Effect of Content-oriented framework on employee commitment
The study sought to test the first hypothesis that there is no statistically significant
relationship between Content -oriented frameworks and Employee commitment. The test of
β1=0.246 (coefficient of the content-oriented framework) statistics revealed that there was
sufficient evidence that Content oriented framework was significantly related to Employee
Commitment (Value of test statistics: t=6.036; p-value =0.000). This led to the rejection of
the null hypothesis and adoption of the alternative hypothesis that there was a significant
relationship between content-oriented framework and employee commitment. This implies
that the relationship between content-oriented framework and employee commitment
becomes stronger. These findings concur with the observations made by Haufff, Alewell
and Katrin (2017) that a content-oriented framework leads to positive employee
commitment in an organization. This was relevant to the current research as it helps to
cement the implication of psychological contracts as a way of improving the success of
commitments among the Migori county government employees hence consistent with
findings by Ostroff et al. (2017).
Influence of feature-oriented framework on employee commitment
The study sought to test the second hypothesis if there was sufficient evidence at the 5%
significance level to infer that the feature-oriented framework is related to Employee
Commitment. The test of β2=0.238 (coefficient of Feature oriented framework) statistics
revealed that there was sufficient evidence that feature-oriented framework was
significantly related to Employee Commitment (Value of test statistics: t=5.044; p-value
=0.000). This led to the rejection of the null hypothesis and adoption of the alternative
hypothesis that there was a significant relationship between the feature-oriented
framework and employee
commitment. This implies that the relationship between feature-oriented framework and
employee commitment becomes stronger. These findings concur with observations made
by Hassan, Abdul-Rahman and Basit (2017) that the feature-oriented framework leads to
positive employee commitment in an organization.
Effect of the evaluation-oriented framework on employee commitment
The study sought to test the third hypothesis if there was sufficient evidence at the 5%
significance level to infer that the evaluation-oriented framework is significantly related to
Employee Commitment. The test of β3=0.188 (coefficient of Evaluation oriented
framework) statistics revealed that there was sufficient evidence that Evaluation oriented
framework was significantly related to Employee Commitment (Value of test statistics:
t=4.039; p-value
=0.000). This led to the rejection of the null hypothesis and adoption of the alternative
hypothesis that there was a significant relationship between the evaluation-oriented
framework and employee commitment. This implies that the relationship between the
evaluation-oriented framework and employee commitment becomes weaker. These
findings concur with the findings by McDermott, Heffernan and Beynon (2013) that the
evaluation- oriented framework leads to positive employee commitment in an organization.
Moderating influence of leadership style on the relationship between psychological
contract and employee commitment
The study sought to test the fourth hypothesis if there was sufficient evidence at the 5%
significance level to infer that leadership style moderates the relationship between
psychological contract and employee commitment.
The test of β4=0.231 (coefficient of leadership styles) statistics revealed that there was
sufficient evidence that leadership style moderates the relationship between psychological
contract and employee commitment (Value of test statistics: t=4.782; p-value =0.000).
While tests statistics of β5=0.368 (coefficient of leadership styles and content-oriented
framework; Value of test statistics: t=4.750; p-value =0.000), β6=0.326 (coefficient of
leadership styles and feature-oriented framework; Value of test statistics: t=4.750; p-value
=0.000) revealed that there was sufficient evidence that leadership style positively
moderates the relationship between content-oriented and feature-oriented framework and
employee commitment. On the other hand, test statistic of β7= -2.58 (coefficient of
leadership styles and evaluation- oriented framework; Value of test statistics: t=4.782; p-
value =0.000) revealed that there was sufficient evidence that leadership style negatively
moderates the relationship between evaluation-oriented framework and employee
commitment. The null hypothesis was thus rejected and the alternative hypothesis adopted;
implying that there was a significant moderating influence of leadership style on the
relationship between psychological contract and employee commitment. This, therefore,
suggests that for content-oriented framework and feature-oriented framework the
moderation was positive and made the relationship stronger. However, for the evaluation-
oriented framework, the moderation was negative and made the relationship weaker.
The study findings to this study implied that there was a significant moderating influence of
leadership on the relationship between psychological contract and employee commitment.
This led to the rejection of the null hypothesis and adoption of the alternative hypothesis
that there is a significant moderating influence of leadership on the relationship between
psychological contract and employee commitment. The findings resemble those of Jiang
(2014) who also established the presence of a relationship between feature-oriented
framework and employee commitment (regression results presented in Table 4.6).
Accordingly, Wang, Oh, Courtright and Colbert (2011), established the extent to which
transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels could influence the
level of job performance in India. The research indicated that the success of the
organizations was based on leadership styles. This would apply to the context of Migori
County where the different kinds of leadership styles may influence the level of job
commitments at work. The regression coefficient is presented in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8: Regression model
coefficient results Dependent
Variable- Employee Commitment
Variable Coefficient Sig.(2-tailed) (p-values)
Constant 2.016
(8.923)
0.000
COF 0.246
(6.036)
0.000
FOF 0.238
(5.044)
0.000
EOF 0.188
(4.039)
0.000
LS 0.234
(4.782)
0.000
LS*COF 0.368
(4.750)
0.000
LS*FOF 0.326
(3.217)
0.000
LS*EOF -0.258
(-2.529)
0.012
R 0.432
R square 0.186
SE estimate 0.45634
Prob (F-statistics) 0.000
F statistic (df1, df2) 15.788(4,276)
Durbin Watson D 1.860
Source: Author, 2020
The results from Table 4.8 shows that Model 1 without the moderating influence
of Leadership styles term predicted up to 18.6 % of the variance in Employee
commitment which was statistically significant (p-value=0.000<0.05).
