Are Socio-Demographic Variables Related to Academic Staffs’ Organizational Commitment in India?

Are Socio-Demographic Variables Related to Academic Staffs’ Organizational Commitment in India?

Aruna Suryawisesa

Faculty of ABV- Indian Institute of Information Technology and Management, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, India

Faisal  Khalid

Faculty of Department of Business Administration, Lahore School of Economics, Punja, Pakistan

Ali Zafar Abdullah

Faculty of Department of Business Administration, Lahore School of Economics, Punja, Pakistan

Abstract

This paper was specified the relationships between socio‐demographic variables and organizational commitment among academic staff in India. A descriptive research design was used in this study. The sample consisted of 766 (comprising 383 from federal, 153 from state and 230 from private) academic staff, selected from the sampling frame through proportionate stratified sampling technique. Data collected were analyzed using the Crosstab Chi-Square. Results revealed that that there is a statistical significant association between university type and organizational commitment; years in present university and organizational commitment; age and organizational commitment. On the other hand, there is no statistical significant association between job status and organizational commitment; gender and organizational commitment; marital status and organizational commitment.

Keywords

socio-demographic variable, organisational commitment, academic staff.

To cite this article

Suryawisesa, A., Khalid, F., & Abdullah, A.Z. (2017). Are Socio-Demographic Variables Related to Academic Staffs’ Organizational Commitment in India?, International Journal of  Management, and Social Sciences Review (IJMSSR). Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.42-50. Doi:10.5281/zenodo.2648115

 

Copyright

Copyright © 2017 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

 

References

  1. Brammer, S., Millington, A. 2003The effect of stakeholder preferences, organizational structure and industry type on corporate community involvementJournal of Business Ethics4: 213-226. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  1. Daal, H. J. van, and E. M. T. Plemper: 2003, ‘Het geven van tijd: vrijwilligerswerk’ (Giving Time: Volunteer Work’), in Th. N. M. Schuyt (ed.), Geven in Nederland 2003: Giften, legaten, sponsoring en vrijwilligerswerk (Giving in the Netherlands 2003: Gifts, Legacies, Sponsoring and Volunteer Work (Houten/Mechelen, Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum), pp. 80–108. [Google Scholar]
  1. Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., van den Heuvel, H. 1998Career-oriented versus team-oriented commitment and behavior at workJournal of Applied Psychology8: 717-730. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  1. Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I. 1975Belief, Attitude, Intention and BehaviorAddison-WesleyReading, MA. [Google Scholar]
  1. Hoare, S.: 2004, ‘Social Workers’, Human Resources, November, 40–43. [Google Scholar]
  1. Hunt, S. D., Morgan, R. M. 1995The Comparative Advantage Theory of CompetitionJournal of Marketing5:91-115. [Google Scholar]
  1. Hunt, S. D., Morgan, R. M. 1997Resource-Advantage Theory of Competition: A Snake Swallowing its Tail or a General Theory of Competition?Journal of Marketing61:74-82. [Google Scholar]
  1. Jackson, E. F., Bachmeier, M. D., Wood, J. R., Craft, E. A. 1995Volunteering and charitable giving: Do religious and associational ties promote helping behavior?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly24:59-78. [Google Scholar]
  1. Luijk, H. J. L. 2000In search of instruments. Business and ethics halfwayJournal of Business Ethics 27-38. [CrossRef][Google Scholar]
  1. McAlister, D., Ferrell, L. 2002The Role of Strategic Philanthropy in Marketing StrategyEuropean Journal of Marketing36:689-705. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  1. McGee, G. W., Ford, R. C. 1987Predicting Participation and Production Outcomes through a Two-Dimensional Model of Organizational CommitmentAcademy of Management Journal35:638-642. [Google Scholar]
  1. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M. 1982Employee-Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism and TurnoverAcademic PressNew York. [Google Scholar]
  1. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., Porter, L. W. 1979The Measurement of Organizational CommitmentJournal of Vocational Behavior14:224-247. [CrossRef][Google Scholar]
  1. Organ, D. W., Ryan, K. 1995A Meta-analytic Review of Attitudinal and Dispositional Predictors of Organizational Citizenship BehaviorPersonnel Psychology48:775-802. [Google Scholar]
  1. Porter, M. E. and M. R. Kramer: 2002, ‘The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy’, Harvard Business Review, December, 57–68. [Google Scholar]
  1. Sanders, K., Roefs, A. 2002‘Maatschappelijk verantwoord ondernemen en binding van medewerkers’ (‘Corporate social responsibility and employee bonding’)Gedrag en Organisatie15:94-105. [Google Scholar]