Self-Efficacy, Effort, Job Performance, Job Satisfaction, and ... - ijimt

More documents

Recommendations

Info

International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 3, No. 4, August 2012 self-efficacy and job satisfaction have a positive correlation. Bradley and Roberts (2004) [6] discover that self-efficacy rise the job satisfaction. Lam, Lo, and Chan (2002) [7] point out that the show of turnover intention of enterprise may cause a huge cost. Boshoff and Allen (2000) [8] showing the effective services could restore the performance and reduce employee’s turnover intention. Viator (2001) [9] point out that the performance and turnover intention have a negative correlation. III. METHODOLOGY A. The Hypothesized Model Based on the theoretical framework shows in Figure 1, six major hypotheses were proposed: H1 :Employees’ ”Self-efficacy” has a positive effect on “Job performance.” H2 :Employees’ “Self-efficacy” has positive effect on “Job satisfaction.” H3 :Employees’ “Effort” has a positive effect on “Job performance.” H4 :Employees’ “Effort” has a positive effect on “Job satisfaction.” H5 :Employees’ “Job performance" has a negative effect on “Turnover intention.” H6 :Employees’ “Job satisfaction” has a negative effect on “Turnover intention.” B. Data Analysis and Results Among the total amount of 803 copies, 635 returned. Eliminate the omission or incomplete answer, leaving 616 usable responses for analysis, yielding a response rate of 76.7%. C. Sample Profile In this approach, summarize the demographic characteristics of the respondents, things as gender, age and so on. Table I shows the respondents’ demographics. Self-efficacy Effort H3 H2 H1 H4 Job performance Job satisfaction Fig. 1. Theoretical framework. IV. DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS H5 Turnover intention This research was chosen on the basis of convenience sampling and was selected from automobile sales persons of Taipei, Taiwan. Among the total amount of 803 copies, 635 returned. Eliminate the omission or incomplete answer, leaving 616 usable responses for analysis, yielding a H6 response rate of 76.7%. A. Sample Profile In this approach, summarize the demographic characteristics of the respondents, things as gender, age and so on. Table I shows the respondents’ demographics. B. Scale Reliabilities and Validity From the Table II, the analysis shows the good reliabilities and validity of the data. On the other side, we also adopt the other discriminant validity as table 3. The analysis also shows the good discriminant validity. (Narver, Slater and Maclachlan, 2004) [10] C. Model Assessment After the analyzed of the scale reliabilities and validity, in this approach, we use the structural equation modeling (SEM) with LISREL to analyze the data and the overall structure model in the fitness and the results of hypotheses testing. The fitness of the research, the indexes showed: RMSEA=0.18, CFI=0.96, NFI=0.95, GFI=0.96, AGFI=0.81 and SRMR=0.051, seems have the good fit. Test of Hypotheses The results of hypotheses testing are summarized in the table IV. V. CONCLUSION A. Self-efficacy has a Positive Effect on Job Performance Regarding our work, the hypotheses 1 is proposed: Self-efficacy has a positive effect on Job performance. The analysis results lend support for H1. Our finding is consistent with the finding of Wang and Netemever (2002) [11]. A person who has the high self-efficacy will look forward to being better than other colleagues. As the result, they will set a high standard, meanwhile expect the better performance than others. B. Self-efficacy has a Positive Effect on Job Satisfaction Regarding our work, the hypotheses 2 is proposed: Self-efficacy has a positive effect on Job satisfaction. The analysis results lend support for H2. It is consistent with the results of Menguc’s (1996) [12] work. Self-efficacy could continue keep the successful experiences and usually set the relative variables is controllable. Therefore, employees with the high self-efficacy, have the superior abilities and performance, as soon as the increasing of job satisfaction that obtained from work. C. Effort has a Positive Effect on Job Performance Regarding our work, the hypotheses 3 is proposed: Effort has a positive effect on Job performance. This is echoes the research that proposed by Menguc (1996) [12]. In our research, we measure the personal statues, completeness, and abilities of the jobs. Employees will make effort to do the work, therefore, on the base of it, they will defined the good performance as the reach in effort and will have a relatively high evaluation in performance. In this research, we know the positive relationship between the effort and job performance. 388
International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 3, No. 4, August 2012 TABLE I: RESPONDENTS’ DEMOGRAPHICS (N=616) Variable Category Sample size % Gender Male 515 83.60 Female 101 16.40 Less than 25 21 3.41 26~30 85 13.80 31~35 151 24.51 Age 36~40 145 23.54 41~45 113 18.34 46~50 74 12.01 51~55 25 4.06 More than 56 2 0.32 High School 240 38.96 Education College 250 40.58 University 120 19.48 Master 6 0.97 Less than 30,000 98 15.91 Less than 40,000 185 30.03 Income (Per month) Less than 50,000 141 22.89 51,000~ 80,000 126 20.45 81,000~ 120,000 46 7.47 More than 120,000 20 3.25 Less than 2 88 14.29 3~5 160 25.97 Work experience (Years) 6~10 150 24.35 11~15 110 17.86 16~20 81 13.15 More than 20 27 4.38 Single 184 29.87 marital status Married 419 68.02 One-parent 13 2.11 frontline employees (Administrator) 170 27.60 Services Team leader 33 5.36 Technical director 9 1.46 Factory director 4 0.65 frontline employees Department 319 51.79 (assistant, sales) Operation Intermediate managers 32 5.19 Directors 13 2.11 Employees 26 4.22 Administrator Team leader 3 0.49 Directors 7 1.14 TABLE II: SCALE RELIABILITIES AND VALIDITY Variables Number of questionnaire Cronbach’s α Factor loading Eigenvalue Explained Variance (CR) (AVE) Self-efficacy 6 0.903 Effort 5 0.928 Job performance 5 0.883 Job satisfaction 7 0.924 0.782 ~ 0.847 0.826 ~ 0.910 0.770 ~ 0.875 0.724 ~ 0.891 4.051 67.514 0.903 0.6099 3.907 78.142 0.9295 0.7259 3.453 69.053 0.8869 0.6125 4.839 69.125 0.9249 0.641 Turnover intention 3 0.694 0.508 ~ 0.940 1.992 66.411 0.6854 0.6043 389
Page 1: International Journal of Innovation
Page 5: International Journal of Innovation

Self-Efficacy, Effort, Job Performance, Job Satisfaction, and ... - ijimt

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?