Work Attitude

1 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

Attitudes are evaluated statements on how one feels about things or

people. Attitudes affect behavior. Managers would need to pay close attention

to the attitudes of their workers. For instance, if a worker has a positive

attitude while at work, the worker will perform better on the job. On the other

hand, if a worker constantly experiences having a negative attitude while at

work, this may lead to absenteeism or a possible resignation from the

organization. In the workplace, it is important to recognize attitudes of

employees because attitudes are a component of behavioral. Researchers

believe that attitudes have three main components: cognitive, affective, and

psychomotor. Furthermore, managers can focus on job performance to

examine the impact of attitudes toward work (http://www.ukessays.com/

essays/management/work.attitudes.php.2013).

Attitudes form a mental set that affects how we view something else. It

has on impact on how we view and judge our surroundings at work. Managers

of organizational behavior are vitally interested in the nature of the attitudes of

their employees toward their jobs, toward their careers, and toward the

organization itself. Work attitudes of employees are most important to achieve

the individual and organizational objectives through work performance

(Velnampy, 2006).

http://www.ukessays.com/essays/management/work.attitudes.php.2013



Attitudes create an intention to behave in a certain way and may

predict actual behavior under certain conditions. People develop positive work

attitudes as a result of their personality, fit with their environment, stress levels

they experience, relationships they develop, perceived fairness of their pay,

company policies, interpersonal treatment, whether their psychological

contract is violated, and the presence of policies addressing work-life conflict.

When people have more positive work attitudes, they may have the inclination

to perform better. When workplace attitudes are more positive, companies

benefit in the form of higher safety and better customer service, as well as

higher company performance (Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012).

The review of the literature reveals that the employees acquire

professional experience during their job years. The professional experience

developed the employees’ work-related attitudes and in which manner the

individual handles the problem. By the following approaches experiences

could be gained: concentration, motivation, and readiness to work tirelessly to

enhance performance (Ericsson, 2010). Professional experience is the

“experiences” that affects the employee approach in resolving the problem

and provides the method to handle the task.

Employee’s job performance has been defined as performance in

terms of quantity and quality expected from each employee (Khan, et al.,

2010). Individual performance is of high relevance for organizations and

individuals alike. Showing high performance when accomplishing tasks results

in satisfaction, feelings of self-efficacy, and mastery (Kanfer and Ackerman,

2005). Moreover, high performing individuals get promoted, awarded and


honored. Career opportunities for individuals who perform well are much

better than those of moderate or low performing individuals (Van Scotter,

2010). Given the centrality of work performance in organizations, it becomes

clear that the measurement of individual performance should capture job

performance as reliable and valid as possible.

Research on job performance has come a long way. Numerous studies

have been conducted that have resulted in a solid knowledge base, for

example when it comes to the differentiation between different aspects of job

performance and person-specific predictors of task performance in particular.

Other areas received comparatively less attention but scholars have

demonstrated that there are great opportunities for better understanding and

predicting job performance. These different lines of research provide a set of

different approaches researchers may pursue to ensure a greater knowledge

of the nature and predictors of job performance that in turn, is predicted to

facilitate high performance in organizational contexts (Sonnentag, et al.,

2010).

Attitude towards work does impact work performance, but higher

performance makes people more satisfied and committed. It is a cycle of

events that is clearly in keeping with the development perspective (Randolph,

et al., 2008).

The study of Velnampy (2007) found out that attitudes and work

performance are significantly correlated and lead to the realization of

organizational objectives. The findings of other studies on this subject have


varied results. Some found the existence of positive relationships between

attitudes towards work and work performance (Ahmad, et al., 2010; Rikeita,

2011; and Sharma and Bajpai, 2011) while others saw it as negative (Khan, et

al., 2010; and Al Hussami, 2012).

Although various research studies have been conducted on the issue

of work attitudes and work performance, there is no sufficient studies focusing

on administrative employees of State Universities and Colleges in the

Philippines. In order to fill the gap, this study tries to determine the

relationship between attitudes towards work and work performance of

administrative employees at Rizal Technological University.

Theoretical Framework

Many studies have shown a strong relationship between employee

attitudes toward work and job performance. It just makes sense that people

will work harder, faster and better when they are happy and positively

motivated. The other side of the coin is also true. A stressful unhappy

workplace is rarely productive, and it takes just a few employees with bad

attitudes or work habits to create enough interpersonal dissonance to

negatively affect workplace productivity. Fortunately, employers can take

steps to prevent poor work attitudes from developing and also have

mechanisms in place to get things back on track when difficulties arise.

Browne (2009) advocates the theory that “better employee work attitude be-

gets better workplace productivity.” He also believes that employers can take

steps to make things better in the workplace: First, practice a “present,


pleasant and even-handed” management style. One of the most common

reasons that employees develop poor attitudes is perceptions that

management is not supportive or that it plays favorites. Prevent this problem

by having a proactive management style that is supportive of employees and

focuses on fairness both in policy and practice. Second, give positive

feedback whenever possible. People like to feel appreciated and like to feel

as if they are part of a team. Most personalities will react positively to

management making an effort to engage with them, especially in a positive

way, and will be more likely to give the job their best effort. Third, improve the

intrinsic job characteristics at your workplace as much as possible. Numerous

studies have shown that employees rate the nature of the work as the No. 1

criteria in job satisfaction. Therefore, it is important that employers make the

work itself as interesting and challenging as possible. This is obviously easier

to accomplish in some workplaces than others, but all employers can take

some steps to give employees input or more responsibilities for work flow

processes to keep them intellectually and emotionally engaged. Related to

this, studies have shown not only that job satisfaction is generally predictive of

job performance, but that those working in more intellectually stimulating white

collar jobs tend to be both more satisfied and more productive. Fourth,

establish a simple and fair dispute resolution mechanism. No matter how

much you engage with your employees or how interesting you make the work,

it is human nature that people are going to occasionally disagree. That said,

while you can't prevent all disagreements at a workplace, you can keep a

small disagreement from growing into a bigger problem by dealing with it as


soon as possible. For a small business, simply practicing present and

pleasant management can create the kind of relationship where employees

are willing to share their problems with you, and you can resolve the problem

fairly. Larger businesses often have more formal policies for dispute

resolution, ranging from talking to your supervisor to formal grievance

committees. Fifth, Show your appreciation of your employees. Financial

appreciation like raises or bonuses is, of course, a good way to show your

appreciation and incentivize your employees, but small gestures like bagels

and cream cheese for everybody twice a week or buying all the fixings for a

monthly work birthday party can also go a long way in improving employee

morale.

Employees with positive work attitudes tend to be more productive

employees because they always see the accompanying opportunity with

every challenge. They do not waste time worrying and they expend their

energies on more positive activities.

A theoretical model that incorporates the relation between attitudes

toward work and work performance is the Job Demands-Source (JD-R) model

of work engagement (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). Accentuating mentally

and physically healthy employees, the JD-R Model of Work Engagement (JD-

R-WE Model) proposes that work engagement mediates the association

between job characteristics on the one hand and performance on the other. In

other words, this theoretical model assumes that attitudes of employees

toward work assumes a positive relationship between work engagement and

job performance.


Derived from the Job Demands-Resources Model (Bakker and

Demarouti, 2007) assumes that all jobs contain “demands” and “resources.”

Job demands refer to those physical, psychological, social or organizational

aspects of the job that require sustained physical, and/or psychological (i.e.

cognitive or emotional/effort and are therefore associated with certain

physiological or psychological casts, such as (mental) fatigue. Job resources

refer to those job characteristics that help to cope with job demands (e.g.,

autonomy or support from colleagues), are functional in attaining work-related

goals, or lead to personal growth and development (e.g., coaching by the

manager). In other words, job resources have motivational potential. The

JDR-WE model draws on two assumptions: (1) Job resources such as

autonomy, social support from colleagues and supervisors, performance

feedback, and skill variety, initiate a motivational process that leads to higher

performance through work engagement, and (2) job resources become more

salient and realize their motivational potential in terms of work engagement as

a function of job demands. Thus, employees are particularly engaged when

both job resources and job demands are high. The core of the motivational

process is the motivational potential of job resources, which allows employees

to attain their goals, i.e., to perform well.

Attitudes are the feelings and beliefs that largely determine how

employees will perceive their environment, commit themselves to intended

actions, and ultimately behave. Attitudes form a mental set that affects how

we view something else. It has an impact on how we view and judge our

surroundings at work. Managers of organizational behavior are vitally


interested in the nature of the attitudes of their employees toward their Jobs,

toward their careers, and toward the organization itself .Job attitudes of the

employees are most important to achieve the individual and organizational

objectives through their performance.

Attitudes such as involvement and satisfaction contribute to increase

the performance of the employees which is proved by various existing studies

(Lawler and Porter, 2005, Velnampy, 2006). Although various research have

studied the issue of performance and satisfaction, and explored many facts

there is no sufficient studies as a multiple focusing on the public sector

organization. In order to fill this gap, this study tries to identify the relationship

between attitudes and performance.

Conceptual Framework

Based on the arguments in the above theoretical framework and the

literature, the figure below shows the conceptual framework of the study.

Figure 1. Conceptual Model

Attitudes Towards Work

Administrative factors

Intra-Interpersonal factors

Motivational factors

Technical factors

Work Performance

1. Work/Activity

2. Critical Factors

3. Overall rating

Action Plan

Demographic Profile

Gender

Job Classification/Designation

Number of years in the Service


The Model shows “attitudes towards work” as the independent variable

of the study which consisted of four dimensions: the administrative factors, the

intra-interpersonal factors, the motivational factors, and the technical factors.

These factors were correlated with the work performance of the RTU

administrative employees on two important dimensions: work/activity and

critical factors (courtesy, human relations, and punctuality and attendance.)

Further, the framework required determination of differences in the work

performance through the respondents’ demographic profile in terms of

gender, job classification/designation, and number of years in the service. The

researcher posited the view that “attitudes toward work positively influence

work performance.”

Statement of the Problem

It was the purpose of this study to examine the relationship between

attitudes towards work and the work performance of the administrative

employees of Rizal Technological University, covering calendar year 2012.

Further, the study determined the differences in attitudes towards work and

work performance by demographic profile.

Specifically, the study sought to find answers to the following research

questions:

1. What is the demographic profile of the administrative employee

respondents according to their:

1.1 gender,

1.2 job classification/designation, and

1.3 number of years in the service?


2. What are the attitudes towards work of the administrative

employees by the following factors?:

2.1 Administrative factors

2.2 Intra-Interpersonal factors

2.3 Motivational factors

2.4 Technical factors

3. What is the work performance of the administrative employees by

the following dimensions?:

3.1 Work/Activity

3.2 Critical factors

3.3 Overall rating

4. What are the differences in the attitudes towards work of

administrative employees when compared according to their demographic

profile?

5. What are the differences in the work performance of administrative

employees when compared according to their demographic profile?

6. What is the relationship between attitudes towards work and work

performance of the administrative employees?

7. What proposed action plan can be crafted based on research

results?

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were tested:

1. Significant differences exist in the attitudes towards work of

administrative employees when compared according to their.


1.1 gender,


1.3 number of years in the service.

2. Significant differences exist in the work performance of the

administrative employees when compared according to their:

2.1 gender,


2.3 number of years in the service.

3. Significant relationship exists between attitudes towards work and

work performance of administrative employees.

Significance of the Study

The following would benefit from the results of the study:

Administrators. It makes sense that people will work harder, faster,

and better when they are happy and positively motivated. On the other side of

the coin, a stressful, unhappy workplace is rarely productive, and it takes just

few employees with bad attitudes or work habits to create enough

interpersonal dissonance to negatively affect workplace productivity. The

results of this study can provide vital information to administrators in their

efforts to prevent poor attitudes from developing and apply mechanisms to get

things back on track when difficulties arise.

Administrative employees. The results of this study may provide

information on how administrative employees understand or see themselves

in terms of their work attitudes and work performance. These attitudes are


rooted in the employees’ minds and came out from their behaviors.

Employees with good work attitudes are unlikely to indicate low job

performance and are normally highly productive. Attitudes provide clues to an

employee’s behavioral intentions or inclinations to act in certain way.

Employers. The study will enhance the understanding of the

employers of the relation between the positive side of the employee work

attitude and job performance. The basic tenet of this study is that job

performance is optimal if employees are in affective-motivational state of

mind. The results will also remind the employers of their responsibility to

recognize, define and fulfill the concept of management role in improving the

intrinsic job characteristics in the workplace.

Policy makers. In terms of policies to enhance work performance, the

study may provide the data that allow conceptualization and implementation

of an effective and efficient performance appraisal system. There are a

number of factors affecting employees’ job performance. But each employee

may have a different effect from different things at the workplace.

Researchers. It is expected that the study shall explore the

interactions between attitude towards work and work performance of

employees and look into meta-traits and synergies that are relevant to better

job attitude and consequently better job performance. It is expected that this

study will provide relevant data for design and development of training

interventions geared towards enhancement of employees’ work attitude and

work performance.


Scope and Limitations/Delimitations of the Study

The study focused on determining the relationship between attitudes

towards work and work performance of 90 administrative employees of Rizal

Technological University during calendar year 2012. The rating periods

covered were January to June 2012 and July to December 2012. The

attitudes towards work were measured by the Work Attitude Scale while the

work performance was measured by the RTU Work Performance Appraisal

System for Administrative Employees. The Work Attitude Scale is a

standardized instrument while the Work Performance Appraisal is a validated

instrument which has been in use at RTU for more than 20 years.

Some limitations of the study included the following: 1) Respondents

may not have been honest due to the nature of the information requested; 2)

Respondents may not have accurately recalled and reported responses to the

items contained in the instruments used in the study; and 3) The research

design of this study did not completely control for the effects of other variables

and it did not include longitudinal data.

The delimitations of the study included the following: 1) The study did

not involve the faculty; and 2) A limited set of demographic data was obtained

in the study.

Definition of Terms

For clarity of presentation, the following terms were defined within the

context of their use/s in the study:


Administrator is a school official who exercises direct supervision over

the faculty members or administrative employees of his/her unit, office,

division, college, or department. He/she supervises the implementation of

policies, rules and regulation to his/her office (RTU University Code, 2002).

Administrative employees are the school personnel holding first level

positions that include clerical, trades crafts, and custodial service which

involve sub–professional work in a non-supervisory or supervisory capacity;

those holding second level positions that involve professional, technical and

scientific work in a non-supervisory and supervisory capacity up to division

chief level or its equivalent; and those holding third level positions that require

Career Service Executive Eligibility (RTU Merit System for Faculty and Staff,

2002).

Attitudes are the feelings and beliefs that largely determine how

employees will perceive their environment, commit themselves to intended

actions, and ultimately behave (Velnampy, et al., 2006).

Attitudes towards work are the feelings that the workers have toward

different aspects of the work environment (Carpenter et al., 2009).

Administrative factor pertains to work conditions, company policies

and administration, workload job flexibility and standardization relationship

with boss, and relationship with subordinates (Work Attitude Scale Manual,

).


Intra-Interpersonal factor pertains to job satisfaction, responsibility,

recognition, organizational justice and psychological contract, relationship at

work, personal life outside work, and relationship with peers (Work Attitude

Scale Manual, ).

Motivation factor deals with job security, advancement, salary, status

effective supervision, and stress (Work Attitude Scale Manual, ).

Technical factor pertains to job characteristics and job challenge

(Work Attitude Manual, ).

Work performance refers to work related activities expected of an

employee and how well these activities are executed. In addition, courtesy,

human relations, and punctuality and attendance are part of the work

performance dimensions (RTU Performance Appraisal System for

Administrative Employees, 1994).


CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter contains the review of concepts, theories, principles, and

studies related to the subject of the investigation. The discussion of the

conceptual and research literature is anchored on the key terms of the study.

Attitudes Towards Work

Work attitudes or job attitudes are multifaceted in their composition, in

their structure, and in their temporal nature. Employees, of course, do not

have only one job attitude. The composition of attitudes employees have

about their job and their work vary along many dimensions, most notably their

target (e.g., their pay versus their supervision), their specificity (e.g., their

most recent pay raise versus their job as a whole), and their nature (e.g.,

evaluative assessments versus behavioral propensities). Structurally, job

attitudes are hierarchically organized, with perhaps an overall job attitude

being the most general factor, followed by still relatively general job attitudes

such as overall job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and perhaps

others, followed by more specific attitudes such as job satisfaction facets,

specific dimensions of organizational commitment, and so on. Are job

attitudes latent variables—top-down constructs that are indicated by their

more specific attitudes—or manifest variables—bottom-up constructs

composed of their lower-order terms? Although clarity in thinking about

concepts is often recommended in this literature (Bollen, 2006), considerable


confusion can be created by drawing false dichotomies. Specifically, we think

job attitudes may be either manifest or latent, depending on how the

researcher wishes to treat them (see also Ironson et al., 2009). Clearly, when

considering the facets of job satisfaction, it is a manifest variable in that

overall job satisfaction is composed of more specific satisfactions in different

domains. Just as clearly, though, broad job attitudes can be latent variables in

the sense that individuals’ general attitudes about their job cause specific

attitudes to be positively correlated. Thus, although it is important for

researchers to consider the issue and to be clear about their treatment of

attitudes, we do not think that conceptualizations or measures of job attitudes

are advanced by forcing false dichotomies into the literature. One researcher

may treat overall job satisfaction as a latent construct and another may treat it

as manifest. Although this is not a problem, the purposes of the research, and

the modeling of the data, will of course be different under each approach.

Attitudes are evaluated


people. Attitudes affect behaviors. Managers would need to pay close

attention to the attitudes of their workers. For instance, if a worker has a

positive attitude while at work, the worker will perform better on the job. On

the other hand, if a worker constantly experiences having a negative attitude

while at work, this may lead to absenteeism or a possible resignation from the

organization.

There are numerous theories of attitudes that can be linked to


behaviors in the workplace. For instance, the cognitive dissonance theory

(Festinger, trans., 2007) refers to “any incompatibility we might perceive

between two or more attitudes or between our attitudes or behavior” (Robins

and Judge, 2007). In simple terms, cognitive dissonance theory can be used

to avoid information or participate in a behavior that conflicts with one’s beliefs

and attitudes. For example, suppose you like your job and you have been in

that position for over five years. Then a new director is hired and implemented

changes that you did not agree should have occurred. Your attitude about

your job may become negative if you disagree with the changes.

In the workplace, it is important to recognize attitudes of employees

because attitudes are a component of behavioral. In OB, researchers believe

that attitudes have three main components: cognitive, affective, and behavior.

Furthermore, managers can focus on job satisfaction, job involvement and

organizational commitment to determine employees’ attitudes (Robbins and

Judges, 2007).

Causes of positive work attitudes. Research shows that people pay

attention to several aspects of their work environment, including how they are

treated, the relationship they form with colleagues and managers, and the

actual work they perform (Martinette et. al, 2006). Interestingly, some experts

have shown that job satisfaction is not purely environmental and is partially

due to personality. Some people have a disposition to be happy in life and

work regardless of environmental factors. It seems that people who have a

positive affective disposition (those who have a tendency to experience

positive moods more often than negative moods) tend to be more satisfied


with their jobs and more committed to their companies, while those who have

a negative disposition tend to be less satisfied and less committed (Connolly,

J. and Viswesvaran, C., 2006). This is not surprising, as people who are

determined to see the glass as half full will notice the good things in their work

environment, while those with the opposite character will find more things to

complain about. In addition to our affective disposition, people who have a

neurotic personality (those who are moody, temperamental, critical of

themselves and others) are less satisfied with their job, while those who are

emotionally more stable tend to be more satisfied. Other traits such as

conscientiousness, self-esteem, locus of control, and extraversion are also

related to positive work attitudes (Judge, T. et al., 2002). Either, these people

are more successful in finding jobs and companies that will make them happy

and build better relationships at work, which would increase their satisfaction

and commitment, or they simply see their environment as more positive—

whichever the case, it seems that personality is related to work attitudes.

The fit between what we bring to our work environment and the

environmental demands influences our work attitudes. Therefore, person-job

fit and person-organization fit are positively related to job performance and

commitment. When our abilities match job demands and our values match

company values we tend to be more productive in our job as we are more

committed our job as we are more committed to the company we work for

(Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P., 2011).

The presence of certain characteristics on the job seems to make

employees more satisfied and more committed. Using a variety of skills,


having autonomy at work, receiving feedback on the job, and performing a

significant task are some job characteristics that are related to satisfaction

and commitment. However, the presence of these factors is not important for

everyone. Some people have a high growth need. They expect their jobs to

help them build new skills and improve as an employee. These people tend to

be more satisfied when their jobs have these characteristics (Loher, B. et al.,

2005).

After accepting a job, people come to work with a set of expectations.

They have an understanding of their responsibilities and rights. In other

words, they have a psychological contract with the company. A psychological

contract is an unwritten understanding about what the employee will bring to

the work environment and what the company will provide in exchange. When

people do not get what productivity they expect, they experience a

psychological contract breach, which leads to low job satisfaction and

commitment. Imagine that you were told before being hired that the company

was family friendly and collegial. However, after a while, you realize that they

expect employees to work 70 hours a week, and employees are aggressive

toward each other. You are likely to experience a breach in your psychological

contract and be dissatisfied. One way of preventing such problems is for

companies to provide realistic job previews to their employees (Premack, S.

and Wanous, J., 1985).

A strong influence over our job satisfaction level is how fairly we are

treated. People pay attention to the fairness of company policies and

procedures, treatment from supervisors, and pay and other rewards they


receive from the company. When satisfied with our job we tend to have high

performance level (Cohen-Charash, Y., and Spector, P., 2011).

Two strong predictors of our happiness at work and commitment to the

company are our relationships with coworkers and managers. The people we

interact with, their degree of compassion, our level of social acceptance in our

work group, and whether we are treated with respect are all important factors

surrounding our happiness at work. Research also shows that our relationship

with our manager, how considerate the manager is, and whether we build a

trust-based relationship with our manager are critically important to our job

satisfaction and organizational commitment (Bodner, T. et al., 2007). When

our manager and upper management listen to us, care about us, and value

our opinions, we tend to feel good at work. Even small actions may show

employees that the management cares about them. For example, Hotel

Carlton in San Francisco was recently taken over by a new management

group. One of the small things the new management did created dramatic

results. In response to an employee attitude survey, they replaced the old

vacuum cleaners housekeepers were using and established a policy of

replacing them every year. This simple act of listening to employee problems

and taking action went a long way to making employees feel that the

management cares about them (Dvorak, P., 2007).

Not surprisingly, the amount of stress present in our job is related to

our satisfaction and commitment. For example, experiencing role ambiguity

(vagueness in relation to what our responsibilities are), role conflict (facing

contradictory demands at work), and organizational politics, and worrying


about the security of our job are all stressors that make people dissatisfied.

On the other hand, not all stress is bad. Some stressors actually make us

happier! For example, working under time pressure and having a high degree

of responsibility are stressful, but they can also be perceived as challenges

and tend to be related to high levels of satisfaction (Kinicki, A. et al., 2002).

Assessing work attitudes in the workplace. Given that work

attitudes may give us clues as to who will leave or stay, who will perform

better, and who will be more engaged, tracking satisfaction and commitment

levels is a helpful step for companies. If there are companywide issues that

make employees unhappy and disengaged, then these issues need to be

resolved. There are at least two systematic ways in which companies can

track work attitudes: through attitude surveys and exit interviews.

Companies such as KFC Corporation and Long John Silver’s Inc. restaurants,

the SAS Institute, Google, and others give periodic surveys to employees to

track their work attitudes. Companies can get more out of these surveys if

responses are held confidential. If employees become concerned that their

individual responses will be shared with their immediate manager, they are

less likely to respond honestly. Moreover, the success of these surveys

depends on the credibility of management in the eyes of employees. If

management periodically collects these surveys but no action comes out of

them, employees may adopt a more cynical attitude and start ignoring these

surveys, hampering the success of future efforts.

An exit interview involves a meeting with the departing employee.

This meeting is often conducted by a member of the human resource


management department. The departing employee’s manager is the worst

person to conduct the interview, because managers are often one of the

primary reasons an employee is leaving in the first place. If conducted well,

this meeting may reveal what makes employees dissatisfied at work and give

management clues about areas for improvement.

Motivational factors. Work motivation is broadly defined as a set of

energetic forces that originate both within, as well as beyond, an individual’s

being to initiate work-related behavior, and to determine its form, direction,

intensity, behavior and duration (Tremblay, Blanchard, Taylor, Pelletier and

Vileneuve, 2009). According to Tremblay et al. (2009), work motivation can be

further distinguished between intrinsic motivation, like doing an activity for its

own sake because one finds the activity inherently interesting, and extrinsic

motivation, like doing an activity for an instrumental reason.

Motivation concerns energy, direction, persistence and equifinality – all

aspects of activation and intention and has been a central and perennial

issued in the field of psychology. Given today’s economy, a motivated

workforce represents both a competitive advantage and a critical strategic

assets in any work environment (Tremblay et al., 2009). Organizational

researchers see employee motivation as a fundamental building block in the

development of effective theories. A study by Ryan and Deci (2004) argues

that social-contextual events like feedback on performance, communication

and rewards lead to feelings of competence, and can enhance intrinsic

motivation for action. Assigning complex tasks and providing optimal

challenges, developmental feedback, and freedom demeaning evaluations


have been found to enhance intrinsic motivation (Charbonneau, Barling and

Kelloway, 2004).

In addition, Yperen and Hagedon (2008) found that choices,

acknowledgement of feelings and opportunities for self-direction have been

found to enhance intrinsic motivation of people as they provide greater feeling

of autonomy.

Finally, supervisors through supportive monitoring, coaching and

monitoring, participating, empowering, information-sharing, and inspiring and

motivating behaviors can provide for their tasks, and complex and challenging

tasks thereby enhancing their intrinsic motivation.

Technical factors. Technical skills involve using specialized

knowledge and expertise in executing work-related techniques and

procedures. Examples of these skills are engineering, computer programming

and accounting. Technical skills are mostly related to working with “things”,

processes or physical objects. Other skills that employees and supervisors

should have are human skills and conceptual skills. Human skills pertains to

those that build cooperation within the team being led. Human skills also

needed to maintain harmony in the organization. Also included are conceptual

skills that involve the ability to see the organization and be able to understand

how various functions of the organization complement one another. In todays’

workforce, technical skills are really important. Technical skills enable

employees to do their jobs effectively and efficiently allowing them to

immensely contribute to their organization (Reijserger et al, 2010).


Intra/Interpersonal factors. Emotional intelligence was a phrase used

to describe qualities like understanding one’s own feelings, empathy for the

feelings of other, and the regulation of emotions in a way that enhance living.

The term was coined by Peter Salovey and John Mayer (2005), who gave

description phrase. But it was (Daniel Goleman, 2005) who devoted a decade

of behavioral research into how mind process feeling, he likewise introduced

the emotional quotient, or (EQ), a method of quantifying emotional intelligence

similar to the better-known intellectual quotient, or IQ. Goleman further

clarified that some people are blessed with both a lot of EQ and IQ.

Researchers and psychologists would like to find out how both EQ and IQ

complement each other, like how one’s ability to handle stress affects the

ability to concentrate and put intelligence to use.

EQ has two components, intrapersonal and interpersonal. Both

elements have to be enhanced because they are the most visible emotional

skills also identified as “people skills.” For supervisors and employees, they

are necessary to survive “office politics.” People skills include empathy,

graciousness and the ability to read social situations.

Intrapersonal pertains to inner-oriented ability to the person such as

self-awareness, understanding and managing feelings. Interpersonal skills

allow one to understand and relate with other people.

The most crucial ability of a person, according to Goleman (2005), is

self-awareness, since it allows us to exercise some self-control. Anger, for

instance, is one of the hardest because of its capacity to provoke the person


to act towards another person or to something. If a person is under stress, the

release of anger is lower, that’s why tempers flare up after a person has don

strenuous work, is very tired or during a hard and difficult day.

When an individual practice empathy and graciousness, even difficult

situations are easier to solve. A lot of people are able to be both intellectually

and emotionally mature, which leads them to a happy and successful life.

Some people may be the brightest and the smartest, yet they still have to

learn and improve their ability to manage their emotions to be happy and

successful (Dizon et al., 2003).

In the workplace, emotional intelligence is very important, because

every day different situation can lead to problems that sometimes

interpersonal relationships become crucial in their jobs. However, if EQ is

practiced, even the most difficult problems can be hurdled.

Job Performance

Individual performance is of high relevance for organizations and

individuals alike. Showing high performance when accomplishing tasks results

in satisfaction, feelings of self-efficacy and mastery (Bandura, 2007; Kanfer et

al., 2005). Moreover, high performing individuals get promoted, awarded and

honored. Career opportunities for individuals who perform well are much

better than those of moderate or low performing individuals (Van Scotter et

al., 2010).

Job performance as a multi-dimensional concept. The concept and

definition of individual performance has received considerable scholarly


research attention over the past 15 to 20 years. A great deal of attention has

been paid to distinction between task and contextual performance. There are

three basic differences task and contextual performance (Borman and

Motowidlo, 2007; Motowidlo et al., 2007; Motowidlo and Schmit, 2009): 1)

Contextual performance activities are comparable for almost all jobs, whereas

task performance is job specific; 2) Task performance is predicted mainly by

ability, whereas contextual performance is mainly predicted by motivation and

personality; and 3) Task performance is in-role behavior and part of the formal

job-description, whereas contextual performance is extra-role behavior and

discretionary (i.e. not enforceable), and often not rewarded by formal reward

systems or directly or indirectly considered by the management.

Task performance. Task performance covers a person’s contribution

to organizational performance, refers to actions that are part of the formal

reward system (i.e., technical core), and addresses the requirements as

specified in job descriptions (Williams and Karau, 2005). At a general level,

task performance consists of activities that transform materials into the goods

and services produced by the organization (Motowidlo et al., 2007). Thus,

task performance covers the fulfillment of the requirements that are part of the

contract between the employer and employee. Moreover, task performance in

itself can be described as a multi-dimensional construct. Campbell (2010)

proposed a hierarchical model of eight performance factors. Among these

eight factors, five refer to task performance: 1) job-specific task proficiency; 2)

non-job-specific task; 3) written and oral communication proficiency; 4)

supervision, in case of leadership position; and partly 5) management/


administration.

Each of these five factors itself consists of sub factors which are

differently important for various jobs. For example, the supervision factor

includes 1) guiding, directing, and motivating subordinates and providing

feedback, 2) maintaining good working relationships, and 3) coordinating

subordinates and others resources to get the job done (Borman and Brush,

2009).

Contextual performance. Often it is not sufficient to comply with the

formal job requirements, one needs to go beyond what is formally required

(Parker et al., 2007; Sonnentag and Frese, 2002). Contextual performance

consists of behavior that does not directly contribute to organizational

performance but supports the organizational, social and psychological

environment. Contextual performance is different from task performance as it

includes activities that are not formally part of the job description. It indirectly

contributes to an organization’s performance by facilitating task performance.

Borman and Motowidlo (2007) enumerate five categories of contextual

performance: 1) volunteering for activities beyond a person’s formal job

requirements; 2) persistence of enthusiasm and application when needed to

complete important task requirements; 3) assistance to others; 4) following

rules and prescribed procedures even when it is inconvenient; and 5) openly

defending organization objectives.

Examples of contextual performance are demonstrating extra effort,

following organizational rules and policies, helping and cooperating with


others, or alerting colleagues about work-related problems (Borman and

Motowidlo, 2007; Motowidlo et al., 2007).

Adaptive performance. Campbell et al.’s (2010) taxonomy of work

performance did not initially include adaptive performance did not initially

include adaptive performance. However, due to changing and dynamic work

environments, the need for adaptive employees has become increasingly

important (Pulakos et al., 2002; Smith et al., 2007). Numerous author refer to

adaptability using different names. Hesketh and Neal (2009) referred to

adaptive performance, Murphy and Jackson (2009) discussed role flexibility,

and London and Mone (2009) wrote about the proficiency of integrating new

learning experiences. As a result of extensive literature review and factor

analyses, Pulakos et al. (2002) presented an eight-dimensional taxonomy of

adaptive performance:1) handling emergencies or crisis situations; 2)

handling work stress; 3) solving problems creatively; 4) dealing with uncertain

and unpredictable work situations; 5) learning work tasks, technologies and

procedures; 6) demonstrating interpersonal adaptability; 7) demonstrating

cultural adaptability; and 8) demonstrating physically oriented adaptability.

These dimensions of adaptive performance were show to exist across many

different types of jobs (Pulakos et al., 2002).

Like task and contextual performance, adaptive performance also

appears to be a multidimensional construct. However, future research is

needed to specify, for example, the antecedents and consequences of

adaptive performance and the generalizability of the adaptive performance

taxonomy suggested by Pulakos (2002) and her co-workers. Given the


increased importance of adaptive performance, more empirical research is

needed.

Relationship between task, contextual and adaptive performance.

One can distinguish conceptually between task, contextual, and adaptive

performance; and task and contextual performance can be separated

empirically (Griffin et al., 2007, Motowidlo and Van Scotter, 2004).

Additionally, there is evidence that task and contextual performance are

differently important for outcome variables (Conway, 2006; Johnson, 2006). In

a meta-analysis of managerial jobs, Conway (2006) found that task and

contextual performance (job dedication, interpersonal facilitation contributed

uniquely to overall managerial performance. Moreover, Johnson (2006)

showed that raters vary the relative weight they put on different aspects of

performance speaking in favor of rater’s implicit models of performance

dimensions.

Recently, Griffin et al. (2007) presented and tested a model that aimed

at integrating major performance concepts. These authors argued that two

principle changes (i.e., increasing interdependence and uncertainty of work

systems) require an integrative model of different performance dimensions.

They defined three core performance dimensions, namely proficiency,

adaptivity, and proactivity which they classified at three levels (individual,

team and organization). Proficiency covers the fulfillment of role requirements

that can be formalized, adaptivity refers to the extent of adaptation to changes

at the workplace and proactivity describers the extent of self-directed action

necessary to adapt to changes. Griffin et al. (2007) regarded individual task


proficiency to be comparable to task performance, and adaptivity and

proactivity to be especially important in uncertain situations. Furthermore,

these different types of behavior are not considered to be mutually exclusive

but their importance should vary depending on the uncertainty of the

environment.

In sum, performance should be seen as a multidimensional construct

with the dimensions being multidimensional themselves. Moreover, each

performance dimension is related to different aspects of organizational

success (e.g., task performance helps to satisfy technical core requirements).

The ongoing rapid changes in technology (Burke and NG, 2006), mergers and

fusions (Pike, 2006), and globalization of many firms (Black, et al., 2006)

require workers to be increasingly tolerant of uncertainty (Pulakos et al.,

2002).

Measurement of performance. Given the centrality of job

performance in organizations, it becomes clear that the measurement of

individual performance should capture job performance as reliable and valid

as possible.

A variety of measures of job performance has been used over the past

decades (Campbell et al., 2010; Viswesvaran et al., 2006). For example rating

scales, tests of job knowledge, hands-on job samples, and archival records

have been used to asses job performance (Campbell et al., 2010). From

these measurement options, performance ratings (e.g. peer ratings and

supervisor ratings) are the most frequent way of measuring job performance


(Viswesvaran et al., 2006). Often ‘objective’ criteria such as sales figures and

production records are requested. However, even these criteria involve

subjective judgments of which specific type of criteria pictures performance

(Campbell, 2010) and are, like other performance measures, not perfect.

Several studies have focused on the degree of convergence across

various sources of performance ratings (Conway and Huffcutt, 2007; Harris

and Schaubroeck, 2008; Mabe and West, 2002; Viswesvaran et al., 2006).

Using meta-analysis, Viswesvaran et al., (2006) compared the reliability of

supervisor ratings and peer ratings. They concluded that supervisory ratings

showed higher interrater reliability than peer ratings. Another meta-analytic

review (Harris and Schaubroeck, 2008) revealed that self and supervisor

ratings correlated moderately (r = 0.35) as did self and peer ratings (r = 0.36),

whereas correlations between peer and supervisory ratings were higher (r =

0.62). Comparing the reliability of peer and supervisor ratings, findings yield

higher correlations of different supervisors ratings assessing the same

individual compared to different peer ratings evaluating the same individual

(Conway and Huffcutt, 2007; Mount et al., 2008).

Woehr et al. (2005) investigated the impact of the performance

dimension (e.g., technical knowledge, integrity, and leadership) and rating

source (i.e., peer, self, and supervisor) as well as the degree of measurement

equivalence across sources. Results suggest that the impact of underlying

performance dimension is comparable across different rating sources. Woehr

et al (2005) also found that, in terms of a multi-trait multi-method approach,

trait effects (source) were larger than method (source) effects. Thus, Woehr et


al. (2005) concluded that ratings from different sources are to some extent

comparable. However, there is no perfect convergence of ratings across

sources and at present it is not clear if this is attributable to systematic or

random error components.

Literature examining the effect of contextual performance on

managerial evaluations (Conway, 2009; Van Scotter and Motowidlo, 2004;

Werner, 1994) suggests that manager ratings should aside from evaluations

of task performance, incorporate ratings of contextual performance and that

the effects of contextual performance on organizational performance and

success are at least as great as those of task performance (Podsakoff et al.,

2006).

As it is not always possible to assess multiple performance dimensions

in practice, it is valuable to know if there is one general factor in ratings of job

performance. Viswesvaran et al. (2006) addressed this question using a

meta-analytic framework, and their results suggest that there is one large

general factor. This finding implies that the practice of generating a composite

measure of various performance dimensions seems to be justifiable as long

as it is theoretical satisfying.

Predictors of interindividual differences in job performance. Both

theoretically and practically, it is critical to identify predictors of job

performance. Most generally, one can differentiate between person-specific

and situation-specific predictor variables. Person-specific variables are

individuals, but are expected to be rather stable within individuals. Situation-


specific variables characterize the work situation or the organizational

context, but no the individual person. Person-specific variable. Individuals

differ considerably in job performance of the highest performer exceeds the

lowest performers between two to four times, whereas in jobs with high

difficulty, highest performers may exceed the lowest performers by even a

greater ratio (Campbell et al., 2010). What predicts these differences? Most

research on person-specific predictors of job performance focused on

abilities, knowledge, experience, and no cognitive traits.

Cognitive abilities. Ability to refer to the power or capacity to act

financially, legally, mentally, physically, or in some other way’ (Ree et al.,

2005). Cognitive ability refers to qualifications or capacity with respect to

mental tasks. Substantive research efforts have been undertaken to examine

whether general mental ability (GMA), also referred to as ‘g’ (Spearman,

2004), is related to job performance. Meta-analyses show that GMA is a

strong predictor of job performance. For example, in comprehensive meta-

analysis based on data from 425 studies (N=32,124) Hunter and Hunter

(2004) reported a corrected mean correlation of 0.51 (corrected for range

restriction and criterion unreliability) between measures of GMA and job

performance, a finding replicated from data in the US and Canada (for

summaries, see Salgado et al., 2003; Schmidt and Hunter, 2004). More

recent meta-analyses based on UK and other European samples reported

corrected mean correlations between GMA and job performance of 0.48

(Bertua et al. 2005) and (Salgado et al., 2003) suggesting that the association

between GMA and job performance is culturally invariant, at least within


Western cultures. Additional analyses based on meta-analytic data showed

that the correlations between GMA and job performance differ across job

types. Generally, the correlations are higher for more complex jobs; but also

for less complex jobs GMA remains substantially related to job performance.

Studies examining the association between more specific abilities also

found substantive correlations between these abilities and indicators of job

performance. For example, Bertua et al. (2005) reported corrected correlation

between verbal, numerical, perceptual, and special abilities on the one hand

and job performance on the other hand of 0.39, 0.42, 0.50, 0.35 respectively.

Thus, these specific abilities were nearly as strong predictors of job

performance as is GMA.

An important question in these research areas whether specific

cognitive abilities contribute to the prediction of job performance beyond the

predictive power of GMA. Based on data from 1,036 enlistees from the US Air

Force working in seven different jobs, Ree et al. (2005) concluded that

specific abilities added significantly to the prediction of job performance, but

that this incremental contribution was small in practical terms (Olea and Ree,

2005). Ree et al. (2005) conclusion that, in the prediction of job performance,

there is ‘not much more than g’ was and still heavily debated in the field of

personnel selection and beyond (Brown et al., 2006; Reeve, 2004; Sternberg

and Wagner, 2003). For example, at least in some types of jobs, social skills

add to the prediction of job performance (Ferris et al., 2004).

Most meta-analyses examining the association between cognitive


abilities and job performance did not differentiate between various types of job

performance, leaving the question of whether cognitive abilities are uniformly

related to all types of job performance largely unanswered. Motowidlo et al.

(2007) have argued that cognitive ability is mainly related to task performance

by impacting on task habits, task skills, and task knowledge. According to

these authors, the relationship between cognitive ability and contextual

performance should be weaker because cognitive ability should be weaker

because cognitive ability should be only related to contextual knowledge, but

not to contextual habits or contextual skills.

Empirical research largely supports this assumption. In most studies,

the associations between cognitive ability and organizational citizenship

behavior or related contextual performance constructs were weak mostly non-

significant (Chan and Schmitt, 2004; Van Scotter and Motowidlo, 2007; for

contrary findings, see Allworth and Hesketh, (2006); Motowidlo and

VanScotter, (2007).

With respect to more proactive types of contextual performance,

research evidence remains inconclusive. Whereas Fay and Frese (2004)

reported a positive relationship between cognitive ability and personal

initiative, Le Pine and Van Dyne (2001) showed that cognitive ability was not

related to voice behavior as one specific aspect of proactive behavior. Clearly

more studies are needed that also take the type of job into account.

Research evidence remains scarce regarding the relationship between

cognitive ability and adaptive performance. The few studies that did examine


the association between cognitive ability and adaptive performance, however,

largely converge in their findings, inasmuch as cognitive ability was found to

be positively related to adaptive performance (Allworth and Hesketh, 2006; Le

Pine, 2003; Pulakos et al., 2002).

Thus, there is convincing empirical evidence that cognitive abilities,

particularly GMA, are substantially related to overall job performance in

general, and to task performance in particular. Cognitive abilities do not seem

to be a strong and consistent predictor of contextual performance, but they

are associated with adaptive performance.

Knowledge. Campbell et al.’s performance model (2010) proposed

declarative and procedural knowledge as core performance determinants.

Meta-analytic (i.e., declarative knowledge) is related to job performance. For

example, Hunter and Hunter (2004) reported average correlations between

job content knowledge tests and performance resulted in an effect size

(corrected for the effects of sampling error, range restriction and criterion

unreliability) of 0.45. Moderator analysis indicated that the relationship was

higher for more complex jobs (Dye et al., 2003).

Studies assessing more procedural aspects of knowledge reported that

the correlations between tacit knowledge and job performance ranged

between 0.20 and 0.40 (Sternberg, 2007). A meta-analysis that used

situational judgment found a mean estimated population correlation of 0.34

between these knowledge measures and job performance (McDaniel et al.,

2005).


Generally, it is argued that job knowledge mediates between individual

dispositions (e.g., cognitive ability and personality) and job performance.

Using path-analysis, Schmidt et al. (2006) demonstrated that job knowledge

mediates the relationship between general mental ability job performance,

suggesting that individuals high on cognitive ability are more successful in

acquiring job-relevant knowledge that in turn helps them to accomplish their

work tasks.

Chan and Schmitt (2004) examined the relationship between

situational judgment test measures and various aspects of job performance.

In a study based on data from 160 civil service employees the authors found

that the situational judgment test score predicted task performance (job

dedication, interpersonal facilitation). Interestingly, situational judgment test

predicted task and contextual performance beyond cognitive abilities,

personality factors, and job experience (for a similar finding see also

Clevenger et al., 2004).

Knowledge might not only be related to task performance but also to

proactive performance. For example, Fay and Frese (2004) have argued that

knowledge helps in showing proactive behavior. Parker et al. (2007)

conceptualized the subjective importance of production knowledge as one

core facet of a flexible work orientation (i.e., an individual’s propensity to show

proactive performance). In addition, research has shown that knowledge can

also be beneficial for adaptive performance (Chen et al., 2005).

Taken together, there is a convincing evidence that knowledge is


related to various aspects of job performance. However knowledge may not

only affect performance, but specific facets of performance may help in

increasing knowledge (Seibert et al., 2004).

Experience. Job experience is also relevant for performance. Hunter

and Hunter (2004) reported a mean corrected correlation between job

experience and job performance of 0.18 (corrected for measurement error in

job performance ratings). Another meta-analysis (McDaniel et al., 2005)

reported a higher estimate of the population estimate and further indicated

that the relationship between job experience and job performance decreases

with age. A more recent meta-analysis resulting in an overall effect size of

0.13 suggests the relationship between job experience and performance

might be also contingent on job complexity and type of performance

measurement (Sturman, 2003).

Another meta-analysis on the relationship between experience and job

performance differentiated between diverse performance measures (soft vs.

hard), measurement mode (amount, i.e. number of times having performed a

particular task experience; Quiñones et al., 2005), with an overall mean

estimated population correlation, of 0.27. Correlations were higher for hard as

opposed to soft performance measures, for amount of experience compared

to time and type, and for task experience, compared to job or organizational

experience. This meta-analytic finding suggests that experience is a complex

construct and the time aspect of job experience might not most relevant for

job performance.


To advance knowledge on the role of experience, Tesluk and Jacobs

(2008) suggested a comprehensive model that includes qualitative aspects of

experience, particularly type of experience including variety, challenge and

complexity. Also, research on managerial learning suggests that specific

experiences and individuals’ reactions to these experiences might matter

more for subsequent quantitative indicators of experience (McCauley et al.,

2004).

Meta-analytic findings on the role of experience mostly refer to task

performance or overall job performance. Research evidence on the

relationship between job experience and contextual performance is relatively

scarce, and mostly yields weak correlations between job experience and

contextual performance, particularly OCB-related indicators (Chan and

Schmitt, 2004; Motowidlo, 2007). With respect to adaptive performance,

research showed a weak positive correlation between experience with change

and this performance aspect (Allworth and Hesketh, 2006).

Thus, quantitative aspects of job experience show weak to moderate

associations with task performance, and rather low correlations with

contextual and adaptive performance. Moderator variables probably play a

substantial role in the relationship between job experiences and performance.

Non-cognitive predictors. In addition to cognitive factors (e.g.,

general mental ability and knowledge) and experience, non-cognitive traits

have also received considerable research attention as potential person-

specific research attention as potential person-specific predictors of job


performance. These non-cognitive traits include personality factors such as

proposed by the Five Factor Model (Digman, 2005; McCrea and Costa, 2005),

more narrow traits (Dudley et al., 2006), the proactive personality concept

(Crant, 2005), and core self-evaluations (Judge and Bono, 2005).

The Five Factor Model differentiates five distinct dimensions of

personality:1) emotional stability; 2) extraversion; 3) openness to experience;

4) agreeableness; and 6) conscientiousness. Individuals high on emotional

stability (i.e., low neuroticism) are characterized by low negative affectivity

and tend to respond with less subjective distress to negative events than do

individuals low on emotional stability. Extraversion refers to individuals’

propensity to experience positive affect and to be sociable, assertive, and

energized by social interactions. Openness to experience characterizes an

individual’s tendency to be creative, flexible, imaginative and willing to take

risks. Agreeableness describes individuals who are kind, gentle, likable,

cooperative, and considerate. Conscientiousness refers to an individual’s

degree of being orderly, self-disciplined, achievement-oriented, reliable and

perseverant.

An early meta-analysis on the relationship between these Big Five

personality factors and job performance (based on 162 samples from 117

studies) showed generally low correlations between personality factors and

performance measures. Specifically, the estimated true correlations were 0.08

for emotional stability, 0.13 for extraversion, 0.04 for openness to

experiences, 0.07 for agreeableness and between 0.22 for conscientiousness

(Barrick and Mount, 2004).


Kanfer and Kantrowitz (2002) summarized the findings from 11 meta-

analytic studies published between 1990 and 2000 that addressed the

relationship between personality and job performance. The estimated true-

score correlations between personality and overall job performance ranged

between 0.08 and 0.22 for emotional stability, 0.09 and 0.16 for extraversion, -

0.03 and 0.27 for openness to experience, -0.01 and 0.33 for agreeableness

and 0.12 and 0.31 for conscientiousness.

When differentiating between diverse aspects of job performance, the

pattern of overall findings picture does not change substantially. Meta-

analyses of the Five Factor Model of personality and OCB resulted in

estimated true correlations ranging between 0.23 and 0.30 for

conscientiousness (Dalal, 2005; Organ and Ryan, 2005) and between

agreeableness and OCB it was 0.12 (Organ and Ryan, 2005).

It has been suggested that proactive performance is predicted by a

specific personality concept, namely proactive personality (Crant, 2005). Not

surprisingly, proactive personality predicts performance (Parker et al., 2007,

Thompson, 2005). More interestingly, proactive personality was also

significantly related to task performance (Crant, 2005; Thompson, 2005). In

addition, there is some evidence that personality predicts adaptive

performance (Pulakos et al., 2002; but see also Griffin and Hesketh, 2003,

2004).

Broad personality traits such as global conscientiousness might not be

the best predictors of job performance (Dudley et al., 2006). Meta-analysis

showed that more narrow personality traits (achievement, dependability,


order, and cautiousness) contribute to the prediction of performance criteria

with the largest increase of more than 25 percent of the variance for job

dedication and much smaller increases for other performance and task

performance (Dudley et al., 2006).

One personality-related framework that received increasing research

attention during the past decade refers to individuals’ core self-evaluations.

Judge et al. (2012) characterized core self-evaluations as ‘fundamental,

subconscious conclusions individuals reach about themselves, other people,

and the world’ (Judge et al., 2012: 18; cf. also Judge et al., 2012). Core self-

evaluations comprise an individual’s self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy,

locus of control, and emotional stability. Meta-analytic evidence suggests that

these core self-evaluations are related to job performance (Judge and Bono,

2005). More specifically, self-esteem showed a corrected correlation of 0.26

with job performance. For generalized self-efficacy, locus of control and

emotional stability the corrected correlations were 0.23, 0.22, and 0.19

respectively.

Thus, empirical data show that personality is related to job performance.

However, overall the effect sizes are relatively small, particularly in

comparison to cognitive ability predictors.

Intraindividual change and variability in performance. Most

research discussed in earlier sections of this chapter adopted a between-

person perspective on performance, assuming that individual performance is

rather stable – at least as no learning occurs. However, researchers have

long recognized that performance is not a stable construct and that within-


individual performance variability is large (e.g.,Ghiselli and Haire, 2003).

During the past 10 to 20 years, questions regarding within-person

performance variability and change received increased research attention - a

trend that may be, at least partially – attributed to the increased availability of

statistical methods and software programs that allow for analyzing within-

person variability change. Research in intraindividual change and variability of

performance phenomenon is important and interesting for a number of

reasons. First, it promises a more thorough understanding of the performance

phenomenon itself. Second, it examines if performance predictors such as

cognitive ability are uniformly relevant and powerful across various levels of

job experience. Third, it points to additional, more transient predictors of

performance that cannot be captured when approaching performance only

from an individual difference or a job design perspective.

Research on intra-individual variability and change of performance

addressed a number of issues. A basic issue is whether individual

performance itself is stable over time (Henry and Hulin, 2007). Empirical

evidence suggests that individual performance does not only change

contingent on job tenure (McDaniel et al., 2005) and – to a small extent –

ageing processes (Waldman and Avolio, 2006), but also that individuals’ rank

order with respect to performance changes over time (Hanges et al., 2005;

Hofmann et al., 2007): The best performers at a given point in time might not

be the best performers five or ten years later.

A related line of research aims at describing the patterns of change, and

identifying predictors of intraindividual change over time. In other words, the


core question is which variables account for increases (or decreases) in

performance of other individuals working under similar conditions.

Interindividual differences relevant for skill acquisition are one core reason for

intraindividual change over time (Ackerman, 2007; Fleishman, 2002).

Murphy (2007) suggested that cognitive abilities and other dispositional

variables are not uniformly important at all levels of job tenure. Murphy

differentiated between a transition stage (e.g., times when an employee is

new to a job or when major aspects of the job change) and a maintenance

stage (i.e., times when an employee has well learned his or her major tasks).

During the transition stage, when new skills must be learned, cognitive

abilities are important for performing well, whereas during maintenance stage,

cognitive abilities will not play a major role for job performance anymore, and

personality and motivational factors become more important. Using meta-

analyses, Keil and Cortina (2001) showed that the relationship between

cognitive ability and job performance decreases over time spent on a task,

supporting the proposition that cognitive ability loses its predictive validity as

experience increases (Ackerman, 2007; Murphy, 2007).

Several studies focusing primarily on sales personnel (for an exception,

see Zickar and Slaughter, 2006) showed that there is substantial

interindividual difference in interindividual change in performance over time

(Hofmann et al., 2007). A few studies tried to identify predictors of

intraindividual change. For example, Ployhard and Hakel (2004) found that

initial performance levels and person-specific predictor variables were related

to increases in performance over a two-year period: Individuals with higher


performance in the first year tended to increase their sales performance more

quickly. Similarly, persuasion and empathy (self-report measures of others’

perceptions) were positively related to the increase in performance increase.

Zickar and Slaughter’s (2004) study on film directors revealed that those who

directed more films per year showed a higher increase in performance (as

rated by external film critics) over time, and also demonstrated performance

trajectories that were more strongly accelerating. In a study with

pharmaceutical sales representative, Thoresen et al. (2004) differentiated

between employees working on a maintenance stage and those working on a

maintenance stage and those working on a transitional stage. In the

maintenance stage, personality factors were not related to changes in

performance overtime. In the transition stage, sales representatives high on

agreeableness and low on emotional stability were more likely to increase

their performance over time. One explanation for this finding is that individuals

low on emotional stability will be more concerned in a transitional situation,

and therefore might invest more effort that will lead to better performance.

As a whole, empirical research demonstrated that individuals differ in

their performance trajectories, with some individuals increasing their

performance at a faster rate than others. With respect to predictors of

intraindividual changes, recent studies are promising. However, compared to

the vast amount of studies on person-specific and situation-specific predictors

of interindividual differences in performance, research evidence on predictors

of intra-individual change in performance remains limited and not yet well-

integrated. Clearly, more studies are needed that include a broader range of


predictors and that systematically address cognitive, non-cognitive,

experience-related and situational variables and their relative importance. In

addition, it appears to be helpful to differentiate between maintenance and

transition stages as predictors of performance change probably differ between

these stages.

Most studies on intraindividual change in performance summarized so

far refer to changes over longer periods of time (mostly months or years – for

an exception se Deadrick et al., 2007). However, performance may also vary

within shorter periods of time. For example, Stewart and Nandkeolyar (2006)

demonstrated substantial weekly performance variation in a sample of sales

representatives. Thus, it is not only important to identify variables that predict

performance change over longer times, it is also interesting to address

performance variability within shorter time frames. Beal et al. (2005) recently

offered a theoretical approach to intraindividual performance variability that

addresses within-person fluctuations of performance within relatively short

period of time (e.g., over the course of a working day). They presented a

model of episodic performance to describe how immediate affective

experiences are linked to within-person variations of performance. They

defined performance episodes as “behavioral segments that are thematically

organized around organizationally relevant goals and objectives”. This model

suggests that performance within each performance episode is influenced by

a person’s general resource level (e.g., cognitive ability, task-relevant skills)

and the momentary allocation of resources. Beal et al. argued that

performance within an episode is impeded when the person does not succeed


in allocating all resources to the primary work task and when attention is

diverted by off-task demands. The authors assumed that affective

experiences-along with distractions and interruptions that cause specific

affective states – are a core source of attentional demands that interfere with

the attentional demands of the primary work tasks. A recent empirical study

related to this model provided promising results (Beal et al., 2005).

Taken together, the literature summarized in this section suggest that

individual performance is not necessarily stable overtime. We anticipate that

with the advance of available software that can analyze change, more

research will be conducted addressing performance variability to change

overtime.

Attitude Toward Works and Employee’s Job Performance

The attitude-performance problem has drawn extensive research from

all fields of behavioral science over the past 70 years (Luu, 2011). Arguments

that support an attitude towards work cause performance usually refer to the

functions of attitudes as guidelines and facilitators of behavior (e.g. Fishbein

and Ajzen, 2004; Eagly and Chaiken, 2003; or Judge et al., 2005) or refer to

the functions of attitudes as the motivational effects of the personal

importance or identification with the job or organization (e.g., as a component

or a consequence of the commitment; as a component or a consequence of

the commitment; see Meyer et al., 2004). In line with the previous opinion

(Wei and Chu, 2008), performed a survey about the relationship between

attitude towards work and job performance in the financial service industry

and they found that work attitude has a positive effect on job performance.


Better work attitude leads to better job performance.

Although there is a great deal of variety in the conceptual and research

literature reviewed in this study, it is possible to distill the following key points:

Attitudes towards work are evaluations of one’s job that express

one’s feelings towards beliefs about, and attachment to one’s job.

There are some elements which influence attitudes toward works,

namely: personality person-environment, job characteristics,

psychological contract, organizational justice, work relationship,

and stress.

Organizations need highly performing individuals in order to meet

their goals, to deliver the products and services, and to achieve

competitive advantage.

There are attitudes to get employees ahead in the workplace.

Performance is a multi-dimensional concept. On the most basic

level, it is distinguished between task performance and conceptual

performance.

There are a number of factors that may be affecting employees’

work performance

A high level of job satisfaction means a high level of positive

attitude towards a high level of performance in the workplace.


CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the research design and procedures used in this

study. The discussion centers on the research method used, population and

sample, research instrument, data gathering procedures, and statistical

treatment of data.

Research Method Used

The study made use of the causal-comparative and correlation designs

of descriptive research method to determine differences in attitude towards

work and work performance of the administrative employees by profile and to

examine the relationship between these two variables. The causal-

comparative design was used to determine differences by gender, job

classification/designation, and number of years in the service. The correlation

design was also used to examine whether the variables correlate or vary

together. For determine relationships between variables, the administrative

employees’ attitudes towards work and their work performance were

correlated.

Population and Sample

The researchers did not use a sampling scheme to select the

respondents to this since they intended to involve all the regular

administrative employees (97) during calendar year 2012. However, only 90


or 92.78 percent returned the Work Attitude Scale questionnaire. This group

constituted the participants to the study. As shown by the percentage, the

sample was truly representative of the population.

Research Instruments

The study made use of one standardized and one validated

instruments. The Work Attitude Scale, a standardized instrument, was used

to measure the administrative, employees’ attitudes towards their current work

situations. The measure was divided into four dimensions, namely:

administrative factors, intra-interpersonal factors, motivational factors, and

technical factors. The Instrument was developed using Likert Scale, which

was a five-point scaling instrument that measures the extent to which a factor

is appropriate to the respondent. Each item went from a low applicability (Not

Applicable) up to high applicability (Very much applicable).

The RTU Performance System for Administrative Employees was a

validated instrument used to measure the performance of administrative

employees in terms of committed work or activities and critical factors

pertaining to courtesy, human relations, and punctuality and attendance.

Performance was assessed twice a year. Work/Activity was credited with 70%

while critical factors got 30% for a total of 100%.

Informal interviews and the 2012 RTU Annual Report were relied upon

to complement the data collected through the main instruments of the study.

Data Gathering Procedures


Through a letter, a permission was sought from the Office of the Vice

President for Development and Administration for the administration of the

Work Attitude Scale and the use of existing data on the work performance of

administrative employees (regular). The permission was granted and,

consequently, the questionnaire was personally distributed to the participants

by the researchers themselves. Efforts to assist the respondents on how to

respond to the items of the questionnaires were made, resulting into 92.78

retrieval percentage. The work performance ratings of the participants were

then taken from the Human Resource development Office (HRDO), covering

the periods January to June and June to December of Calendar Year 2012.

The results were then classified, tabulated, and readied for statistical

treatment.

The following five-level Likert scale was used to interpret the data that

were gathered from the instrument:

Scale Values Ranges Verbal Interpretation

5 4.51 – 5.00 Always Applicable (AA) or Very

Highly Positive

4 3.50 – 4.50 Often Applicable (OFA) or Highly Positive

3 2.51 – 3.49 Occasionally Applicable (OCA) or Positive

2 1.50 – 2.50 Seldom Applicable (SA) or Lowly Positive


1 1.00 – 1.49 Never Applicable (NA) or Not Positive

Statistical Treatment of Data

Data gathered were statistically treated with the use of the following

formulas:

1. Percentage (Best and Kahn, 1998). This was used in Problem 1 in

order to describe the demographic profile of the respondents according to

gender, job classification/designation, and number of years in the service.

The formula for percentage:

% = f/N x 100

Where:

% is the percentage

f is the frequency

N is the total number of items

2. Weighted Mean (Cassens, 1987). This was used to answer

Problem number 2 and Problem number 3 in order to find out the attitude level

of administrative employees toward work and their work performance ratings.

The weighted mean is computed as

X=Σ XifiN

Where:

X = mean

Xi= midpoint

fi= frequency

N = number of cases


Σ = sum of

3. Pearson Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation (Levin and

Fox, 2006) was used to determine the relationship between attitude towards

work, and work performance of the administrative employees.

The Pearson Product Moment Product Moment Coefficient of

Correlation represented by small letter r, is determined by using the formula:

r=N Σxy−ΣxΣy√¿¿¿

Where:

r = the Pearson Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation

n = sample size

Σxy = the sum of the product of x and y

ΣxΣy= the product of the sum of Σxand the sum of Σy

Σ x2 = sum of the squares of x

Σ y2 = sum of the squares of y

4. One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) (Levin and Fox, 2006).

This was used to determine the differences between in the attitudes towards

work and work performance of administrative employees by their

demographic profile (gender, job classification/designation, number of years in

the service).

The table below shows the two-way analysis of variance table.

Table 1


One-Way Analysis of Variance Table

Source of Variation df SS MS

F-Value

Computed Tabular

Between Groups K - 1 BSS

BSSdf

MSBMSW

=F

See the table at .05 w/ df between and within group

Within Group (N – 1) – (K – 1) WSS

WSSdf

Total N - 1 TSS

Where:

TSS . = total sum of squares minus the CF or Correlation factor

N . = number of individuals in each group

K . = number of groups or treatment

BSS . = between sum of square minus the CF or correlation

factor

WSS = within sum of squares or the difference between the

TSS minus the BSS


CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents, analyzes, and interprets the data collected for

the study. The discussion of results follows the sequence of the research

questions enumerated in Chapter I.

1. Demographic Profile of the Administrative Employees

1.1 Gender

Table 2 shows the distribution of administrative employees by gender.

Table 2

Distribution of Respondents by Gender

Gender Frequency Percentage RankMale 49 54.44 1

Female 41 45.56 2Total 90 100.00

It is apparent from the data that majority of the administrative employee

respondents represented the male group as revealed by the frequency of

49.00 or 54.44 percent. The female group was represented by 41 or 45.56

percent administrative employees.

1.2 Job Classification/Designation

Table 3 illustrates the distribution of respondents according to their job

classification/designation.


Table 3

Distribution of Respondents by Job Classification/Designation

Level Frequency Percentage Rank

Level 1 25 27.78 2Level 2 38 42.22 1Level 3 14 15.56 3Level 4 13 14.44 4Total 90 100.00

The data reveal that most of the administrative employee respondents

belonged to level 2 as indicated by the frequency of 38 or 42.22 percent.

Ranked 2 in terms of size was level 1 with 25 or 27.78 percent. Claiming rank

3 was level 3 with 14 or 15.56 percent. Level 4 showed the smallest sample at

13 or 14.44 percent.

1.3 Number of Years in the Service

Table 4 shows the distribution of respondents grouped according to

length of service. A closer look of the data shows that a good number of

employee respondents had been in the service for 21-25 years as indicated

by the frequency of 23 or a percentage of 25.56. Respondents with 26-30

years followed closely in terms of size at 22 or 24.44 percent. Ranking Third

was the group of respondents with 6-10 years with a frequency of 13 or 14.44

percent. Fourth was the group with 11-10 years of service with 10 or 11.11

percent. Those with length of service brackets of 5 years and below, 31-35

years, 16-20 years, and 36 years and above followed in the same order at


Table 4

Distribution of Respondents by Length of Service

Length ofService (in years) Frequency Percentage Rank

36 & above 1 1.11 831 - 35 7 7.78 626 - 30 22 24.44 221 – 25 23 25.56 116 – 20 6 6.67 711 – 15 10 11.11 46 – 10 13 14.44 3

5 & below 8 8.89 5Total 90 100.00

eight or 8.89 percent, seven or 7.78 percent, six or 6.67, and one or 1.11

percent respectively.

The demographic profile reveals that the participants to the study are

dominated by the male administrative employees, those with level 2 and level

1 positions, and those with 21 to 30 years in the service. This means that

many of the administrative employee respondents hold the positions of

administrative assistant 3, administrative aide 3 to 6, nurse 1, accountant 1,

security guard 2, administrative assistant aide 2, or administrative aide 1 and

2. These positions are categorized as Level 1 or Level 2. The results also

indicate that many of the respondents have had longer experiences in the

service which could be taken as plus factor as they bring with them wealth of

knowledge and skills in the performance of their jobs which have been

accumulated or developed through longer years of experience in the service.


2. The Attitudes of Administrative Employees Towards Work

The succeeding tables show the weighted means and verbal

interpretations of the attitudes of administrative employees towards work by

factors:

2.1 Administrative Factors

Table 5 presents the weighted means obtained in the attitudes of the

administrative employee respondents towards work in terms of administrative

factors.

Table 5

Weighted Means in Administrative Factor Attitudes Towards Work

Category Weighted Mean

Verbal Interpretation

Working Condition1. The working conditions I am exposed to allow me to perform my duties optimally.

3.82 Often Applicable

2. The working conditions I work in ensure my safety and well-being 4.31 Often Applicable

Company Policies & Administration1. Company policies are well thought, fair & not generally punitive.


2. The Administrative staff of the company takes good care of its employees through its programs & policies. 4.06 Often Applicable

Workload1. I find the workload that I get at work to be sufficient or appropriate.


2. My workload is enough to challenge me but not overwhelm me. 3.74 Often Applicable

Job flexibility versus standardization1. I find that my work allows for enough flexibility for it to be interesting to me.


2. My tasks are varied and deviations are found to be reasonable. 3.12 Occasionally

ApplicableRelationship with my Boss

1. I feel mutual respect from my Boss in his/her dealings with me.


2. My Boss is open to discuss work-related things with me. 4.26 Often Applicable

Relationship with my subordinates1. Subordinates that I have regard me with the respect.


2. I enjoy a good and solid work relationship with my subordinates. 4.37 Often Applicable

Overall 3.99 Often Applicable


An examination of the Table reveals that all items under the categories

of working condition, company policies and administration, workload,

relationship with my Boss, and relationship with my subordinates exhibited

mean scores (3.54 to 4.37) interpreted as often applicable to the

administrative factor attitudes of administrative employee respondents

towards work. It was only in job flexibility and standardization category that

the respondents exhibited occasional applicability in terms of task variation

and reasonability to task deviations. Overall, the administrative employee

respondents expressed themselves to have high positive attitudes towards

work in terms of administrative factors as shown by the overall weighted mean

of 3.99. This mean was interpreted as often applicable.

The results indicate that the working conditions at RTU, as seen by the

administrative employees, allow employees to perform their duties optimally

and ensure safety and well-being among them. The policies are well thought,

fair and not punitive and administrative staff take good care of employees

through programs and policies. The employees often find their workload to be

sufficient or appropriate. The workload is enough to challenge but not to

overwhelm the employee. The jobs the employees perform often allow

enough flexibility for the jobs to be interesting to them and the tasks are varied

and deviations are reasonable. There is a feeling of mutual respect between

the Boss and subordinates and discussion of work-related things with the

Boss is open. The subordinates respect the Boss and a good and solid work

relationship between them exists. In a nutshell, the administrative employee

respondents often have high positive attitudes towards work in terms of


administrative factors.


people. Attitudes affect behaviors. Managers would need to pay close

attention to the attitudes of their workers. For instance, if worker has a positive

attitude while at work the worker will perform better on the job. On the other

hand, if a worker constantly experiences having a negative attitude while at

work, this may lead to poor performance, absenteeism, or a possible

resignation from the organization (http:/www.ukessays.com/essays

/management/work.attitudes.php, 2011). People want to be around those who

make them feel better about themselves. Employees with positive

administrative factors attitudes tend to be more productive employees

because they always see the accompanying opportunity with every challenge.

Research shows that only eight percent of the things we worry about are work

being concerned about. People with positive work attitudes know this,

therefore they do not waste time worrying, and they expend their energies on

more positive activities (Right Management, 2012).

People with positive work attitudes are better able to cope with

stressful situations at work; capable of inspiring and motivating self and

others; capable of turning every challenge into an opportunity; and can garner

more respect from others (Reijseger, et al., 2006).

2.2 Intra-Interpersonal Factors

The weighted means obtained in the intra-interpersonal factor attitudes

towards work by the administrative employee respondents are shown in Table

6. A closer look of the data in Table 6 shows that the administrative employee


Table 6

Weighted Means in Intra-Interpersonal Factor Attitudes Towards Work



Job satisfaction1. My job gives me satisfaction. 3.58

Often Applicable

2. I am satisfied with the way I perform my job.4.67

Always Applicable

Achieving Targets1. I am capable of setting and achieving targets set for me.

4.58 Often

2. The targets that I offer myself, or one set for me are achievable.

4.47 Often

Responsibility1. The responsibility that I get is commensurate with the tasks assigned to me.

4.31 Occasionally

2. The work that I do requires a responsibility that I willingly accept.

4.54 Occasionally

Recognition1. I feel happy with the recognition that I get from my peers & supervisors.

3.41 Occasionally

2. The work that I do receive the appropriate recognition.

3.09 Occasionally

Organizational justice & the psychological contract1. I find that my Boss & the Administration is fair with me.

4.14 Often

2. Even without talking, I know my Boss is behind me.

4.34 Often

Relationship at work1. I find the people at work supportive and friendly. 4.15 Often2. My co-workers allow for a very work-conducive atmosphere.

4.02 Often

Personal life outside work1. My work allows me enough time to socialize & spend time with loved ones after work.

2.63 Occasionally

2. My work does not interfere with my personal life. 3.18 OccasionallyRelationship with peers

1. I am capable of initiating & maintaining professional & personal bonds with any co-workers/peers.

4.06 Often

2. My work allows for me to establish meaningful & productive ties with my co-worker/peers.

3.96 Often

Overall 3.96 Often


respondents had their intra-interpersonal factor attitudes described as always

or often applicable in the items of job satisfaction (3.85 and 4.67), achieving

targets (4.58 and 4.57), responsibility (4.31 and 4.54), organizational justice

psychological contact (4.14 and 4.34), relationship at work (4.15 and 4.02),

and relationship with peers (4.06 and 3.96). These weighted means indicated

high positive intra-interpersonal factor attitudes towards work. The

respondents’ intra-interpersonal attitudes that were described occasionally

applicable were seen in the items of recognition (3.41 and 3.09) and personal

life outside work (2.63 and 3.18). While these attitudes were verbally

described as occasionally applicable, the work attitudes were still

considered as positive. Overall, the intra-interpersonal factor attitudes of the

administrative employee respondents fell within the description of often

applicable (highly positive) as indicated by the weighted mean of 3.96.

The foregoing discussion suggests that the administrative employee

respondents are highly satisfied with their job. They are very capable of

achieving the targets set for them. The targets set by or for them are

achievable. They willingly accept the responsibility required of them and feel

that the responsibilities that they get are commensurate to the tasks assigned

to them. They believe that their Boss and the administration are behind them

and fair with them. They find the people at work highly supportive and friendly

and that their co-workers allow for a very conducive atmosphere. They feel

that they are highly capable of initiating and maintaining profession and

personal hands with their personal life and that workplace allows them to


establish meaningful and productive ties with their co-workers or peers.

Occasionally, they are happy with the recognition that they get from their

peers and supervisors and the time that they spend for their loved ones.

Occasionally, they too are happy that their work does not interfere much in

their personal life. Overall, the administrative employee respondents have

highly positive intra-interpersonal factors attitudes towards work.

It is assumed that job satisfaction, achieving targets, responsibility,

recognition, organizational justice and psychological contract, relationship at

work, personal life outside work and relationship with peers are work attitude

factors that may enhance work performance of individuals. The attitude-

performance problem has drawn extensive research from all fields of

behavioral sciences over the past 70 years. Arguments that support an

attitude towards work cause performance usually refer to the functions of

attitude as guidelines and facilitators of behaviors (Fisbein and Ajzen, 2004).

Wei and Chu (2008) performed a survey about the relationship between intra-

interpersonal factor attitudes towards work and job performance in the

financial service industry and they found that work attitude has a positive

effect on job performance. Better work attitude leads to better work

performance.

2.3 Motivational Factors

Table 7 presents the weighted means obtained in the motivational

factor attitudes of the administrative employee respondents. The motivational

factor attitudes towards work of the administrative employee respondents


Table 7

Weighted Means in Motivational Factor Attitudes Towards Work



Job security1. My company has had a good track record for retaining people who do well in the company and terminating those who deserve it.

3.91 Often

2. I am assured from what I know and see, and also from what my superiors have told me of job security.

4.28 Often

Advancement1. My job allows for the career advancement of its employees.

3.83 Often

2. The career path that I have in the company seems to lead me towards a promising future.

3.24 Occasionally

3. The company has had a good history of promoting well-deserving employeesat least once a year.

3.52 Often

Salary1. The salary I receive is commensurate with my workload and job characteristics.

3.02 Occasionally

2. My salary in the company is very rewarding and is actually quite competitive in my field.

2.63 Occasionally

Status-effective supervision1. My Boss attends and supervises us as well as oversees the outputs we produce.

3.65 Often

2. My supervisor oversees all operations and tasks that we do to ensure quality through assistance or instruction.

3.77 Often

Stress1. The stress at work is enough to keep me motivated to finish each task.

4.05 Often

2. Stress at work does not rob me of energy every day. 3.25 Occasionally

Overall 3.56 Often

were found to be highly positive in the items of job security (3.91 and 4.28),

advancement (3.83 and 3.52, status effective supervision, (3.65 and 3.7) and


stress (4.05). Positive attitudes (occasional) were registered in salary (3.02

and 2.63), advancement (item 2-3.24) and stress (item 2-3.25). Overall, the

respondents’ motivational factor attitudes toward work was described as often

applicable as shown by the overall weighted mean of 3.56. The results show

that the administrative employee respondents have positive or highly positive

motivational factor attitudes towards work.

The results indicate the presence of positive motivational factor

attitudes towards work among administrative employees of RTU. The

University has had a good track record for retaining people who do well in

the agency and terminating those who deserve it; administrative employees

are assured of job security; jobs allow for career advancement of employees

and career paths that lead towards promising future; the University has had

good history of promoting well-deserving employees; salaries received are

commensurate with workloads and job characteristics; salaries are rewarding

and competitive; and Boss supervises personal and output produced;

supervisors oversee all operations and task; and stress at work is enough to

keep employees motivated to finish task; and stress at work does not rob

employees of energy every day. Overall, the administrative employees have

positive or highly positive motivational factor attitudes towards work.

According to Robbins and Judges (2007), values do not have direct

impact on behavior. However, attitudes have a very strong effect on the way a

person feels about something, how a person conducts, and how a person

perceives. Michaelson (2005) researched on Work Motivation Theory which

suggests that values motivate individuals to work for a company. This theory


seeks to align values with organization performance and satisfaction. Many

studies show a strong relationship between employees attitudes and morale

and workplace productivity. It just makes sense that people will work harder,

faster, and better when they are happy and positively motivated. Job security,

advancement, salary status-effective supervision, and stress motivation

factors are areas where pleasant management can create the kind of

relationships that promote appreciation of employees. (Browne and Medial,

2013).

2.4 Technical Factors

The weighted means obtained by the administrative employee

respondents in the technical factor attitudes towards work are shown in Table

8.

Table 8

Weighted Means in Technical Factor Attitudes Towards Work



Job characteristics1. I am accepting of all facets related to my job.

4.29 Often

2. I have a positive attitude towards each (characteristic/part) of my job.

4.68 Always

Job challenge1. My work presents me with enough challenge to keep me innovative & interested.

4.41 Often

2. I like to challenge myself to outdo myself whenever I get new job at my table.

4.51 Always

3. I tend to find challenge in the daily tasks that I do or whenever I get new jobs at work.

4.32 Often

Overall 4.44 Often


It is apparent from the data that the administrative employee

respondents registered positive or highly positive technical factor attitudes

towards work as revealed by their obtained weighted means in job

characteristics (4.29 and 4.68) and job challenge (4.41, 4.51, and 4.32). The

means of 4.29, 4.32, and 4.41 were verbally interpreted as often applicable

while the means of 4.51 and 4.68 were described as always applicable. The

overall weighted mean of 4.44 was verbally interpreted as often applicable.

The results show that the administrative employees accept all facets

related to their jobs and have positive or highly positive attitude toward each

characteristics or part of the job. Works present them with enough challenges

to keep them innovative and interested; they like to challenge themselves to

outdo themselves whenever they get new jobs; and they like to find

challenges in their daily tasks or in new jobs.

There are many attitudes in the workplace that can help the employees

get ahead at work. They have to be enthusiastic about work as this will allow

them to attach their tasks with energy. Being enthusiastic and energetic are

attitudes in the workplace that can get the employees ahead. They should

strive to be the most efficient workers. When employees are effective, they

are producing the intended results. When they are efficient, they do the jobs

with the least waste of time and effort. This means they are capable and

efficient. If they carry with them the attitude in the workplace of constantly

striving to be the most efficient worker, then they will sooner or later get ahead

in the careers. The employees should not be contented with good. They

should go for great. They should strive for excellence in everything they do.


When they strive for excellence in everything they do, that will get them ahead

(Long, 2013).

3. Work Performance of Administrative Employees

Table 9 reflects the work performance ratings of the administrative

employees during calendar year 2012.

Table 9

Work Performance Ratings of Administrative Employees

Factors Mean Percentage Ratings

Overall Rating


Work/Activity 4.87 70.0 3.4094.77 Outstanding

Critical Factors

4.55 30.0 1.365

The Table covers the results of two rating periods. It is evident from the

results that the administrative employees of RTU were rated outstanding in

their work performance for the two rating periods during calendar year 2012,

January to June 2012 and July-December 2012. They obtained a mean of

4.87 in work/activity factor and a mean of 4.55 in critical factors. The overall

mean was registered at 4.77. These ratings were verbally interpreted as

outstanding. The results suggest that the administrative employees

performed outstandingly in all the functions and activities they were tasked to

perform. They, too, were outstanding in critical factors such as courtesy,

human relations, and punctuality and attendance. It could be surmised from


the results that the administrative employees of RTU must have been very

much satisfied with their jobs. Job satisfaction does impact performance

through job involvement, but higher performance also makes people feel more

satisfied and committed. Attitudes such as satisfaction and involvement are

important to employees to have high levels of performance. Job satisfaction,

involvement, work attitudes are associated and interrelated and together lead

to higher performance and consequently realization of organizational

objectives. (Velnampy, et al., 2006).

Research demonstrated that performance is a dynamic construct and

that performance fluctuates within individuals and changes over time. Job

performance of an employee is concerned with two aspects. First, employee

should perform his/her job in such a manner that it leads to achievement of

desirable ends. Second he/she should use organizational resources efficiently

by avoiding or minimizing the waste in performing the job activities. Amos and

Ristow (2004) studied that effective management of job performance is critical

if the goals and objectives of the organization were to be achieved.

Organization is in existence to succeed and the achievement of the strategy

through individual output places the attention directly on performance.

4. Differences in the Attitudes Towards Work of Administrative Employees by the Following Profile:

4.1 Gender

Table 10 exhibits the F-value obtained in the work attitudes of the

administrative employees when grouped by their gender.


Table 10

ANOVA of the Work Attitudes Grouped by Gender

Sources of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit

Between Groups 0.42 1 0.42 1.61 0.21 3.95

Within Groups 22.76 88 0.26

Total 23.18 89

As revealed in Table 10, the statistical results of the means in terms of

the attitudes of the administrative employees grouped by gender gave the

computed F-value of 1.61 which was less than the critical F-value of 3.95 for 1

and 88 degrees of freedom at Alpha 0.05 level of significance. The data imply

that the attitudes of the administrative employees do not significantly differ in

terms of the categories measured. Therefore, the hypothesis stated in

Chapter 1 was disconfirmed. The results proved that there was no significant

difference between the male and female employees in terms of their attitudes

towards work.


The Table 11 presents the ANOVA of the administrative employees’

work attitudes grouped according to job classification or designation. The data

presented in Table 11 shows that the attitudes of the administrative

employees do not significantly differ in terms of their job

classification/designation since the statistical analysis gave the computed F-

value of 0.51 which was less than the critical F-value of 2.71 for the 3 and 86

degrees of freedom at Alpha 0.05 level of significance. The findings rejected

the declarative hypothesis that there is a significance difference in the


Table 11

ANOVA of the Work Attitudes Grouped by Job Classification/Designation


Between Groups 0.41 3 1.14 0.51 0.68 2.71


Total 23.48 89

attitudes of administrative employees when compared according to their job

classification/designation.

4.3 Number of Years in Service

Table 12 exhibits the Analysis of Variance of work attitudes of

administrative employees when compared according their number years in

the service.

Table 12

ANOVA of the Work Attitudes Grouped by Number of Years in Service


Between Groups 1.18 7 0.17 0.63 0.73 2.12


Total 22.95 89

As shown in Table 12, the F-value of 0.63 was less than the critical F-

value of 2.12 for 7 and 82 degrees of freedom, hence, not significant at Alpha


0.05. It implies that the attitudes of administrative employees do not

significantly differ in terms of the categories measured. The statistical data

rejected the declarative hypothesis that there is a significant difference in the

attitudes of administrative employees when compared according to their

number of years in the service.

The results indicate that gender, job classification/designation, and

number of years in the service do not have positive influence over the

administrative employees’ attitudes towards work. Regardless of gender, job

classification/designation, and number of years in the service, the

administrative employees manifest similar attitudes towards work in terms of

administrative factors, intra-interpersonal factors, motivational factors, and

technical factors. As to administrative factors, positive or highly positive

attitudes are shown by them in terms of work conditions, company policies

and administration, workload, job flexibility versus standardization, and

relationship with Boss. In intra-interpersonal factors, positive or highly

positive, attitudes are manifested by them in job satisfaction, achieving

targets, responsibility, recognition, organizational justice and psychological

contract, relationship at work, personal life outside work, and relationship with

peers. Same attitudes are shown in motivational factors that include job

security, advancement, salary, status effective supervision, and stress. As to

technical factors, the employees have positive or highly positive attitudes

towards job characteristics and job challenge.

The above results confirm the results of the studies conducted by

Sharma and Bajpai (2011) and Adeloka (2012). These studies concluded that


gender, educational attainment, years of experience in the service, position

level, and age group do not have any bearing on work attitudes of employees.

5. Differences in Work Performance of Administrative Employees

5.1 Gender

Table 13 shows the statistical results of the means in terms of the

performance of administrative employees by gender.

Table 13

ANOVA of the Work Performance by Gender


Between Groups 0.00 1 0.00 0.01 0.91 3.95


Total 2.38 89

It is apparent from the data that no significant difference was found in

the work performance of the administrative employee respondents when

compared by their gender as the obtained F-value of 0.01 was lower than the

critical F-value of 3.95 for 1 and 88 degrees of freedom at Alpha .05 level of

significance. The results indicate that the gender of administrative employees

does not influence work performance. This means that the data failed to

support the hypothesis that “there is a significant difference in the work

performance of the administrative employees when compared according to

their gender.”



The ANOVA of the work performance of administrative employee

respondents by job classification/designation is reported in Table 14.

Table 14

ANOVA of the Work Performance by Job Classification/Designation


Between Groups 0.08 3 0.03 0.87 0.46 2.71


Total 2.63 89

As revealed, the F-computed value of 0.87 was less than the critical F-

value of 2.71 for 3 and 86 degrees of freedom at Alpha 0.05 level of

significance. This F- value was not significant. It is implied that the

performance of the administrative employees do not significantly differ in

terms of the categories measured. The result rejected the declarative

hypothesis “that there is a significant difference in the work performance of

the administrative employees when compared according to their job

classification/designation.”

5.3 Number of Years in the Service

Table 15 shows the statistical results of the means in terms of the

performance of the administrative employees grouped by the number of years

that the respondents are in service. The data show that the computed F-value


of 0.89 was lower than the critical F-value of 2.12 with 0.05 level of

Table 15

ANOVA of the Work Performance by Number of Years in Service


Between Groups 0.19 7 0.03 0.89 0.52 2.12


Total 2.64 89

significance and 7 and 82 degrees of freedom. This means that the tabulated

F-value was not significant. The result rejected the declarative hypothesis

“that there is a significant difference in the work performance of the

administrative employees when compared according to their number of years

in the service.”

The foregoing discussions indicate that gender, job

classification/designation, and number of years in the service do not affect

work performance of administrative employees. This means that the

administrative employees, regardless of their gender, job

classification/designation, and number of years in the service, manifest similar

level of work performance. Generally, they are outstanding in their work in

terms of performance of functions, responsibilities and work activities. They,

too, are outstanding in terms of courtesy, human relations, and punctuality

and attendance. Their accomplishments are twenty-five percent and beyond

the tasks they have committed. The results could only mean that the

organizational climate at RTU is somewhat excellent as it provides work


conditions that allow employees to perform their jobs optimally. Employee

attitudes in terms of administrative, intra-interpersonal, motivational, and

technical factors are all positive or highly positive and this help build the

pathways towards better performance. Better performance is grounded from

the work attitudes of employees (Borman, 2009).

6. Relationship Between Attitudes Towards Work and Work Performance of Administrative Employees

Table 16 exhibits the Pearson r tabular and computed values for the

relationship between attitudes towards work and work performance of

administrative employees.

Table 16

r Tabular and Computed Values for Attitudes Towards Work Versus Work Performance

df r valuetabular computed

88 0.178 0.180

The table shows that the computed r value of 0.180 was found to be

higher than the tabular value of 0.178 under 88 degrees of freedom. This

computed value was significant at Alpha .05 level. The result failed to reject

the declarative hypothesis that “there is a significant relationship between the

attitudes towards work and work performance of the administrative

employees.”


The findings indicate that the attitudes towards work and work

performance of administrative employees positively correlate with each other.

This means that work attitudes of employees are important to achieve the

individual and organizational objectives through performances. Attitudes

contribute to increase the performance of employees which is proven by

various studies. Judge et al. (2007) refer to the function attitudes as the

energizing and facilitative effects of positive attitudes in the workplace. Staw

et al. (2004) refer to the functions of attitudes towards work as the

motivational effects of the personal importance identification with the job or

organization. The study of Ahmad et al. (2010) saw the existence of

significant positive relationship between attitudes towards work and job

performance of employees in educational institutions.

7. Proposed Action Plan for Positive Work Attitudes and Better Work Performance

Employers expect personnel to behave in a manner consistent with

organization’s mission and goals. By establishing standards for work,

administrators set expectations about acceptable behavior. A positive attitude

towards maintaining high standards for work ethics usually creates a

productive environment in which people takes pride in the work. The following

can be done to address attitudes in the workplace:

Respect and Communication

By demanding that all employees value each other's opinions, treat

customers with dignity and recognize cultural diversity, companies ensure that

employees show respect in the workplace. If employees have negative


attitude toward other employees because they come from a different culture,

productivity tends to decrease. By promoting activities that help teams work

together better, such as workshops with team-building exercises designed to

improve communication, solve problems and make decisions efficiently,

companies help their employees improve productivity.

Cooperation and Teamwork

Effective managers foster cooperation and collaboration by involving

subordinates in decision-making meetings. By developing skills in conflict

management, these managers help minimize disruptions in productivity.

Leading by example, effective managers maintain a high level of integrity and

communicate honestly and openly to their subordinates. Team members who

trust their superiors and feel valued tend to have higher job satisfaction and a

positive attitude toward their job. This typically leads to higher productivity,

reduced operational costs and improved customer satisfaction.

Appearance and Character

Employees who demonstrate a positive attitude toward their job

typically respect company rules and follow the company’s dress code, obey

safety procedures, adhere to ethical standards and exercise self-discipline at

all times. Organizational policies regarding work ethics typically require

employees to consider how their behavior would look if reported in the news.

If an employee would be uncomfortable being judged poorly by the public for

his actions, he should not take an action that would condemn him. Immoral


and unethical behavior causes distractions that reduce productivity and

disrupts the work environment for everyone.

Attendance and Organization

By arriving on time and leaving at the scheduled time, effective

employees usually produce the work they were hired to complete. Repeated

unexplained absences or missed appointments reduce productivity, which

tends to affect the rest of the organization. By displaying a positive attitude

toward work, employees get work done in timely manner and ensure

customer satisfaction. Organizations that deal with misconduct in a consistent

manner and prevent retaliation against employees who report bad behavior

ensure high ethical standards that lead to employee trust, respect and

productivity.

The employees can do many things to improve their performance at

work. How successful they are at work is determined largely by their attitudes.

Here are suggested ways to improve employees performance at work:

1. Learn how to manage your priorities. To improve performance

at work you must have the ability to set priorities and to separate

the relevant from the irrelevant when facing the many tasks of the

day. You must also possess a sense of urgency, the ability to get

the job done fast.


Many managers have confirmed this to be the truth. They

place an extraordinarily high value on a person who can set

priorities and move quickly to get the job done. Speed and

dependability in job completion is one of the most valued traits in

the workforce. When your employer can hand you a job and then

walk away and not worry about it again, you will have moved

yourself onto the fast track. Your subsequent promotion and

increased pay are virtually guaranteed.

2. Develop a positive mental attitude. Another way you can improve

your performance at work is to develop a positive mental attitude.

People like to be around and to promote employees they like.

Everybody quickly notices a consistent, persistent attitude of

cheerfulness and optimism. When you make an effort to cultivate an

attitude of friendliness toward people, they will make extraordinary

efforts to open doors for you.

3. Improve your skills, seek knowledge. Improve performance at

work by continually upgrading your work-related skills and making

sure that your superiors know about it. Seek out additional

courses you can take to improve yourself at your job and discuss

these courses with your boss. Ask him or her to pay for the courses

if you pass, but make it clear that you are going to take them

anyway.


Ask your boss what books and audio programs you should

read and listen to. Whatever he or she recommends, take his or her

advice immediately. Then report back and ask for more. You will be

amazed at how quickly this strategy brings you to the attention of

the person who can most help you at each stage of your career.

Bosses are very impressed with people who are constantly

striving to learn more in order to increase their value to their

companies. Upgrading your knowledge and skills as a part of your

life can really accelerate your career.

4. The importance of personality at work. Probably 85 percent of

your success in the world of work will come from your personality

and your ability to communicate effectively with others. It will be

determined by how much people like you and respect you.

You can greatly improve how other people perceive you by

continually looking for ways to boost their self-esteem throughout

the workday. A little genuine praise and appreciation, on a regular

basis, will cause people to like you and want to help you. A likeable

person is often perceived as being better at what they do than a

person with a negative personality. When you are with your

superiors, make it a practice to listen with respect, attentiveness

and interest.


The more you honestly and sincerely listen to another

person, the more that other person will like and trust you and want

to give you additional help and responsibilities. All leaders are

excellent listeners. It is a key method of influence. If you want to get

people on your side, practice asking interested questions and then

listening intently to the answers.


CHAPTER V

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study aimed to examine the relationship between attitudes

towards work and work performance of administrative employees at the Rizal

Technological University, covering calendar year 2012. Specifically the study

sought to answer research questions pertaining to; 1) Demographic profile of

the administrative employees according to their gender, job

classification/designation, and number of years in the service; 2) Attitudes

towards work of administrative employees in terms of administrative, intra-

interpersonal, motivational, and technical factors; 3) Work performance of

administrative employees in terms of work/activity, critical factors, and overall

ratings; 4) Differences in attitudes towards work of administrative employees

by their demographic profile; 5) Differences in the work performance of

administrative employees by their demographic profile; 6) Relationship

between attitudes towards work and work performance of administrative

employees; and 7) Proposed Action Plan based on research results. The

study tested the hypotheses that: 1) Significant differences exist in the

attitudes towards work of administrative employees when compared

according to their gender, job classification/designation, and number of years

in the service; 2) Significant differences exist in the work performance of the

administrative employees when compared according to their gender, job

classification designation, and number of years in the service; 3) Significant


relationship exists between attitudes towards work and work performance of


The study made use of the causal-comparative and correlation designs

of descriptive research. Data were collected from 90 administrative

employees of the Rizal Technological University which represented 92.78

percent of the 97 administrative employees during calendar year 2012. Data

were collected from this group through the Work Attitude Scale ( ) a

standardized instrument, and Performance Appraisal System for

Administrative Employees (RTU), a validated instrument, for appraisal of work

performance.

The data collected were classified, tabulated, and quantitatively

analyzed with the use of percentage, weighted mean, One-way Analysis of

Variance (ANOVA), and Pearson Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation.

Summary of Findings

Based on the data collected, the findings of the study are summarized

as follows:

1. Demographic Profile of the Administrative Employee Respondents

Majority or most of the administrative employee respondents were

male (49 or 54.44%), holders of level 2 positions (38 or 42.22%), and with 21

to 30 years of experience in the service (45 or 50.0%).

2. Attitudes of Administrative Employees Towards Work

2.1 The administrative employees registered weighted mean scores


(3.74 to 4.37) interpreted as often applicable in almost all items of the

categories under administrative factor attitudes (work condition,

company policies and administration, workload, job flexibility versus

standardization, relationship with Boss, and relationship with my

subordinates. The overall weighted mean of 3.99 was interpreted as often

applicable.

2.2 The administrative employees obtained weighted mean scores

(3.85 to 4.47) interpreted as often applicable in many of the items under

the categories of intra-interpersonal factor attitudes (job satisfaction,

achieving targets, responsibility, organizational justice and psychological

contract, relationship at work and relationship with peers. The overall

weighted mean of 3.96 was interpreted as often applicable.

2.3 The administrative employees reflected weighted mean scores

(3.65 to 4.28) interpreted as often applicable in many of the category

items under motivational factor attitudes (job security, advancement,

salary, status-effective supervision, and stress). The overall mean of 3.56

was described as often applicable.

2.4 The administrative employees revealed weighted mean scores

interpreted as often applicable (4.32 to 4.41) and always applicable

(4.51 and 4.68) in the category items of technical factor attitudes (job

characteristics and job challenge. The overall mean of 4.44 was described

as often applicable.


3. Work Performance of Administrative Employees

The administrative employees were rated as outstanding in

work/activity factors (4.87) and critical factors (4.55). Consequently, their

overall work performance rating of 4.77 was described as outstanding.

4. Differences in the Attitudes Towards Work of Administrative Employees by their Demographic Profile

The obtained F-values of 1.61 by gender, 0.51 by job

classification/designation, and 0.63 by number of years in the attitudes

towards work of the administrative employees were not significant at

Alpha .05 as they were lower than the F critical values of 3.95, 2.71, and 2.12

respectively. The result rejected the declarative hypothesis on existence of

significant differences in attitudes towards work.

5. Differences in the Work Performance of Administrative Employees by

their Demographic Profile

The obtained F-values of .01 by gender, 0.87 by job

classification/designation, and 0.89 by number of years in the service in the

work performance of administrative employees were not significant at

Alpha .05 as they were lower than the F critical values of 3.95, 2.71, and 2.12

respectively. The result rejected the hypothesis on existence of differences in

work performance.


6. Relationship Between Attitudes Towards Work and Work Performance of Administrative Employees

The Pearson r value of 0.180 in attitudes towards work and work

performance of administrative employees was higher than the tabular value of

0.178 under the degree of freedom of 88, hence, significant at Alpha .05 level.

The result failed to reject the declarative hypothesis on existence of significant

positive relationship between attitudes towards work and work performance of


7. The proposed Action Plan was based from the findings of the study. It

emphasized how positive attitudes create productive environment for better

work performance.

Conclusions

Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were

drawn:

1. The administrative employees of RTU are predominantly male,

holders of administrative level 2 positions, and relatively old in the service.

2. The administrative employees are positive or highly positive in their

attitudes towards work in terms of administrative, intra-interpersonal,

motivational, and technical factors.

3. The administrative employees excel in their jobs as they are

outstanding in their work performance.

4. The administrative employees profess positive or highly positive

attitudes in their work regardless of their gender, job


classification/designation, and number of years in the service.

5. The administrative employees manifest outstanding performance

regardless of their gender, job classification/designation, and number of years

in the service.

6. The attitudes towards work of administrative employees have

significant positive relationship with their work performance.

7. The proposed Action Plan can help develop positive work attitude

and improve work performance.

Recommendations

Based on the findings and conclusions of the study, the following are

recommended:

1. It is recommended that organizations whose characteristics are similar to

those of the subject of the present investigation may use the findings of this

study to justify their efforts in designing appropriate programs or projects that

can improve work attitudes of employees which can lead to improving

employee performance, which, in turn, can lead to organizational productivity

and development.

2. There is a need to better understand the interplay between the person

and the situation and the various internal and external factors that influence

employee attitudes. In particular, a better understanding of the role of work

attitudes, as well as broader environmental impacts, is needed to provide an

in-depth understanding of the effects of employee attitudes on work

performance.


3. Motivating employees is a great challenge for management. Employee

motivation improves employee attitude. Some techniques can be used by an

organization to motivate employees: 1) Identify what motivates employees; 2)

Identify and address barriers to employee motivation; 3) develop an employee

motivation program; 4) add motivation to employees’ training; and 5)

Implement programs for motivating employees.

4. It is recommended that high priority be given to maintenance of high

positive attitudes towards work in the organization. When people have more

positive work attitudes, they have the inclination to perform better, display

citizenship behaviors, and less likely to be absent from work or to quit their

jobs within a short period of time. When workplace attitudes are more positive,

organizations benefit in the form of higher safety and better service, as well

as higher company performance.

5. It is recommended that the Action Plan be implemented by the school

respondent or adopted by other groups as the plan may help them develop

the work ethics or attitudes that could enhance productivity and do things that

could improve employee work performance.

6. Future research can work on the following research problems:

6.1 Effects of Work Attitudes Toward Works, Organizational, and Job

Satisfaction.

6.2 How to Better Employee Work Attitude and Performance

6.3 A Model of the Relation Between Work Engagement and Job

Performance.

6.4 Motivating Employees Toward Positive Work Attitudes.

6.5 Effects of Organizational Culture on Work Performance.


REFERENCES

Books

Bandura, A. (2007) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.

Black, J. 5., et al. (2006) 'Toward a comprehensive model of international adjustment: An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives', Academy of Management Review.

Borman, W and Motowidlo, S (2007) Expanding the Criterion Domain to Include Elements of Contextual Performance, in N. Schmitt and W. Borman (eds), Personnel Selection in Organizations New York: Jossey-Bass.

Campbell, J. P. (2010) Modeling the Performance Prediction Problem in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, in M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough (eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press. Vol. 1.

Campbell, J. P. et al. (2010) A theory of performance, in C. W. Schmitt and W. C. A. Borman (eds), Personnel Selection in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Conway, J. M. and Huffcutt, A. I. (2007) Psychometric properties of multisource performance ratings: A meta-analysis of subordinate, supervisor, peer, and self-ratings, Human Performance.

Eagly, A. H., and Chaiken, S. (2003) The Psychology of Attitudes, Fort Worth, TX, Harcourt Brace: Jovanovich.

Fay, D. and Frese, M. (2001) The concepts of personal initiative (PI): An overview of validity studies, Human Performance.

Festinger, L (2007) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Harper and Row, New York.

Hesketh, B. and Neal, A. (2009) Technology and Performance, in D. R. ligen and E. D. Pulakos (eds), The Changing Nature of Performance: Implications for Staffing, Motivation, and Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Judge, T. A, Locke, E. A. and Durham, C. C. (1997) 'The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach', Research in Organizational Behavior.


Kanfer, R. and Ackerman, P. L. (2005) Work competence: A Person-Oriented Perspective, in A. J. Elliot and C. S. Dweck (eds), Handbook of Competence and Motivation. Guilford Publications.

Kanfer, R. and Kantrowitz, T. M. (2002) Ability and Non-Ability Predictors of Performance, in S. Sonnentag (ed.), Psychological Management of Individual Performance. Chichester: Wiley.

Lawler E. and Porter E. (2005).The Ultimate Advantage :Creating the High Involvement Organization, San Francisco; Jossey Basis.

London, M. and Mone, E. M. (2009) 'Continuous Learning', in D. R. ligen and E. D. Pulakos (eds), The Changing Nature of Performance: Implications for Staffing, Motivation, and Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Luu, H. (2011) The Relationship between Employee Attitudes and Organizational Performance: Evidence from Cooperative Retail Stores, Honors Thesis, Colgate University.

Motowidlo, S. J. and Schmit, M. J. (2009) 'Performance Assessment in Unique Jobs', in D. R. ligen and E. D. Pulakos (eds), The Changing Nature of Job Performance: Implications for Staffing, Motivation and Development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Murphy, P. R. and Jackson, S. E. (2009) 'Managing Work Role Performance. Challenging the Twenty-First Century Organizations and Their Employees', in D. R. ligen and E. D. Pulakos (eds), The Changing Nature of Performance: Implications for Staffing, Motivations, and Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pike, C. (2006) 'Mergers and acquisitions: Managing culture and human resources', Personnel Psychology.

Podsakoff, P. M., et al. (2006) 'Relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and subordinate attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors: A meta-analytic review of existing and new research', Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

Harris, M. M. and Schaubroeck, J. (2008) I A meta-analysisof self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings', Personnel Psychology.

Smith, E. M., et al. (2007) 'Building Adaptive Expertise: Implications for Training Design Strategies', in Training for a Rapidly Changing Workplace: Applications of Psychological Research. Washington, D.e.: American Psychological Association.


Sonnentag, S. and Frese, M. (2002) 'Performance concepts and performance theory', in S. Sonnentag (ed.), Psychological Management of Individual Performance. Chichester: Wiley

Sternberg, R. J. (2007) 'Tacit knowledge and job success', in N. Anderson and P. Herriot (eds), International Handbook of Selection and Assessment. London: Wiley.

Velnampy, T. (2006) Satisfaction and organizational commitment on the impact of performance, 10th annual international symposium; Growth and challenges for 21st century.

Journals, Magazines, and News Papers

Adeloka, B. (2012) The Impact of Organizational Commitment on Job Satisfaction: A Study of Employees at Nigerian Universities, International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 2(2): 1-17.

Ackerman, P. L. (2007) 'Individual differences in skill learning: An integration of psychometric and information processing perspectives', Psychological Bulletin.

Ahmad, H., Ahmad, K., and Syah, I. A. (2010) Relationship between Job Satisfaction, Job Performance Attitude towards Work and Organizational Commitment, European Journal of Social Sciences, 18: 257-267.

Allworth, E. and Hesketh, B. (2006) Construct-oriented bio data: Capturing change-related and contextual relevant future performance, International Journal of Selection and Assessment.

Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology.

Barrick, M. R. and Mount, M. K. (2004) 'The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis', Personnel Psychology.

Bertua et al. (2005) The predictive validity of cognitive ability tests: A UK meta-analysis, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology.


Beal, D. J., et al. (2006) 'Episodic processes in emotional labor: Perceptions of affective delivery and regulation strategies', Journal of Applied Psychology.

Borman, W and Brush, D (2003) More progress toward a taxonomy of managerial performance requirements, Human Performance.

Brown, K. G. et al. (2006) Specific aptitude theory revisited: Is there incremental validity for training performance?, International Journal of Selection and Assessment.

Burke, R. J. and Ng, E. (2006) The changing nature of work and organizations: Implications for human resource management, Human Resource Management Review.

Chan, D. and Schmitt, N. (2004) Situational judgment and job performance, Human Performance.

Chen, G., Thomas, B. and Wallace, J. C. (2005) 'A multilevel examination of the relationships among training outcomes, mediating regulatory processes, and adaptive performance', Journal of Applied Psychology.

Clevenger, J., Pereira, G. M. and Wiechmann, D. (2001) Incremental validity of situational judgment tests, Journal of Applied Psychology

Conway, J. M. (2006) 'Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance for managerial jobs, Journal of Applied Psychology.

Dalal, R. S. (2005) 'A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior', Journal of Applied Psychology.

Deadrick, D. L., Bennett, N. and Russell, C. J. (1997) 'Using hierarchical linear modelling to examine dynamic performance criteria over time', Journal of Management.

Digman, J. M. (2005) 'Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model', Annual Review of Psychology.

Dudley, N. M., et al. (2006) 'A meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: Examining the intercorrelations and the incremental validity of narrow traits', Journal of Applied Psychology.

Dye, A. D., Reck, M. and McDaniel, M. A (2003) The validity of job knowledge measures, International Journal of Selection and Assessment


Ferris, G. R. et al. (2004) 'Interaction of social skill and general mental ability on job performance and salary', Journal of Applied Psychology.

Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. (2004) Attitudes towards Objects as Predictors of Single and Multiple Behavioral Criteria, Psychological Review.

Fleishman, E. A. (2002) 'On the relation between abilities, learning, and human performance', American Psychologist.

Ghiselli, E. E. and Haire, M. (2003) 'The validation of selection tests in the light of the dynamic character of criteria', Personnel Psychology.

Griffin, M. A., Neal, A and Parker, S. K. (2007) A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts, Academy of Management Journal.

Griffin, B. and Hesketh, B. (2003) Adaptable behaviors for successful work and career adjustment Australian Journal of Psychology.

Griffin, B. and Hesketh, B. (2004) 'Why openness to experience is not a good predictor of job performance', International Journal of Selection and Assessment.

Hanges, P. J., Schneider, B. and Niles, K. (2005) 'Stability of performance: An interadionist perspective, Journal of Applied Psychology.

Henry, R. A. and Hulin, C. L. (2007) 'Stability of skilled performance across time: Some generalizations and limitations on utilities', Journal of Applied Psychology.

Hofmann, D. A., et al. (2003) 'Dynamic criteria and the measurement of change', Journal of Applied Psychology.

Hunter, J. E. and Hunter, R. F. (1984) 'Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance', Psychological Bulletin.

Johnson, J. W. (2006) 'The relative importance of task and contextual performance dimensions to supervisor judgments of overall performance', Journal of Applied Psychology.

Judge, T. A and Bono, J. E. (2005) 'Relationship of core self-evaluation 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.

Judge, T. A., et al. (2012) 'Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations', Journal of Applied Psychology.


Keil, C. T. and Cortina, J. M. (2001) 'Degradation of validity over time: A test and extension of Ackerman's model', Psychological Bulletin.

LePine, J. A. (2003) 'Team adaptation and post change performance: Effects of team composition in terms of members' cognitive ability and personality', Journal of Applied Psychology.

LePine, J. A. and Van Dyne, L. (2001) 'Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with big five personality characteristics and cognitive ability', Journal of Applied Psychology.

Mabe, P. A. and West, S. G. (2002) 'Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis', Journal of Applied Psychology.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., and Topolnytsky, L. (2004) Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the Organization: A Meta-analysis of Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61: 20–52.

McCauley, C. D., et al. (2004) 'Assessing the developmental components of managerial jobs', Journal of Applied Psychology.

McCrae, R. R. and Costa, P. T. Jr. (2005) 'The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins's circumflex and the five-factor model', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

McDaniel, M. A., Schmidt, F. L. and Hunter, J. E. (2005) 'Job experience correlates of job performance', Journal of Applied Psychology.

Motowidlo, S. J. and Van Scotter, J. R. (2007) 'Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance', Journal of Applied Psychology.

Motowidlo, S. J., et al. (2007) 'A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance', Human Performance.

Murphy, K. R. (2007) 'Is the relationship between cognitive ability and job performance stable over time?', Human Performance.

Olea, M. M. and Ree, M. 1. (2005) 'Predicting pilot and navigator criteria: Not much more than g', Journal of Applied Psychology.

Organ, D. W. and Ryan, K. (2005) 'A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior', Personnel Psychology.


Parker, S. K., et al. (2007), "That's not my job": Developing flexible employee work orientations', Academy of Management Journal.

Ployhard, R. E. and Hakel, M. D. (2004) 'The substantive nature of performance variability: Predicting interindividual differences in intraindividual performance', Personnel Psychology.

Pulakos, E. D., et al. (2002) 'Predicting adaptive performance: Further tests of a model of adaptability', Human Performance.

Quinones, M. A., et al. (2005) 'The relationship between work experience and job performance: A conceptual and meta-analytic review', Personnel Psychology.

Ree, M. J., Earles, J. A. and Teachout, M. 5. (2005) 'Predicting job performance: Not much more than g', Journal of Applied Psychology.

Reeve, C. L. (2004) 'Differential ability antecedents of general and specific dimensions of declarative knowledge', Intelligence.

Salgado, J. F., et al. (2003) 'A meta-analytic study of general mental ability validity for different occupations in the European community', Journal of Applied Psychology.

Schmidt, F. L. and Hunter, J. (2004) 'General mental ability in the work of work: Occupational attainment and job performance', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Schmidt, F. L., et al. (2006) 'Impact of job experience and ability on job knowledge, work sample performance, and supervisory ratings of job performance', Journal of Applied Psychology.

Sharma, J. P., and Bajpai, N. (2011) Organizational Commitment and Its Impact on Job Satisfaction of Employees: A Comparative Study in Public and Private Sector in India, International Bulletin of Business Administration, 9: 7-19.

Spearman, C. (2004) 'General intelligence, objectively determined and measured', American Journal of Psychology.

Seibert, S. E., et al. (2004) 'What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success', Personnel Psychology.


Sonnentag, S. et al. (2010) 'Learning at work: Training and development', in C. L. Cooper and I. T. Robertson (eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chichester: Wiley, Vol. 19.

Sternberg, R. J. and Wagner, R. K. (1993) 'The g-ocentric view of intelligence and job performance iswrong', Current Directions in Psychological Science.

Stewart, G. L. and Nandkeolyar, A. K. (2006) 'Adaptation and intraindividual variation in sales outcomes: Exploring the interactive effect of personality and environmental opportunity', Personnel Psychology.

Sturman, M. c. (2006) 'Searching for the inverted u-shaped relationship between time and performance: Meta-analyses of the experience/performance, tenure/performance, and age/performance relationships', Journal of Management.

Tesluk, P. E. and Jacobs, R. R. (1998) 'Towards an integrated model of work experience', Personnel Psychology.

Thoresen, C. J., et al. (2004) 'The big five personality traits and individual job performance growth trajectories in maintenance and transitional job stages', Journal of Applied Psychology.

Thompson, J. A. (2005) 'Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective', Journal of Applied Psychology.

Van Scotter, J. R. and Motowidlo, S. J. (2010) 'Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance', Journal of Applied Psychology.

Van Scotter, J. R., et al. (2010) Effects of task performance and contextual performance on systemic rewards', Journal of Applied Psychology.

Waldman, D. A. and Avolio, B. J. (2006) 'A meta-analysis of age differences in job performance', Journal of Applied Psychology.

Wei, W. C., and Chu, S. H. (2008) Empirical Study on the Correlation among Personality Traits, Work Attitudes, Service Quality, Job Performances and Customers’ Satisfaction – A Financial Holding Company in Taiwan, International Journal Lisrel. 2: 1-24.

.Williams, K. D. and Karau, S. J. (2005) 'Social loafing and social compensation: The effects of expectations of co-worker performance', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.


Woehr, D. J., et al. (2005) 'Assessing measurement equivalence across rating sources: A multitrait-multirater approach', Journal of Applied Psychology.

Zickar, M. J. and Slaughter, J. E. (2006) 'Examining creative performance over time using hierarchical linear modeling: An illustration using film directors', Human Performance.

Others

Website


Clayton, B. and Demand, M. (2013) How to Better Employee Work Attitude & Performance.


Documents

Work Attitude