Starbucks
Starbucks
Starbucks
71-84 71
1. Introduction
Managing employees’ performance has always been a challenging task for man-
agers in organizations; especially in developing countries like Afghanistan. Employee
performance is considered as the product of ability and motivation and managers
have always tried to motivate employees to bring the best out of them (Moorhead &
Griffin, 1998). To improve employees’ performance, managers use both financial and
non-financial rewards as means to motivate employees in the organization. Panagiota-
kopoulos (2013), and Lavelle, Gunnigle, and McDonnell (2010) argued that financial
rewards and equality in the level of motivation are the key factors to improve employees
performance in organizations. Many studies confirm a strong correlation between
employee satisfaction and performance. With the monetary awards, the non-monetary
rewards are also used as effective tools for achieving employee satisfaction. Extensive
literature is available on the non-financial rewards and employee satisfaction (Praga,
2008). Another study by Dambisya (2007) investigated the use of non-monetary re-
wards for achieving employees’ satisfaction in the health sector. The study confirmed
the effect of non-monetary rewards and employee satisfaction. Similarly, the study by
John (2009) established the relationship between non-financial rewards and work-
Based on the long-term personal working experience with some of the organizations
in Afghanistan, the author has observed that majority of the managers use centralization
in their management practices. Perhaps the culture of respect for seniors and obedience
has affected the decision making style in organizations. This assumption can be sup-
ported by Mujtaba and Kaifi (2008). They categorically mentioned in their study the
difference of leadership orientation towards tasks and relationship between Afghan and
American professionals’ that the culture of Afghanistan has traditionally emphasized
hierarchy, paternalism, and mastery in contrast to egalitarianism, autonomy and har-
mony. Consequently, this provides rationale to conduct the current study. This study
shall help managers employed in the Telecommunication as well as other sectors of the
economy to understand the importance of non-monetary rewards such as participation,
job involvement and employee relations, as sources of motivation for employees, which
would result in higher employee performance.
2. Literature Review
one of them is a motivator and the other one is hygiene factor. ‘Motivators’ are intrin-
sic motivational factors such as challenging work, recognition for one’s achievement,
responsibility, opportunity to do something significant (job involvement), contribution
in decision-making, sense of importance to an organization etc. On the other hand
hygiene factors are extrinsic motivational factors such as company policy, superviso-
ry relationship with boss (employee relations), work conditions, salary, relationship
with peers, security etc. The presence of motivators can lead to satisfaction and the
absence of hygiene factors can lead to dissatisfaction. However, an important point
is that these two factors cannot be considered as opposite to each another.
In the present study, job involvement and participation in decision making are
considered as motivators, and employee relations as a hygiene factor to see their effect
on employee performance in the Telecom sector.
ALDamoe (2015) posits that a well maintained employee relations serves three
purposes to the organization. First, it helps in tackling and administering the conflict at
the work place, hence minimizing the disruptive behavior. Second, it assists employers
to be able to identify and avoid conflicts ahead of time which helps employees focus
on their professional development, and also support organizational goals. Third, and
above all, it creates a culture that considers the interest and wellbeing of employees.
Job involvement encompasses the sense of controlling one’s work, getting per-
formance feedback, and being compensated for the overall good performance of the
organization (Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1992). Their study concluded on revealing
the advantages of designing job involvement programs. Therefore, managers have
to initiate job involvement activities in the organization and these activities should
further be linked up with the performance evaluations and compensation systems.
Employees upon receiving benefits from the organization try to reciprocate it through
their on-job performance.
Factors Affecting Employees’ Performance: A Case of Kabul-Based Telecom Firms 75
3. Methodology
Scale points were labeled as: 5 = Strong Agree (SA), 4 = Agree (A), 3 = Neutral (N),
2 = Disagree (DA), 1 = Strongly Disagree (SDA).
As a whole, data were collected from 200 participants working in the Kabul based
branches of the above-mentioned organizations. Tabular information about the number
of participants selected from each organization is provided in the appendix. Keeping in
view the nature of the study, employees working in human resource department and other
officer level staff involved in planning and development issues were selected for the data
collection. This is because human resource department deals with the issues related to
employees like performance appraisal, training and development, employee relation and
grievances etc. Officer level staff involved in planning and development activities were
identified by the human resource department in above mentioned organizations.
3.3 Procedure
To comprehend views of the employees working in all six different Telecom sector or-
ganizations, two assistants from the local community were engaged for the questionnaire
distribution and collection. The purpose of engaging two locals for such proceedings
was to make the whole process smooth as they could easily communicate with the
employees and facilitate them with the questionnaire filling. Desired respondents
were approached by the permission of management of the concerned organizations.
While distributing the questionnaires, assistants were asked to explain participants
the purpose of the research and they were also assured about the confidentiality of
the information provided by them.
Respondents were given a week’s time to respond. Initially, the purpose was to
deliver survey questionnaire to as many employees as possible but due to certain lim-
itations, assistants could only contact 200 respondents in all the six organizations. Out
of 200 filled questionnaires, only 162 questionnaires were used for the analysis purpose
as the rest were not properly filled. This made the total response rate as 81%.
(1968, 1970). This scale was essentially developed to examine the effect of organizational
climate on employee performance.
Where,
Reliability analysis
Variables No. of items Cronbach’s alpha
Employees’ Performance 6 0.75
Employees’ Participation 6 0.77
Employees’ Relations 6 0.80
Job Involvement 7 0.81
Note : Total number of items =25
If Cronbach’s Alpha exceeds the value .70, then the constructed instrument is
highly reliable. Thus it can be seen that the reliability of the survey instrument is highly
significant that crosses the aforesaid threshold limit.
4. Analysis of Results
Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics as well as correlations among depen-
dent and independent variables. The table shows a mean value of employee par-
ticipation as 3.42, which is moderate, implying that majority of the respondents’
responses were in support of employee participation at 5-point Likert scale and
these responses deviate .71 from the average responses of the respondents. In ad-
dition, employee participation is positively related to employee performance with
a correlation value of .547, which is significant at 1%. Employee relations is also
positively related to employee performance with a value of .521, which is signifi-
78 Syed Umar Farooq, Muhammad Shahid Shams, Murtaza M. Niazi
cant at 1%. Moreover, mean value and standard deviation of employee relation
are 3.08 and 0.60 respectively. The mean value is near 3, indicating the above
average responses of the respondents in support of employee relations. However,
the mean response on the job involvement is 4.15, which is higher in comparison
to the first two variables. For job involvement, the deviation from the mean is .52,
which is also less in comparison to the first two variables. The correlation value
of job involvement is .576, which is strongly related to employee performance in
comparison to employee relations and employee participation. The correlation
value of job involvement is also significant at 1%.
Table 2: Descriptive statistics & Pearson’s correlations N= 162
Variables Mean SD EP ER JI PM
EP 3.42 0.71 1
ER 3.08 0.60 487** 1
JI 4.15 0.52 .480** .550** 1
PM 3.58 0.80 .547** .521** .576** 1
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Table 3 depicts the model summary results. It is evident from the results that all
independent variables have 45.2% (combined) impact on employee performance. The
value of R square (.452) is high enough to bring changes in the dependent variable.
Table 4 shows the results of model fit, measured by ANOVA (F-test). Since the
p-value is less than the level of significance, it is concluded that the fit between depen-
dent and independent variables is significant, implying a good model.
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 1173.132 3 391.044 43.415 .000b
Residual 1423.121 158 9.007
Total 2596.253 161
a. Dependent Variable: Employees Performance
b. Predictors: (Constant), Job involvement ., Employees Participation., Employees Relations
Factors Affecting Employees’ Performance: A Case of Kabul-Based Telecom Firms 79
Table 5 shows the regression results of the study, subject to equation (1). Results
indicate a positive and significant impact of employee participation on employee
performance. Similarly, employee relations and job involvement are also found to
maintain a significant positive relationship with employee performance. All these
results are consistent with the hypotheses generated through the literature.
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Collinearity
Statistics
B Std. Error Beta T Sig. Tolerance VIF
(Constant) 1.237 1.486 .832 .406
EP .275 .066 .293 4.161 .000 .698 1.432
ER .206 .077 .199 2.688 .008 .633 1.579
JI .291 .066 .326 4.423 .000 .639 1.566
a. Dependent Variable: Employees’ Performance
The above table reports the values for the regression model as
PM = 1.237 + 0.275 (EP) + 0.206(ER) + 0.291(JI) +error
5. Conclusion
This study attempted to empirically test the relationship between employees’ per-
formance and job involvement, employee participation, and employee participation.
The data used in this study is perception based, collected from the employees working
in the Telecom sector of Kabul. The results confirmed the effect of job involvement
on employee performance. Moreover, employee relations and employee participation
were found to have significant relationship with employee performance. Results
of this study are important for managers in the Telecom sector that non-monetary
rewards and the change in their managerial styles from being autocratic to democratic
improve employees’ performance.
Following were some limitations faced while conducting the study. Some ques-
tionnaires were not properly filled which resulted in missing values. Few employees
had some language and literacy problems as they were not able to read and understand
English properly. Assistants from local community were hired to help employees with
English language, hence resulting in a time consuming procedure. Also, the sample size
used in this study is off course small as data were collected from the branches located
in Kabul city only. And finally, this research has considered only three variables from
the Herzberg two-factor theory model to see their impact on employee performance;
however, other variables can also be taken into consideration to see their impact on
employee performance for future researches.
This research does not differentiate between employees working in public and
private Telecom organizations in Afghanistan. Future researches can be conducted
on employees’ performance in public and private Telecom organizations separately.
References
Abbas, Q., & Yaqoob, S. (2009). Effect of leadership development on employee performance in Pakistan.
Pakistan Economic and Social review, 47(2), 269-292.
Ahmed, P. K., & Rafiq, M. (2003). Internal marketing issues and challenges. European Journal of Mar-
keting, 37(9), 1177–1186.
Armstrong, M., & Baron, A. (1998). Performance management: The new realities. London: IPD.
Beardwell, J., & Claydon, J. (2007). Human resource management: A contemporary approach (5th ed.). Great
Britain, Pearson Education Limited.
Brown, S. P. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job involvement. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 120(2), 235–255.
Collis, D. J., & Montgomery, C. A. (1995). Competing on resources. Harvard Business Review.
Cummings, L., & Schwab, D. (1973). Performance in organizations: Determinants and appraisal. Scott
Foresman, Glenview: Illionis.
Factors Affecting Employees’ Performance: A Case of Kabul-Based Telecom Firms 81
Graham, H., & Bennet, R. (1998). Human resource management (9th ed.). Great Britain: Pearson Educa-
tion Limited.
Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. (1999). Management (7th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College
Publishing.
Holter, H. (1965). Attitudes towards employee participation in company decision making process.
Human relations, 18(1), 297-321.
Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(3),
341-349.
Lavelle, J., Gunnigle, P., & McDonnell, A. (2010). Patterning employee voice in multinational companies.
Human Relations, 63(3), 395-418.
Lawler, E. E., Mohrman. S., & Ledford, G. (1992). Employee involvement and total quality management:
Practices and results in Fortune 100 companies. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass
Locke, E. A., & Schweiger, D. M. (1979). Participation in decision-making: One more look. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 1(10), 265-339.
Lodahl, T., & Kejner, M. (l965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 49(1), 24-33.
Marshall, C. R., & Ward, P. D. (1996). Sudden and gradual molluscan extinctions in the latest Creta-
ceous of western European Tethys. Science, 274(5291), 1360-1363.
Moorhead, G., & Griffin, R. (1989). Organizational behavior (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Mujtaba, B. G., & Kaifi, B. A. (2008). Afghan and American professionals’ leadership orientation toward
tasks and relationships: Are there tendencies toward convergence or divergence? Fortune Journal of
International Management, 5(1), 107-125.
Mwita, J. I. (2000), Performance management model: A system-based approach to system quality. The
International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(1), 19-37.
82 Syed Umar Farooq, Muhammad Shahid Shams, Murtaza M. Niazi
Odhong, A. E. & Omolo, J. (2014). An analysis of the factors affecting employee relations in the flower
industry in Kenya: A case of Waridi Ltd, Athi River. Internatoinal Journal of Business and Socical
Science, 5(11), 147-160.
Padilla-Velez. D. (1993). Job satisfaction of vocational teachers in Puerto Rico. The Ohio State University.
Panagiotakopoulos, A. (2013). The impact of employee learning on staff motivation in Greek small
firms: The employees’ perspective. Developing and Learning in Organization: An International Journal,
27(2), 13-15.
Paullay, I. M., Alliger, G. M., Stome, R., & Eugene, F. (1994). Construct validation of two instruments
designed to measure job involvement and work centrality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(2), 224-228.
Paulus, P. B., Seta, C. E., & Baron, R. A. (2006). Effective human relation. A guide to be people at work (3rd
ed.). Boston: Prentice Hall
Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Shockley-Zalabak, P., Ellis, K., & Cesaria, R. (2000).Measuring organizational trust: A diagnostic survey
and international indicator. San Francisco: International Association of Business Communicators.
Schneider, B., & Bartlett, J. (1968). Individual differences and organizational climate I. The research
plan and questionnaire development. Personnel Psychology, 21(3), 323-333.
Schneider, B., & Bartlett, J. (1970). Individual differences and organizational climate II: Measurement
of organizational climate by the multi-trait, multi-rater matrix. Personnel Psychology, 23(4), 493-512.
Soong, S. W. (2000). The study on the devotion and job satisfaction of adults’ participation in volunteer services.
Taiwan: National Kaohsiung Normal University
Wilpert, B. (1998). Participation: A view from psychology. In E. P. Frank Heller (Eds.), An overview of
organizational participation: myth and reality (pp. 40-64). New York: Oxford University Press.
Whetten, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (1998). Developing management skills (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
Factors Affecting Employees’ Performance: A Case of Kabul-Based Telecom Firms 83
Appendix
List of Telecommunication companies and number of respondents from each
company
Survey Instrument
Employee Participation
SA A N DA SDA
I am always asked to complete employee surveys 5 4 3 2 1
I participate in an employee suggestion programs and meetings for 5 4 3 2 1
giving suggestions and ideas for improvement
My organization gives me opportunity of job rotation 5 4 3 2 1
Organization provides me training programs for learning 5 4 3 2 1
I am always informed about overall workplace Performance or any 5 4 3 2 1
changes to workplace environment
I have the opportunity of independent thought and actions In my 5 4 3 2 1
job.
Employee Relations
1- At my company grievances are handled fairly 5 4 3 2 1
2- Recruitment is handled fairly 5 4 3 2 1
3- All employees have equal chance of promotion 5 4 3 2 1
4- Disciplinary processes & procedures are handled fairly. 5 4 3 2 1
5- Management has confidence on staff 5 4 3 2 1
6- There is high level of discrimination in my Organization (R) 5 4 3 2 1
Job Involvement
84 Syed Umar Farooq, Muhammad Shahid Shams, Murtaza M. Niazi
1- I have very strong ties with my present job this would be difficult 5 4 3 2 1
to break
2- I feel relaxed when it is time to go 5 4 3 2 1
3- Most of my personal goals are job oriented 5 4 3 2 1
4- I like everything about my job 5 4 3 2 1
5- I wait impatiently for holidays 5 4 3 2 1
6- For me the best form of relaxation is doing my job 5 4 3 2 1
7- I am not willingly devote my free time to job 5 4 3 2 1
Employee Performance
My present job gives me the opportunity to enhance my Perfor- 5 4 3 2 1
mance on job
My present job has a direct impact on achieving the Organizational 5 4 3 2 1
objectives
My job performance outcomes are consistent with the goals of the 5 4 3 2 1
organization
My good performance on job is rewarded financial terms 5 4 3 2 1
My good performance on job is given formal appreciation by the 5 4 3 2 1
higher ups
The job performance evaluation system is objective 5 4 3 2 1