Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 4 – uploaded by Francisco Cesário

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 4: Results for multiple linear regression (Step 2) affective commitment as a dependent variable (H3)

Table 4 Results for multiple linear regression (Step 2) affective commitment as a dependent variable (H3)

Related Figures (14)

Procedure
Procedure
It should be stressed that the responses of the participants of this study, both for training, individualised support, functional rotation, and perceived internal employability, are all below the midpoint of the scale (3), with that for affective commitment being slightly above this value (4). Table |: Pearson Correlation Matrix, Averages and Standard Deviation As mentioned, all the instruments used in this study are made up of multiple choice items, with the exception of the "generations" variable, which was coded as a dummy variable. First the association between all variables was tested, using the Pearson correlation study, to calculate the mean and standard deviation for each one (Table |). Participants who belong to the baby boomer generation have a lower perception of individualised support and internal employability, while the Generation X has a higher perception of internal employability and the Y Generation has a higher perception of individualised support. The higher the qualifications of the participants, the lower their seniority. Participants who have been in the organisation for a longer time have a lower perception of individualised support, but a higher perception of functional turnover, as well as those with an "indefinite" work contract. When participants have a high perception of training, individualised support, and functional rotation, they also show a high affective commitment to the organisation, as well as high perceived internal employability. It should be noted that a higher perception of internal employability also drives the employee to a greater affective commitment.
It should be stressed that the responses of the participants of this study, both for training, individualised support, functional rotation, and perceived internal employability, are all below the midpoint of the scale (3), with that for affective commitment being slightly above this value (4). Table |: Pearson Correlation Matrix, Averages and Standard Deviation As mentioned, all the instruments used in this study are made up of multiple choice items, with the exception of the "generations" variable, which was coded as a dummy variable. First the association between all variables was tested, using the Pearson correlation study, to calculate the mean and standard deviation for each one (Table |). Participants who belong to the baby boomer generation have a lower perception of individualised support and internal employability, while the Generation X has a higher perception of internal employability and the Y Generation has a higher perception of individualised support. The higher the qualifications of the participants, the lower their seniority. Participants who have been in the organisation for a longer time have a lower perception of individualised support, but a higher perception of functional turnover, as well as those with an "indefinite" work contract. When participants have a high perception of training, individualised support, and functional rotation, they also show a high affective commitment to the organisation, as well as high perceived internal employability. It should be noted that a higher perception of internal employability also drives the employee to a greater affective commitment.
predictor variables were also introduced. The results are presented in Table 2. To test Hypothesis |, a multiple linear regression was performed in two steps. In the first step, the control variables were introduced as independent variables, and in the second step, the predictor variables were also introduced. The results are presented in Table 2. Table 2: Results for multiple linear regression (Step 2), with affective commitment as the dependent variable (H1)
predictor variables were also introduced. The results are presented in Table 2. To test Hypothesis |, a multiple linear regression was performed in two steps. In the first step, the control variables were introduced as independent variables, and in the second step, the predictor variables were also introduced. The results are presented in Table 2. Table 2: Results for multiple linear regression (Step 2), with affective commitment as the dependent variable (H1)
In order to test Hypothesis 2, as it is a mediating effect, the procedures of Baron and Kenn) (1986) were followed, which were proved by multiple linear regressions (Tables 2, 3 and 4) Afterwards, a multiple linear regression was performed in three steps. In the first step, the control variables were introduced as independent variables, in the second step, the predictor variables were also introduced, and in the third step, the mediator variable was introduced, the results of which are shown in Table 5. Table 3: Results for multiple linear regressions (Step 2), perceived internal employability as a dependent variable (H2)
In order to test Hypothesis 2, as it is a mediating effect, the procedures of Baron and Kenn) (1986) were followed, which were proved by multiple linear regressions (Tables 2, 3 and 4) Afterwards, a multiple linear regression was performed in three steps. In the first step, the control variables were introduced as independent variables, in the second step, the predictor variables were also introduced, and in the third step, the mediator variable was introduced, the results of which are shown in Table 5. Table 3: Results for multiple linear regressions (Step 2), perceived internal employability as a dependent variable (H2)
Table 5: Results of the second and third steps of the mediating effect test
Table 5: Results of the second and third steps of the mediating effect test
In order to test Hypotheses 3, 4 and 5 that presuppose a moderation, it was necessary to focus the variables in order to create the interaction variables, thus avoiding the problems of multicollinearity (Aiken & West, 1991). Finally, multiple linear regressions were performed in two steps: in the first step the control variables, the predictor variable, and the moderator variable were introduced as independent variables, and in the second step, the new interaction variable was introduced. The results of Hypothesis 3 are shown in Table 6. was introduced. The results of Hypothesis 3 are shown in Table 6.
In order to test Hypotheses 3, 4 and 5 that presuppose a moderation, it was necessary to focus the variables in order to create the interaction variables, thus avoiding the problems of multicollinearity (Aiken & West, 1991). Finally, multiple linear regressions were performed in two steps: in the first step the control variables, the predictor variable, and the moderator variable were introduced as independent variables, and in the second step, the new interaction variable was introduced. The results of Hypothesis 3 are shown in Table 6. was introduced. The results of Hypothesis 3 are shown in Table 6.
Figure 2: Interaction of individualised support x baby boomer generation The results of Hypothesis 4 are shown in Table 7. Results suggest that there is only a significant interaction effect of the generational effect on the relationship between individualised support perception and affective commitment, since the perception of individual support in interaction with the baby boomer generation has a significant effect on affective commitment (B = .16; p <.05). With the inclusion of the two terms of interaction, the additional variance in relation to the perception of internal employability had a marginally significant increase (AR”= .02; p = .06).
Figure 2: Interaction of individualised support x baby boomer generation The results of Hypothesis 4 are shown in Table 7. Results suggest that there is only a significant interaction effect of the generational effect on the relationship between individualised support perception and affective commitment, since the perception of individual support in interaction with the baby boomer generation has a significant effect on affective commitment (B = .16; p <.05). With the inclusion of the two terms of interaction, the additional variance in relation to the perception of internal employability had a marginally significant increase (AR”= .02; p = .06).
Figure 3: Interaction training x generation Y There is a significant interaction effect of the generational effect on the relationship between unctional rotation perception and the perception of internal employability, as the perception of ndividualised support in interaction with the baby boomer generation has a significant effect on he perception of internal employability (8 = .15, p <.05), with the same happening in relation to he interaction of functional rotation perception with Generation Y (6 = .13; p = .05). Having nclude these two terms of interaction, the additional variance in relation to the perception of nternal employability had a marginally significant increase (AR? = .02, p = .06). These results upport the hypothesis. The explanation for these interactions is shown in Figures 5 and 6.
Figure 3: Interaction training x generation Y There is a significant interaction effect of the generational effect on the relationship between unctional rotation perception and the perception of internal employability, as the perception of ndividualised support in interaction with the baby boomer generation has a significant effect on he perception of internal employability (8 = .15, p <.05), with the same happening in relation to he interaction of functional rotation perception with Generation Y (6 = .13; p = .05). Having nclude these two terms of interaction, the additional variance in relation to the perception of nternal employability had a marginally significant increase (AR? = .02, p = .06). These results upport the hypothesis. The explanation for these interactions is shown in Figures 5 and 6.
Table 8: Interaction generations and perception of internal employability on affective commitment The results of Hypothesis 5 are shown in Table 8.
Table 8: Interaction generations and perception of internal employability on affective commitment The results of Hypothesis 5 are shown in Table 8.
Related topics:
Chemistry
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved