1 / 42

Money Ethic Scale Part 3

Money Ethic Scale Part 3. Conclusion. There are significant pay differentials within organizations (internal equity) and across organizations (external competitiveness).

michi
Télécharger la présentation

Money Ethic Scale Part 3

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Money Ethic ScalePart 3

  2. Conclusion There are significant pay differentials within organizations (internal equity) and across organizations (external competitiveness). Organizations may have employed different strategic compensation policies due to the nature of their operation and environmental variables.

  3. Conclusion Education is a good investment in pay.Education is more important in some careers (engineering, information technology) than others (sales). Judge, Cable, Boudreau, & Bretz (1995): 1388 executives, 9% from Ivy League. The rite of passage vs. the right of passage

  4. Conclusion How do you Attract, Retain, and Motivate Employees? A Challenge for Managers and Researchers Human Resource Management is a wonderful field in the Global Competition. Great Future for All.

  5. Money Ethic Endorsement andAFDC Welfare Recipients The Social Security Act of 1935 created 3 public assistance programs. One of them was the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) AFDC Welfare Recipients (164) AFDC Welfare Recipients in Training Programs (159) Employed Past Welfare Recipients (158)

  6. AFDC Welfare Recipients: Gender • AFDC Training Employed • Male 6 9 11 • Female 159 151 148

  7. Race • AFDC Training Employed • Caucasian 36 38 44 • African 126 119 115 • Hispanic 2 3 0 • Asian 1 0 0

  8. Marital Status • AFDC Training Employed • Single 137 131 111 • Married 1 5 18 • Divorced 24 24 24 • Widowed 3 0 5

  9. Fathers Missing • AFDC Training Employed • 0 0 2 0 • 1 71 87 95 • 2 66 56 48 • 3 26 13 13 • 4 2 2 3

  10. Mothers on AFDC • AFDC Training Employed • Yes 67 69 51 • No 98 91 108

  11. Results • AFDC Training Employed • Education 12.52 12.89 14.54 1,2<3 • Benefits 4.24 3.72 13.87 1,2<3 • Children 2.20 1.91 1.87 2,3<1 • Father Miss 1.74 1.56 1.53 2,3<1 • Months on 71.68 59.50 69.80 • Months off .22 .70 15.84 1,2<3 • Job Tenure .74 .43 18.54 1,2<3

  12. MES • AFDC Training Employed • Good 32.17 34.49 39.28 1<2<3 • Evil 16.90 17.09 12.93 3<2<1 • Ach 11.81 11.79 11.56 • Respect 11.48 12.52 12.68 1<2,3 • Power 12.04 12.84 13.47 1<3 • Budget 9.98 9.95 11.32 1,2<3

  13. Work-Related Attitudes • AFDC Training Employed • PWE 13.79 12.90 15.92 2<1<3 • S-Esteem 26.06 25.85 32.87 2,1<3 • LOC 14.82 9.35 11.42 2<3<1

  14. Regression of MES • Good Beta • Self-Esteem .35 • PWE .26 • Benefits/Income .19 • Evil • Self-Esteem -.39 • Benefits/Income -.25

  15. Regression of MES • Achievement Beta • Self-Esteem -.25 • PWE .13 • Age .12 • LO Control -.09 • Respect • Months off .22 • Self-Esteem -.16 • LO Control -.13

  16. Regression of MES • Power Beta • Months off .18 • PWE .12 • Budget • Self-Esteem .39 • PWE .12

  17. Conclusion No differences among the three groups regarding age, sex, race, marital status, and months on AFDC. Equal Opportunity. Significant differences: Employed: education (high), number of children (low), number of fathers missing (low), months off AFDC (high), and job tenure (high). Significant differences: Employed scored high on Factors Good, Respect, Power, and Budget.

  18. Conclusion Employed scored high on PWE, Self-Esteem. AFDC scored high on Factor Evil and External Locus of Control (LOC). AFDC in training scored high on Internal LOC. Get out, meet new people, receive training, and have new Hope.

  19. Structural Equations Modeling • Propose a Model • Indirect Path • Direct Path • Examine all variables in the Model

  20. Two-Step Procedure Step 1: Confirmatory Measurement Model, Psychometric equivalence (CFA) Step 2: Sequential chi-square difference tests (SCDTs) (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988)

  21. Step 1 Confirmatory Factor Analyses for all measures Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA): Data Driven Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA): Theory Driven Fit between the model and the data

  22. Cross-Cultural—Psychometric Equivalence Step 1: A simultaneous test of invariance between the two samples in the number of factors underlying the factor structures Step 2: A simultaneous test of invariance in factor loadings between the two samples in that the chi-square parameters are constrained to be equal between the two samples.

  23. Psychometric Equivalence If the chi-square change is not significant, then, both factor structures and factor loadings are equivalent between the two samples.

  24. Method Variance and Measurement Error • The path from any construct to its measured variable (i.e., factor loading) equals the square root of the reliability of the measured variable • The amount of random error variable is the quantity one minus the reliability (Kenny, 1979; Williams & Hazer, 1986).

  25. Step 2 Sequential chi-square difference tests 1. A saturated structural model (Confirmatory Measurement Model)(Model 1): All parameters are estimated 2. A structural Model (Model 2): Researcher’s theoretical model of interest 3. The Null structural model : All parameters are fixed at 0

  26. Squared Multiple Correlation • Endogenous variables are those that have single-headed arrows pointing to them in the path diagram, and depend on other variables. • A variable’s squared multiple correlation is the proportion of its variance that is accounted for by its predictors.

  27. Several Groups • Two or more groups can be analyzed simultaneously in the model. • US vs. Spain • Male vs. Female • OCB: Taiwan, the US, Poland, and Egypt

  28. Money Ethic as a Mediator Reported Income  Money Ethic  Pay Equity Comparison  Total Pay Satisfaction

  29. Fit Index NFI, the Bentler-Bonett’s normed fit index RFI, Bollen’s relative fit index IFI, Bollen’s incremental fit index TLI, Tucker-Lewis index* CFI, Bentler’s comparative fit index* *Assess the improvement in the fit of a model relative to the baseline model 0 –1, .90 or higher, adequate fit of model to data

  30. Results Model chi2 df Change CFI Whole Sample Model 1 164.07 36 .98 Model 2 169.43 38 5.36/2 .98 Null 8,370.54 55 8206.47*/19 . The US vs. Spain Model 1 208.46 72 .98 Model 2 221.69 76 13.23*/4 .98 Null 8,611.29 110 8402.83*/38

  31. Structural Equation Modeling • The Whole Sample .25 .23 Money Ethic Equity .30* .43* .87* .89 Income Satisfaction -.01

  32. Structural Equation Modeling • The US Faculty .25 .23 Money Ethic Equity .48* .50* .97* .89 Income Satisfaction -.21*

  33. Structural Equation Modeling • The Spanish Faculty .03 .02 Money Ethic Equity .13 .18 .74* .57 Income Satisfaction .15

  34. Structural Equation Modeling • The Male Faculty .34 .21 Money Ethic Equity .45* .58* .89* .78 Income Satisfaction -.04

  35. Structural Equation Modeling • The Female Faculty .03 .07 Money Ethic Equity .27 .18 .87* .78 Income Satisfaction .11

  36. Structural Equation Modeling • The Male American Faculty .37 .48 Money Ethic Equity .69* .61* 1.02* .89 Income Satisfaction -.24*

  37. Structural Equation Modeling • The Female American Faculty .08 .13 Money Ethic Equity .35 .28 .97* .93 Income Satisfaction -.10

  38. Structural Equation Modeling • The Male Spanish Faculty .16 .00 Money Ethic Equity -.02 .40* .73* .59 Income Satisfaction .24

  39. Structural Equation Modeling • The Female Spanish Faculty .04 .05 Money Ethic Equity .23 -.21 .65* .45 Income Satisfaction .21

  40. Demographic Variables Age Sex Experience Tenure Job Changes Discipline  Income, Money Ethic Income: Actual, Self-Reported

  41. Structural Equation Modeling The American Faculty Tenure -.22 .79 .24 .20 Money Ethic Job Changes Equity .30 .49* Discipline .70* .32 .99* .88 Age .52 .24 Income Satisfaction Sex -.19* .54 Experience

  42. Thank You Danke Dankeshen Grazie Merci Muchas Gracias

More Related