Post on 31-May-2020
Chapter 3
Operational Definitions
Structure
Introduction
3.1 Operational agents
3.1 Job performance
3.3 Assertiveness
3.4 Job satisfaction
3.5 Job involvement
3.6 ·Demographic variables
3.6.1 Age
3.6.2 Experience
3.6.3 Qualification
3.6.4 Region of engagement
Chapter 3 Operational Definit~ons
Introduction
A concept expresses an abstraction by generalisation from particulars.
A construct is a concept. But construct has the added meaning, however,
of having been deliberately and consciously invented or adopted for a
scientific purpose. An operational definition assigns meaning to a construct
or a variable by specifying the activities or "operations" necessary to
measure it. There are in general, two kinds of "operational definition" in
research studies: (i) measured operational definition, and (ii) experimental
operational definition. A measured operational definition describes how a
variable will be measured. An experimental operational definition spells out
the details (operations) of the investigator's manipulation of variable. No
operational definition can ever express the rich and diverse aspects of
human prejudice (Kerlinger, 1995).
3.1 Operational agents
Life Insurance Corporation is a nationally acclaimed financial
organisation contributing substantially to the national economy. Though
UC of India is having many agents, only few of them are contributing
consistently to the growth of the organization. In this study Operational
agents are defined as those agents who are actively engaged and
contributing to the achievement of financial targets of Life Insurance
Corporation of India for at least three years. Only those agents who were
operational, having contributed to the organization, in the years 1997-
1998, 1998-1999, and 1999-2000 comprise the database.
3.2 Job performance
Job performance or work performance is a special case of
psychological measurement that provides quantitative descriptions of the
extent to which individuals demonstrate (Ghiselli, 1964). Work performance
(3.1)
measurement involves the methods or procedures that provide
quantitatively the extent to which employees demonstrate certain work
behaviours and the result of those behaviours (Landy and Farr, 1983).
According to Mackinney (1967) performance is a multidimensional variable,
people high on one measure may not be high on another, and such
standings may change over time. This finding suggested some important
questions concerning implications of this complexity. There is still a
controversy amongst the industrial psychologists that these dimensions
should be combined in order to reach an overall judgement whether the
dimensions should be analyzed separately or not. Some prominent
psychologists (Dunnette, 1963; Guion, 1961; Ghiselli, 1964) claimed low
interrelations among the different performance variables and concluded
that these were conceptually different aspects, not perfect indicants of the
same underlying variable, a variable that might be called overall job
performance. Performance of an individ.ual, documented through the
system of performance appraisal, a continuous line function, which, if
performed objectively, exerts motivational impacts on individuals (Dwivedi,
1990). With regards to performance, Ramusson (1999) identified the traits
essential to be successful in sales and the top individual strengths
identified included: ego strength, assertiveness, willingness to take risks,
sociable and abstract reasoning, healthy sense of skepticism, creativity and
empathy. Decenzo and Robins (1995) related performance to personal
data, performance index and performance appraisal. They defined
performance as "effective and efficient work which also considers personal
data such as measures of accidents, turnover, absence and tardiness",
performance index as "a measure to determine if an executive's salary is
commensurate with the organization's performance," and performance
appraisal as "a formal process in an organization whereby each employee
is evaluated to determine how he or she is performing". Performance
management is central to gaining competitive advantage, and it is the
means through which managers ensure that employees' activities and
(3.2)
output are congruent with the organization's goal (Noe et al, 1994). Eppler
et al (1998) highlighted the necessity of measuring performance that
existed in all spheres, investigated the effect of two personal
characteristics: self-monitoring (the propensity of a person to regulate their
behaviours in order to present a more desirable self-image) and
adaptiveness (the capability of a sales person to make appropriate changes
across sales interactions and within an interaction) to comment that
predisposition to practise adaptive selling resulted higher sales in case of
personal selling. The outcome of sales career is always probabilistic but
personality of salespeople influences the salesperson's job performance
(Lorge, 1999).
Job performance of the insurance agent is the conglomeration of
quantitative bases like number of policie~ sum assured, first premium
income etc. and qualitative judgements; some of which are
communication skill, degree of emotional stability, problem solving
ability, and dependability etc.
The performance of the agents of UC of India has been measured by
administering a questionnaire on Development Officers (for agents
recruited by them) and Branch Manager or Assistant Branch Managers
(Sales) for Direct agents.
The salespersons (agents) of UC of India, who widely differ in their
performance level, have been be categorised by percentile cut off, as High
performer (JP _High), Moderate performer (JP _Mod) and Low performer
(JP _Low).
Performance: Score range (00 to 80) Measured Score range
Performance level Grade Minimum Maximum
Low performer JP_Low 39 52
Moderate performer JP_Mod 53 66 High performer JP_High 67 80
(3.3)
low performers are those agents whose scores are between 39 and
52, obtained based on percentile cut Qff of the performance scores of an the agents constituting the sample. The agents, whose scores Ue between
53 and 66, are Moderate performing agents. The High performers are
those whose scores range from 67 and 80.
3.3 Assertiveness
Assertiveness is social boldness. Assertiveness is a personality trait
(Salter, 1949) possessed by some person and not by someone. Wolpe
(1958) and lazarus (1966) redefined assertiveness as expressing "personal
rights and feelings" and opined that every body could be assertiveness in
some situations, and totally ineffective in some other. A person is assertive,
when he stands up for his rkJhts in such a way that the rights of others are
not violated. Again Bowles ('2001) defined assertiveness as a positive and
constructive way of relating to other people that respects others' needs,
wants, and rights as well as one's own needs, wants, and rights.
Assertiveness is standing up for oneself without denying the rights of
others, expressing oneself honestly and firmly without hurting,
manipulating or putting others down (Alberti and Emmons, 1991).
Schimmel (1976) described assertiveness as an antidote to fear, shyness,
passivity, and even anger, and so there is an astonishingly wide range of
situations in which assertiveness appears as appropriate. To speak up,
make requests, ask. for favours and generally insist that one's rights be
respected as an equal human being, and to overcome the fears and self·
depreciation are the composites of assertiveness. Assertive rights, as
emphasised by Jakubouski (1978) are to act in ways that promotes dignity
and self·respect without violating others' rights1 to be treated with respect.
The right to say "No' and not feel guilty, to experience and express ones
feelings, to take time to accomplish, to slow down for thinking, to change
one's mind, to ask for what one wants, to ask for information, to make
(3.4)
mistakes, to think good about oneself, are the various cornerstones of
assertiveness.
Assertiveness is social boldness, nothing more than compelling self
assurance, and it means an ability and willingness to easily speak up
for oneself, and make one's viewpoint heard and known, without
trampling on the rights of others.
Rathus 30-item Assertiveness Schedule has been used to measure the
assertiveness of the agents.
The sample, for using statistical tools e.g. Chi-square tests, Analysis
of Variance (ANOVA), has been divided in three categories, namely, High
assertive (Ass_High), Moderately assertive (Ass_Mod) and Low assertive
(Ass_Low) by percentile cut off of the assertiveness score.
Assertiveness: Score range(- 90 to+ 90) Measured Score range
Assertiveness level Grade Minimum Maximum
Low Assertiveness Ass_Low -30 + 02
Moderate Assertiveness Ass_Mod + 03 + 35
High Assertiveness Ass_High + 36 + 68
Low assertive agents are those, whose scores are between -30 and
+ 2, obtained based on percentile cut off of the assertiveness scores of the
total sample size. The agents whose scores lie between +03 and +35 are
Moderate assertive agents. The High assertive are agents whose scores are
within + 36 to +68.
3.4 Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction is any combination of psychological and
environmental circumstances that causes a person truthfully to say, "I am
satisfied with my job" (Hopcock, 1935). Behavioural scientist, Smith
(1955), viewed job satisfaction as the employee's judgement of "how well
he is on the whole or the whole is satisfying his vigorous needs". Job
satisfaction is an attitude which results from balancing and summation of
(3.5)
many specific likes and dislikes, experienced in connection with the job and
its evaluation, might rest largely upon one's success or failure in the
achievement of personal objectives and also upon the perceived
combination of the job and company towards this end (Bullock, 1952).
Lawler (1973) observed job satisfaction as a measure of the quality of work
life in organizations and further opined that the importance of job
satisfaction was worth understanding even if it did not relate to job
performance. Herzberg (1959) focused his attention on the individual, and
after analyzing the personality, range of expectations and need of the
employees concluded job satisfaction as a function of the extent to which a
worker felts his "needs" were satisfied.
Borrow (1964) expressed his view on job satisfaction, as the verbal
expression of an incumbent's evaluation of his job whereas Locke (1969)
felt job satisfaction as a pteasurable or positive emotional state resulting
from the appraisal of one's job or job experiences. Blum and Naylor (1968)
explained job satisfaction as a general attitude that resulted from many
specific attitudes in three areas like specific job factors, individual
characteristics and group relationships outside the job. Smith, Kendal and
Hulin (1969) expressed job satisfaction as feelings or affective responses to
facets of the situations . associated with perceived differences between
'what is expected' and 'what is experienced'. Pestonjee (1973) defined and
explained job satisfaction as summations of employee's · feelings in four
important areas viz. the job, management, personal adjustment and social
relations. The first two areas encompass factors directly connected with the
job (intrinsic factors) and the other two are presumed to have bearing on
extrinsic job satisfaction.
Job satisfaction is the fulfillment of the requirements of an
individual by the work environment and it is a feeling of the person
spread over four areas viz. job, management, personal adjustment and
social relations in the work place. Job satisfaction is just a constellation
of attitudes about the job, that is, the extent to which people like vs.
(3.6)
dislike the various aspects of work. Job satisfaction is explained by nine
facets like pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent
rewards, operating procedure, coworkers, nature of work and
communication.
The level of job satisfaction has . been measured by using Paul
Spector's 36-item, five options per item, nine facets, Job satisfaction scale,
that covers directly or indirectly all the points emphasised by different
research scholars.
For performing statistical tests e.g. Chi-square, ANOVA tests the
scores of job satisfaction have been divided into three categories namely
Highly job satisfied (JSS_High), Moderately job satisfied (JSS_Mod) and
Low job satisfied (JSS_Low) by percentile cut off.
Job satisfaction score range ( +36 to +216) Measured Score range
Job satisfaction level Minimum Maximum
Low Job satisfaction JSS_Low 123 144
Moderate Job satisfaction JSS_Mod 145 166
High Job satisfaction JSS_High 167 188
Low job satisfied agents score between 123 and 144. The agents,
whose scores lie between 145 and 166, are Moderate job satisfied agents.
The Highly job satisfied are those agents, whose scores range from 167 to
188.
3. 5 Job involvement
Job involvement is the degree to which a person's work performance
resulting from the function of individual job interaction affects his self
esteem (Lodahl and Kejner, 1965). Prof. Kanungo (1979) viewed job
involvement as "a generalized cognitive state of psychological identification
with the work in so far as the work is perceived to have the potentiality to
satisfy one's salient needs and expectations". Ego-involvement is the
situation when a person 'engages the status-seeking motives' while seeking
self-esteem as well as esteem of others (Allport, 1947). Contextually, Guion
(3.7)
(1958) defined morale as ego-involvement in one's job. It is worth
mentioning that attitudinal frame of reference in which a man perceives his
job to be so important to himself, to his company, and to the society that
he can't tolerate his superior's "blunders". Occupational involvement is a
commitment to a particular set of task area where successful role
performance is regarded as an end in itself and not a means to some other
end. Hence with this type of commitment, self-esteem gets tested through
performance in a particular occupational role and in terms of an evaluation
of intrinsic, rather than extrinsic, products of role performance (Faunce,
1959). Job involved persons always do not look forward for any
materialistic gain from their involvement.
French and Kahn (1962), and Gurin, Veroff and Feld (1966) have
dealt with the interrelationship, interdependence and interaction of self
esteem, job involvement, and performance. They viewed job involvement
in terms of the degree to which performance affected self-esteem. A
person is ego-involved in a job or task to whatever extent his self-esteem
is affected by his perceived level of performance and also involvement
exists when person's feelings of esteem are increased by good
performance and decreased by bad performance, as was stated by Vroom
(1962). However, Siegel (1969) stated that job involvement could possibly
be due to value orientation toward work learned early in the course of
socialisation and internalized as determinants of behaviour. Involvement in
a job is primarily a function of how much the job can satisfy one's salient
needs and hence in this respect, determination of job involvement is more
situational (EIIoy, Everett and Flynn 1995).
Job involvement is the degree to which a person's work
performance resulting from the function of individual job interaction
affects his self-esteem. Job involvement is the cognitive state of
psychological identification with the work, the commitment to a
particular set of tasks, assigned or chosen, which a person accomplish,
gets his needs and expectations satisfied and thus derive pleasure.
(3.8)
To measure the job involvement, the 20-item scale (four options per
item) developed by Lodahl and Kejner (1965) has been used which covers
the salient points discussed by various academicians research scholars in
their valuable works.
The job involvement scores of the samples have been arrayed, and
divided by percentile . cut off into three categories namely Highly job
involved (JI_High), Moderately job involved (JI_Mod) and Low job involved
(JI_Low) for applying statistical tests.
Job involvement: Scale range ( 20 to 80) Measured Score range
Job involvement level Grade Minimum Maximum
Low Job involvement JI_Low 47 56
Moderate Job involvement JI_Mod 57 66
High Job involvement JI_High 67 76
The agents who scored between 47 and 56 are Low job involved
agents. The agents, whose scores lie between 145 and 166, are Moderate
job involved agents. The Highly job involved agents are those, whose
scores range from 67 to 76.
3.6 Demographic variables The sample comprises both male and female, qualified differentially,
age ranging from 22 to 67 years, experience from 3 to 41 years, engaged
in Urban and Rural areas. Gender, age, experience, qualification, region of
engagement are the demographic variables associated with this study.
3.6.1 Age
Age range (22 to 67 years) Age range
Classification Grade Minimum Maximum
Low age group Age_Low 22 30
Medium age group Age_Mod 31 40
High age group Age_High 41 67
(3.9)
According to age, ranging from 22 to 67 years/ the agents have been
classified in three groups viz. Low age group, Medium age group and High
age group.
3.6.2 Experience
According to experience the agents have been classified in three
groups.
Experience range ( 3 to 41 years) Experience range
Grouped as per Experience Grade Minimum Maximum
Low Experience group Expn_Low 3 7
Medium Experience group Expn_Mod 8 12
High Experience group Expn_High 13 >
The sample for this study includes only operational agents i.e. the
agents who have contributed to the growth of the business of UC of India
for the last three years. It has also been observed that the many agents
are initially opting for this profession as a stopgap arrangement. It has
revealed, from the agents' database, that until about seven years of being
in the business of UC most of the agents do not hesitate to change the
career. Thus the Low Experience group (Expn_Low) extends from three
years to seven years.
After this stage the agents mostly settle in this profession, generally
drop the intention of switching over and hence continue. They form the
Medium Experience group (Expn_Med) that extends from eight years to
twelve years.
After twelve years the agents start receiving extrinsic motivation and
also start thinking of recruiting helping hands for extending secretarial
assistance such that they can concentrate on creating new market. The
agents, whose length of experiences are minimum thirteen years, are
defined for this study as High Experience group (Expn_High).
(3.10)
3.6.3 Qualification
The qualifications of the agents of UC of India vary widely, from just
School Final, Higher Secondary to Honours Graduate and PostGraduate.
Three categories viz. Under Graduate (UG), Graduate (Grad) and beyond
graduations (G_Pius) have been made.
Qualification of the agents Category Grade
School Final or equivalent, Higher Under UG Secondary or equivalent Graduate
BA, B.Sc. or B. Com. Graduate Grad
BA (Hon), B.Sc. (Hon), B.Com. (Hon), BA Beyond G_Pius with PG Diploma, MA, M.Sc., M.Com. Graduation
3.6.4 Region of engagement
This case study is for the district 24 Parganas (North), West Bengal.
There are total thirteen Branches under the administrative jurisdiction of
the Calcutta (Kolkata) Suburban Divisional Office (KSDO) of UC of India.
For this case study, the branches have been classified as Urban and Rural.
aassification has been done based on number of villages, number of Gram
Panchayat, Panchayat Samity, and urban and rural populations.
The agents, who were selected as sample of this study, were
segregated as agents engaged in rural and urban agents depending on
their association with the branches in the district.
(3.11)