Structural Equation Modelling on the Relationships between Teachers’ Trust in Manager, Commitment to Manager, Satisfaction with Manager and Intent to Leave

Croatian Journal of Education Vol.16; No.1/2014, pages: 165-189 Original research paper Paper submitted: 16th August 2012 Paper accepted: 16th July 2013 Structural Equation Modelling on the Relationships between Teachers’ Trust in Manager, Commitment to Manager, Satisfaction with Manager and Intent to Leave Mehmet Karakuş1, Mustafa Toprak2 and Murat Gürpınar2 1 Faculty of Education, Zirve University 2 School of Foreign Languages, Zirve University Abstract This study aims to determine the relationships among teachers’ trust in the manager, commitment to the manager, satisfaction with the manager and teachers’ intent to leave. The data was collected on the sample of 478 primary school teachers using selfreport scales. Two alternative structural models were examined: one proposed that satisfaction with the manager causes commitment, while the other one proposed that commitment causes satisfaction. Both alternative models yielded exactly the same good fit indices. According to the first model, the teachers’ trust in manager predicts their satisfaction with manager and commitment to manager positively, while trust in manager negatively predicts their intent to leave through the mediating effect of satisfaction with manager. According to the second model, teachers’ trust in manager positively predicts their satisfaction with manager and commitment to manager, while trust in manager negatively predicts the teachers’ intent to leave through the mediating effects of commitment to manager and satisfaction with manager. Key words: commitment to the manager; intent to leave; satisfaction with the manager; trust in the manager. Introduction While discussing trust in leadership, Burke (Burke et al., 2007) questions the reason why political and military leaders, such as Alexander the Great, Hitler, and even George 165 Karakuş, Toprak and Gürpınar: Structural Equation Modelling on the Relationships between ... W. Bush, were able to capture the hearts and minds of their followers and lead them dutifully into some of the most fierce battles known to man in order to achieve their ultimate goals. The answer lies in the high levels of trust that subordinates have in their leaders. Trust has been studied within a number of disciplines, including psychology, sociology, economics, political science and moral philosophy. These disciplines differ in how they approach and conceptualize trust (Rousseau et al., 1998), partly because they focus on different phenomena at different levels of engagement and interaction (Dietz et al., 2010). As shown by Rotter (1967, 1971, 1980) and Mishra and Spreitzer (1998), trust depends on the belief that the other party is competent, open, concerned and reliable. Trust is also a quite important variable of organizational effectiveness as revealed in studies by Argyris, Likert and McGregor (as cited in Dirks, & Ferris, 2001). Trust has been considered an indicator of the psychological experiences underpinning employees’ perceptions of leadership (Pillai et al., 1999). Reliance on cognitive or affective trust represents divergent approaches used by leaders in building relationships with subordinates. It should be noted that some leadership perspectives, particularly leader–member exchange theory (LMX), have considered the relational dynamics occurring between the leaders and their subordinates (Erdoğan, & Liden, 2002). The two types of trust in leaders differ in their nature. Trust in the direct leader is created through a dyadic interpersonal relationship with the supervisor. Trust in the top management, on the other hand, is based more on the reputation of the organization’s top leadership than on information gained through a direct interpersonal relationship (Costigan et al., 2011). This study focuses on the relationship between subordinates and trust in the direct leader rather than trust in the top manager defined by Fox (1974) as institutional trust and by Scott (1980) as perceived value of managementby-objective program. Trust that operates as a critical psychological mechanism in realizing leadership effectiveness (Yang, & Mossholder, 2010) is also thought to stem from both a cognitive base grounded on characteristics salient for task-related interactions, and an affective base grounded on socio-emotional elements pertinent to interpersonal interactions (Dirks, & Ferrin, 2002). As suggested by Kramer (1996), due to the asymmetries of power and status inherent in hierarchical relationships between employees and organizational authorities, the issues of vulnerability and dependency are particularly salient, which makes trust in leaders critical for enhancing positive employee behaviour and attitudes to work. Thus, trustworthiness attributions have a strong, widespread influence upon people’s reactions to leaders (Yang, & Mossholder, 2010). Managerial Trust and Commitment Unlike ‘reactive behaviours of compliance responding to bureaucratic control in the traditional personnel management’, commitment generates ‘proactive employee behaviours’ (Guest, 1995; Legge, 1995). Meyer and Allen (1984) propose three components of commitment: affective, continuance and normative. The lack of 166 Croatian Journal of Education, Vol.16; No.1/2014, pages: 165-189 consensus on the definition of commitment contributed greatly to its treatment as a multidimensional construct (Meyer, & Allen, 1991). Commitment, which is defined in the literature as a force that binds an individual to a course of action of relevance to one or more targets (Meyer, & Herscovitch, 2001) or the psychological attachment felt by the person for the organization (O’Reilly, & Chatman, 1986), was found to be the main driving force for trust in management (Cho, & Park, 2011). Blau (1964) suggested that trust should be taken seriously in organizations because the effect of trust can guarantee the lasting respect of mutual commitments between the entities involved in the relationship. Considering the fact that commitment is closely related to the emotions, ideas, philosophies and values that are held or internalized by individuals in performing their duties (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Meyer, & Allen, 1997), leadership in an organization is important because it involves the imposition of influence that has changed the attitude and actions of subordinates to use various techniques to influence other individuals (Koontz, & Weihrich, 1992). As the leader has a great influence on the rise and maintenance of employees’ commitment levels (Huang, 2011), Somech and Bogler (2002) assert that it is the responsibility of the management team or school administrators to create, stimulate, and then turn to the commitment of the subordinates, and the school population as a whole. According to Cavanagh (1978), transformational leaders motivate the followers to a high level of commitment and loyalty to the visions of the leader. Demirel (2008) has also found out that trust that employees feel towards their co-workers and managers affects their commitment level positively. Yang and Mossholder (2010) also revealed that affective trust in the management and affective trust in supervisor significantly predicted affective organizational commitment. Managerial Trust and Satisfaction Satisfaction, which is defined by Spector (1997) as a consequence of past events and experiences, and is seen as an indicator of ‘organizational and personal well-being’ and considered by Churchill et al. (1974) as the characteristics of the job itself and work environment which salespeople find rewarding, fulfilling and satisfying, is found to be closely related to leadership behaviour, operating as extrinsic motivation (David, 1990). Likewise, Fast (1964) states that ‘‘consideration’’ and ‘‘initiation of structure’’ behaviours of principals positively relate to teachers’ satisfaction. This important variable, which is known to be closely related to leaders’ types of behaviour, was found to be influenced by subordinates’ trust in the manager. As shown in the study, trust associated with either the immediate leader or distant leaders could influence important work attitudes such as job satisfaction (Spector, 1997). The connection between trust and satisfaction has been studied primarily from the standpoint of relations between the employee and his or her supervisor (Goris et al. 2003; Pillai et al., 1999). Several recent empirical studies have provided results showing a positive link between trust and satisfaction at the organizational level (Macky, & Boxall, 2007; Gil, 2008). 167 Karakuş, Toprak and Gürpınar: Structural Equation Modelling on the Relationships between ... Another important study carried out by Cho and Park (2011) revealed that trust in the management is substantially associated with employee satisfaction and organizational commitment. Leaders’ trustworthiness in an organization makes employees believe that they intend to seek employees’ best interest and act effectively on employees’ behalf. It is also important to note that affective, rather than cognitive trust in supervisor proved to be important for predicting outcomes of affective commitment, job satisfaction, and in-role and extra-role behaviour (Yang, & Mosholder, 2010). Managerial Trust and Intent to Leave Intention to leave is considered to be a conscious and deliberate desire to leave an organization within the near future and is regarded as the last part of a sequence in the withdrawal cognition process (Mobley et al., 1978). In their meta-analysis study focusing on the relationship between trust and turnover intentions, Dirks and Ferrin (2002) revealed that there is a negative relationship between employees’ trust in the direct leader and their intent to leave. Costigan et al. (2011) have also noted that employee trust in the firm’s leader will be more strongly correlated with turnover intentions. Burker and Witt (2004) argue that employees’ intentions to quit their jobs are of the unique importance because an employee who is preoccupied with a thought of leaving the organization may be detached from his/her co-workers, which may have considerable consequences for performance. Also, an employee’s exit from the organization may have a dysfunctional effect on the organization, where the employee is highly valued for his/her skills. Ladebo (2006) showed that social climate of the organization has a strong influence on the employee’s decision to remain with or leave the organization. A climate of trust in the organization which promotes sharing of information among members both vertically and horizontally, where members support each other and where there is a strong cohesion between the members would likely motivate an employee to stay in the organization. It is, thus, reasonable to express that management-affective trust is strongly related to turnover intentions (Ladebo, 2006). Commitment and Satisfaction According to a widely accepted view, job satisfaction is among the antecedents of organizational commitment (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; O’Leary-Kelly, & Griffin, 1995). The proponents of this view argue that job satisfaction develops relatively early due to some personal and organizational factors that also determine organizational commitment. However, organizational commitment develops more slowly and requires exposure to a variety of organizational components inside and outside the job (Vanderberg, & Lance, 1992). Another view is that organizational commitment may be among the antecedents of job satisfaction. This view is based upon the behavioural commitment approach. According to this view, individuals’ awareness of the alternative employment opportunities leads them to experience a cognitive dissonance. Due to the need of 168 Croatian Journal of Education, Vol.16; No.1/2014, pages: 165-189 reducing this cognitive dissonance, they rationalize their choice and check if the conditions of their current situation are consistent with their commitment. In doing so, they develop positive attitudes (like satisfaction) towards the focus they are committed to (Vanderberg, & Lance, 1992; Meyer, & Allen, 1997). In addition to these views, some researchers argued that there is a reciprocal relationship between commitment and satisfaction (Farkas, & Tetrick, 1989; Vanderberg, & Lance, 1992). Commitment, Satisfaction and Intent to Leave According to Hellman (1997), increasing dissatisfaction in employees results in a higher chance of considering other employment opportunities. Job satisfaction should be more closely related to affective commitment, in that both are primarily affective reactions to work (Moynihan et al., 2000). Clugston (2000), in his study carried out to test whether the three dimensions of commitment mediated the relationship between the job satisfaction and intention to leave, revealed that job satisfaction has a positive impact on affective, normative commitment and continuance commitment. On the other hand, he also revealed it has a greater direct impact on the intent to leave than on organizational commitment. Ladebo (2006) found out that affective commitment is significantly and negatively related to quit intentions. Meyer et al. (1993) found that affective and normative commitment had a significant negative effect on the intention to leave. Hom and Griffeth’s model stresses the independent effects of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on the intent to leave (Moynihan et al., 2000). In this model, the intention to quit is seen as an outcome of job satisfaction and commitment which refers to the fact that low job satisfaction will lead to low commitment which will, in turn, result in intentions to leave. Tett and Meyer (1993) reported a negative correlation between the job satisfaction and turnover intention in their meta-analysis. They further established that job satisfaction and organizational commitment were correlated and each independently predicted turnover intention. Purpose of the Study Managers’ attempt to create trust in their followers is supposed to yield many useful outcomes for them. In this way, followers may develop commitment to the manager, they may be more satisfied with their managers and their intentions to leave may be reduced. The aim of this study is to determine the relationships among the variables of teachers’ trust in the manager, commitment to the manager, satisfaction with the manager and teachers’ intentions to leave the schools they are currently employed in. Methods Participants and Procedure The population of this study consisted of primary school teachers working in Gaziantep city centre during the academic year 2011/2012. A sample of 640 teachers 169 Karakuş, Toprak and Gürpınar: Structural Equation Modelling on the Relationships between ... was selected randomly from this population. 478 of these selected teachers accepted to participate in this study and answered the questionnaires with a response rate of 74.68%. The paper and pencil questionnaires were administered to these teachers. Instruments The “Faculty Trust in the Principal” subscale of “Omnibus Trust Scale” developed by Hoy and Tschannen-Moran (2003) was used to measure teachers’ trust in their managers. Commitment to manager was measured by a scale that was composed of the items related to commitment to manager in the “Organizational Commitment Scale” developed by Karakuş and Aslan (2009). The “Scale of Satisfaction with the Manager” and the “Scale of Intent to Leave School” were developed by the researchers. Analysis Data were smoothed by eliminating outliers and making the necessary transformations to normalize the skewness and kurtosis coefficients. Exploratory factor analysis (with SPSS) and the confirmatory factor analysis (with AMOS) were performed for each scale. Structural equation approach was used through Maximum Likelihood method with AMOS. After the measurement model was confirmed, the structural model was calculated on the basis of the confirmed measurement model. The fit indices of Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA], Root Mean Square Residual [SRMR], Goodness of Fit Index [GFI], Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index [AGFI], Normed Fit Index [NFI], Comparative Fit Index [CFI], and Incremental Fit Index [IFI] were used to analyze the model fit in the structural equation modelling. Consistent Akaike’s Information Criterion (CAIC) was used to compare the models. Results Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses For each scale, exploratory factor analysis was performed with Maximum Likelihood approach individually and confirmatory factor analysis was performed including all the scales used in this study to identify the best measurement model. In the confirmatory factor analysis, covariances were added between the latent constructs that represent each scale in the analysis. In the confirmatory measurement model, the items of T1, T3, T5, T6, S1, L4, S5 and C6 were deleted, because these items had higher error covariances with the remaining items. This measurement model fitted the data well (χ²=205.733, df=98, p=0.000, χ²/df=2.099, RMR=0.048, RMSEA=0.048, GFI=0.951, AGFI=0.932, CFI=0.980). In this measurement model, the covariance values between the latent variables were consistent with the related literature. While trust in the manager, satisfaction with the manager and commitment to the manager had significant positive covariances with each other, all of these variables had significant negative covariances with the variable of intent to leave (Figure 1). According to the results of the confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses, a single factor “trust in manager” scale had five items (T2, T4, T7, T8 and T9) explaining 170 Croatian Journal of Education, Vol.16; No.1/2014, pages: 165-189 64.359% of the variance in the scale with factor loadings ranging from 0.58 to 0.86 (KMO=0.883, Bartlett=0.000, Cronbach’s Alpha=0.889). A single factor “satisfaction with manager” scale had four items (S2, S3, S4 and S6) explaining 63.713% of the variance in the scale with factor loadings ranging from 0.70 to 0.89 (KMO=0.822, Bartlett=0.000, Cronbach’s Alpha=0.867). A single factor “commitment to manager” scale also had four items (C1, C2, C4 and C5) explaining 60.807% of the variance in the scale with factor loadings ranging from 0.64 to 0.85 (KMO=0.817, Bartlett=0.000, Cronbach’s Alpha=0.857). A single factor scale of “intent to leave” had three items (L1, L2, and L3), which explains 77.339% of the variance in the scale with factor loadings ranging from 0.78 to 0.95 (KMO=0.787, Bartlett=0.000, Cronbach’s Alpha=0.908). e11 S2 .91 T9 e8 e7 T8 T7 e4 T4 e2 T2 .58 .86 .86 .86 e13 S3 S4 .73 .85 .89 .70 e9 e12 e15 S6 -.61 Sat -.51 L1 e 22 L2 .89 .78 L3 e 23 .95 Trust Leave .81 e 24 .82 .80 Com .64 .85 -.47 .82 .78 C5 C4 C2 C1 e20 e19 e17 e16 Figure 1. Standardized confirmatory factor analysis results with covariances added between the latent constructs Notes: Trust: trust in manager, Sat: satisfaction with manager, Com: commitment to manager, Leave: intent to leave. Structural Models Two alternative structural models were tested according to the previous research findings. In the first structural model job satisfaction preceded commitment. In the second structural model commitment preceded job satisfaction. The First Structural Model: In the first structural model, the paths of “commitment to manager” ➝ “intent to leave” (β = 0.02, p = 0.825) and “trust in manager” ➝ “intent to leave” (β = 0.28, p = 0.063) had insignificant regression coefficients, so these paths 171 Karakuş, Toprak and Gürpınar: Structural Equation Modelling on the Relationships between ... were deleted from the model. The CAIC value decreased as the insignificant paths were deleted from the model. The final model’s CAIC value (467.947) was lower than the values of the other two models, which means it is preferable for the other two models. The final model also presented a good fit to the data (Table 1, Figure 2). According to this model, “trust in manager” has a direct positive effect on “satisfaction with manager”. “Trust in manager” has a positive effect on “commitment to manager”, both directly and through the partial mediation effect of “satisfaction with manager”. “Intent to leave” is negatively influenced by “trust in manager” through the full mediation effect of “satisfaction with manager”. Table 1. Parameters related to the first structural model Models Saturated Model Deletion 1 Deletion 2 (Final Model) χ² df χ²/df RMR RMSEA 205.733 205.781 98 99 2.099 2.079 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 209.841 100 2.098 0.049 0.048 NFI CFI IFI GFI AGFI Δ χ² CAIC 0.963 0.980 0.981 0.951 0.963 0.981 0.981 0.951 0.932 0.933 478.178 0.048 471.057 0.963 0.980 0.980 0.949 0.931 4.06 467.947 Notes: Deletion 1: deletion of the path of commitment to manager ➝ intent to leave, Deletion 2: deletion of the path of trust in manager ➝ intent to leave. e11 e12 S2 S3 S4 .72 .85 .90 .71 e25 e9 e8 e7 e4 e2 T9 .58 T8 .86 .86 T7 .86 T4 .82 T2 e13 e15 S6 Sat -.59 .91 Trust .39 e27 .64 .85 .45 e26 Leave L1 e 22 L2 .89 .78 L3 e 23 .95 e 24 Com .78 .82 C5 C4 C2 C1 e20 e19 e17 e16 Figure 2. Standardized results of the final model of the first structural model Notes: Trust: trust in manager, Sat: satisfaction with manager, Com: commitment to manager, Leave: intent to leave. Second Structural Model: In the second structural model, the path coefficients were similar to the first model and the paths of “commitment to manager” ➝ “intent to leave” (β=0.02, p=0.825) and “trust in manager” ➝ “intent to leave” (β=0.28, p=0.063) had 172 Croatian Journal of Education, Vol.16; No.1/2014, pages: 165-189 insignificant regression coefficients, so these paths were deleted from the model. As the insignificant paths were deleted from the model, the CAIC value was reduced. Similarly to the first structural model, the final model’s CAIC value (467.947) was lower than the other two models, which means that it is more suitable for the remaining two models. This final model presented a good fit to the data (Table 2, Figure 3). According to this model, “trust in manager” has a direct positive effect on “commitment to manager”. “Trust in manager” has a positive effect on “satisfaction with manager” both directly and through the partial mediation effect of “commitment to manager”. “Intent to leave” is negatively influenced by the variables of “trust in manager” and “commitment to manager” through the full mediation effect of “satisfaction with manager”. Table 2. Parameters related to the second structural model Models Saturated Model Deletion 1 Deletion 2 (Final Model) χ² df χ²/df RMR RMSEA NFI CFI IFI GFI AGFI Δ χ² CAIC 205.733 205.781 98 99 2.099 2.079 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.963 0.963 0.980 0.981 0.951 0.932 - 478.178 0.981 0.981 0.951 0.933 0.048 471.057 209.841 100 2.098 0.049 0.048 0.963 0.980 0.980 0.949 0.931 4.06 467.947 Notes: Deletion 1: deletion of the path of commitment to manager ➝ intent to leave; Deletion 2: deletion of the path of trust in manager ➝ intent to leave. e11 e12 S2 S3 S4 .72 .85 .90 .71 e25 e9 e8 e7 e4 e2 T9 .58 T8 .86 .86 T7 .86 T4 .82 T2 e13 e15 S6 Sat -.59 .73 Trust .22 e26 Leave .80 e27 .64 .85 .95 L1 e 22 L2 e 23 .89 .78 L3 e 24 Com .78 .82 C5 C4 C2 C1 e20 e19 e17 e16 Figure 3. Standardized results of the final model of the second structural model Notes: Trust: trust in manager, Sat: satisfaction with manager, Com: commitment to manager, Leave: intent to leave. 173 Karakuş, Toprak and Gürpınar: Structural Equation Modelling on the Relationships between ... Along with the other fit indices, the CAIC values pertaining to the first and the second structural models were exactly the same (Table 1, Table 2). So, except for the theoretical reasons, there is no statistical reason to prefer either of these models. In both models, the paths of “commitment to manager” ➝ “intent to leave” and “trust in manager” ➝ “intent to leave” were deleted from each model because of their insignificant regression coefficients. In the first model, “intent to leave” was influenced by “trust in manager” through the full mediation effect of “satisfaction with manager”. However, in the second model, “intent to leave” was influenced by the variables “trust in manager” and “commitment to manager” through the full mediation effect of “satisfaction with manager”. Discussion and Conclusions Employees’ positive attitudes related to the focus are supposed to trigger some other positive attitudes towards that focus and to alleviate the negative effects of negative attitudes related to that focus. In this way, employees’ trust in the focus is supposed to trigger commitment to and satisfaction with that focus, and these positive attitudes may lead employees to evaluate their organization more positively as a whole and may alleviate the effects of the negative experiences at work that may evoke intent to leave in their minds. The results of this study supported these assumptions in a way that teachers’ trust in their managers triggers commitment to and satisfaction with their managers and these positive attitudes reduce their intentions to leave the schools they are currently employed in. According to the results of this study, while teachers’ trust in their school managers increases, they develop a higher level of commitment to their managers, they become more satisfied with their managers and they less frequently intend to leave their current schools. These results are similar to the previous research findings that trust has a positive effect on satisfaction (Poon, 2003; Macky, & Boxall, 2007; Gil, 2008; Paille, Bourdeau, & Galois, 2010; Yang, & Mossholder, 2010; Cho, & Park, 2011;) and commitment (Tan, & Tan 2000; Chrobot-Mason, 2003; Ladebo, 2006;Demirel, 2008; Zeinabadi, & Salehi, 2011; Cho, & Park, 2011) a negative effect on intent to leave (Ferres et al., 2003; Costigan, Insinga, Berman, & Kranas, 2011). Bearing in mind the fact that job satisfaction is defined as a combination of one’s cognitive beliefs and affective work experiences (Weiss et al., 1999), it is possible to see that it is directly or indirectly influenced by trust, which is among the most significant affective factors in organizations. Two alternative structural models were tested in this study in line with the alternative explanations of the relationship between satisfaction and commitment. While Vandenberg and Lance’s (1992) study supported the “commitment causes satisfaction” model, in the current study these two models yielded exactly the same fit indices, which means that both models are acceptable simultaneously. According to the first model, in which satisfaction precedes commitment, teachers are more committed 174 Croatian Journal of Education, Vol.16; No.1/2014, pages: 165-189 to their managers when they perceive their managers as trustworthy and when they are more satisfied with their managers. These findings corroborate the classical view that job satisfaction develops earlier than commitment, along with some personal and organizational determinants of commitment (Mowday et al., 1982; Vanderberg, & Lance, 1992; O’Leary-Kelly, & Griffin, 1995). According to the second model, in which commitment precedes satisfaction, teachers are more satisfied with their managers as they perceive them more trustworthy and they are more committed to them. This model corroborates the behavioural commitment view that teachers, as they become more committed to their managers, tend to rationalize and idealize managers’ actions and become more satisfied with their managers. They develop this attitude because of the need to reduce their cognitive dissonance stemming from their perceptions of other employment alternatives (Vanderberg, & Lance, 1992; Meyer, & Allen, 1997). Teachers’ intent to leave their current school is negatively influenced by other variables mentioned in this study. In the first model, the more the teachers perceive their managers as trustworthy, the more satisfied they become with their managers, so they less frequently intend to leave their current school. Commitment does not have a significant effect on intent to leave in this model. In the second model, as teachers perceive their managers more trustworthy, they become more committed to their managers, their trust and commitment leads them to be more satisfied with their managers and they less frequently intend to leave their current school. These results corroborate the findings of the previous body of research that intent to leave is negatively influenced by trust (Albrecht, & Travaglione, 2003; Costigan, Insinga, Berman, & Kranas, 2011), satisfaction (Cavanagh, & Coffin, 1992; Shields, & Ward, 2001; Tzeng, 2002; Sourdif, 2004; Chen et al., 2008; El-Jardali, Dimassi, Dumit, Jamal, & Mouro, 2009) and commitment (Griffeth et al., 2000; Ladebo, 2006; Simon et al., 2010; Gieter, Hofmans, & Pepermans, 2011). Trust in supervisors is a very important variable leading to intent to stay at or quit the organization depending on its strength and direction. As noted by Costigan et al. (2011), an incompetent (or competent) and uncaring (or caring) boss seems to have less of an effect on turnover intentions than does a lack of trust (or a lot of trust) in the top-management team. It is also believed that trust is a very valuable asset for leaders since it is a powerful engine increasing employee’s commitment to organization (Cho, & Park, 2011). Referring to the impact of trust in employees’ job satisfaction, Paille et al. (2010) found that employee trust in the ability of an organization to respond to his or her needs (career progression, remuneration, performance evaluation or training), increases job satisfaction. Teachers’ intent to leave may lead them to display counterproductive work behaviours and may reduce their performance at work. In order to reduce the teachers’ intent to leave their current schools and in order to prevent these possible negative consequences at work, it would be useful for school managers to behave in a manner that generates trust, commitment and satisfaction in teachers. In order for the teachers to be more committed to their managers and to be more satisfied with managerial 175 Karakuş, Toprak and Gürpınar: Structural Equation Modelling on the Relationships between ... actions, it would also be helpful if school managers paid special attention to their statements and actions so that they do not damage teachers’ trust in the management. They should also behave in a consistent manner to enable the further building of managerial trust. References Albrecht, S., & Travaglione, A. (2003). Trust in public-sector senior management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14 (1), 76–92. Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row. Cavanagh, S. (1992). Job satisfaction of nursing staff working in hospitals. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17, 704–711. Chen, H., Chu, C., Wang, Y., & Lin, L. (2008). Turnover factors revisited: a longitudinal study of Taiwan-based staff nurses. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45, 277–285. Cho, Y. J., & Park, H. (2011). Exploring the relationships among trust, employee satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Public Management Review, 13:4, 551-573. Chrobot-Mason, D.L. (2003). Keeping the promise: Psychological contract violations for minority employee. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 83(6), 922-931. Churchill, G. A., Ford, N. M., & Walker, O. C., Jr. (1974). Measuring the job satisfaction of industrial salesman. Journal of Marketing Research, 11(3), 254–260. Clugston, M. (2000). The mediating effects of multidimensional commitment on job satisfaction and intent to leave. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 477-486. Costigan, R, Insigna, R., Berman J., Kranas G., & Kureshov, V. (2011). Revisiting the relationship of supervisor trust and CEO trust to turnover intentions: A three-country comparative study. Journal of World Business. 46,74–83. Demirel, Y. (2008). Örgütsel güvenin örgütsel bağlılık üzerine etkisi: tekstil sektörü çalışanlarına yönelik bir araştırma. Yönetim ve Ekonomi. 15(2),179-194. Dirks, K.T., & Ferrin, D.L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12(4), 450-467. Dirks, K.T., & Ferrin, D.L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611−628. El-Jardali, F., Dimassi, H., Dumit, N., Jamal, D., & Mouro, G. (2009). A national cross-sectional study on nurses’ intent to leave and job satisfaction in Lebanon: Implications for policy and practice. BMC Nursing, 8:3 /online/. Retrieved on 20th July 2012 from http://www. biomedcentral.com/1472-6955/8/3 Erdogan, B., & Liden, R.C. (2002). Social Exchanges in the Workplace: A Review of Recent Developments and Future Developments in Leader–Member Exchange Theory. In L.L. Neider, & C.A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership (pp. 65−114). Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing. 176 Croatian Journal of Education, Vol.16; No.1/2014, pages: 165-189 Farkas, A.J., & Tetrick, L.E. (1989). A three-wave longitudinal analysis of the causal ordering of satisfaction and commitment on turnover decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 855–868. Ferres, N., Connell, J., & Travaglione, A. (2003). Coworker trust: A social lubricant for positive workplace attitudes and perceptions of support /online/. Retrieved on 7 th March 2012 from http://www.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/w3/w3SYD0W/EURAM/pdf-2003/FerresConnell Travaglione-EURAM03 Gieter, S., Hofmans, J., & Pepermans, R. (2011). Revisiting the impact of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on nurse turnover intention: An individual differences analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48, 1562–1569. Gil, A.S. (2008). The role of trust in employee-manager relationship. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20 (1), 98-103. Guest, D. (1995). Human Resource Management: Trade Unions and Industrial Relations. In J. Storey (Ed.), Human resource management: a critical test. New York: Routledge. Goris, J.R., Vaught, B.C., & Pettit, J.D. (2003). Effects of trust in superiors and influence of superiors on the association between individual-job congruence and job performance/ satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17 (3), 327-43. Griffeth, R.W., Hom, P.W., & Gaetner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: update, moderator tests, and research implication for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463–488. Hoy, W. K. & 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 Schools (pp. 181-208). Information Age Publishing: Greenwich: CT. Karakuş, M., & Aslan, B. (2009). Teachers’ commitment focuses: a three dimensioned view. Journal of Management Development, 28 (5), 425–438. Kramer, R. M. (1996). Divergent realities and convergent disappointments in the hierarchic relation: Trust and the intuitive auditor at work. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 216−245). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ladebo, O. J. (2006). Perceptions of trust and employees’ attitudes: a look at Nigeria’s agricultural extension workers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20 (3). Legge, K. (1995). Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and Realities. London: Macmillan. Macky, K., & Boxall, P. (2007). The relationship between ‘high-performance work practices’ and employee attitudes: an investigation of additive and interaction effects. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18 (4), 537-67. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the “side-bet theory’’ of organizational commitment: some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372-378. Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., & Smith, C.A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538-551. Meyer, J. P., & Allen J. N. (1997). Commitment in the workplace – Theory, research and application. California: Sage Publications. Mishra, A.K., & Spreitzer, G.M. (1998). Explaining how survivors respond to downsizing: The roles of trust, empowerment, justice and work redesign. Academic Management Review. 23(3), 567–88. 177 Karakuş, Toprak and Gürpınar: Structural Equation Modelling on the Relationships between ... Meyer, J.P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11(3), 299-326. Mobley, W.H., Horner, S.O., & Hollingsworth, A.T. (1978). An evaluation of precursors of hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 408–414. Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., & Steers, R.M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism and turnover. New York: Academic Press. Moynihan, L. M., Boswell, W. R., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). The influence of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on executive withdrawal and performance. CAHRS Working Paper Series. Paper 94 /online/. Retrieved on 12th June 2011 from http://digitalcommons. ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/94. O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., & Griffin, R.W. (1995). Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment. In Brewer, N. & Wilson, C. (Eds.), Psychology and Policing, (pp. 317-338). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: the effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492 ± 499. Paille, P., Bourdeau, L., & Galois, I. (2010). Support, trust, satisfaction, intent to leave and citizenship at organizational level: A social exchange approach. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 18 (1), 41-58. Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C., & Williams, E. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: a two-sample study. Journal of Management, 25 (6), 897-933. Poon, J. M. L. (2003). Situational antecedents and outcomes of organizational politics perceptions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(2), 138–155. Rotter, J.B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35(4), 651–665. Rotter, J.B. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. American Psychology, 26, 443–52. Rotter, J.B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness and gullibility. American Psychology, 35(1), 1–7. Shields M.A., & Ward, M. (2001). Improving nurse retention in the National Health Service in England: the impact of job satisfaction on intention to quit. Journal of Health Economics, 20(5), 677-701. Simon, M., Müller, H.B., & Hasselhorn, H.M. (2010). Leaving the organization or the profession: A multilevel analysis of nurses’ intentions. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66, 616–626. Sourdif, J. (2004). Predictors of nurses’ intent to stay at work in a university health centre. Nursing and Health Sciences, 6, 59–68. Spector, P. (1997). Job satisfaction: application, assessment, cause and consequences, London: Sage Publications. Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: components, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1466. 178 Croatian Journal of Education, Vol.16; No.1/2014, pages: 165-189 Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analysis based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46, 259-293. Tzeng, H.M. (2002). The influence of nurses’ working motivation and job satisfaction on intention to quit: An empirical investigation in Taiwan. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 39(8), 867-878. Tan, H. H., & Tan, C. S. F. (2000). Toward the differentiation of trust in supervisor and trust in organization. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126 (2), 241–60. Vandenberg, R.J., & Lance, C.E. (1992). Examining the causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of Management, 18(1),153-167. Weiss, H. M., Nicholas, J. P., & Daus, C. S. (1999). An examination of the joint effects of affective experiences and job beliefs on job satisfaction and variations in affective experiences over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 1−24. Yang, J., & Mossholder, K.W. (2010). Examining the effects of trust in leaders: A bases-andfoci approach. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 50-63. Zeinabadi, H., & Salehi, K. (2011). Role of procedural justice, trust, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment in Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) of teachers: Proposing a modified social exchange model. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 29, 1472 – 1481. Mehmet Karakuş Faculty of Education, Zirve University, Kızılhisar Kampüsü 27260 Gaziantep, Turkey mehmetkarakus44@hotmail.com Mustafa Toprak School of Foreign Languages, Zirve University, Kızılhisar Kampüsü 27260 Gaziantep, Turkey mustafa.toprak@zirve.edu.tr Murat Gürpınar School of Foreign Languages, Zirve University, Kızılhisar Kampüsü 27260 Gaziantep, Turkey murat.gurpinar@zirve.edu.tr 179 Karakuş, Toprak and Gürpınar: Structural Equation Modelling on the Relationships between ... Modeliranje strukturnih jednadžbi na temelju veza između povjerenja nastavnika u menadžment, predanosti menadžmentu, zadovoljstva menadžmentom i namjere napuštanja organizacije Sažetak Cilj ovoga istraživanja je odrediti veze između povjerenja zaposlenika u menadžera, predanosti menadžeru, zadovoljstva menadžerom i namjere nastavnika da napuste ustanovu u kojoj rade. Podaci su prikupljeni na uzorku od 478 nastavnika osnovne škole koji su upotrebljavali skale samoprocjene. Ispitana su i dva drugačija strukturna modela: jedan koji tvrdi da zadovoljstvo menadžmentom vodi predanosti i drugi koji tvrdi da predanost menadžmentu vodi zadovoljstvu. Oba modela pokazala su jednako dobre indekse pogodnosti. Prema prvome modelu povjerenje nastavnika u menadžera pozitivno utječe na njihovo zadovoljstvo menadžerom i predanost menadžeru, dok to isto povjerenje u menadžera umanjuje njihovu namjeru da napuste organizaciju, kroz medijacijski učinak zadovoljstva menadžerom. Prema drugome modelu, povjerenje nastavnika u menadžera pozitivno utječe na njihovo zadovoljstvo menadžerom i na predanost menadžeru, dok povjerenje u menadžera umanjuje njihovu namjeru da napuste organizaciju, kroz medijacijski učinak predanosti menadžeru i zadovoljstva menadžerom. Ključne riječi: namjera napuštanja organizacije; povjerenje u menadžera; predanost menadžeru; zadovoljstvo menadžerom. Uvod Raspravljajući o povjerenju u menadžment, Burke (Burke i sur. 2007) ispituje razloge zbog kojih su politički i vojni vođe, poput Aleksandra Velikog, Hitlera, pa čak i Georgea W. Busha, mogli osvojiti srca svojih pristaša i spremno ih povesti u neke od najvećih 180 Croatian Journal of Education, Vol.16; No.1/2014, pages: 165-189 bitaka poznatih čovječanstvu, a da bi ostvarili svoje krajnje ciljeve. Odgovor se može naći u visokom stupnju povjerenja koje su pristaše (sljedbenici) imali u svoje vođe. Povjerenje je bilo predmet istraživanja brojnih disciplina, uključujući psihologiju, sociologiju, ekonomiju, političke znanosti i moralnu filozofiju. Te discipline razlikuju se po načinu pristupanja pojmu povjerenja i njegovu konceptualiziranju (Rousseau i sur. 1998), djelomično zbog toga što se usredotočuju na različite fenomene, na različitim stupnjevima angažiranosti i interakcije (Dietz i sur. 2010). Kako su pokazali Rotter (1967, 1971 i 1980) i Mishra i Spreitzer (1998), povjerenje ovisi o uvjerenju da je druga strana kompetentna, otvorena, angažirana i pouzdana. Povjerenje je isto tako i prilično važna varijabla organizacijske učinkovitosti, kako su u svojim istraživanjima pokazali Argyris, Likert i McGregor (citirano u: Dirks i Ferris, 2001). Povjerenje se smatra pokazateljem psiholoških iskustava na kojima se temelje percepcije zaposlenika o njihovu menadžmentu (Pillai i sur. 1999). Oslanjanje na kognitivno ili afektivno povjerenje predstavlja divergentne pristupe kojima se menadžeri koriste kada izgrađuju odnose sa svojim podređenima. Trebalo bi istaknuti da su neke perspektive menadžmenta, posebno teorija razmjene između vođe i člana (LMX theory), razmatrale međusobnu dinamiku koja se odvija između vođa i njihovih podređenih (Erdoğan i Liden, 2002). Dvije vrste povjerenja u vođe razlikuju se po svojoj prirodi. Povjerenje u neposrednog menadžera gradi se preko dvostrane međusobne veze s nadređenim. Povjerenje u vrhovni menadžment, međutim, više se temelji na reputaciji vrhovnog menadžmenta organizacije nego na informacijama dobivenima u izravnom međusobnom kontaktu (Costigan i sur. 2011) Ovo istraživanje usredotočuje se na vezu između podređenih i povjerenja u neposrednog menadžera, a ne povjerenja u vrhovni menadžment organizacije koji je Fox (1974) definirao kao povjerenje u instituciju, a Scott (1980) kao percipiranu vrijednost programa upravljanja prema ciljevima. Također se smatra da povjerenje koje djeluje kao kritički psihološki mehanizam u ostvarivanju učinkovitosti menadžmenta (Yang i Mossholder, 2010), proizlazi i iz kognitivne osnove utemeljene na obilježjima bitnima za interakcije vezane uz ostvarivanje zadataka, kao i iz afektivne osnove utemeljene na socioemotivnim elementima bitnima za međusobne interakcije (Dirks i Ferrin, 2002). Kako je predložio Kramer (1996), zbog asimetrije moći i statusa koja je neizbježna u hijerarhijskom odnosu zaposlenika i menadžmenta organizacije, jako su važna pitanja ranjivosti i ovisnosti, što čini povjerenje u menadžera ključnim čimbenikom u poticanju pozitivnih obrazaca ponašanja zaposlenika i njihovih stavova prema radu. Stoga atribut osobe vrijedne povjerenja ima izrazito jak i širok utjecaj na način na koji ljudi reagiraju na menadžere (Yang i Mossholder, 2010). Povjerenje u menadžment i predanost menadžmentu Za razliku od „reaktivnog poslušnog ponašanja koje je rezultat birokratske kontrole u tradicionalnom upravljanju ljudskim resursima“ predanost menadžmentu stvara „proaktivno ponašanje zaposlenika“ (Guest, 1995; Legge, 1995). Meyer i Allen 181 Karakuş, Toprak and Gürpınar: Structural Equation Modelling on the Relationships between ... (1984) predložili su tri sastavnice predanosti: afektivnu, normativnu i kontinuitet. Nepostojanje konsenzusa o definiciji predanosti uvelike je doprinijelo tomu da se ona smatra višedimenzionalnim konstruktom (Meyer i Allen, 1991). Pokazalo se da je predanost, koja se u stručnoj literaturi ponegdje definira kao sila koja veže pojedinca za aktivnosti važne za ostvarivanje jednog ili više ciljeva (Meyer, Herscovitch, 2001) ili kao psihološka vezanost koju pojedinac osjeća prema organizaciji (O’Reilly i Chatman, 1986), glavna pokretačka snaga povjerenja u menadžment (Cho i Park, 2011). Blau (1964) smatra da povjerenje treba uzeti ozbiljno u organizacijama jer je učinak povjerenja jamstvo trajnog poštovanja međusobnih obveza svih osoba uključenih u taj odnos. Razmatrajući činjenicu da je predanost tijesno povezana s emocijama, idejama, filozofijama i vrijednostima koje pojedinci imaju ili internaliziraju u obavljanju svojih dužnosti (Mowday, Porter i Steers, 1982; Meyer i Allen, 1997), menadžment organizacije je važan jer upravo on uključuje nametanje utjecaja koji je promijenio stav i djelovanja podređenih, te ih potaknuo na upotrebu raznih tehnika kako bi utjecali na druge pojedince (Koontz i Weihrich, 1992). Budući da vođa ima velik utjecaj na rast i održavanje stupnja predanosti svojih zaposlenika (Huang, 2011), Somech i Bogler (2002) tvrde da je dužnost rukovodećega tima ili školske uprave da stvaraju, potiču i prihvaćaju predanost svojih podređenih i cijele školske populacije. Prema Cavanaghu (1978), transformacijski vođe motiviraju svoje sljedbenike za visok stupanj predanosti i odanosti viziji vođe. Demirel (2008) je otkrio da povjerenje koje zaposlenici imaju u svoje kolege i menadžere pozitivno utječe na njihovu predanost organizaciji. Yang i Mossholder (2010) su također došli do spoznaje da afektivno povjerenje u menadžment i afektivno povjerenje u nadređene pozitivno određuju afektivnu predanost organizaciji. Povjerenje u menadžment i zadovoljstvo menadžmentom Zadovoljstvo je Spector (1997) definirao kao posljedicu prošlih događaja i prethodnih iskustava, a koje se smatra pokazateljem „organizacijskog i osobnog blagostanja“. Churchill i sur. (1974) smatraju ga obilježjem samoga posla i radnog okružja za koje ljudi u trgovačkoj branši smatraju da donosi nagrade i ispunjenje. Smatra se da je zadovoljstvo tijesno povezano s ponašanjem vođe i da djeluje kao vanjska motivacija (David, 1990). Fast (1964) isto tako tvrdi da obrasci ponašanja ravnatelja koji uključuju „ugled“ i „uvođenje strukture“ pozitivno utječu na zadovoljstvo nastavnika. Pokazalo se da na tu važnu varijablu, za koju je poznato da je tijesno povezana s obrascima ponašanja menadžera, utječe povjerenje koje podređeni imaju u svojega menadžera. Kako je istraživanje pokazalo, povjerenje u vođu, bio on neposredan ili ne, moglo bi utjecati na važne stavove prema radu, kao što je zadovoljstvo poslom (Spector, 1997). Veza između povjerenja i zadovoljstva istraživala se ponajprije sa stajališta odnosa između zaposlenika i njezina ili njegova nadređenoga (Goris i sur. 2003; Pillai i sur. 1999). Rezultati nekoliko novijih empirijskih studija pokazali su pozitivnu vezu 182 Croatian Journal of Education, Vol.16; No.1/2014, pages: 165-189 između povjerenja i zadovoljstva na organizacijskom stupnju (Gil, 2008; Macky i Boxal, 2007). Drugo važno istraživanje, koje su proveli Cho i Park (2011), pokazalo je da je povjerenje u menadžment u velikoj mjeri povezano sa zadovoljstvom zaposlenika i predanosti organizaciji. Menadžeri koji u organizaciji uživaju povjerenje utječu na zaposlenike tako da oni vjeruju da menadžeri brane interese zaposlenika i da ih uvijek najbolje zastupaju. Također je važno napomenuti da se pokazalo da je afektivno, a ne kognitivno povjerenje u nadređenoga, važno za predviđanje rezultata afektivne predanosti organizaciji, zadovoljstva poslom, ponašanja vezanoga uz radnu ulogu i ponašanja izvan radne uloge (Yang i Mosholder, 2010). Povjerenje u menadžment i namjera napuštanja organizacije Namjera napuštanja organizacije smatra se svjesnom i namjernom željom za napuštanjem organizacije u skoroj budućnosti, posljednjim dijelom u nizu događaja unutar procesa kognitivnog povlačenja (Mobley i sur. 1978). U svojoj metaanalizi koja se usredotočila na odnos između povjerenja i namjere napuštanja organizacije, Dirks i Ferrin (2002) saznali su da postoji negativna veza između povjerenja koje zaposlenici imaju u neposrednog vođu i njihove namjere napuštanja organizacije. Costigan i sur. (2011) također su primijetili da je povjerenje zaposlenika u menadžera kompanije izrazitije povezano s namjerama napuštanja organizacije. Burker i Witt (2004) tvrde da su namjere zaposlenika da napuste organizaciju od izrazite važnosti jer se zaposlenik koji je zaokupljen mislima o napuštanju organizacije može udaljiti od svojih kolega i suradnika, što može znatno utjecati na njegovo izvršavanje radnih dužnosti. Također, ako zaposlenik napusti firmu, to može imati disfunkcionalan učinak na organizaciju u kojoj se zaposlenik cijeni zbog svojih vještina. Ladebo (2006) je pokazao da društvena klima u organizaciji ima jak učinak na odluku zaposlenika da ostane raditi u organizaciji ili da je napusti. Klima povjerenja u organizaciji koja potiče i vertikalnu i horizontalnu razmjenu informacija između svojih članova, u kojoj članovi pružaju podršku jedni drugima i u kojoj postoji jaka kohezija među članovima, vjerojatno će motivirati zaposlenika da ostane raditi u organizaciji. Stoga je razumno pretpostaviti da je afektivno povjerenje u menadžment izrazito povezano s namjerom napuštanja organizacije (Ladebo, 2006). Predanost i zadovoljstvo Prema općenito prihvaćenom stajalištu zadovoljstvo poslom jedan je od prethodnika predanosti organizaciji (Mowday, Porter i Steers, 1982; O’Leary-Kelly i Griffin, 1995). Pobornici tog stajališta smatraju da se zadovoljstvo poslom razvija relativno rano zbog nekih osobnih i organizacijskih čimbenika koji također određuju predanost organizaciji. Međutim, predanost organizaciji razvija se sporije i zahtijeva izloženost mnoštvu organizacijskih komponenti unutar posla i izvan njega (Vanderberg i Lance, 1992). 183 Karakuş, Toprak and Gürpınar: Structural Equation Modelling on the Relationships between ... Prema drugom stajalištu, predanost organizaciji prethodi zadovoljstvu poslom. To stajalište utemeljeno je na pristupu bihevioralne predanosti. Prema njemu, svijest koju pojedinac ima o mogućnostima zapošljavanja dovodi ga do stanja kognitivne disonance. Zbog potrebe da se ta kognitivna disonanca reducira, zaposlenici racionaliziraju svoj izbor i preispituju jesu li uvjeti njihova sadašnjeg posla u skladu sa stupnjem njihove predanosti organizaciji. Pri tome oni razvijaju pozitivne stavove (poput zadovoljstva) prema cilju kojemu su predani (Vanderberg i Lance, 1992; Meyer i Allen, 1997). Osim tih gledišta voditelji nekih istraživanja tvrde da postoji recipročna veza između predanosti i zadovoljstva (Farkas i Tetrick, 1989; Vanderberg i Lance, 1992). Predanost, zadovoljstvo i namjera napuštanja organizacije Prema Hellmanu (1997), rastuće nezadovoljstvo zaposlenika rezultira visokim izgledima da će razmotriti druge mogućnosti zapošljavanja. Zadovoljstvo poslom trebalo bi biti tijesno povezano s afektivnom predanošću, jer su obje ponajprije afektivne reakcije na posao (Moynihan i sur. 2000). Clugston (2000) je proveo istraživanje da bi provjerio utječu li tri dimenzije predanosti na odnos između zadovoljstva poslom i namjere napuštanja organizacije. Njegovo istraživanje je pokazalo da zadovoljstvo poslom ima pozitivan učinak na afektivnu i normativnu predanost, te kontinuitet predanosti. S druge strane, Clugston je također saznao da zadovoljstvo poslom ima veći izravan učinak na namjeru napuštanja organizacije nego na predanost organizaciji. Ladebo (2006) je saznao da je afektivna predanost značajno i negativno povezana s namjerom napuštanja organizacije. Meyer i sur. (1993) otkrili su da afektivna i normativna predanost organizaciji ima značajan negativan učinak na namjeru napuštanja organizacije. Model Homa i Griffetha naglašava neovisan učinak zadovoljstva poslom i predanosti organizaciji na namjeru napuštanja organizacije (Moynihan i sur 2000). Prema tome modelu, namjera napuštanja organizacije smatra se rezultatom zadovoljstva poslom i predanosti organizaciji koji se odnosi na činjenicu da će nizak stupanj zadovoljstva poslom dovesti do nižeg stupnja predanosti, što će, zauzvrat, rezultirati namjerom napuštanja organizacije. Tett i Meyer su u svojoj meta analizi (1993) zabilježili negativnu korelaciju između zadovoljstva poslom i namjere napuštanja organizacije. Tada su utvrdili korelaciju između zadovoljstva poslom i predanosti organizaciji, te da svaki od njih neovisno utječe na namjeru napuštanja organizacije. Svrha istraživanja Pokušaj menadžera da izgrade povjerenje kod svojih podređenih trebao bi ostvariti mnoge korisne rezultate za njih. Na taj način podređeni mogu razviti osjećaj predanosti menadžeru, mogu biti zadovoljniji svojim menadžerima, a njihove namjere napuštanja organizacije mogu se reducirati. Cilj ovoga istraživanja je odrediti veze između varijabli 184 Croatian Journal of Education, Vol.16; No.1/2014, pages: 165-189 povjerenja nastavnika u menadžera, predanosti menadžeru, zadovoljstva menadžerom i namjerama nastavnika da napuste škole u kojima trenutno rade. Metode Sudionici i postupak Populacija koja je sudjelovala u ovom istraživanju sastojala se od osnovnoškolskih nastavnika u centru Gaziantepa tijekom akademske godine 2011./2012. U populaciji je odabran nasumičan uzorak od 640 nastavnika. 478 nastavnika pristalo je sudjelovati u straživanju i čak ih je 74.68% ispunilo upitnik. Nastavnicima je podijeljen upitnik u papirnatom obliku kojia su morali ispunjavati olovkom. Instrumenti Da bi se utvrdio stupanj povjerenja nastavnika u njihove menadžere korištena je subskala „Povjerenje fakulteta u ravnatelja“ skale „Opće povjerenje“. Subskalu su izradili Hoy i Tschannen-Moran (2003). Predanost menadžeru mjerena je skalom koja se sastojala od tvrdnji povezanih s predanošću menadžeru u „Skali predanosti organizaciji“, a koju su izradili Karakuş i Aslan (2009). Voditelji istraživanja izradili su skale: “Skala zadovoljstva menadžerom” i “Skala namjere napuštanja škole kao organizacije“. Analiza Podaci su zaglađeni eliminiranjem netipičnih vrijednosti (outliers) i provođenjem neophodnih transformacija da bi se normalizirali koeficijenti asimetrije i spljoštenosti. Eksploratorna faktorska analiza (SPSS) i konfirmatorna faktorska analiza (AMOS) provedene su za svaku skalu. Koristio se pristup strukturnih jednadžbi metodom maksimalne vjerojatnosti (uz AMOS). Nakon što je potvrđen mjerni model, strukturni model izračunat je na temelju potvrđenoga mjernog modela. Pokazatelji pogodnosti srednje kvadratne pogreške aproksimacije (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation), rezidualne srednje kvadratne vrijednosti (Root Mean Square Residual), pokazatelj apsolutnog slaganja (Goodness of Fit Index), pokazatelj prilagođenog slaganja (Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index), normirani pokazatelj pogodnosti (Normed Fit Index), pokazatelj komparativne pogodnosti (Comparative Fit Index) i pokazatelj inkrementalne pogodnosti (Incremental Fit Index) koristili su se pri analizi pogodnosti modela u modeliranju strukturne jednadžbe. Konzistentan Akaikeov informacijski kriterij (CAIC) koristio se pri uspoređivanju modela. Rezultati Eksploratorna i konfirmatorna faktorska analiza Za svaku skalu pojedinačno primijenjena je eksploratorna faktorska analiza s metodom maksimalne vjerojatnosti, a konfirmatorna faktorska analiza primijenjena je na sve skale koje su se koristile u ovome istraživanju da bi se utvrdio najbolji mjerni model. U konfirmatornoj faktorskoj analizi dodane su kovarijance između latentnih 185 Karakuş, Toprak and Gürpınar: Structural Equation Modelling on the Relationships between ... konstrukata koji predstavljaju svaku skalu u analizi. U konfirmatornom mjernom modelu izbrisane su stavke T1, T3, T5, T6, S1, L4, S5 i C6, jer su te stavke imale veće kovarijance pogreške s preostalim stavkama. Mjerni model dobro je odgovarao podacima (χ²=205,733, df=98, p=0,000, χ²/df=2,099, RMR=0,048, RMSEA=0,048, GFI=0,951, AGFI=0,932, CFI=0,980). U tome mjernom modelu vrijednosti kovarijanci između latentnih varijabli bile su u skladu s postojećom literaturom. Dok su povjerenje u menadžera, zadovoljstvo menadžerom i predanost menadžeru imali značajne pozitivne međusobne kovarijance, sve ove varijable imale su značajne negativne kovarijance s varijablom namjere napuštanja organizacije (Prikaz 1). Prema rezultatima konfirmatorne i eksploratorne faktorske analize, jedan faktor, „povjerenje u menadžera“, imao je pet tvrdnji (T2, T4, T7, T8 i T9), što je objasnilo 64,359% varijance u skali s faktorskim opterećenjem od 0,58 do 0,86 (KMO = 0,83; Bartlett = 0,00; Cronbach alfa koeficijent = 0,889). Skala za faktor „zadovoljstvo menadžerom“ imala je četiri tvrdnje (S2, S3, S4 i S6), što je objasnilo 63,713% varijance u skali s faktorskim opterećenjem raspona od 0,70 do 0,89 (KMO = 0,822; Bartlett = 0,000; Cronbach alfa koeficijent = 0,867). Faktor skale „predanost menadžeru“ također je imao četiri tvrdnje (C1, C2, C4 i C5), što je objasnilo 60,807% varijance u skali s faktorskim opterećenjem raspona od 0,64 do 0,85 (KMO = 0,817; Bartlett = 0,000; Cronbach alfa koeficijent = 0,857). Faktor skale „namjera napuštanja organizacije“ imao je tri tvrdnje (L1, L2 i L3), što objašnjava 77,339% varijance u skali s faktorskim opterećenjem raspona od 0,78 do 0,95 (KMO = 0,787; Bartlett = 0,000; Cronbach alfa koeficijent = 0,908). Slika 1. Strukturni modeli Dva alternativna strukturna modela bila su testirana prema rezultatima prijašnjih istraživanja. U prvom strukturnom modelu zadovoljstvo poslom prethodnik je predanosti organizaciji. U drugom strukturnom modelu predanost prethodi zadovoljstvu poslom. Prvi strukturni model: U prvom strukturnom modelu veze „predanost menadžeru“ à „namjera napuštanja organizacije“ (β = 0,02, p = 0,825) i „povjerenje u menadžera“ à „namjera napuštanja organizacije“ (β = 0,28, p = 0,063) imale su neznačajne regresijske koeficijente, pa su stoga uklonjene iz modela. Završna CAIC vrijednost modela (467,947) bila je niža od vrijednosti druga dva modela, što znači da je ona odgovarajuća za druga dva modela. Krajnji je model također pokazao dobar stupanj odgovaranja podacima (Tablica 1, Prikaz 2). Prema tome modelu, „povjerenje u menadžera“ ima izravan pozitivan učinak na „zadovoljstvo menadžerom“. „Povjerenje u menadžera“ ima pozitivan učinak na „predanost menadžeru“, i izravno i posredstvom djelomičnog medijacijskog učinka, na „zadovoljstvo menadžerom“. Na „namjeru napuštanja organizacije“ negativno utječe „povjerenje u menadžera“ preko potpunog medijacijskog učinka „zadovoljstva menadžerom“. 186 Croatian Journal of Education, Vol.16; No.1/2014, pages: 165-189 Tablica 1. Slika 2. Drugi strukturni model: u drugom strukturnom modelu koeficijenti veze bili su slični onima iz prvoga modela, a veze „predanost menadžeru“ à „namjera napuštanja organizacije“ (β = 0,02; p = 0,825) i „povjerenje u menadžera“ à „namjera napuštanja organizacije“ (β = 0,28; p = 0,063) imale su neznačajne regresijske koeficijente, pa su te veze izbrisane iz modela. Kako su one izbrisane iz modela, smanjila se i CAIC vrijednost. Slično prvome strukturnom modelu, CAIC vrijednost završnog modela (467,947) bila je niža od vrijednosti druga dva modela, što znači da je ona pogodnija za preostala dva modela. Taj završni model pokazao je dobar stupanj odgovaranja podacima (Tablica 2, Prikaz 3). Prema tome modelu, „povjerenje u menadžera“ ima izravan pozitivan učinak na „predanost menadžeru“. „Povjerenje u menadžera“ ima pozitivan učinak na „zadovoljstvo menadžerom“ i izravno i preko djelomičnog medijacijskog učinka „predanosti menadžeru“. Na „namjeru napuštanja organizacije“ negativno utječu varijable „povjerenje u menadžera“ i „predanost menadžeru“ preko potpunog medijacijskog učinka „zadovoljstva menadžerom“. Tablica 2. Slika 3. Zajedno s druga dva indeksa odgovaranja, CAIC vrijednosti koje se tiču prvog i drugog strukturnog modela bile su potpuno iste (Tablica 1, Tablica 2). Stoga, osim teorijskih razloga, ne postoji statistički razlog za preferiranje ijednoga od tih modela. U oba modela, veze „predanost menadžeru“ à „namjera napuštanja organizacije“ i „povjerenje u menadžera“ à „namjera napuštanja organizacije“ bile su izbrisane iz svakoga modela zbog svojih neznačajnih regresijskih koeficijenata. U prvome modelu je na „namjeru napuštanja organizacije“ utjecalo „povjerenje u menadžera“ preko punog medijacijskog učinka „zadovoljstva menadžerom“. Međutim, u drugome modelu, na „namjeru napuštanja organizacije“ utjecale su varijable „povjerenje u menadžera“ i „predanost menadžeru“ preko potpunog medijacijskog učinka „zadovoljstva menadžerom“. Rasprava i zaključci Pozitivni stavovi zaposlenika prema njihovu cilju trebali bi potaknuti neke druge pozitivne stavove prema tome cilju i ublažiti negativan učinak negativnih stavova prema tome istom cilju. Na taj način povjerenje koje zaposlenici imaju u cilj trebalo bi izazvati predanost i zadovoljstvo tim ciljem, a takvi pozitivni stavovi mogli bi imati kao rezultat to da će zaposlenici pozitivno vrednovati svoju organizaciju kao cjelinu i da će to ublažiti učinak loših iskustava koja su doživjeli na poslu, a koja bi ih mogla potaknuti na razmišljanje o napuštanju organizacije. Rezultati ovog istraživanja podupiru navedene pretpostavke time što pokazuju da povjerenje nastavnika u njihove menadžere vodi predanosti menadžerima i zadovoljstvu menadžerima, a takvi 187 Karakuş, Toprak and Gürpınar: Structural Equation Modelling on the Relationships between ... pozitivni stavovi reduciraju njihove namjere da napuste škole u kojima su trenutno zaposleni. Prema rezultatima istraživanja, sve dok povjerenje nastavnika u njihove školske menadžere raste, oni razvijaju visok stupanj predanosti menadžerima, postaji njima zadovoljniji i rjeđe imaju namjeru napustiti školu u kojoj trenutno rade. Ti su rezultati slični rezultatima prijašnjih istraživanja koja su pokazala da povjerenje ima pozitivan učinak na zadovoljstvo (Cho i Park, 2011; Paille, Bourdeau i Galois, 2010; Yang i Mossholder, 2010; Gil, 2008; Macky i Boxall, 2007; Poon, 2003) i predanost (Zeinabadi i Salehi, 2011; Cho i Park, 2011; Demirel, 2008; Ladebo, 2006; Chrobot-Mason, 2003, Tan i Tan 2000), a negativan učinak na njihovu namjeru napuštanja škole u kojoj rade (Costigan, Insinga, Berman, Kranas, 2011; Ferres i sur. 2003). Imajući na umu činjenicu da se zadovoljstvo poslom određuje kao kombinacija kognitivnih uvjerenja i afektivnih radnih iskustava (Weiss i sur. 1999) pojedinca, lako se može uočiti da na njega izravno ili neizravno utječe povjerenje, što je jedan od najznačajnijih afektivnih faktora u organizaciji. Dva dodatna strukturna modela testirana su u ovome istraživanju u skladu s alternativnim objašnjenjima veze između zadovoljstva poslom i predanosti. Dok je istraživanje Vanderberga i Lancea (1992) pokazalo da je ispravan model „predanost uzrokuje zadovoljstvo“, u ovome istraživanju oba su modela pokazala posve identične pokazatelje pogodnosti, što znači da su oba modela istodobno prihvatljiva. Prema prvome modelu, u kojem zadovoljstvo dolazi prije predanosti, nastavnici su više predani svojim menadžerima kada smatraju da su oni vrijedni povjerenje i kada su njima zadovoljniji. Ti rezultati podupiru klasično stajalište da se zadovoljstvo poslom razvija prije predanosti, zajedno s nekim osobnim i organizacijskim odrednicama predanosti (Mowday i sur. 1982; Vanderberg i Lance, 1992; O’Leary-Kelly i Griffin, 1995). Prema drugome modelu, u kojemu se predanost javlja prije zadovoljstva, nastavnici su zadovoljniji svojim menadžerima ako smatraju da su oni vrijedni povjerenja, te su im predaniji. Taj model podupire stajalište bihevioralne predanosti prema kojem nastavnici, kako postaju predaniji svojim menadžerima, sve više racionaliziraju i idealiziraju postupke svojih menadžera i postaju njima zadovoljniji. Takav stav zauzimaju zbog potrebe da reduciraju svoju kognitivnu disonancu koja proizlazi iz njihovih razmišljanja o drugim mogućnostima zapošljavanja (Vanderberg i Lance, 1992; Meyer i Allen, 1997). Na namjeru nastavnika da napuste školu u kojoj trenutno rade negativno utječu ostale varijable spomenute u ovome istraživanju. U prvome modelu, što više nastavnici smatraju da su njihovi menadžeri vrijedni povjerenja, to su njima zadovoljniji, pa rjeđe namjeravaju napustiti školu u kojoj su zaposleni. U ovome modelu predanost nema značajan utjecaj na namjeru napuštanja škole. U drugome modelu, ako nastavnici smatraju da su njihovi menadžeri vrijedni povjerenja, postaju im predaniji, njihovo povjerenje i predanost vodi do njihova većeg zadovoljstva menadžerima i rjeđe imaju namjeru napustiti školu u kojoj su trenutno zaposleni. Ti rezultati podupiru 188 Croatian Journal of Education, Vol.16; No.1/2014, pages: 165-189 rezultate prijašnjih istraživanja koja su pokazala da na namjeru napuštanja organizacije negativno utječu povjerenje (Costigan, Insinga, Berman i Kranas, 2011; Albrecht i Travaglione, 2003), zadovoljstvo (Shields i Ward, 2001; Tzeng, 2002; El-Jardali, Dimassi, Dumit, Jamal i Mouro, 2009; Sourdif, 2004, Chen i sur. 2008; Cavanagh i Coffin, 1992) i predanost (Ladebo, 2006; Simon i sur. 2010; Griffeth i sur. 2000; Gieter, Hofmans i Pepermans, 2011). Povjerenje u nadređene jako je bitna varijabla jer ono odlučuje o tome hoće li zaposlenik ostati u organizaciji ili je, ovisno o njegovoj jačini i smjeru, napustiti. Kako su zabilježili Costigan i sur. (2011), čini se da nekompetentan (ili kompetentan) i nepažljiv (ili pažljiv) rukovoditelj ima manji utjecaj na namjeru napuštanja organizacije nego što ga ima nedostatak povjerenja (ili puno povjerenja) u vrhovni menadžment. Također se smatra da je povjerenje za rukovoditelje vrlo važno sredstvo jer je ono pokretačka sila rastuće predanosti zaposlenika organizaciji (Cho i Park, 2011). Analizirajući učinak povjerenja na zadovoljstvo poslom koji zaposlenici osjećaju, Paille i sur. (2010) saznali su da povjerenje zaposlenika u sposobnost organizacije da odgovori na njihove potrebe (napredovanje u karijeri, naknada, procjena radnog učinka ili obuka) vodi većem zadovoljstvu poslom. Namjera nastavnika da napuste školu može dovesti do toga da oni imaju kontraproduktivno ponašanje na poslu i može uzrokovati slabiji radni učinak. Da bi se umanjila namjera nastavnika da napuste škole u kojima trenutno rade, i da bi se spriječile moguće negativne posljedice na poslu, bilo bi korisno kada bi se školski menadžeri ponašali na način koji kod nastavnika stvara povjerenje, predanost i zadovoljstvo. Da bi nastavnici bili predaniji svojim menadžerima i da bi bili zadovoljniji njihovim postupcima, bilo bi korisno kada bi školski menadžeri poklonili posebnu pažnju svojim riječima i djelima, tako da ne umanje povjerenje nastavnika u menadžment. Također bi se trebali uvijek ponašati dosljedno, da bi tako omogućili nadograđivanje povjerenja u menadžment. 189