THE EFFECT OF JOB SATISFACTION ON JOB PERFORMANCEAND ORGANIZATIONAL OBLIGATION RELATIONSHIP

Fakhraddin Maroofi, department of management University of Kurdistan Sanandaj, Iran

Corresponding author Email: maroofif2900@gmail.com

Marzieh Dehghani, Department of management, science and research branch, Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj, Iran

Email: sima67_2012@yahoo.com

Abstract

This research tested the relationship between organizational obligation and job performance. As a result the research concluded the effect of job satisfaction on the relationship between organizational obligation and job performance. A self-manage questionnaire was occupied and allocated among senior and middle management staff of manufacturing sector in electrical and electronic companies in Iran. Five hindered and eighty four samples were randomly selected in the research. The obtained data were analyzed based on the descriptive and conclusive statistics using SPSS. The results showed that there was as a positive relationship between organizational obligation and job performance. The hierarchical analysis discovered that job satisfaction played moderating role on the relationship between organizational obligation and job performance.

Keywords: Organizational obligation, job performance, job satisfaction, Iran

1. Introduction

According to Steinhaus & Perry (1996) obligated and satisfied workers are improbably to show low performance and are usually highly productive who relate to organizational targets and organizational values (Churchill et al., (1993). The popularity of work attitudes concepts arise from its linkage with several workers’ work behaviors. Robbins, (2005) and Lancaster and Jobber, (1994) suggested that job satisfaction can had an effect on several work related results like job performance (Robbins, 2005 and Lancaster and Jobber, 1994); absenteeism (Lawson and Fukami, 1984) and voluntary turnover (Hom and Griffeth, 1995). Although previous research emphasis on the behavioral work results of turnover and absenteeism, it has however been identified that employee’s job performance is more important than turnover (Meyer et al., 1989). Most of the research (Chen, 2006; Feinstein and Vondrasek, 2001; Kim et al., 2005; McDonald and Makin, 2000; Silva, 2006) has addressed the satisfaction and obligation level of the workers, but only a few of them (Lau and Chong, 2002; Lok and Crawford, 2004) have considered managers’ viewpoints. However, managers are the core points of the service production; therefore, their impact on the workers is very important. If the managers are not satisfied and not obligated to the organization, their effectiveness in managing a Job Performance should be questioned. Therefore there is a greater need for more research to examine the relationship and effect of work

1

relational outlooks such as organizational obligation and job satisfaction on worker, work results of job performance. Managers are usually faced with various challenges that require them to remain competitive in uncertain circumstances. Larger ambiguity may result to higher stress that can cause dissatisfaction and some other relational and behavioral results among staff at managerial level in business sectors (Jestin and Gampel, 2002). This is no objection to managers an Iranian manufacturing and industrial sector specifically in electrical and electronic companies. An Iranian confidence on business in this sector which cause d more than 40% in Growth Domestic Product (GDP) definitely demand them to be always highly obligated and performed (Trade Chakra, 2010). The following questions regarding the relational and behavioral related outlooks are greatly not replied to Iranian context: a) whether there is a significant and positive relationship between organizational obligation and job performance? Does job satisfaction moderate the relationship between organizational obligation and job performance? In spite of the management staff in Iranian companies and organizations plays a key role in guarantee the quality services of their customers, there has been a lack of research that addressed the above topic. This research therefore investigates the above mentioned not replied to questions among managers of manufacturing companies in Iran. Organizational obligation has been determined and measured in several different ways due to different definitions and measures in the academic literature. However the definitions and measures generally share a common subject in that organizational obligation is identified to be a bond of the individual to the organization. Monday et al. (1982) agree that two observes of organizational obligation dominate the literature: (1) behavioral outlook and (2) relational outlook. The behavioral approach to obligation is concerned mainly with the process by which individuals develop a sense of connection not to an organization but to their own activity. The relational obligation, studied type of organizational obligation (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990) sees obligation as an attitude reflecting the nature and quality of the linkage between an worker and organization.

Mowday et al. (1982) define obligation on both affective and continuing outlook which describes a highly obligated individual as one who has: (1) a strong faith in and acceptance of the organization’s targets and values; (2) a readiness to use important effort with the knowledge of the organization; and (3) An urge to support membership in the organization. Mathieu & Zajac (1990) observe obligation as a psychological suggest that first of all, characterizes the individual’s relationship with organization and secondly has indirect suggestion for the decision to continue or discontinue membership in organization. Building on these observe points, it is acceptable to hypothesize that there must be a significant relationship between organizational obligation and behavioral results such as job performance.Theories seem to maintain that relational factor such as workers organizational obligation is closely related with job performance. However the findings of past research have been not decisive. Ward and Davis (1995) discovered a positive relationship between organizational obligation and job performance. On a research of the relationship between obligation and work results among managers, Meyer et al. (1989) discovered that the direction of the relationship was based on the type of the obligation. Meyer and Allen’s (1996) research discovered a positive relationship between affective obligation and job performance and a negative relationship between continuing obligation and job performance. This finding shows that although the relationship between obligation and job performance was recognized, but the direction of the relationship different as a function of the nature of the obligation. Other research reported that organizational obligation was not related to job performance. This research therefore was to determine the relationship between organizational obligation and job performance specifically among managers in Iranian manufacturing companies. Job satisfaction is a contribution of perceptive and affective reactions to the differential feelings of what and worker wants to accept compared with what he or she actually accepts (Cranny et al., 1992). According to Mowday et al. (1979), organizational obligation is an attitude, which exists between the individual and the organization. That is why, it is considered as a relative strength of the individual’s psychological identification and involvement with the organization (Jaramillo et al., 2005). According to the organizational studies there are a number of job satisfaction theories which are more that always been referred in organizational and behavioral studies is Hezberg’s two factor theory (1973).

The Hezberg’s theory is based on psychological growth or motivating factors and the need to avoid pain or hygiene factors. The motivating factors form positive elements that cause regarding job satisfaction and motivation, while hygiene factors are negative elements that could cause dissatisfaction at work. Job satisfaction also symbolizes one important type of operation effects and has been related to many organizational behavioral

2

results including job performance (Koys ,2001). The contribution of job satisfaction and its ingredients on work results has been deeply researched. Earlier literature has stressed more on linear relationship between job satisfaction and job performance (Ward and Davis, 1995 and Fletcher and William, 1996). According to Rashed (2001) individuals would expect higher levels of job performance and it has been associated with higher levels of job satisfaction, although they do not systematically correlate. The discussion suggests that there is a relationship between job satisfaction and job performance however the nature of relationship is not decisive. Further less research was investigate on the role of job satisfaction on organizational obligation and job performance relationship. In addition, for a couple of decades ago organizational industrialists have been stressed the significance of relational outlooks such as job satisfaction on the relationship between obligation and job performance and in improving the working environment (Farh et al., 1997and Roberts et al., 1997). Therefore this study attempted to unravel the inconclusive previous research findings. From motivational outlook, organizational obligation has been discovered as theoretically associated with job performance (Hunt et al., 1985, Birnbaum and Somers, 1998). However according to Ingram et al. (1989) empirical studies on the relationship between organizational obligation and job performance have been less encouraging. Mathieu and Zajac (1990) discovered that the correlation between obligation and job performance was relatively low but positive. Although Lee and Mowday (1989) discovered an insignificant relationship has been recognized between obligation and job performance. This led to the faith that there may be variables that moderate the relationship between organizational obligation and job performance. Therefore, it is useful in this research to relate the Hezberg’s dual-factor theory in analyzing organization work results specifically on the organizational obligation and job performance relationship. Generally, Hezberg’s theory emphasizes the significance of individual in organization to progress. The progress indirectly will change individual’s needs. As a result it will help individuals to put extra efforts without stopping to obtain their needs and satisfaction. Looking at the role and obligation of managers in Iranian manufacturing companies, it is certain that human relation parameters as explained in the Hezberg’s theory are important in guarantee high performance organization and operation of organizational targets. At the same time, workers in the organization who find their work profitable and rewarding would produce and perform better work than those who are dissatisfied. Earlier studies have focused greatly on direct relationship among organizational obligation, job satisfaction and job performance. However the effect of job satisfaction on the organizational obligation job performance relationship has not been investigate widely. More significantly the majority of earlier studies were carried out in non-Eastern settings. There is a great concern over whether the western business practices theories are related in Iranian private organizations specifically in manufacturing companies. This research emphasizes the effects of job satisfaction on the relationship between organizational obligation and job performance among managers in Iranian manufacturing companies.

2. Hypotheses

The main purpose of this research was to examine the relationship between organizational obligation and job performance and the measure job satisfaction simplifies the relationship between organizational obligation and job performance among managers in Iranian manufacturing companies. Therefore the hypotheses assume for this research are:

H1: There will be a positive relationship between organizational obligation and job performance.

H2: The relationship between organizational obligation and job performance will be moderated by six motivational aspect of job satisfaction.

H3: The relationship between organizational obligation and job performance will be moderated by eight hygiene aspect of job satisfaction.

3. Research Method

Participants in the research were the middle and senior management staff of manufacturing companies specifically in electrical and electronic companies in Iran. A total of 700 questionnaires were sent out to the managerial staff in the selected companies of Iranian Manufacturer. The selection of the respondent was based

3

on the simple random sampling method. Respondents were given 4 weeks to answer the questionnaires. In all, a total of 584 useable questionnaires were used in the statistical analysis, representing a response rate of 83.43% (Table 1). The independent variable of this research is organizational obligation. The Organizational Obligation Questionnaire (OOQ) was taken up based on a developed instrument by Mowday et al. (1982). The questionnaire which contains 13 items based on the 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1 for strongly disagree to 5 for strongly agree was used to measure organizational obligation. The reliability coefficient of this variable is .92. The questionnaire of job satisfaction comprised a combination of items adapted from Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss et al., 1967) and Seegmiller (1977). This instrument measures the various ingredients or aspect of Hezberg’s job satisfaction theory mainly on motivational and hygiene factors. Motivational factors include: work itself, operation, obligation, progress and identification for operation. Hygiene factors include, relationship with supervisor, relationship with friends, quality of supervision, policy and management, job security, working condition and salary. For each of hygiene and motivational ingredient contains 5 items or statements. The response alternatives for these items were 5 point Likert-scale range from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The reliability coefficient for overall job satisfaction aspect scale is .93. The dependent variable of the research is job performance. Job performance was measured based on adapted instrument developed by Hind and Baruch (1997) which measured job performance on estimation from manager or supervisor, self-rating and self-rating as compared to friends. For each of this estimation of job performance contains 3 items for supervisor rating, and one item each for self-rating and self-rating as compared to friends. The response alternatives for these items were based on 1 to 5 point Likert-scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Results were then summarize and divided by 5 to get to a summary indicator of a workers job performance. Higher mean scores are indicative of greater job performance. In general reliability coefficient for this scale was .94.

4. Results

Table 1; shows the average age of the respondents in the research is 45.02 years while the mean age of experience in the organization and in the present job was 10.08 and 7.08 years respectively. Most of the respondents are married and 33.2% of them are single. Meanwhile 65% of the respondents are male and 37% are female (Table 1). Table 2 presents the mean, standard deviations and the Pearson’s correlation coefficients of the research variables. Table 2, shows the mean value for each of the variables and aspect of job satisfaction changes from as low as 2.64 to as high as 4.35 for the sample involved. The standard deviation for these variables ranges from 0.52 to 0.89. Job performance, on the other hand, had a mean value of 4.24 with a standard deviation of 0.77 and the mean for organizational obligation is 3.91 and standard deviation is 0.78. As can be seen from Table 2, the Cronbach’s alpha values for the dependent, moderating and independent variables were discovered to be above 0.8 shows that the measurements used in this research were statistically reliable (Nunnally, 1978). The results show a positive relationship between organizational obligation and job performance. This finding is consistent with expectations and earlier research that there was significant and positive relationship between organizational obligation and job performance. The results parallel to earlier findings (Wagner and Rush 2000 and Moses, 1993) giving some support to the construct validity of these measures. Findings of the research care for suggest that organizational obligation were seen as the stimulator for management staff in manufacturing companies to do better than in their job performance. The results support the first hypothesis of the research that there was a positive relationship between organizational obligation and job performance. Therefore the first hypothesis is accepted. The second and third hypotheses of the research were tested using hierarchical retrogression analysis to determine the effects of job satisfaction on the organizational obligation and job performance relationship. A hypothesized mediator effect is supported if the interaction terms significantly increase the variance explained by the predictors (Cohen and Cohen, 1975). Based on this method the organizational obligation was record in the first step, followed by the moderating variables in the second step. In the third step, the interaction terms were record. Table 3 describes the effects of job satisfaction (motivational factors) on the relationship between organizational obligation and job performance while Table 4 describes the effects of job satisfaction (hygiene factors) on the relationship between organizational obligation and job performance. As arrange in Table 3 it was discovered that the model variables together with the moderating variables of job satisfaction (stimulator factors) could jointly explain 64% of variance in job performance. Organizational obligation was discovered to have a significant and positive effect on job

4

performance (b =0.24, p < 0.05).The retrogression coefficient for job satisfaction (motivation factors) of work itself (b =0.30, p < 0.05); operation (b =0.25, p < 0.05); possibility for growth (b =0.26, p < 0.05; obligation (b =0.15, p < 0.05); progress (b =0.24, p < 0.05) and identification for progress (b =0.27, p < 0.05) were discovered to have a significant and positive effect on job performance. In examining the interaction terms, all of the job satisfaction aspect (stimulator factors were discovered to be the mediator of the relationship between organizational obligation and job performance. When the interaction terms for stimulator factors were record, the incremental variance in job performance of 15% was discovered to be significant (p < 0.05). This shows that all of the stimulator factors did moderate the relationship between organizational obligation and job performance. The results suggest that if obligated workers are made happy by improving the stimulator factors in the work place, they would be willing to give the best of their services to the management and increase their job performance. An examination of the full model from the block of interactions in Step III show that variable identification for operation was discovered to be the highest interaction effect of organizational obligation on job performance (b =0.55, p < 0.05.) followed by variables of progress, work itself, obligation and operation. Therefore, the increase in interaction effect of motivating factors showed that all of the five stimulator variables explaining important variations in job performance and suggests that the job performance of obligated workers will be high if the levels of satisfaction with these job satisfaction aspect in which they are interested are increased. The results confirm the second hypothesis of the research. Therefore the second hypothesis is supported. As for the third hypothesis it was discovered that the model variables together with the moderating variables of job satisfaction (hygiene factors) could jointly explain 67% of variance in job performance. Organizational obligation was discovered to have a significant and positive effect on job performance (b =0.43, p < 0.05).The retrogression coefficient for job satisfaction (hygiene factors) of status (b =0.37, p < 0.05);relationship with supervisor(b =0.23, p < 0.05); relationship with friends(b =0.19, p < 0.05); quality of supervision(b =0.23, p < 0.05); policy and management(b =0.27, p < 0.05); job security(b =0.16, p < 0.05); working condition (b =0.18, p < 0.05) and salary(b =0.48, p < 0.05) were discovered to have a significant and positive effect on job performance. An examination to the interaction terms showed that all of the job satisfaction aspect (hygiene factors) was discovered to be the mediator of the relationship between organizational obligation and job performance. When the interaction terms for hygiene factors were record, the incremental variance in job performance of 24% was discovered to be significant (p < 0.05). This shows that all of the hygiene factors did moderate the relationship between organizational obligation and job performance. The results suggest that if obligated workers are made happy by improving the hygiene factors such as in terms of salary, they would be willing to give better services to the organization which will increase high job performance. An examination to the interaction terms showed that all of the job satisfaction aspect (hygiene factors) was discovered to be the mediator of the relationship between organizational obligation and job performance. When the interaction terms for hygiene factors were record, the incremental variance in job performance of 24% was discovered to be significant (p < 0.05). This shows that all of the hygiene factors did moderate the relationship between organizational obligation and job performance. The results suggest that if obligated workers are made happy by improving the hygiene factors such as in terms of salary, they would be willing to give better services to the organization which will increase high job performance. The results also showed that the full model from the block of interactions in Step III show that variable salary was discovered to be the highest interaction effect of organizational obligation on job performance (b =0.57, p < 0.05.) followed by variables of job security, working condition, policy and management, quality of supervision, relationship with friends, relationship with supervisors and status. The increase in interaction effect of hygiene factors showed that all of the eight hygiene variables explaining important variations in job performance and suggests that the job performance of obligated workers will be high if the levels of satisfaction with these job satisfaction aspect in which they are interested are increased. On the whole based on step III the increase in interaction effect of hygiene factors indirectly suggested that those who seen highly obligated and satisfied with seven hygiene factors are performing better in their job. This results support the third hypothesis of the research.

5. Concluding

The main purpose of this research was to examine the relationship between organizational obligation and job performance. The second and third objective in the research was to determine the moderating effects of job satisfaction (stimulator and hygiene factors) on the relationship between organizational obligation and job

5

performance. The findings of the research were in the hypothesized direction as organizational obligation was related to increased job performance. As a result the research concluded that job satisfaction simplifies the relationship between organizational obligation and job performance. The main contribution of this research was the moderating effects played by the motivational and hygiene factors in the organizational obligation-job performance relationship. The findings of the research implied that the manager of Iranian manufacturing companies who are obligated to their organization are likely to perform better in their jobs if the level of satisfaction both on hygiene and stimulator factors they accepted were improved. This findings care for point to the fact that the Hezberg’s theory is a possible model in the organizational obligation-job performance relationship. The results of the research support those by earlier researchers (Birch and Kamali, 2001), thus the present research confirms the result obtained by these researches and conclude it to the other groups of workers. This is the first issue dealt with in this research that has not been stressed in earlier studies especially among managerial levels in Iranian manufacturing companies. Earlier studies were usually conducted in western setting. The research showed here presents that western management and organizational theories could be valid in a non-western setting and the findings discovered in a certain society can be clear in a different society. This research should not be an end in itself therefore possible expansions of this paper could be investigated. It would be interesting to test the responsiveness of the findings to using other measures of policy and behaviors in organization or to take advantage of more than one measure of organizational obligation. Robustness can also be validated through using different samples in a variety of settings. The impacts of other variables on the relationship between organizational obligation and job performance could be further investigated to confirm the findings of the research.

References

Birch, T.A, and Kamali, F., 2001. “Psychological stress, anxiety, depression, job satisfaction and personality characteristics in pre-registration house officers”, Post Medical Journal 77, pp 109-121.

Birnbaum, D and Somers M.J, 1998. “Work-related commitment and job performance: It’s also the nature of the performance that counts”, Journal of Organizational Behavior 19, pp 621-634.

Chen, C.F. (2006), “Short report: job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and flight attendants’ turnover ıntentions: a note”, Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 12, pp. 274-6.

Cohen, J. and Cohen P., 1975. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral science. Hilldale, New Jersy : Erlbaum.

Churchill, G.A, Ford N.M and Walker O.C., 1993. Sales force management, R.D. Irwin: Homewood.

Cranny, C.J, Smith R.C. and Stone E.F., 1992. Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance. New York: Lexington.

Farh, J.H, Earley P.C. and Lin S.C, 1997. “Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society”, Administrative Science Quarterly 42, pp. 421-444.

6

Feinstein, A.H. and Vondrasek, D. (2001), “A study of relationships between job satisfaction and organizational commitment among restaurant employees”, Journal of Hospitality, Tourism, and Leisure Science, available at: http://hotel. unlv.edu/pdf/jobSatisfaction.pdf (accessed April 15, 2007).

Fletcher, C. and William R., 1996. “Performance management, job satisfaction and organizational commitment”, British Journal of Management 7, pp 61-81.

Hezberg, F., 1973. Motivation: Management of success. Elkgrove Village, Illinois: Advanced System Inc.

Hind, P. and Baruch Y., 1997. “Gender variations in perceptions of job performance appraisal”, Women in Management Review 12, pp. 1-17.

Hom, P.W. and Griffeth R.W., 1995. “Employee turnover”, Community Psychiatry 35, pp. 56- 60.

Hunt, S.D, Chonko L.B. and Wood V.R., 1985. “Organizational commitment and marketing”, Journal of Marketing 49, pp. 112-126.

Ingram, T.N, Lee K.S and Skinner J, 1989. “An assessment of sales person motivation, commitment and job outcomes”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 9, pp. 25-33.

Jaramillo, F., Prakash Mulki, J. and Marshal, G.W. (2005), “A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational commitment and salesperson job performance: 25 years of research”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, pp. 705-14.

Jestin, W. and Gampel A., 2002. The big valley, global outlook. Toronto: McGraw Hill.

Kim, W.G., Leong, J.K. and Lee, Y. (2005), “Effect of service orientation on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intention of leaving in a casual dining chain restaurant”, Hospitality Management, Vol. 24, pp. 171-93.

Koys, D.J., 2001. “The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: a unit-level, longitudinal study”, Personnel Psychology 54, pp. 101-14.

Lau, C.M. and Chong, J. (2002), “The effects of budget emphasis, participation and organizational commitment on job satisfaction: evidence from the financial services sector”, Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research, Vol. 5, pp. 183-211.

Lawson, E.W. and Fukami, C.V., 1984. “Relationship between workers behavior and commitment to the organization and union”. Best paper at the 44th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, New Orleans, Lousiana.

Lancaster, G. and Jobber D., 1994. Selling and sales management. London: Pitman

Lee, T.W. and Mowday R.T., 1989. “Voluntary leaving an organization: An empirical investigation of Steers and Mowday’s Model of Turnover”, Academy of Management Journal 30, pp.721-743.

Lok, P. and Crawford, J. (2004), “The effect of organizational culture and leadership style on job satisfaction and organizational commitment: a cross-national comparison”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 321-38.

Mathieu, J and Zajac D., 1990. “A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates and consequences of organizational commitment”, Psychology Bulletin 108, pp. 171-194.

McDonald, D.J. and Makin, P.J. (2000), “The psychological contract, organizational commitment and job satisfaction of temporary staff”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 84-91.

7

Meyer, J. Paunonen S., Gellatly I., Goffin R. and Jackson D., 1989. “Organizational commitment and job performance: it’s the nature of commitment that counts”, Journal of Applied Psychology 74, pp. 152-156 .

Meyer, J.P and Allen N.J., 1996. “Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity”, Journal of Vocational Behavior 49 pp. 252-276.

Moses, M.R.L., 1993. “Organizational commitment and job performance among operators of selected electrical and electronic industries in Kalang Valley”. Unpublished Phd dissertation: Universiti Putra, Malaysia.

Mowday, R.T, Porter L.W, Steers R.M., 1982. Employee's organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism and turnover, New York: Academic Press.

Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W. (1979), “The measurement of organizational commitment”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 224-47.

Nunnally, J., 1978. Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw Hill.

Rashed, A.A., 2001. “The effect of personal characteristics on job satisfaction. A study among male among managers in the Kuwait oil industry”, International Journal of Commerce & Management 11 pp. 91-111.

Robbins, S.P., 2005. Organizational Behavior, 7th Ed. Pearson Prentice Hall: New Jersey.

Roberts, J.A., Lapidus R.A. and Chonko L.B., 1997. “Salesperson and stress: The moderating role of locus of control on work stressors and felt stress”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 5, pp. 93-108.

Seegmiller, J.P., 1977. “Job satisfaction of faculty and staff at the College of Eastern Utah”. Unpublished Phd dissertation: College of Eastern Utah.

Silva, P. (2006), “Effects of disposition on hospitality employee job satisfaction and commitment”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 317-28.

Steinhaus, C.S. and Perry J.L., 1996. “Organizational commitment: Does sector matter?”, Public Productivity & Management Review 19, pp. 278-288.

Trade Chkra: http://www.tradechakra.com/economy/malaysia/human-resource-in-malaysia-155.php, accessed on 11 December 2010.

Weiss, D.J, David G.W, Lofquist L.H., (1967). “Manual for the Mannesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Work Adjustment”, Industrial Relations Center: University of Minnesota.

Wagner S, Rush M.C., 2000. “Altruistic organizational citizenship behavior. Context, disposition and age”, Journal of Social Psychology 41 pp. 108-391

Ward, E.A. and Davis E., 1995. “The effect of benefit satisfaction on organizational commitment”, Compensation and Benefits Management 11 pp. 35-40

Table 1: Summary of Profile of Respondents

8

%nSDMean--6.5745.02Age--6.9110.08Experience in the organization--3.297.08Present job experience65372--Male37212--Female67.1394--Married33.2190--Single

Table 2: Correlation Matrix of all variables

121110987654321S.DMean. 800.763.44

. 80.17*0.484.35.84.63*.33*0.792.87

.86.33*.65*.26*0.793.27.89.31*.44*.64*.23*0.892.63

.93.56*.29*.51*.44*.16*0.783.58.89.45*.51*.55*.50*.45*.43*0.783.99.35*.40*.46*.59*.44*.46*.44*0.773.48

.81.38*.38*.50*.40*.37*.68*.35*0.893.6474.22*.33*.36*.69*.66*.35*.34*.38*0.714.22

.85.35*.36*.40*.49*.50*.35*.57*.33*.32*0.853.99.73.47*.39*.32*.52*.39*.53*.40*.34*.51*.39*0.783.91

.92.60*.39*.47*.54*.49*.33*.41*.45*.66*.43*.29*0.774.24*p = 0.05, alpha reliability values of variables. 1. Work itself 2. Possibility for growth 3. Responsibility 4.

Recognition (motivational facets)} {5. status 6. relationship with supervisor 7. operation 8. working condition 9. salary (hygiene facets)} 10. Relationship with friends 11. Organizational obligation. 12. Job performance .

9

Table 3: Hierarchical Retrogression Analysis Predicting Job Performance of Workers by Motivator Factor

Std Beta Step 3

Std Beta Step 2

Std Beta Step 1Independent Variable

Model Variables.33*.24*.15*Organizational obligation

Moderating VariableMotivator factor:

.41*.30*Work itself (Wis)

.38*.25* operation (Ope)

.26*.26*Possibility for growth (Pg)

.39*.15*Responsibility (Res)

.64*.27*Recognition for advancement (Ra)Interaction Terms

.18* OO X Wis

.29*OO X Ope

.38*OO X Pg

.37*OO X Res

.55*OO X Ra0.760.640.59R2

0.730.610.56Adj R2

0.150.070.59R2 Change18.60*21.35*10.90*Sig. F Change

P < 0.05

10

Table 4: Hierarchical Retrogression Analysis Predicting Job Performance of Workers by Hygiene Factor

Std Beta Step 3

Std Beta Step 2Std Beta Step 1

Independent Variable

Model Variables.46*.43*.17*Organizational obligation

Moderating VariableHygiene factor

.65*.37*Status (Sts)

.25*23*Relationship with supervisor (RS)

.22*.19*Relationship with friends (Rf)

.18*.18*Working Condition (WC)

.50*.48*Salary (SL)Interaction Terms

.17*OO X Sts26*OO X Rs

.40*OO X Rf

.53*OO X WC

11