statistics


Z
Asked by 22 days ago
5 points

Instructions: Review this document in its entirety! You are asked to interpret the data and write a report of your findings and inferences. You are also testing the hypotheses and you will determine whether or not to reject the null-hypotheses. Based on that determination, you will make a recommendation to your COO. Background: You are the Human Resources Manager of a company that cares greatly about its employee development program, especially pertaining to the millennial generation. You are aware of a study that compared traditional mentoring practices to reverse mentoring practices and you want to make a recommendation to the Chief Operating Officer about implementing a reverse mentoring program. Turnover is high, and you think that reverse mentoring may increase affective commitment and employees will stay in the organization. Reverse mentoring refers to tenured and older employees being mentored by new, younger employees. Traditional mentoring is the practice of an older, tenured worker mentoring a new employee. Your company already participates in a traditional mentoring program. You only have parts of the study and the interpretation of the data is missing. The question the study answered is as follows: Q1. Among employees of the millennial generation who participated in a mentoring program, to what extent, if any, does affective commitment to the organization differ based on participation in reverse vs. traditional mentoring, while controlling for quality and length and frequency of mentoring relationship. Hypotheses H10. There is no significant difference in affective commitment to the organization between Millennials participating in reverse mentoring compared to Millennials participating in traditional mentoring, controlling for quality and length and frequency of mentoring relationship. H1a. There is a significant difference in affective commitment to the organization between Millennials participating in reverse mentoring compared to Millennials participating in traditional mentoring, controlling for quality and length and frequency of mentoring relationship. Descriptive Statistics Table 3 Demographic Survey Age Answer Response % 1 18 - 23 10 11 2 24 - 29 41 46 3 30 - 34 39 43 Note: N = 90 Table 4 Demographic Survey Gender Answer Response % 1 Male 39 43 2 Female 51 57 Note: N = 90 Table 5 Demographic Survey Length of Employment Answer Response % 1 Less than 1 year 6 7% 2 1 year but less than 2 years 24 27% 3 2 years or more 60 67% Note: N = 90 Table 6 Demographic Survey Level of Education Answer Response % 1 Doctoral Degree 4 4% 2 Master Degree 15 17% 3 Bachelor Degree 35 39% 4 Associates Degree 18 20% 5 High School 18 20% 6 Did not graduate High School 0 0% Note: N = 90 LMX-7 Scores Calculation and Interpretation DATA: Based on the responses of each participant the LMX-7 score was calculated by totaling the responses to the 7 questions. On a Likert-type scale, points where assigned to each answer ranking from 1 to 6. The following guidelines established by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) were used to interpret the meaning of the scores: very high = 30–35, high = 25–29, moderate = 20–24, low = 15–19, and very low = 7-14. Scores in the upper ranges indicate stronger, higher-quality exchanges, whereas scores in the lower ranges indicate exchanges of lesser quality.
Table 7 LMX-7 Scores (groups combined) Answer Response % 1 Score of 30-35 - very high 39 43% 2 Score of 25-29 - high 36 40% 3 Score of 20-24 - moderate 12 13% 4 Score of 15-19 - low 3 3% 5 Score of 7-14 - very low 0 0% Note: N = 90

Table 8 LMX-7 Scores (Traditional Mentoring Group) Answer Response %
1 Score of 30-35 - very high 18 40%
2 Score of 25-29 - high 20 44%
3 Score of 20-24 - moderate 5 11%
4 Score of 15-19 - low 2 4%
5 Score of 7-14 - very low 0 0%
Note: N = 45 Table 9 LMX-7 Scores (Reverse Mentoring Group) Answer Response % 1 Score of 30-35 - very high 21 47% 2 Score of 25-29 - high 16 36% 3 Score of 20-24 - moderate 7 16% 4 Score of 15-19 - low 1 2% 5 Score of 7-14 - very low 0 0% Note: N = 45 Length and Frequency of Mentoring Length and frequency of mentoring was measured by asking participants to select 1 of 4 options. The options were as follows: a) less than six months, b) at least six months with a minimum of two interactions, c) six months to one year with at least four interactions, d) one year or more with five or more interactions. For analyses purposes the string answers were converted to numerical values with 1 representing less than 6 months, 2 represented at least six months with a minimum of two interactions, 3 represented six months to one year with at least four interactions, and 4 represented one year or more with five or more interactions.

Table 10 Length and Frequency of Mentoring (groups combined) Answer Response % 1 less than 6 months 10 11% 2 at least 6 months with a minimum of 1 interaction 21 23% 3 six months to one year with at least four interactions 31 35% 4 one year or more with five or more interactions 28 31% Note: N = 90 Table 11 Length and Frequency of Mentoring (Traditional Mentoring Group) Answer Response % 1 less than 6 months 5 11% 2 at least 6 months with a minimum of 1 interaction 10 22% 3 six months to one year with at least four interactions 17 38% 4 one year or more with five or more interactions 13 29% Note: N = 45 Table 12 Length and Frequency of Mentoring (Reverse Mentoring Group) Answer Response % 1 less than 6 months 5 11% 2 at least 6 months with a minimum of 1 interaction 11 25% 3 six months to one year with at least four interactions 14 31% 4 one year or more with five or more interactions 15 33% Note: N = 45 Affective Commitment Scores Based on participant responses ranging from strong agreement to strong disagreement to eight questions from the Meyer and Allen (1991) Affective Commitment Survey, totals were calculated for each response with the highest possible score being 48 and the lowest possible score being 8. Four items in the commitment scale were worded such that strong agreement actually reflected a lower level of commitment and were designed this way to encourage participants to think about each statement carefully rather than agreeing or disagreeing with statements in a pattern. These four items were thus calculated in reverse key. The higher the score, the greater the affective commitment to the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991).
Table 13 Affective Commitment Scores (groups combined) Answer Response % 1 40-48 very high level of commitment 34 38% 2 31-39 high level of commitment 30 33% 3 21-30 moderate to low level of commitment 25 28% 4 20 < very low level of commitment 1 1% Note: N = 90

Table 14 Affective Commitment Scores (Traditional Mentoring Group) Answer Response % 1 40-48 very high level of commitment 14 31% 2 31-39 high level of commitment 15 33% 3 21-30 moderate to low level of commitment 16 36% 4 20 < very low level of commitment 0 0% Note: N = 45 Table 15 Affective Commitment Scores (Reverse Mentoring Group) Answer Response % 1 40-48 very high level of commitment 20 44% 2 31-39 high level of commitment 15 33% 3 21-30 moderate to low level of commitment 9 20% 4 20 < very low level of commitment 1 2% Note: N = 45 Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) A one-way ANCOVA was used to compare the traditional mentoring group to the reverse mentoring group to determine whether the different types of mentoring showed significant differences on affective commitment to the organization. Leader-member exchange quality (LMX) and length and frequency of mentoring (LFM) were used as covariates to determine if LMX and LFM would influence outcomes.

Figure 2 Linearity between LMX/LFM/Affective Commitment

Table 16 Homogeneity of Regression Slopes Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Corrected Model 977.187 5 195.437 4.796 .001 Intercept 469.941 1 469.941 11.531 .001 Mentoring Group 17.308 1 17.308 .425 .516 LFM 112.871 1 112.871 2.770 .100 LMX 814.048 1 814.048 19.975 .000 Mentoring Group * LFM 133.113 1 133.113 3.266 .074 Mentoring Group * LMX 2.708 1 2.708 .066 .797 Error 3423.313 84 40.754
Total 119963.000 90
Corrected Total 4400.500 89

Table 17 Shapiro-Wilk’s Tests of Normality Kolmogorow-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Type of mentoring Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. Standardized Residual for Traditional .079 45 .200* .983 45 .727 Affective Commitment Reverse .093 45 .200* .972 45 .336 Note: *This is lower bound of the true significance a. Lilliefors Significance Correction There was homogeneity of variances, as assessed by Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance (p = .868).

Figure 3 Homoscedasticity Table 18 Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment F df1 df2 Sig. .028 1 88 .868

Table 19 Mean and Standard Deviation Type of Mentoring Mean Std. Deviation N Traditional 35.02 6.861 45 Reverse 36.64 7.183 45 Total 35.83 7.032 90

Table 20 Adjusted Means 95% Confidence Interval Group Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Traditional 34.984a .959 33.078 36.890 Reverse 36.683 a .959 34.776 38.589 Note: a = covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: LMX = 28.63, LFM = 2.86.

Table 21 Test of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Corrected Model 842.173 3 280.724 6.785 .000 .191 Intercept 523.554 1 523.554 12.654 .001 .128 LMX 768.103 1 768.103 18.564 .000 .178 LMF 114.683 1 114.683 2.772 .100 .031 Mentoring Group 64.919 1 64.919 1.569 .214 .018 Error 3558.327 86 41.376
Total 119963.000 90
Corrected Total 4400.500 89

To further evaluate the differences between reverse and traditional mentoring and affective commitment to the organization, two sub-groups were extracted from the overall data. The sub-groups were divided into the participants that had a very high or high affective commitment score and the participants who had a moderate to low or very low affective commitment score.

Table 22 Means of Affective Commitment (high/low), LMF, LMX Traditional Low Affective Commitment Reverse Low Affective Commitment Traditional High Affective Commitment Reverse High Affective Commitment

LFM 2.77 3.08 2.95 2.64 LMX 27.19 27.7 30.68 29.55 Affective Commitment 30.08 30.78 41.79 42.77 Note: N = 90; 41 High Affective Commitment (22 Reverse, 19 Traditional); 49 Low Affective Commitment (23 Reverse, 26 Traditional)

Table 23 Means of Affective Commitment, LMF, LMX by Age Group Age Group LFM LMX Affective Commitment 18-23 2.50 27.30 34.40 24-29 2.83 28.66 35.17 30-34 2.97 28.95 36.90 Note: N = 90

statistics
zubeda

Your Answer

Surround your text in *italics* or **bold**, to write a math equation use, for example, $x^2+2x+1=0$ or $$\beta^2-1=0$$

Use LaTeX to type formulas and markdown to format text. See example.

Sign up or Log in

  • Answer the question above my logging into the following networks
Sign in
Sign in
Sign in

Post as a guest

  • Your email will not be shared or posted anywhere on our site
  •  

Stats
Views: 7
Asked: 22 days ago

Related