LINK DOWNLOAD MIỄN PHÍ TÀI LIỆU "CONSTRUCT VALIDATION OF THE JOB PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT a CASE OF THE MALAYSIAN PUBLIC SERVICE AGENCIES ": http://123doc.vn/document/569729-construct-validation-of-the-job-performance-measurement-a-case-of-the-malaysian-public-service-agencies.htm
CONSTRUCT VALIDATION OF THE JOB PERFORMANCE
MEASUREMENT: A CASE OF THE MALAYSIAN PUBLIC SERVICE
AGENCIES
Johanim Johari, Khulida Kirana Yahya and Abdullah Omar
Universiti Utara Malaysia
Abstract
Many studies have conceptualized job performance as a multidimensional
construct, however researchers have thus far provided inconclusive agreement
on what factors should be included in measuring job performance. Hence, a re-
conceptualization of the job performance is crucial due to the inconsistencies
in the measures of this construct. This study attempts to examine the
psychometric properties of the job performance constructs by integrating the
task performance and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) items. The
latter, which comprised of sportsmanship, civic virtue, courtesy, altruism,
conscientiousness, and innovative behavior, is conceptualized as the
contextual performance of employees. A priori proposition was made that the
job performance measurement could be explained by two factors, which are
task and contextual performance. SPSS version 12 and AMOS 4 were used to
analyze the data. Findings supported the hypothesis that job performance can
be measured two factors. However, four factors of OCB i.e. civic virtue,
sportsmanship, conscientiousness, and courtesy, loaded on the task
performance factor, while altruism and innovative behavior loaded on the
contextual performance construct.
Keywords: job performance, contextual performance, organizational citizenship
behavior, public service.
Introduction
The Malaysian Public Service is the single largest employer employing about 10.6 percent of
Malaysia’s total workforce (Malaysian Public Service Department, 2007). The sizeable
human capital needs to be mobilized and managed effectively and efficiently to unleash their
full potential for the benefits of the nation. Energy and resources should be focused on
transforming human capital in the public service by strengthening their knowledge, skills,
abilities, characteristics, and competencies needed to manage and lead the public
administration of the future (Malek, 2006). Reforming the public service and transforming its
human capital are efforts precondition to provide excellent and high quality service to the
stakeholders and its clients in the 21
st
century. Until today, various measures have been taken
to alleviate performance-related problems in the Malaysian Public Service. New Public
Management (NPM) was introduced in the 1990s to make absolute changes in the public
administration. This is to gear up public sector efficiency and performance in service quality
and delivery (Siddiquee, 2006). This approach also emphasized the critical role of
performance in the public sector. In 2004, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) was introduced
as a basis to benchmark the performance of the public sector and this circular requires all
2
frontline agencies to develop and implement key indicators (Malaysian Public Service
Department, 2007). The Government has introduced a number of policies and programs
towards reinforcing the need for a high performance workforce. Similarly in 2004, the
National Integrity Plan and the Integrity Institute of Malaysia (IIM) was introduced to reduce
corruption, mismanagement and abuse of power, to enhance the efficiency level in the public
service delivery systems, and to improve corporate governance and business ethics
(Malaysian Public Service Department, 2007).
Notwithstanding the tremendous reformation being made and great emphasis being placed on
performance, the public service has so far failed to bring about the desired results,
particularly in the service quality and delivery. In fact, there is a decline in the Malaysia
Public Sector competence compared to other Asian countries. To illustrate, Malaysia has
been ranked 28
th
place in the World Competitiveness Report from the Geneva-based Institute
for Management Development (IMD) in 2005 (IMD World Competitiveness Report, 2005).
Comparatively, this ranking has dropped from the 18
th
place in 2004. In 2006, Malaysia
Public Sector has managed to somewhat improve the ranking to the 22
nd
place, nonetheless
the ranking in terms of government efficiency has deteriorated from 16
th
place in 2004 to 26
th
in 2006 (“IMD World Competitiveness Report”, 2006). In fact, the overall ranking has
dropped slightly to the 23
rd
place in 2007 (“IMD World Competitiveness Report”, 2007).
Among the perceived weaknesses are lack of communication skills among civil servants, lack
of leadership commitment in managing human resources at the agency level, resistance to
change among the public sector employees, difficulty in handling and dealing with poor
performers due to the lack of an exit policy, over-centralized decision making, lack of
systematic succession planning that leads to unclear career paths, and lack of focus on
human resource management by the top management in the agencies (Malek, 2006).
Apparently, these problems rooted in the poor performance among the government officials.
This is supported by Siddiquee (2006), who claimed that public sector in Malaysia has long
been criticized for its inflexibility, ineffective accountability, and poor performance among
the officials. The bleak picture is evident when the Malaysian Public Service has recorded 58
percent increase in formal complaints from the public (Siddiquee, 2006). In 2005, a total of
2,707 complaints were received with regard to the public service poor performance, such as
delays in service provision, unfair actions/decisions of the administrators, abuse of power,
misconduct of the officials, and failure to enforce rules. Even though the number of
complaints has dropped slightly from 2,792 in 2004 to 2,707 in 2005, it should be noted that
complaints on unsatisfactory quality of service have almost doubled from 2.91 to 4.43
percent (Public Complaints Bureau, 2005). Further, the overall number of complaints has
dropped from 3,397 in 2006 to 2,378 until September 2007. However, the number of
complaints on unsatisfactory service quality has tripled to15.60 and 15.53 percent in 2006
and 2007 respectively, compared to the preceding years (Public Complaints Bureau, 2007).
Various explanations have been given by scholars on factors related to poor performance in
the public service sector. For instance, Givan (2005) revealed the use of inappropriate
performance indicators as the root cause while Black, Briggs, and Keogh (2001) pointed out
the challenge for public servants to fulfill the need of multiple stakeholders as the core
problem. Findings by George and Hegde (2004) acknowledged the role of traits and
behaviors in employees, which may influence the customer satisfaction at different level.
Mwita (2000) diverted the focus to the top management personnel, who are responsible to
identify the ‘performance gap’ and provide avenues for the public officials to upgrade their
performance accordingly. Pandey and Rainey (2006) raised the similar issue of vague
organizational goals as the major hindrance to a better performance among public servants,
3
including those in the management level. In an earlier study, Pandey and Welch (2005)
reported that the pervasive effect of red tape in the public sector hampers achievement at both
individual and organizational level respectively. It was also noted that organizational politics
and unfair reward allocation impede excellent performance of the public officials (Morrison,
2000). Taken together, Kim (2006) and Lee, Nam, Park, and Lee (2006) strongly suggested
that research on job performance of public officials is considered very necessary for two main
reasons: firstly, research findings in this area are thus far inconclusive; and secondly, job
performance has a profound impact on the performance of the public sector as a whole. These
bases prompted the need for practitioners and academia to systematically examine
antecedents of job performance among the public officials.
Objectives of the study
Studies on job performance have adopted various different measures in capturing the
performance construct. The inconsistencies of these measures may not reflect the actual
factors related to the employees’ job performance. Given this, there is a need to develop a
more comprehensive instrument that can capture clearly the job performance construct.
Therefore, this study examined the construct validity of the task performance and OCB items
as contextual performance construct in the Malaysian Government agencies setting.
We examined the construct validity of the job performance instrument which is also served as
a preliminary investigation of the psychometric properties of the Malay language version of
the job performance instrument with a sample of respondents from the Malaysian Public
Service agencies. In specific, the objectives of this study were twofold: firstly, to assess the
internal consistency reliability of the job performance dimensions and the total score, and
secondly, to assess the construct validity of the job performance instrument utilizing
exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic procedures. The items and dimensions of job
performance scale were developed and also adapted based on the existing instruments that
assessed the two dimensions of job performance: task performance and OCB.
Literature review
Conceptualization of job performance
Job performance has become one of the significant indicators in measuring organizational
performance in many studies (Wall et al. 2004). Even though performance is oftentimes
determined by financial figures, it can also be measured through the combination of expected
behavior and task-related aspects (Motowidlo, 2003). In fact, performance that is based on an
absolute value or relative judgment may reflect overall organizational performance (Gomez-
Mejia, Balkin, and Cardy, 2007; Wall et al. 2004). Additionally, job analysis can also be used
in developing performance standard required of each employee (Heneman and Judge, 2005).
Job analysis specifies work behaviors and knowledge, skills, abilities, and other
characteristics (KSAOs) required of the job incumbents. Most importantly, Wiedower (2001)
and Pincus (1986) asserted that performance measure that is based on the performance
appraisal items offers higher reliability in evaluating performance.
Schmitt and Chan in Motowidlo (2003) categorized job performance into ‘will-do’ and ‘can-
do’. The former refers to individuals’ KSAOs required in performing certain job and the
latter denotes the motivation level that individuals may have in performing their work. On the
4
same ground, Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994) pointed out that performance construct
should consist of task performance and contextual performance. Both constructs are
influenced by different factors, for instance job-related experience determines task
performance while individual’s personality type determines contextual performance
(Motowidlo and Van Scotter, 1994). In a parallel fashion, Cardy and Dobbins in Williams
(2002) conceptualized performance as work outcomes that relates closely to task
performance, such as the quantity and quality of work done, and job relevant behaviors that
consist of behavioral aspects useful in achieving task performance (Williams, 2002). In other
words, job relevant behaviors provide support in performing task-related matters. Although
various ways have been adopted to measure job performance, there is a need to develop a
comprehensive instrument that can capture the performance construct.
As such, job performance is best measured in terms of task performance and contextual
performance or job relevant behaviors needed to enhance performance-related matters. Given
the very similar concept of contextual performance and OCB, this study used OCB items to
measure contextual performance.
Conceptualization of task performance
According to Motowidlo (2003), scholars have given limited attention on the most
appropriate concept of task performance despite the fact that an accurate definition of task
performance or in-role performance is crucial before any interventions are made to improve
human performance in organizations. In human resource management studies, task
performance has been measured using a range of criterion measures, including supervisory
ratings, productivity indexes, promotability ratings, sales total, and turnover rate. Although
these indicators might be presumed to reflect performance at various degrees, Gomez-Mejia
et al. (2007) stated that task performance should be distinguished into quality of work done,
quantity of work performed, and interpersonal effectiveness. Motowidlo (2003) defined task
performance or in-role behaviors as the organization’s total expected value on task related
proficiency of an employee. In other words, task performance is the behaviors related
specifically to performing job-related matters.
Task performance can be measured in terms of the absolute value or relative judgment
(Gomez-Mejia et al., 2007; Wall et al., 2004). The former is based on the figures or financial
indicators, such as productivity and profitability. Relative judgment focuses on the overall
performance of an employee or organization, which is based on task-related and behavioral
aspects. It has also been reported that performance should be measured broadly to enhance its
reliability (Chockalingam, Schmidt, and Viswesvaran, 1996) but the scope of measurement
should be most specific. For example, performance measurement should be based on
performance appraisal items or job analysis in order to increase both validity and reliability
(Pincus, 1986; Ashton, 1998; Wiedower, 2001).
According to Wall et al. (2004), most human resource management researches adopted
subjective measure of performance in tapping job performance, which is most appropriately
measured based on task related and behavioral aspects. Most importantly, subjective measure
allows researchers to generalize the findings to a larger performance construct (Wall et al.
2004). This is in accordance to Motowidlo’s (2003) assertion that task performance is best
construed as a behavioral construct because it involves psychological process that is related
to selection, training, motivation, and facilitating situational processes.
5
Organizational citizenship behavior as a contextual performance
The biggest challenge for employers in managing human resources is to get their employees
working beyond what is stated in their job descriptions voluntarily. In fact, maximizing
efforts from employees is important in sustaining competitive advantage, keeping abreast
with changes, and promoting innovation (Organ, 1997). This situation demands for
organizational citizenship behavior or OCB to be exhibited by all employees in the
organization. Organ (1997) and Podsakoff et al. (2000) introduced organizational citizenship
behavior, which is also known as the contextual performance or extra-role performance, as a
prominent contributing factor to organizational effectiveness. Organizational citizenship
behavior or OCB was first introduced in the early 1980s by Bateman and Organ (Organ et al.
2006). It has been defined by Organ (1988) as:
“An individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly
recognized by the formal reward system and that in aggregate promotes the
effective functioning of the organization. By discretionary, we mean that the
behavior is not an enforceable requirement of the role or job description that
is the clearly specifiable terms of the person’s employment contract with the
organization; the behavior is rather a matter of personal choice, such that the
omission is not generally understood as punishable” (p. 4).
In other words, OCB concerns with the positive behavioral aspects that are neither stated in
job description nor enforced by employment contract. Besides contextual performance, OCB
has been also coined as the extra-role behaviors or discretionary behaviors (Organ et al.,
2006). When first introduced by Bateman and Organ, OCB was distinguished into general
compliance that concerns with what employees should do and altruism that focuses on
employees’ willingness in helping others (Organ et al., 2006). Later, Organ (1985) expanded
OCB into five distinct dimensions namely, altruism, civic virtue, conscientiousness, courtesy,
and sportsmanship. Following this, the concept of OCB has gone through several
transformations. For instance, Williams and Anderson (1991) divided OCB into OCB-I that
focuses on behaviors at individual level and OCB-O that deals with employee behaviors at
organizational level. Then, Organ (1997) categorized OCB into three dimensions, which are
helping, courtesy, and conscientiousness. According to Koster and Sanders (2006), OCB has
also been defined as customer-service behavior or pro social behavior. However, Chiaburu
and Baker (2006) stated that OCB and pro-social behavior or customer-service behavior
differ markedly based on the context of the behaviors being performed by the employees.
This is because OCB is about reciprocity whereby employees would engage in OCB if they
perceive that their supervisors or colleagues exhibit OCB whereas pro-social behavior is the
type of behaviors that should be exhibited by employees who are attending to the customers’
needs (Chiaburu and Baker, 2006).
Despite numerous conceptualizations of OCB, the most scrutinized concept of OCB is based
on the five dimensions by Organ (1985) namely, altruism, civic virtue, conscientiousness,
courtesy, and sportsmanship. A more recent concept of OCB includes innovative behavior as
one of its dimension. Moon, Van Dyne and Wrobel (2005) noted that this dimension is
somewhat different from the classic definition of innovation and creativity because
innovative behavior in OCB relates to the engagement level of employees in giving and
adopting constructive ideas for the functional improvement of the department or organization.
It has been suggested by Moon et al. (2005) that innovative behavior is a crucial important to
be included and examined in the OCB construct given the need for organizations nowadays to
6
have employees that can participate actively in delivering ideas for organizational
effectiveness and performance.
Methodology
Procedures
Self-administered questionnaires were distributed to the respondents in four government
agencies in the state of Kedah, Malaysia. The researchers went to each agency and gave the
questionnaires personally to the chief clerk of each department, who were contacted prior to
the researchers’ visit. They were briefed on the research objectives and guidelines in
answering the questionnaires. A letter from the researcher stating that the research is purely
academic and research results will be used for academic purposes only was also enclosed.
In the study, respondents were required to evaluate one of their immediate subordinates on
task performance and OCB items. Supervisory rating method is chosen over self-rating to
avoid common method variance as suggested by many performance-related researchers, e.g.
Yousef (1998), Jabroun and Balakrishnan (2001), Crossman and Abou-Zaki (2003), Castro,
Armario, and Ruiz (2004), Kim (2006), and Koster and Sanders (2006). Most importantly,
Wall et al. (2004), Tubre (2000), Organ et al. (2006), and Organ and Ryan (2001) strongly
contended that self-rating performance-related construct will lead to a spuriously high or low
correlation, confounded by the common method variance. Further, Bohlander and Snell
(2007) and Moideenkutty, Blau, Kumar and Nalakath (2005) asserted that immediate
supervisors are the most appropriate source of information with regard to job performance.
As such, immediate supervisors were chosen to evaluate their subordinates on task
performance and OCB items.
Respondents
Respondents were 100 public servants from four government agencies in the state of Kedah.
A total of 61 of the respondents are male and 39 are female. Because the government
agencies in Kedah are predominantly Malay-populated, all of the respondents participated in
this study were Malays. Most of the respondents were the exempt employees, which made up
63.0 percent (63) while 37.0 percent (37) of the respondents were non-exempt employees.
Questionnaires were given out to the respondents to answer 37 items on task performance and
OCB. A total of 200 questionnaires were distributed and 103 were returned. However, only
100 questionnaires were usable for data analysis.
Back translation of the items
The translation of the original English version of the questionnaire into Malay language was
accomplished through back translation procedure. Based on guidelines by Brislin (1970), four
different bilingual language experts were employed; two for translating from the source to
Malay language, and the other two experts re-translated the items into English.
Decentralization was also conducted indicating that the source and the target language
version are equally important during the translation procedure (Brislin, 1970). Revision
indicated no discrepancies between the English and Bahasa Malaysia version of the
questionnaire. We also discussed and verified the items with officers and clerical staff from
the Malaysian public service agencies.
7
Measurement of job performance
The job performance scale was assessed with seven subscales: task performance,
sportsmanship, altruism, courtesy, civic virtue, conscientiousness, and innovative behavior.
All items were rated on a seven-point Likert scale, namely 1=very disagree, 2=disagree, 3=
slightly disagree, 4=moderate, 5= slightly agree, 6= agree, 7= very agree. To determine the
score of this scale, ratings within each scale are summed and divided by the total number of
items in that particular scale. Negative statement items on the instrument were reverse-coded
so that a high score on the instrument indicates a high degree of job performance for the
public servants.
Task performance is based on supervisor’s relative judgment that focuses on the overall
performance of an employee, which is based on task-related and behavioral aspects (Gomez-
Mejia et al., 2007). All of the items were adapted from William and Anderson (1990).
Sportsmanship assessed employees behaviors in which one do not complain because he or
she has a positive attitude (e.g. “He/she always find fault with that the organization is
doing.”), altruism measured behaviors in which employees help their colleagues to perform
tasks (e.g. “He/she willingly help others who have heavy workload.”), and courtesy assessed
behaviors where employees take step to prevent problems with others (e.g. “He/she does not
abuse the rights of others.”).
Civic virtues examined behaviors that contribute to the political
aspect in the organization (e.g. “He/she keeps up with changes in the organization”) and
conscientiousness measured behaviors in which employees perform tasks well beyond the
minimum required level (e.g. “He/she does not take extra time for breaks.”). All items were
adapted from Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1990). Finally, innovative behavior assessed the
frequency of contributing ideas and engagement level among employees. The six items
measuring innovative behavior were adapted from Moon et al. (2007). A sample item is
“He/she tries to make constructive suggestions for improving how things operate in this
department.”
Results
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and internal reliability consistencies and mean
were employed to examine the factor structure of the job performance measurement scale. In
this study, items for each observed variable was used to identify each of its latent variables.
Exploratory factor analysis
An exploratory factor analysis was carried out to examine the factorial validity of the Bahasa
Malaysia adaptation of the job performance items. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted
using principal axis factoring extraction with oblique rotation and a priori criteria of two
factors were extracted based on the previous studies. However, four dimensions of OCB,
namely sportsmanship, courtesy, civic virtue, and conscientiousness, loaded on the task
performance factor. Given this, job performance construct were labeled as task performance,
(i.e. items on task performance, sportsmanship, courtesy, civic virtue, and conscientiousness)
and contextual performance (i.e. items on altruism and innovative behavior). A total of 12
items were dropped from further analysis because of cross or low factor loading, i.e. less than
0.50 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black, 1998).
8
Items Factor Loading
Task 1 He/she performs tasks that are expected of him/her. 0.694
Task 2
He/she meets formal performance requirements of the job. 0.681
Task 3
He/she is involved in activities that are relevant to his/her yearly
performance assessment.
0.783
Task 4
He/she fails to perform essential duties. ® 0.755
Task 5
He/she adequately completes assigned duties. 0.643
Task 6
He/she does not take extra time for breaks. 0.614
Task 7
He/she often work beyond office hours even though not being asked
to.
0.762
Task 8
He/she always complains about things that are not important. ® 0.756
Task 9
He/she always finds fault with what the organization is doing. ® 0.638
Task 10
He/she always pays attention to matters that are negative rather than on
matters that are positive. ®
0.664
Task 11
He/she is always complaining about work. ® 0.618
Task 12
He/she tries to prevent himself/herself from creating problems for
his/her coworkers.
0.874
Task 13
He/she is aware of how his/her behavior affects other people’s jobs. 0.693
Task 14
He/she reads and follows all announcements, memos, and others given
out by the organization.
0.782
Task 15
He/she keeps up to date with changes in the organization. 0.527
He/she attend meetings that are not compulsory but are considered
important.
0.564
Contextual
1
He/she helps others who have problems with their work. 0.701
Contextual
2
He/she helps others who have heavy workload. 0.620
Contextual
3
He/she always ready to offer help to those around him or her. 0.672
Contextual
4
He/she tries to make innovative suggestions to improve the
department/organization.
0.873
Contextual
5
He/she tries to adopt improved procedures for the
department/organization.
0.562
Contextual
6
He/she tries to institute new more effective work methods for the
department/organization.
0.914
Contextual
7
He/she tries to make constructive suggestions for improving how
things operate in this department/organization.
0.989
Contextual
8
He/she makes recommendations on issues that affect the
department/organization.
0.931
Contextual
9
He/she speaks up for new changes in this department/organization. 0.716
Eigen Value 10.135 4.011
Variance Explained 40.539 16.045
Alpha 0.921 0.936
Table 1: Factor Loadings for Job Performance
Reliability
Job Performance # of item Mean α
Task Performance 16 5.906 0.921
Contextual Performance 9 5.538 0.936
Overall Job Performance 25 5.773 0.927
Table 2 Summary Statistics for Job Performance and Cronbach’s Alpha
Table 2 presents the results of the internal consistency reliability and mean, and standard
deviation for the total score and each subscale. Cronbach’s alpha values are 0.921 for ‘task
9
performance’ subscale and 0.936 for ‘contextual performance’ subscale. The internal
consistency reliability for the Job Performance scale was 0.927.
Confirmatory factor analysis
A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to identify the validity of the job performance
construct. The standardized estimates are reported to interpret parameters in the measurement
model. Both absolute and incremental fit statistics were used to establish the model fit.
Traditional chi-square test and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were
chosen to indicate the absolute fit statistics.
Figure 1: A first order measurement model for job performance.
Latent constructs are shown in ellipses and observed variables are shown in rectangles.
Two incremental statistics used were Tucker Lewis Index and the Comparative Fit Index. The
values of Normed fit Index (NFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and Comparative fit Index
(CFI) can be between 0 to 1 and values greater than 0.90 and 0.95 reflected an acceptable and
excellent fits to the data and the RMSEA values at or less than 0.05 and 0.08 indicated a close
and reasonable fit. The Chi-Square Goodness-of-fit statistics with 11 degree of freedom was
12.902. The value of NFI is 0.971, GFI is 0.965, and TLI is 0.992. Figure 1 shows that all
loadings of items on their targeted factors were high, statistically significant, and above 0.55
the cutoff point used in the exploratory factor analysis. Both factors are correlated with the
correlation value of 0.51 suggesting that these factors are interrelated but relatively are
orthogonal of one another.
Discussions
Findings of the study indicate that only two factors of job performance, namely altruism and
innovative behaviors, fall into the OCB construct while the rest loaded on the task
performance factor. Such finding is possible because of the supervisory rating approach
adopted in this study. In most instances, supervisors perceive OCB item as task performance
Task perf
.98
TASK e1
.99
.51
CON e2
.72
.62
SPORTS e3
.79
.70
COURTESY e4
.84
.37
CIVIC e5
.60
Contextual
.91
ALTRUISM e6
.96
.55
INNOVATI e7
.74
.51
Standardized estimates
Chi-square= 12.902
df= 11
ratio= 1.173
p-value= .300
GFI= .965
RMSEA= .042
TLI= .992
CFI= .996
NFI= .971
37
.30
10
instead of contextual performance. For example, Wilson (2005) found that 94 percent of
supervisors considered OCB as part of their subordinates’ task performance. Borman and
Motowidlo (1997) echoed that supervisors viewed and evaluated task and contextual
performance as a similar construct in appraising employees’ job performance. Vey and
Campbell (2004) conducted a study among respondents with and without supervisory
experience to evaluate the in-role and extra role items. It was found that 17 of the 30 OCB
items were categorized by 85 percent of the respondents as in-role performance. In fact,
respondents without supervisory experience tend to categorize dimensions on altruism,
courtesy, and sportsmanship as in-role compared to the other group of respondents. As such,
it is interesting to raise several issues pertaining to the ambiguity in understanding in-role and
extra role concepts among supervisors.
Prior to evaluating subordinates’ performance, it is crucial for supervisors to undergo training
for the appraisal task. Bohlander and Snell (2007) noted that supervisors must be adequately
trained in appraising subordinates’ performance so that their appraisals are more meaningful
and directive. By understanding subordinates tasks and performance standards and objectives
or purposes of the appraisal, supervisors can provide useful feedbacks to subordinates and
eventually help improve performance. In other words, training appraisers can ensure better
performance appraisal process which benefits both subordinates and supervisors.
Another plausible explanation for the cross loadings of the OCB items is because of
dimensions used in evaluating employees. Malaysian public servants are being evaluated
based on several aspects i.e. task and other attributes that are similar to OCB items. This
might have inadvertently influenced respondents’ perception of the items. The respondents
have been trained to evaluate employees based on the items and therefore OCB items in the
performance appraisal were considered as task instead of contextual performance. This is in
agreement with Organ’s (1997) and Vey and Campbell’s (2004) assertions that in assessing
job performance, OCB items should be included because they are integrally measuring task
performance as well.
Additionally, the error covariance existed in innovative behaviors and civic virtue due to the
fact that both items measured employees’ contribution. The former examined contribution in
terms of the political aspect while the latter measured the contribution of ideas to promote
general change and improvement. Likewise, cross loading of civic virtues and sportsmanship
constructs. Such finding is possible because according to Moon et al. (2005), both factors are
considered as the ‘protective’ type of OCB, which occurs when employees take necessary
preventive measure to protect the organization from unethical behaviors.
Conclusions and recommendations
Based on the findings that showed the evidence of construct validity of the job performance
items, this instrument can be used in the Malaysian studies. Results of this study also reported
coefficient alphas were more than 0.90 for both task and contextual performance and
exploratory factor analysis indicated support for the factorial validity of the job performance
scale. Such findings suggest acceptable reliability and validity of the instrument. Further,
confirmatory factor analysis provided the evidence of construct validity based on tests of
significance and assessment of the measurement model fit. Thus, two subscales of job
performance can be useful instruments in examining job performance in the Malaysian
setting.
11
This study has given a significant contribution in terms of construct development of a more
comprehensive job performance measure. Given the psychometric properties of the
instruments, which are very acceptable i.e. both constructs equal or exceed the measurement
levels, this instrument can be used by Malaysian researchers in measuring job performance as
all of the items measures the construct it was supposed to measure.
References
Ashton, M.C. (1998). “Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, No. 3, 289-303.
Bohlander, G. and Snell, S. (2007). “Managing Human Resources”, South-Western College
Publishing, Cincinnati, OH, pp. 31-39.
Borman, W.C. (2004). “The concept of organizational citizenship”, American Psychological
Society, Vol. 13, No. 6, 238-241.
Brislin, R.W. (1970). “Back-translation for cross cultural research”, Journal of Cross Cultural
Psychology, Vol. 1, No. 2, 185-216.
Castro, C.M., Armario, E.M., and Ruiz, D.M. (2004). “The influence of employee
organizational citizenship behavior on customer loyalty”, International Journal of
Service Industry Management, Vol. 15, No. 1, 27-53.
Chiaburu, D.S. and Baker, V.L. (2006). “Extra-role behaviors challenging the status-quo”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21, No. 7, 620-637.
Chockalingam, V., Schmidt, F.L., and Ones, D.S. (1996). “Comparative analysis of the job
performance ratings”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, No. 5, 557-574.
George, B.P. and Hegde, P.G. (2004). “Employee attitude towards customers and customer
care challenges in banks”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 22, No. 6,
390-406.
Givan, R.K. (2005). “Seeing stars: Human resources performance indicators in the National
Health Service”, Personnel Review
, Vol. 34, No. 6, 634-647.
Gomez-Mejia, L.R., Balkin, D.B. and Cardy, R.L. (2007). “Managing Human Resources”
,
Pearson Education International, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Heneman, H.G. and Judge, T.A. (2003). Staffing Organizations, McGraw Hill, Middleton,
MI, 76-85.
IMD world competitiveness report. (2005). IMD World Competitive Center. Retrieved
February 21, 2007, from http://www.imd.ch/research/publications/wcy/
wcy_online.cfm?mrk_cmpg_source=1007138andbhcp=1
IMD world competitiveness report. (2006). IMD World Competitive Center. Retrieved
February 21, 2007, from http://www.imd.ch/research/publications/wcy/
wcy_online.cfm?mrk_cmpg_source=1007138andbhcp=1
12
IMD world competitiveness report. (2007). IMD World Competitive Center. Retrieved
November 4, 2007, from http://www.imd.ch/research/publications/wcy/
wcy_online.cfm?mrk_cmpg_source=1007138andbhcp=1
Kim, S. (2006). “Public service motivation and organizational citizenship behavior”,
International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 27, No. 8, 722-740.
Koster, F., and Sanders, K. (2006). “Organizational citizens or reciprocal relationships? an
empirical comparison”, Personnel Review, Vol. 35, No. 5, 519-537.
Lee, Y., Nam, J., Park, D., and Lee, K. (2006). “What factors influence customer-oriented
prosocial behavior of customer-contact employees?”, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 20, No. 4, 251-264.
Malaysian Public Service Department (2007). Maklumat perjawatan dan pengisian sektor
awam. Putrajaya: Author. Retrieved 4 March, 2007, from http://www.jpa.gov.my/i-
mapsa/Default.aspx?alias=www.jpa.gov.my/i-mapsa/perangkaan
Malek, S. (2006, August 21). Transforming human capital for public service excellence in the
21
st
century. Speech presented for the 11
th
Civil, Service Conference, National
Institute of Public Administration, Bukit Kiara, Kuala Lumpur.
Mohd Najib, A.R. (2006, August 21). Developing human capital: Towards achieving service
beyond the ordinary. Speech presented for the 11
th
Civil, Service Conference,
National Institute of Public Administration, Bukit Kiara, Kuala Lumpur.
Moideenkutty, U. (2005). “Organizational citizenship behavior and developmental
experiences: Do role definitions moderate the relationship?”, Journal of Behavioral
and Applied Management, Vol. 6, No. 2, 91-108.
Moideenkutty, U., Blau, G., Kumar, R., and Nalakath, A. (2006). “Comparing correlates of
organizational citizenship and in-role behavior of sales representative in India”,
International Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol. 16, No. 1, 15-28.
Moon, H., Van Dyne, L., and Wrobel, K. (2005). “The circumplex model and the future of
organizational citizenship behavior research”, In Turnispeed, D.L. (Ed.). Handbook of
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (pp.1-23), Nova Scotia Publishers, Inc., New
York, NY.
Morrison, E.W. (1994). “Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The
importance of employee’s perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27,
No. 6, 1543-1567.
Motowidlo, S.J. (2003). “Job performance”, In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, and R. J.
Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology: 12. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology (pp. 39-53), John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Motowidlo, S.J. and Van Scotter, J.R. (1994). “Evidence that task performance should be
distinguished from contextual performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79,
No. 4, 475-480.
13
Mwita, J.I. (2000). “Performance management model: a system based approach to public
service quality”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 13, 1, 19-
37.
Organ, D.W. (1988). “Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Good Soldier Syndrome”,
Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, p. 4.
Organ, D.W. (1997). “Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct cleanup time”,
Human Performance, Vol. 10, 85-97.
Organ, D.W. and Ryan, K. (1995). “A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional
predictors of organizational citizenship behavior”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48,
No. 4, 775-802.
Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (2006). “Organizational Citizenship
Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences”, Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, pp. 56-62.
Pincus, J.D. (1986). “Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job performance”,
Human Communication Research, Vol. 12, No. 3, 395-419.
Pandey S.K. and Rainey, H.G. (2006). “Public managers’ perception of organizational goal
ambiguity: Analyzing alternative models”, International Public Management Journal,
Vol. 9, No. 2, 85-112.
Pandey, S.K. and Welch, E.W. (2005). “Beyond stereotypes: A multistage model of
managerial perceptions of red tape”, Administration and Society, Vol. 37, No. 5, 542-
575.
Podsakoff, P., Mackenzie, S., Paine, J. and Bachrach, D. (2000). “Organizational citizenship
behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions
for future research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26, No. 3, 513-563.
Public Complaints Bureau (2004). PCB statistics 2005. Putrajaya:Author. Retrieved February
22, 2007, from http://www.bpa.jpm.my/Annual /STATISTIK%
20TAHUN%2020041_BI.pdf
Public Complaints Bureau (2005). PCB statistics 2005. Putrajaya:Author. Retrieved February
22, 2007, from http://www.bpa.jpm.my/Annual /STATISTIK%
20TAHUN%2020051_BI.pdf
Public Complaints Bureau (2006). PCB statistics 2005. Putrajaya:Author. Retrieved February
22, 2007, from http://www.bpa.jpm.my/Annual /STATISTIK%
20TAHUN%2020061_BI.pdf
Public Complaints Bureau (2007). PCB statistics 2007. Putrajaya:Author. Retrieved
November 4, 2007, from http://www.bpa.jpm.my/Annual /STATISTIK%
20TAHUN%2020071_BI.pdf
