Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 3 – uploaded by Mahir Jibril

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 4: Mediation Test for Task Specific Strategy Than we tested the moderating role of ‘supervisory support’, ‘performance appraisal process’, ‘organizational facilitation c goal achievement’, ‘dysfunctional effects of goals’ and ‘self-efficacy on ‘goal clarity’, ‘tangible rewards’ relation. The results revealed that ‘tangible rewards’ were explained by the main effects of ‘goal clarity’, ‘organizational facilitation of goal achievement’, ‘self-efficacy’ and the interaction effects of ‘performance appraisal process’ and ‘organizational facilitation of goal achievement’. Theoretical model on the moderation effect were partially supported. ‘Supervisory

Table 4 Mediation Test for Task Specific Strategy Than we tested the moderating role of ‘supervisory support’, ‘performance appraisal process’, ‘organizational facilitation c goal achievement’, ‘dysfunctional effects of goals’ and ‘self-efficacy on ‘goal clarity’, ‘tangible rewards’ relation. The results revealed that ‘tangible rewards’ were explained by the main effects of ‘goal clarity’, ‘organizational facilitation of goal achievement’, ‘self-efficacy’ and the interaction effects of ‘performance appraisal process’ and ‘organizational facilitation of goal achievement’. Theoretical model on the moderation effect were partially supported. ‘Supervisory

Related Figures (6)

Global Business Research Congress (GBRC), May 24-25, 2017, Istanbul, Turkey
Global Business Research Congress (GBRC), May 24-25, 2017, Istanbul, Turkey
3. DATA AND METHODOLOGY
3. DATA AND METHODOLOGY
Table 1: Factor Analysis and Reliability Results of Goal Setting Measure
Table 1: Factor Analysis and Reliability Results of Goal Setting Measure
First to test the mediating role of ‘task specific strategy on ‘goal clarity’, ‘tangible rewards’ relation we conducted three step regression analyses as suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). Even though correlation analyses indicated all variables were significantly related, ‘task specific strategy’ was found to be insignificant when regressed with ‘goal clarity’ on ‘tangible rewards’. Therefore we could not find the mediating role of ‘specific strategy’ in this study. ‘Tangible rewards’ was explained by ‘goal clarity’ directly, not indirectly through ‘task specific strategy’.
First to test the mediating role of ‘task specific strategy on ‘goal clarity’, ‘tangible rewards’ relation we conducted three step regression analyses as suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). Even though correlation analyses indicated all variables were significantly related, ‘task specific strategy’ was found to be insignificant when regressed with ‘goal clarity’ on ‘tangible rewards’. Therefore we could not find the mediating role of ‘specific strategy’ in this study. ‘Tangible rewards’ was explained by ‘goal clarity’ directly, not indirectly through ‘task specific strategy’.
Lastly, we conducted three step regression analyses to test the mediating role of ‘job satisfaction’ on ‘tangible rewards’ ‘affective commitment’ relation. Results indicated that ‘job satisfaction’ was a full mediator and ‘tangible rewards’ explained ‘affective commitment’ indirectly through ‘job satisfaction’ (See Table 6). Sobel test also supported the finding (Sobel test=4.69, p=.00). support’ and ‘dysfunctional effects of goals’ did not have significant effect on ’tangible rewards’ as theorized. ‘Performance appraisal process’ had only interaction effect whereas ‘organizational facilitation of goal achievement’ had both main and interaction effect and ‘self-efficacy’ had only main effect on ‘tangible rewards’. However as ‘goal clarity’ was significant, all the interactions were partial and the model explained only 30 % of change in the ‘tangible rewards’.
Lastly, we conducted three step regression analyses to test the mediating role of ‘job satisfaction’ on ‘tangible rewards’ ‘affective commitment’ relation. Results indicated that ‘job satisfaction’ was a full mediator and ‘tangible rewards’ explained ‘affective commitment’ indirectly through ‘job satisfaction’ (See Table 6). Sobel test also supported the finding (Sobel test=4.69, p=.00). support’ and ‘dysfunctional effects of goals’ did not have significant effect on ’tangible rewards’ as theorized. ‘Performance appraisal process’ had only interaction effect whereas ‘organizational facilitation of goal achievement’ had both main and interaction effect and ‘self-efficacy’ had only main effect on ‘tangible rewards’. However as ‘goal clarity’ was significant, all the interactions were partial and the model explained only 30 % of change in the ‘tangible rewards’.
Table 6: Mediation Test for Job Satisfaction On Tangible Rewards Affective Commitment Relation
Table 6: Mediation Test for Job Satisfaction On Tangible Rewards Affective Commitment Relation
Related topics:
Goal setting theory
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved