2.96 | 0.77 |
Variable | Cathegory | n | S | sd | F | p * | Significant Difference | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 21–30 | 12 | 3.07 | 0.54 | 3 | 2.65 | 0.05 | - |
31–40 | 114 | 3.03 | 0.71 | 597 | ||||
41–50 | 277 | 2.97 | 0.77 | |||||
51 years and up | 198 | 2.82 | 0.75 | |||||
Seniority | 1–10 years | 33 | 3.05 | 0.68 | 3 | 0.97 | 0.41 | - |
11–20 years | 148 | 3.00 | 0.73 | 597 | ||||
21–30 years | 318 | 2.91 | 0.75 | |||||
31 years and up | 102 | 2.88 | 0.82 | |||||
Marital Status | married | 499 | 2.95 | 0.76 | 2 | |||
single | 59 | 2.81 | 0.69 | 598 | 1.06 | 0.35 | - | |
widow/divorced | 43 | 2.90 | 0.77 | |||||
Education status | Associate (2–3 years) (A) | 46 | 2.61 | 0.72 | 3 | 3.54 | 0.02 * | A–B |
undergraduate (B) | 485 | 2.97 | 0.75 | 597 | ||||
graduate (C) | 62 | 2.90 | 0.70 | |||||
Doctorate (D) | 8 | 3.21 | 0.75 | |||||
Area | Primary school teacher | 184 | 2.87 | 0.70 | 3 | 1.06 | 0.37 | |
Science and maths | 128 | 3.01 | 0.76 | 597 | ||||
Social sciences | 191 | 2.92 | 0.79 | - | ||||
Fine arts-physical education | 98 | 2.99 | 0.76 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Önder, M.E.; Akçıl, U.; Cemaloğlu, N. The Relationship between Teachers’ Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction and Whistleblowing. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5995. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11215995
Önder ME, Akçıl U, Cemaloğlu N. The Relationship between Teachers’ Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction and Whistleblowing. Sustainability. 2019; 11(21):5995. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11215995
Chicago/Turabian StyleÖnder, Mehmet Emin, Umut Akçıl, and Necati Cemaloğlu. 2019. "The Relationship between Teachers’ Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction and Whistleblowing" Sustainability 11, no. 21: 5995. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11215995
APA StyleÖnder, M. E., Akçıl, U., & Cemaloğlu, N. (2019). The Relationship between Teachers’ Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction and Whistleblowing. Sustainability, 11(21), 5995. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11215995