ISSN: 2277-4637 (Online) | ISSN: 2231-5470 (Print)

Opinion Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2012

Analyzing the dynamics of the Relationship Between Organizational Factors, Attitude Factors & Organizational Commitment and Turnover Intentions of Faculty Members in Self Financed Professional Institutions in Delhi and NCR
Ritika Maheshwari* Dr. Hari Prakash Maheshwari**

ABSTRACT
The present research is aimed at determining the impact of organizational factors, attitude factors and organizational commitment which are of controllable nature, responsible for creation of turnover intentions amongst the faculty members of self financed professional institutions, further leading to their voluntary turnover from the organization. The study focused on hi-end knowledge-based education industry, particularly, Self-financed Institutions. Organizational factors, attitude factors and organizational commitment are identified as independent variables whereas behavioral intention to quit is identified as a dependent variable. The data was statistically analyzed using bi-variate correlation using SPSS 20.0. The findings indicate the association of organizational factors, attitude factors and organizational commitment with turnover intentions.
*Research Scholar, **Research Guide, Mewar University, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, India

Keywords: Organizational Factors, Attitude Factors, Organizational Commitment, Turnover Intention.

I. INTRODUCTION
The best single predictor of an individuals behaviour is the measure of his/her intention to perform that behaviour (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Intentions to quit have been supported empirically as the most powerful predictor of turnover behaviour (Dalessio, Silverman and Schuck, 1986; Mobley et al., 1979) explaining on the average, about 25 per cent of the variance in actual turnover (Steel and Ovalle, 1984a). It has also been argued that the study of intent to leave is important in its own right because it focuses on the volitional component of turnover and avoids non-volitional determinants. Jackofsky (1984) and Jackofsky and Peters (1983a) proposed a perceived alternatives rationale for the relationship among performance, work-related affect

www.cpmr.org.in

Opinion: International Journal of Business Management 56

ISSN: 2277-4637 (Online) | ISSN: 2231-5470 (Print)

Opinion Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2012

and voluntary turnover. This rationale predicts a positive relationship between performance and turnover intentions and a stronger negative relationship between satisfaction and turnover intention among high performers, than among low performers. Also, the relationship between the provision of adequate factors like, organizational factors, attitude factors, and organizational commitment with turnover is strong but it is moderated by individuals behavioral intentions to quit. Behavioural intentions are becoming increasingly indispensable to empirical and theoretical work linking turnover behaviour to psychological antecedents. Mobley (1977) urged the need to move beyond simple replication of the satisfaction-turnover relationship toward research on the cognitive and behavioural processes that may occur between satisfaction and actual turnover.

of employees, researchers continue to identify significant correlations between these concepts and positive organizational outcomes. The outcomes include the job performance (Mathieu and Zajac, 1009), role performance and organizational citizenship behavior (Riketta, 2002), employee innovation and risk taking (Lyon and Ferrier, 2002), work place attendance and improved customer satisfaction (Stephens et al., 2004). In self financed institutions, the various identified workplace environmental factors which influence the turnover intention of faculty members in the institution include poor sitting arrangements with facilities like desktop PC, internet, telephone etc. on their table and reach; non-provision for flexible timings; job security; poor grievance redressal system; no autonomy in deciding teaching methods; non-supportive colleagues and administration staff; and no formal recognition and appreciation for work delivered.

II. ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS Working Environment

Working environment is found to be a major theme in organizational literature predicting organizational outcomes such as turnover and absenteeism. According to the study conducted by Carnevale (1992) and Clements-Croome (1997), better outcomes and enhanced productivity is assumed to be the result of better workplace environment. They proposed that the presence of better physical environment of working place boosts the employees morale and ultimately improve their productivity. As proposed by Likert (1961), employee satisfaction sentiments are best achieved through maintaining a positive social organizational environment, providing autonomy, participation, and mutual trust. Research has shown that there are many environmental features that can be created and maintained to give employees satisfaction: Pay and benefits, communication (Brewer, 2000; Wagner 2000), motivation, (Kirby 2000) and leisure time (Rabbit 2000), all seemingly play a part so as to ascertain whether employees are satisfied, according to studies. In other studies of organizational commitment and engagement
www.cpmr.org.in

HODs Commitment and Support

Top managements and HODs support plays a crucial role in the choice of employees either to stay or to leave the organization. Top management support refers to the extent to which the top management acts as a role model when participating in knowledge retention activities and establishing all the necessary conditions for knowledge retention process as well as in providing additional resources if considered necessary. Supervisors and managers strongly influence employees attitudes (Bohn & Grafton, 2002, Deci et al., 1989, Dienesch and Liden, 1986) by exerting influence and creating environments that shape employee feelings and actions. Managers in turn hold feelings and impressions gained from their individual experience of working with employees (Forman and Markus, 2005). In self financed institutions, the various identified factors related to top managements support which influence the turnover intention of faculty members in the institution include management not devoting considerable time and resources in ensuring that the faculty members are given adequate resources and facilitate conditions to carryout their academic responsibilities without undue worries. Further not
Opinion: International Journal of Business Management 57

ISSN: 2277-4637 (Online) | ISSN: 2231-5470 (Print)

Opinion Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2012

ensuring that faculty members enjoy their work and not valuing their academic and intellectual skills.

III. COMPENSATION DESIGN

Remuneration and other types of benefits have always been an important factor in the retention equation. The tenure of the employees is likely to be highly sensitive to changes in specific (usually monetary) incentives: small changes in compensation may lead to numerous departures. Experts like, Lawler (1990), maintained that the key issue in retention is the amount of total compensation relative to levels offered by other organizations i.e. maintenance of external equity. Organizations that have high levels of compensation have lower turnover rates and larger numbers of individuals applying to work for them. Also, he argued, high wage workplaces create a culture of excellence. But building affective commitment (Meyer et al, 2003) involves much more than paying well, and that retention based on the principle of compensation-based commitment is sensitive to changes in compensation within the organization. Employers that base their retention on compensation-based commitment are vulnerable to the possibility that their competitors will be able to offer better wages and thus lure away their employees. On the similar path, Smith (2001) argued that money gets employees in the door, but it doesnt keep them there. Ashby and Pell classified money as a satisfier, meaning that it is necessary but insufficient factor in employee retention, while Harris and Brannick (1999) agree that money is retaining their employees without any paybased retention incentives (Pfeffer, 1999). Organizations that successfully incorporate compensation and benefits into their retention efforts have a clear understanding of their business objectives and use compensation as a tool for influencing organizational and employee behaviour (Lawler, 1990). For example, pay systems and practices have a major impact on employee retention by motivating membership-oriented behaviour (commitment). Pay systems also affect knowledge sharing and transfer if
www.cpmr.org.in

sharing, teamwork, suggestions, etc. are rewarded or recognized. In self financed institutions, the various identified compensation based variables which influence the turnover intention of faculty members in the institution include non-compliance of prescribed scale of pay as directed by UGC, delay in payment of monthly salary, non-transparency in pay issues and non equity on matters related to access to facilities, travel grants, sponsorship for various seminars and workshops, no provision for benefits like study/academic leaves, appreciation certificates, annual increments, provident fund etc.

IV. TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT

Training and development are so enthusiastically embraced as key factors to good retention that there is no doubt about the fact that well-developed training programs are becoming ever more essential to the ongoing survival of most competitive organizations. To the extent that operational paradigms such as The Learning Organization or the Knowledge-Based Organization continue to take hold in the contemporary business world, training is only likely to become more important. In any event, retention reflects a desire to keep ones valued people; but it is just as much about keeping and managing the skills that an organization needs to meet its goals. The provision of training is a way of developing those skills in the first place. The fact that providing it also turns out to be a benefit that is highly valued by those who receive it makes for a very powerful approach to doing business. Because training and professional development are so fundamental to the operation of any organization, it goes against intuition to suggest that training and development are to be thought of primarily as retention tools. Nevertheless, countless studies tend to confirm the fact that a good part of the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of workers is associated with issues related to their professional development. A 1999 Gallup poll named the lack of opportunities to learn and grow as one of the top three reasons for employee dissatisfaction (B.C. Business, 2001), and other studies have offered similar conclusions (BHRC, 2002).
Opinion: International Journal of Business Management 58

ISSN: 2277-4637 (Online) | ISSN: 2231-5470 (Print)

Opinion Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2012

Furthermore, the evidence seems to confirm that the link between training and retention is even stronger for more highly skilled workers (Kaiser and Hawk, 2001; Par et al, 2000). In self financed institutions, the various identified training and development factors which influence the turnover intention of faculty members in the institution include non provision for job specific training and professional development activities, inadequate opportunities for FDPs, Seminars/Conferences, nonavailability of latest pedagogical tools, discouragement to undertake professional consultancy with industries, research projects, and lack of opportunities to guide M.Phil/Ph.D projects.

Organizational Justice
Organizational justice emerged as an attempt to describe the role of fairness in the workplace. Researchers have examined organizational justice under two major dimensions, distributive justice and procedural justice. i. Distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness or equity of the manner in which rewards are distributed in organizations ii. Procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness or equity of the procedures used in making decisions regarding the distribution of rewards (Folger and Greenberg, 1985) Although the concerns for justice and fairness have existed for a long time (e.g Aristotle, Hobbes, J.S. Mill, and Marx), it was not until Homans (1961) who introduced the concept of distributive justice due to which the social scientists began to pay attention to this fundamental aspect of human behaviour. The concept became more pertinent in organizational behaviour research with the work of scholars like Blau (1964) and Adarns (1965), (Arif Hassan, 2002). Literature from the organizational justice domain can be drawn on for explaining the perception of performance appraisal on job attitudes and behavioural intentions. Two primary components of organizational justice are distributive justice and procedural justice (Cropanzano and Folger, 1996). In the performance
www.cpmr.org.in

appraisal context, distributive justice refers to the fairness of the evaluation received, whereas procedural justice refers to the fairness of the process used in determining the evaluation (Greenberg, 1986). Although both types of fairness perceptions are important, fairness in performance appraisal has been conceptualized largely in relation to due process (Folger et al., 1992 Taylor et al., 1995). According to the due process perspective, which is rooted in theories of procedural justice- an important element affecting perceptions is judgement based on evidence; raters must assure that the performance standards are applied consistently across employees without any distortion by external pressure, corruption or personal biases. Thus, performance evaluation made on the basis of political consideration violates employees due process. When employee feel unfairly treated, they are likely to react by initially changing their job attitudes, followed in the longer term, by response that are more retaliatory, such as quitting (Vigoda, 2000). There is past evidence that procedural justice is related to employee satisfaction and turnover intention (Cobb and Frey, 1996; Konovsky and Cropanzano, 1991; Taylor et al., 1995). Although there is no direct evidence that perceptions of performance appraisal politic affect job attitudes negatively, a number of studies have found perceptions of organizational politics to predict job satisfaction. Job satisfaction reflects partly employees reactions toward their opportunity for within-organizational advancement (Schneider et al., 1992). Therefore when employees perceive their performance ratings, and hence pay increase and promotion, to be determined by factors other than performance factors, they are likely to experience reduced job satisfaction. Furthermore, because employees tend to view workplace politics as undesirable, they may withdraw from their organization as a means of avoiding political activities. One form of withdrawal is employee turnover. For those with external job mobility, actual turnover may be an option, for those with limited external job mobility, psychological turnover (e.g., intention to quit) may be the option (Kacmar et al., 1999). Applying the same reasoning, when employees perceive their performance
Opinion: International Journal of Business Management 59

ISSN: 2277-4637 (Online) | ISSN: 2231-5470 (Print)

Opinion Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2012

ratings to be based on political factors rather than performance factors, they are likely to engage in withdrawal cognitions such as intention to quit. There is evidence that perceived politics is significantly related to turnover intention (Cropanzano et al,. 1997; Kacmar et al., 1999; Valle and Perrewe, 2000).

V. ATTITUDE FACTORS
In the literature, attitude is another kind of push factor/ controllable factor which is mostly attached with employee behaviour. Attitude factors are further classified into job satisfaction and job stress.

Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is defined as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of ones job or job experiences (Locke, 1976). According to Bullock (1984) job satisfaction is a positive or negative emotional state associated with ones work. Mottaz (1988) regarded job satisfaction as an effective response resulting from an evaluation of the work situation. It is widely accepted that job satisfaction is a function of work-related rewards and values (Vroom, 1964). The relationship between job satisfaction and turnover is one of the most thoroughly investigated topics in the turnover literature. Job satisfaction has been repeatedly identified as the single most important reason why employees leave their jobs (Mobley et al, 1979). Many studies report a consistent and negative relationship between job satisfaction and turnover (e.g., Cotton & Tuttle, 1986; Arnold & Feldman, 1982; Bluedorn, 1982; Mobley, 1982; Price, 1977, and many others), as dissatisfied employees are more likely to leave an organization than satisfied ones. Although past research suggests a stable negative relationship between job satisfaction and turnover, job satisfaction alone has been found to account for small percentage of the total variance in a turnover model less than 15% (Blau & Boal, 1989). The fact that the relationship (between job satisfaction and turnover) is not stronger does not suggest that satisfaction should not be measured. It does suggest that measures of satisfaction must be combined with other measures to
www.cpmr.org.in

effectively predict and understand turnover (Mobley, 1982:45). Recent studies have found that withdrawal intentions can be predicted from job satisfaction (Price, 2001; Larnbert et al., 2001), and that job dissatisfaction is related to intention to leave (Hellman, 1997). Another recent study by DeConinck and Stilwell (2001) showed that job dissatisfaction leads to work-related outcomes such as low performance, absenteeism and turnover. A scrutiny of past research on job satisfaction suggests that most of the studies have examined the effect of overall satisfaction on turnover with only a few investigating the relationship between turnover and the specific aspects of job satisfaction such as pay, supervision, and nature of work. Koh and Goh (1995) noted that the use of overall satisfaction conceals the vital effects of different job facets on turnover. In his study he classified job satisfaction into eight categories: supervision, company identity, kind of work, amount of work, physical working conditions, co-workers, financial rewards, and career future. In the present study, we have included three facets of job satisfactionpay, nature of work, and supervisionthat we consider relevant from self financed professional institutions context.

Job Stress
Job stress includes variables such as role ambiguity (e.g. my job responsibilities are not clear to me), role conflict (e.g. to satisfy some people at my job, I have to upset others), work-overload (e.g. it seems to me that I have more work at my job than I can handle) and workfamily conflicts (e.g. my work makes me too tired to enjoy family life).

VI. ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

There are many factors which are attached with employee and organization and work as push factors for an employee to quit. Organizations are interested in not only finding high performing employees, but those who will be committed to the organization. Similarly employees are also interested to work in an organization which is committed to pursue their carriers and benefits.
Opinion: International Journal of Business Management 60

ISSN: 2277-4637 (Online) | ISSN: 2231-5470 (Print)

Opinion Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2012

Organizational commitment is recognized as a key factor in the employment relationship and it is widely accepted that strengthening employment commitment, reduces turnover (Mohammad, 2006). Johns (1996) defines organizational commitment as an attitude that reflects the strength of the linkage between an employee and an organization. Ugboro (2006) identified three types of organizational commitment: affective, continuance and normative, detail of which is given below: Affective commitment is employee emotional attachment to the organization. It results from and is induced by an individual and organizational value congruency. It is almost natural for the individual to become emotionally attached to and enjoy continuing association with the organization. Continuance commitment is willingness of employee to remain in an organization because of personal investment in the form of non transferable investments such as close working relationships with co-workers, retirement investments and career investments, acquired job skills which are unique to a particular organization, years of employment in a particular organization, involvement in the community in which the employer is located, and other benefits that make it too costly for one to leave and seek employment elsewhere. Normative commitment is induced by a feeling of obligation to remain with an organization. Before Porter et als (1974) study, scholars focused on job satisfaction as the major cause of turnover. However, Porter et als study highlighted the importance of organizational commitment in explaining turnover. In their study, they demonstrated that organizational commitment was a better predictor of turnover than job satisfaction. Since then organizational commitment has been frequently explored in the turnover literature, and like job satisfaction, has been shown to be negatively related to turnover (e.g., Wong, Chun & Law, 1996; Arnold & Feldman, 1982; Bluedorn, 1982; Porter et. al, 1974, and many others). Several other scholars (Arnold & Feldman, 1982; Ben-Bakr et al., 1994; Kim et al, 1996; Tett & Meyer, 1993) have also found organizational commitment an important predictor of turnover.
www.cpmr.org.in

VII. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the study are as follows: To study the relationship between turnover intention and organizational factors. To study the relationship between turnover intention and attitude factors. To study the relationship between turnover intention and organizational commitment.

VIII. HYPOTHESES
H1: Organizational factors are negatively associated with turnover intention.

Specifically
H1a: Working Environment is negatively associated with turnover intention. H1b: Top Management/HODs support is negatively associated with turnover intention. H1c: Compensation is negatively associated with turnover intention. H1d: Training and Developmental Opportunities is negatively associated with turnover intention. H1e: Organizational Justice is negatively associated with turnover intention. H2: Attitudinal factors are associated with turnover intention.

Specifically
H2a: Job Satisfaction is negatively associated with turnover intention. H2b: Job Stress is positively associated with turnover intention. H3: Organizational Commitment is negatively associated with turnover intention.

IX. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

The study is co-relational in nature which is aimed at investigating the employees turnover intention in selffinanced professional institutions. The study examines
Opinion: International Journal of Business Management 61

ISSN: 2277-4637 (Online) | ISSN: 2231-5470 (Print)

Opinion Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2012

the relationship between the predictor variables (organizational factors, attitude factors and organizational commitment) and employees turnover intention, further enabling us to identify the factors responsible for employee voluntary turnover. A sample of 294 faculty members was considered from professional institutions running under Delhi and NCR Region. The questionnaire consisted of two sections. First section consisted of the demographic profile of the respondents. In second section, the respondents were required to answer questions pertaining to the independent variable for the study namely organizational factors (including working environment, HODs commitment, compensation, training & development, and organizational justice) comprising of 26 questions in totality. Further, the researcher used three items for measuring satisfaction with pay, satisfaction with nature of work, and supervision. The items were adapted from the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire; Weiss et al. (1967) and the Index of Organizational Reactions Questionnaire; Smith (1976). Researcher used 4 item scale to measure job stress in the following section and 8 item scale to measure organizational commitment in the subsequent section, which were adapted from Porter e al.s 15-item organizational commitment questionnaire. Each respondent was asked to indicate the degree of agreement or disagreement on each of the item

statement on a scale of 1 to 5, based on 5-point Likert scale. The opinion indicated as strongly agree has been assigned a weight of 5, the opinion indicated as agree has been assigned a weight of 4, the opinion indicated as neutral has been assigned a weight of 3, the opinion indicated as disagree has been assigned a weight of 2, the opinion indicated as strongly disagree has been assigned a weight of 1. Also, the that Cronbachs Alpha for all variables were acceptable having scores of 0.889 for organizational factors, 0.783 for job satisfaction, 0.764 for job stress, and 0.950 for organizational commitment.

X. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Demographic Profile of the Respondents

From the demographic profile of the respondents, it has been observed that 10.2% respondents were falling under the age bracket of less than 25 years, 41.8% belonged to the bracket of 25-30 years, 25.2% belonged to the age group of 30-40 years, 13.3% belonged to the age group of 40-50 years and 9.5% were above 50 years of age. Majority of the respondents were female (63.6%) and followed by the male respondents (36.4%). Most of the respondents (60.2%) were married and 39.8% of them were single.

Table 1 Mean and Standard Deviation of Variables under Study

Variables Working Environment Sub-Factors I find supportive colleagues & administrative staff in the college. I have physically comfortable place to work. I find politics in the institute. (reverse coded) I can easily avail flexible timings. I can design my own teaching pedagogy. I get due recognition for my work delivered. I work for adequate number of hours. I find unequal distribution of workload. (reverse coded) I find adequate safety provisions in the institute. Mean Standard Mean Standard Deviation Deviation 3.5034 1.08590 3.6088 1.14185 2.5204 1.13188 2.6224 1.21016 2.9014 1.40712 2.9048 1.35925 3.3333 1.29495 3.1054 1.11418 3.4660 1.09476 3.107 0.7294

www.cpmr.org.in

Opinion: International Journal of Business Management 62

ISSN: 2277-4637 (Online) | ISSN: 2231-5470 (Print)

Top Management/ I have healthy relations with my HOD/Top Mgt. HODs Support My activities are closely monitored by my Top Mgt./HOD. (reverse coded) My academic and intellectual skills are valued in the college. My HOD deals with my personal problems with empathy. My HOD ensures timely redressal of my professional problems. Compensation I get competitive salary package. I receive salary on time. I do not get monetary incentives. (reverse coded) Training and Development I get job specific training. DevelopmentI get professional developmental opportunities. I am valued as a scholar. I find difficulty in availing seminar and research grants. (reverse coded) Organizational Justice I receive the evaluation that I deserve. The evaluation system reflects the quality of my delivered performance. An independent observer from outside the college would have made a similar judgement about my performance. I consider the evaluation to be fair. The rules, procedures & policies adopted to evaluate my performance are fair Satisfaction with Pay Considering the living cost, my pay is...

Opinion Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2012

3.4592 1.15521 2.5646 .96398 3.2755 2.69539 2.8537 1.18683 3.1803 1.10451 3.2653 1.14078 3.6259 1.01666 2.7211 1.09782 2.8435 1.00307 3.1190 1.06581 3.1837 2.63999 2.8299 1.10459 3.0034 1.06286 3.0612 1.10057 3.0952 1.17907 3.0170 1.15507 3.0238 1.11587 3.1905 1.19346 3.0850 1.13413 3.0884 1.13538 3.4320 3.62591 3.1599 1.19938 3.1122 1.19626 3.0510 1.16876 3.0510 1.09954 3.1395 1.15265 2.8571 1.26113 3.2959 1.23826 3.0782 1.20182 3.1599 1.15886 3.3435 1.19199 3.3333 1.22172 3.1429 1.12678 2.9898 1.20433 3.2007 1.25184 3.0782 1.25189 3.1531 1.22281 3.170 1.0831 3.097 0.9803 3.080 1.0493 3.234 1.6753 3.121 1.0870 3.040 1.0522 2.994 1.0992 3.204 0.7754 3.066 1.0296

For the work I do, I feel that the amount of money I make is... (reverse coded) The institutes pay structure encourages me to work especially hard. (reverse coded)

Satisfaction with I get the chance to design my own methods of teaching. Nature of Work I get the chance to organize college events that makes use of my abilities. I get the freedom to use my own judgment in doing the things. Satisfaction with Do you feel that you will work better under different supervision (HOD)? Supervision The supervision I receive is the kind that... How does your HOD influence your overall attitude toward your job? Job Stress My job responsibilities are not clear to me. To satisfy some people at my job, I have to upset others. It seems to me that I have more work at my job that I can handle. My work makes me too tired to enjoy family life. Organizational Commitment I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond what is normally expected in order to make this institute/college successful. I talk about this institute/college to my friends as a great place to work for. I feel very little loyalty towards this institute/college. (reverse coded) I find that my values and the college/institutes values are very similar. I feel proud to tell others that I am a part of this institute/college. This college helps me to realize the very best in me. I am extremely glad that I chose this institute/college to work for over others

www.cpmr.org.in

Opinion: International Journal of Business Management 63

ISSN: 2277-4637 (Online) | ISSN: 2231-5470 (Print)

I was considering at the time of joining. I really care about the fate of this institute/college. Turnover Intention I will likely actively look for a new job in the next year. I often think about quitting. I probably look for a new job in the next year.

Opinion Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2012

3.1259 1.25072 3.3401 1.87492 3.1054 1.52312 3.2721 1.52592 3.239 1.5158

Based on the data presented in Table 1, the mean value of item statements under variable Working Environment ranged from 2.52 to 3.60 with standard deviations ranged from 1.08 to 1.40. Mean score Working Environment is 3.10 while standard deviation is 0.72. This indicates neutral agreement of faculty members of self financed professional institutions towards the variable working environment. The mean value of item statements under variable Top Management/HODs Support ranged from 2.56 to 3.45 with standard deviations ranged from 0.96 to 2.69. Mean score Top Management/HODs Support is 3.06 while standard deviation is 1.02. This indicates neutral agreement of faculty members of self financed professional institutions towards the variable Top Management/HODs Support. The mean value of item statements under variable Compensation ranged from 2.72 to 3.62 with standard deviations ranged from 1.01 to 1.14. Mean score Compensation is 3.20 while standard deviation is 0.77. This indicates stronger neutral agreement of faculty members of self financed professional institutions towards the variable Compensation. The mean value of item statements under variable Training and Development ranged from 2.82 to 3.18 with standard deviations ranged from 1.00 to 2.63. Mean score Training and Development is 2.99 while standard deviation is 1.09. This indicates somewhat neutral agreement of faculty members of self financed professional institutions towards the variable Training and Development. The mean value of item statements under variable Organizational Justice ranged from 3.00 to 3.09 with standard deviations ranged from 1.06 to 1.17. Mean score Organizational Justice is 3.04 while standard deviation is 1.05. This indicates neutral agreement of
www.cpmr.org.in

faculty members of self financed professional institutions towards the variable Organizational Justice. The mean value of item statements under variable Satisfaction with Pay ranged from 3.08 to 3.19 with standard deviations ranged from 1.13 to 1.19. Mean score Satisfaction with Pay is 3.12 while standard deviation is 1.08. This indicates a moderate level of satisfaction of faculty members of self financed professional institutions towards the variable Satisfaction with Pay. The mean value of item statements under variable Satisfaction with Nature of Work ranged from 3.11 to 3.43 with standard deviations ranged from 1.19 to 3.62. Mean score Satisfaction with Nature of Work is 3.23 while standard deviation is 1.67. This indicates a moderate level of satisfaction of faculty members of self financed professional institutions towards the variable Satisfaction with Nature of Work. The mean value of item statements under variable Satisfaction with Supervision ranged from 3.05 to 3.13 with standard deviations ranged from 1.09 to 1.16. Mean score Satisfaction with Supervision is 3.08 while standard deviation is 1.04. This indicates a moderate level of satisfaction of faculty members of self financed professional institutions towards the variable Satisfaction with Supervision. The mean value of item statements under variable Job Stress ranged from 2.85 to 3.29 with standard deviations ranged from 1.15 to 1.26. Mean score Job Stress is 3.09 while standard deviation is 0.98. This indicates moderate level of agreement of faculty members of self financed professional institutions towards the variable Job Stress. The mean value of item statements under variable Organizational Commitment ranged from 2.98 to 3.34 with standard deviations ranged from 1.12 to 1.25.
Opinion: International Journal of Business Management 64

ISSN: 2277-4637 (Online) | ISSN: 2231-5470 (Print)

Opinion Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2012

Mean score Organizational Commitment is 3.17 while standard deviation is 1.08. This indicates neutral agreement of faculty members of self financed professional institutions towards the variable Organizational Commitment. The mean value of item statements under variable Turnover Intention ranged from 3.10 to 3.34 with standard deviations ranged from 1.52 to 1.87. Mean

score Turnover Intention is 3.23 while standard deviation is 1.51. This indicates agreement of faculty members of self financed professional institutions towards the variable Turnover Intention. Overall, the analysis results depicts that faculty members of self financed professional institutions have considerable agreement towards turnover intention.

Table 2 Correlation between Controllable Factors & Turnover Intention

1 1. WE 2. HOD 3. PAY 4. TD 5. JUSTICE 6. JS 7. JSTRESS 8. OC 9. TI 1.00 .746** .553** .663** .805** .756** -.640** .803** -.697** 1.00 .516** .543** .732** .713** -.534** .731** -.648** 1.00 .441** .628** .676** -.437** .632** -.603** 1.00 .688** .658** -.516** .714** -.622** 1.00 .852** -.582** .878** -.786** 1.00 -.534** .862** -.796** 1.00 -.621** .577** 1.00 -.800** 1.00 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 2 reports the inter-correlations among the independent controllable variables and the dependent variable TI. The data indicates a negatively strong to moderate significant relationship between controllable factors namely, working environment (r= -0.697, p=.000), top management/HODs support (r= -0.648, p=.000), compensation (r= -0.603, p=.000), training and developmental opportunities (r= -0.622, p=.000), organizational justice (r= -0.786, p=.000), job satisfaction (r= -0.796, p=.000), and organizational commitment (r= -0.800, p=.000) with turnover intention, providing a good support to our laid down Hypothesis H1a, H1b, H1c, H1d, H1e, H2a and H3 respectively. The negative correlation coefficient indicates that as these independent variable increases, the dependent variable turnover intention decreases and vice versa. Also, it is observed that job stress (r=
www.cpmr.org.in

0.577, p=.000), is significantly positively correlated with TI, indicating the fact that as the stress level in job increases, the TI also increases, thus proving our Hypothesis H2b true. Therefore, Hypothesis H1 (Organizational factors are negatively associated with turnover intention), Hypothesis H2 (Attitudinal factors are associated with turnover intention), and Hypothesis H3 (Organizational Commitment is negatively associated with turnover intention) received a good support from the study.

XI. CONCLUSION
Human capital in organization offers significant potential for competitive differentiation and acts as a critical source of achieving sustained competitive advantage. The most important contribution of management today is to increase the productivity of knowledge work by retaining
Opinion: International Journal of Business Management 65

ISSN: 2277-4637 (Online) | ISSN: 2231-5470 (Print)

Opinion Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2012

knowledge workforce. Thus, understanding the role of variables such as working environment, top managements support, compensation design, training and development, performance appraisal, job satisfaction, job stress, organizational commitment and intentions to leave is important in todays context. It has been observed from the study that organizational factors, job satisfaction and organizational commitment are negatively associated with turnover intentions whereas job stress is receiving a positive association with turnover intention amongst the faculty members of self financed professional institutions.

8. Brewer. John D., (2000), Ethnography Understanding Social Research Open University Press. 9. Carnevale, D.G., (1992), Physical Settings of Work. Public Productivity and Management Review, 15, 4, 423-436. 10. Clements-Croome, D.J., (1997), Specifying Indoor Climate, in book Naturally Ventilated Buildings. 11. Cobb, A.T. and Frey, F.M. (1996). The effects of leader fairness and pay outcomes on superior/ subordinate relations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1401- 1426. 12. Cotton, J.L. and Tuttle, J.F. 1986. Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review with implications for research. Academy of Management Review, 11(1): 55-70. 13. Cropanzano, R. (1996). When is it ethical to screen for addictive behaviors? Employment Testing: Law & Policy Reporter, 5, 181-186. 14. Dalessio, A., Silverman, W.H. and Schuck, J.R. (1986). Paths to Turnover: A Reanalysis and Review of Existing Data on the Mobley, Homer, and Hollingsworth Turnover Model. Human Relations, Vo1.39, No.3, pp. 245 - 263. 15. Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 580590. 16. Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-Member Exchange Model of Leadership: A Critique and Further Development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 618-634. 17. Fishbein M and Ajzen I (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

XII. REFERENCES
1. Adams, J.S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press. 2. Arnold, H.J. and Feldman, D.C. 1982. A multivariate analysis of the determinants of job turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(3): 350-360. 3. Ben-Bakr, K.A., Al-Shammari, I.S., Jefri, O.A. and Prasad, J.N. 1994. Organizational commitment, satisfaction and turnover in Saudi organizations: A predictive study. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 23(4): 449-456. 4. Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. 5. Blau G, Boal K (1989).Using job involvement and organizational commitment interactively to predict turnover, J. Manage. 15 (1): 115-127. 6. Bluedorn AC (1982). A unified model of turnover from organizations, Hum. Relat. 35: 135-153. 7. Bohn, J. G., & Grafton, D. (2002). The Relationship of Perceived Leadership Behaviors to Organizational Efficacy. Journal of leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(2), 65-80.
www.cpmr.org.in

Opinion: International Journal of Business Management 66

ISSN: 2277-4637 (Online) | ISSN: 2231-5470 (Print)

Opinion Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2012

18. Folger. R. & Greenberg. 1.(1985). Procedural justice: An interpretative analysis of personnel systems. In K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds.). Rp.uo...rrbin personnel and human resource management (Vol. 3. pp. 141-183).Greenwich. CT: lA1 Press. 19. Folger. R. Konovsky. M. A. & Cropanzano. R. (1992). A due process metaphor for performance appraisal. In B. M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eels.).R rrb in oliani7Ational .bcba.nm:(Vol. 14. pp. 129-177). Greenwich. CT: lA1 Press. 20. Forman, J., & Markus, M.L. (2005). Research on collaboration, business communication and technology: Reections on an interdisciplinary academic collaboration. Journal of Business Communication, 42(1), 78-102. 21. Greenberg. J. (l986a). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 340-342. 22. Greenberg. J. (1986b). The distributive justice of organizational performance evaluations. In H. W. Bierhoff. R. L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 337-351). New York: Plenum. 23. Greenberg. J. (1986c). Organizational performance appraisal procedures: What makes them fair? In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard. & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.). Research on negotiation in organization. (Vol. 1. pp. 25-41). Greenwich, cf: JAl Press. 24. Harris, J.and J. Brannick. Finding and Keeping Great Employees (New York: AMA Publications, 1999). 25. Hellman, C. M. (1997), Job Satisfaction and Intent to Leave, Journal of SociaI Psychology, Vol. 137, No.6, pp. 677-689. 26. Homans, G. G. 1961. Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.
www.cpmr.org.in

27. Johns, G. (1996); Organizational Behavior, New York: Harper Collins Publishing. 28. Kacmar, K.M., Bozeman, D.P., Carlson, D.S., & Anthony, W.P. (1999). An examination of the perceptions of organizational politics model: Replication and extension. Human Relations, 52, 383-416. 29. Kaiser, Kate and Stephan Hawk. An Empirical Study on the Recruitment and Retention of IT Personnel ([Paper presented at the Decision Sciences Institute 32nd Annual Meeting]. 30. Kim, S-W, Price, J. L., Mueller, C.W. and Watson, T.W. 1996. The determinants of career intent among physicians at a U.S. Air Force hospital. Human Relations, 49(7): 947-976. 31. Kirby, Susan, (2000), Impact of Marketing Work-Place Diversity on Employee Job Involvement and Organizational Commitment, Journal of Social Psychology, June, Pg: 367. 32. Koh, H.C. and Goh, C.T. 1995. An analysis of the factors affecting the turnover intention of non managerial clerical staff: A Singapore study. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6(1). 33. Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). The perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of AWne Psychology, 16,698-707. 34. Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., Barton, A., & Lubbock, S.M. (2001). The impact of job satisfaction on turnover intent: A test of a structural measurement model using a national sample of workers. Social Science Journal, 38(2), 233-251. 35. Lawler, Edward E., III. Strategic Pay (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1990). 36. Likert, R. L. (1961). The Human Organization. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Opinion: International Journal of Business Management 67

ISSN: 2277-4637 (Online) | ISSN: 2231-5470 (Print)

Opinion Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2012

37. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. 38. Mathieu, J. and Zajac, D. (1990), A review of meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates and consequences of organizational commitment, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 17194. 39. Meyer, John, Laryssa Topolnytsky, Henryk Krajewski and Ian Gellatly. Best Practices: Employee Retention (Toronto: TomsonCarswell, 2003). 40. Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(2), 237-240. 41. Mobley WH, Griffith H, Megline B (1979). Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychol. Bull, 86: 493-522. 42. Mobley W H (1982a), Some Unanswered Questions in Turnover and Withdrawal Research, Academy of Management Review, Vol.7, No.1, pp. 111-116. 43. Mohammad et al, (2006); Affective Commitment and Intent to Quit: the Impact of Work and Non-Work Related Issues, Journal of Managerial Issues. 44. Mottaz, C. (1988b), Work satisfaction among hospital nurses, Hospital and Health Service Administration, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 57-74. 45. Par, Guy, Michel Tremblay and Patrick Lalonde. The Measurement and Antecedents of Turnover Intentions among IT Professionals (Montreal: cole des hautes tudes commerciales, 2000). [Web document] URL www.cirano.qc.ca/pdf/publication/2000s33.pdf.
www.cpmr.org.in

46. Pfeffer, J., and Veiga, J. 1999. Putting people first for organizational success. Academy of Management Executive, 13: 37-48. 47. Porter LW, Steers RM, Mowday RT, Boulian PV (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians, J. Appl. Psychol. 59: 603-609. 48. Price, J.L (1977). The study of turnover, 1st edition, Iowa state university press, IA pp1025. 49. Price, J.L. (2001). Reflections on the determinants of voluntary turnover. International Journal of Manpower, 22(7), 660-624. 50. Rabbit, T.W (2000), Surf and be Happy; Web Access at Work Makes Workers Feel More Productive, Less Stressed, Says Survey, Network World, Sept 2000, Pg:45. 51. Riketta, M. 2002. Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: a meta analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 257-266. 52. Smith, Gregory P. Here Today, Here Tomorrow (Chicago: Dearborn Trade Publishing, 2001). 53. Steel, R.P. and Ovalle, N.K. (1984). A Review and Meta-Analysis of the Research on the Relationship between Behavioral Intentions and Employee Turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.69, No.4, pp.673 - 686 54. Taylor, M. S., Tracy, K. B., Renard, M. K., Harrison, J. K., & Carroll, S. 1. (1995). Due process in performance appraisa1: A quasiexperimenting procedural justice. Administrative Science Quarterly 40, 495-523. 55. Tett, R.P. and Meyer, J.P. 1993. Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytical findings. Personnel Psychology, 46(2): 259-293.

Opinion: International Journal of Business Management 68

ISSN: 2277-4637 (Online) | ISSN: 2231-5470 (Print)

Opinion Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2012

56. Ugboro, I.O. (2006); Organizational Commitment, Job Redesign, Employee Empowerment and Intent to Quit Among Survivors of Restructuring and Downsizing, Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management, North Carolina A&T State University. 57. Valle, M., & Perrewe, P. L. (2000). Do politics perceptions relate to political behaviors? Tests of an implicit assumption and expanded model. Human Relations, 53, 359386.

58. Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 59. Wagner, Stacey,(2000), Retention: Finders, Keepers. Training & Development, Aug 2000, Pg: 64. 60. Wong, C.S., Chun, H. and Law, K.S. 1996. Casual relationship between attitudinal antecedents to turnover. Academy of Management BEST PAPERS PROCEEDINGS 1995, 342-346, Vancouver, British Columbia Canada.

www.cpmr.org.in

Opinion: International Journal of Business Management 69