Diamantidis Dan Chatzoglou (2019)

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/329978024
Factors affecting employee performance: an empirical approach
Article in International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management · December 2018

DOI: 10.1108/IJPPM-01-2018-0012
CITATIONS READS
101 92,395
2 authors:
Anastasios D. Diamantidis Prodromos D Chatzoglou

Democritus University of Thrace Democritus University of Thrace
16 PUBLICATIONS 534 CITATIONS 129 PUBLICATIONS 2,742 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
ED-BPR View project
Banking View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Anastasios D. Diamantidis on 30 May 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management
Factors affecting employee performance: an empirical approach
Anastasios D. Diamantidis, Prodromos Chatzoglou,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Anastasios D. Diamantidis, Prodromos Chatzoglou, (2019) "Factors affecting employee performance:
an empirical approach", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 68
Issue: 1, pp.171-193, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2018-0012
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2018-0012
Downloaded by University of Sheffield At 00:04 30 May 2019 (PT)
Downloaded on: 30 May 2019, At: 00:04 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 72 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1821 times since 2019*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2017),"Factors affecting employee performance of PT.Kiyokuni Indonesia", International
Journal of Law and Management, Vol. 59 Iss 4 pp. 602-614 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJLMA-03-2016-0031">https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-03-2016-0031</a>
(2014),"Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance",
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 63 Iss 3 pp. 308-323 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2013-0008">https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2013-0008</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:297208 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm
Factors
Factors affecting affecting
employee performance: employee
performance
an empirical approach
Anastasios D. Diamantidis and Prodromos Chatzoglou 171
Department of Production and Management Engineering,
Received 31 January 2018
Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece Revised 26 July 2018
Accepted 29 July 2018
Abstract
Purpose – Nowadays, the phenomenon of increased competition between firms and their need to respond
effectively to rapidly changing operational conditions, as well as to personnel requirements, has escalated the
necessity to identify those factors that affect employee performance (EP). The purpose of this paper is to
examine the interrelations between firm/environment-related factors (training culture, management support,
environmental dynamism and organizational climate), job-related factors (job environment, job autonomy, job
communication) and employee-related factors (intrinsic motivation, skill flexibility, skill level, proactivity,
adaptability, commitment) and their impact on EP.
Design/methodology/approach – A new research model that examines the relationships between these
factors and EP is proposed utilizing the structural equation modeling approach.
Findings – The results indicate that job environment and management support have the strongest impacts (direct
and indirect) on job performance, while adaptability and intrinsic motivation directly affect job performance.
Research limitations/implications – A potential limitation of this research is that it is not focused only on
one business sector (i.e. the sample is heterogeneous).
Originality/value – In this study, firm/environmental-related factors, job-related factors, employee-related
factors and EP are incorporated in a single model using data from small- and medium-sized enterprises.
Overall, the final model can explain 27 percent of EP variance ( first-level analysis) and 42 percent of EP
variance (second-level analysis).
Keywords Adaptability, Proactivity, Employee performance
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Firms have realized that they have to develop unique dynamic characteristics that empower
their competitive advantages in order to survive in a constantly changing market environment.
Thus, they are focusing on the exploitation of their human resources (HR), particularly on
employee performance (EP), as a source of strategic advantage (Wright and Snell, 2009).
Narcisse and Harcourt (2008, p. 1152) state that employee’s “performance appraisal
encroaches upon ‘one of the most emotionally charged activities in business life’ – the
assessment of a man’s contribution and ability.” Boxall and Purcell (2011) indicate that the
implementation of a well-defined process for evaluating EP plays a crucial role on a firm’s
smooth running. Rynes et al. (2000) argue that the main challenge for firms is to evaluate EP
and to consider how it can become more efficient and more “valid.” In other words, in which
way firms can apply performance evaluation practices in order to improve their ability to
distinguish “good” employees (that display desirable performance) from the bad ones.
Therefore, it is essential for firms to be aware of their employees’ capabilities in order to be
able to manage them and, in turn, to align them with the firm’s overall business strategy
(Boxall and Purcell, 2011). However, Murphy and Cleveland (1991) report that many
important factors regarding the research and development of a performance evaluation International Journal of
Productivity and Performance
model are still often overlooked and that this may be why there is not yet an integrated Management
model for evaluating EP. Additionally, as Nguyen et al., (2015, p. 567) state “Though there Vol. 68 No. 1, 2019
pp. 171-193
have been many studies examining the impacts of various factors on employee © Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-0401
performance, very few examined more than three factors at one time.” An organization is a DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-01-2018-0012
IJPPM consciously coordinated system where characteristics of individuals, groups and
68,1 organization interact with each other and effective interaction among them highly
depends on organizational culture that shapes the individual performance (Kozlowski and
Klein, 2000). Uddin et al. (2013) also argue that although environmental cultural factors
support and develop EP, employee-related factors connect environmental cultural factors
and EP and further research is needed for a better understanding of these relations.
172 The purpose of this research is thus to explore and integrate the relations between firm/
environment-related factors, job-related factors and employee-related factors into an analytical
EP assessment model. Although the individual impact of the model components is established
in the literature, the contribution of this research is the incorporation of them into a single
model (holistic framework), as well as the correlations between the 13 sub-factors and EP.
2. Theoretical framework and hypotheses

2.1 Proposed employee evaluation model
Figure 1 demonstrates the proposed research model, where the relations between the three
core constructs (firm/environment-related factors, job-related factors and employee-related
factors) and EP appear.
Firm/Environment-related
factors
Management support
Training culture
Organizational climate
Environmental dynamism H5 –H8 H1–H4

(Perceived instability) (a,b,c,d,e,f)
Employee-related factors
H9 –H12
(a,b,c)
Proactivity
Adaptability
Intrinsic motivation H19–H24 Employee

performance
Skill flexibility
Commitment
H13 –H15
(a,b,c,d,e,f)
Skill level
Job-related factors
H16–H18
Job environment
Job communication
Figure 1.
Research model
Job autonomy
and hypotheses
Mathis and Jackson (2011) and Armstrong (2012) argue that firm-related factors from firm’s Factors
internal and external environment, such as management support, training culture, affecting
organizational climate and environmental dynamism are related to: job-related factors, such employee
as communication, autonomy and environment; employee-related factors, such as intrinsic
motivation, proactivity, adaptability, skill flexibility, commitment and skill level; and EP. performance
Firm/environment-related factors. Although there are many firm/environment-related
factors that have been examined in the literature regarding their impact on EP, such as 173
leadership, organizational trust, human capital investments, etc. (Bapna et al., 2013), this
study turns its attention on management support, training culture, organizational climate
and environmental dynamism.
Many researchers (Pulakos, 2004; Armstrong, 2012) claim that management support is an
important condition for EP improvement. As Morrison and Phelps (1999) also indicate, when
employees perceive that the management supports their job-related efforts, then it is likely that
improved job performance will be noticed. Further, Parker et al. (2006) found that management
support is positively related to commitment and proactivity (employee-related factors).
Lepak et al. (2006) have found that organizational climate influences employees’ attitudes
and behaviors and hence their performance levels, while Chatman et al. (2014) report that
there is a relationship between organizational climate and adaptability and Erkutlu (2012)
argues that it also affects employees’ proactivity level. Finally, Boxall et al. (2007) point that
organization’s culture affects employee’s behavior, while Roos and Van Eeden (2008) claim
that it is related with the level of employees’ motivation.
Dermol and Cater (2013) state that the acquisition of new knowledge and skills through
training leads to improved EP. Additionally, Hale (2002) and Armstrong (2012) argue that
training improves employees’ knowledge and skills, so they can successfully deal with new
everyday job-related challenges and, thus, improve their job performance. Moreover, Song
et al. (2011) found that training culture is related to job autonomy and Winterton (2008)
report that firms’ training policy is closely related to the improvement of their employees’
job-related skills and flexibility (employee-related factors).
Ketkar and Sett (2010) report that environmental dynamism affects firm performance.
Further, Motowildo and Schmit (1999, p. 56) indicate that when firms’ external
environments are dynamic, then it is difficult for them to predetermine their employees’
efficiency levels. In other words, in a dynamic environment, the job itself and its
performance acquire unique characteristics. Finally, according to Crant (2000), employees
working in a dynamic job environment with increasing job-related demands are likely to
develop behaviors that lead to increased performance. Panayotopoulou et al. (2003) state
that environmental dynamism is a factor that affects employees’ capability to adapt, while
Papalexandris and Nikandrou (2000, p. 400) state that “the instability of the general
economic environment in which European companies operate create difficulty in defining
the necessary skills that the workforce should have.” Based on the above, the following
hypotheses are proposed:
H1–H4. Firm/environment-related factors are related to EP.
H5–H8. (a, b, c, d, e, f ): Firm/environment-related factors are related to employee-related
factors.
H9–H12. (a, b, c): Firm/environment-related factors are related to job-related factors.
2.2 Job-related factors

Although there are many job-related factors that have been examined in the literature
regarding their impact on EP such as organizational fairness, job control (Kooij et al., 2013),
IJPPM this study focuses on job communication, job autonomy and job environment. To that
68,1 end, we have adopted these factors because there are strong evidences in the literature
supporting that these factors are related with the other factors incorporated in the
proposed model.
Noe et al. (2006, p. 162) define job autonomy as the extent to which “the job allows the
employee to make decisions about how to perform his work.” They also state that job autonomy
174 is positively associated with EP. Specifically, Noe et al. (2006) report that job autonomy reflects
the degree of freedom and independence that employees have in decision making regarding the
way they perform their jobs. Thus, employees with increased job autonomy have more
flexibility in their work because they choose how to execute their jobs more efficiently and thus
their performance is increased (Morgenson et al., 2005). Further, Parker et al. (2006) found that
job autonomy is also positively related to commitment and proactivity. Moreover, Dysvik and
Kuvaas (2011) report that that there is a relationship between job autonomy and EP, which is
moderated by intrinsic motivation (employee-related factors).
Concerning job environment, Kopelman et al. (1990) report that job environment affects
employee productivity and performance. Further, Fawcett et al. (2008) state that job
environment affects employees’ ability to be proactive and productive. Similarly,
van Veldhoven (2005) support the fact that job environment is related to EP.
As regards to job communication, Price (1997) implies that job communication is related
with commitment and motivation and Chen et al. (2006) found that job communication is
related to commitment (employee-related factor) and EP. Bush and Frohman (1991) report
that job communication is an important factor that can lead to higher firm performance
levels. In the same line, Armstrong (2012) argues that job communication is a crucial factor,
which is related to employees’ overall performance. The above lead logically to the
formulation of the following hypotheses:
H13–H15. (a, b, c, d, e, f ): Job-related factors are related to employee-related factors.
H16–H18. Job-related factors are related to EP.
2.3 Employee-related factors and employee performance

Even though there are many employee-related factors that have been examined in the
literature regarding their impact on EP such as turnover, absenteeism (Hancock et al., 2013),
this study focuses on proactivity, adaptability, intrinsic motivation, skill flexibility,
commitment and skill level.
Employing people who have a variety of skills is a valuable asset for a firm, because it
forms the basis for creating multiple alternatives to current or future job requirements.
Wright and Snell (1998, pp. 764-765) define employees’ skill flexibility as “the number of
possible alternative ways, through which employees can apply their skills in their job” and
“how employees with different skills can be repositioned to the proper places in a fast way.”
Bhattacharya et al. (2005) suggest that a firm can improve employees’ skill flexibility
through various processes, such as job rotation and cross-functional teams. These processes
create unique skill combinations, exploitable by the firm and difficult to copy by
competitors. Thus, claim that skill flexibility has the strongest direct and most visible
impact on EP meaning that the higher the level of HR skill flexibility, the more likely it is
that employees will demonstrate higher performance. Besides skill flexibility Noe et al.
(2006) and Boxall and Purcell (2011) report that skill level is directly related to EP.
Examining employees’ intrinsic motivation, Boxall and Purcell (2011) indicate that it is
related (and determine) EP. Moreover, Delaney and Huselid (1996) suggest that in order for
firm performance to be improved through increased EP, firms should strengthen
employee motivation.
Next, Crant (2000, p. 435) reports that research on proactivity “has not emerged as an Factors
integrated research stream in the organizational behavior literature. There is no single affecting
definition, theory, or measure driving this body of work.” Parker and Collins (2010, p. 634) employee
define proactivity as “acting in anticipation of future (job-related) problems, needs, or
changes,” while Parker and Collins (2010, p. 634) define proactivity as “controlling a situation performance
by causing something to happen rather than waiting to respond to it after it happens.”
Many researchers (Crant, 2000; Thompson, 2005; Grant and Ashford, 2008; Parker 175
and Collins, 2010) argue that the level of employees’ proactivity is linked to their
performance. Thompson (2005) states that proactive employees perform more efficiently
than those who have low proactivity. Overall, it has been observed that employees with high
proactivity take the initiative, express their views, prevent future problems in their job
environments, improve their ways of performing work and positively influence their peers
(Parker and Collins, 2010).
Moreover, another important factor affecting EP is adaptability (Pulakos et al., 2002;
Griffin et al., 2007). Pulakos et al. (2002) state that if employees adapt easily to a new
workplace (and/or new job requirements and needs), as well as to irregular situations, there
may be a positive effect on their performances. In other words, employees with no particular
difficulty to deal with different job requirements and environments may be more efficient
than other employees (who find it difficult to apply new knowledge, skills and techniques to
their jobs and, generally, do not effectively manage any changes in their jobs).
Finally, it is argued that employee commitment, which consists of the three components
(affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment) is also related
to EP. Chen and Francesco (2003) argue that the nature of the psychological status of each
commitment factor varies from employee to employee.
According to Chen and Francesco (2003), there is a positive relationship between
affective commitment and EP, suggesting that, employees who feel that a firm’s
behavior towards them is good (e.g. fair treatment, participation in decision making) may
increase their levels of emotional commitment to the firm and, in turn, their performances
may also improve.
Further, employees with high continuance commitment feel a strong obligation to
perform their jobs in such a way that is identified with the firm’s goals, while employees
with low continuance commitment feel no such obligation to support the firm’s goals (Chen
and Francesco, 2003).
Meyer and Allen (1997) claim that there is a negative relationship between normative
commitment and EP. They argue that this occurs because employees with a high degree of
normative commitment are “trapped” in no-choice situations, such as remaining in the firm
even if they do not want to. Thus, they perform their jobs passively and gradually their
performance decreases (Meyer and Allen, 1997). However, Somers and Birnbaum (1998)
report that normative commitment can be positively associated with EP (but at a low
statistical significance). Thus, it is hypothesized that:
H19–H24. Employee-related factors are related to EP.
3. Research methodology
3.1 Data collection and measurement development
Two structured questionnaires were designed and used for collecting the necessary data.
These questionnaires were used mainly for measuring the three core constructs (totally
13 sub-factors) incorporated into the proposed research model. They were distributed to
employees and HR directors, respectively (in every participating firm). The questionnaire for
employees was divided into two sections, with the first section referring to the
correspondent’s general characteristics and job position and the second section including
IJPPM questions that measure the factors affecting EP (except for the factor “environmental
68,1 dynamism”) (Table I).
Similarly, the questionnaire distributed to HR managers contained questions about the
firm and the “environmental dynamism.” This last factor was answered by managers, as
they have the best information on a firm’s environment (Sutcliffe and Huber, 1998). A total
of 163 items were measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree)
176 to 5 (totally agree). Table I presents the questionnaire constructs, their operational
definitions, number of items used to measure each construct and the related literature.
3.2 Instrument validation

Content validity was established through a pretesting process (Zikmund et al., 2012). During
this process, researchers had face-to-face discussions with several employees, HR managers
and academics in order to ensure that the questionnaires had no serious format or content
problems. After the proposed modifications were incorporated in the questionnaires, they
were distributed to a small number of employees and HR managers. Likewise, this sample of
people was also asked to comment on various issues concerning the two questionnaires,
such as the clarity of instructions, etc.
In the next stage of this pretesting process, a number of modifications were made to
ensure that the original text was clearly interpreted in the target language (Greek). The
back-translation method, which refers to the fact that the questionnaire is translated back to
the original language to ensure correspondence with the original version, was also used to
validate the translated questionnaire. Moreover, the wording of the questions was slightly
remodified before the final draft was developed, based on the remarks and instructions of
the pretest process participants. In the meantime, researchers had contacted a number
of senior HR executives/managers from 350 firms (in various economic sectors) in order to
determine their willingness both to participate in this research and to allow the participation
of five of their employees.
Researchers persuaded 114 senior HR executives/managers to accept their invitation to
participate in this research. However, only 97 managers (response rate: 27.71 percent) and
480 employees completed and returned the questionnaires, while only 79 managers and
392 employees completed them adequately (valid sample). It must be pointed here that the
manager’s presence was compulsory (in the same room), while employees were replying
to questionnaire.
Table II presents a brief profile of the research participants (managers and employees).
Altogether, 89.7 percent of the managers are college graduates with a noticeable level of
professional experience (~20 years). As far as the participating employees are concerned,
93 percent have more than two years of professional experience, while 66 percent hold a
university degree. Participating firms can be categorized as small- and medium-sized firms
(56 percent have fewer than 50 employees), while most of them belong to the manufacturing
sector (37.7 percent).
4. Data analysis and results

4.1 Construct validity
A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to assess the validity of the constructs included
in the proposed research model. According to Hair et al. (1998), the Kaiser–Meyer–Oklin
(KMO) measure of sampling adequacy as well as Bartlett’s test of sphericity are recommended
for measuring construct validity, while Straub et al. (2004) point out that Cronbach’s α
reliability test can be used to assess the internal consistency of measurements. The total
variance explained (TVE) score is also used to measure the percentage of common variance
that is explained by all factors. Finally, the overall model fit was tested using the
structural equation modeling (SEM) approach. The five indices used to assess construct
Factor Operational definition Item References
Factors
affecting
Firm/environment-related factors employee
Management The degree to which management supports 4 Parker et al. (2006)
support an employee in the performance of his work performance
Training culture The extent to which a firm considers 4 Hale (2002)
employee training as a factor that positively
affects the employee performance 177
Organizational How an employee perceives the job climate 7 Armstrong (2012)
climate and in particular the quality of relationships
with supervisors and colleagues
Environmental Management’s perception regarding the 5 Sutcliffe and Huber (1998)
dynamism business environment’s stability in which a
(perceived firm operates
instability)
Job-related factors
Job environment
Managerial The degree to which an employee realizes 3 Fawcett et al. (2008)
affirmation from supervisor’s behavior that he is a
valuable asset of the company
Intrinsic The degree to which job design gives an 4 Fawcett et al. (2008)
affirmation employee the idea that through the execution
of his work he can positively and uniquely
contributes to the company
Personal The degree to which job environment satisfy 3 Fawcett et al. (2008)
belonging employee’s social needs
Co-worker The degree to which an employee is socially 3 Fawcett et al. (2008)
belonging connected with his peers
Personal The degree to which an employee believes that 4 Fawcett et al. (2008)
competence his skills lead to a high level of job performance
Job communication
Performance The degree to which a supervisor informs an 3 Price (1997), Armstrong (2012)
communication employee regarding his performance level
Job-related The degree to which a supervisor informs 4 Price (1997), Armstrong (2012)
communication employees regarding the various changes
occurring in their workplace and working
environment
Responsiveness The degree to which the supervisor is willing 2 Price (1997), Armstrong (2012)
to listen and respond to employee’s requests
and inquiries
Job autonomy The degree to which a firm allows employees 5 Morgeson et al. (2005), Grant and
to work out, spontaneously, various aspects Parker (2009)
of work, taking into account the functions
and performance objectives of the work
Proactivity
Taking charge Employee’s voluntary and constructive efforts 7 Morrison and Phelps (1999),
to improve firm’s procedures in the workplace Crant (2000), Grant and Ashford
(2008), Parker and Collins (2010)
Voice Making innovative suggestions for change 5 LePine and Van Dyne (2001),
and recommending modifications to standard Parker and Collins (2010)
procedures even when others disagree
Innovation Generating new ideas or approaches and 4 Crant (2000), Parker and
implementing them in the workplace Collins (2010)
Table I.
(continued ) Research factors
IJPPM Factor Operational definition Item References
68,1
Problem Self-directed and anticipatory action to 4 Grant and Ashford (2008), Parker
prevention prevent the reoccurrence of work problems and Collins (2010)
Environmental Actively scan organization’s environment to 3 Parker and Collins (2010)
scanning identify ways to ensure a fit between the
organization and its environment
178 Issue selling The degree to which an employee has a 3 Morrison and Phelps (1999),
credibility positive track record for selling issues Crant (2000), Parker and Collins
(making others aware of particular issue) (2010)
Issue selling The degree to which an employee is willing 3 Crant (2000), Parker and Collins
willingness to devote time, energy ,and effort into (2010)
behaviors to ensure key decision makers in
the organization know the issues
Feedback inquiry Directly asking for feedback from a supervisor 3 Crant (2000), Parker and Collins
about the level of work performance (2010), Grant and Ashford (2008)
Feedback Using as feedback the information obtained 3 Parker and Collins (2010), Grant
monitoring from actively monitoring the job and Ashford (2008)
environment (supervisor and peer behavior)
Job change Explicit attempts to change one’s job so that 4 Grant and Ashford (2008), Parker
negotiation it better fits his skills and abilities and Collins (2010)
Career initiative Individual’s active attempts to promote his 4 Crant (2000), Parker and Collins
career rather than a passive response to the (2010)
job situation as given
Adaptability
Handling Reacting with appropriate and proper 4 Pulakos et al. (2002), Ployhart
emergencies or urgency in life threatening, dangerous, or and Bliese (2006)
crisis situations emergency situation (at the workplace)
Handling work Remaining composed and cool when faced 4 Pulakos et al. (2002), Ployhart
stress with difficult circumstances or a highly and Bliese (2006)
demanding workload as well as acting as a
calming and settling influence to whom
others look for guidance
Solving problems Developing creative solutions for an unusual, 4 Pulakos et al. (2002), Ployhart
creatively complex and indeterminate job-related problem and Bliese (2006)
Dealing with Readily and easily deals with unpredictable 4 Pulakos et al. (2002), Ployhart
uncertain and or unexpected job-related events and and Bliese (2006)
unpredictable circumstances and applies the appropriate
work situations solution
Learning work Quickly and proficiently learning new 5 Pulakos et al. (2002), Ployhart
tasks, methods on how to perform previously and Bliese (2006)
technologies, and unlearned tasks and adjust to new work
procedures processes and procedures
Interpersonal Listening to and considering others’ 4 Pulakos et al. (2002), Ployhart
adaptability viewpoints and opinions and altering own and Bliese (2006)
opinion when it is appropriate to do so
Cultural Willingly adjusting on-the-job behavior or 4 Pulakos et al. (2002), Ployhart
adaptability appearance as necessary to comply with or and Bliese (2006)
show respect for others’ values and customs
Physically Adjusting to challenging job environmental 4 Pulakos et al. (2002), Ployhart
oriented states such as extreme heat, humidity, cold, and Bliese (2006)
adaptability or dirtiness
Intrinsic The degree to which an employee performs 5 Price (1997), Armstrong (2012)
motivation the job in the best possible way to achieve
personal satisfaction
Table I. (continued )
Factor Operational definition Item References
Factors
affecting
Skill flexibility The degree to which an employee possesses 5 Wright and Snell (1998), employee
skills and abilities that allow the firm to use Bhattacharya et al. (2005)
them in different job positions performance
Commitment
Affective The degree of employee’s emotional 6 Meyer and Allen (1997), Price
commitment attachment to, identification with, and (1997), Chen and Francesco 179
involvement in the firm (2003)
Continuance The costs that an employee can tolerate when 6 Meyer and Allen (1997), Price
commitment leaving the firm (1997), Chen and Francesco (2003)
Normative Employee’s feelings of obligation to remain 6 Meyer and Allen (1997), Price
commitment at the firm (1997), Chen and Francesco (2003)
Skill level The extent a firm believes that the frequent 4 Breu et al. (2002)
assessment of employees’ skills has a
positive effect on their performance
Employee The degree to which the level of productivity 4 Thompson (2005), Armstrong
performance of an individual employee meets the firms (2006)
performance standards Table I.
validity were χ2/degree of freedom ( χ2/df), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), comparative fit index
(CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) and root mean square residual (RMR).
The results of the confirmatory factor and reliability analyses (Table III) can be
considered as satisfactory. As can be seen, KMO is above the 0.5 threshold (Hair et al., 1998),
the Bartlett’s test of sphericity score is also acceptable (significance below the 0.05
threshold) and the factor loadings for all items are within acceptable levels (above the 0.5
threshold; Hair et al., 1998). The TVE score for all factors is satisfactory, above 0.5, while
Cronbach’s α is also above the 0.6 threshold (Zikmund et al., 2012) for all factors except
environmental dynamism (α ¼ 0.504). Finally, it must be stressed that of the 163 originally
used items, only nine were dropped from this analysis.
4.2 Descriptive statistics

The findings indicate that employees’ level of proactivity is generally satisfactory.
Employees state that they often take the initiative and express to their peers their views on
job-related matters. However, they also take actions to prevent the recurrence of job-related
problems in order not to lose later time for solving them. In other words, employees
demonstrate proactive job behavior. On the other hand, though employees themselves say
that they have relatively low levels of willingness to put in extra effort, energy and time in
order to provide their firms with useful but “indiscriminate” and “sensitive” information.
Furthermore, employees often avoid asking their supervisors and peers questions about
their performance, but they pay attention to their supervisors’ behavior toward them to
understand whether this is related to (is triggered by) their job-related performance. Finally,
employees state that they strive to adjust their knowledge and skills to their job-specific
tasks and responsibilities in order to satisfy their job requirements. Moreover, employees
prefer not to discuss their career development with their supervisors, although they do want
to improve their knowledge and skills in order to be promoted sooner. Overall, employees
state that they are not cut off from their workplaces and that they are a valuable and unique
component of their firms, which, in conjunction with their own special abilities and peer
collaboration, can contribute toward achieving the firm’s goals.
As far as adaptability is concerned, employees claim that they can adapt easily to a new
workplace and/or new job requirements and needs (i.e. irregular situations). In particular,
they believe that they can easily work with their peers regardless of whether they are
IJPPM Mean SD Statistics
68,1
Top executive characteristics
Position Owner/chairman 30.9% CEO 57.4%
Director 11.8%
Education Postgraduate 17.6% Undergraduate 72.1%
High school 10.3%
180 Total experience (years) 19.56 9.44
Firm characteristics
Number of employees (in total) o25 16.2% 51−100 23.5%
26−50 39.7% W101 20.6%
Administrative employees o10 56.7% 21−50 14.9%
11−20 19.4% W50 9.0%
Production employees o25 32.3% 51−100 13.8%
26−50 35.4% W101 16.4%
Full-time employment o25 24.6% 51−100 21.3%
26−50 32.8% W101 21.3%

Part-time employment 0 48.0% 11-50 16.0%
1−10 24.0% W51 12.0%
Sector Manufacturing 37.7% Sales 13.0%
Commerce 10.3% Services 14.4%
Construction 24.6%
Sales 24.21 m€a 54.92 m€a o €5 m 38.5% €11–30 m 26.9%
€6–10 m 25.0% W€30 m 9.6%
Market share (local) 38.64% 29.51 0−10% 17.0% 31−50% 11.3%
11−30% 37.7% 51−100% 34.0%
Market share (national) 24.61% 27.56 0−10% 49.1% 31–50% 17.5%
11−30% 21.1% 51−100% 12.3%
Market share growth (%) 8.50% 11.81 −20–0% 15.8% 11−30% 26.3%
in the last 3 years
1–10% 54.4% W30% 3.5%
Competitive position Leader 18.8% Small player 7.3%
Big player 29.0% Follower 0.0%
Competitive 44.9%
Employee characteristics
Position Group leader 19.9% Supervisor 27.6%
Employee 52.5%
Education Postgraduate 12.6% Undergraduate 53.2%
High school 33.5%
Total experience (years) 11.64 8.85 o2 7.0% 10–30 41.3%
2–10 49.4% W30 2.3%
Employment Full-time 97.7% Part-time 2.3%
Personnel Administrative 38.9% Technical 42.2%
Table II. Support 18.9%
Descriptive statistics Notes: Sample, n ¼ 392. aMillion euro/(Sample size, n ¼ 79)
newcomers or have different cultural backgrounds. As regards to intrinsic motivation, the

results show that employees place great importance on their personal satisfaction,
suggesting that they prefer to carry out their jobs in such a way that will make them feel
personally satisfied with their efforts.
Employees perceive that they have a satisfactory level of job autonomy, stating that their
firms give them the opportunity to manage various job characteristics (such as their daily
workloads and work activities) in a way that their job performance is not negatively affected.
They also believe that their firms consider training to be an investment rather than a
necessary cost, and they are satisfied with the training provided to them. Additionally,
Bartlett’s Cronbach’s
Factors
Factor Items Mean SD KMO sig TVE α Loadings affecting
employee
Firm/environment-related factors
Management support 4 4.03 0.78 0.770 0.00 71.742 0.868 W 0.817 performance
Training 4 3.18 1.06 0.793 0.00 74.981 0.888 W 0.782
Organizational climate 5 3.75 0.74 0.831 0.00 57.545 0.813 W 0.710
Environmental dynamism 2 3.90 0.36 0.500 0.00 67.095 0.504 W 0.819 181
Job-related factors
Job environment
Managerial affirmation 3 3.92 0.71 0.672 0.00 63.823 0.705 W 0.770
Intrinsic affirmation 4 3.73 0.66 0.655 0.00 54.059 0.712 W 0.575
Personal belonging 3 4.17 0.68 0.625 0.00 58.547 0.645 W 0.692
Co-worker belonging 3 4.05 0.76 0.691 0.00 70.047 0.771 W 0.802
Personal competence 4 4.17 0.62 0.759 0.00 62.665 0.801 W 0.715
Job communication
Performance communication 3 3.54 1.00 0.755 0.00 84.451 0.907 W 0.912
Job-related communication 4 3.93 0.80 0.760 0.00 66.478 0.829 W 0.794
Responsiveness 2 4.25 0.78 0.500 0.00 86.633 0.842 W 0.931
Job autonomy 4 2.98 0.95 0.783 0.00 67.178 0.835 W 0.752
Proactivity
Taking charge 7 3.75 0.71 0.788 0.00 50.663 0.802 W 0.655
Voice 5 3.69 0.84 0.845 0.00 65.227 0.865 W 0.763
Innovation 4 3.24 0.96 0.824 0.00 76.205 0.892 W 0.806
Problem prevention 4 3.83 0.74 0.727 0.00 60.086 0.772 W 0.726
Environmental scanning 3 3.20 0.93 0.705 0.00 73.928 0.823 W 0.842
Issue selling credibility 3 3.00 0.94 0.709 0.00 74.987 0.833 W 0.842
Issue selling willingness 3 2.03 1.27 0.777 0.00 94.341 0.970 W 0.965
Feedback inquiry 3 2.20 0.99 0.721 0.00 75.731 0.837 W 0.855
Feedback monitoring 3 2.80 1.04 0.682 0.00 70.814 0.791 W 0.784
Job change negotiation 4 2.81 1.01 0.817 0.00 74.576 0.886 W 0.838
Career initiative 4 2.81 0.94 0.694 0.00 65.997 0.827 W 0.749
Adaptability
Handling emergencies or crisis
situations 4 3.99 0.80 0.820 0.00 73.214 0.876 W 0.812
Handling work stress 4 3.83 0.80 0.754 0.00 64.210 0.812 W 0.762
Solving problems creatively 4 3.56 0.78 0.770 0.00 67.317 0.837 W 0.788
Dealing with uncertain and
unpredictable work situations 4 3.55 0.79 0.782 0.00 66.305 0.816 W 0.736
Learning work tasks, technologies,
and procedures 5 4.07 0.74 0.854 0.00 67.254 0.873 W 0.600
Interpersonal adaptability 4 3.85 1.05 0.729 0.00 57.198 0.749 W 0.708
Cultural adaptability 4 3.97 0.72 0.758 0.00 64.489 0.808 W 0.713
Physically oriented adaptability 4 3.46 0.97 0.789 0.00 66.410 0.829 W 0.754
Intrinsic motivation 4 4.07 0.66 0.631 0.00 58.643 0.681 W 0.636
Skill flexibility 4 3.38 0.77 0.676 0.00 56.492 0.730 W 0.662
Commitment
Affective commitment 6 4.01 0.87 0.905 0.00 73.579 0.925 W 0.789
Continuance commitment 6 3.38 0.77 0.690 0.00 53.915 0.739 W 0.554
Normative commitment 6 3.57 0.95 0.892 0.00 67.630 0.904 W 0.778
Skill level 4 2.31 0.99 0.780 0.00 73.990 0.876 W 0.635 Table III.
Employee performance 4 4.15 0.61 0.816 0.00 69.664 0.853 W 0.798 Factor analysis
IJPPM employees believe that if firms want to move them into another job position, they will be
68,1 able to perform their new tasks to a satisfactory level. In other words, they believe that they
have a sufficiently flexible skill base that can be adapted according to specific job needs.
However, it is reported (by managers) that firms scarcely use knowledge and skills tests to
assess them, yet they often assess job-related special duties and responsibilities. Not
surprisingly, firms do not believe that the frequent evaluation of employees’ skills has a
182 strong impact on EP.
Regarding management support, employees state that they can trust and lean on their
supervisors to support their on-the-job choices and actions. In other words, firms do not
consider their employees as “automatons” that produce their products and services, but as
individuals who need guidance and assistance to carry out their job activities efficiently.
Further, managers state that their firms operate in an unstable business environment
that often changes. Therefore, firms frequently improve their technological equipment and
production processes in order to strengthen their competitive positions in the marketplace.
Finally, employees believe that their job performance levels are high, and they use their
working time in the most efficient and effective ways.
4.3 Structural model fit

Table IV presents the overall model fit results using the SEM approach. It can be seen that
the ( χ2/df ) score is within acceptable limits (below 5; Harrison and Rainer, 1996), the GFI
score is above the 0.90 threshold (Bollen and Long, 1993), the CFI score is also above the
0.9 threshold, TLI is close to the 0.9 threshold (Hair et al., 1998) and the RMR value is below
the 0.1 threshold (Hair et al., 1992).
4.4 First-level analysis

Figure 2 presents the first-level structural model, along with the extracted path coefficients
and adjusted R2 scores. As can been noticed, all the hypotheses referring to the relationships
Factor χ2/df GFI CFI TLI RMR
Firm/environment-related factors
Management support 1.410 0.998 0.999 0.997 0.005
Training culture 0.137 1 1 1 0.003
Organizational climate 3.894 0.980 0.975 0.951 0.030
Environmental dynamisma 0 1 1 1 0
Job-related factors
Job environment 2.139 0.994 0.996 0.985 0.009
Job communicationa 0 1 1 1 0
Job autonomy 4.314 0.990 0.989 0.968 0.027
Proactivity 4.452 0.902 0.893 0.856 0.107
Adaptability 4.082 0.951 0.951 0.927 0.027
Intrinsic motivation 3.483 0.996 0.989 0.933 0.014
Skill flexibility 3.222 0.996 0.994 0.966 0.016
Commitmenta 0 1 1 1 0
Skill level 4.161 0.989 0.995 0.984 0.022
Firm/environment-related factors 1.237 0.997 0.996 0.989 0.006
Job-related factor 5.432 0.892 0.884 0.874 0.044
Employee-related factors 4.247 0.944 0.861 0.868 0.041
Table IV. Employee performance 0.747 0.989 1 1 0.005
Overall model fit Note: aDue to the limited number of variables, this factor’s model is overfitted
Factors
Firm/Environment-related
factors
affecting
employee
0.41*** 0.12**
performance
Employee 183
0.56*** 0.19** performance
R 2 = 0.50
R 2 = 0.27
0.39***
0.29***
Job-related factors Overall model fit

R 2 = 0.32
2/df GFI CFI TLI RMR
0 1 1 1 0 Figure 2.
Research structural
________: Straight lines indicate originally proposed causal paths model (first-level
analysis)
Notes: **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01
between the constructs are accepted. Generally, this model can explain 27 percent
of the variance in “EP”, with the job-related factors having the strongest impact (0.29***/
H16–H18), followed by the employee-related factors (0.19***/H19–H24) and the firm/
environment-related factors” (0.12***/H1–H4).
Further, the firm/environment-related factor strongly affects both the job-related and the
employee-related factors (0.56***/H9–H12 and 0.41***/H5–H8, respectively), while, the
job-related factor strongly affects the employee-related factors (0.39***/H13–H15).
4.5 Second-level analysis

Figure 3 demonstrates the overall second-level structural model, along with the extracted
path coefficients and adjusted R2 scores. The direct impact of adaptability, job environment,
intrinsic motivation and management support on EP is found to be supported. Overall, the
final model can explain 42 percent of the variance in “EP.”
Table V summarizes the total, direct and indirect effects between the factors
incorporated into the research model. All hypotheses examined have been accepted (with
H3, H5a–H5c, H6a, H7a–H7d accepted due to their strong indirect affect). In addition, it is
found that five more relationships are strongly supported (they are shown with dashed lines
in Figure 3).
5. Discussion
5.1 Impact of the independent factors on employee performance
Taking only into account the results concerning the direct affects, it is found that job
environment and adaptability have the strongest direct impact on EP (0.29***/Η16 and
0.26***/Η20, respectively), which is in line with the findings of Pulakos et al. (2002) and
Thoresen et al. (2004). Management support and intrinsic motivation have a weaker but still
significant direct impact on EP (0.15***/Η1 and 0.13**/Η21, respectively). These results are
consistent with those of Morrison and Phelps (1999) and Parker et al. (2003). No other direct
relationship is found between the factors examined and EP.
IJPPM Management
support
68,1
0.44*** 0.28*** 0.15***
Organizational Job environment

0.46***
climate R2 = 0.40
R2 = 0.19 0.29*** Employee
0.50***
performance
Intrinsic
R2 = 0.42
184 0.32***
Job autonomy 0.36***
motivation
R2 = 0.25
0.13**
Training culture
0.48***
R2 = 0.11 0.19***
0.19*** 0.26***
Proactivity
0.10** R2 = 0.23
0.30***
Adaptability
0.43***
Environmental R2 = 0.48
dynamism
0.16***
Skill flexibility Overall model fit
Figure 3. ________ : Straight lines indicate originally proposed causal paths R2 = 0.18 2/df GFI CFI TLI RMR
Research structural - - - - - - - : Dashed lines indicate relationships proposed by modification indexes
: Firm/Environment-related factors
3.478 0.942 0.923 0.888 0.044
model (second-level : Job-related factors
: Employee-related factors
analysis)
Notes: **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01
Examining the indirect effects (Table V ), it is found that all factors have an influence on EP.
Some factors have a very weak impact (e.g. dynamic environment) on EP, while job
environment (0.51***) followed by management support (0.40***) have the strongest total
(direct and indirect) impacts. Further, the strongest indirect effect on EP comes from
management support (0.25***), followed by organizational climate (0.24***) and job
environment (0.22***). Considering each factor’s total effect on EP, it can be observed that
job environment (0.506***), management support (0.402***), adaptability (0.259***),
organizational climate (0.244***) and intrinsic motivation (0.134***/H21) are the main
factors that affect EP.
5.2 Relationships between the independent factors

Koys and De Cotiis (1991) have found that the degree of managerial support for employees’
actions affects the formation of organizational climate and imply that job environment is
also affected by the degree of managerial support. Their findings are fully supported by the
results since direct relationships between management support and job environment
(0.28***/H9a) as well as between management support and organizational climate (0.44***)
are found. The strong relationship with organizational climate (0.44***) may occur because
climate characteristics, “standards” and quality are at the top of management’s directions
and instructions. In other words, the degree of supervisors’ support for employees’ actions is
determined by top management’s policies and directions.
Notably through the job environment’s “central” position in the model, management
support indirectly affects management support and proactivity (0.20***) and adaptability
(0.30***). For example, if managers do not support employees’ actions, then the
organizational climate and job environment are negatively affected, namely, there is low
trust, mutual respect and morale. The result of these effects is that employees do not have
the willingness to put in extra effort to improve their proactivity level (i.e. taking the
initiative or preventing problems during their job execution) and adaptability (e.g. they do
not react appropriately in unusual job situations). The above conclusion is consistent with
the findings of Crant (2000) and Parker et al. (2006), who argue that management support
influences employees’ proactive behavior. Further, the indirect relationship between
intrinsic motivation and management support (0.24***) may indicate that employees’
Management Environmental Organizational Job Training Job Skill Intrinsic

support dynamism climate autonomy culture environment Proactivity flexibility Adaptability motivation
Organizational D 0.436
climate
I
T 0.436
Training D 0.104 0.322
culture
I 0.140
T 0.140 0.104 0.322
Job D 0.279 0.462
environment
I 0.201
T 0.480 0.462
Proactivity D 0.188 0.194 0.363
I 0.201 0.020 0.230
T 0.201 0.020 0.230 0.188 0.194 0.363
Skill flexibility D 0.428
I 0.060 0.045 0.138
T 0.060 0.045 0.138 0.428
Adaptability D 0.479 0.299 0.158
I 0.300 0.013 0.312 0.056 0.125 0.109
T 0.300 0.013 0.312 0.056 0.125 0.588 0.299 0.158
Intrinsic D 0.496
motivation
I 0.238 0.229
T 0.238 0.229 0.496
Employee D 0.154 0.287 0.259 0.134
performance
I 0.248 0.003 0.244 0.015 0.033 0.219 0.078 0.041
T 0.402 0.003 0.244 0.015 0.033 0.506 0.078 0.041 0.259 0.134
Notes: D, direct effect; I, indirect effect; T, total effect. Significance at p o0.05 level
performance
employee
affecting
185
Factors
standardized effects of
Table V.
the model factors

Direct and indirect
IJPPM personal satisfaction, derived from their job performances, increases when they know that
68,1 they have their supervisors’ support.
Regarding environmental dynamism, a relatively weak direct relationship with training
culture (0.10**) is proposed. This relationship indicates that a firm’s internal dynamics (i.e.
changes made within a firm’s environment in order to become more competitive) affect the
intensity and content of its training programs (which employees attend to adopt/familiarize
186 themselves with these changes and modify their job execution). For example, if a firm
updates its technological equipment in order to become more competitive, then its
employees need to be trained accordingly.
Concerning organizational climate, it is strongly related with job environment (0.46***)
/H11a and training culture (0.32***). The first relationship appeared because the values,
attitudes and behaviors that prevail in a firm (creating the organizational climate) affect
employees’ immediate job environments, thus shaping their behavior within the firm
(Mathis and Jackson, 2011). The above finding may justify the existence of its indirect
relations with proactivity (0.23***), adaptability (0.31***), intrinsic motivation (0.23***) and
EP (0.24***). If the organizational climate “devalues” a firm’s employees, then employees are
likely to see obstacles in their behavior, forcing them to leave the company (Mathis and
Jackson, 2011). In contrast, if the organizational climate creates value for its employees, thus
enhancing trust, credibility and mutual understanding with peers and supervisors, then
employees feel personal satisfaction and develop proactive and adaptive behavior (e.g.
taking the initiative, making suggestions about their performances, confronting
appropriately unforeseen job problems). Crant (2000) also supports the finding that
organizational climate affects employees’ proactive behavior, as also Latham and Pinder
(2005) do, As for the direct relationship between organizational climate and training culture
(0.32***), Mathis and Jackson (2011) state that firms that have an exceptional organizational
climate also have efficient employee training programs. For example, if employees socialize
and collaborate intensively with their peers, it may be preferable for training to take place in
groups rather than individually.
Turning our attention to training culture, it is found that it is strongly related
(0.43***/H6d) to skill flexibility. This can be attributed to the fact that usually the main goal
of employees’ training is to improve their knowledge and skills, develop new skills and
adapt/modify their existing skills to new job needs and requirements (Hale, 2002). A second
positive direct relation (0.19***/H6b) between training culture and proactivity is also
proposed. This result is consistent with the findings of Kirby et al. (2002), who suggest that
through training firms can improve the levels of their employees’ proactivity. In other
words, employees who participate in training programs (e.g. how to create innovative ideas
or prevent problematic job situations) improve their levels of proactivity.
Regarding job-related factors a direct positive relationship (0.19***/H15a) between job
autonomy and the level of proactivity is evidenced. This is in line with Grant and Ashford
(2008) who claim that employees’ job autonomy affects their levels of proactivity. Morrison
(2006) also reports that when employees feel “free” in their workplaces, proactive behaviors
are observed, such as the expression of innovative ideas and taking the initiative to solve
job-related problems.
The most important job-related factor is job environment, which has the strongest
relationship (0.50***/H13c) on intrinsic motivation. Latham and Pinder (2005) report that
employees’ motivation is affected by their job’s characteristics, such as job design, tasks and
working environment. Thus, when employees perform in a working environment where
they are considered to be a firm’s precious asset and feel that their contribution is crucial for
achieving business excellence and improving firm performance, then they are motivated to
perform their job activities in the best possible way. Job environment has an equally strong
impact (direct 0.48***/H13b and indirect 0.10***) on employees’ adaptability and
proactivity levels (0.36***/H13a). Kozlowski et al. (1999) argue that job environment can Factors
influence the level of employees’ adaptability and Parker et al. (2006) report that job affecting
environment positively influences an employees’ level of proactivity. Thus, if employees feel employee
that they fit into their working environments ( feel comfortable performing their jobs), then
they may demonstrate proactive and adaptive behavior. performance
As far as the relationships between the employee-related factors are concerned, a strong
positive relation (0.30***) between proactivity and adaptability is suggested. Griffin et al. 187
(2007) report that employees’ proactivity and adaptability are two different things and
suggest that proactivity is an antecedent of adaptability. In other words, it is implied that if
an employee demonstrates proactive job behavior (e.g. willing to take the initiative, prevent
job problems), they may display adaptive behavior as well (e.g. solving difficult job
situations in the appropriate ways). Moreover, a relatively weak relation between skill
flexibility and adaptability is also proposed. Ployhart and Bliese (2006) report that
employees’ adaptability is associated with their skill levels meaning that if employees’ skills
can adapt to different jobs (tasks/requirements/duties/activities), then employees may adapt
quickly to new job positions or new job requirements (in their existing job positions).
Finally, it must be stressed that skill evaluation, communication and commitment are not
related to EP. This result may appear because other moderating factors intervene between
these factors and EP, as Somers and Birnbaum (1998) also suggest regarding commitment
and EP.
Approaching the aforementioned findings from a managerial perspective it can be said
that managers should pay attention to job environment since it can significantly impact the
performance of their employees as Nguyen et al. (2015) also argue. Therefore, job
environment should be improving continuously in terms of employee belonging and
affirmation. In other words, jobs have to be designed and tailored in such a way to give
employees the perception that their job is unique and valuable for the firm. At the same time,
managers’ behavior should be supportive and give employees the impression that indeed
they are valuable members of the organization. In turn, employees will be more confident
that their knowledge, skills and behaviors significantly contribute to the achievement of
higher job performance, something that in the long run have a positive impact on their
overall job performance. Thus, managers and supervisors have a crucial role regarding
safeguarding and improving the behavioral aspects of employee belonging and affirmation
in a job environment. Operating in a supportive, collaborative and affirmative job
environment, employees feel more empowered and self-confident, which, in turn, increases
their motivation level, their on-the-job proactiveness and improves their adaptability, thus
resulting to higher job performance.
Managers should also be concerned about firm’s internal organizational climate, since
this factor highly affects and probably shapes employees’ immediate job environment.
Managers should put an effort on establishing a healthy organizational climate
characterized by high quality relationships between managers, employees and co-workers
(i.e. responsible, trustful, transparent) as Uddin et al. (2013) also state. In order for this to be
accomplished, having the intention to pursue it, simply communicating this in executive
boards and employee round tables is just not enough, since the results of this research point
out that managers should take the first initiative by supporting and accommodating
employees job performance. This can be accomplished in terms of helping employees when
a mistake is made, discussing with employees job-related issues and letting employees make
decisions regarding their everyday job execution. This practice will trigger a healthy
organizational climate where managers, employees and co-workers will collaborate
efficiently, be more motivated and increase their performance.
Managers also should consider that when operating in such collaborative organizational
climate, their level of support affects initially the formulation of firm’s organizational
IJPPM climate, employees’ immediate job environment and (directly) employees’ performance.
68,1 The meaning of such a statement is that their supportive behavior instantly and directly
affects employee’s performance as well as indirectly, in the long term, through the
establishment of a healthy organizational climate and employee-focused job environment,
which ultimately affects even more, employee’s performance.
Further, managers should consider improving a firm’s training culture, in order to help
188 employees to acquire new job-related knowledge, skills and abilities which help them to be
more proactive and adaptive when faced with various job execution-related challenges.
The impact this culture on employees’ performance is found to be weak; however, managers
should have in mind that investing in a well-organized training culture, which is focused on
employee needs, increased employee adaptability level to emerging job requirements and
challenges, thus affecting their job performance.
In conclusion, the proposed model shows the relationships between 10 (out of 13 initially
examined), based on the existing international literature, important factors and EP.
Adaptability and intrinsic motivation have only a direct impact on performance. At the
same time, job environment, management support and organizational climate have a
considerable impact not only on EP but on the other factors of the model as well.
6. Conclusions
The proposed model incorporates a wide range of factors that affect EP. In specific it
underlines the crucial roles that management support, organizational climate, job
environment, adaptability and intrinsic motivation play in determining EP. In particular, a
lack of management support to employees’ actions has a direct negative impact on EP,
organizational climate and job environment. This negative impact on organizational climate
and job environment leads to a series of negative impacts on the other factors incorporated
into the proposed model. In turn, it is likely that this negative impact on organizational
climate directly (and negatively) affects job environment and employees’ training. The
negative impact on training culture (e.g. frequent absenteeism, low motivation) results in a
decrease in employees’ levels of skill flexibility and adaptability. This effect, combined with
a reduction in employees’ proactivity levels, leads to a decreased level of adaptability and,
ultimately, to low job performance (Pulakos, 2009).
Similarly, a negative effect on job environment leads directly and indirectly to lower EP.
This indirect effect is observed through the negative effect on employees’ intrinsic
motivation (e.g. low job satisfaction leads to insufficient job performance), employees’ levels
of proactivity (e.g. unwillingness to take the initiative during job execution leads to a
“passive stance” regarding problematic and stressful job situations) and employees’ levels of
adaptability (e.g. employees not confront problematic job-related situations, creating
obstacles to solving them and resulting in reduced job performance).
The contribution of environmental dynamism and job autonomy to the proposed model
is relatively small. Nevertheless, even the small impact of environmental dynamism on
training implies that firms with dynamic internal environments achieve better results
from training processes. In other words, if employees perform in a firm that often renews
its equipment and production processes and looks for ways to improve its competitive
position, then training plays a vital role in improving employees’ knowledge and skills,
thus making it easier for a firm to achieve its targets. By contrast, if a firm’s internal
environment is diachronically static, then the willingness and desire of employees to
update their knowledge and skills is low, since even if they update them, they will not be
utilized by the firm. Additionally, the positive relationship between job autonomy and
proactivity suggests that employees should have “their own spaces” to anticipate
problematic job situations and propose innovative ideas and solutions (Parker et al., 2006;
Grant and Ashford, 2008).
From a managerial perspective, these results suggest that managers should dynamically Factors
support employees’ job-related actions. This support should be given to their employees at a affecting
personal level as well as by improving both organizational climate and job environment in employee
order to directly and indirectly affect their job performance levels. In addition, as Pulakos
(2009) mentions, managers should be aware of the level of influence they have (via their performance
behavior) on a firm’s organizational climate and job environment in order to avoid
undesirable situations. In other words, excessive support for employees’ actions may lead to 189
disorientation from their job duties. For this reason, managers that are aware of a firm’s
strategic planning and business environment should ideally choose the degree of support to
employees and manage this accordingly.
Additionally, it should be emphasized that managers must not overlook the role that
training culture has on EP. In this model, training culture may not directly affect
performance, but it has a strong impact on employees’ skill flexibility, proactivity and
adaptability, which, in turn, are factors that directly and/or indirectly affect EP (Kozlowski
et al., 2001). Moreover, managers should also take into account (when planning their training
programs) a firm’s organizational climate characteristics as well as employees’ interpersonal

relationships in order to determine the training outcomes (positive and/or negative) for both
employees and the firm.
According to Papalexandris and Bourantas (2003, p.315), although “employees’
evaluation is an important factor, which is related with the firm’s long-term success, it is
poorly applied by the firms.” Thus, the conclusions derived from the proposed model could
help firms re-evaluate the factors that affect EP. Specifically, a firm’s top management
should focus its attention on both the level of support that their executives give to
employees and how this support is diffused and interpreted inside the organizational
climate and job environment in which employees perform.
6.1 Research limitations and future research

A potential limitation of this research is that it is not focused only on one business sector
(i.e. the sample is heterogeneous). Another possible methodological limitation of this study is
the utilization of cross-sectional self-reported variables. Examining the proposed model in
each sector separately may have led to useful conclusions about the factors affecting EP in
each sector. Adding other factors to the model may improve the predictive power of the
model (e.g. job satisfaction and its relationship with job performance may be included).
Additionally, it may be useful to determine which other factors mediate between
commitment and EP. In a next step, one could include some more factors, like fairness,
constrains, etc., that have received considerable empirical support. In addition, interesting
findings may appear from the in-depth investigation of “proactivity” and “adaptability” and
the way employees’ personalities can determine the level of both.
References
Armstrong, M. (2006), Performance Management: Key Strategies and Practical Guidelines, Kogan Page,
London.
Armstrong, M. (2012), A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, Kogan Page, London.
Bapna, R., Langer, N., Mehra, A., Gopal, R. and Gupta, A. (2013), “Human capital investments and
employee performance: an analysis of IT services industry”, Management Science, Vol. 59 No. 3,
pp. 641-658.
Bhattacharya, M., Gibson, D. and Doty, D. (2005), “The effects of flexibility in employee skills, employee
behaviors, and human resource practices on firm performance”, Journal of Management, Vol. 31
No. 4, pp. 622-640.
IJPPM Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2011), Strategy and Human Resource Management, Palgrave Macmillan,
68,1 Basingstoke.
Boxall, P., Purcell, J. and Wright, P. (2007), The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management,
Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Breu, K., Hemingway, C.J., Strathern, M. and Bridger, D. (2002), “Workforce agility: the new employee
strategy for the knowledge economy”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 17 No. 1,
190 pp. 21-31.
Bush, J.B. and Frohman, A.L. (1991), “Communication in a ‘network’ organization”, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 23-35.
Chatman, J.A., Caldwell, D.F., O’Reilly, C.A. and Doerr, B. (2014), “Parsing organizational culture:
how the norm for adaptability influences the relationship between culture consensus and
financial performance in high‐technology firms”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35
No. 6, pp. 785-808.
Chen, J.C., Silverthorne, C. and Hung, J.Y. (2006), “Organization communication, job stress,
organizational commitment, and job performance of accounting professionals in Taiwan and

America”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 242-249.
Chen, Z.X. and Francesco, A.M. (2003), “The relationship between components of commitment and
employee performance in China”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 490-510.
Crant, J.M. (2000), “Proactive behaviour in organizations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 435-462.
Delaney, J.T. and Huselid, M.A. (1996), “The impact of human resource management practices on
perceptions of organizational performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 4,
pp. 949-969.
Dermol, V. and Cater, T. (2013), “The influence of training and training transfer factors on
organizational learning and performance”, Personnel Review, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 324-348.
Dysvik, A. and Kuvaas, B. (2011), “Intrinsic motivation as a moderator on the relationship between
perceived job autonomy and work performance”, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 367-387.
Erkutlu, H. (2012), “The impact of organizational culture on the relationship between shared leadership
and team proactivity”, Team Performance Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 102-119.
Fawcett, S.E., Brau, J.C., Rhoads, G.K., Whitlark, D. and Fawcett, A.M. (2008), “Spirituality and
organizational culture: cultivating the ABCs of an inspiring workplace”, International Journal of
Public Administration, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 420-438.
Grant, A.M. and Ashford, S.J. (2008), “The dynamics of proactivity at work”, Research in Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 28, pp. 3-34.
Grant, A.M. and Parker, S.K. (2009), “Redesigning work design theories: the rise of relational and
proactive perspectives”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 317-375.
Griffin, M.A., Neal, A. and Parker, S.K. (2007), “A new model of work role performance: positive
behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50
No. 2, pp. 327-347.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1992), Multivariate Data Analysis, With
Readings, Maxwell Macmillan International, New York, NY.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Analysis, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hale, J. (2002), Performance Based Evaluation: Tools and Techniques to Measure the Impact of
Training, Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, San Francisco, CA.
Hancock, J.I., Allen, D.G., Bosco, F.A., McDaniel, K.M. and Pierce, C.A. (2013), “Meta-analytic review
of employee turnover as a predictor of firm performance”, Journal of Management, Vol. 39 No. 3,
pp. 573-603.
Harrison, A.W. and Rainer, R.K. (1996), “A general measure of user computing satisfaction”, Computers Factors
in Human Behavior, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 79-92. affecting
Ketkar, S. and Sett, P.K. (2010), “Environmental dynamism, human resource flexibility, and firm employee
performance: analysis of a multi-level causal model”, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 1173-1206. performance
Kirby, E.G., Kirby, S.L. and Lewis, M.A. (2002), “A study of the effectiveness of training proactive
thinking”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 1538-1549. 191
Kooij, D.T., Guest, D.E., Clinton, M., Knight, T., Jansen, P.G. and Dikkers, J.S. (2013), “How the impact of
HR practices on employee well‐being and performance changes with age”, Human Resource
Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 18-35.
Kopelman, R.E., Brief, A.P. and Guzzo, R.A. (1990), “The role of climate and culture in productivity”,
in Schneider, B. (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,
pp. 282-318.
Koys, D. and De Cotiis, T. (1991), “Inductive measures of organizational climate”, Human Relations,
Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 265-285.

Kozlowski, S.W.J. and Klein, K.J. (2000), “A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations:
contextual, temporal, and emergent processes”, in Klein, K.J. and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (Eds), Multilevel
Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 3-90.
Kozlowski, S.W.J., Gully, S.M., Nason, E.R. and Smith, E.M. (1999), “Developing adaptive teams: a
theory of compilation and performance across levels and time”, in Ilgen, D. and Pulakos, E. (Eds),
The Changing Nature of Performance: Implications for Staffing, Motivation, and Development,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 240-292.
Kozlowski, S.W.J., Toney, R.J., Mullins, M.E., Weissbein, D.A., Brown, K.G. and Bell, B.S. (2001),
“Developing adaptability: a theory for the design of integrated-embedded training systems”, in
Salas, E. (Ed.), Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research, Vol. 1, JAI/
Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp. 59-123.
Latham, G.P. and Pinder, C.C. (2005), “Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the
twenty-first century”, The Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 56, pp. 485-516.
Lepak, D., Liao, H., Chung, Y. and Harden, E. (2006), “A conceptual review of human resource
management systems in strategic human resource management research”, Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 25, pp. 217-271.
LePine, J.A. and Van Dyne, L. (2001), “Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of
contextual performance: evidence of differential effects of Big Five personality characteristics
and general cognitive ability”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 326-336.
Mathis, R.L. and Jackson, J.H. (2011), Human Resource Management, South-Western Cengage
Learning, Mason, OH.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Morgenson, F.P., Delaney-Klinger, K. and Hemingway, M.A. (2005), “The importance of job autonomy,
cognitive ability and job-related skill for predicting role breadth and job performance”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 2, pp. 399-406.
Morrison, E.W. (2006), “Doing the job well: an investigation of pro-social rule breaking”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 5-28.
Morrison, E.W. and Phelps, C.C. (1999), “Taking charge at work: extra-role efforts to initiate workplace
change”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 403-419.
Motowildo, S. and Schmit, M. (1999), “Performance assessment in unique jobs”, in Ilgen, D. and
Pulakos, E. (Eds), The Changing Nature of Performance: Implications for Staffing, Motivation,
and Development, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 56-86.
Murphy, K. and Cleveland, J. (1991), Performance Appraisal: An Organizational Perspective, Allyn and
Bacon, Boston, MA.
IJPPM Narcisse, S. and Harcourt, M. (2008), “Employee fairness perceptions of performance appraisal: a Saint
68,1 Lucian case study”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 19 No. 6,
pp. 1152-1169.
Nguyen, P.D., Dang, C.X. and Nguyen, L.D. (2015), “Would better earning, work environment, and
promotion opportunities increase employee performance? An investigation in state and other
sectors in Vietnam”, Public Organization Review, Vol. 15, pp. 565-579.
192 Noe, R.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Gerhart, B. and Wright, P. (2006), Human Resource Management: Gaining a
Competitive Advantage, McGraw-Hill Companies, New York, NY.
Panayotopoulou, L., Bourantas, D. and Papalexandris, N. (2003), “Strategic human resource
management and its effects on firm performance: an implementation of the competing values
framework”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 680-699.
Papalexandris, N. and Nikandrou, I. (2000), “Benchmarking employee skills: results from best practice
firms in Greece”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 391-402.
Papalexandris, N. and Bourantas, D. (2003), Human Resource Management, Benos Publishing, Athens.
Parker, C.P., Baltes, B.B., Young, S.A., Huff, J.W., Altmann, R.A., Lacost, H.A. and Roberts, J.E. (2003),
“Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: a meta-analytic
review”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 389-416.
Parker, S.K. and Collins, C.G. (2010), “Taking stock: integrating and differentiating multiple proactive
behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 633-662.
Parker, S.K., Williams, H.M. and Turner, N. (2006), “Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at
work”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 636-652.
Ployhart, R.E. and Bliese, P.D. (2006), “Individual ADAPTability (I-ADAPT) theory: conceptualizing
the antecedents, consequences, and measurement of individual differences in adaptability”, in
Burke, S., Pierce, L. and Salas, E. (Eds), Understanding Adaptability: A Prerequisite for Effective
Performance within Complex Environments, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 3-39.
Price, J.L. (1997), “Handbook of organizational measurement”, International Journal of Manpower,
Vol. 18 Nos 5/6, pp. 305-558.
Pulakos, E.D. (2004), Performance Management: A Roadmap for Developing, Implementing and
Evaluating Performance Management Systems, SHRM Foundation, Alexandria, VA.
Pulakos, E.D. (2009), Performance Management: A New Approach for Driving Business Results,
Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA.
Pulakos, E.D., Schmitt, N., Dorsey, D.W., Hedge, J.W. and Borman, W.C. (2002), “Predicting adaptive
performance: further tests of a model of adaptability”, Human Performance, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 299-323.
Roos, W. and Van Eeden, R. (2008), “The relationship between employee motivation, job satisfaction
and corporate culture”, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 54-63.
Rynes, S., Barber, A. and Varma, G. (2000), “Research on the employment interview: usefulness for
practice and recommendations for future research”, in Cooper, C. and Locke, E. (Eds), Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 250-277.
Somers, M.J. and Birnbaum, D. (1998), “Work-related commitment and job performance: It’s also the
nature of the performance that counts”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19 No. 6,
pp. 621-634.
Song, J.H., Martens, J., McCharen, B. and Ausburn, L. (2011), “Multi-structural relationships among
organizational culture, job autonomy, and CTE teacher turnover intention”, Career and
Technical Education Research, Vol. 36, pp. 3-26.
Straub, D., Boudreau, M.C. and Gefen, D. (2004), “Validation guidelines for IS positivist research”,
Communications of AIS, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 380-427.
Sutcliffe, K.M. and Huber, G.P. (1998), “Firm and industry as determinants of executive perceptions of
the environment”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 793-807.
Thompson, J.A. (2005), “Proactive personality and job performance: a social capital perspective”, Factors
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 5, pp. 1011-1017. affecting
Thoresen, C.J., Bradley, J.C., Thoresen, J.D. and Bliese, P.D. (2004), “The big five personality traits and employee
job performance across time in maintenance and transitional job stages”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 5, pp. 835-853. performance
Uddin, M.J., Luva, R.H. and Hossain, S.M.M. (2013), “Impact of organizational culture on employee
performance and productivity: a case study of telecommunication sector in Bangladesh”,
International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 63-77.
193
Van Veldhoven, M. (2005), “Financial performance and the long-term link with HR practices, work
climate and job stress”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 30-53.
Winterton, J. (2008), Training, Competence and Development: The Oxford Handbook of Human
Resource Management, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Wright, P.M. and Snell, S.A. (2009), “Human resources, organizational resources, and capabilities”,
in Storey, J., Wright, P. and Ulrich, D. (Eds), The Routledge Companion to Strategic Human
Resource Management, Routledge, London, pp. 345-356.
Wright, P.M. and Snell, S.A. (1998), “Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibility in
strategic human resource management”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 756-772.
Zikmund, W.G., Babin, B.J., Carr, J.C. and Griffin, M. (2012), Business Research Methods,
Thomson/South-Western, Mason, OH.
Further reading
Mathis, R.L. and Jackson, J.H. (2008), Human Resource Management, Thomson/South Western, Mason, OH.
About the authors

Anastasios D. Diamantidis is Adjunct Lecturer of Organizational Behavior at the Department of
Production and Management Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece. He holds
a Bachelor of Arts (BA) (in Economics) from the University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece, a
Master of Science (MSc) (in Finance and financial IS) from the University of Greenwich, UK and a PhD
(in HRM and IT) from Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece. His research interests include
HRM, information systems management, employee evaluation. His works have been published in
International Journal of Training and Development, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, among others. Anastasios D. Diamantidis is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: adiamant@pme.duth.gr
Prodromos Chatzoglou is Professor of MIS at the Department of Production and Management
Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece. He holds a Bachelor of Arts (BA)
(in Economics), from the Graduate Industrial School, Thessaloniki, Greece, a Master of Science (MSc)
(in Management Sciences) and a PhD (in Information Engineering), both from UMIST, Manchester, UK.
His research interests include information systems management, knowledge management, e-business,
human resource management and strategic management. His works have been published in Decision
Sciences, International Journal of Medical Informatics, Information Systems Journal, European Journal
of Information Systems, among others.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
View publication stats

Diamantidis Dan Chatzoglou (2019)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Diamantidis Dan Chatzoglou (2019)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Factors affecting employee performance: an empirical approach

Article in International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management · December 2018

Anastasios D. Diamantidis Prodromos D Chatzoglou

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

ED-BPR View project

Banking View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Downloaded on: 30 May 2019, At: 00:04 (PT)

2. Theoretical framework and hypotheses

Environmental dynamism H5 –H8 H1–H4

Intrinsic motivation H19–H24 Employee

2.2 Job-related factors

2.3 Employee-related factors and employee performance

3.2 Instrument validation

4. Data analysis and results

4.2 Descriptive statistics

26−50 32.8% W101 21.3%

newcomers or have different cultural backgrounds. As regards to intrinsic motivation, the

working time in the most efficient and effective ways.

4.3 Structural model fit

4.4 First-level analysis

Factor χ2/df GFI CFI TLI RMR

Job-related factors Overall model fit

4.5 Second-level analysis

Organizational Job environment

5.2 Relationships between the independent factors

Management Environmental Organizational Job Training Job Skill Intrinsic

the model factors

programs) a firm’s organizational climate characteristics as well as employees’ interpersonal

6.1 Research limitations and future research

organizational commitment, and job performance of accounting professionals in Taiwan and

Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 265-285.

About the authors

View publication stats

You might also like