Factors affecting employee performance: an empirical …

Factors affectingemployee performance:an empirical approach

Anastasios D. Diamantidis and Prodromos ChatzoglouDepartment of Production and Management Engineering,

Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece

AbstractPurpose – Nowadays, the phenomenon of increased competition between firms and their need to respondeffectively to rapidly changing operational conditions, as well as to personnel requirements, has escalated thenecessity to identify those factors that affect employee performance (EP). The purpose of this paper is toexamine the interrelations between firm/environment-related factors (training culture, management support,environmental dynamism and organizational climate), job-related factors (job environment, job autonomy, jobcommunication) and employee-related factors (intrinsic motivation, skill flexibility, skill level, proactivity,adaptability, commitment) and their impact on EP.Design/methodology/approach – A new research model that examines the relationships between thesefactors and EP is proposed utilizing the structural equation modeling approach.Findings – The results indicate that job environment andmanagement support have the strongest impacts (directand indirect) on job performance, while adaptability and intrinsic motivation directly affect job performance.Research limitations/implications –A potential limitation of this research is that it is not focused only onone business sector (i.e. the sample is heterogeneous).Originality/value – In this study, firm/environmental-related factors, job-related factors, employee-relatedfactors and EP are incorporated in a single model using data from small- and medium-sized enterprises.Overall, the final model can explain 27 percent of EP variance ( first-level analysis) and 42 percent of EPvariance (second-level analysis).Keywords Adaptability, Proactivity, Employee performancePaper type Research paper

1. IntroductionFirms have realized that they have to develop unique dynamic characteristics that empowertheir competitive advantages in order to survive in a constantly changingmarket environment.Thus, they are focusing on the exploitation of their human resources (HR), particularly onemployee performance (EP), as a source of strategic advantage (Wright and Snell, 2009).

Narcisse and Harcourt (2008, p. 1152) state that employee’s “performance appraisalencroaches upon ‘one of the most emotionally charged activities in business life’ – theassessment of a man’s contribution and ability.” Boxall and Purcell (2011) indicate that theimplementation of a well-defined process for evaluating EP plays a crucial role on a firm’ssmooth running. Rynes et al. (2000) argue that the main challenge for firms is to evaluate EPand to consider how it can become more efficient and more “valid.” In other words, in whichway firms can apply performance evaluation practices in order to improve their ability todistinguish “good” employees (that display desirable performance) from the bad ones.Therefore, it is essential for firms to be aware of their employees’ capabilities in order to beable to manage them and, in turn, to align them with the firm’s overall business strategy(Boxall and Purcell, 2011). However, Murphy and Cleveland (1991) report that manyimportant factors regarding the research and development of a performance evaluationmodel are still often overlooked and that this may be why there is not yet an integratedmodel for evaluating EP. Additionally, as Nguyen et al., (2015, p. 567) state “Though therehave been many studies examining the impacts of various factors on employeeperformance, very few examined more than three factors at one time.” An organization is a

International Journal ofProductivity and Performance

ManagementVol. 68 No. 1, 2019

pp. 171-193© Emerald Publishing Limited

1741-0401DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-01-2018-0012

Received 31 January 2018Revised 26 July 2018

Accepted 29 July 2018

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm

171

Factorsaffectingemployee

performance

consciously coordinated system where characteristics of individuals, groups andorganization interact with each other and effective interaction among them highlydepends on organizational culture that shapes the individual performance (Kozlowski andKlein, 2000). Uddin et al. (2013) also argue that although environmental cultural factorssupport and develop EP, employee-related factors connect environmental cultural factorsand EP and further research is needed for a better understanding of these relations.

The purpose of this research is thus to explore and integrate the relations between firm/environment-related factors, job-related factors and employee-related factors into an analyticalEP assessment model. Although the individual impact of the model components is establishedin the literature, the contribution of this research is the incorporation of them into a singlemodel (holistic framework), as well as the correlations between the 13 sub-factors and EP.

2. Theoretical framework and hypotheses2.1 Proposed employee evaluation modelFigure 1 demonstrates the proposed research model, where the relations between the threecore constructs (firm/environment-related factors, job-related factors and employee-relatedfactors) and EP appear.

Job-related factors

Firm/Environment-relatedfactors

Employeeperformance

H9–H12(a,b,c)

H13–H15(a,b,c,d,e,f)

H1–H4

H19–H24

Employee-related factors

H16–H18

H5–H8(a,b,c,d,e,f)

Management support

Environmental dynamism(Perceived instability)

Organizational climate

Training culture

Job environment

Job autonomy

Job communication

Intrinsic motivation

Skill flexibility

Skill level

Commitment

Proactivity

Adaptability

Figure 1.Research modeland hypotheses

172

IJPPM68,1

Mathis and Jackson (2011) and Armstrong (2012) argue that firm-related factors from firm’sinternal and external environment, such as management support, training culture,organizational climate and environmental dynamism are related to: job-related factors, suchas communication, autonomy and environment; employee-related factors, such as intrinsicmotivation, proactivity, adaptability, skill flexibility, commitment and skill level; and EP.

Firm/environment-related factors. Although there are many firm/environment-relatedfactors that have been examined in the literature regarding their impact on EP, such asleadership, organizational trust, human capital investments, etc. (Bapna et al., 2013), thisstudy turns its attention on management support, training culture, organizational climateand environmental dynamism.

Many researchers (Pulakos, 2004; Armstrong, 2012) claim that management support is animportant condition for EP improvement. As Morrison and Phelps (1999) also indicate, whenemployees perceive that the management supports their job-related efforts, then it is likely thatimproved job performance will be noticed. Further, Parker et al. (2006) found that managementsupport is positively related to commitment and proactivity (employee-related factors).

Lepak et al. (2006) have found that organizational climate influences employees’ attitudesand behaviors and hence their performance levels, while Chatman et al. (2014) report thatthere is a relationship between organizational climate and adaptability and Erkutlu (2012)argues that it also affects employees’ proactivity level. Finally, Boxall et al. (2007) point thatorganization’s culture affects employee’s behavior, while Roos and Van Eeden (2008) claimthat it is related with the level of employees’ motivation.

Dermol and Cater (2013) state that the acquisition of new knowledge and skills throughtraining leads to improved EP. Additionally, Hale (2002) and Armstrong (2012) argue thattraining improves employees’ knowledge and skills, so they can successfully deal with neweveryday job-related challenges and, thus, improve their job performance. Moreover, Songet al. (2011) found that training culture is related to job autonomy and Winterton (2008)report that firms’ training policy is closely related to the improvement of their employees’job-related skills and flexibility (employee-related factors).

Ketkar and Sett (2010) report that environmental dynamism affects firm performance.Further, Motowildo and Schmit (1999, p. 56) indicate that when firms’ externalenvironments are dynamic, then it is difficult for them to predetermine their employees’efficiency levels. In other words, in a dynamic environment, the job itself and itsperformance acquire unique characteristics. Finally, according to Crant (2000), employeesworking in a dynamic job environment with increasing job-related demands are likely todevelop behaviors that lead to increased performance. Panayotopoulou et al. (2003) statethat environmental dynamism is a factor that affects employees’ capability to adapt, whilePapalexandris and Nikandrou (2000, p. 400) state that “the instability of the generaleconomic environment in which European companies operate create difficulty in definingthe necessary skills that the workforce should have.” Based on the above, the followinghypotheses are proposed:

H1–H4. Firm/environment-related factors are related to EP.

H5–H8. (a, b, c, d, e, f ): Firm/environment-related factors are related to employee-relatedfactors.

H9–H12. (a, b, c): Firm/environment-related factors are related to job-related factors.

2.2 Job-related factorsAlthough there are many job-related factors that have been examined in the literatureregarding their impact on EP such as organizational fairness, job control (Kooij et al., 2013),

173


performance

this study focuses on job communication, job autonomy and job environment. To thatend, we have adopted these factors because there are strong evidences in the literaturesupporting that these factors are related with the other factors incorporated in theproposed model.

Noe et al. (2006, p. 162) define job autonomy as the extent to which “the job allows theemployee to make decisions about how to perform his work.”They also state that job autonomyis positively associated with EP. Specifically, Noe et al. (2006) report that job autonomy reflectsthe degree of freedom and independence that employees have in decision making regarding theway they perform their jobs. Thus, employees with increased job autonomy have moreflexibility in their work because they choose how to execute their jobs more efficiently and thustheir performance is increased (Morgenson et al., 2005). Further, Parker et al. (2006) found thatjob autonomy is also positively related to commitment and proactivity. Moreover, Dysvik andKuvaas (2011) report that that there is a relationship between job autonomy and EP, which ismoderated by intrinsic motivation (employee-related factors).

Concerning job environment, Kopelman et al. (1990) report that job environment affectsemployee productivity and performance. Further, Fawcett et al. (2008) state that jobenvironment affects employees’ ability to be proactive and productive. Similarly,van Veldhoven (2005) support the fact that job environment is related to EP.

As regards to job communication, Price (1997) implies that job communication is relatedwith commitment and motivation and Chen et al. (2006) found that job communication isrelated to commitment (employee-related factor) and EP. Bush and Frohman (1991) reportthat job communication is an important factor that can lead to higher firm performancelevels. In the same line, Armstrong (2012) argues that job communication is a crucial factor,which is related to employees’ overall performance. The above lead logically to theformulation of the following hypotheses:

H13–H15. (a, b, c, d, e, f ): Job-related factors are related to employee-related factors.

H16–H18. Job-related factors are related to EP.

2.3 Employee-related factors and employee performanceEven though there are many employee-related factors that have been examined in theliterature regarding their impact on EP such as turnover, absenteeism (Hancock et al., 2013),this study focuses on proactivity, adaptability, intrinsic motivation, skill flexibility,commitment and skill level.

Employing people who have a variety of skills is a valuable asset for a firm, because itforms the basis for creating multiple alternatives to current or future job requirements.Wright and Snell (1998, pp. 764-765) define employees’ skill flexibility as “the number ofpossible alternative ways, through which employees can apply their skills in their job” and“how employees with different skills can be repositioned to the proper places in a fast way.”Bhattacharya et al. (2005) suggest that a firm can improve employees’ skill flexibilitythrough various processes, such as job rotation and cross-functional teams. These processescreate unique skill combinations, exploitable by the firm and difficult to copy bycompetitors. Thus, claim that skill flexibility has the strongest direct and most visibleimpact on EP meaning that the higher the level of HR skill flexibility, the more likely it isthat employees will demonstrate higher performance. Besides skill flexibility Noe et al.(2006) and Boxall and Purcell (2011) report that skill level is directly related to EP.

Examining employees’ intrinsic motivation, Boxall and Purcell (2011) indicate that it isrelated (and determine) EP. Moreover, Delaney and Huselid (1996) suggest that in order forfirm performance to be improved through increased EP, firms should strengthenemployee motivation.

174

IJPPM68,1

Next, Crant (2000, p. 435) reports that research on proactivity “has not emerged as anintegrated research stream in the organizational behavior literature. There is no singledefinition, theory, or measure driving this body of work.” Parker and Collins (2010, p. 634)define proactivity as “acting in anticipation of future (job-related) problems, needs, orchanges,” while Parker and Collins (2010, p. 634) define proactivity as “controlling a situationby causing something to happen rather than waiting to respond to it after it happens.”

Many researchers (Crant, 2000; Thompson, 2005; Grant and Ashford, 2008; Parkerand Collins, 2010) argue that the level of employees’ proactivity is linked to theirperformance. Thompson (2005) states that proactive employees perform more efficientlythan those who have low proactivity. Overall, it has been observed that employees with highproactivity take the initiative, express their views, prevent future problems in their jobenvironments, improve their ways of performing work and positively influence their peers(Parker and Collins, 2010).

Moreover, another important factor affecting EP is adaptability (Pulakos et al., 2002;Griffin et al., 2007). Pulakos et al. (2002) state that if employees adapt easily to a newworkplace (and/or new job requirements and needs), as well as to irregular situations, theremay be a positive effect on their performances. In other words, employees with no particulardifficulty to deal with different job requirements and environments may be more efficientthan other employees (who find it difficult to apply new knowledge, skills and techniques totheir jobs and, generally, do not effectively manage any changes in their jobs).

Finally, it is argued that employee commitment, which consists of the three components(affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment) is also relatedto EP. Chen and Francesco (2003) argue that the nature of the psychological status of eachcommitment factor varies from employee to employee.

According to Chen and Francesco (2003), there is a positive relationship betweenaffective commitment and EP, suggesting that, employees who feel that a firm’sbehavior towards them is good (e.g. fair treatment, participation in decision making) mayincrease their levels of emotional commitment to the firm and, in turn, their performancesmay also improve.

Further, employees with high continuance commitment feel a strong obligation toperform their jobs in such a way that is identified with the firm’s goals, while employeeswith low continuance commitment feel no such obligation to support the firm’s goals (Chenand Francesco, 2003).

Meyer and Allen (1997) claim that there is a negative relationship between normativecommitment and EP. They argue that this occurs because employees with a high degree ofnormative commitment are “trapped” in no-choice situations, such as remaining in the firmeven if they do not want to. Thus, they perform their jobs passively and gradually theirperformance decreases (Meyer and Allen, 1997). However, Somers and Birnbaum (1998)report that normative commitment can be positively associated with EP (but at a lowstatistical significance). Thus, it is hypothesized that:

H19–H24. Employee-related factors are related to EP.

3. Research methodology3.1 Data collection and measurement developmentTwo structured questionnaires were designed and used for collecting the necessary data.These questionnaires were used mainly for measuring the three core constructs (totally13 sub-factors) incorporated into the proposed research model. They were distributed toemployees and HR directors, respectively (in every participating firm). The questionnaire foremployees was divided into two sections, with the first section referring to thecorrespondent’s general characteristics and job position and the second section including

175


performance

questions that measure the factors affecting EP (except for the factor “environmentaldynamism”) (Table I).

Similarly, the questionnaire distributed to HR managers contained questions about thefirm and the “environmental dynamism.” This last factor was answered by managers, asthey have the best information on a firm’s environment (Sutcliffe and Huber, 1998). A totalof 163 items were measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree)to 5 (totally agree). Table I presents the questionnaire constructs, their operationaldefinitions, number of items used to measure each construct and the related literature.

3.2 Instrument validationContent validity was established through a pretesting process (Zikmund et al., 2012). Duringthis process, researchers had face-to-face discussions with several employees, HR managersand academics in order to ensure that the questionnaires had no serious format or contentproblems. After the proposed modifications were incorporated in the questionnaires, theywere distributed to a small number of employees and HR managers. Likewise, this sample ofpeople was also asked to comment on various issues concerning the two questionnaires,such as the clarity of instructions, etc.

In the next stage of this pretesting process, a number of modifications were made toensure that the original text was clearly interpreted in the target language (Greek). Theback-translation method, which refers to the fact that the questionnaire is translated back tothe original language to ensure correspondence with the original version, was also used tovalidate the translated questionnaire. Moreover, the wording of the questions was slightlyremodified before the final draft was developed, based on the remarks and instructions ofthe pretest process participants. In the meantime, researchers had contacted a numberof senior HR executives/managers from 350 firms (in various economic sectors) in order todetermine their willingness both to participate in this research and to allow the participationof five of their employees.

Researchers persuaded 114 senior HR executives/managers to accept their invitation toparticipate in this research. However, only 97 managers (response rate: 27.71 percent) and480 employees completed and returned the questionnaires, while only 79 managers and392 employees completed them adequately (valid sample). It must be pointed here that themanager’s presence was compulsory (in the same room), while employees were replyingto questionnaire.

Table II presents a brief profile of the research participants (managers and employees).Altogether, 89.7 percent of the managers are college graduates with a noticeable level ofprofessional experience (~20 years). As far as the participating employees are concerned,93 percent have more than two years of professional experience, while 66 percent hold auniversity degree. Participating firms can be categorized as small- and medium-sized firms(56 percent have fewer than 50 employees), while most of them belong to the manufacturingsector (37.7 percent).

4. Data analysis and results4.1 Construct validityA confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to assess the validity of the constructs includedin the proposed research model. According to Hair et al. (1998), the Kaiser–Meyer–Oklin(KMO) measure of sampling adequacy as well as Bartlett’s test of sphericity are recommendedfor measuring construct validity, while Straub et al. (2004) point out that Cronbach’s αreliability test can be used to assess the internal consistency of measurements. The totalvariance explained (TVE) score is also used to measure the percentage of common variancethat is explained by all factors. Finally, the overall model fit was tested using thestructural equation modeling (SEM) approach. The five indices used to assess construct

176

IJPPM68,1

Factor Operational definition Item References

Firm/environment-related factorsManagementsupport

The degree to which management supportsan employee in the performance of his work

4 Parker et al. (2006)

Training culture The extent to which a firm considersemployee training as a factor that positivelyaffects the employee performance

4 Hale (2002)

Organizationalclimate

How an employee perceives the job climateand in particular the quality of relationshipswith supervisors and colleagues

7 Armstrong (2012)

Environmentaldynamism(perceivedinstability)

Management’s perception regarding thebusiness environment’s stability in which afirm operates

5 Sutcliffe and Huber (1998)

Job-related factorsJob environmentManagerialaffirmation

The degree to which an employee realizesfrom supervisor’s behavior that he is avaluable asset of the company

3 Fawcett et al. (2008)

Intrinsicaffirmation

The degree to which job design gives anemployee the idea that through the executionof his work he can positively and uniquelycontributes to the company


Personalbelonging

The degree to which job environment satisfyemployee’s social needs


Co-workerbelonging

The degree to which an employee is sociallyconnected with his peers


Personalcompetence

The degree to which an employee believes thathis skills lead to a high level of job performance


Job communicationPerformancecommunication

The degree to which a supervisor informs anemployee regarding his performance level

3 Price (1997), Armstrong (2012)

Job-relatedcommunication

The degree to which a supervisor informsemployees regarding the various changesoccurring in their workplace and workingenvironment


Responsiveness The degree to which the supervisor is willingto listen and respond to employee’s requestsand inquiries


Job autonomy The degree to which a firm allows employeesto work out, spontaneously, various aspectsof work, taking into account the functionsand performance objectives of the work

5 Morgeson et al. (2005), Grant andParker (2009)

Employee-related factorsProactivityTaking charge Employee’s voluntary and constructive efforts

to improve firm’s procedures in the workplace7 Morrison and Phelps (1999),

Crant (2000), Grant and Ashford(2008), Parker and Collins (2010)

Voice Making innovative suggestions for changeand recommending modifications to standardprocedures even when others disagree

5 LePine and Van Dyne (2001),Parker and Collins (2010)

Innovation Generating new ideas or approaches andimplementing them in the workplace

4 Crant (2000), Parker andCollins (2010)

(continued )Table I.

Research factors

177


performance


Problemprevention

Self-directed and anticipatory action toprevent the reoccurrence of work problems

4 Grant and Ashford (2008), Parkerand Collins (2010)

Environmentalscanning

Actively scan organization’s environment toidentify ways to ensure a fit between theorganization and its environment

3 Parker and Collins (2010)

Issue sellingcredibility

The degree to which an employee has apositive track record for selling issues(making others aware of particular issue)

3 Morrison and Phelps (1999),Crant (2000), Parker and Collins(2010)

Issue sellingwillingness

The degree to which an employee is willingto devote time, energy ,and effort intobehaviors to ensure key decision makers inthe organization know the issues

3 Crant (2000), Parker and Collins(2010)

Feedback inquiry Directly asking for feedback from a supervisorabout the level of work performance

3 Crant (2000), Parker and Collins(2010), Grant and Ashford (2008)

Feedbackmonitoring

Using as feedback the information obtainedfrom actively monitoring the jobenvironment (supervisor and peer behavior)

3 Parker and Collins (2010), Grantand Ashford (2008)

Job changenegotiation

Explicit attempts to change one’s job so thatit better fits his skills and abilities

4 Grant and Ashford (2008), Parkerand Collins (2010)

Career initiative Individual’s active attempts to promote hiscareer rather than a passive response to thejob situation as given

4 Crant (2000), Parker and Collins(2010)

AdaptabilityHandlingemergencies orcrisis situations

Reacting with appropriate and properurgency in life threatening, dangerous, oremergency situation (at the workplace)

4 Pulakos et al. (2002), Ployhartand Bliese (2006)

Handling workstress

Remaining composed and cool when facedwith difficult circumstances or a highlydemanding workload as well as acting as acalming and settling influence to whomothers look for guidance


Solving problemscreatively

Developing creative solutions for an unusual,complex and indeterminate job-related problem


Dealing withuncertain andunpredictablework situations

Readily and easily deals with unpredictableor unexpected job-related events andcircumstances and applies the appropriatesolution


Learning worktasks,technologies, andprocedures

Quickly and proficiently learning newmethods on how to perform previouslyunlearned tasks and adjust to new workprocesses and procedures


Interpersonaladaptability

Listening to and considering others’viewpoints and opinions and altering ownopinion when it is appropriate to do so


Culturaladaptability

Willingly adjusting on-the-job behavior orappearance as necessary to comply with orshow respect for others’ values and customs


Physicallyorientedadaptability

Adjusting to challenging job environmentalstates such as extreme heat, humidity, cold,or dirtiness


Intrinsicmotivation

The degree to which an employee performsthe job in the best possible way to achievepersonal satisfaction


(continued )Table I.

178

IJPPM68,1

validity were χ2/degree of freedom ( χ2/df ), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), comparative fit index(CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) and root mean square residual (RMR).

The results of the confirmatory factor and reliability analyses (Table III) can beconsidered as satisfactory. As can be seen, KMO is above the 0.5 threshold (Hair et al., 1998),the Bartlett’s test of sphericity score is also acceptable (significance below the 0.05threshold) and the factor loadings for all items are within acceptable levels (above the 0.5threshold; Hair et al., 1998). The TVE score for all factors is satisfactory, above 0.5, whileCronbach’s α is also above the 0.6 threshold (Zikmund et al., 2012) for all factors exceptenvironmental dynamism (α¼ 0.504). Finally, it must be stressed that of the 163 originallyused items, only nine were dropped from this analysis.

4.2 Descriptive statisticsThe findings indicate that employees’ level of proactivity is generally satisfactory.Employees state that they often take the initiative and express to their peers their views onjob-related matters. However, they also take actions to prevent the recurrence of job-relatedproblems in order not to lose later time for solving them. In other words, employeesdemonstrate proactive job behavior. On the other hand, though employees themselves saythat they have relatively low levels of willingness to put in extra effort, energy and time inorder to provide their firms with useful but “indiscriminate” and “sensitive” information.Furthermore, employees often avoid asking their supervisors and peers questions abouttheir performance, but they pay attention to their supervisors’ behavior toward them tounderstand whether this is related to (is triggered by) their job-related performance. Finally,employees state that they strive to adjust their knowledge and skills to their job-specifictasks and responsibilities in order to satisfy their job requirements. Moreover, employeesprefer not to discuss their career development with their supervisors, although they do wantto improve their knowledge and skills in order to be promoted sooner. Overall, employeesstate that they are not cut off from their workplaces and that they are a valuable and uniquecomponent of their firms, which, in conjunction with their own special abilities and peercollaboration, can contribute toward achieving the firm’s goals.

As far as adaptability is concerned, employees claim that they can adapt easily to a newworkplace and/or new job requirements and needs (i.e. irregular situations). In particular,they believe that they can easily work with their peers regardless of whether they are


Skill flexibility The degree to which an employee possessesskills and abilities that allow the firm to usethem in different job positions

5 Wright and Snell (1998),Bhattacharya et al. (2005)

CommitmentAffectivecommitment

The degree of employee’s emotionalattachment to, identification with, andinvolvement in the firm

6 Meyer and Allen (1997), Price(1997), Chen and Francesco(2003)

Continuancecommitment

The costs that an employee can tolerate whenleaving the firm

6 Meyer and Allen (1997), Price(1997), Chen and Francesco (2003)

Normativecommitment

Employee’s feelings of obligation to remainat the firm

6 Meyer and Allen (1997), Price(1997), Chen and Francesco (2003)

Skill level The extent a firm believes that the frequentassessment of employees’ skills has apositive effect on their performance

4 Breu et al. (2002)

Employeeperformance

The degree to which the level of productivityof an individual employee meets the firmsperformance standards

4 Thompson (2005), Armstrong(2006)

Table I.

179


performance

newcomers or have different cultural backgrounds. As regards to intrinsic motivation, theresults show that employees place great importance on their personal satisfaction,suggesting that they prefer to carry out their jobs in such a way that will make them feelpersonally satisfied with their efforts.

Employees perceive that they have a satisfactory level of job autonomy, stating that theirfirms give them the opportunity to manage various job characteristics (such as their dailyworkloads and work activities) in a way that their job performance is not negatively affected.

They also believe that their firms consider training to be an investment rather than anecessary cost, and they are satisfied with the training provided to them. Additionally,

Mean SD Statistics

Top executive characteristicsPosition Owner/chairman 30.9% CEO 57.4%

Director 11.8%Education Postgraduate 17.6% Undergraduate 72.1%

High school 10.3%Total experience (years) 19.56 9.44

Firm characteristicsNumber of employees (in total) o25 16.2% 51−100 23.5%

26−50 39.7% W101 20.6%Administrative employees o10 56.7% 21−50 14.9%

11−20 19.4% W50 9.0%Production employees o25 32.3% 51−100 13.8%

26−50 35.4% W101 16.4%Full-time employment o25 24.6% 51−100 21.3%

26−50 32.8% W101 21.3%Part-time employment 0 48.0% 11-50 16.0%

1−10 24.0% W51 12.0%Sector Manufacturing 37.7% Sales 13.0%

Commerce 10.3% Services 14.4%Construction 24.6%

Sales 24.21 m€a 54.92 m€a o €5 m 38.5% €11–30 m 26.9%€6–10 m 25.0% W€30 m 9.6%

Market share (local) 38.64% 29.51 0−10% 17.0% 31−50% 11.3%11−30% 37.7% 51−100% 34.0%

Market share (national) 24.61% 27.56 0−10% 49.1% 31–50% 17.5%11−30% 21.1% 51−100% 12.3%

Market share growth (%)in the last 3 years

8.50% 11.81 −20–0% 15.8% 11−30% 26.3%

1–10% 54.4% W30% 3.5%Competitive position Leader 18.8% Small player 7.3%

Big player 29.0% Follower 0.0%Competitive 44.9%

Employee characteristicsPosition Group leader 19.9% Supervisor 27.6%

Employee 52.5%Education Postgraduate 12.6% Undergraduate 53.2%

High school 33.5%Total experience (years) 11.64 8.85 o2 7.0% 10–30 41.3%

2–10 49.4% W30 2.3%Employment Full-time 97.7% Part-time 2.3%Personnel Administrative 38.9% Technical 42.2%

Support 18.9%Notes: Sample, n¼ 392. aMillion euro/(Sample size, n¼ 79)

Table II.Descriptive statistics

180

IJPPM68,1

Factor Items Mean SD KMOBartlett’s

sig TVECronbach’s

α Loadings

Firm/environment-related factorsManagement support 4 4.03 0.78 0.770 0.00 71.742 0.868 W0.817Training 4 3.18 1.06 0.793 0.00 74.981 0.888 W0.782Organizational climate 5 3.75 0.74 0.831 0.00 57.545 0.813 W0.710Environmental dynamism 2 3.90 0.36 0.500 0.00 67.095 0.504 W0.819

Job-related factorsJob environmentManagerial affirmation 3 3.92 0.71 0.672 0.00 63.823 0.705 W0.770Intrinsic affirmation 4 3.73 0.66 0.655 0.00 54.059 0.712 W0.575Personal belonging 3 4.17 0.68 0.625 0.00 58.547 0.645 W0.692Co-worker belonging 3 4.05 0.76 0.691 0.00 70.047 0.771 W0.802Personal competence 4 4.17 0.62 0.759 0.00 62.665 0.801 W0.715

Job communicationPerformance communication 3 3.54 1.00 0.755 0.00 84.451 0.907 W0.912Job-related communication 4 3.93 0.80 0.760 0.00 66.478 0.829 W0.794Responsiveness 2 4.25 0.78 0.500 0.00 86.633 0.842 W0.931Job autonomy 4 2.98 0.95 0.783 0.00 67.178 0.835 W0.752

Employee-related factorsProactivityTaking charge 7 3.75 0.71 0.788 0.00 50.663 0.802 W0.655Voice 5 3.69 0.84 0.845 0.00 65.227 0.865 W0.763Innovation 4 3.24 0.96 0.824 0.00 76.205 0.892 W0.806Problem prevention 4 3.83 0.74 0.727 0.00 60.086 0.772 W0.726Environmental scanning 3 3.20 0.93 0.705 0.00 73.928 0.823 W0.842Issue selling credibility 3 3.00 0.94 0.709 0.00 74.987 0.833 W0.842Issue selling willingness 3 2.03 1.27 0.777 0.00 94.341 0.970 W0.965Feedback inquiry 3 2.20 0.99 0.721 0.00 75.731 0.837 W0.855Feedback monitoring 3 2.80 1.04 0.682 0.00 70.814 0.791 W0.784Job change negotiation 4 2.81 1.01 0.817 0.00 74.576 0.886 W0.838Career initiative 4 2.81 0.94 0.694 0.00 65.997 0.827 W0.749

AdaptabilityHandling emergencies or crisissituations 4 3.99 0.80 0.820 0.00 73.214 0.876 W0.812Handling work stress 4 3.83 0.80 0.754 0.00 64.210 0.812 W0.762Solving problems creatively 4 3.56 0.78 0.770 0.00 67.317 0.837 W0.788Dealing with uncertain andunpredictable work situations 4 3.55 0.79 0.782 0.00 66.305 0.816 W0.736Learning work tasks, technologies,and procedures 5 4.07 0.74 0.854 0.00 67.254 0.873 W0.600Interpersonal adaptability 4 3.85 1.05 0.729 0.00 57.198 0.749 W0.708Cultural adaptability 4 3.97 0.72 0.758 0.00 64.489 0.808 W0.713Physically oriented adaptability 4 3.46 0.97 0.789 0.00 66.410 0.829 W0.754Intrinsic motivation 4 4.07 0.66 0.631 0.00 58.643 0.681 W0.636Skill flexibility 4 3.38 0.77 0.676 0.00 56.492 0.730 W0.662

CommitmentAffective commitment 6 4.01 0.87 0.905 0.00 73.579 0.925 W0.789Continuance commitment 6 3.38 0.77 0.690 0.00 53.915 0.739 W0.554Normative commitment 6 3.57 0.95 0.892 0.00 67.630 0.904 W0.778Skill level 4 2.31 0.99 0.780 0.00 73.990 0.876 W0.635Employee performance 4 4.15 0.61 0.816 0.00 69.664 0.853 W0.798

Table III.Factor analysis

181


performance

employees believe that if firms want to move them into another job position, they will beable to perform their new tasks to a satisfactory level. In other words, they believe that theyhave a sufficiently flexible skill base that can be adapted according to specific job needs.However, it is reported (by managers) that firms scarcely use knowledge and skills tests toassess them, yet they often assess job-related special duties and responsibilities. Notsurprisingly, firms do not believe that the frequent evaluation of employees’ skills has astrong impact on EP.

Regarding management support, employees state that they can trust and lean on theirsupervisors to support their on-the-job choices and actions. In other words, firms do notconsider their employees as “automatons” that produce their products and services, but asindividuals who need guidance and assistance to carry out their job activities efficiently.

Further, managers state that their firms operate in an unstable business environmentthat often changes. Therefore, firms frequently improve their technological equipment andproduction processes in order to strengthen their competitive positions in the marketplace.Finally, employees believe that their job performance levels are high, and they use theirworking time in the most efficient and effective ways.

4.3 Structural model fitTable IV presents the overall model fit results using the SEM approach. It can be seen thatthe ( χ2/df ) score is within acceptable limits (below 5; Harrison and Rainer, 1996), the GFIscore is above the 0.90 threshold (Bollen and Long, 1993), the CFI score is also above the0.9 threshold, TLI is close to the 0.9 threshold (Hair et al., 1998) and the RMR value is belowthe 0.1 threshold (Hair et al., 1992).

4.4 First-level analysisFigure 2 presents the first-level structural model, along with the extracted path coefficientsand adjusted R2 scores. As can been noticed, all the hypotheses referring to the relationships

Factor χ2/df GFI CFI TLI RMR

Firm/environment-related factorsManagement support 1.410 0.998 0.999 0.997 0.005Training culture 0.137 1 1 1 0.003Organizational climate 3.894 0.980 0.975 0.951 0.030Environmental dynamisma 0 1 1 1 0

Job-related factorsJob environment 2.139 0.994 0.996 0.985 0.009Job communicationa 0 1 1 1 0Job autonomy 4.314 0.990 0.989 0.968 0.027

Employee-related factorsProactivity 4.452 0.902 0.893 0.856 0.107Adaptability 4.082 0.951 0.951 0.927 0.027Intrinsic motivation 3.483 0.996 0.989 0.933 0.014Skill flexibility 3.222 0.996 0.994 0.966 0.016Commitmenta 0 1 1 1 0Skill level 4.161 0.989 0.995 0.984 0.022Firm/environment-related factors 1.237 0.997 0.996 0.989 0.006Job-related factor 5.432 0.892 0.884 0.874 0.044Employee-related factors 4.247 0.944 0.861 0.868 0.041Employee performance 0.747 0.989 1 1 0.005Note: aDue to the limited number of variables, this factor’s model is overfitted

Table IV.Overall model fit

182

IJPPM68,1

between the constructs are accepted. Generally, this model can explain 27 percentof the variance in “EP”, with the job-related factors having the strongest impact (0.29***/H16–H18), followed by the employee-related factors (0.19***/H19–H24) and the firm/environment-related factors” (0.12***/H1–H4).

Further, the firm/environment-related factor strongly affects both the job-related and theemployee-related factors (0.56***/H9–H12 and 0.41***/H5–H8, respectively), while, thejob-related factor strongly affects the employee-related factors (0.39***/H13–H15).

4.5 Second-level analysisFigure 3 demonstrates the overall second-level structural model, along with the extractedpath coefficients and adjusted R2 scores. The direct impact of adaptability, job environment,intrinsic motivation and management support on EP is found to be supported. Overall, thefinal model can explain 42 percent of the variance in “EP.”

Table V summarizes the total, direct and indirect effects between the factorsincorporated into the research model. All hypotheses examined have been accepted (withH3, H5a–H5c, H6a, H7a–H7d accepted due to their strong indirect affect). In addition, it isfound that five more relationships are strongly supported (they are shown with dashed linesin Figure 3).

5. Discussion5.1 Impact of the independent factors on employee performanceTaking only into account the results concerning the direct affects, it is found that jobenvironment and adaptability have the strongest direct impact on EP (0.29***/Η16 and0.26***/Η20, respectively), which is in line with the findings of Pulakos et al. (2002) andThoresen et al. (2004). Management support and intrinsic motivation have a weaker but stillsignificant direct impact on EP (0.15***/Η1 and 0.13**/Η21, respectively). These results areconsistent with those of Morrison and Phelps (1999) and Parker et al. (2003). No other directrelationship is found between the factors examined and EP.

Job-related factors R2=0.32

Firm/Environment-relatedfactors

EmployeeperformanceR2=0.27

0.56***

0.39***

0.12**

0.19**Employee-related factors

R2=0.50

0.29***

0.41***

Overall model fit

GFI CFI TLI RMR

0

�2/df

1 1 1 0

________: Straight lines indicate originally proposed causal paths

Notes: **p<0.05; ***p<0.01

Figure 2.Research structural

model (first-levelanalysis)

183


performance

Examining the indirect effects (Table V), it is found that all factors have an influence on EP.Some factors have a very weak impact (e.g. dynamic environment) on EP, while jobenvironment (0.51***) followed by management support (0.40***) have the strongest total(direct and indirect) impacts. Further, the strongest indirect effect on EP comes frommanagement support (0.25***), followed by organizational climate (0.24***) and jobenvironment (0.22***). Considering each factor’s total effect on EP, it can be observed thatjob environment (0.506***), management support (0.402***), adaptability (0.259***),organizational climate (0.244***) and intrinsic motivation (0.134***/H21) are the mainfactors that affect EP.

5.2 Relationships between the independent factorsKoys and De Cotiis (1991) have found that the degree of managerial support for employees’actions affects the formation of organizational climate and imply that job environment isalso affected by the degree of managerial support. Their findings are fully supported by theresults since direct relationships between management support and job environment(0.28***/H9a) as well as between management support and organizational climate (0.44***)are found. The strong relationship with organizational climate (0.44***) may occur becauseclimate characteristics, “standards” and quality are at the top of management’s directionsand instructions. In other words, the degree of supervisors’ support for employees’ actions isdetermined by top management’s policies and directions.

Notably through the job environment’s “central” position in the model, managementsupport indirectly affects management support and proactivity (0.20***) and adaptability(0.30***). For example, if managers do not support employees’ actions, then theorganizational climate and job environment are negatively affected, namely, there is lowtrust, mutual respect and morale. The result of these effects is that employees do not havethe willingness to put in extra effort to improve their proactivity level (i.e. taking theinitiative or preventing problems during their job execution) and adaptability (e.g. they donot react appropriately in unusual job situations). The above conclusion is consistent withthe findings of Crant (2000) and Parker et al. (2006), who argue that management supportinfluences employees’ proactive behavior. Further, the indirect relationship betweenintrinsic motivation and management support (0.24***) may indicate that employees’

Job environmentR2=0.40

Skill flexibilityR2=0.18

ProactivityR2=0.23

Job autonomy

EmployeeperformanceR2=0.42

Training cultureR2=0.11

AdaptabilityR2=0.48

IntrinsicmotivationR2=0.250.36***

0.43***

0.30***

0.19***

0.16***

0.48***

0.29***

0.50***0.13**

0.26***0.19***

OrganizationalclimateR2=0.19

Environmentaldynamism

0.10**

0.46***

0.32***

Overall model fit

�2/df GFI CFI TLI RMR

3.478 0.942 0.923 0.888 0.044

Managementsupport

0.15***0.28***0.44***

________ : Straight lines indicate originally proposed causal paths- - - - - - - : Dashed lines indicate relationships proposed by modification indexes

: Firm/Environment-related factors : Job-related factors: Employee-related factors

Notes: **p<0.05; ***p<0.01

Figure 3.Research structuralmodel (second-levelanalysis)

184

IJPPM68,1

Managem

ent

supp

ort

Env

ironmental

dynamism

Organizational

clim

ate

Job

autonomy

Training

cultu

reJob

environm

entProactivity

Skill

flexibility

Adaptability

Intrinsic

motivation

Organizational

clim

ate

D0.436

I T0.436

Training

cultu

reD

0.104

0.322

I0.140

T0.140

0.104

0.322

Job

environm

ent

D0.279

0.462

I0.201

T0.480

0.462

Proactivity

D0.188

0.194

0.363

I0.201

0.020

0.230

T0.201

0.020

0.230

0.188

0.194

0.363

Skill

flexibility

D0.428

I0.060

0.045

0.138

T0.060

0.045

0.138

0.428

Adaptability

D0.479

0.299

0.158

I0.300

0.013

0.312

0.056

0.125

0.109

T0.300

0.013

0.312

0.056

0.125

0.588

0.299

0.158

Intrinsic

motivation

D0.496

I0.238

0.229

T0.238

0.229

0.496

Employee

performance

D0.154

0.287

0.259

0.134

I0.248

0.003

0.244

0.015

0.033

0.219

0.078

0.041

T0.402

0.003

0.244

0.015

0.033

0.506

0.078

0.041

0.259

0.134

Notes

:D,d

irecteffect;I,ind

irecteffect;T

,total

effect.S

ignificance

atpo

0.05

level

Table V.Direct and indirect

standardized effects ofthe model factors

185


performance

personal satisfaction, derived from their job performances, increases when they know thatthey have their supervisors’ support.

Regarding environmental dynamism, a relatively weak direct relationship with trainingculture (0.10**) is proposed. This relationship indicates that a firm’s internal dynamics (i.e.changes made within a firm’s environment in order to become more competitive) affect theintensity and content of its training programs (which employees attend to adopt/familiarizethemselves with these changes and modify their job execution). For example, if a firmupdates its technological equipment in order to become more competitive, then itsemployees need to be trained accordingly.

Concerning organizational climate, it is strongly related with job environment (0.46***)/H11a and training culture (0.32***). The first relationship appeared because the values,attitudes and behaviors that prevail in a firm (creating the organizational climate) affectemployees’ immediate job environments, thus shaping their behavior within the firm(Mathis and Jackson, 2011). The above finding may justify the existence of its indirectrelations with proactivity (0.23***), adaptability (0.31***), intrinsic motivation (0.23***) andEP (0.24***). If the organizational climate “devalues” a firm’s employees, then employees arelikely to see obstacles in their behavior, forcing them to leave the company (Mathis andJackson, 2011). In contrast, if the organizational climate creates value for its employees, thusenhancing trust, credibility and mutual understanding with peers and supervisors, thenemployees feel personal satisfaction and develop proactive and adaptive behavior (e.g.taking the initiative, making suggestions about their performances, confrontingappropriately unforeseen job problems). Crant (2000) also supports the finding thatorganizational climate affects employees’ proactive behavior, as also Latham and Pinder(2005) do, As for the direct relationship between organizational climate and training culture(0.32***), Mathis and Jackson (2011) state that firms that have an exceptional organizationalclimate also have efficient employee training programs. For example, if employees socializeand collaborate intensively with their peers, it may be preferable for training to take place ingroups rather than individually.

Turning our attention to training culture, it is found that it is strongly related(0.43***/H6d) to skill flexibility. This can be attributed to the fact that usually the main goalof employees’ training is to improve their knowledge and skills, develop new skills andadapt/modify their existing skills to new job needs and requirements (Hale, 2002). A secondpositive direct relation (0.19***/H6b) between training culture and proactivity is alsoproposed. This result is consistent with the findings of Kirby et al. (2002), who suggest thatthrough training firms can improve the levels of their employees’ proactivity. In otherwords, employees who participate in training programs (e.g. how to create innovative ideasor prevent problematic job situations) improve their levels of proactivity.

Regarding job-related factors a direct positive relationship (0.19***/H15a) between jobautonomy and the level of proactivity is evidenced. This is in line with Grant and Ashford(2008) who claim that employees’ job autonomy affects their levels of proactivity. Morrison(2006) also reports that when employees feel “free” in their workplaces, proactive behaviorsare observed, such as the expression of innovative ideas and taking the initiative to solvejob-related problems.

The most important job-related factor is job environment, which has the strongestrelationship (0.50***/H13c) on intrinsic motivation. Latham and Pinder (2005) report thatemployees’motivation is affected by their job’s characteristics, such as job design, tasks andworking environment. Thus, when employees perform in a working environment wherethey are considered to be a firm’s precious asset and feel that their contribution is crucial forachieving business excellence and improving firm performance, then they are motivated toperform their job activities in the best possible way. Job environment has an equally strongimpact (direct 0.48***/H13b and indirect 0.10***) on employees’ adaptability and

186

IJPPM68,1

proactivity levels (0.36***/H13a). Kozlowski et al. (1999) argue that job environment caninfluence the level of employees’ adaptability and Parker et al. (2006) report that jobenvironment positively influences an employees’ level of proactivity. Thus, if employees feelthat they fit into their working environments ( feel comfortable performing their jobs), thenthey may demonstrate proactive and adaptive behavior.

As far as the relationships between the employee-related factors are concerned, a strongpositive relation (0.30***) between proactivity and adaptability is suggested. Griffin et al.(2007) report that employees’ proactivity and adaptability are two different things andsuggest that proactivity is an antecedent of adaptability. In other words, it is implied that ifan employee demonstrates proactive job behavior (e.g. willing to take the initiative, preventjob problems), they may display adaptive behavior as well (e.g. solving difficult jobsituations in the appropriate ways). Moreover, a relatively weak relation between skillflexibility and adaptability is also proposed. Ployhart and Bliese (2006) report thatemployees’ adaptability is associated with their skill levels meaning that if employees’ skillscan adapt to different jobs (tasks/requirements/duties/activities), then employees may adaptquickly to new job positions or new job requirements (in their existing job positions).

Finally, it must be stressed that skill evaluation, communication and commitment are notrelated to EP. This result may appear because other moderating factors intervene betweenthese factors and EP, as Somers and Birnbaum (1998) also suggest regarding commitmentand EP.

Approaching the aforementioned findings from a managerial perspective it can be saidthat managers should pay attention to job environment since it can significantly impact theperformance of their employees as Nguyen et al. (2015) also argue. Therefore, jobenvironment should be improving continuously in terms of employee belonging andaffirmation. In other words, jobs have to be designed and tailored in such a way to giveemployees the perception that their job is unique and valuable for the firm. At the same time,managers’ behavior should be supportive and give employees the impression that indeedthey are valuable members of the organization. In turn, employees will be more confidentthat their knowledge, skills and behaviors significantly contribute to the achievement ofhigher job performance, something that in the long run have a positive impact on theiroverall job performance. Thus, managers and supervisors have a crucial role regardingsafeguarding and improving the behavioral aspects of employee belonging and affirmationin a job environment. Operating in a supportive, collaborative and affirmative jobenvironment, employees feel more empowered and self-confident, which, in turn, increasestheir motivation level, their on-the-job proactiveness and improves their adaptability, thusresulting to higher job performance.

Managers should also be concerned about firm’s internal organizational climate, sincethis factor highly affects and probably shapes employees’ immediate job environment.Managers should put an effort on establishing a healthy organizational climatecharacterized by high quality relationships between managers, employees and co-workers(i.e. responsible, trustful, transparent) as Uddin et al. (2013) also state. In order for this to beaccomplished, having the intention to pursue it, simply communicating this in executiveboards and employee round tables is just not enough, since the results of this research pointout that managers should take the first initiative by supporting and accommodatingemployees job performance. This can be accomplished in terms of helping employees whena mistake is made, discussing with employees job-related issues and letting employees makedecisions regarding their everyday job execution. This practice will trigger a healthyorganizational climate where managers, employees and co-workers will collaborateefficiently, be more motivated and increase their performance.

Managers also should consider that when operating in such collaborative organizationalclimate, their level of support affects initially the formulation of firm’s organizational

187


performance

climate, employees’ immediate job environment and (directly) employees’ performance.The meaning of such a statement is that their supportive behavior instantly and directlyaffects employee’s performance as well as indirectly, in the long term, through theestablishment of a healthy organizational climate and employee-focused job environment,which ultimately affects even more, employee’s performance.

Further, managers should consider improving a firm’s training culture, in order to helpemployees to acquire new job-related knowledge, skills and abilities which help them to bemore proactive and adaptive when faced with various job execution-related challenges.The impact this culture on employees’ performance is found to be weak; however, managersshould have in mind that investing in a well-organized training culture, which is focused onemployee needs, increased employee adaptability level to emerging job requirements andchallenges, thus affecting their job performance.

In conclusion, the proposed model shows the relationships between 10 (out of 13 initiallyexamined), based on the existing international literature, important factors and EP.Adaptability and intrinsic motivation have only a direct impact on performance. At thesame time, job environment, management support and organizational climate have aconsiderable impact not only on EP but on the other factors of the model as well.

6. ConclusionsThe proposed model incorporates a wide range of factors that affect EP. In specific itunderlines the crucial roles that management support, organizational climate, jobenvironment, adaptability and intrinsic motivation play in determining EP. In particular, alack of management support to employees’ actions has a direct negative impact on EP,organizational climate and job environment. This negative impact on organizational climateand job environment leads to a series of negative impacts on the other factors incorporatedinto the proposed model. In turn, it is likely that this negative impact on organizationalclimate directly (and negatively) affects job environment and employees’ training. Thenegative impact on training culture (e.g. frequent absenteeism, low motivation) results in adecrease in employees’ levels of skill flexibility and adaptability. This effect, combined witha reduction in employees’ proactivity levels, leads to a decreased level of adaptability and,ultimately, to low job performance (Pulakos, 2009).

Similarly, a negative effect on job environment leads directly and indirectly to lower EP.This indirect effect is observed through the negative effect on employees’ intrinsicmotivation (e.g. low job satisfaction leads to insufficient job performance), employees’ levelsof proactivity (e.g. unwillingness to take the initiative during job execution leads to a“passive stance” regarding problematic and stressful job situations) and employees’ levels ofadaptability (e.g. employees not confront problematic job-related situations, creatingobstacles to solving them and resulting in reduced job performance).

The contribution of environmental dynamism and job autonomy to the proposed modelis relatively small. Nevertheless, even the small impact of environmental dynamism ontraining implies that firms with dynamic internal environments achieve better resultsfrom training processes. In other words, if employees perform in a firm that often renewsits equipment and production processes and looks for ways to improve its competitiveposition, then training plays a vital role in improving employees’ knowledge and skills,thus making it easier for a firm to achieve its targets. By contrast, if a firm’s internalenvironment is diachronically static, then the willingness and desire of employees toupdate their knowledge and skills is low, since even if they update them, they will not beutilized by the firm. Additionally, the positive relationship between job autonomy andproactivity suggests that employees should have “their own spaces” to anticipateproblematic job situations and propose innovative ideas and solutions (Parker et al., 2006;Grant and Ashford, 2008).

188

IJPPM68,1

From a managerial perspective, these results suggest that managers should dynamicallysupport employees’ job-related actions. This support should be given to their employees at apersonal level as well as by improving both organizational climate and job environment inorder to directly and indirectly affect their job performance levels. In addition, as Pulakos(2009) mentions, managers should be aware of the level of influence they have (via theirbehavior) on a firm’s organizational climate and job environment in order to avoidundesirable situations. In other words, excessive support for employees’ actions may lead todisorientation from their job duties. For this reason, managers that are aware of a firm’sstrategic planning and business environment should ideally choose the degree of support toemployees and manage this accordingly.

Additionally, it should be emphasized that managers must not overlook the role thattraining culture has on EP. In this model, training culture may not directly affectperformance, but it has a strong impact on employees’ skill flexibility, proactivity andadaptability, which, in turn, are factors that directly and/or indirectly affect EP (Kozlowskiet al., 2001). Moreover, managers should also take into account (when planning their trainingprograms) a firm’s organizational climate characteristics as well as employees’ interpersonalrelationships in order to determine the training outcomes (positive and/or negative) for bothemployees and the firm.

According to Papalexandris and Bourantas (2003, p.315), although “employees’evaluation is an important factor, which is related with the firm’s long-term success, it ispoorly applied by the firms.” Thus, the conclusions derived from the proposed model couldhelp firms re-evaluate the factors that affect EP. Specifically, a firm’s top managementshould focus its attention on both the level of support that their executives give toemployees and how this support is diffused and interpreted inside the organizationalclimate and job environment in which employees perform.

6.1 Research limitations and future researchA potential limitation of this research is that it is not focused only on one business sector(i.e. the sample is heterogeneous). Another possible methodological limitation of this study isthe utilization of cross-sectional self-reported variables. Examining the proposed model ineach sector separately may have led to useful conclusions about the factors affecting EP ineach sector. Adding other factors to the model may improve the predictive power of themodel (e.g. job satisfaction and its relationship with job performance may be included).Additionally, it may be useful to determine which other factors mediate betweencommitment and EP. In a next step, one could include some more factors, like fairness,constrains, etc., that have received considerable empirical support. In addition, interestingfindings may appear from the in-depth investigation of “proactivity” and “adaptability” andthe way employees’ personalities can determine the level of both.

References

Armstrong, M. (2006), Performance Management: Key Strategies and Practical Guidelines, Kogan Page,London.

Armstrong, M. (2012), A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, Kogan Page, London.

Bapna, R., Langer, N., Mehra, A., Gopal, R. and Gupta, A. (2013), “Human capital investments andemployee performance: an analysis of IT services industry”,Management Science, Vol. 59 No. 3,pp. 641-658.

Bhattacharya, M., Gibson, D. and Doty, D. (2005), “The effects of flexibility in employee skills, employeebehaviors, and human resource practices on firm performance”, Journal of Management, Vol. 31No. 4, pp. 622-640.

189


performance

Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2011), Strategy and Human Resource Management, Palgrave Macmillan,Basingstoke.

Boxall, P., Purcell, J. and Wright, P. (2007), The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management,Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Breu, K., Hemingway, C.J., Strathern, M. and Bridger, D. (2002), “Workforce agility: the new employeestrategy for the knowledge economy”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 17 No. 1,pp. 21-31.

Bush, J.B. and Frohman, A.L. (1991), “Communication in a ‘network’ organization”, OrganizationalDynamics, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 23-35.

Chatman, J.A., Caldwell, D.F., O’Reilly, C.A. and Doerr, B. (2014), “Parsing organizational culture:how the norm for adaptability influences the relationship between culture consensus andfinancial performance in high‐technology firms”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35No. 6, pp. 785-808.

Chen, J.C., Silverthorne, C. and Hung, J.Y. (2006), “Organization communication, job stress,organizational commitment, and job performance of accounting professionals in Taiwan andAmerica”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 242-249.

Chen, Z.X. and Francesco, A.M. (2003), “The relationship between components of commitment andemployee performance in China”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 490-510.

Crant, J.M. (2000), “Proactive behaviour in organizations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3,pp. 435-462.

Delaney, J.T. and Huselid, M.A. (1996), “The impact of human resource management practices onperceptions of organizational performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 4,pp. 949-969.

Dermol, V. and Cater, T. (2013), “The influence of training and training transfer factors onorganizational learning and performance”, Personnel Review, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 324-348.

Dysvik, A. and Kuvaas, B. (2011), “Intrinsic motivation as a moderator on the relationship betweenperceived job autonomy and work performance”, European Journal of Work and OrganizationalPsychology, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 367-387.

Erkutlu, H. (2012), “The impact of organizational culture on the relationship between shared leadershipand team proactivity”, Team Performance Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 102-119.

Fawcett, S.E., Brau, J.C., Rhoads, G.K., Whitlark, D. and Fawcett, A.M. (2008), “Spirituality andorganizational culture: cultivating the ABCs of an inspiring workplace”, International Journal ofPublic Administration, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 420-438.

Grant, A.M. and Ashford, S.J. (2008), “The dynamics of proactivity at work”, Research in OrganizationalBehavior, Vol. 28, pp. 3-34.

Grant, A.M. and Parker, S.K. (2009), “Redesigning work design theories: the rise of relational andproactive perspectives”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 317-375.

Griffin, M.A., Neal, A. and Parker, S.K. (2007), “A new model of work role performance: positivebehavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50No. 2, pp. 327-347.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1992), Multivariate Data Analysis, WithReadings, Maxwell Macmillan International, New York, NY.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Analysis, Prentice Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Hale, J. (2002), Performance Based Evaluation: Tools and Techniques to Measure the Impact ofTraining, Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, San Francisco, CA.

Hancock, J.I., Allen, D.G., Bosco, F.A., McDaniel, K.M. and Pierce, C.A. (2013), “Meta-analytic reviewof employee turnover as a predictor of firm performance”, Journal of Management, Vol. 39 No. 3,pp. 573-603.

190

IJPPM68,1

Harrison, A.W. and Rainer, R.K. (1996), “A general measure of user computing satisfaction”, Computersin Human Behavior, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 79-92.

Ketkar, S. and Sett, P.K. (2010), “Environmental dynamism, human resource flexibility, and firmperformance: analysis of a multi-level causal model”, International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 1173-1206.

Kirby, E.G., Kirby, S.L. and Lewis, M.A. (2002), “A study of the effectiveness of training proactivethinking”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 1538-1549.

Kooij, D.T., Guest, D.E., Clinton, M., Knight, T., Jansen, P.G. and Dikkers, J.S. (2013), “How the impact ofHR practices on employee well‐being and performance changes with age”, Human ResourceManagement Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 18-35.

Kopelman, R.E., Brief, A.P. and Guzzo, R.A. (1990), “The role of climate and culture in productivity”,in Schneider, B. (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,pp. 282-318.

Koys, D. and De Cotiis, T. (1991), “Inductive measures of organizational climate”, Human Relations,Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 265-285.

Kozlowski, S.W.J. and Klein, K.J. (2000), “A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations:contextual, temporal, and emergent processes”, in Klein, K.J. and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (Eds),MultilevelTheory, Research, and Methods in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 3-90.

Kozlowski, S.W.J., Gully, S.M., Nason, E.R. and Smith, E.M. (1999), “Developing adaptive teams: atheory of compilation and performance across levels and time”, in Ilgen, D. and Pulakos, E. (Eds),The Changing Nature of Performance: Implications for Staffing, Motivation, and Development,Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 240-292.

Kozlowski, S.W.J., Toney, R.J., Mullins, M.E., Weissbein, D.A., Brown, K.G. and Bell, B.S. (2001),“Developing adaptability: a theory for the design of integrated-embedded training systems”, inSalas, E. (Ed.),Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research, Vol. 1, JAI/Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp. 59-123.

Latham, G.P. and Pinder, C.C. (2005), “Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of thetwenty-first century”, The Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 56, pp. 485-516.

Lepak, D., Liao, H., Chung, Y. and Harden, E. (2006), “A conceptual review of human resourcemanagement systems in strategic human resource management research”, Research inPersonnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 25, pp. 217-271.

LePine, J.A. and Van Dyne, L. (2001), “Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms ofcontextual performance: evidence of differential effects of Big Five personality characteristicsand general cognitive ability”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 326-336.

Mathis, R.L. and Jackson, J.H. (2011), Human Resource Management, South-Western CengageLearning, Mason, OH.

Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application,Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Morgenson, F.P., Delaney-Klinger, K. and Hemingway, M.A. (2005), “The importance of job autonomy,cognitive ability and job-related skill for predicting role breadth and job performance”, Journalof Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 2, pp. 399-406.

Morrison, E.W. (2006), “Doing the job well: an investigation of pro-social rule breaking”, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 5-28.

Morrison, E.W. and Phelps, C.C. (1999), “Taking charge at work: extra-role efforts to initiate workplacechange”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 403-419.

Motowildo, S. and Schmit, M. (1999), “Performance assessment in unique jobs”, in Ilgen, D. andPulakos, E. (Eds), The Changing Nature of Performance: Implications for Staffing, Motivation,and Development, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 56-86.

Murphy, K. and Cleveland, J. (1991), Performance Appraisal: An Organizational Perspective, Allyn andBacon, Boston, MA.

191


performance

Narcisse, S. and Harcourt, M. (2008), “Employee fairness perceptions of performance appraisal: a SaintLucian case study”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 19 No. 6,pp. 1152-1169.

Nguyen, P.D., Dang, C.X. and Nguyen, L.D. (2015), “Would better earning, work environment, andpromotion opportunities increase employee performance? An investigation in state and othersectors in Vietnam”, Public Organization Review, Vol. 15, pp. 565-579.

Noe, R.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Gerhart, B. and Wright, P. (2006), Human Resource Management: Gaining aCompetitive Advantage, McGraw-Hill Companies, New York, NY.

Panayotopoulou, L., Bourantas, D. and Papalexandris, N. (2003), “Strategic human resourcemanagement and its effects on firm performance: an implementation of the competing valuesframework”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 680-699.

Papalexandris, N. and Nikandrou, I. (2000), “Benchmarking employee skills: results from best practicefirms in Greece”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 391-402.

Papalexandris, N. and Bourantas, D. (2003), Human Resource Management, Benos Publishing, Athens.

Parker, C.P., Baltes, B.B., Young, S.A., Huff, J.W., Altmann, R.A., Lacost, H.A. and Roberts, J.E. (2003),“Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: a meta-analyticreview”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 389-416.

Parker, S.K. and Collins, C.G. (2010), “Taking stock: integrating and differentiating multiple proactivebehaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 633-662.

Parker, S.K., Williams, H.M. and Turner, N. (2006), “Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior atwork”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 636-652.

Ployhart, R.E. and Bliese, P.D. (2006), “Individual ADAPTability (I-ADAPT) theory: conceptualizingthe antecedents, consequences, and measurement of individual differences in adaptability”, inBurke, S., Pierce, L. and Salas, E. (Eds), Understanding Adaptability: A Prerequisite for EffectivePerformance within Complex Environments, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 3-39.

Price, J.L. (1997), “Handbook of organizational measurement”, International Journal of Manpower,Vol. 18 Nos 5/6, pp. 305-558.

Pulakos, E.D. (2004), Performance Management: A Roadmap for Developing, Implementing andEvaluating Performance Management Systems, SHRM Foundation, Alexandria, VA.

Pulakos, E.D. (2009), Performance Management: A New Approach for Driving Business Results,Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA.

Pulakos, E.D., Schmitt, N., Dorsey, D.W., Hedge, J.W. and Borman, W.C. (2002), “Predicting adaptiveperformance: further tests of a model of adaptability”, Human Performance, Vol. 15 No. 4,pp. 299-323.

Roos, W. and Van Eeden, R. (2008), “The relationship between employee motivation, job satisfactionand corporate culture”, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 54-63.

Rynes, S., Barber, A. and Varma, G. (2000), “Research on the employment interview: usefulness forpractice and recommendations for future research”, in Cooper, C. and Locke, E. (Eds), Industrialand Organizational Psychology, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 250-277.

Somers, M.J. and Birnbaum, D. (1998), “Work-related commitment and job performance: It’s also thenature of the performance that counts”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19 No. 6,pp. 621-634.

Song, J.H., Martens, J., McCharen, B. and Ausburn, L. (2011), “Multi-structural relationships amongorganizational culture, job autonomy, and CTE teacher turnover intention”, Career andTechnical Education Research, Vol. 36, pp. 3-26.

Straub, D., Boudreau, M.C. and Gefen, D. (2004), “Validation guidelines for IS positivist research”,Communications of AIS, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 380-427.

Sutcliffe, K.M. and Huber, G.P. (1998), “Firm and industry as determinants of executive perceptions ofthe environment”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 793-807.

192

IJPPM68,1

Thompson, J.A. (2005), “Proactive personality and job performance: a social capital perspective”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 5, pp. 1011-1017.

Thoresen, C.J., Bradley, J.C., Thoresen, J.D. and Bliese, P.D. (2004), “The big five personality traits andjob performance across time in maintenance and transitional job stages”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 89 No. 5, pp. 835-853.

Uddin, M.J., Luva, R.H. and Hossain, S.M.M. (2013), “Impact of organizational culture on employeeperformance and productivity: a case study of telecommunication sector in Bangladesh”,International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 63-77.

Van Veldhoven, M. (2005), “Financial performance and the long-term link with HR practices, workclimate and job stress”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 30-53.

Winterton, J. (2008), Training, Competence and Development: The Oxford Handbook of HumanResource Management, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Wright, P.M. and Snell, S.A. (2009), “Human resources, organizational resources, and capabilities”,in Storey, J., Wright, P. and Ulrich, D. (Eds), The Routledge Companion to Strategic HumanResource Management, Routledge, London, pp. 345-356.

Wright, P.M. and Snell, S.A. (1998), “Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibility instrategic human resource management”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4,pp. 756-772.

Zikmund, W.G., Babin, B.J., Carr, J.C. and Griffin, M. (2012), Business Research Methods,Thomson/South-Western, Mason, OH.

Further reading

Mathis, R.L. and Jackson, J.H. (2008),Human Resource Management, Thomson/SouthWestern, Mason, OH.

About the authorsAnastasios D. Diamantidis is Adjunct Lecturer of Organizational Behavior at the Department ofProduction and Management Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece. He holdsa Bachelor of Arts (BA) (in Economics) from the University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece, aMaster of Science (MSc) (in Finance and financial IS) from the University of Greenwich, UK and a PhD(in HRM and IT) from Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece. His research interests includeHRM, information systems management, employee evaluation. His works have been published inInternational Journal of Training and Development, International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, among others. Anastasios D. Diamantidis is the corresponding author and can becontacted at: [email protected]

Prodromos Chatzoglou is Professor of MIS at the Department of Production and ManagementEngineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece. He holds a Bachelor of Arts (BA)(in Economics), from the Graduate Industrial School, Thessaloniki, Greece, a Master of Science (MSc)(in Management Sciences) and a PhD (in Information Engineering), both from UMIST, Manchester, UK.His research interests include information systems management, knowledge management, e-business,human resource management and strategic management. His works have been published in DecisionSciences, International Journal of Medical Informatics, Information Systems Journal, European Journalof Information Systems, among others.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htmOr contact us for further details: [email protected]

193


performance

Factors affecting employee performance: an empirical …

Documents

Transcript of Factors affecting employee performance: an empirical …