International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration
Volume 3, Issue 4, May 2017, Pages 65-73
The Impact of Motivation, Ability, Role Perception on Employee Performance and Situational Factor as Moderating Variable of Public Agency in Bandung, Indonesia
1Ester Manik, 2Iwan Sidharta
1‚2Pasundan School of Economics, Bandung, Indonesia
Abstract: This study aims to determine the effect of MARS model consists of motivation, ability, role perception and situational factors on employee performance. The research was conducted on two public sectors of government with a sample of 83 people. Methods of explorative research are used with the aim of predicting the contribution of MARS Model to employee performance. This research uses structural equation modeling partial least square. The result shows MARS model has a significant effect on employee performance with the motivation variable is the biggest contribution to the employee performance. The results also show that situational factors are proven to mediate employee performance.
Keywords: Motivation, Ability, Role perception, Situational Factor, Employee Performance.
Individual behavior can be explained by presenting a basic model of individual behavior and its consequences and by describing the main types of behavior in an organizational environment (Von Rosenstiel, 2011). This model emphasizes four factors that directly influence employee behavior and the resulting performance, namely motivation, ability, role perceptions, and situational factors abbreviated as MARS Model (McShane and Von Gillow, 2015). If one of the factors weakens, employee performance will decrease. For example, an enthusiastic employee who understands his role assignment (role perceptions) and has enough resources (situational factors) will not do his job well if they lack adequate knowledge and skills. MARS model is the basic model of individual behavior and results. MARS models are factors that directly affect employee behavior and outcomes of their performance.
Employee motivation forces within a person that affect his or her direction, intensity, and persistence of voluntary behavior. The direction is a principle for someone in doing their activities. Intensity is how much to push yourself to complete a task. Persistence set is how long it takes to continue a task. According to Zhang and Bartol (2010), motivation can increase the desire to improve performance. Cerasoli et al. (2014) with a meta-analysis study proves that motivation has an effect on performance. Motivation is one of the strong predictors in improving employee performance (Rogstadius et al., 2011) and entrepreneurial performance (Machmud and Sidharta, 2016).
Ability directs us to attitudes or natural talent. Ability relates to the competence of employees and the level of suitability of a job with employees. Role perceptions will help employees to understand better their work and do the job as good as possible. Since the employees know the role of perception, they understand what to do and to improve. Situational factors consist of external and internal factors. External factors influenced by consumer desire and economic conditions while internal factors influenced by time, human, budget, and work facilities.
Motivation is a process that explains the intensity of direction and persistence of effort to achieve goals (Robbins and Judge, 2011). Motivation is a condition that encourages or becomes the cause of a person doing an act or activity, which takes place consciously. Although it is possible that a person does an activity that he does not like, the forced activities will be ineffective and inefficient. McShane and Von Gillow (2015) define motivation as the forces within a person affecting the direction, intensity, and persistence of voluntary behavior. According to McClelland (McClelland and Burnharm, 1976), there are three needs that encourage motivation: Need for achievement, need for affiliation and need for power. The need for achievement, the need to be accepted by the group, and the need to occupy a position encourage people to have high motivation in carrying out the work.
According to Robbins and Judge (2011) motivation is a process that describes the intensity, direction, and perseverance of individual efforts in achieving goals. While Kreitner and Kinicki (2014) states motivation is a psychological process that improves and directs behavior to achieve goals. It can be said that one’s motivation is influenced by the intrinsic power that exists within a person or the individual, external stimulation may also affect motivation. However, the motivation itself reflects the individual’s reaction to the stimulation. Individuals are motivated based on various motives or desires for a particular purpose. Various motives or desires such as motives for work, achievement, power, justice, needs and the others form motivations.
Rogstadius et al. (2011) suggest that both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can be a performance predictor. There are three main keys in motivation: intensity, direction, and perseverance. Intensity is about how hard someone tries to work. Kreitner and Kinicki (2014) states the ability to exhibit stable characteristics related to a person’s maximum physical and mental abilities. Robbins and Judge (2011) see ability as the capacity of an individual to perform various tasks in a job. Ability is a recent assessment of what a person can do. The ability is important because it causes, distributes, and supports the employees to work hard and enthusiastic. Ability is important because managers give jobs to their subordinates to work well and integrate into desired goals. Companies not only expect capable and skilled employees but also expect the employees to work with high performance. Employee’ motivation and skills are meaningless to the company if they do not have the ability to work.
Robbins and Judge (2011) reveal that each individual has the strengths and weaknesses that make them relatively superior or superior to the other individuals in performing certain tasks or activities. Colquitt, LePine, and Wesson (2015) suggest that a relatively stable person can carry out a range of different but related activities. The overall ability of a person can generally be classified into three categories: cognitive ability, emotional ability, and physical ability. Simultaneously, these three capabilities illustrate what a person can do.
Reinholt et al. (2011) state how the role of motivation and ability can improve knowledge sharing within an organization. Kreitner and Kinicki (2014) believes the capability of broad features and the characteristic of stable responsibilities at a high level of achievement is different with mental and physical work abilities. McShane and Von Glinow (2013) reveal that capabilities include both natural talent and learning capabilities, which are needed to complete a successful task. Konopaske et al., (2016) express that the ability is the capacity of individuals to perform various tasks in a particular job. The whole ability of an individual essentially consists of two basic tools of intellectual: ability and physical ability.
Employees have a high work motivation, but if they are not supported by adequate working ability, their performance will be low (Gibson et al, 1996). Human resources that have high capabilities greatly support the vision and mission of the organization to grow rapidly. This is due to its goal in anticipating global competition. A skillful person will be different from those who have the average or normal ability. Robbins and Judge (2011) stated that ability is an individual’s capacity to perform various tasks in a job. Further, Kreitner and Kinicki (2014) express ability as a stable characteristic related to the maximum physical and mental ability of a person. This is proven by an employee in completing the task quickly and accurately in accordance with the methods or standards of work embodied in the implementation of their duties. Devonish and Greenidge (2010) proves the role of role-based-ability to employee performance. The company gives different jobs which require employees to release their intellectual abilities. Li et al. (2010) show that the role of employee perceptions can improve employee performance.
McShane and Von Glinow (2015) describe perceptions as the process of receiving information and making it acceptable. The processes that occur include selecting, organizing, and interpreting the information received. Perception can shape a person’s attitude and behavior because not all information can be accepted by individuals. This will affect our level of emotional awareness and our behavior toward things, people, and events. Improving the quality of perception, developing empathy and increasing self-awareness is necessary. Some companies have started to do some training to help their employees in improving the quality of interaction within the working environment. King and Johns (2010) declare the role of personality and job scope on in-role performance within an organization. Beintein et al. (2007) conducted research on how the role of the Role of Perceived Support in increasing employee’ commitment.
Perception can be interpreted as the process of receiving, selecting, organizing, interpreting, testing and reacting to sensory stimuli or data. While Gibson et al. (2006) view perception as an organized set of behavior expected from an individual in a specific position. This shows that the role is a set of behaviors expected from each individual and organized in a particular position. Christian et al. (2011) state that increased employee development will improve employee performance. Furthermore, Barrick et al. (2013) state the importance of the role of employee behavior as well as to the role of employees in the workplace. Roles reflect one’s position in the social system with rights and obligations, powers and responsibilities. The result of meta-analysis performed by Avey et al. (2011a) proves that there is a close association in employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. The activities of managers and employees are directed by their role perceptions, what they should do according to their views in their own roles, and how others should act in their roles.
In the organization, there is a structure of division of labor and the structure of work relations between groups of position holders who cooperate in a certain way to achieve certain goals that have been established by the organization. Chiang and Hsieh, (2012) proves that the situation factor can affect performance. The same thing is evidenced by Walumbwa et al. (2011) situations that can be controlled by the organization can improve employee performance. Huang et al. (2010) prove that the role of leaders in controlling the situation within the organization plays an important role in building employee empowerment. Along with that, the results of research conducted by Laschinger et al. (2011) proves that situational factors can affect employee empowerment to improve their performance.
Performance has a broader meaning. It is not only the work but also includes how the work process takes place. Mostly, a leader knows that every productive and successful business lies in a growing organizational culture. The culture in which people work hard collaborates vigorously to produce great results. The results of research conducted by Avey et al. (2011b) proves that the impact of leader positivity on follower positivity and performance. This idea has been supported by extensive meta-analytic research in employee engagement areas. Performance appraisal is the process of assessing the personality traits, work behaviors and work results of a person’s workforce or employees (workers and managers), which is used as a consideration for decision-making on measures against employment (Aguinis, 2013).
Preliminary study results show that employees have not performed well in their work. Allegedly, this is shown through low ability, motivation, role perception and situational factors in the organization. The purpose of this research is based on the importance of motivation, ability, role perception and situational factor within an organization to improve employee performance. The formulation on this research is related to how much influence motivation, ability, and perception role moderated by a situational factor on employee performance. In accordance with the formulation of the above problem, the purpose of this study is to know, assess and analyze the influence of motivation, ability, and perception role moderated by situational factors on employee performance.
Hypotheses in this research are;
H1: Motivation has a significant effect on employee performance.
H2: the ability significantly affects employee performance.
H3: role perception has a significant effect on employee performance.
H4: motivation, ability, and perception role have a significant effect on employee performance which is moderated by role perception.
H5: role perception has a significant effect on employee performance.
2. Research Methods
This research is a non-experimental explorative research, using survey method. The purpose of this research is to predict the influence of research variables. According to Sekaran (2006), the features of the survey method can be descriptive, verificative, explanatory or confirmatory. Data collected from the sample that has been determined. The data of research variables were collected by using questionnaire. The populations in this study are employees in two public sectors of governments in Bandung, Indonesia. Meanwhile, the samples are derived from 83 people. Data collection is done by distributing questionnaires directly to the respondents based on the workplace.
The research variables consist of abilities with 11 indicators and motivation consists of 11 indicators developed by Van Dyne et al., (1994). Furthermore, the perception role is based on the instrument developed by Ganeshan and Witz (1996) with seven indicators. Situational factors variable uses the instrument developed by Payne and Pheysey (1971) with ten indicators. Also, employee performance uses the instrument developed by Van Dyne et al., (1994) with seven indicators. The scale used is Likert scales consists of five scales from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
3. Results and discussion
This research analyzes the relationship between volatility rates and returns rates for price share of Bank Islam Malaysia Berhad (BIMB) from the year 2010 until 2016. In analyzing the return and volatility rate, below procedure need to be performed.
3.1 Characteristics of respondents
The characteristics of respondents in this study are as follows: 70% male. 10% is aged between 20 – 29 years. Moreover, 66% is aged between 30 – 39 years. Those over the age of 40 are 24%. 68% of the respondents are married. The working years between 1 – 5 years is 66%; between 6 – 10 years is 20% and the length of work between 11-22 years is 14%.
3.2 Data analysis
Analysis of data used Structural Equation Modeling PLS. The research variables that will be tested are Ability with 11 indicators, Motivation with 11 indicators, Perception Role with seven indicators, Situational factor ten indicators and seven indicators performance. The results of the first order test show that there are some indicators that do not meet the criteria of validity and reliability. Testing outer validity model with AVE value > 0.5 (Chin, 1988) and reliability with composite value reliability > 0.7 (Knok, 2012). The results of the first order test can be seen in Table 1, the result of composite reliability, AVE and Cronbach alpha calculations show that all calculated values meet the predefined criteria shown in Table 2, the results of path coefficients, R2 and significance tests can be seen in Table 3, are as follows.
Table 1. Outer Loading Research Variables
Table 2. Composite Reliability, AVE, and Cronbach Alpha
|Variable||Composite Reliability||AVE||Cronbach’s Alpha|
Table 3. Path coefficients, R2 and Decision
|Motiv -> Situasional||0.256||0.007||Accept|
|Ability -> Situasional||0.183||0.041||Accept|
|Role -> Situasional||0.230||0.014||Accept|
|Motiv -> Perform||0.256||0.001||Accept|
|Ability -> Perform||0.183||0.001||Accept|
|Role -> Perform||0.230||0.002||Accept|
|Situasional -> Perform||0.245||0.009||Accept|
based on data processing uses WarpPLS 5.0 software, the following structural results are obtained;
Figure 1. Model Structural
Figure 1 shows the results of research. It can be concluded that all research hypotheses were received where H1 with β 0.47 and P <.01, H2 values β 0.32 and P <.01, H3 with values β 0.30 and P <.01 and H4 values R2 0.32 and P <.01 and H5 with values of β 0.25 and P <.01.
The results show that performance is strongly supported by employee work motivation. The higher the motivation, the more the performance will increase. The results of this study are in accordance with the opinions of Robbins and Judge (2011), and Rogstadius et al. (2011). Similarly, the results of meta-analysis studies conducted by Cerasoli et, (2014) and Zhang and Bartol (2010) proved that motivation is a strong predictor of improving performance. Employees who have high motivation will have high performance as well. The higher the level of intensity of work, the more employees understand the goals of the organization; the more diligent the employee, the higher the motivation. Kreitner and Kinicki (2014) reveal that motivation is a psychological process that can improve and direct behavior to achieve organizational goals. Motivation to work is important for the achievement of a goal. Furthermore, the employees should be able to generate the higher working motivation in the company.
The results of research are in accordance with the opinion of Robbins and Judge (2014) that the ability is influenced by intellectual (cognitive, social, emotional, cultural) intelligence and physical ability. If employees have high intelligence and high level of physical conditions in accordance with the needs of his job, it will be easier to do their tasks and achieve the expected performance. Schmidt’s (1986), Murphy (1989) and Sidharta & Lusyana (2014) studies have shown that the ability to positively affect employee performance. Several other studies support this statement such as Hadian et al. (2015); Reinholt et al. (2011); Devonish and Greenidge (2010). These results indicate that performance is strongly supported by the ability of employees. The ability of employees will greatly impact on performance improvement. Research by Pentury (2010) shows the result that perception of roles represented by indicators of perceptions, targets, and situations, play an important role in performance. Situational factors relate to situations or conditions within the organization. The situational organization is everything that is around the work and can affect employees in carrying out its duties. Fine et al., (2010) proves that situational factors affect the integrity and counterproductive work behaviors. The performance of employees other than influenced by individuals as human resources is also strongly influenced by the situational factors of the organization because each individual with each other has differences from each other, for that needed support organization situation that can support the work of the individual to produce a good performance. Kreitner and Kinicki (2014) revealed that organizational situational factors comprise organizational culture, work design, and quality of supervision. The results of this study support the research by Steel and Mento (1986) and Judge et al. (2001) which mention that situational factors related to employee performance. Rich et al. (2010) and Rousseau and Aubé (2010) stated that it is necessary to increase employee engagement in working condition in order to improve performance. This is in accordance with Mc Shane and Von Glinow’ (2015) theories that four factors directly affect employee behavior and resulting performance, such as motivation, ability and role perceptions. If one factor is weak, employee’s performance will decrease.
This study proves that MARS model can improve employee performance. The amount of influence proportionally caused by research variables of 52%. The rest in influencing other factors outside the research variables indicate that the performance is basically the work achieved by employees in accordance with work plans that have been made at the beginning of the period, and behavior by measuring how the employee achieved the results of his work during a certain period. Performance measurement is basically the performance of employees. It is not only measured by the end of the result but also based on how the employee used to achieve these results so that the results of performance measurement become more objective. The results of this study still show some limitations in the other objects of research such as on public agency companies and small samples. It needs further research by using more broadly object sample research so that the results of the study can obtain more general conclusions.
- Aguinis, H. (2013). Performance Management, Third Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
- Avey, J. B., Reichard, R. J., Luthans, F., and Mhatre, K. H. (2011a). Meta‐analysis of the impact of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Human resource development quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 127-152. CrossRef
- Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., and Luthans, F. (2011b). Experimentally analyzing the impact of leader positivity on follower positivity and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 282-294. CrossRef
- Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., and Li, N. (2013). The theory of purposeful work behavior: The role of personality, higher-order goals, and job characteristics. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 132-153. CrossRef
- Beintein, C., Michon, R., Chebat, J., Trembley, M., and Fils, J. (2007). An Examination of the Role of Perceived Support and Employee Commitment in Employee-Customer Encounters. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92, No. 4, pp. 1177-1181. CrossRef
- Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., and Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, Vol. 140, No. 4, pp. 1-29. CrossRef
- Chiang, C. F., and Hsieh, T. S. (2012). The impacts of perceived organizational support and psychological empowerment on job performance: The mediating effects of organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 180-190. CrossRef
- Chin, W. W. 1998. The Partial Least Squares Approach forStructural Equation Modelling. In Marcoulides, G. A. (Ed). Modern Method for Business Research. Mahwah. NJ. Erlbaum.
- Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., and Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with the task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 89-136.
- Colquitt, J., Lepine, J. A., and Wesson, M. J. (2015). Organizational Behavior: Improving Performance and Commitment in the Workplace, Fourth Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
- Devonish, D., and Greenidge, D. (2010). The Effect of Organizational Justice on Contextual Performance, Counterproductive Work Behaviors, and Task Performance: Investigating the moderating role of ability‐based emotional intelligence. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 75-86. CrossRef
- Fine, S., Horowitz, I., Weigler, H., and Basis, L. (2010). Is good character good enough? The effects of situational variables on the relationship between integrity and counterproductive work behaviors. Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 73-84. CrossRef
- Ganeshan, S., and Witz, B. A. (1996). The impact of Stating Policies on Retail Buyer Job Attitudes and Behavior. Journal of Retailing, Vol. 72, No. 1, pp. 31-56. CrossRef
- Gibson, J. L., Ivancevich, J. M., Donnelly, Jr, J. H., and Kanopaske, R. (2006). Organizations: Behavior, Structure, Process, Twelfth Edition. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Education.
- Hadian, D., Senen Machmud, D. J., and Sidharta, I. (2015). Human performance in cluster center of clothing Bandung, Indonesia. International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 4417-4435.
- Huang, X., Iun, J., Liu, A., and Gong, Y. (2010). Does participative leadership enhance work performance by inducing empowerment or trust? The differential effects on managerial and non‐managerial subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 122-143. CrossRef
- Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., and Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological bulletin, Vol. 127, No. 3, pp. 376-407.
- Kanopaske, R., Ivancevich, J. M., & Matteson, M. T. (2016). Organizational Behavior & Management, Eleventh Edition. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Education.
- Kock, N., 2012, WarpPLS 5.0 User Manual. http://cits.tamiu.edu/WarpPLS/UserManual_v_5_0.pdf
- Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2014). Perilaku Organisasi: Organizational Behavior, Edisi Sembilan Edition. Jakarta: Salemba Empat.
- Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., and Wilk, P. (2011). Situational and dispositional influences on nurses’ workplace well-being: The role of empowering unit leadership. Nursing research, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 124-131. CrossRef
- Li, N., Liang, J., and Crant, J. M. (2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: a relational perspective. Journal of applied psychology, Vol. 95, No. 2, pp. 395-404. CrossRef
- Machmud, S., and Sidharta, I. 2016. Entrepreneurial Motivation and Business Performance of SMEs in the SUCI Clothing Center, Bandung, Indonesia. DLSU Business & Economics Review, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 63-78.
- McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. New Jersey: Princeton. CrossRef
- McClelland, D, C., and Burnharm, D, H. (1976). Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business Review. Vol. 15, pp. 100-110.
- McShane, S. L., and Von Glinow, M. A. (2015). Organizational Behavior: Emerging Knowledge, Global Reality, Seventh Edition. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Education.
- Murphy, K. R. (1989). Is the relationship between cognitive ability and job performance stable over time?. Human performance, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 183-200. CrossRef
- Raja, U., and Johns, G. (2010). The joint effects of personality and job scope on in-role performance, citizenship behaviors, and creativity. Human Relations, Vol. 63, No. 7, pp. 981-1005. CrossRef
- Reinholt, M. I. A., Pedersen, T., and Foss, N. J. (2011). Why a central network position isn’t enough: The role of motivation and ability for knowledge sharing in employee networks. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 54, No. 6, pp. 1277-1297. CrossRef
- Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., and Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of management journal, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 617-635. CrossRef
- Robbin, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2011). Organizational Behavior, 12th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
- Rogstadius, J., Kostakos, V., Kittur, A., Smus, B., Laredo, J., and Vukovic, M. (2011). An assessment of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on task performance in crowdsourcing markets. ICWSM, Vol. 11, pp. 17-21.
- Rousseau, V., and Aubé, C. (2010). Social support at work and affective commitment to the organization: The moderating effect of job resource adequacy and ambient conditions. The Journal of social psychology, Vol. 150, No. 4, pp. 321-340. CrossRef
- Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., and Outerbridge, A. N. (1986). Impact of job experience and ability on job knowledge, work sample performance, and supervisory ratings of job performance. Journal of applied psychology, Vol. 71, No. 3, pp. 432. CrossRef
- Sekaran, U. (2006). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. John Wiley & Sons.
- Sidharta, I., and Lusyana, D. (2014). Analisis faktor penentu kompetensi berdasarkan konsep knowledge, skill, dan ability (KSA) Di Sentra Kaos Suci Bandung. Jurnal Computech & Bisnis, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 49-60.
- Steel, R. P., and Mento, A. J. (1986). Impact of situational constraints on subjective and objective criteria of managerial job performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 254-265. CrossRef
- Payne, R. L., and Pheysey, D. C. (1971). GG Stern’s organizational climate index: a reconceptualization and application to business organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 77-98. CrossRef
- Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., and Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of management Journal, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 765-802. CrossRef
- Von Rosenstiel, L. (2011). Employee behavior in organizations. On the current state of research. Management Revue, pp. 344-366.
- Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., and Christensen, A. L. (2011). Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader–member exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 115, No. 2, pp. 204-213. CrossRef
- Zhang, X., and Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of management journal, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 107-128. CrossRef