African Journal of Business Management Vol. 5(32), pp.

12632-12640,14 December, 2011

Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJBM
DOI: 10.5897/AJBM11.2224
ISSN 1993-8233 2011 Academic Journals

Full Length Research Paper

Multi-factor of employee values: A confirmatory factor

analytics (CFA) validation
M. R. Ab Hamid1*, Z. Mustafa2, N. R. M. Suradi2, F. Idris3 and M. Abdullah4
1

Faculty of Industrial Sciences & Technology, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Lebuhraya Tun Razak, 26300 Kuantan,
Pahang, Malaysia.
22
School of Mathematical Sciences, Faculty of Science & Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM
Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.
3
UKM-Graduate School of Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor.
4
Faculty of Defence Studies and Management, National Defence University of Malaysia, Sg. Besi Camp, 57000, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia.
Accepted 19 September, 2011

Employees are an asset to the organisation and therefore, values that surround them have to be
empowered for the benefit of the organisation. This article examines the factor structure of employee
values which are fairness, consultative, mutual trust, acknowledgement, altruism and empowerment.
Questionnaires were distributed to staff at the selected Higher Education Institution (HEI) in the east
coast of Malaysia. The data collected was analysed using confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) approach
in order to test the 6-factor hypothesized model of employee values. The revised hypothesized CFA
model yielded a p-value of 0.180, normed chi-square of 1.329, CFI of 0.995, TLI of 0.990, GFI of 0.960 and
RMSEA of 0.054 that suggested 4 core values, that is, fairness, consultative, mutual trust and altruism
that dominantly explained the universitys employee values in the selected university. Besides,
Bayesian estimation was then employed to cross-validate and support the modeling result obtained
from the maximum likelihood (ML) estimation. Both Bayesian and ML estimation results are
comparatively agreed to each other. The findings may pave the way forward for empowering values
adoption and embracement for employees especially at the HEI in Malaysia.
Key words: Fairness, consultative, mutual trust, acknowledgement, altruism, empowerment.

INTRODUCTION
Organisations face a variety of changes and challenges
that will have a profound effect on organizational dynamics and performance (Abdullah et al., 2011). Part of the
challenge comes from within the organisation itself, that
is, the human resource of the organisation that revolves
around the employee motivation and commitment,
managing a diverse workforce, and ethical behavior of
workforce (Abdullah et al., 2011). In order to overcome
and respond quickly to arising issues, organisations need
to clearly underline, yet be flexible and bold in embarking
on a new paradigm of organisational core values deployment, especially for employees. Values are said to be the
factor of the collapse of leading companies in the world
that disregard values as addendum to organisational

*Corresponding author. E-mail: rashid@ump.edu.my.

success (Abdullah et al., 2011). Nowadays, it is important

to have the right people working in the organisations
rather than to have the right mission and vision. This is
due to the fact that the right people would form the
mission and vision for the organisation to move forward
and achieve excellence. As pointed out by Collins and
Porras (1996), companies that enjoy enduring success
have values and a core purpose that remain fixed while
their business strategies and practices endlessly adapt to
a changing world. The dynamic of preserving the values
while stimulating progress is the reason behind the
success of many leading organisations worldwide
(Abdullah et al., 2011).
Many values have been found to be important for an
employee to embrace with. However, prior literature
merely concentrates only on general term of values.
Instead, this paper expounds the values that are closely
attached to employees in the organization, especially at

Ab Hamid et al .

Higher Education Institution (HEI) in Malaysia. This paper

suggested 6 core values of employees which are
fairness, consultative, mutual trust, acknowledgement,
altruism and empowerment. The focus of this paper
mainly revolves around the core values that employees
should have which have been suggested by Abdullah et
al. (2011). All these values were supported by the
literatures signifying their importance and relevance for
inclusion in organizational undertakings.
Therefore, taking values as crucial matter for organizational excellence, the motives of this paper are twofold.
Firstly, it aims at testing the psychometric properties of
employee values instrument through value-based
indicators by using structural equation modeling (SEM)
through confirmatory factor analytics (CFA) approach.
Secondly, the aim is to cross-validate the hypothesized
CFA model results, using the default maximum likelihood
(ML) estimation with Bayesian estimation for comparative
analysis. This cross validation process is conducted for
several reasons that will be explained subsequently. This
paper enhances its values through the use of multivariate
statistical analysis by using SEM in its analysis. In other
words, this paper also indicated its strengths by
emphasizing the most relevant values for employees to
embrace with, especially in HEI setting in Malaysia. In
addition, it contributes to the methodology, whereby the
psychometric properties of the value-based employee
questionnaire was empirically tested using SEM through
CFA approach. Besides that, this paper may form the
basis for future research to replicate in other countries to
see the values relevancy across the nation.
Further, literature review on employee values are put
forward, followed by methodology that consists of
hypothesized CFA model of employee values, sampling,
instrumentation via questionnaire, screening of outliers in
the data set, validity and reliability analysis and the
modeling strategy employed in this study. It is followed by
the findings that mainly discussed the assessment of
model adequacy and Bayesian confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA). A conclusion is further drawn.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Human resources or labour is an important asset
(Cravens and Oliver, 2006; Marzo et al., 2007; Nik
Mustapha, 2003) to the success of the organization. Nik
Mustapha (2003) asserts that for an organization to
become more competitive, the potential of every worker
should be polished. If this does not happen, it will hinder
the performance of the organization. By this approach,
the workers will be directly involved in the management
of the organization (Nik Mustapha, 2003). On top of that,
the management should also recognize the contribution
of workers, either through ideas or skills possessed in the
development of the organization (Cyert, 1993). Therefore,
they should be of concern since these workers will be
dealing with customers directly (Dzansi and Dzansi,
2010). For an organization to become more pro-active
and competitive in the global market, organizations must

12633

be equipped with workers that embraced good values

(Wan Jaafar et al., 2000).
Barney (1986) states that successful organizations improve their productivity through the values that recognize
their employees. Values that are held or practiced by
employees in an organization can be reflected through
the attitudes and behaviour in performing their duties and
responsibilities that are entrusted. These values directly
inspire employees to work better and resulted in
improved organizational performance. The study by
Cennamo and Gardner (2008) found that the values of
the organization should work in tandem to each
individual. Their study conducted in New Zealand lists
several values for each employee and organizational
values, such as extrinsic, intrinsic, status, altruism, social
and independence. These values were tested on three
generations of people (according to age category) in the
sample. The study found that there were differences in
their adherence to the values of each generation in the
sample but the difference is still acceptable, in an
organization that has many employees. They also found
that the dissemination and sharing of values among the
employees of the organization provides many benefits
and gains that lead to excellence.
Successful organization is always looking for ways and
means on how to motivate and reward employees in
order to enhance motivation as well as individual and
organizational performance (Burke and Hsieh, 2006;
Martin and Petty, 2000). Besides that, one way for an
organization to be more innovative is to use the best
possible expertise and capabilities of the existing human
resources (De Jong and Den Hartog, 2007). Human
resources in this organization are employees or staff
members who should be the main focus in improving
organizational performance. Mokhtar et al. (2003) defines
employee as the focus of the initiative to make
employees think positively towards the organization and
the work done. Focus on employee satisfaction should be
assessed from time to time in terms of clarity of tasks
performed, benefits, work environment, management
style and organizational leadership.
The main criterion is the welfare of workers which
contribute to employee satisfaction in performing the
assigned responsibilities. In addition, the organization
would be better if each worker can work as a team that
can strengthen the organization from within. This partnership forms a good and strong relationship especially
for staff to serve the organization towards achieving
remarkable success. Therefore, the core values focus on
employees is very important to be applied by the
employee in the organization.
Table 1 derives the core values that are deemed appropriate for the criteria of employee with the corresponding
value-based indicators. These employee values and its
indication are adopted and adapted from Mokhtar et al.
(2003) and Ab Hamid et al. (2010a).
Fairness issues should be taken into account in the
performance management system (Nik Mustapha, 2003)
because it is linked with the work environment (Moorman,
1991; Taiwo, 2010). James (1993) defines fairness as an

12634

Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

Table 1. Core values of employee and value-based indicators.

Core values
Fairness

Value-based Indicators
The degree of people that are promoted based on their merits and are given equal chance for promotion.

Consultative

The degree of the staff to voice out their views/opinions and actively sought by the management in making
important decision.

Mutual trust

The degree to which the organisational management entrusts the staff to complete the given task and
responsibility and the differences in opinion are not perceived as a hindrance in achieving goal.

Acknowledgement

The degree to which the organisation gives recognition/appreciation to those who contribute to the
organisation and the staff achievements are made public.

Altruism

The degree of the management to encourage the staff to look after the welfare/needs of others as well as
incentives/acknowledgement are given to staff who voluntarily sacrifices time and effort for the organisation.

Empowerment

The degree of which staff are given authority to make decisions that are deemed necessary within their job
scope and level of authority.

individual or group of employees perception of the

services provided by the organization and behavioural
reactions to these perceptions. With the principles of
fairness among the staff, it will improve the performance
of the work done (Moorman, 1991; Carmeli and Tishler,
2004). Fairness is also related to the promotion of
employees within the organization either on merit or
ability of individuals or otherwise. This also implies giving
equal opportunities between employees. Organizations
that do fairness to the staff will create a harmonious
environment that can lead the organization to move
forward. Lam et al. (2002) stressed that the leadership of
the organization should develop and implement organizational policies and practices that focus on the concept
of fairness as a basic requirement in organizational
effectiveness. Among others are the implementation of
promotion exercise that should be based on merits.
Through this, everybody would have equal chance for
promotion, etc. Hence, the value of fairness should be
the main focus in managing human resources in
organizations (Abdus Sattar et al., 2010).
In addition, the organization will be more robust if all
the employees in these organizations directly involve in
providing opinions or views in making important decisions
(Alhabshi, 2003). Although the final say is based on the
wisdom of top management, the opinion of staff is
required to give their ideas in the interest of the
organization (Tayeb, 1979). This value is defined as the
value of a negotiable or consultative; and this value also
vital in Islam as it is working-related matter (Tayeb,
1979). Also, this value is consistent with the concept of
Shura to emphasize the involvement of all stakeholders
in the management of which will eventually create an
atmosphere or feeling of mutual respect for each other
(Alhabshi, 2003). Besides that, this value is portrayed
whenever the management sought the employees
views/opinions especially in making important decision
(Mokhtar et al., 2003). The spirit of togetherness in
reaching the consensus would yield a better result as
every idea is taken into account (Mokhtar et al., 2003). In
addition, the workers who embraced this value would find

their works easily done or run smoothly as the

consultation process is always practised for the benefit of
individual and organisation alike.
Honesty is a very important value that should be
adopted by the staff (JKTU, 2009). Employees who have
a prominent impartiality in the organization will issue the
trust between each other. The mutual trust was found to
improve employee motivation to improve organizational
performance (Carmeli and Tishler, 2004; Bartram and
Casimir, 2007; Chami and Fullenkamp, 2002). In
addition, organizations need to improve and monitor the
ethical performance of its operations to build a strong
foundation of mutual trust with respect to relationship with
the stakeholders (Wilson, 2000). Mutual trust between
the employee and the leadership of the organization is
also very important (Singh and Krishnan 2008). This
value is also linked with the belief in the organization
(Joseph and Winston, 2005) and it is very important to be
practiced by the fellow staff (Chami and Fullenkamp,
2002). This value is portrayed whenever the management put the trust on the staff to execute their duties and
responsibilities. In addition, differences of opinion among
the staff is not an obstacle in achieving organizational
goals. Employees feel valued whenever their ideas are
considered and would willingly contribute to the
organization (Chami and Fullenkamp, 2002; Harung and
Dahl, 1995).
Wallace et al. (1999) found that the acknowledgements
value has been identified as crucial value in the
organization. Acknowledgement value has also been
emphasized by De Jong and Den Hartog (2007) and
Russell (2001) as a behavior that should be owned by a
leader. This value that is the sub-value in employee
should be taken seriously by the leader (Cravens and
Oliver, 2006; Cormican and OSullivan, 2004) to signify it.
De Jong and Den Hartog (2007) refers acknowledgement
as an appreciation given to the employee which performs
their work that features innovative values. Organizations
need to provide rewards for this purpose. The reward
system may be in the form of financial and non financial
(Martin and Petty, 2000). The organizations need to

Ab Hamid et al.

provide acknowledgement / appreciation of the efforts

and contributions of any staff. Besides that, this would
spur a sense of belonging in providing good service and
outstanding achievements of staff should be well
publicized for general information.
The spirit of cooperation among the staff are always
encouraged (JKTU, 2009). This type of partnership will
create a higher value of altruism. Singh and Krishnan
(2008) and Russell (2001) define altruism as the behavior
of concern for others. Organ (1988) also defines altruism
as helping other colleagues in the organization in
performing tasks such as helping new employees on a
voluntary basis and assist employees who have a high
work load or replacing the place of absent colleagues.
However, Liu and Cohen (2010) questioned that this
value is only meant for helping a colleague at work
without considering the implications on the effectiveness
of the organization. Nevertheless, this value is definitely
characterise good nature of employee values that always
put other colleagues first in the organization. It is also one
of the five dimensions in organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB) (Moorman, 1991). It is also directed to
the attitude that is willing to sacrifice the time and energy
for the organization. Staff who exhibit this value should
be given appropriate incentives as guidance or example
to others in the organization. In short, value of altruism is
closely related to the spirit of cooperation within the
organization (Chami and Fullenkamp, 2002).
JKTU (2009) also strongly recommend organization to
create an organizational structure and a clear delegation
of powers, transparent work flow and accountability,
optimum utilization of resources and information
management system that is efficient and effective to help
the organization achieve its goals; empowerment aimed
at improving accountability and responsibility at all levels
within the organization. Leaders are responsible for
nurturing and managing human resources within the
organization by empowering the staff (Branson, 2008).
Empowerment emphasizes cooperation and reflects the
similarity (Russel, 2001). Sharifah et al. (2010) found that
empowerment influenced dominantly on the commitment
of civil servants in Malaysia. Therefore, it is important to
embrace this value (Sharifah et al. (2010)), especially
among the staff to drive the organization towards
excellence.

METHODOLOGY
Here, the sampling technique, instrumentation and the data
screening procedure were discussed prior to the confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) technique in testing the hypothesized model as in
Figure 1. Ab Hamid et al. (2010b, 2011a, b) gives examples of CFA
use.
The hypothesized CFA model
Henceforth, all six core values that focus on the employee criteria
discussed are very important in an organization. The values being
discussed are critical values that are important to drive the
organization towards achieving overall performance excellence.
However, the list of values are not exhaustive but to the extent of

12635

Figure 1. Hypothesized model of factorial structure for employee

values.

this research, these employee values are considered to be the

critical values of employee in the organisation that should be
embraced in bringing the organisation towards achieving
organisational excellence. The CFA model of employee focus
values hypothesizes a priori that the responses to the items in the
questionnaire can be explained by 6 factors, that is, fairness,
consultative, mutual trust, acknowledgement, altruism and
empowerment. Secondly, each item has a nonzero loading on the
culture values it was designed to measure and zero loadings on all
other factors (values). This is vital for supporting the convergent
validity through factor loading > 0.7 (Hair et al., 2010). This means
that the designed items are solely meant for measuring the latent
factor under study. Thirdly, the values were hypothesized to be
correlated to each other and the error/uniqueness terms associated
with the item measurements are uncorrelated. A schematics
representation of this model is shown in Figure 1.

Sampling
This is an exploratory study that involves only one selected public
university in east coast of Malaysia. This study employed stratified
sampling method as it involves 2 strata, that is, academic and nonacademic staff. The responses are anonymous since they are not
required to indicate their identification. Respondents were chosen
conveniently in each strata. In other words, the population is first
divided into mutually exclusive groups that are relevant, appropriate
and meaningful in the context of the study (Sekaran, 2006).

12636

Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

Table 2. Items with the associated core values.

Core values

Code
EF1_1
EF2_1

Items
Staff promotion is based on merit.
Each staff has equal chance at promotion.

Consultative

EF3_1
EF4_1

Staff are encouraged to voice their views/opinion.

Staff views have always been looked into by the management in making crucial decision.

Mutual trust

EF5_1
EF6_1

The management place their trust on the staff to complete their tasks and responsibilities.
Difference in opinion among the staff does not hinder the university in achieving its aims

Acknowledgement

EF7_1
EF8_1

The university recognizes/appreciates staffs efforts and contributions.

Excellent performance by staff is widely publicized

EF9_1
EF10_1

The management encourages the staff to care for the welfares of their co-workers.
The management provides incentives to staff who have sacrificed their time and effort in the name
of the university

EF11_1
EF12_1

Staff are empowered to make the necessary decision within their job scope and authority.
The top management decentralizes certain powers to the responsibility of center/department/unit.

Fairness

Altruism

Empowerment

The questionnaires were distributed to the respondents through

the departments and faculties and they are required to return the
questionnaire within 2 weeks to the person-in-charge at the
university. The population size at the selected university is
approximately 1500 staff. According to Krejcie and Morgan (1970),
a minimum sample size of 306 is required. More than 500
questionnaires were distributed in order to increase the response
rate. However, 210 answered questionnaires were obtained. This
accounted for 40% of response rate which is considerably accepted
for the purpose of this study. Since this study used questionnaire as
method of data collection and it is important to consider the nonresponse bias (Pillay, 2009), the non-response bias would be
overcome with the use of bootstrapping method through Bayesian
analysis by re-sampling on the existing samples. This would
compensate the non-response from the samples in this study.
Instrument
The instrument was adopted and adapted from Mokhtar et al.
(2003), Fazli (2004) and Hong et al. (2009); and used 11-point
Likert-scaled type of measurement. The scale represents the level
of visibility in terms of core values in the organisation that gives an
anchor value of 0 = not visible to 10 = very visible. The wide range
of Likert scale is used in order for the respondents to freely rate
their perceptions of things occurring in their university environment.
This is vital in ensuring that the respondents would give their
sincere and truest answers as smaller gaps of indication would
probably lead to condone their wisdom of rating. This would also
give variation in the data as this is important in statistical analysis.
The questionnaire consisted of 12 items from 6 core values. Every
core values consist of 2 corresponding items each. As in Bollen
(1989), 2 items per core values were used as the minimum number
of indicators required for using SEM through CFA.
Before the questionnaire is administered to the respondents, it
was referred to the experts panel for content validity. Following the
suggestions from the experts panel, the questionnaires were then
pilot tested and revealed an overall Cronbach alpha of more than
0.70. The data obtained was keyed in the Predictive Analytics
SoftWare (PASW) version 18 for the modeling procedure (Table 2).

Data screening and analysis

The 210 dataset were coded and saved into PASW and analysed
using AMOS version 18. During the process of data screening for
multivariate outliers, several datasets were removed due to
Mahalanobis distance values more than the 2 value (2=42.31;
n=12, p<0.001) leaving a final 113 dataset to be analyzed.
Validity and reliability
Hair et al. (2010) defined reliability as an assessment of the degree
of consistency between multiple measurements of a variable. This
study assesses the consistency of the entire scale with Cronbachs
alpha and its overall reliability of each factor of employee focus
values. The overall Cronbach alpha was 0.955. All values yielded
alpha coefficient exceeded the values of 0.70 suggested by Hair et
al. (2010) except for values of empowerment (=-0.68). The
questionnaire was admissible but required the researcher to
proceed cautiously. In order to validate the instrument, this study
considered construct validation using analysis of moment structures
software (AMOS) with maximum likelihood (ML) estimation to
analyse the data. This approach known as confirmatory factor
analysis that is more advanced as it is based on the underpinning
theory (Norzaidi and Salwani, 2009).
Modeling strategy
Hair et al. (2010) stressed 3 distinct types of modeling strategy, that
is, confirmatory modeling strategy, competing models strategy and
model development strategy. Each of these three represents a
slight different approach in modeling. However, this study applied
the model development strategy. This strategy begins with the
basic model framework and may be improved further. It starts with
model that is built based on theoretical basis and empirically tested
using CFA approach. Following this, the model can be modified
based on the researchers judgement and suggestion given by the
modeling software. However, all the re-specification must also be
theoretically justifiable.

Ab Hamid et al.

12637

0.81

0.90

0.94
0.97

0.92

0.88

0.94

0.70

0.93
0.97

0.70

0.80

0.60

0.89

0.84

0.84

0.80

0.82

0.90

0.84
0.92

Figure 2. Revised CFA model of employee focus values.

FINDINGS
In this study, confirmatory factor analytic approach (CFA)
was used to determine the construct validity of the survey
items. It means how well the construct explained the
variables under study. In other words, whenever the
correlation of the items within the same construct is
relatively high it is said to have the construct validity.
Also, the factor loading and the squared multiple correlations (SMC) of the items are significantly correlated to
the specified construct would also contribute to the
construct validity comprehension.
From the initial findings of CFA in Figure 1, the
hypothesized model yielded several offending estimates.
The offending estimates occurred for the factor loading
that are greater than 1 whereas it should be in the range

of 0 and 1. This resulted in a non-fit model of single order

measurement CFA model of employee values. Therefore,
careful checking was conducted by deleting the values
that are of insignificant in the model. It is probably due to
the low reliability coefficients that contribute to the
offending estimates for certain values that were
acknowledgement and empowerment. Therefore, Figure
2 is the revised model.

Assessment of model adequacy

The revised model as in Figure 2 showed the results of
the CFA of employee values. The fit indices yielded a pvalue of 0.180, normed chi-square of 1.329, CFI of 0.995,
TLI of 0.990, GFI of 0.960 and RMSEA of 0.054. The

12638

Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

item that best explained the construct is the items that

have higher loadings on the same construct. It can also
be seen that the factor loadings of all observed variables
or items are adequate, ranging from 0.84 to 0.97 and
succinctly, the convergent validity for employee focus
values was also supported as the factor loadings of latent
to observed variable should be above 0.70 (Hair et al.,
2010; Byrne, 2010). This indicates that all of the
constructs conformed to the construct validity test which
means that all items belonged to the specified core
values. The interfactor correlations between the factors
were considered to be acceptable and give support for
divergent validity despite the correlation between values
of fairness and consultative, r = 0.92, but it can be
considered of little concern. The discriminant validity can
easily be checked through the checkings of crossloadings in the output.
As a result, the insignificant chi-square goodness-of-fit
statistics suggested that the proposed model did
generate the observed covariance matrix. Similarly, the
value of RMSEA marks insignificant discrepancies
between the observed covariance and implied matrices
and thereby supporting the degree of fit (Nordin, 2001).
All fit indices are more than adequate to conclude that
there is not enough evidence to conclude that this respecified CFA model is incorrect. In other words, it
indicated that the model fits the data reasonably well. It
also means that there was no significant difference
between the revised model and the observed model after
re-specification or revision on the initial hypothesized
CFA model.

Bayesian confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

Byrne (2010) argued that maximum likelihood (ML)
estimation of Likert-scale items produces negligible
effects of non-normal non-continuos data whenever each
variable/item has at least 5 categories of response and
large sample size. However, severe effects of non-normal
non-continuos data occur whenever each variable has 4
or less categories of responses and small sample size
which is less than 200. Under this condition, this study
could only use 113 questionnaires for analysis and
therefore, Bayesian estimation is recommended for reaffirming the previously conducted CFA. The Bayesian
CFA analysis was conducted in AMOS software to
estimate the unstandardised weights produced by this
analysis with the unstandardised loading obtained in the
CFA using maximum likelihood (ML) procedure.
Basically, the fundamental concept in ML estimation,
the true values of the model parameters are fixed but
unknown, while the estimates from a given sample are
considered to be random but known (Byrne, 2010;
Arbuckle, 2009). Bayesian estimation works in a situation
where any unknown quantity is a random variable and a
probability distribution is assigned to it (Byrne 2010). In
other words, in Bayesian estimation, the true model
parameters are unknown and considered to be random.
The parameters are assigned a joint distribution, that is,

Table 3. Comparative analysis (maximum likelihood and

Bayesian estimation) through unstandardised regression weight.

Loading
Fairness > EF1_1
Fairness > EF2_1
Consult > EF3_1
Consult > EF4_1
Mutual Trust > EF5_1
Mutual Trust > EF6_1
Altruism > EF9_1
Altruism > EF10_1

ML
1.000
1.200
1.000
1.035
1.000
1.050
1.000
1.191

Bayesian
1.192
1.031
1.041
1.189

prior distribution (before the data are observed) and

posterior distribution (after being observed) which will be
combined together. This joint distribution is based on the
formula which is called as Bayes theorem.
There are two important elements of the joint
distribution for CFA analysis which are the mean of the
posterior distribution as the parameter estimate and also
the standard deviation of posterior distribution that serves
an analog to the standard error in ML estimation (Byrne,
2010). It is an added advantage for the researcher to
conduct analysis based on both methodological
approaches and then conduct the comparative analysis
for the parameter estimates (Byrne, 2010). Therefore, the
result of the comparative analysis is shown in Table 3.
The result in Table 3 is the comparison between the
unstandardised factor loading estimates for the ML
method versus Bayesian posterior distribution estimates.
We can observe that only a small difference exist
between the loadings generated from ML estimation and
Bayesian estimation. In addition, based on the review of
the diagnostics plots, these estimates are very close
pertinent to first and second order factor loadings. This
gives evidence that the CFA using ML estimation in this
study is acceptable and re-specified model fits the data.
In other words, the findings speak well for the validity
(Byrne, 2010) of the hypothesized structure of employee
values.
Again, through Bayesian CFA, this study offered
evidence to those four-dimensions of CFA model that did
generate the data collected from the universitys staff in
one of the HEI in east coast of Malaysia. Based on the
findings, it shows that promotion of the staff at the
sampled HEI is based on merit and thus each staff has
equal chance for promotion exercise that exhibit the
fairness in the process. In addition, the staff are
encouraged to voice their views and opinions as the staff
were also consulted by the management in making
crucial decision. Besides that, the university management
place trust on the staff to complete their tasks and
responsibilities. Also, the difference in opinion among the
staff does not hinder the university in achieving its aims
while taking this as an added advantage to move forward
towards success. In light of that, the management also
encourages the staff to care for the welfares of their colleagues so as to promote the spirit of being togetherness

Ab Hamid et al.

and cohesive to each other. It is also probably clear that

the management also provides incentives to staff who
have sacrificed their time and effort for the university.
However, the exclusion of two values mentioned earlier
revealed that these values are still vague in practise
among the employees in the sampled HEI or simply said,
those values were still not that visible based on the
respondents perception. Therefore, the university management must also find way to further deploy the value
of empowerment and acknowledgement in the university
environment since all the core values are important for
employees to practise and fully embrace with. In the
context of this study, possibly the management is still not
looking for the best method in order to recognize and
appreciate the staffs efforts as well as contributions
towards the university. Also, there is less publicity on the
staff who exhibit excellent performance. These were the
points in the questionnaire that were meant to measure
the value of acknowledgement.
Besides that, the staf are still not empowered for
making necessary decision within their job scope and
authority. Perhaps, the management still practised the
centralised system whereby top management only
involve in the decision making process throughout the
university. Therefore, the delegation process is not
occurring in the university environment. Many factors
affect the results of the study. Among others are probably
that the sampled university is still about 9 years in
operation and still new with a lot of things that have to be
looked into. Besides that, the embracement of values
itself have to be empowered from the management to the
staff at all levels. If this is realised, maybe all the six core
values are salient and in action.

Conclusions
In this study, the hypothesized CFA model fits the sample
data fairly well and we may conclude that the fourdimension of employee focus values fit the university
value-based employee CFA model. In other words, there
is no proof that the model is incorrect (Nordin, 2011).
From the overall re-specified model, we can simply say
that the university employees must embrace the core
values of fairness, consultation, mutual trust and altruism
in order to gear up for achieving excellence by infusing
the values into employees. However, this does not imply
that the value of empowerment and acknowledgement
are not important employee values.
In the sampled HEI, these values were perceived to be
dominant among the university staff and university
management should be aware of this and take advantage
of these four values to further strengthen the values
among employees in order to create and realise the
value-based organisation endeavour further. This is
important if an organisation wants to be institutionalized it
must be infused with values (Abdullah et al., 2011;
Collins and Porras, 1996; Selznick, 1957).
Caveats should also be taken when interpreting the
results of this study since the sample size of this study is

12639

very small. However, by using bootsrapping method in

SEM, this study could possibly be well generalised to all
the population of university staff in Malaysia.
Furthermore, since all universities in Malaysia are placed
under one ministry, there is not much different between
the employess in each university (Nur Riza, 2008). Since
this study is conducted in Malaysia, possibly, the values
could also be extended to other types of organisation and
not only in higher education sector but also service and
public sector etc.
Finally, this research contributes to the methodology
whereby the instrument validation, that is, the valuebased questionnaire, was empirically tested using
structural equation modeling (SEM) through CFA
approach. Besides that, the questionnaire itself could be
used for other organisations to measure their employees
perceptions on the values that they embrace. Other than
that, this study values itself in terms of measuring the
intangibles, that is, the core values based on the
perceptions of human resources as an indication for
achieving excellence by empowering the core values
adoption in the organisation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support
received in the form of a research grant (OUP-UKM-FST2011) from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM).
REFERENCES
Ab Hamid MR, Mustafa Z, Mohd Suradi NR, Abdullah M, Ismail WR,
Mohamad Ali Z, Idris F, Yaziz SR, Ismail MZ (2010a). Value-Based
Total Performance Excellence Model: An Overview. J. Technol., 52:
95-104.
Ab Hamid MR, Mustafa Z, Mohd Suradi NR, Abdullah, M, Idris F, Ismail
WR, Mohamad AZ, Zainal Abidin N (2010b). Measuring leadership
values based on Value-Based Total Performance Excellence Model.
Bus. Manage. Q. Rev., 1(3): 64-79.
Ab Hamid MR, Mustafa Z, Idris F, Abdullah M, Mohd SNR (2011a).
Measuring value-based productivity: A Confirmatory Factor Analytic
(CFA) approach. Inter. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., 2(6): 85-93.
Ab Hamid MR, Mustafa Z, Idris F, Abdullah M, Mohd SNR (2011b).
Multi-factor of cultural values: A Confirmatory Factor Analytic
Approach. Quality and Quantity. DOI 10.1007/s11135-011-9532-z.
Abdullah M, Ab Hamid MR, Mustafa Z, Mohd Suradi NR, Idris F, Liong
CY, Ismail WR, Mohd SF (2011). Value-Based Total Performance
Excellence Measurement (VBTPEM): An Overview of Agenda and
Transformation. J Qual. Measure. Anal., 7(1): 67-75.
Abdus Sattar A, Kashif UR, Ommar HA (2010). Role of Islamic
leadership in value based corporate management: The case of
Pakistan. Afri. J. Bus. Manage., 4(18): 4003-4020.
Alhabshi SO (2003). Values-based leadership: its significance to
modern organisations. In Nik Mustapha Hj. Nik Hassan (pnyt.).
Values-based managenement the way forward for the next
millennium. Kuala Lumpur: Institute of Islamic Understanding of
Malaysia (IKIM).
Arbuckle JL (2009). Amos 18.0 Users Guide. USA: Amos Development
Corporation, pp. 385-408.
Barney JB (1986). Organizational culture: Can it be a source of
sustained competetive advantage? Acad. Manage. Rev., 11(3): 656665.
Bartram T, Casimir G (2007). The relationship between leadership and
follower in-role performance and satisfaction with the leader - The
mediating effects of empowerment and trust in the leader. Leadersh.
Organ. Dev. J., 28(1): 4-19.

12640

Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

Bollen KA (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. USA:

John Wiley and Sons.
Branson CM. (2008). Achieving organisational change through values
alignment. J. Educ. Adm., 46(3): 376-395.
Burke LA, Hsieh C (2006). Optimisng fixed and variable compensation
costs for employee productivity. Inter. J Prod. Perform. Manage.,
55(2): 155-162.
Byrne BM. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. Second
edition. Taylor and Francis Group, pp. 3-365.
Carmeli A, Tishler A (2004). The relationship between intangible
organisational elements and organisational performance. Strat.
Manage. J., 25: 1257-1278.
Cennamo L, Gardner D. (2008). Generational differences in work
values, outcomes and person-organisation values fit. J. Manage.
Psychol., 23(8): 891-906.
Chami R, Fullenkamp C (2002). Trust and efficiency. J. Bank. Financ.,
26: 1785-1809.
Collins JC, Porras JI (1996). Building Your Companys Vision. Harv.
Bus. Rev., 74(4):65-77
Cormican K, OSullivan D (2004). Auditing best practice for effective
product innovation management. Technovation. 24: 819-829.
Cravens KS, Oliver GO (2006). Employees: The key link to corporate
reputation management. Bus. Horiz., 49: 293-302.
Cyert RM (1993). Universities, competetiveness and TQM: A plan of
action for the year 2000. Public Adm. Q., 17(1): 10-18.
De Jong JPJ, Den Hartog DN (2007). How leaders influence
employees innovative behaviour. Eur. J. Innov. Manage., 10(1): 4164.
Dzansi DY, Dzansi LW (2010). Understanding the impact of human
resource management practises on municipal service delivery in
South Africa: An organizational justice approach. Afr. J. Bus.
Manage., 4(6): 995-1005.
Fazli I (2004). Integrated Management Approach: Total Performance
Excellence Model for Malaysian Companies. Unpublished PhD
Thesis. Center for Mathematical Sciences, Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia 1-194.
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2010). Multivariate Data
Analysis. Seventh Edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey, pp. 627-781.
Harung HS, Dahl T (1995). Increased productivity and quality through
managament by values: a case study of Manpower Scandinavia. The
TQM Magazine. 7(2): 13-22.
Hong, K.S., Gan, S.L., Hasbee Hj Usop, Rujhan Mustafa, Ngui, K.S.
2009. Relationship between leadership behaviours and leadership
effectiveness for academic work in Malaysian Public Universities.
Proceeding of the National Leadership Research Conference. Entrep.
Higher Educ., pp. 73-84.
James K (1993). The social context organizational justice: cultural,
intergroup and structural effects on justice, behaviors and
perceptions. In Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in
Human Resource Management. Cropanzano R (ed.). Erlbaum:
Hillsdale, NT: 21-50. In Lam, SSK, Schaubroeck J, Aryee S (2002).
Relationship between organizational justice and employee work
outcomes: a cross-national study. J. Organ. Behav., 23: 1-18.
JKTU. (2009). JK Keutuhan Pentadbiran Awam. Putrajaya, pp.1-33.
Joseph EE, Winston BE (2005). A correlation of servant leadership,
leader trust and organizational trust. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J., 26(1):
6-22.
Krejcie RV, Morgan DW (1970). Determining sample size for research
activities. Educ. Psychol. Measure., 30: 607-610.
Lam SSK, Schaubroeck J, Aryee S (2002). Relationship between
organizational justice and employee work outcomes: a cross-national
study. J. Organ. Behav., 23: 1-18.
Liu Y, Cohen A (2010). Values, commitment and OCB among Chinese
employees. Int. J. Intercult. Relat., 34: 493-506.
Marzo M, Pedraja M, Rivera P (2007). The customer concept in
university services: A Classification. Int. Rev. Public Non Profit
Mark.,. 4(1/2): 65-80.

Mokhtar A, Nooreha H, Nik Mustapha NH, Mazilan M (2003). ValueBased Total Performance Excellence Model: Baseline Assessment
Criteria Guidelines for Organisations. Kuala Lumpur: Institute of
Islamic Understanding Malaysia, pp. 1-87.
Moorman RH (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and
organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions
influence employee citizenship? J. Applied Psychol., 76(6): 845-855.
Nik Mustapha NH (2003). Values-based worker towards developing
quality and productive personality. In Nik Mustapha Hj. Nik Hassan
(eds.). Values-based management the way forward for the next
millennium. Kuala Lumpur: Institute of Islamic Understanding of
Malaysia (IKIM), pp. 35-55.
Nordin MS (2001). Sense of efficay among secondary school teachers
in Malaysia. Asia Pacific J. Educ., 21(1): 66-74.
Norzaidi MD, Intan SM (2009). Evaluating technology resistance and
technology satisfaction on students performance. Campus-Wide
Inform. Syst., 26(4): 298-312.
Nur Riza MS (2008). Modeling Quality Education in a Higher Education
Institution based on IPO Framework. Unpublished PhD Thesis.
Institute of Graduate Studies. University of Malaysia, pp. 47-48.
Organ D (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The good soldier
syndrome. Lexington Books: Lexington MA. In Gonzalez JV, Garazo
TG (2006). Structural relationships between organizational service
orientation, contact employee job satisfaction and citizenship
behavior. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manage., 17(1): 23-50.
Pillay R (2009). Perceived competencies of nurse managers: A
comparative analysis of the puclic and private sectors in South Africa.
Afri. J. Bus. Manage., 3(9): 495-503.
Russell RF (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. Leadersh.
Organ. Dev. J., 22(2): 76-83.
Sekaran U (2006). Research Methods for Business. 4th Edition. John
Wiley and Sons. 265-299.
Selznick P (1957). Leadership in Administration. A Sociological
Interpretation. University of California, Berkeley, A Harper
International Edition, p. 16.
Sharifah NSZA, Mohd SM, Fauziah AH, Ahmad MMSE (2010).
Organisational Commitment in Malaysian Public Sector. Int. J.
Manage. Stud., 17(1): 107-128.
Singh N, Krishnan VR (2008). Self-sacrifice and transformational
leadership: mediating role of altruism. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J.,
29(3): 261-274.
Taiwo AS (2010). The influence of work environment on workers
productivity: A case of selected oil and gas industry in Lagos, Nigeria.
Afri. J. Bus. Manage., 4(3): 299-307.
Tayeb MH (1979). Cultural determinants of organizational response
environmental demands: An empirical study in Iran. Unpublished
MLitt thesis, University of Oxford. In. Tayeb M (1997). Islamic revival
in Asia and human resource management. Empl. Relat., 19(4): 352364.
Wallace J, Hunt J, Richards C (1999). The relationship between
organizational culture, organizational climate and managerial values.
The Inter. J. Public Sector Manage., 12(7): 548-564.
Wan Jaafar WE, Mokhtar A, Nooreha H (2000). Benchmarking
Institutions of Higher Education. Total Qual. Manage., 11(4): 796799.
Wilson I (2000). The new rules: ethics, social responsibility and
strategy. Strategy and Leadership. 28(3): 12-16.
Shahin A, Zairi M (2007). Corporate Governance as a critical element
for driving excellence in corporate social responsibility. Int. J. Q.
Reliab. Manage., 24(7):753-770.