The influence of self-efficacy, technology advancement, role ambiguity and work overload on employees' performance

The alarming figure of poor performers in public service organization in Malaysia had caused the government to look into this matter seriously. The Exit Policy was introduced in 2015 as a management guideline to deal with the underperformers to the extent that they can be dismissed. However, factor...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Eniza, Abdul Halim
Format:	Thesis
Language:	eng eng
Published:	2015
Subjects:	HF5549-5549.5 Personnel Management Employment
Online Access:	https://etd.uum.edu.my/5901/1/s816299_01.pdf https://etd.uum.edu.my/5901/2/s816299_02.pdf
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

id	my-uum-etd.5901
record_format	uketd_dc
institution	Universiti Utara Malaysia
collection	UUM ETD
language	eng eng
advisor	Pangil, Faizuniah
topic	HF5549-5549.5 Personnel Management Employment
spellingShingle	HF5549-5549.5 Personnel Management Employment Eniza, Abdul Halim The influence of self-efficacy, technology advancement, role ambiguity and work overload on employees' performance
description	The alarming figure of poor performers in public service organization in Malaysia had caused the government to look into this matter seriously. The Exit Policy was introduced in 2015 as a management guideline to deal with the underperformers to the extent that they can be dismissed. However, factors that might influence employees’ performance in public service organizations should be identified before these poor performers being punished. Thus, based on previous findings, this study was conducted to examine whether there are relationships between self-efficacy, technology advancement, role ambiguity and work overload towards employees’ performance in public service organization, specifically in Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) of Malaysia. 300 questionnaires were distributed to the respondents and 243 were returned. Due to convenient sampling technique that was conducted, the result showed that there was disparity in respondents’ demographic data that might affect the result. Pearson Correlation was used to test the correlation between independent and dependant variables while linear regression was conducted to see the strength and direction of the relationships. The results showed that there was positive and strong relationship between self-efficacy and employees’ performance, while a negative relationship established between role ambiguity and employees’ performance. A positive relationship was also detected between technology advancement and employees’ performance but no relationship was found between work overload and employees’ performance. These three variables (self-efficacy, role ambiguity and technology advancement) were also considered as influential factors that affected employees’ performance by 46.7 percent. Recommendations for future research were made to strengthen the sampling technique, as well as to identify other factors that might strongly influence employee’s performance in public service organization.
format	Thesis
qualification_name	masters
qualification_level	Master's degree
author	Eniza, Abdul Halim
author_facet	Eniza, Abdul Halim
author_sort	Eniza, Abdul Halim
title	The influence of self-efficacy, technology advancement, role ambiguity and work overload on employees' performance
title_short	The influence of self-efficacy, technology advancement, role ambiguity and work overload on employees' performance
title_full	The influence of self-efficacy, technology advancement, role ambiguity and work overload on employees' performance
title_fullStr	The influence of self-efficacy, technology advancement, role ambiguity and work overload on employees' performance
title_full_unstemmed	The influence of self-efficacy, technology advancement, role ambiguity and work overload on employees' performance
title_sort	influence of self-efficacy, technology advancement, role ambiguity and work overload on employees' performance
granting_institution	Universiti Utara Malaysia
granting_department	School of Business Management
publishDate	2015
url	https://etd.uum.edu.my/5901/1/s816299_01.pdf https://etd.uum.edu.my/5901/2/s816299_02.pdf
_version_	1747827988153499648
spelling	my-uum-etd.59012021-03-18T06:42:27Z The influence of self-efficacy, technology advancement, role ambiguity and work overload on employees' performance 2015 Eniza, Abdul Halim Pangil, Faizuniah School of Business Management School of Business Management HF5549-5549.5 Personnel Management. Employment The alarming figure of poor performers in public service organization in Malaysia had caused the government to look into this matter seriously. The Exit Policy was introduced in 2015 as a management guideline to deal with the underperformers to the extent that they can be dismissed. However, factors that might influence employees’ performance in public service organizations should be identified before these poor performers being punished. Thus, based on previous findings, this study was conducted to examine whether there are relationships between self-efficacy, technology advancement, role ambiguity and work overload towards employees’ performance in public service organization, specifically in Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) of Malaysia. 300 questionnaires were distributed to the respondents and 243 were returned. Due to convenient sampling technique that was conducted, the result showed that there was disparity in respondents’ demographic data that might affect the result. Pearson Correlation was used to test the correlation between independent and dependant variables while linear regression was conducted to see the strength and direction of the relationships. The results showed that there was positive and strong relationship between self-efficacy and employees’ performance, while a negative relationship established between role ambiguity and employees’ performance. A positive relationship was also detected between technology advancement and employees’ performance but no relationship was found between work overload and employees’ performance. These three variables (self-efficacy, role ambiguity and technology advancement) were also considered as influential factors that affected employees’ performance by 46.7 percent. Recommendations for future research were made to strengthen the sampling technique, as well as to identify other factors that might strongly influence employee’s performance in public service organization. 2015 Thesis https://etd.uum.edu.my/5901/ https://etd.uum.edu.my/5901/1/s816299_01.pdf text eng public https://etd.uum.edu.my/5901/2/s816299_02.pdf text eng public masters masters Universiti Utara Malaysia Aguinis, H. (2014). Performance management. Pearson New International Edition: Edinburgh, 3. Ali, S. & Farooqi, Y. A. (2014). Effect of work overload on job satisfaction, effect of job satisfaction on employee performance and employee engagement (A case of public sector University of Gujranwala Division). International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences and Engineering, 5 (8), August, 23-30. Alias, B. (1997). Statistik penyelidikan dalam pendidikan dan sains sosial. Bangi: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Armstrong, M. (2006). A handbook of human resource management practice, 10th ed. London: Kogan Page. Ashfaq, S., Mahmood,Z., & Ahmad,M. (2013). Impact of work-life conflict and work over load on employee performance in banking sector of Pakistan. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 14 (5), 688-695. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A society cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman. Bedeian, A. G. & Armenakis, A. A. (1981). A path-analytic study of the consequences of role conflict and ambiguity. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 417 - 424. Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34 (6), 3-15. Borman, W. C. & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In Personnel Selection in Organizations (N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman, eds). 71-79. San Francisco, Jossey- Bass. Bowling, A. (1997).Measuring health: A review of quality of life measurement scales. 2nd Edition. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 1 (2), 181-182. Breaugh, J. A. & Colihan, J. P. (1994). Measuring facets of job ambiguity: Construct validity evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 191 - 202. Brockner, J. (1988). Self-esteem at work. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Burns, N. S. & Grove, S. K. (1997). The practice of nursing research: conduct, critique and utilization. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders. Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modelling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In: Dunnette MD, Hough LM, eds. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press, 687-732. Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993).A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, and associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations, 35-69. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Conway, J. M. (1999). Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance for managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (1), 3-13. Dalal, R. S. (2005).A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behaviour and counterproductive work behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1241-1255. Donald, A. B. (2004). Associating among stress, work overload, role conflict and selfefficacy in Maine principle. The University of Maine. Evans, C. J. (2004). Health and work productivity assessment: State of the art or state of flux? Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 46, S3-S11. Fair Work Ombudsman. (2013). Best practice guide managing underperformance. Australian Government. Retrieved from https://www.fairwork.gov.au/Article Documents/711/Managing-underperformance-best-practice-guide.pdf.aspx?Embed=Y. Frankfort-Nachmias, C., & Nachmias, D. (1992). Research methods in the social sciences (4th ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press. Gahlan, V. S. & Singh, K. (2014). The effect of role overload and role ambiguity on job performance of IT professionals in India. The IUP Journal of Management Research, XIII( 3), 37-49. Gallivan, M. J. (2003). Examining IT professionals’ adaptation to technological change: The influence of gender and personal attributes. The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 35(3). Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y., & Cooper, C. (2008). A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: Examining main and moderating effects. Personnel Psychology, 61, 227-271. Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183-211. Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing and Community Education. Greer, C. R. & Plunkett, W. R. (2007). Supervisory management, 11th ed. Pearson Education Inc: USA. Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance positive behaviour in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (2), 327-347. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall International Inc. Hassan, Z., Silong, A. & Muslim, N. (2009). Kepimpinan beretika dan kecemerlangan organisasi dalam perkhidmatan awam. Jurnal Pengajian Umum Asia Tenggara Bil. 10, 39-52. Hastings, J. K. (2001). An analysis of competencies performed by administrative professionals for administrative assistant degree program at Chippewa Valley Technical College (CVTC), IAAP Seminar 2001 Class Roster. CRN 90804. Course Number 106-452-501. Hazlin, H. & Feridah, M. N. (2010). Acceptance of technological changes and job performance among administrative support personnel in the government offices in Maran, Pahang Darul Makmur. Gading Business and Management Journal, Vol. 14, 21-32. Hesketh, B., & Neal, A. (1999).Technology and performance. In D. R. Ilgen& E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation and development: 21-55. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Human Resource Management Department. (2015, February 17). Human resource development panel meeting. Ministry of Education of Malaysia. Hysong, S. J., & Quinones, M. A. (1997). The relationship between self-efficacy and performance: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO. Idris, M. K. (2011). Over time effects of role stress on psychological strain among Malaysia public university academics. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(9), 154-161. Johanson, P. (2009). HRM in changing organizational context. In D. G. Collings & G. Wood (Eds.), Human resource management: A critical approach (pp.19-37). London: Routledge. Johnson, E. C., & Meade, A. W. (2010).A multi-level investigation of overall job performance ratings. Paper presented at the 25thAnnual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA. Jex, S. M. (1998). Stress and job performance: theory, research and implications for managerial practice. Sage Publications Ltd. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits – self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control and emotional stability – with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80-92. Jyoti, S. (2012). Technological advancement and changing paradigm of organizational communication. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 2 (12), December, 1-6. Kahn, R. L.,Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: John Wiley. Kamal & Kumar, A. (2013). Impact of technology advancement on human resource performance. International Journal on Arts, Management and Humanities, 2(2), 43-47. Kanter, R. M. (2006). Confidence: How winning and losing streaks begin and end. NewYork, NY: Crown Publishing. Karatepe & Osman, M. (2013). The effects of work overload and work-family conflict on job embeddedness and job performance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25 (4), 614-634. Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., Schaufeli, W. B., Henrica, C. W. & Allard, J. V. (2011). Conceptual frameworks of individual work performance: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53 (8), 856-866. Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, Stef, B., Allard, J. B., & Henrica, C. W. (2012). Development of an individual work performance questionnaire. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 62(1), 6-28. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610. Kumar, M., Abdul Talib, S., & Ramayah, T. (2013). Business research methods. Selangor: Oxford University Press, 52. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hacket, G. (1996). Career development from a social cognitive perspective. In Brown and L. Brooks (Eds.), Career Choice and Development 3rd ed. 373-422. San Francisco. Lerner, D., & Mosher, H. R. (2008). What does research tell us about depression, job performance, and work productivity? Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 50, 401-410. Leung, A.S.M., & Chang, L. M. K. (2002). Organizational downsizing: Psychological impact on surviving managers in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Business Review, 8 (3): 76-94. Liang, Z. L. (2007). The impact of employee’s self-efficacy and commitment on job performance. School of Business and Economics, Universiti Malaysia Sabah. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archieves of Psychology. 140, 5-55. Lucas, H. C., & Spitler, V. K. (1999). Technology use and performance: A field study of broker workstations. Decision Sciences, 30 (2), 291-311. Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Self-efficacy in the workplace: Implication for motivation and performance. International Journal of Management, Business and Administration, 14(1), 1-6. Malaysian Administrative, Modernisation and Management Planning Unit (MAMPU). (2003). Garis panduan mengenai tatacara penggunaan internet dan mel elektronik di agensi-agensi kerajaan. Pekeliling Kemajuan Pentadbiran Awam Bil. 1, 2003. Malcomson, J. D. (2012). Spread too thin: Clerical work under pressure. Report of Canadian Union of Public Employee (CUPE), October. Marfeo, E.E., Ni, P., Chan, L., Rasch, E.K., & Jette, A.M. (2014). Combining agreement and frequency rating scales to optimize psychometrics in measuring behavioral health functioning. US National Library of Medicine, National Institute of Health July 67(7), 781-784. Marsidi, A. & Abdul Latip, H. (2007). Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi komitmen pekerja di organisasi awam. Jurnal Kemanusiaan Bil. 10, Disember, 56-64. McDaniel, C. D. & Gates, R. H. (1999). Contemporary marketing research. Cincinnati: South Western College Publishing. Mingzheng, X. & Man, Z. (2014). The study of civil servant performance structure and its relationship with the professional ethics. Chinese Public Administration, 12, 30-34. Motowidlo, S. J. & Van Scooter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475-480. Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance: Human Performance, 10, 71-83. Muda, I., Rafiki, A. & Harahap, M. R. (2014). Factors influencing employees’ performance: A study on the Islamic banks in Indonesia. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5 (2), 73-80. Mukesh, K., Salim, A.T., & Ramayah, T. (2013). Business research methods. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Murphy, P. R., & Jackson, S. E. (1999). Managing work-role performance: Challenges for 21st century organizations and employees. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of work performance: 325-365. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Najib, A. M., & Halimah, A. M. (2009), Persepsi kakitangan sektor awam terhadap faktorfaktor yang mempengaruhi prestasi organisasi. Jurnal Psikologi Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia, 4, 127-151. Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. M. (2012). Human resource management: Gaining a competitive advantage. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. 340. Omolayo, B. O. & Omole, O. C. (2013). Influence of mental workload on job performance. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 3 (15), August, 238-246. Prince, M., Engle, R., & Laird, K. (2005). A model of job performance, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction among sales and sales support employees at a pharmaceutical company. Journal of pharmaceutical Marketing and Management, 16, 59-80. Prussia, G. E., Anderson, J. S., & Manz, C. C. (1998). Self-leadership and performance outcomes: The mediating influence of self-efficacy. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 19, 523-538. Public Service Department. (2002). Pelaksanaan sistem saraan Malaysia bagi anggota perkhidmatan awam persekutuan. Kerajaan Malaysia. Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 612-624. Ramlah, H., Nor Shahriza, A. K., & Mohd Hasan, S. (2007). The impact of technological factors on information systems success in the electronic-government context. Business Process Management Journal, 13(5), 613-627. Riggs, M., Warka, J., Babasa, B., Betancourt, R., & Hooker, S. (1994). Development and validation of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy scales for job-related applications. Educational Psychology Measurement, 54(3), 793-802. Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., &Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163. Rohaniza, I. (2015, May 24). 5,000 diberi latihan semula. Berita Harian, 1, 6. Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global aspects of job performance: A policycapturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (1), 66-80. Schmidt, F. R. & Kaplan, L. B. (1971). Composite versus multiple criteria: A review and resolution of the controversy. Personnel Psychology, 24: 419-434. Schwarz, N., & Oyserman, D. (2001). Asking questions about behaviour: cognition, communication, and questionnaire construction. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(2), 127-160. Shimazu, A., & Kosugi, S. (2003). Job stressors, coping, and psychological distress among Japanese employees: interplay between active and non-active coping. Work & Stress, 17, 38-51. Sinclair, R. R., & Tucker, J. S. (2006). Stress-care: An integrated model of individual differences in soldier performance under stress. In Britt, T. W., Castro, C. A. and Adler, A. B. (Eds.), Military Life: The Psychology of Serving in Peace and Combat (Vol. 1): Military Performance. Praeger Security International, Westport, CT, 202-231. Singh, J. (1998). Striking a balance in boundary-spanning positions: An investigation of some unconventional influences of role stressors and job characteristics on job outcomes of sale-people. J. Mark, 62, 69-86. Singh, B. D. (2010). Performance management system: A holistic approach. Excel Books: New Delhi, 6. Spector, P. E., Bauer, J. A., & Fox, S. (2010). Measurement artifacts in assessment of counterproductive work behaviour and organizational citizenship behaviour: Do we know what we think we know? Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 781-790. Spector, P. (1992). Summated rating scale construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240-261. Tahir, S., Md. Yusoff, R., Azam, K., Khan, A. & Kaleem, S. (2012). The effects of work overload on the employees’ performance in relation to customer satisfaction: A case of Water & Power Development Authority, Attock, Pakistan. World Journal of Social Sciences, 2 (1), 174 – 181. Thornton, G. C. (1980). Psychometric properties of self-appraisals of job performance. Personnel Psychology, 33 (2), 263-271. Tien, H. C., Kun, H. W., Wei, J. L., Wen, I. H., & Chich, J. S. (2010). Incorporating workload and performance level into work situation analysis of employees with application to a Taiwanese Hotel Chain. American Journal of Applied Science, 7 (5), 692-697. Timothy, A.J., Christine, L.J., John, C. S., Brent, A. S. & Bruce, L. R. (2007). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: The integral role of individual differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (1), 107–127. Tinofirei, C. (2012). The unique factors affecting employee performance in non-profit organizations. University of South Africa. Van Sell, M., Brief, A. P., & Schuler, R. S. (1981). Role conflict and role ambiguity: Integration of the literature and directions for future research. Humanity Relations, 34, 43-71. Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8 (4), 216-226. Waldman, D. A. (1994).The contributions of total quality management to a theory of work performance. Academic Management Review, 19, 510-536. Zahargier, M. S. & Balasundram, N. (2011). Factors affecting employees’ performance in ready-made garments (RMGs) sector in Chittagong, Bangladesh. Economic Sciences Series, LXIII (1), 9-15. Zhang, W. & Chen, H. (2015). The structure and measurement of the work values of Chinese Civil Servants: The case of Hangzhou city government. Public Personnel Management, 44 (4), 559-576. Zohar, D. (1999). When things go wrong: The effect of daily work hassles on effort, exertion and negative mood. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 72, 265-283.

The influence of self-efficacy, technology advancement, role ambiguity and work overload on employees' performance

Similar Items