Influence of Trust and Participation in Decision Making on Employee Attitudes in Indian Public Sector Undertakings

Abstract

Trust is an important component that needs to be present among individuals. Survey data from 712 managerial employees from public sector undertakings were used to examine the effects of trust and participation in decision making on attitudinal outcomes. Results indicate that trust is significantly related to job satisfaction, group commitment, and affective commitment. Participation in decision making is a predictor of job satisfaction and affective commitment, but it did not predict group commitment. Job satisfaction significantly influences group commitment and affective commitment. Group commitment predicts affective commitment and acts as a mediator between job satisfaction and affective commitment. These findings suggest that managers need to facilitate trust and active participation among employees by taking their opinions on different work aspects. Organizations that allow employees’ participation in decision making and are perceived as trustworthy have employees who exhibit more attachment and identification with their organization.

Keywords

trust participation in decision making job satisfaction group commitment affective commitment employees public sector undertakings

Introduction

In the recent past, the Indian government has been encouraging to spread industrialization across the country, considering the potential economic benefits they offer. In the present time of privatization and liberalization, the public sector, in particular, needs to take a look at its work environment. In this productivity- and performance-led global economy, participation in decision making is one of the important mechanisms and if employees feel that they are not empowered, then the performance and competitiveness of the organizations are at stake. Also, in the rapidly changing business environment, the employee–employer relationship undergoes a considerable amount of stress that leads to low commitment and high attrition. Employees form the most important resource of an organization. The employees in an organization have to be highly talented to achieve sustainable competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). There is an increasingly diverse nature of workforce in organizations. They engage in social interactions and economic transactions within and outside their organizations. Capabilities and efforts of employees are important sources of competitive advantage.

It is well known that

organizations that are wholly or partially owned and controlled by the state government are referred to as public sector undertakings (PSUs) in India. In a PSU, majority (51% or more) of the paid up share capital is held by central government or by any state government or partly by the central governments and partly by one or more state governments. (Public Sector Undertakings in India, 2017)

The rationale of PSUs is rapid economic development, reduction of concentration of economic powers, balanced regional development, generating employment opportunities, import substitution, export promotion, and resource mobilization. Government orders for PSUs generally aim at betterment of the society (Peng, Bruton, Stan, & Huang, 2016). Arms and ammunition, defense equipments, defense aircrafts, warships, atomic energy, railways transport, heavy metals, aircraft, ships, petroleum, coal, natural gas, and power generation come under PSUs in India.

According to Performance Report (2015), in India, “all public sector undertakings collectively accounted for 23.2 percent of the total market capitalization” and “9 percent of India’s total export earnings was contributed by these organizations.” A report by the Government of India has stated that flexibility and autonomy in the PSUs have enabled them to operate effectively in the competitive market with outstanding results (Public Enterprises Survey, 2016). Many of these organizations have significant worldwide presence and are expanding (Peng et al., 2016). However, these PSUs do not have their own theory contextualized unlike other organizations (Srivastava, 2012).

In PSUs, employees from diverse cultural backgrounds come together. This diversity does not affect them in working together. They often work collaboratively in taking day-to-day decisions related to work (Ojasalo & Tähtinen, 2016). Participation in decision making allows individuals to share influence among themselves who are not hierarchically equal (Wagner, 1994). Participative management practices help to maintain a balance on the involvement of managers as well as the subordinates in daily tasks and activities related to the job. Increased levels of participation in work-related tasks can positively enhance the mental health of employees (Kukenberger, Mathieu, & Ruddy, 2015). Employees have goals that require interaction with other employees including cooperation and interdependence (Rogers & Ashforth, 2017). As a result, employees feel motivated in their work and they feel highly satisfied with their work. Substantial positive results are obtained in their performance. In this context, trust and participation of employees in decision-making processes are the two important variables worth studying.

In the recent past, scholars have done research on trust as an important managerial resource across organizations. Trust is an integral part of daily social activities. It is essentially considered as a facilitator that reduces transaction effort (Bromiley & Cummings, 1995). Trust increases interdependence among individuals and reduces uncertainty among them (Lleo, Viles, Jurburg, & Lomas, 2017). It is known to work as a lubricant in functioning of organizations. It may increase voluntary activities between individuals and organizations. Employees who trust their peers and managers are more likely to accept organizational goals and they are highly satisfied and committed to their job. Participation influences work practices, recognition, and rewards. It is believed that participation correlates with job satisfaction and affective commitment (Scott-Ladd, Travaglione, & Marshall, 2006). The role of job satisfaction as a mediator between trust and outcome variables needs to be studied.

In India, organizational factors such as management policies and work environment have been cited as the important reasons behind affective commitment and alienation of employees (Sinha, 1990). PSUs are complex because of multiple goals with conflicting interests of different stakeholders (Narayan, 2016). An employee with a good amount of affective commitment will be ready to support the organization whenever needed. It has been established from a review of past studies that there are several beneficial outcomes of trust such as job satisfaction, affective commitment, and group commitment (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Shore, Tetrick, Lynch, & Barksdale, 2006).

Morrow (1993) has defined affective commitment as an attitude that reflects feelings such as attachment, identification, or loyalty to the subject of commitment. It has strong relationship with group-level outcomes and citizenship behaviors because individuals impart greater effort when they get motivated by high levels of attachment, identification, and internalization (Giri & Kumar, 2013). Employees exhibit distinguishable levels of affective commitment toward their organization as well as their work group (Johnson & Yang, 2010). Hence, the present study has focused on individual’s affective commitment toward his or her work group. Affective group commitment has been labeled as simply group commitment in this study following the convention in past research (Cohen, 2003).

A work group consists of a group of employees working collectively to complete organizational goals (Hackman, 1987). Work groups have been believed to facilitate many positive organizational results such as employees’ motivation, job satisfaction, and production (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008). A work environment without conflicts and with good amount of trust would help in learning within work groups. In addition, if employees are highly motivated and engaged in group-level activities, their job satisfaction levels and satisfaction with coemployees increase.

Group commitment is relatively less researched for its antecedents and outcomes (Kukenberger et al., 2015). Group commitment is attracting research for its importance in organizations. Impact of group commitment on affective commitment has not been examined to the best of researchers’ knowledge. Relationship between job satisfaction and affective commitment has to be examined in the presence of group commitment as a mediator. Also, mediating role of job satisfaction needs to be studied. To address the paucity of research in affective commitment toward organizations as well as gaps in the group commitment literature, a model is described and represented that has empirically tested the influence of trust and participation in decision making on job satisfaction, affective commitment, and group commitment.

Literature Review

Trust and Job Satisfaction

Excellent employment relationship is based on trust in organization (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Trust between employees and managers delivers positive outcomes in an organization. Many studies suggest that the increase of trust toward superiors is because of favorable perceptions of the employees (Lau & Sholihin, 2005). Presence of trust enables long-term stability and well-being of employees (Appelbaum, Louis, Makarenko, & Saluja, 2013; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Trust may facilitate well-being of employees as they have support of organizational members. However, it was found that trust within management did not predict job satisfaction in certain organizations (Robertson, Gockel & Brauner, 2012). It is argued that greater trust in an organization may lead to greater job satisfaction of employees in the organization (Chen, Aryee, & Lee, 2005). The reasoning is asserted on the basis that management and peers, rather than any other general aspect, help to get the work done through sharing knowledge and ideas.

Trust and Group Commitment

Trust between employer and employee is necessary to build commitment (Rogers, 1995). Trust between work group members helps members identify themselves with their work group. It also helps to increase commitment of employees toward a work group who are members of the group (Moreland & Levine, 2002; Shore et al., 2006). It has been suggested that trust among members of a work group helps in the success of the work group (Cho & Poister, 2014). Hence, it can be deduced that presence of trust among employees may generate group commitment among members of a work group.

Trust and Affective Commitment

Organizations need to build trust among its employees for their own well-being at work (Peterson, 1998). Affective commitment fosters when employees feel they are being treated and valued for their contributions by the organization (Nazir & Islam, 2017). Meyer and Allen (1997) opined that affective commitment comprises of positive feelings of identification, attachment, and involvement with the organization. A recent study had concluded that production and administrative staff were attached to their organization as they trusted their management (Lleo et al., 2017). It is anticipated that trust of employees in their managers may act as a means to develop affective organizational commitment of employees.

Participation in Decision Making and Job Satisfaction

Participation in decision-making processes gives employees a sense of belongingness toward the organization by considering their opinion in important matters. To reciprocate such privileged actions, employees would exhibit identification and loyalty with their organization. Research suggests that employee participation across organizations is increasing (Saha & Kumar, 2015). Participation improves flow of information and, hence, transparent and open communications occur (Anderson & McDaniel, 1999). Employees whose opinions are considered for taking work-related decisions have positive views about their job (Ornoy, 2010). Thus, employees who view that their organizations are behaving in their interest may experience greater job satisfaction (Parnell, 2003).

Participation in Decision Making and Group Commitment

Participation in decision making and commitment may be related to each other as evident in past research (Louis & Smith, 1992). High levels of organizational commitment are observed in employees who participate in decisions (Giri & Kumar, 2013). Participation in decision making facilitates performance of a work group (Chen, Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen, & Rosen, 2007). When employees have the ability to participate in decision making, they perceive it as an organizational support for their work group to perform better (Kukenberger et al., 2015). Participation may positively affect group commitment by bringing the members of a work group close to each other.

Participation in Decision Making and Affective Commitment

Employees who participate in decision making may be motivated to deliver better performance because they feel very happy when their opinions are considered while making decisions (Saha & Kumar, 2015). Affective commitment arises over time as an individual presents his views and opinion over work matters (Ojasalo & Tähtinen, 2016). Every employee who is attached to his or her organization would want to have some form of influence in work-related decisions (Giri & Kumar, 2013). This might strengthen affective commitment of employees toward their organization.

Job Satisfaction and Group Commitment

Certain tasks in organizations involve working in teams. In such cases, team spirit or group commitment should develop among individuals. This gives rise to fair job satisfaction levels of employees (Halepota & Shah, 2011). Randall and Cote (1991) studied that group commitment evolves from social ties of individuals and with job satisfaction in an organization. When the reference team members provide guidance and support to an individual, their social ties would improve. Furthermore, it generally determines satisfaction with group achievements (Baran & Giderler, 2017). Hence, group commitment of the employee would also increase.

Job Satisfaction and Affective Commitment

Job satisfaction is of interest to employers and continues to be studied because it is considered to be a desirable outcome of employment. Job satisfaction is more likely to generate good levels of group commitment. Highly satisfied employees would exhibit higher levels of performance and productivity as they believe in the values of the organization (Srivastava, 2012). Research indicates that these employees may become affectively attached to their organizations (Saha & Kumar, 2015). For example, an individual tends to show emotional bonding toward his organization when he is satisfied with all aspects of his job such as colleagues and work hours.

Group Commitment and Affective Commitment

Group commitment is defined as attachment of an individual with other members in the organization (Randall & Cote, 1991). It is very less researched (Morrow, 1993). Most of the research on group commitment was related to organizational commitment conceptually or empirically. Work group commitment is responsible for enhancing social involvement (Randall & Cote, 1991). They explained that an individual seeks guidance and reassurance from one’s work group. Social ties between the individual and the organization are strengthened in this manner. Another reason for analyzing group commitment as a separate variable together with affective commitment is the need to demonstrate the distinction between the two commitments.

Group commitment is believed to have an impact on organizational commitment (Cohen, 2003). When employees work in teams, they develop ties among themselves. Employees of a work group share similar interests. This perception of having similar interests may be associated with group commitment (Ellemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwerkerk, 1999). To assess the performance and time a work group will last, it is necessary to understand the impact of group commitment on affective commitment (Ellemers et al., 1999).

Job Satisfaction as a Mediator

According to Baron and Kenny (1986), a variable can act as a mediator when the following terms are met: (a) significant levels of variation in the presumed mediator are caused by varying levels of the independent variable, (b) significant variations in the dependent variable caused by the presumed mediator, and (c) a previous significant relation between a dependent variable and independent variable becomes less significant due to the presence of presumed mediator. However, multiple commitments were not included in the test for mediation.

Organizations emphasize on job satisfaction of employees. Job satisfaction may promote commitment of an employee toward his work group (Halepota & Shah, 2011). An employee needs to trust his colleagues to be able to work comfortably (Appelbaum et al., 2013). To achieve job satisfaction, members of a work group should trust each other (Cho & Poister, 2014). This gives rise to the role of job satisfaction as a mediator between trust and group commitment.

Group Commitment as a Mediator

Group commitment is a relatively new term (Cohen, 2003). There is hardly any study that has examined the role of group commitment as a mediator in organizational behavior literature except one. Paille (2009) reported that group commitment acts as a mediator between support variables and commitment. It is beneficial to have employees who are committed to work and organization. Satisfaction and commitment with work is considered as a boon by organizations. Job satisfaction may help employees to develop positive feelings about the job to enhance his affective commitment (Appelbaum et al., 2013). It may also promote group commitment of employees who are members of a work group (Randall & Cote, 1991). This, in turn, may help employees to build commitment toward the work group (Cohen, 2003). This gives rise to mediating role of group commitment between job satisfaction and affective commitment.

Objectives

To investigate the effects of predictors, trust, and participation in decision making on outcomes, job satisfaction, group commitment, and affective commitment, empirical analysis is needed. In addition, mediating impact of job satisfaction and group commitment between predictor and outcome is examined. The objectives are listed below.

To find the impact of trust on job satisfaction, group commitment, and affective commitment;

To find the impact of participation in decision making on job satisfaction, group commitment, and affective commitment;

To find the impact of job satisfaction on group commitment and affective commitment;

To examine the impact of group commitment on affective commitment;

To investigate the mediating role of job satisfaction between trust and group commitment; and

To investigate the mediating role of group commitment between job satisfaction and affective commitment.

Hypotheses Development

Empirical analysis has been done by developing the following hypotheses (Figure 1).

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Trust will be positively related to job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Trust will be positively related to group commitment.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Trust will be positively related to affective commitment.

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Participation in decision making will be positively related to job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 5 (H5): Participation in decision making will be positively related to group commitment.

Hypothesis 6 (H6): Participation in decision making will be positively related to affective commitment.

Hypothesis 7 (H7): Job satisfaction will be positively related to group commitment.

Hypothesis 8 (H8): Job satisfaction will be positively related to affective commitment.

Hypothesis 9 (H9): Group commitment will be positively related to affective commitment.

Hypothesis 10 (H10): Job satisfaction will mediate the relationship between trust and group commitment.

Hypothesis 11 (H11): Group commitment will mediate the relationship between job satisfaction and affective commitment.

Figure 1.

Hypothesized model.

Figure 1 demonstrates the hypothesized model based on the literature review.

Measures

McAllister’s (1995) scale was used to measure trust. It has 10 items (e.g., “I would have to say that we have made considerable emotional investments in our working relationship”). The items are measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

Participation in decision making was measured using a scale developed by Van Veldhoven and Meijman (1994) consisting of eight items (e.g., “Can you discuss work problems with your superior?”). All items were measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from always to never.

To assess job satisfaction, Warr, Cook, and Wall’s (1979) scale was used, which has a total of 15 items (e.g., satisfaction with freedom to choose your own method of working). All items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from I am extremely satisfied to I am extremely dissatisfied.

Affective commitment was measured using Meyer and Allen’s (1991) scale. It consisted of eight items (e.g., “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization”). All items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

Group commitment was assessed using Ellemers, de Gilder, and Van den Heuvel’s (1998) scale. It consisted of seven items (e.g., “I am prepared to do additional work when this benefits my work team”). All items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The items to measure the different variables have been included in the appendix.

Statistical Tools and Techniques Used for Data Analysis

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and WarpPLS were used to analyze the data. The statistical analyses such as obtaining descriptive statistics, developing the correlation matrix, and calculating Cronbach’s alpha values of the various measures used in the study have been analyzed using SPSS. WarpPLS tool was used to perform some advance statistical techniques such as creating structural equation models. The hypothesized structural model emerging from the review of literature was subjected to analysis and fit tests. For this purpose, a variety of goodness-of-fit indices as provided by WarpPLS (Pearl, 2009; Wagner, 1982) were utilized. The hypothesized model was tested and the conclusions regarding the model fit and acceptance are reported.

Method

Managerial cadre respondents from four different large-scale organizations termed as PSUs in India constituted the sample. These organizations belonged to bauxite, petroleum, and heavy industries and the states covered were Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, West Bengal, Assam, Maharashtra, and Karnataka. Data were collected by visiting the organizations in person. Convenience sampling technique was adopted to identify organizations. This procedure entails participation from all regions based on convenience, willingness, interest, and availability of respondents to obtain quality responses (Verma & Duggal, 2015). However, care was taken to include participation from all regions of India. The sample consists of employees from different departments, namely, human resource (HR), finance, electrical, instrumentation, mining, civil, environment, tender and contract, sales, production, chemical, lab, research and development, and several other departments. Participation of employees in this study was voluntary. Respondents were asked not to disclose their identities so that the identities are anonymous. They were requested to respond to all the questions. It took a maximum of 45 min to completely respond to the questionnaire. The filled questionnaires were collected over a period of 5 days from each of the organizations.

Of the 1,200 survey questionnaires distributed, 780 (i.e., 65%) questionnaires were received back. Few incomplete questionnaires were rejected and 712 (i.e., 59.33%) questionnaires were retained for the study. Of these subjects, 95.6% were males and the rest were females; 85% were reported to be married and the rest were single; 13.3%, 27.9%, 39.3%, and 19.4% were in the age group of 51 to 60 years, 41 to 50 years, 31 to 40 years, and 21 to 30 years, respectively. There were 44% participants each in entry-level management and middle-level management; 12.1% were in senior-level management. The average years of work experience across all levels of management was 14.14 years. In the overall sample, 61.3% subjects had BE/BTech as highest qualification, 36.2% had ME/MTech/MBA as highest qualification, and 2.5% had PhD as highest qualification. Among all subjects, the maximum tenure was found to be 33 years.

Empirical Results

To study the behavior of the variables in the hypothesized model, statistical analysis was performed using variance-based structural equation modeling (SEM) by using the partial least squares (PLS) approach.

The data were subjected to statistical analysis to test the above hypotheses. First, mean, standard deviation, reliability, and intercorrelation were computed. Table 1 shows the mean, standard deviation, and reliability coefficients for all the measures.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Coefficients of All Variables.

Variable	M	SD	Reliability (Cronbach’s α)
TRUST	4.08	0.52	.84
PDM	3.94	0.61	.80
JS	3.99	0.58	.90
AOC	3.77	0.70	.83
GC	4.23	0.55	.84

Note. TRUST = trust; PDM = participation in decision making; JS = job satisfaction; AOC = affective organizational commitment; GC = group commitment.

As the values for Cronbach’s alpha are well above the recommended threshold of .70, the reliability of the measurements is considered valid (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Outer Model/Measurement Model Validation

The relationship of observed variables with their respective latent constructs comprises the outer model. Indicator reliability, construct reliability, and construct validity (convergent and discriminant validity) are examined. Indicator reliability is established when the indicator (factor) loading is greater than .50 (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson &Tatham, 2006). Construct validity is established by composite reliability (CR) values of the construct. CR is considered to be a superior alternative to Cronbach’s alpha (Chin, 1998). CR measures the sum of a latent variable’s factor loadings relative to the sum of the factor loadings plus error variance. This value ranges from 0 to 1. This value should be greater than .60 for the validity of a construct. CR values above the threshold of .70 indicate strong convergent validity (Kline, 2015; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

The CRs of all variables range from .80 to .91 as presented in Table 2. Moreover, both CR indicators and Cronbach’s alpha values of all the variables are above the threshold value of .70. All outer loadings were significant and were greater than their cross loadings. Hence, measurements have strong convergent validity (Hair,et al., 2006). Moreover, it is evident from Table 2 that all variance inflation factor (VIF) values are less than 5. VIFs of 3.3 or lower avoid issues of multicollinearity and high interassociations among latent variables (Kock & Lynn, 2012).

Table 2.

Outer Loadings of Indicators, CR, AVEs, and VIFs of All Variables.

Variable	Outer loadings	SMCs	CR	AVE	VIF
TRUST			.87	.91	2.04
TRUST 1	.66	.436
TRUST 2	.52	.270
TRUST 3	.61	.372
TRUST 4	.68	.462
TRUST 5	.72	.518
TRUST 6	.58	.336
TRUST 7	.56	.314
TRUST 8	.60	.360
TRUST 9	.57	.325
TRUST 10	.66	.436
TRUST 11	.66	.436
PDM			.80	.89	2.08
PDM 1	.51	.260
PDM 2	.57	.325
PDM 3	.60	.360
PDM 4	.56	.314
PDM 5	.72	.518
PDM 6	.72	.518
PDM 7	.76	.578
PDM 8	.74	.548
JS			.90	.91	2.27
JS 1	.60	.360
JS 2	.65	.422
JS 3	.52	.270
JS 4	.67	.449
JS 5	.65	.422
JS 6	.63	.397
JS 7	.62	.384
JS 8	.69	.476
JS 9	.62	.384
JS 10	.67	.449
JS 11	.72	.518
JS 12	.70	.490
JS 13	.63	.397
JS 14	.74	.550
JS 15	.57	.325
AOC			.87	.92	1.57
AOC 1	.62	.384
AOC 2	.65	.423
AOC 3	.72	.518
AOC 4	.65	.422
AOC 5	.76	.578
AOC 6	.76	.578
AOC 7	.54	.292
AOC 8	.74	.550
GC			.87	.93	1.84
GC 1	.56	.314
GC 2	.64	.500
GC 3	.66	.436
GC 4	.69	.476
GC 5	.73	.533
GC 6	.83	.689
GC 7	.81	.656

Note. AVE is calculated as ΣSMC / (∑ SMC + Σstandard measurement error). CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; VIF = variance inflation factor; SMC = squared multiple correlation; TRUST = trust; PDM = participation in decision making; JS = job satisfaction; AOC = affective organizational commitment; GC = group commitment.

All outer loadings are significant at p < .001 level.

Table 3 presents the correlations among the latent variables with square roots of average variance extracted (AVE) at diagonals. Correlation analysis was employed to examine the relationship among participation in decision making, trust, job satisfaction, group commitment, and affective organizational commitment. For assessing discriminant validity, square root of AVE of a variable should be greater than its bivariate correlation with any other variable (Hulland, 1999). The values .94, .95, .94, .96, and .96 are greater than the correlations in the row for the variables TRUST, PDM, JS, GC, and AOC, respectively. Thus, discriminant validity of the variables is established.

Table 3.

Correlations Among Latent Variables With Square Roots of AVEs Shown on Diagonals.

Variable	TRUST	PDM	JS	GC	AOC
TRUST	.95
PDM	.65	.94
JS	.59	.60	.95
GC	.52	.48	.62	.96
AOC	.42	.48	.54	.49	.96

Note. The diagonal elements in shaded gradient are square roots of AVEs of the respective latent variables. AVE = average variance extracted; TRUST = trust; PDM = participation in decision making; JS = job satisfaction; GC = group commitment; AOC = affective organizational commitment.

All correlations are significant at p < .001 level.

Inner Model/Structural Model Validation

Proposed hypothetical model was prepared in a recursive manner to avoid problems associated with statistical identification (Hair et al., 2006).

Figure 2 shows the results of an SEM analysis aimed at testing the hypothesized effects among the latent variables. Dotted line arrow represents statistically insignificant effects. The β coefficients for each link are shown near the arrows, and they refer to the standardized regression path coefficients associated with statistically significant effects.

Figure 2.

Structural equation model and estimated parameters.

The strength of each path of the structural equation model and the variance (R² coefficients) of the endogenous variables should be greater than .1 (Falk & Miller, 1992). Figure 2 shows that the R² coefficients of endogenous latent variables are greater than .15 (good amount of variance is explained by the hypothesized variables). TRUST and PDM are exogenous variables, so there exists no R² value. As evident in Figure 2 and Table 4, all the significant path coefficients are above .2 and are significant at p < .001 level except for one path, which is insignificant.

Table 4.

Path Coefficients, t Statistics, and Summary of Hypotheses Verification.

Serial number of hypothesis	Paths/hypotheses	Path coefficients	Result
H1	TRUST → JS	.34*	Accepted
H2	TRUST → GC	.24*	Accepted
H3	TRUST → AOC	.39*	Accepted
H4	PDM → JS	.40*	Accepted
H5	PDM → GC	.06	Refuted
H6	PDM → AOC	.21*	Accepted
H7	JS → GC	.46*	Accepted
H8	JS → AOC	.31*	Accepted
H9	GC → AOC	.21*	Accepted

Note. TRUST = trust; JS = job satisfaction; GC = group commitment; AOC = affective organizational commitment; PDM = participation in decision making.

p < .001.

Tables 5 and 6 show the results for mediating role of job satisfaction and group commitment based on the suggestions of Baron and Kenny (1986) and Sobel (1982). The total mediation effects for all the paths were significant at p < .001. The mediating impact of JS between trust and GC is not supported by results (Sobel z value = 6.83, p > .01). This rejected H10. The results confirm the mediating effect of GC between JS and GC (Sobel z value = 4.78, p < .001). Thus, H11 is accepted.

Table 5.

Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects for Mediation by JS Between TRUST and GC.

Hypothesis	Paths	Variable	JS			GC			Mediation effect
Hypothesis	Paths	Variable	Direct	Indirect	Total	Direct	Indirect	Total	Mediation effect
H10	TRUST → JS → GC	TRUST	.34*	.00	.34*	.24*	.16	.37	Refuted

Note. JS = job satisfaction; TRUST = trust; GC = group commitment.

p < .001.

Table 6.

Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects for Mediation by GC Between JS and AOC.

Hypothesis	Paths	Variable	GC			AOC			Mediation effect
Hypothesis	Paths	Variable	Direct	Indirect	Total	Direct	Indirect	Total	Mediation effect
H11	JS → GC → AOC	JS	.46*	.00	.46*	.31*	.10	.41*	Accepted

Note. GC = group commitment; JS = job satisfaction; AOC = affective commitment.

p < .001.

Model Fit of the Structural Model

Table 7 reports the values of all indices—average path coefficient (APC), average adjusted R-squared (AARS), R-squared contribution ratio (RSCR), and nonlinear bivariate causality direction ratio (NLBCDR)—obtained are within the fit criteria mentioned in the third column. Hence, the model fit is achieved for the present study.

Table 7.

Model Fit and Quality Indices.

Index	Model results	Model fit criteria
Average path coefficient (APC)	.25, p < .001	p < .001
Average adjusted R-squared (AARS)	.42, p < .001	p < .001
R-squared contribution ratio (RSCR)	1.00	≥.9, ideally = 1
Nonlinear bivariate causality direction ratio (NLBCDR)	1.00	≥.7

Discussion

The results of the present study indicate that trust has a significant relationship with job satisfaction, which is supported by past research (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). This is due to the reason that presence of trust among employees helps them to have a mutually sharing relationship in which ideas and feelings are freely shared. If an employee has a trustworthy relationship, then he feels safe and positive. This leads to higher job satisfaction. However, if there is no trust, an employee does not feel safe and he is likely to worry. This will have negative effect and there can be no job satisfaction (Chen et al., 2005).

This study offers a unique understanding of group commitment with other outcomes. Trust is an important driver of group commitment as evident in findings. This outcome grows with the seed of trust (Moreland & Levine, 2002). It strengthens the social interactions among employees. Uncertainty among them is reduced. Difficulties and issues related to work are solved easily when there is cooperation among the employees. Hence, success at work is easily achieved by the employees. Organizations may choose to consider group performance important for their growth. Hence, employees give more importance to generate effective group results. Hence, trust is considered by employees as essential to build emotional relationships among themselves. Managers might trust only those members of a work group who consider the work important to be completed on time.

A significant relationship between trust and affective commitment is also found. Trust helps to share information freely. Thus, healthy relationship prevails among all employees (Lleo et al., 2017). They feel happy that their work and experience is valued by their colleagues and managers. Interactions increase among employees. This creates a trustworthy work environment. The employees develop positive feelings for their organization by exhibiting affective commitment (Nazir & Islam, 2017).

The results suggest that Indian PSUs are interested in enhancing employee job satisfaction through employees’ participation in decision making, which has been supported in previous research (Ornoy, 2010). Affective commitment is determined by the extent of participation of employees in day-to-day work-related decisions allowed to them by their supervisors. The more the participation, the better will be the relationship between participation in decision making and affective commitment. Employees are able to identify more with the organization when they have an active role in making policies and decisions of their organization (Ojasalo & Tähtinen, 2016). This is because participation gives certain amount of satisfaction to the employees. This satisfaction obtained by participation cannot be replaced by any other form of involvement. Participation in the decision-making process also helps employees to understand the functioning of their organization thoroughly in terms of managerial and technical functions. Employees would also be able to understand the managerial and technical issues in a better manner.

As per the results, participation in decision making did not have significant impact on group commitment of employees, in contrast to the findings of Kukenberger et al. (2015). This is because participation in decision making can cause many disadvantages in a work group. There can be pressures arising from social systems to dominance by some members of the group due to unequal distribution of power. An influential member may cause other members to follow the decisions taken by him, which may be disliked by other members as stated in leader–member exchange theory. Hence, indecisiveness, lack of consensus, and group conflicts might arise. In such situations, the employee might feel neglected by his work group. Hence, he may not be able to identify with his work group to the required extent. The commitment toward his group decreases gradually.

Another finding of note is that job satisfaction exerted a strong influence on group commitment. This finding is supported by past research on group commitment (Knippenberg & Schie, 2000). Thus, the positive association between job satisfaction and group commitment implies that identification and attachment with the group can be improved by providing supportive work groups and providing recognition within the reference groups for good work. Social ties are believed to achieve strong satisfaction level while working in groups. Thus, when the members of the work group of an individual provide support and guidance in work, the satisfaction obtained by good work will help in observing a significant amount of group commitment.

The results report that job satisfaction has a significant impact on the magnitude of affective commitment. This result is at par with past research (Appelbaum et al., 2013). Employees seek a certain level of satisfaction in the job they perform. This is possible when they have a certain level of trust in management. Hence, appreciation from managers gives satisfaction to the employees. Employees will have a positive emotional feeling about their job. Their expectations are met from the job as well as the organization (Rogers & Ashforth, 2017). This would motivate the employees more toward their organization. The positive emotional feeling would give rise to commitment or attachment with the organization. It creates positive work environment in the organization. Such positive work environment enhances the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

As far as group commitment in the PSUs is concerned, the study shows that it is a significant predictor of affective commitment (Appelbaum et al., 2013). It is also found to mediate the impact of job satisfaction on affective commitment shown in the empirical testing supported by a past study (Paille, 2009). Group commitment is the cohesiveness of an individual with the members of his or her group. It implies that an employee who is attached to his work group would be equally attached to his or her organization. Job satisfaction can have an indirect influence on affective commitment when group commitment facilitates this relationship (Srivastava, 2012). Thus, a part of this study highlights that group commitment is an equally independent variable as affective commitment. Thus, it is worthy to study how significant amount of group commitment can be achieved with affective organizational commitment.

Implications

The concepts of trust, participation in decision making, job satisfaction, and affective commitment are given importance by many researchers. They are of the opinion that organizational leaders have to emphasize on these concepts to receive consistent attention (Meyer & Allen, 1997). The attitudinal outcomes such as group commitment, affective commitment, and job satisfaction help establish the relationship of an employee with his or her organization. In this way, the organization will consider its best interests not only while making business decisions but also for the welfare of the employee.

The results of this study confirm a set of hypotheses about the nature of relationship between trust and attitudinal outcomes. Trust can have a strategic role for coping with uncertainties (Bromiley & Cummings, 1995). Greater trust among each other implies greater satisfaction with the job. Trust among members eases group work. In this way, it enhances commitment with the work group as well as the whole of organization. These outcomes are essential for an employee to continue working with the organization. Trust has an indirect influence on group commitment through job satisfaction. In this light, it can be inferred that trust should be viewed and prioritized as an important concept in organizations.

This study has been able to identify the role of employees’ participation in decision making on attitudinal outcomes. Participation in decision making was not exclusively related to job satisfaction, but it also significantly predicted affective organizational commitment. This is supported by findings from previous researchers that increasing participation has strong sense of identity and satisfaction with the job (Kim, 2002). Job satisfaction also significantly predicted organizational commitment. The findings of this study are relevant to the managers and directors of the PSUs in understanding how affective organizational commitment develops. Several organizational factors arose to explain the relationship between trust, participation in decision making, and behavioral outcomes of employees in organizations. As globalization and economy are growing, there exists tough competition for the PSUs. The present study has implemented the recommendations of Black and Gregersen (1997) that suggest that organizations can enhance employees’ job satisfaction by improving participation. Participation allows the management of the organization to tap the skills and ideas of the employees for better efficiency in production.

Three important strategies can be derived by the organizations from the results of this study to enhance their employees’ job satisfaction. First, employees will extend their support and efforts more when PSUs develop strategies to support employees’ career interests. Second, these organizations can communicate more with employees about their responsibilities, participation, and performance on the job, thus enhancing their job satisfaction and commitment. In this manner, they will understand how their present performance and strategies can contribute to the work. Third, the organizations should make sure that while working in a group, the junior employees do not feel less important. It is often observed that the senior employees do not treat their junior colleagues equally in terms of recognizing their potential. The managers should ensure that the junior employees are recognized equally well as their senior employees for appreciable collective or group work.

This study has taken research on group commitment, a very recent variable, to new levels. Predictors of affective organizational commitment illustrate that emotional attachment of employees with their organization depends on trust, participation, and how good are their job satisfaction and cordial relations in a work group. These predictors are affected by the degree of group commitment. Organizations should ensure that employees’ skills are enhanced and they know how to implement latest technological advances. This will help the PSUs to have sound technical and support domains. They will also stay at the cutting edge, and remain competitive in this manner.

Limitations and Scope of Future Research

Few limitations have to be addressed. Only cross-sectional data have been considered in this study. Future studies can consider implementing the model with longitudinal data. However, it is a challenging task to conduct a longitudinal study as the same respondents may not be available across different points of time (Stratford, Mulligan, Downie, & Voss, 1999).

This study is specifically conducted for Indian PSUs. Thus, the results of the study should be used carefully while applying to other companies such as multinational companies (MNCs). Then, a comparison between the results of the model from two different sectors can be done. It can be worthwhile in conducting a multilevel study by generating a conceptual model involving psychological variables such as trust and participative management interventions, and attitudinal variables such as commitment and job satisfaction. This would allow researchers to understand the impact of participation interventions and trust on various organizational and behavioral outcomes. Future research can also be carried with samples from different locations across different industries. In addition, other sectors such as health care, insurance, and services can implement the model so that the findings can have larger implications.

Footnotes

Appendix

Items to Measure Group Commitment.

GC 1	I am prepared to do additional work, when this benefits my work team.
GC 2	I feel at home among my colleagues at work.
GC 3	I try to invest effort into a good atmosphere in my team.
GC 4	In my work, I let myself be guided by the goals of my work team.
GC 5	When there is social activity with my team, I usually help to organize it.
GC 6	This team lies close to my heart.
GC 7	I find it important that my team is successful.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

S. Pavan Kumar is an assistant professor at School of Management, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal, India. He has obtained BE (CSE), MTech (HRDM) and PhD (HRDM) from IIT Kharagpur. He has published several papers in national and international journals and conducts workshops on Structural Equation Modeling. His research interests include Organization Development, Human Resource Analytics and Information Systems.

Shilpi Saha is a PhD graduate of National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal, India. She has earned BTech from SRM University and MBA from IIIT-Allahabad. Her recent publications include “Empirical Validation of Dimensionality of Quality of Work Life for Indian Public Undertakings” which was published by International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research (2016); Impact of Demographics on Multiple Commitments: Empirical Evidence from Indian Public Sector Undertakings" published by Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management (2016). Her research interests include Organization Behaviour, Organization Development and Human Resource Management.

References

Anderson

R. A.

McDaniel

R. R.

Jr. (1999). RN participation in organizational decision-making and improvements in resident outcomes. Healthcare Management Review, 24, 7-16.

Appelbaum

S. H.

Louis

Makarenko

Saluja

(2013). Participation in decision making: A case study of job satisfaction and commitment (part one). Industrial and Commercial Training, 45, 222-229.

Baran

Giderler

(2017). A study on determining the influence of organizational identification on organizational justice and organizational silence. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 7, 242-258.

Barney

(1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Black

J. S.

Gregersen

H. B.

(1997). Participative decision making: An integration of multiple dimensions. Human Relations, 50, 859-879.

Bromiley

Cummings

L. L.

(1995). Transactions costs in organizations with trust. In Lewicki

R. J.

Bies

R. J.

Sheppard

B. H.

(Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (pp. 219-247). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Chen

Kirkman

B. L.

Kanfer

Allen

Rosen

(2007). A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 331-346.

Chen

Z. X.

Aryee

Lee

(2005). Test of a mediation model of perceived organizational support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 457-470.

10.

Chin

(1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22, 7-16.

11.

Cho

Y. J.

Poister

T. H.

(2014). Managerial practices, trust in leadership, and performance: Case of the Georgia department of transportation. Public Personnel Management, 43, 179-196.

12.

Cohen

(2003). Multiple commitments in the workplace: An integrative approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

13.

Cropanzano

Mitchell

M. S.

(2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874-900.

14.

Ellemers

de Gilder

van den Heuvel

(1998). Career-oriented versus teamoriented commitment and behaviour at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 717-730.

15.

Ellemers

Kortekaas

Ouwerkerk

J. W.

(1999). Self-categorisation, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 371-389.

16.

Falk

R. F.

Miller

N. B.

(1992). A primer for soft modeling. Akron, OH: University of Akron Press.

17.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.

18.

Giri

V. N.

Kumar

S. P.

(2013). Assessing the impact of participation in decision making on organizational citizenship behaviour: The mediating role of oganisational commitment. In Chatterjee

Dhal

Pati

S. P.

(Eds.), High-tech people, high-tech HR: Are we missing the humane touch? (pp. 41-46). New Delhi, India: Bloomsbury.

19.

Hackman

J. R.

(1987). The design of work teams. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

20.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

(2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.

21.

Halepota

J. A.

Shah

(2011). An empirical investigation of organisational antecedents on employee job satisfaction in a developing country. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 5, 280-294.

22.

Hulland

(1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 195-204.

23.

Johnson

R. E.

Yang

L. Q.

(2010). Commitment and motivation at work: The relevance of employee identity and regulatory focus. Academy of Management Review, 35, 226-245.

24.

Kim

(2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management leadership. Public Administration Review, 62, 231-241.

25.

Kline

R. B.

(2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford.

26.

Knippenberg

Schie

(2000). Foci and correlates of organizational identification. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 73(2), 137-147.

27.

Kock

Lynn

G. S.

(2012). Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: An illustration and recommendations. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13, 546-580.

28.

Kukenberger

M. R.

Mathieu

J. E.

Ruddy

(2015). A cross-level test of empowerment and process influences on members’ informal learning and team commitment. Journal of Management, 41, 987-1016.

29.

Lau

C. M.

Sholihin

(2005). Financial and nonfinancial performance measures: How do they affect job satisfaction? The British Accounting Review, 37, 389-413.

30.

Lleo

Viles

Jurburg

Lomas

(2017). Strengthening employee participation and commitment to continuous improvement through middle manager trustworthy behaviours. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 28, 974-988.

31.

Louis

K. S.

Smith

(1992). Cultivating teacher engagement: Breaking the iron law of social class. In Newmann

(Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 119-152). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

32.

Mathieu

J. E.

Maynard

M. T.

Rapp

Gilson

(2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410-476.

33.

McAllister

D. J.

(1995). Affect and cognition based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24-59.

34.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

(1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.

35.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

(1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

36.

Moreland

R. L.

Levine

J. M.

(2002). Socialization and trust in work groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 5, 185-201.

37.

Morrow

P. C.

(1993). The theory and measurement of work commitment. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

38.

Narayan

A. K.

(2016). An ethical perspective on performance measurement in the public sector. Pacific Accounting Review, 28, 364-372.

39.

Nazir

Islam

J. U.

(2017). Enhancing organizational commitment and employee performance through employee engagement: An empirical check. South Asian Journal of Business Studies, 6, 98-114.

40.

Nunnally

J. C.

Bernstein

I. H.

(1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

41.

Ojasalo

Tähtinen

(2016). Integrating open innovation platforms in public sector decision making: Empirical results from smart city research. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(12), 38-48.

42.

Ornoy

(2010). Correlates of employees’ attitudes towards participation in decision making. The IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 7-15.

43.

Paille

(2009). The relationship between support, commitment and intent to leave team. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 15, 49-62.

44.

Parnell

J. A.

(2003). Propensity for participative decision-making, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behaviour and intentions to leave among Egyptian managers. The Multinational Business Review, 11, 45-65.

45.

Pearl

(2009). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

46.

Peng

M. W.

Bruton

G. D.

Stan

C. V.

Huang

(2016). Theories of the (state-owned) firm. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33, 293-317.

47.

Performance Report. (2015). Annual report on the performance of Central Public Sector Enterprises. Retrieved from http://dpe.nic.in/publication/annual-reports

48.

Peterson

(1998). Trust for quality. The TQM Magazine, 10, 413-416.

49.

Public Enterprises Survey. (2016). Public sector and government in transformation. Retrieved from http://www.ey.com/IN/en/Industries/Government—Public-Sector

50.

Public Sector Undertakings in India. (2017). Spotlight. Retrieved from http://www.archive.india.gov.in/spotlight/spotlight_archive.php?id=78

51.

Randall

D. M.

Cote

J. A.

(1991). Interrelationships of work commitment constructs. Work and Occupation, 18, 194-211.

52.

Robertson

Gockel

Brauner

(2012). Trust your teammates or bosses? Differential effects of trust on transactive memory, job satisfaction, and performance. Employee Relations, 35, 222-242.

53.

Rogers

K. M.

Ashforth

B. E.

(2017). Respect in organizations: Feeling valued as “we” and “me.” Journal of Management, 43, 1578-1608.

54.

Rogers

R. W.

(1995). The psychological contract of trust—Part I. Executive Development, 8, 15-19.

55.

Saha

Kumar

S. P.

(2015). Assessing the relationship between participation in decision making, job satisfaction and multiple commitments. OPUS: HR Journal, 6, 18-37.

56.

Scott-Ladd

Travaglione

Marshall

(2006). Causal inferences between participation in decision making, task attributes, work effort, rewards, job satisfaction and commitment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27, 399-414.

57.

Shore

L. M.

Tetrick

L. E.

Lynch

Barksdale

(2006). Social and economic exchange: Construct development and validation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 837-867.

58.

Sinha

J. B. P.

(1990). Work culture in the Indian context. New Delhi, India: Sage.

59.

Sobel

M. E.

(1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In Leinhart

(Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290-312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

60.

Srivastava

(2012). Workplace passion as a moderator for workplace deviant behaviour–job satisfaction relationship: A comparative study between public sector and private sector managers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation, 8, 517-523.

61.

Stratford

Mulligan

Downie

Voss

(1999). Threats to validity in the longitudinal study of psychological effects: The case of short stature. Child: Care, Health and Development, 25, 401-419.

62.

Van Veldhoven

Meijman

. (1994). The measurement of psychosocial job demands. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: NIA.

63.

Verma

H. V.

Duggal

(2015). Retail service quality in India: Construct exploration and measure development. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 4, 129-148.

64.

Wagner

C. H.

(1982). Simpson’s paradox in real life. The American Statistician, 36, 46-48.

65.

Wagner

J. A.

III . (1994). Participation’s effect on performance and satisfaction: A reconsideration of research evidence. Academy of Management Review, 19, 312-330.

66.

Warr

P. B.

Cook

J. D.

Wall

T. D.

(1979). Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 129-148.