Section 2

Section 2 presents the conceptual background of different variables that used in the study. In this

section definitions and concepts of variables are explained in a detailed manner. Antecedent

variables are the High-performance work system and its various practices and work demand

stressors and mediating variables perceived job stress and criterion variables are job satisfaction

and performance effectiveness in the study.

Theoretical and conceptual background

A-High Performance Work System (HPWS) Practices

The high-performance work system manages its valuable and talented employees in such a way

that helps to generate sustainable competitive advantage for the organisations (Way, 2002). It is

considered as a set of inter-related HR practices (Carvalho and Chambel, 2015; Posthuma et al.,

2013), which includes comprehensive recruitment and selection, incentive-based compensation,

performance management, extensive employee involvement and training (Huselid, 1995). HPWS

has been widely claimed to contribute to both individual and firm performance through investment

in employees (e.g., Aryee et al. 2012, 2016). HPWS focus attention on the probable competitive

advantages that might be accomplished by employees through HR practices that consider

employees with respect, devote in their development, and promote trust in management and

commitment toward accomplishing organizational goals. The essential feature in all the discussion

of high-commitment, high involvement, and high-performing management is the comparison with

a control type of organization (Wood, 1999).

The impact of HPWPs on the organizational performance is achieved through three basic elements:

1) increasing the employees’ knowledge, skills and abilities, 2) employees’ empowerment and

participation in decision making and problem solving and 3) motivating employees through

incentives to make additional discretionary work effort (Huslied 1995, Boxal and Purcell 2000).

The organizations which use HPWS are investing in their human resource to provide training,

empowerment, improve knowledge, skill and abilities of employees which enhance motivation

level, reduce shirking, and decrease turnover rate of potential employees while encouraging non

performer to quit the job and is being used as potential source of competitive advantages (Becker

and Huselid, 1998; Huselid, 1995; Jones and Wright, 1992). HPWPs consist of precisely selected

HRM practices, used in mixture with each other, to create a mutually enhancing effect and thereby

building an organizational advantage (McBride, 2008).

Organizations attempt to enhance their human capital and firm-level performance by applying

high-performance work practices (HPWPs; Huselid, 1995). HPWPs are a set of human resource

management practices from three broad categories: high employee involvement practices, human

resource (HR) practices, and reward and commitment practices (Sung and Ashton, 2005).

Zacharatos et al., (2005) argued that high performance work systems focus on empowering

employees through increased information flow and the decentralization of decision making and

are allied with increased employee efficiency. The term high-performance work systems (HPWS)

have received greater attention in the HRM literature (Lepak et al., 2006).

According to Zacharatos et al., (2005) HPWS has an extensive scope as it encompasses the main

features of high-commitment and involvement approaches.

High-Performance work systems (HPWS) are generally considered as a system of interrelated HR

practices seeking to draw, select, manage and retain the top human capital (Lepak, Liao, Chung,

& Harden, 2006). Evans and Davis (2005) also proved HPWS practices that enhance the

knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) of the people in organization. Way (2002) suggested that

employees possess a broad range of superior skills and abilities that are used at work for firm

performance.

Messersmith et. al., (2011) identifies employee attitude influences HPWS towards departmental

performance where the underlying connections of individual-level attitudinal factors have the

potential influence towards the organizational performance.

The term high-performance work systems (HPWS) have received greater attention in the HRM

literature (Lepak et al., 2006)

Datta et al., (2005) proposed that the value of utilizing high-performance systems is highly-

influenced by a firm’s industry context. Horwitz et al., (2002) noted that there is a universalism

implicit in much of the high-performance practice literature which may not stand the test of

particularistic attributes of different societal, industry and cross-cultural contexts.

High performance work systems are also known as high performance work practices (Mihail and

Kloutsiniotis, 2016). The term high-performance work systems (HPWS) have received greater

attention in the HRM literature (Lepak et al., 2006). HPWS approach is broader in scope as it has

the potential to improve the knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA) of the firm’s actual and

promising employees, develop their motivation, lessen avoiding responsibility, and promoting

reservation of quality employees (Huselid, 1995).

HPWS that include selective staffing, extensive training, developmental performance appraisal,

flexible work settings and performance-based rewards reflect different investments that

organizations purposely make in their employees (Shaw et al., 2009; Tsui et al., 1997).

Definition

Hoque, Wass, Bacon & Jones, (2018) added that HPWS is a specific combination of Human

resource practices, work structures, and processes that maximize employee knowledge, skills,

flexibility, and commitment.

Jyoti and Rani (2017) HPWS has been defined as the organizational structure that brings together

work, people, technology, and information to produce high performance in response to customer

requirements and other environmental opportunities.

HPWS refers to a set of HR practices aimed at enhancing staff skills, commitment and

productivity, thereby transferring human capital into a source of sustainable competitive advantage

(Pak and Kim 2016).

HPWPs are conceptualized as a distinct set of HR practices which are designed to enhance

organizational performance by increasing employees’ abilities, enhancing their motivation, and

increasing the opportunity for employees to participate and get involved at work (Guthrie, 2001;

Obeidat et al., 2016).

The high-performance work practices (HPWPs) give positive signals to the employees that

organization is concerned about them in order to improve the quality and productivity of the work

of employees (Tang and Tang, 2012).

Takeuchi et al., (2009) defined high-performance work system (HPWS) as “a group of separate

but interconnected HR management practices designed to enhance employee and firm performance

outcomes through improving workforce competence, attitude and motivation.”

High-performance work systems (HPWS) have recently been defined as “a group of separate but

interconnected human resource (HR) practices designed to enhance employees’ skills and effort”

(Takeuchi et al., 2007).

“High performance work systems” (HPWS) concept refers to “a specific combination of human

resource practices, work structures, and processes that maximizes employee knowledge, skill,

commitment and flexibility” (Bohlander & Snell, 2007).

HPWS generally refers to a bundle of separate but interconnected human resource management

practices designed to enhance employees’ skills, trigger discretionary effort, and provide

opportunities for decision-making participation and ultimately contribute to superior firm

performance and sustainable competitive advantage (Sun et al., 2007).

Harley et al., (2007) suggests that HPWS practices are applicable to both low-skilled employees

and high-skilled employees.

According to Sels et al., (2006) HPWS are a set of HR practices to utilize the knowledge, skills,

and abilities of employees for the benefit of organization and those practices play a key role in

enhancing a firm’s competitive advantage through effective contribution of employees.

HPWS denote a system or bundle of HR practices designed to enhance employees’ skills,

commitment and involvement such that employees become a source of sustainable competitive

advantage (Combs et al., 2006).

High performance work practices function through its impact on (a) enhancing employees’ skills,

knowledge, and abilities, (b) motivating employees to exert their effort, and (c) providing them

opportunities to perform their work (Combs et al., 2006).

HPWS refer to a set of employee management practices that positively affect employee attitudes,

motivation and performance (Sels et al., 2006).

HPWS are defined as a group of internally coherent and consistent HR practices that are designed

to promote employee competence, motivation, as well as commitment (Datta et al., 2005).

Zacharatos et al., (2005) asserted that high-performance work systems focus on empowering

employees through increased information flow and decentralization of decision-making and are

associated with increased employee efficiency.

High-performance work systems (HPWS) are usually defined as systems of human resource

practices 'designed to enhance employee's skills, commitment and productivity in such a way that

employees become a source of competitive advantage' (Datta et al., 2005).

The HR systems that enhance employee competencies, commitment and productivity are often

called “high-performance work systems” (HPWSs) (Appelbaum et al., 2000; Datta et al., 2005).

Boxall and Purcell (2003) also argue that high-performance work practices are a combination of

key practices such as stricter selection and better training systems to enhance ability levels, and
more inclusive incentives (such as employee bonuses and promotion) to increase motivation and

participatory structures (self-management teams and quality circles).

Way (2002) and Wood and Wall (2002) conceptualized high-performance work systems as a group

of separate but interconnected human resource practices that together recruit, select, develop,

motivate, and retain employees.

A high-performance business system manages its valued and talented employees in a way that

helps generate a sustainable competitive advantage for the organization (Way, 2002).

High-Performance Management (Appelbaum et al., 2000) which is designed to equip the work

force with creativity, ingenuity and problem-solving ability by focusing on quality and adapt with

rapidly changing conditions.

High-performance work systems assume employees are a primary source of competitive advantage

that is difficult for others to imitate and that workers are capable of continuous improvement and

will perform at higher levels if they are motivated to do so (Pfeffer, 1998a).

HPWS approach is broader in scope as it has the potential to improve the knowledge, skills and

abilities (KSA) of the firm’s actual and promising employees, develop their motivation, lessen

avoiding responsibility, and promoting reservation of quality employees (Huselid, 1995).

According to Nadler and Gerstein (1992), an HPWS is “an organizational architecture that brings

together work, people, technology, and information in a manner that optimizes the congruence or

fit among them”. HPWSs are also known by many different names in the existing literature; they

include high-involvement systems (Lawler, 1992), flexible work systems, and high commitment

management (Arthur, 1994; Van Buren & Werner, 1996; Wood, 1996).
Appelbaum et al., (2000) stated that high-performance work systems facilitate employee

involvement, skill enhancement and motivation.

Evans and Davis (2005), define HPWS as an integrated system of HR practices that are internally

consistent (alignment among HR practices) and externally consistent (align with organization

strategies). It includes selective staffing, self-managed team, decentralization decision making,

extensive training, flexible job design, open communication and performance contingent

component.

HPWS shape the architecture for employees to participate in decision making, motivation of

employees, improve knowledge and skill, and increase ability to perform their duties for firm

performance. (Lepak et al., 2006).

HPWPs can be defined as organized bundles of work practices that, when combined, create a

multiplier effect wherein each of the practices works to reinforce the others and ultimately expands

workplace effectiveness and efficiency (Becker and Gerhart, 1996; Huselid, 1995; MacDuffie,

1995; Murphy et al., 2018).

The concept of HPWS, also called high involvement work systems, best human resource

management practices and high commitment work systems, was first described by Huselid (1995).
Practices and dimensions of High-Performance Work System

Fareed et al., (2016) have highlighted few HR practices as the components of HPWS which

enhance HRPE, such as; opportunities to grow, developing competencies, teamwork, participatory

working environment, fairness and consistent management practices.

Posthuma et al., (2013) identified 61 discrete practices that they placed into nine categories.

Included were practices involving employee recruitment/selection and development, as well as

practices involving work design, employee relations, communication, performance management,

and promotions.

High performance work systems (HPWS) include a variety of HR practices designed to enhance

employee competence and productivity (Posthuma, Campion, Masimova, & Campion, 2013).

Such systems are intended to improve employee attitudes and improve performance through the

selection, development, and retention of talent (Chuang, Dill, Morgan, & Konrad, 2012).

High-performance work systems (HPWS) comprise a group of separate but interconnected human

resource (HR) practices including rigorous recruitment and selection, continuous training and

development, developmental performance appraisal, and performance-based compensation system

(Takeuchi, Lepak, Wang, & Takeuchi, 2007).

HPWS assess selective staffing, extensive skills training, broad career paths, promotion from

within, guaranteed job security, results-oriented appraisal, extensive and open-ended rewards,

broad job description, flexible job assignment, and encouragement of participation. (Bamberger

and Meshoulam, 2000).

More human resource practices for managing people results in high performance are pointed out

by Pfeffer (1999): employment security, selective hiring, team working, performance-related pay,
training and development, egalitarianism and information sharing. These practices are thought to

be conducive to enhanced performance as they foster arbitrary effort of individual workers (Gould-

Williams, 2003).

Pfeffer (1998) identified seven key dimensions: employment security; selective hiring of new

personnel; self-managed teams and decentralization of decision making as the basic principles of

organizational design; comparatively high compensation contingent on organizational

performance; extensive training; reduced status distinctions and barriers; and the extensive sharing

of financial and performance information throughout the organization. The HPWS is

conceptualized as a set of distinct but interrelated HRM practices that together select, develop,

retain, and motivate a workforce (Huselid, 1995; Becker and Huselid,1999; Guthrie, 2001).

According to Boselie and Dietz (2003) employee development and training, participation and

empowerment, information sharing and compensation systems are severally mentioned as the

high-performance work practices or systems.

HPWS generally involve flexible job assignments, rigorous and selective staffing, training and

development, empowerment, adequate communication, career opportunity, performance appraisal,

competitive compensation, job security and competitive compensation (Becker and Huselid, 1998;

Guthrie, 2001; Jensen et al., 2011).

Boxall and Purcell (2003) viewed that high performance work practices are a combination of key

practices such as more rigorous selection and better training systems to enhance ability levels,

more comprehensive incentives (i.e., employee bonuses and internal career ladders) to increase

motivation and participative structures (self-managing teams and quality circles) that improve

opportunity to contribute.
These practices are interconnected and designed to increase employees’ competencies and

motivation and to enhance employees’ and organizations’ performance (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg

and Kalleberg, 2000), thereby contributing to organizations’ competitive advantages (Combs, Liu,

Hall, and Ketchen, 2006).

HPWS is a set of practices that seeks to transform employees so that they can be a source of

sustainable competitive advantage for the organization by enhancing their skills levels,

competency, and productivity (Datta et al., 2005).

Zacharatos et al., (2005) argued that high performance work systems focus on empowering

employees through increased information flow and the decentralization of decision making and

are allied with increased employee efficiency.

Those practices that provide workers with the opportunity to intervene in the work process and to

make decisions, that motivate workers to put forth discretionary effort, and that ensure that workers

have the skills and ability to do their jobs are the foundation of a high-performance work system

(Bailey, 1992).

Boxall and Huo (2019) and Guest (2011) argued that more research is needed to understand the

underlying processes and mechanisms involved in HPWS effects.

Despite the continued debate about the ‘right’ composition of the HPWS bundle, it is widely

accepted that the components should be multiple and mutually reinforcing (Zacharatos, Barling

and Iverson 2005; Becker and Huselid 2006).

HPWS have been defined as a set of complementary HR practices (including rigorous selection

and recruitment procedures, training and skill development, career development opportunities,

performance appraisal, rewards, and employee involvement) designed to contribute to

organizational efficiency and effectiveness by enhancing employees’ skills, motivation and

opportunities to contribute at work (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kallenberg, 2000).

Arthur (1992) mentioned the following practices that enhance the organizational performance:

broadly defined jobs, employee participation, incentive pay, employee stock ownership,

information sharing, empowerment, employment security, training and skill development, wage

compression and promotion from within.

More human resource practices for managing people results in high performance are pointed out

by Pfeffer (1999): employment security, selective hiring, team working, performance-related pay,

training and development, egalitarianism and information sharing. These practices are thought to

be conducive to enhanced performance as they foster arbitrary effort of individual workers (Gould-

Williams, 2003).

Delery and Dotty (1996) instead of high-performance practices a similar set of practices are called

“strategic”, and they are: internal career opportunities, choice of internal or external recruitment,

training systems, performance evaluation, profit sharing systems, job stability, participation

mechanisms, and job content.

Macduffie (1995) proposed that the bundles of following people management practices resulted in

productivity gains: work teams, problems solving groups, employee suggestions, job rotation,

recruitment intensity, contingent compensation, training of new employee, and training of

experienced employee.

High Performance Work Systems are conceptualized as a set of distinct but interrelated practices

that together select, develop, retain and motivate a work force (Way, 2002, De Menezes and Wood,

2006) in a superior manner leading to enhanced organizational outcomes. High demand and
competition for employee and managerial talent has led to increasing interest in understanding the

potential benefits of using high-performance work systems (HPWS) as a means to maximize firms

‘competitive advantage (e.g., Guthrie, 2001; Huselid, 1995; Sun, Aryee, and Law, 2007).

As a system of work practices that are designed to operate holistically rather than individually

(Huselid, 1995).

HPWPs represent multidimensional construct and definition of its components (dimensions)

always comes from studies of four sub-functions: selection, training, evaluation, compensation

(Mac Duffie 1995).

Specific practices of HPWS include selective staffing, extensive training, internal promotion,

flexible working time, enriched job design, information-sharing, participation in decision making,

job security, developmental performance appraisal, performance-contingent rewards, and self-

management teams (Datta, Guthrie, and Wright 2005; Huselid 1995; Lepak et al. 2006; Liao et al.,

2009; Sun et al., 2007).

High-performance work systems (HPWS) comprise a group of separate but interconnected human

resource (HR) practices including rigorous recruitment and selection, continuous training and

development, developmental performance appraisal, and performance-based compensation system

(Takeuchi, Lepak, Wang, & Takeuchi, 2007). These HR practices play a fundamental synergistic

role that increases employees’ abilities, motivation and developmental opportunities (Delery &

Shaw, 2001). HPWS impact employee’s job satisfaction, commitment, in-role and extra-role

performance (Becker, Huselid, Pickus, & Spratt, 1997).

In this study, High-performance work system practices are comprised of ten practices. These ten

practices are all described below.

1. Information sharing:

Information sharing is a dimension of high-performance work system practices. Information

sharing plays a critical role in the relationship between management and employees in banking

organizations. Sharing of information leads to better cooperation and employees feel more

committed towards work and organizations. If information is shared, employees will know more

about the work and meaningful and contribute more. Employees in banks communicate and listen

to information to one another regarding the various issues related to job/work, product policies,

etc. Effective communication at the workplace helps employees to solve customer grievances as

well. According to Dwyer (2002) “the process whereby people within an organization give and

receive messages”. According to Grönroos (2000), employees should communicate and listen to

one another regarding numerous ways of producing and implementing solutions to customer needs.

Melhem (2003), ‘communication is the means by which employees’ knowledge is developed: the

flow of information leads to empowered employees and, thus, satisfied customers.

2. Performance appraisals:

Performance appraisal is a dimension of high-performance work system practices. Performance

appraisal is a vital component of a broader set of human resource practices which it is the

mechanism for evaluating the extent to which each employee’s day-to-day performance is linked

to the goals that establishes by an organization (Coutts & Schneider, 2004). The performance

appraisal also known as formal, structure system, and evaluating employee’s which related to their
job responsibilities (Mondy & Mondy, 2014). However, the outcome is to discover everything

about the employee’s current perform at the workplace and then they can improve their

performance level more effectively in the future (Dessler, 2013).

Performance appraisal is considered to encourage employees in consequent performance cycle

(Heneman & Wemer, 2005). There is an increase use of performance appraisal process (Dechev,

2010) which is mostly motivated by an organizational need to have an effect on employee’ attitude,

behaviours, as well as organizational performance too.

A well-designed performance appraisal system also can encourage individuals to work together as

a team. If this is an organization’s goal, it must face several challenges in designing and

implementing such a system. It entails evaluating and increasing individual and team outcomes

(Posthuma et al., 2013). In modern HRM practices, performance appraisals have become one of

the keys to contributing to organisational success.

Performance appraisal (PA) is implemented by organizations as a formal system to review and

evaluate individual or team performance and an individual’s performance is reviewed on a

continuing basis (Mondy and Martocchio, 2016). Employee’s performance should be appraised

periodically and organization can get the information about the efficiency of the organization

(Chahal et al., 2013).

Delery and Doty (1996) demonstrated that results-oriented appraisals were positively related to

firm performance. Aggarwal and Thakur (2013) illuminated several appraisal methods such as:

Ranking method, graphic rating, critical incident, narrative essays and management by objectives,

human resource accounting and others.

3. Training:

Training is a dimension of high-performance work system practices. The bank’s management that

appreciates the importance of employee training and development creates an enabling working

environment that motivates and improves the performance of employees (Krietner 1995). Training

plays a central role to the company that intends to revamp or maintain profits against its

competitors within the banking industry (Evans and Lindsay 1999). According to Abiodun (1999)

training also changes beliefs, ideas and knowledge, individual’s behavioural aspects in their

relationships with work groups in the organization.

Training can be used to enhance the skills, knowledge, and abilities of the employees. Employees

can only perform their jobs in an efficient and effective way when they are having good

interpersonal skills, technical skills, and those skills can be developed by training programs

(Eldridge & Nisar, 2006). The role of training in organizational effectiveness is two-fold. First,

training programs enhance employee skills and abilities such that they become more productive

workers, and the firm in turn becomes more productive (Goldstein, 1990). Second, training also

serves a latent function of disseminating the worthiness of the employees in front of the

organization (Moreland & Levine, 2001). Training is one of the most crucial investments because

it improves the knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviour of employees (Bulut and Culha, 2010),

and employees are considered as a key part of an organisation’s resources, with the potential to

give the firm a source of sustainable competitive advantage (Tsai, 2006). This practice has

therefore been extensively used by recent researchers (Aryee et al., 2012; Liao et al., 2009;

Ramdani et al., 2014; Selden et al., 2013). Its focus is on equipping employees with the skills,

knowledge and competencies that they need for their work (Posthuma et al., 2013).
The survival of the organizations needs to promote the knowledge, skills and abilities of employees

through training which is one of the critical human resource functions (Hussain, 2011). The effects

of training on job satisfaction are explored to prove the importance of training for organizations.

Training and development are the continuous effort of organizations to improve the knowledge,

skills and abilities of employees and performance of organization (Mondy & Martocchio, 2016).

Sanayal and Hisam (2018) analysed the impact of training and development practices on employee

performance. Rida Athar and Faiza Maqbool Shah (2015) studied observe that how training need

establishes, how effective the training methods of banks and their influence of employee

performance. Training enhances skills and abilities of employees.

Gamage and Imbulana (2013) studied that objective of training and development is to improve

employee knowledge and the skills for their better performance. The performance is measured in

terms of the improvement in productivity, absenteeism and the employee job satisfaction.

Training provides chances to employees enhance their knowledge and skills for effective

development (Jun et al., 2006). Trained workers are more satisfy to their job as compared to

untrained employees (Saks, 1996). These training programs positively raise employees’

development that is good for competencies Martensen and Gronholdt (2001).

A training and development program is a planned education component and an exceptional method

for sharing the culture of the organization; it goes beyond one’s job skills to understanding

workplace skills, developing leadership, innovative thinking and problem resolving (Meister,

1998).
4.Innovation strategy:

Innovation led strategy is a dimension of high-performance work system practices. Innovation-led strategy

is conceptualized as “the extent to which innovation is a priority in a firm as reflected by the specific actions

or plans taken by the firm to promote innovation” (Oke et al., 2012). Innovation is a must for many firms

to strive in the current market turbulence. (Prajogo and Ahmad,2006). According to Beugelsdijk

(2008) holds that HR practices that are strategically targeted toward shaping employee creativity

facilitate organisations to produce innovativeness, and thus create a source of competitive

advantage. Hult et al. (2004) demonstrated that innovativeness is positively associated with

business performance.

5. Pay:

Pay is a dimension of high-performance work system practices. The pay level of employees’

greatly influences the HPWS-Performance link (Becker and Huselid, 1998). Increased pay level

of the employees motivates them to more actively apply their skills and use their abilities to achieve

organizational goals, which in turn increase organizational performance (Way, 2002). Salisu et al.

(2015) reported a significant positive correlation between compensation and job satisfaction and

concluded the participants participating in their study regarded rewards as one of the main

contributors to their job satisfaction. Qasim et al. (2012) stated that monetary rewards play major

role in determining job satisfaction.

Mangi et al. (2011) revealed that compensation has optimistic relationship with job satisfaction.

Pay is a vital instrument used by business leaders to attract and retain talented employees

(Bustaman, Teng, & Abdullah, 2014). Bustamam et al. (2014) averred that when employees are

satisfied with their pay, their relationships with their coworkers, families, and communities may

also improve, as well as their productivity

6. Job design:

Job design is a dimension of high-performance work system practices. “Job design is the process

of putting together a range of tasks, duties, and responsibilities to create a composite for individuals

to undertake in their work and to regard as their own. It is crucial: not only is it the basis of

individual satisfaction and achievement at work, it is necessary to get the job done efficiently,

economically, reliably and safely.” (Torrington et al., 2011).

Job design that induces and stimulates individuals to generate new ideas by creating the autonomy

and opportunity for them to do so is conducive for employee creativity. For example, when

performing complex jobs, employees are likely to feel intrinsically motivated, thereby repaying

this motivation by producing novel ideas (Jiang et al., 2012). When jobs are complex, employees

are possibly eager and passionate about their job activities and keen on fulfilling them for the sake

of the activities themselves (Oldham & Cummings, 1996) conditions beneficial for employee

innovative behaviours in the workplace (Baer, Oldham & Cummings, 2003).

According to Delery and Doty (1996), job definition plays a very important role in effective

working of employees. They state that a clearly elaborated job description generates duties of job

which are clearly known to the employees and helps them in performing their tasks well in the

organization. Parvin (2011) stated the purpose of job design is to increase the level of job

satisfaction which shall ultimately cause the good performance of the employee.
7. Service discretion:

Service Discretion is a dimension of high-performance work system practices. In the case of

service context, front-line service employees are supposed to know about the diverse demands of

customers, and adapt their interpersonal style and service offering to the needs of customers (Liao

et al., 2009). As such, if employees perceive higher levels of service discretion, they are more

likely to have more autonomy to resolve the problems and job duties on their own ways.

8. Team work:

Team work is a dimension of high-performance work system practices. Kline and O’Grady, (2009)

define that trust within the team members affect overall performance of the team as well as organization

also. Goal motivated team’s leads to higher performance (Locke & Latham, 2002). Teamwork is

becoming increasingly popular in firms because lots of tasks need inputs from individuals with

multiple skills and knowledge backgrounds Paulus (2000). Teamwork is argued to foster firm

innovation and performance to the extent that employees involve in intrinsically motivating work

within a supportive work environment (West Hirst, Richter, and Shipton, 2004). As such, if firms

invest effectively in teamwork, they are more likely to obtain a higher level of innovation

performance than those that do not (Shipton, West, Dawson, Birdi, and Patterson, 2006). When

there is a high level of interaction among team members, the cross-fertilization of perspectives can

produce creativity and innovation is more likely to occur. (Jiang et al., 2012).

9. Interdepartmental service:

Interdepartmental services are a dimension of high-performance work system practices. This

practice is designed to provide front-line service employees with necessary interdepartmental

support to service customers better (Liao et al., 2009; Schneider et al., 1998). It is therefore argued
that when integrated with other dimensions of HR practices, internal service will impact service

employees in terms of service knowledge, service delivery and customer satisfaction.

10.Innovation led HR:

Innovation led human resources is a dimension of high-performance work system practices. Wolfe

(1995), who defined innovative HR practices as “ideas, programmes, practices or systems related

to the HR function and new to the adopting organization”. The firm needs to execute more

innovative HR practices or bundles of HR practices which are led by innovation-led HR policy.

As such, innovation-led HR policy is described as the extent to which a firm adopts people-focused

policies including recruitment and selection, and reward systems that foster the development of

innovation (Oke, walumbwa, Myers 2012); Beugelsdijk, (2008). There is evidence that employee

creativity and innovation performance can be enhanced if firms implement innovative HR

practices effectively (Beugelsdijk, 2008; Jiang et al., 2012; Messersmith and Guthrie, 2010).

Innovation is “essentially about converting ideas into something profitable, encouragement to

supply ideas needs to be substantial in order to channel the creative ability of the employees to

convert ideas into innovations” (Prajogo & Ahmed, 2006).

Innovation-led strategy and innovation-led HR policy have been viewed as two critical

management initiatives (Oke et al., 2012).

Theoretical Perspectives on HPWS

Researchers tried to clarify this topic by using various theoretical perspectives throughout the

years, including the “Resource Based View” and the “Abilities – Motivation – Opportunities”

(AMO) framework are described below.

Resource Based View:

According to the RBV, organizations can create a competitive advantage by gathering resources

that are rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable (Barney, 1991). HPWPs can give an organization a

competitive advantage by promoting valuable and exclusive contributions from their employees

with a system of human resource practices that are hard to imitate (Tregaskis et al., 2013).

The RBV suggests that the growing acknowledgment of firm’s resources earned validity to the

contention suggesting employees are critically vital to organizational accomplishment (Wright et

al., 2001) and organizations build up their advantage through taking, promoting and adequately

utilizing resources to achieve desired results (Barney, 1991; Colbert, 2004).The resource-based

view focusses on the internal resources of the firm for the competitive success of the organization

as opposed to the external environmental models and theories of competitive advantage (Barney,

1991).

The AMO Framework:

One of the accepted theoretical bases for the relationship between HRM and organizational

performance is the ability, motivation and opportunity (AMO) framework provided by Appelbaum

et al., (2000). According to the AMO framework, the foremost feature of an effective HPWS is to

organize the work processes in such a manner that employees have a real opportunity to provide

discretionary effort. Employees can only contribute to the performance of the firm when they are
provided authority, responsibility and opportunity to make decisions and solve problems (Batt,

2002).

B. Antecedent variable

Work Demand Stressor

Colligan, Metteson and Ivancevic, Konopaske, (1996) and cook and Hunsaker (2001) identified

that stress can be caused by environmental, organizational, and individual variables. According to

Carson and Kuipers (1998) the process of stress can be divided into three levels. In the first level

there are stressors that come from external sources, e.g., high job demands, a lack of resources

and lack of support from supervisors and colleagues- these are specific occupational stressors. The

second level can be seen as variables that act as a buffer against the negative effects of stress on

individuals. The third level in the process consists of the outcomes of stress which can be positive

or negative. Cooper and Marshall (1978), suggested classification of stress in terms of six different

stressors. According to them sources of managerial stress can be categorized into six components-

intrinsic to job, role in organization, carrier development, organizational structure and climate,

relationship within organization and organizational interface and outside.

Globalization, technological advancements and hyper competition have increase organizations

expectations and work pressure on employees to meet competition, so employees are required to

perform multiple tasks more efficiently, all these factors take the form of work overload that results

in the form of stress (Cascio,1995; Quick, 1997).

The JD-R model posits that job demands and job resources are two sets of working conditions that

can be distinguished in each organizational context (Schaufeli, Bakker, and Van Rhenen 2009).

Job demands refer to those physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of a job that

require physical or mental efforts and are therefore associated with certain physiological and
psychological costs (Demerouti et al. 2001). Workload, time urgency, job responsibility, and

emotional conflict are specific forms of physiological and psychological costs (Crawford, LePine,

and Rich 2010).

Job demands refers to the degree to which the working environment contains stimuli that require

some effort (Jones & Fletcher, 1996), which suggests that job demands may lead to negative

consequences if they require additional effort to achieve work goals (Peters et al., 2005).

Conceptual definition

a. Work overload

Gopher and Donchin (1986) defined mental workload as “… the difference between the capacities

of the information-processing system that are required for task performance to satisfy expectations

and the capacity available at any given time”

Jex (1988, p. 11) defined it as “… the operator’s evaluation of the attention load margin (between

their motivated capacity and the current task demands) while achieving adequate task performance.

Work overload is defined as “inappropriateness between the role also required the time and

demand” (Rizzo et al., 1970).

“Work overload” index, defined as “the inequality between the role demands and the quantity of

time and resources to meet these demands” (Newton and Keenan, 1987).

Demanding aspects of work that consume one’s time and energy can lead to constant overtaxing

and exhaustion (Bakker, Demerouti, Verbeke 2004). Empirical studies suggest that exhausted

employees under the influence of job demands have problems in investing sufficient effort into

their tasks because of diminished energy (Cropanzano, Rupp, and Byrne 2003).
Alexandros-Stamatios,Matilyn, and Carry (2003) also argued that “factors intrinsic to the job”

means explore workload, variety of tasks and rates of pay. Rapidly changing global scene is

increasing the pressure of workforce to perform maximum output and enhance competitiveness.

Indeed, to perform better to their job, there is a requirement for workers to perform multiple tasks

in the workplace to keep abreast of changing technologies (Cascio, 1995; Quick, 1997).

Workload stress can be defined as reluctance to come to work and a feeling of constant pressure

(i.e., no effort is enough) accompanied by the general physiological, psychological, and

behavioural stress symptoms.

Job demands also refers to aspects of the job that require sustained effort, and, as such incur certain

costs as a result (Beutell, 2010).

McGuire and McLaren (2009) have shown that high demands are more stressful than low demands.

The transactional model of stress proposed by Byrne and Hochwarter (2008) asserts that stress

may be considered a result of an imbalance between demands and resources or resulting from

situations where the pressure being exerted on an individual is more than the individual’s ability.

Perceived job demands have been found to have a negative impact on satisfaction (French and

Caplan, 1972) and a positive impact on psychological and physiological arousal (Sales, 1969).

The identification of work stressors was first made by Kahn et al. (1964), identifying role conflict

and role ambiguity as the main causal factors of individual stress in an organization. Stressors are

conditions and events that evoke strain (Kahn & Byosiere, 1992).

Many of the demand’s individuals encounter in the workplace relate to various forms of stimulus

overload (Frankenhaeuser and Johansson, 1976). Sales (1969) cautioned organizations that work

overload may endanger employees' health.

Vanishree (2014) show that work overload causes job stress among employees resulting in their

poor concentration, mental block and poor decision-making skills. Trayambak et al. (2012) show

that work overload results in employee job stress. Work overload is the ultimate consequence of

huge workloads and strict deadlines given to the subordinates (Allen et al., 2008).

(b) Role conflict

A situation where the demands made on a person are contradictory or are in conflict with his own

expectations and working style (Ahmad, 2013). In other words, role conflict is the extent to which

employees have to carry out tasks, which are in conflict with their own norms and values

(Tummers et al., 2002). Role Conflict is a situation where employees experience difficulties in

facing two or more pressures and difficulties that occur simultaneously in their role as workers

(Bakar, 2015). Role conflict leads to a psychological conflict where employees will not be able to

fulfill every role expected at the same time (Schmidt et al., 2014). Yasa (2017) states that role

conflict occurs when someone with conflicting demands performs a different role. Role conflict

occurs when an employee faces uncertainty about role or job, or if he/she is required to perform a

position outside of his/her expertise (Yasa ,2017).

Kusumawardani, Suprayitno, and Utami (2014) argue that role conflicts are experienced by

employees when their roles are unclear, or the employees have many roles since they have to do

several jobs.

Trying to meet the demands of two or more groups (i.e., customers and managers) at the same time

can result in role conflict. An important consequence of role conflict is its effect on job

performance. In a study of sales people representing various industries, Flaherty et al., (1999)

found that role conflict was negatively related to customer-oriented selling, a trait associated with

increased job performance. Moreover, employees encountering role conflict may experience
psychological withdrawal from the job leading to reduced job performance. Results of studies

investigating the effects of role conflict on job performance, however, have been inconsistent. For

example, some researchers found that role conflict had a negative effect on job performance, and

others observed that role conflict produced a positive effect on job performance.

Kahn and Byosiere(1992)defines “Role conflict is incompatibly role expectation in organization,

in the context of the differences between co-worker and supervisors according to their job duties

Perceive which results in role conflict”

Role conflict, defined as having two or more tasks that are incompatible, is also a contributor to

workload (Tsutsumi et al., 2008). Rizzo, House and Lirtzman (1970) defines role conflict as

conflicting organizational expectations and demands that affects a person’s role performance.

Rizzo et al., (1970) as “The contradicting roles carried out by an individual in an organization.

Role conflict has also been defined as “the level to which a person experiences pressures within

one role that is incompatible with pressures that take place within another role”. (Glissmeyer et

al., 1985). (Cooper et al., 2001) defined role conflict “reflects incompatible demands on the person

(either within a single role or between multiple roles) which can persuade negative emotional

reactions due to the perceived inability to be effective on the job”.

Rizzo et al. (1972) argued that the causes of the conflict can be grouped into three broad categories,

namely: (a) the individual characteristics i.e., values, attitudes and beliefs, needs and personality,

as well as the perceptions and opinions. (B) situational conditions which can encourage the

emergence of conflict, namely, the circumstances are interdependent, the need to interact with each

other, the need for consensus, differences in status, communication, responsibility, and the

regulations are ambiguous. (C) the complex factors in the group which can lead to conflict, namely
the existence of specialization and differentiation of work, tasks are interdependent, the main goal

to be achieved, scarce resources, authority and influence diverse, decisions, procedures and

regulations. Role ambiguity is the predictability of the outcome to one’s behaviour and the

existence or clarity of behavioural requirements, often in terms of inputs from the environment,

which would serve to guide behaviour and provide knowledge that the behaviour is appropriate

(Rizzo et al., 2002).

(c)Unfulfilled commitments

Uncommitted employees do not pay thoughtful regard to their work, subsequently prompting poor

performance towards their organization (Abdallah et al.,2017). Workers who are highly committed

to their organization are therefore more likely, when under stress, to direct their efforts toward

important work tasks and to reduce resources devoted to other activities. Employees with low

commitment, in contrast, may respond to felt stress by ignoring work tasks and withholding effort.

(Jamal,1984,1985)

Several studies have provided indirect support for the idea that commitment influences the

direction of attention under stress. Begley and Czajka (1993) showed that stress had negative

effects on job satisfaction and a composite measure of job "displeasure" only when employees also

had low organizational commitment. Similarly, Siu and Cooper (1998) found that commitment

moderated the effect of felt job stress on job satisfaction as well as on self-reported psychological

distress, such as depression. Jamal (1985) observed negative relationships between felt stress and

supervisor assessed job performance for individuals with low commitment but not for those with

high commitment however, he did not formally test the differences between the two groups. No
prior research has specifically tested the effect of the stress-commitment interaction on job

performance.

Kahn and Byosiere (1992) explored job stress frequent effect of role conflict, role ambiguity and

work overload. Spector (1997) defines “role ambiguity is the amount of certainty that employees

have about their duties and responsibilities.” Murphy (1984) noted that all stress management

interventions involved some sort of training of workers so that they would be better able to cope

with work stressors.

Job stress

Perceive Job Stress in Banking sector:

Job stress is a serious and growing problem in the workplace that results in substantial cost to

individual employees and organizations around the globe. Work now more than ever consumes

large portions of employee’s lives. The importance of work in people lives can be a tremendous

source of stress. Increase in work stress may result from people having longer work hours, threat

of job loss due to organizational downsizing, or a host of other factors, such as ever-changing

technology, and day to day strain in the work environment. Industrialization, urbanization,

automation, modernization and changing work environment have led to occupational stress which

is adversely affecting efficiency of employees (Jung et al., 2010).

The workplace is potentially an important cause of stress for bankers because of the quantity of

time they expend in their respective banks (Jamshed et al., 2011).

Stress at work arises from issues such as too much work, conflicting goals, vague task goals,

emotional demands, lack of autonomy, and absence of supervisory support (Corin and Bjork,

2016). Jain, Giga and Cooper (2013) observed that researchers have variously conceptualized
stress as a stimulus, a response, an interaction between stress and the response, and an individual’s

specific interaction with their environment.

Job stress is the harmful physical and emotional responses that occur when the requirements of the

job do not match the capabilities, resources, or needs of the worker. (National Institutes for

Occupational Safety and Health, 1999). According to Harrison (1976), stress is experienced when

there is a lack of fitness between a person and his/her environment, in case there is the inability to

cope with the constraints or demands encountered. Banking employees perceived job stress due to

changes in the work environment by the pandemic which appears to be threatening. Bank

employees found an imbalance between work demands and their abilities to cope with those

demands.

Job stress can also be defined as the harmful physical and emotional responses that occur when

the requirements of the job do not match the capabilities, resources or needs of the worker

(National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) NIOSH (2002). Stress causes a reduction

in the effectiveness of the organisations, high discretion rates, low morale and low job satisfaction

(Jimmieseon, Terry and Callan, 2004). Workplace stress also known as organizational stress has

become a critical issue for the employers, employees and the organizations Horwitz (2010).

Occupational stress is defined as the perception of a discrepancy between environmental demands

stressors and individual capacities to fill these demands (Topper, 2007).

Occupational stress often shows high dissatisfaction among the employees, job mobility, burnout,

poor work performance and less effective interpersonal relations at work (Manshor, Rodrigue, and

Chong, 2003). Job stress can arise from different environment of work like organizational or

situational stress; it is from the characteristics of the workers themselves, that is, dispositional
stress (Riggio et al.,2003). Goswami (2015) underlines the impact of stress on the thinking and

working of employees in any organization.

Conceptual Definition of stress

Stress is defined as “the body’s psychological, emotional, and physiological responses to any

demand that is perceived as threatening to a person’s well-being (Bloisi et al., 2007)

Stress can be defined as the tension that work events exerts on employees and how this tension

effects emotions (Brisbon & Lowery, 2011). The Encyclopedia of stress Flick (2000) defines stress

as “real or interpreted threat to physiological or psychological integrity of an individual that results

in physiological and/or behavioral response.”

Stress can be defined as the tension that work events exerts on employees and how this tension

effects emotions (Brisbon & Lowery, 2011).

Medical researcher Selye (1956), the father of stress, first use the term ‘stress’ to describe the

body’s biological response mechanisms. He defined stress as “the non-specific response of the

body to any demand.”

According to Gregory & Ricky (2005), stress is a person ‘s adaptive response to a stimulus that

places excessive psychological or physical demands on him or her.

According to Beehr (1995) job stress is defined as “a situation in which some characteristics of

the work situation are thought to cause poor psychological or physical health, or to cause risk

factors making poor health more likely.”

Robbins & Sanghi (2006) defined as a dynamic condition in which an individual is confronted

with an opportunity, constraints, or demand related to what he or she desires and for which the

outcome is perceived to be both uncertain and important.

Edwards (1992) defines stress as “a discrepancy between an employee’s perceived state and

desired state, provided that the presence of this discrepancy is considered important by the

employee”.

Darmody and Smyth (2016) defined job stress as the harmful emotional and physical responses

that happen when the requirements of the work do not match the demands, resources, or abilities

of an employee.

McGrath (1976) defined job stress as “a condition within which employees are needed to satisfy

the duties that exceed the person’s ability, and also the resources which are required to perform

these duties, under true where there's a huge difference between rewards and demand for fulfilling

the duties.”

Selye (1936) defines stress as “a dynamic activity wherein an individual is confronted with an

opportunity, constraint or demand”. Stress has been defined in different ways over the years.

Keinan (1997) further defined that “The term stress refers to the interaction between the person

and the environment”.

Beehr and Newman (1978), defined job stress as “a situation arising from the reaction of people

towards their tasks and results in changes that compel individuals to cope and adjust and disrupt

their normal performance”

According to Robbins and Sanghi (2006) “A dynamic condition in which an individual is

confronted with an opportunity, constraints, or demand related to what he or she desires and for

which the outcome is perceived to be both uncertain and important.” stress is an increasing problem

in organizations and often cause adverse effects on performance.

Job stress can be defined as an employee’s awareness or feeling of personal dysfunction as a result

of perceived conditions or happenings in the workplace, and the employee’s psychological and

physiological reactions caused by these uncomfortable, undesirable or threats in the employee’s

immediate workplace environment (Montgomery et al., 1996).

The Yerkes-Dodson law (1908) indicates that stress leads to improved performance up to an

optimum point. Beyond the optimum point, further stress and arousal have detrimental effect on

performance.

Matteson and Ivancevich (1987) argue that stress results from change, uncertainty, and an

imbalance between the demands made on individuals and their ability to respond to them. Caplan

and Jones (1975), however, use the term stress as an environmental factor that influences

psychological strain and physiological arousal.

According to (Rose,2003) employees have tendency towards high level of stress regarding time,

working for longer hours which reduces employees urge for performing better. Management

support helps in reducing or increases stress in employees.

(Ivancevich and Donnelly, 1975) studied the link between anxiety stress with satisfaction and

performance of employees, that lower anxiety stress improves performance of employee’s which

he studied in different managerial level of an organization. (Beehr, Jex, Stacy and Murray, 2000)

found the relationship between occupational stressors the performance of employees of an

organization as well as it can affect the employees psychologically. (Jamal, 1984) studied an

association between job stress and job performance between managers and blue-collar employees.

Employee’s experience and feel stressed continuously and therefore the reactions of stress at the

workplace are not a separate aspect. (Fairbrother, & Warn, 2003).

The major factors of stress are likely present as a lack of control over a situation or an event,

uncertainty, ambiguity or a poor performance related to expectation level (Parker & Ettinger, 2007)

The International Labor Organization reported a number of worrying issues for workers in

financial services; these included greater pressure on time, problems with ergonomics, conflicting

roles, work demands that were considered excessive, difficult relationships with customers, and a

rising number of cases of stress and violence (Giga and Hoel, 2003).

Jamshed et al., (2011) suggested “The workplace is potentially an important source of stress for

bankers because of the amount of time they spent in their respective banks.”

Materson (1980) “Causes of stress are many like work load, cuts in staff, change at work, long

work hours, shift work, lack of supervision, inadequate training, inappropriate working conditions,

too heavy responsibilities and poor relations with colleagues.”

Keinan (1997) further defined that “The term stress refers to the interaction between the person

and the environment”. Stress is often characterized as a feeling of being overloaded (Ali and

Kakakhel, 2013).

Stress is regarded as the greatest barrier in the effectiveness of employee performance (Jehangir et

al., 2011).

Stress is “a negative reaction toward events that are thought as to tax or exceed individual coping

ability” (Jehangir et al., 2011). According to the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and

Health, job stress is defined as “the harmful physical and emotional responses that occur when the

requirements of the job do not match the capabilities, responses or needs of the worker” (Al

Makhaita et al., 2014)

Stress was also defined as “the psychological strain or distress resulting from exposure to unusual

or demanding situations, known as stressors” (Finney et al., 2013)

Stress is a familiar, inevitable fact either in individual life, caused by many stressors at work or at

home or in any external environment (Al-khasawneh and Futa, 2013). Job stress is the result of the

imbalance between the demands of the job and the individuals’ abilities (Suifan et al., 2016; Jamal,

2016). Different stressors come from different causes, such as role conflict, work load, role

ambiguity and autonomy (Gargr and Dhar, 2014).

Caplan et al. (1975) stated that job stress refers to any characteristics of the job environment which

pose a threat to the individual. Caplan and Jones (1975), however, use the term stress as an

environmental factor that influences psychological strain and physiological arousal. Job stress is

one of the most important workplace health risks for employees in any economy (Ernest & Jama,

2011).

Job stress refers to any affect-laden negative experience that is caused by an imbalance between

job demands and the response capability of the workers. When job demands are too high to cope

with, stress reactions are likely to occur (Schaufeli and Enzmann, 1998)

Job stress is very much an individual reaction and differs from general stress as it is also organized,

and job-related (Chen and Silverthorne, 2008).

Stress is a dynamic condition, it is created when an individual confronts an opportunity, constraint,

or demand for which the outcome is perceived to be both important and uncertain (Robbins and

Sanghi, 2006).

Stress occurs every time a person cannot handle the circumstances they are facing, or the

circumstances that they can face and deal with have negative consequences on them (Glavan,

Petrovan, and Radu, 2016). Stress is a natural concomitant of work life, a phenomenon that is
inevitable today. It cannot be cordoned off from ones’ life but can be coped with (Gibbons and

Gibbons, 2007).

Consequently, stress can be divided in two different forms: challenge-oriented stress and

hindrance-oriented stress (Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000).

Challenge-oriented stress is the positive form of stress (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). This form of stress

means that an employee is confronted with challenges and obstacles such as time pressure, but

eventually will give an employee feeling of fulfillment or achievement (Cavanaugh et al., 2000).

Hindrance-oriented stress is predominantly negative. Instead of feelings of achievement,

hindrance-oriented stress leads to feelings of impaired personal development and decreased work-

related accomplishment (Cavanaugh et al., 2000).

These negative feelings are caused by components of work such as role ambiguity, job insecurity

or a shortage of resources, as for example not time pressure but a lack of time (Cavanaugh et al.,

2000).

Handoko (2008) also states that there are several working conditions that often cause stress for

employees, including: a. Excessive workload. b. Pressure or time pressure. c. Poor supervision

quality. d. Unsafe political climate. e. Feedback about inadequate work performance. f. Insufficient

authority to carry out responsibilities. g. Role ambiguity. h. Conflict between individuals and

between groups. i. Difference between company and employee values. j. Various forms of change.

Outcome variable

Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction is really importance for the growth of any organization. Job satisfaction is the

favorableness or un-favorableness of employees in viewing their work (Hassan et al., 2011).

Employees who are satisfied their job will be more motivated and the better performance of

employees will be achieved (Messersmith et al., 2011).

Employees job satisfaction is affected by both intrinsic variables related to personal growth and

development that contribute to increase satisfaction while extrinsic factors are related to security

of the work environment called hygiene factors, cause job dissatisfaction (Hertzberg et al., 1959;

Ssesanga and Garrett, 2005).

Sattar and Ali (2014) measures the factors affecting the employee satisfaction by discussing

variables such as promotion, work environment, leadership and job satisfaction and observe its

impact on workers of the banking industry at Bahawalpur district. It was determined that all the

variables’ promotions, work environment, leadership behaviour and job satisfaction have

significant relationship with employee’s job satisfaction.

According to Cooper and Locke (2000), job experiences spill over into life and vice versa.

Problems at home can affect satisfaction at work and problems at work can affect home life.

Armstrong (2006) advances that organizational commitment has three components: identification

with the goals and values of the organization; a desire to belong to the organization and a

willingness to display effort on behalf of the organization. There seems to be a strong correlation

between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The study on bank employees by Kord

and Tamini (2012) revealed that affective commitment, continuance commitment, normative

commitment sub-scales and total scores of organizational commitments have significant

correlation with job satisfaction. Another study on bank employees by Tuzun (2009) also indicated

that organizational commitment is inversely related to job satisfaction. Judge, Thoresen, Bono and
Patton (2001) identified that that there is a high correlation between job satisfaction and job

performance.

Hsiao and Kohnke (1998) job satisfaction as one’s emotional response to a job that results from

the person’s expectations of the job and the reality of the job situation. Susskind et al., (2000)

describes that job satisfaction represents the workplace and employees’ perceptions of their job.

Job satisfaction can be envisaged by levels of support an employee gets from his organization, the

employment situation and employees’ evaluation of the work climate in the organization.

According to Ozguner and Ozguner (2014), Maslow’s needs hierarchy theory was used to examine

the important contributors to job satisfaction. Job satisfaction can refer to a pleasurable, positive

attitude resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences (Gustainiene & Endriulaitiene,

2009). Singh and Sinha (2013) suggested that job satisfaction can be understood as an overall

attitude or it can apply to the parts in the job of an individual.

Job satisfaction is really importance for the growth of any organization. Job satisfaction is the

favorableness or un-favorableness of employees in viewing their work (Hassan et al., 2011).

Employees who are satisfied their job will be more motivated and the better performance of

employees will be achieved (Messersmith et al., 2011).

Balzer (1997) views job satisfaction as ‘the feelings and the perceptions a person holds towards

her or his job’. Liden, Wayne, and Sparrow (2000) likewise assert that ‘individuals who feel that

their jobs are significant and worthwhile have higher levels of satisfaction compared to those who

feel their jobs have little value’. According to Kaliski (2007), job satisfaction is a key ingredient

that leads to recognition, income, promotion, and the achievement of other goals that lead to a

feeling of fulfilment. It can be influenced by factors like salary, working environment, autonomy,
communication, and organizational commitment (Lane, Esser, Holte, & Anne, 2010; Vidal, Valle

& Aragόn, 2007).

Job satisfaction is a combination of several factors such as internal and external motivations,

salary, working conditions, organizational climate, and leadership styles (Adewunmi et al., 2016).

The influence of employee job satisfaction is an important variable that has been widely researched

in organizational studies (Alsughayir, 2014; Thompson & Lane, 2014).

People look for jobs in organizations that fit their perception of where they want to work; internal

and external factors such as age, gender, organizational culture, work environment, and other

factors affect job satisfaction (Basak, 2014).Job satisfaction of employees is affected by work on

the present job, especially the opportunities the job presents employees for gaining status,

assuming responsibility, emotional mindfulness, and achieving self-realization (Gelard & Rezaei,

2015; Onkila, 2015).

Job satisfaction can be described as a positive emotional state that an individual has about job

experiences (Locke, 1968).

Performance Effectiveness

Performance effectiveness of the employees within an organization is of vital concern for

organizational management in order to achieve goals and objectives. Effective people can

contribute to the effectiveness of the organization; competent, motivated and satisfied people can

make things happen and enable organizations to achieve their goals. Effectiveness is

conceptualized in four approaches :(a)goal achievement approach (in terms of fulfilment level of

organizational objectives and final achievements of the organization,(b)systematic approach (in

terms of ability in using and processing data, its achievement ways and maintaining stability of the
organization),(c)strategic factor approach(in terms of fulfilling expectations of external factors, on

which organization stability depends and (d)competitive value approach in terms of identifying all

fundamental variables which influence the performance of organization and the connections of

these variables.

Gaertner and Ramnarayan (1983) defined effectiveness as “the ability of an organization to

account successfully for its outputs and operations to its various internal and external

constituencies” A multidimensional framework was proposed that resulted in four approaches to

Organizational Effectiveness: (a) general outcomes, (b) organization-specific outcomes, (c)

general process/structure, and (d) organization-specific process/structure. Criteria for effectiveness

captured by these four approaches included productivity, profit, return on investment, decision

making, organizational structure, flexibility, openness to information, and adaptability.

Afshan et al. (2012) employees’ performance is defined as the attainment of specific tasks by

employees of an organization (through the effort applied by employees within such organization)

and it is measured against the predetermined or identified standards of accuracy, completeness,

cost and speed set by the organization.

Broad (2007) described that to achieve the organizational quantitative and qualitative goals and

enhancing employee’s performance effective intrinsic and extrinsic incentives must be given to

employees.

Richard et al., (2009) reflect that the performance of the organization which reinforcing the three

specific aspects of the outcomes of the firm, the performance of the financial institutions such as

profits, return on the investments, the performance of the product market which include the sales

the share of market., the return of shareholder the economic value which is added to the
performance. The OP is main driving force of organization, which is mainly aimed to achieve the

goals by utilizing the main resources in the efficient as well as effective manner (Daft, 2000).

Motowidlo (2003) define job performance is based on employee behavior and the outcome is vital

for the organizational success. Muchinsky (2003) explained job performance as a combination of

employee's behaviours. Jamal (2007) stated that job performance is the work that an employee can

perform with success within the boundaries of available resources. An important facet of job

performance is task performance, which refers to behaviours of job performance that are beneficial

to the organization (Kuyumcu & Dahling, 2014). According to Burke and Litwin (1992) Model,

organizational performance refers to the outcome or the end-result and is measured in terms of

productivity, profit, service quality and customer satisfaction.

Ashfaq et al. (2014) discussed that organizational performance depends on employees’ knowledge,

skills, specialties, interests and satisfaction from their jobs.

Maktabi and Khazaei (2014) define organization performance as an indicator that measures the

ability of the organization in achieving their objectives. It is also referring to the efficiency and

effectiveness of goal attainment that comprises the increment in profitability of the organization

(CooperThomas and Anderson, 2006).

To elaborate, performance of the organization is defined as their capability to lead to the creation

of employment and wealth by business start-up, survival and sustainability (Moorty et. al, 2012).

Meanwhile, Gavrea et. al (2011) highlight that the important factors in measuring organization

performance is the quality and quantity of individual and group work achievement