Vida y obra de Mons. Ignacio María de Orbegozo y Goicoechea

Relationships between age, gender, length of service, and Spirituality

The group statistics for question two and its constructs are displayed in the tables below.

This section of the survey was used to collate some brief data on individuals’ spiritual feeling of the workplace. Table 4.2 shows the mean rating for the items on the spirituality scale. Item Q2_1 and Q2_2 have the highest mean rating on the scale, which suggests that these two items are the most important variables of spirituality. The lowest rating belongs to item Q7_8, which means that this variable is the least important item in the employees spirituality scale.

Table 4.2: Spirituality scale used in this study

Statement/Item Mean Standard

Deviation Q2_1 If I was ill, my colleagues would help me 4.11 .987 Q2_2 If I had a personal problem, I could rely on

my colleagues for support 3.89 1.142

Q2_3 My colleagues often make demands of me 3.33 1.015

Q2_4 My colleagues are critical of me 2.91 1.130

Q7_1 I believe in faith 3.66 1.280

Q7_2 I believe in a religion 2.91 1.432

Q7_3 I believe in god 3.16 1.454

Q7_4 I think about how my life is part of a larger

spiritual force 2.93 1.416

Q7_5 I work together with God as a partner 2.48 1.470 Q7_6 I look to God for strength, support,

guidance 2.61 1.532

Q7_7 I feel that God punishes me for my sins or

lack of spirituality 2.05 1.524

Q7_8 I wonder whether God has abandoned me 1.77 1.280 Q7_9 I try to make sense of the situation and

decide what to do without relying on God 2.80 1.760

Q2_1: If I was ill, my colleagues would help me

From the one-way ANOVA tests carried out to explore the impact of length of service (LOS) period on the participants views of colleague support. With Q2_1 there was statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level in scores for the four LOS groups:

F (3, 1124) = 60.3, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was significant at .14.

Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for

Group 2 (M = 4.62, SD = .775), was significantly different from Group 1 (M = 3.81, SD

= 1.0), Group 3 (M = 4.05, SD = .916) and Group 4 (M = 4.09, SD = .986). When ANOVA was used to compare the impact of age groups on Q2_1, there were statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level for the groups: F (3, 1124) = 46.7, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was significant at .11. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 3 (M = 4.05, SD = .890) was significantly different from Group 1 (M = 3.75, SD = .962), Group 2 (M = 3.90, SD = .973), and Group 4 (M = 4.10, SD = .898).

Q2_2: If I had a personal problem, I could rely on my colleagues for support

From the one-way ANOVA tests carried out to explore the impact of length of service (LOS) period on the participants views of colleague support. With Q2_2 there was statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level in scores for the four LOS groups:

F (3, 1124) = 70.4, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was significant at .16.

Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 2 (M = 4.55, SD = .906), was significantly different from Group 1 (M = 3.56, SD

= 1.130), Group 3 (M = 3.61, SD = 1.0148) and Group 4 (M = 3.74, SD = 1.020).

When ANOVA was used to compare the impact of age groups on Q2_2, there were statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level for the groups: F (3, 1124) = 50.2, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was significant at .12. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 3 (M = 4.37, SD = 1.030) was significantly different from Group 1 (M = 3.47, SD = 1.099), Group 2 (M = 3.68, SD = 1.130), and Group 4 (M = 3.75, SD = 1.018).

Q2_3: My colleagues often make demands of me

From the one-way ANOVA tests carried out to explore the impact of length of service (LOS) period on the participants views of colleague support. With Q2_3 there was statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level in scores for the four LOS groups:

F (3, 1124) = 43.2, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was quite significant at .10. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 1 (M = 3.04, SD = 1.078), was significantly different from Group 2 (M = 3.75, SD = .702), Group 3 (M = 3.38, SD = 1.076) and Group 4 (M = 3.55, SD = .969).

When ANOVA was used to compare the impact of age groups on Q2_3, there were statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level for the groups: F (3, 1124) = 53.706, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was quite significant at .13.

Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 1 (M = 2.90, SD = 1.061) was significantly different from Group 2 (M = 3.15, SD = .999), Group 3 (M = 3.74, SD = .808), and Group 4 (M = 3.39, SD = 1.032).

Q2_4: My colleagues are critical of me

From the one-way ANOVA tests carried out to explore the impact of length of service (LOS) period on the participants views of colleague support. With Q2_4 there was statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level in scores for the four LOS groups:

F (3, 1124) = 86.9, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was significant at .19.

Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 2 (M = 3.61, SD = .851), was significantly different from Group 1 (M = 2.54, SD

= 1.109), Group 3 (M = 2.69, SD = 1.082) and Group 4 (M = 2.73, SD = .978). When ANOVA was used to compare the impact of age groups on Q2_4, there were statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level for the groups: F (3, 1124) = 81.9, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was significant at .18. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 3 (M = 3.47, SD = 1.005) was significantly different from Group 1 (M = 2.35, SD = 1.051) and Group 2 (M = 2.77, SD = 1.051), and Group 4 (M = 2.58, SD = .948).

The second part of the scale (question 7) of the questionnaire also collected data which allowed the analysis of relationships between age, gender, and length of service with spirituality.

Relationships between age, gender, length of service, and Motivation

This set of questions was used to identify the personal motivation of people entering, and working within, the workplace. Table 4.3 shows the mean rating for the items on the motivation scales. Item Q3_10 and Q3_11 have the highest mean rating on the scale, which suggests that these two items are the most important variables of motivation.

Table 4.3: Personal motivation scale used in this study

Statement/Item Mean Standard

Deviation

Q3_1 I look for good working conditions 4.12 .611

Q3_2 I like the feeling of social involvement with

others at work 4.08 .734

Q3_3 I enjoy being in an environment which 3.91 1.036

requires order and discipline

Q3_4 I need to feel appreciated for doing my job

well 3.85 .855

Q3_5 I feel that I have to be loyal to my

colleagues 4.00 .671

Q3_6 I work because I receive good wages 3.14 .947

Q3_7 I look for the ability to increase my earnings 3.96 .775 Q3_8 I am looking for career progression and

development opportunities 4.36 .898

Q3_9 Work is an important part of my lifestyle 4.00 .820

Q3_10 Job security is important to me 4.40 .761

Q3_11 Working hours are important to me 4.17 .962

Q3_3: I enjoy being in an environment which requires order and discipline

From the one-way ANOVA tests carried out to explore the impact of length of service (LOS) period on what the participants find important in the workplace. With Q3_3 there was statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level in scores for the four LOS groups: F (3, 1124) = 43.2, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was very significant at .21. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 2 (M = 3.54, SD = .998), was significantly different from Group 1 (M = 3.54, SD = .998), Group 3 (M = 3.80, SD = .876) and Group 4 (M = 3.66, SD

= .945). When ANOVA was used to compare the impact of age groups on Q3_3, there were statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level for the groups: F (3, 1124) = 78.2, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was significant at .17. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 3 (M = 4.43, SD = .890) was significantly different from Group 1 (M = 3.49, SD = .978), Group 2 (M = 3.62, SD = 1.012), and Group 4 (M = 3.66, SD = .878).

Q3_4: I need to feel appreciated for doing my job well

From the one-way ANOVA tests carried out to explore the impact of length of service (LOS) period on what the participants find important in the workplace. With Q3_4 there was statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level in scores for the four LOS groups: F (3, 1124) = 64.4, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was quite significant at .15. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 2 (M = 3.38, SD = .686), was significantly different from, Group 1 (M = 4.09, SD = .811), Group 3 (M = 4.05, SD = .950) and Group 4 (M = 3.90, SD

= .920). When ANOVA was used to compare the impact of age groups on Q3_4, there were statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level for the groups: F (3, 1124) = 41.1, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was quite significant at .10. Post-hoc

comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 3 (M = 3.52, SD = .819) was significantly different from Group 1 (M = 4.07, SD = .750), Group 2 (M = 4.10, SD = .857), and Group 4 (M = 3.86, SD = .867).

Q3_8: I am looking for career progression and development opportunities

From the one-way ANOVA tests carried out to explore the impact of length of service (LOS) period on what the participants find important in the workplace. With Q3_8 there was statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level in scores for the four LOS groups: F (3, 1124) = 50.9, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was quite significant at .12. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 4 (M = 3.75, SD = 1.007), was statistically different from all other groups. Group 1 (M = 4.22, SD = .905) and Group 3 (M = 4.22, SD = .899) scored very similarly to each other. When ANOVA was used to compare the impact of age groups on Q3_8, there were statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level for the groups: F (3, 1124) = 27.1, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was significant at .16. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for all groups was statistically different.

Q3_10: Job security is important to me

From the one-way ANOVA tests carried out to explore the impact of length of service (LOS) period on what the participants find important in the workplace. With Q3_10 there was statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level in scores for the four LOS groups: F (3, 1124) = 63.6, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was significant at .15. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 3 (M = 4.47, SD = .656), was statistically different from all other groups. When ANOVA was used to compare the impact of age groups on Q3_10, there were statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level for the groups: F (3, 1124) = 54, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was quite significant at .13. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 3 (M = 4.72, SD = .625) was significantly different from all other groups: Group 1 (M = 4.09, SD = .695), Group 2 (M = 4.30, SD = .853), Group 4 (M = 4.23, SD = .724).

Q3_11: Working hours are important to me

From the one-way ANOVA tests carried out to explore the impact of length of service (LOS) period on what the participants find important in the workplace. With Q3_11

there was statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level in scores for the four LOS groups: F (3, 1124) = 61.4, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was quite significant at .14. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 2 (M = 4.69, SD = .722), was statistically different from all other groups. When ANOVA was used to compare the impact of age groups on Q3_11, there were statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level for the groups: F (3, 1124) = 46.8, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was quite significant at .11. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 3 (M = 4.56, SD = .834) was significantly different from all other groups.

This set of questions looked for respondents to identify their personal motivations towards the workplace environment which they engage in.

Relationships between age, gender, length of service, and Flow

This set of questions was used to identify the flow of people entering, and working within, the workplace. Table 4.4 shows the mean rating for the items on the flow scales. The lowest rating belongs to item Q4_10, which means that this variable is the least important item in the employees flow scale.

Table 4.4: Flow scale used in this study

Statement/Item Mean Standard

Q4_4 I am always totally immersed in my work 3.09 .990

Q4_5 My work gives me a good feeling 3.82 .804

Q4_6 I do my work with a lot of enjoyment 3.70 .834

Q4_7 I feel happy during my work 3.50 .838

Q4_8 I feel cheerful when I am working 3.67 .810

Q4_9 I would still do this work, even if I received less pay

Q4_1: When I am working I think about nothing else

When ANOVA was used to compare the impact of age groups on Q4_1, there were statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level for the groups: F (3, 1124) = 72, p

= .000. The effect size using eta squared was quite significant at .16. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 3 (M = 3.64, SD = .848) was significantly different from all other groups.

Q4_2: I get carried away by work

From the one-way ANOVA tests carried out to explore the impact of length of service (LOS) period on commitment in the workplace. With Q4_2 there was statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level in scores for the four LOS groups: F (3, 1124)

= 110.4, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was significant at .23. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 2 (M = 2.42, SD = .8535), was statistically different from all other groups.

Q4_4: I am always totally immersed in my work

From the one-way ANOVA tests carried out to explore the impact of length of service (LOS) period on commitment in the workplace. With Q4_4 there was statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level in scores for the four LOS groups: F (3, 1124)

= 61.7, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was quite significant at .14. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 2 (M = 3.61, SD = .860), was statistically different from all other groups. When ANOVA was used to compare the impact of age groups on Q4_4, there were statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level for the groups: F (3, 1124) = 66.7, p = .000.

The effect size using eta squared was quite significant at .15. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 3 (M = 3.56, SD

= .844) was significantly different from all other groups.

Q4_9: I would still do this work, even if I received less pay

From the one-way ANOVA tests carried out to explore the impact of length of service (LOS) period on commitment in the workplace. With Q4_9 there was statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level in scores for the four LOS groups: F (3, 1124)

= 42.1, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was fairly significant at .10.

Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 2 (M = 2.19, SD = .700), was statistically different from all other groups.

Q4_10: I find that I also want to work in my free time

From the one-way ANOVA tests carried out to explore the impact of length of service (LOS) period on commitment in the workplace. With Q4_10 there was statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level in scores for the four LOS groups: F (3, 1124)

= 97.1, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was quite significant at .21. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 2 (M = 1.47, SD = .942), was significantly different from all other groups.

Q4_11: I work because I enjoy it

From the one-way ANOVA tests carried out to explore the impact of length of service (LOS) period on commitment in the workplace. With Q4_11 there was statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level in scores for the four LOS groups: F (3, 1124)

= 93, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was significant at .20. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 2 (M = 2.37, SD = .858), was statistically different from all other groups.

Q4_12: When I am working on something, I am doing it for myself

From the one-way ANOVA tests carried out to explore the impact of length of service (LOS) period on commitment in the workplace. With Q4_12 there was statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level in scores for the four LOS groups: F (3, 1124)

= 74.2, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was quite significant at .17. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 2 (M = 2.37, SD = .841), was statistically different from all other groups, with Group 4 (M = 2.81, SD = 1.074) also being significantly different from the others. Group 1 (M

= 3.32, SD = 1.040) and Group 3 (M = 3.28, SD = 1.031) were both statistically similar in scores. When ANOVA was used to compare the impact of age groups on Q4_12, there were statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level for the groups: F (3, 1124) = 54.5, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was quite small at .13. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 3 (M = 2.52, SD = .958) was significantly different from all other groups, with Group 4 (M = 2.91, SD = 1.028) also differing from Group 1 (M = 3.37, SD = .966) and Group 2 (M = 3.25, SD = 1.115), which very both very similar

This set of questions looked for respondents to identify their flow towards the workplace environment which they engage in.

Relationships between age, gender, length of service, and Commitment

The questions in this section were used to identify commitment factors from the sample population. Table 4.5 shows the mean rating for the items on the commitment scales.

Item Q5_7 and Q5_1 have the highest mean rating on the scale, which suggests that these two items are the most important variables of commitment. The lowest rating belongs to item Q5_10, which means that this variable is the least important item in the employees commitment scale.

Table 4.5: Commitment scale used in this study

Statement/Item Mean Standard

Deviation Q5_1 If the values of my organisation were

different, I would not be as attached to it 3.80 1.132 Q5_2 Since working here, my personal values

have become more similar to the organisation 3.26 1.076 Q5_3 The reason I prefer this company is because

of its values and what it stands for 3.68 1.241

Q5_4 My attachment to the company is based on

our similarity in values 3.30 1.069

Q5_6 What this organisation stands for is

organisation rather than just being an employee 3.40 1.161 Q5_10 Unless I am rewarded in some way, I see

no reason to expend extra effort at work 2.19 1.172

Q5_11 How hard I work is directly linked to how

well I am rewarded 2.43 1.053

Q5_12 My private views of my organisation are

different to those I display publicly at work 2.36 1.337 Q5_13 In order for me to get rewarded at work, it

is necessary to show the “right” attitude 2.99 1.438

Q5_1: If the values of my organisation were different, I would not be as attached to it From the one-way ANOVA tests carried out to explore the impact of length of service (LOS) period on participant and organisational values. With Q5_1 there was

statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level in scores for the four LOS groups:

F (3, 1124) = 85.01, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was quite significant at .19. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 2 (M = 4.50, SD = .951), was statistically different from all other groups.

When ANOVA was used to compare the impact of age groups on Q5_1, there were statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level for the groups: F (3, 1124) = 68.9, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was quite significant at .16. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 3 (M = 4.35, SD = 1.038) was significantly different from all other groups.

Q5_3: The reason I prefer this company is because of its values and what it stands for An independent-samples t-test was conducted for Q5_3 to compare the scores of how organisational values affect individual’s preference to work there. There was a difference for males (M = 3.09, SD = 1.149) and females (M = 3.94, SD = 1.138; t (689.661) = 5.087). The magnitude of the difference in means (mean difference = -.764, 95% CI: -1.8 to 1.87) was relatively large (eta squared = .08).

From the one-way ANOVA tests carried out to explore the impact of length of service (LOS) period on participant and organisational values. With Q5_3 there was statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level in scores for the four LOS groups:

F (3, 1124) = 58.8, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was quite significant at .14. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 2 (M = 4.34, SD = .1.147), was statistically different from all other groups.

When ANOVA was used to compare the impact of age groups on Q5_3, there were statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level for the groups: F (3, 1124) = 54.2, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was quite significant at .13. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 3 (M =

When ANOVA was used to compare the impact of age groups on Q5_3, there were statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level for the groups: F (3, 1124) = 54.2, p = .000. The effect size using eta squared was quite significant at .13. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 3 (M =

In document UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA SANTO TORIBIO DE MOGROVEJO FACULTAD DE HUMANIDADES ESCUELA DE EDUCACIÓN SECUNDARIA: FILOSOFÍA Y TEOLOGÍA (página 24-31)