Purpose Statement

The purpose of this study is to check the relationship between Employee productivity, Employee
performance, Employee Innovation (Independent variables) and Organizational performance
(Dependent variable) directly and then to check the same in presence of mediating variable i.e.
job security
Objective of the Study
Two main objectives of the study are as under:
1. To investigate the extent to which three variables i.e. Employee productivity, Employee
performance, Employee Innovation influences the Organizational performance.
2. To examine weather mediating variable i.e. job security mediates the relationship
between Employee productivity, Employee performance, Employee Innovation
(Independent variables) and Organizational performance (Dependent variable).

Research Hypothesis:
The following hypothesis are generated on the basis of proposed mediating model
H1: There is no relationship between employee productivity and organizational performance.
H2: There is a no relationship between employee performance and organizational performance.
H3: There is a positive relationship between employee innovation and organizational
performance.
H4: There is no relationship between job security and organizational performance.
H5: There is positive relationship between employee productivity and job security.
H6: There is no relationship between employee performance and job security.
H7: There is no relationship between employee innovation and job security.
H8: Job security does not mediates the relationship between employee productivity and
organizational performance.
H9: Job security does not mediates the relationship between employee performance and
organizational performance.
H10: Job security does not mediates the relationship between employee innovation and
organizational performance.

Data Analysis
Descriptive Statistics
Demographic profile of respondents
Table 1: Demographic Profile of respondents
Respondent Frequency %
Demographics
 Gender (N= 138/139)

Male 48 33.6

Female 90/91 62.9/63.2

Designation
Teaching staff 115 80.4

Non-Teaching staff 21 14.7

Table 1 shows that out of 138 respondents, gender male is 48(33.6%), and females are 90(62.9%)
of the total sample.
The above table 1 also shows that 115(80.4%) have teaching staff and 21(14.7%) are non-teaching
staff.

2 Descriptive Summary
Table 2 Descriptive Statistics of Questioner Items
Items N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Improvement in quality of work
142 1 5 1.98 .926
overtime
Eager to learn productive ways 142 1 5 2.07 .872
Ablity to deliver within the set
141 1 4 2.11 .854
deadlines
steadily increased in employee’s
140 1 4 2.07 .805
output
Overtime we have increased the
142 1 5 2.42 1.11
quality service delivered
Complete the duties specified in my job
141 1 5 1.70 .753
description
Meet all the formal performance
140 1 5 1.92 .975
requirements of the job
Fulfil all requirements required my job 142 1 5 1.77 .933
Never neglect aspects of the job that
142 1 5 1.92 .907
my is obligated to perform
Always creating new ideas for difficult
140 1 5 2.08 .956
issues
 Always searching out new working
142 1 5 2.30 1.03
methods, techniques, or instruments
Always generating original solutions
142 1 5 2.35 .991
for problem
Always making important 1 5 2.06 .783
organizational members enthusiastic 142
for innovative ideas
Always introducing innovative ideas 1 5 2.21 .835
140
into the work environment
Monitor our short-term gains and long- 1 5 2.41 9.74
140
term return
Provide performance incentives and/or 1 5 2.53 1.06
140
consequences for non-performance
Monitor our employee turnover 137 1 5 2.58 1.13
Measure hours of in-house training per 1 5 2.68 1.13
137
employee
Emphasize on results related to output, 1 5 2.41 1.06
138
quality and outcomes
my job provides for a secure future 140 1 5 2.26 1.08
My pay and the amount of work I do 137 1 5 2.33 1.12
How my pay compares with that for 1 5 2.43 1.12
140
similar jobs in other companies
The way layoffs and transfers are 1 5 2.46 1.03
139
avoided in my job
my job provides for steady employment 139 1 5 2.24 .954

The data in this study was collected through questioner consisting of 5 variables i.e. Employee
productivity, Employee performance, Employee innovation, Organizational performance, Job
security. There was total 24 items to measure the response of respondents. Questions was asked
on five-point Likert Scale Mean scores of different items range from 1.70 to 2.68 and the value
of standard deviations range from 0.753 to 1.13. (See Table 2)
Table 3 Reliability of Measurement
Constructs Valid N Number of Items Cronbach’s alpha
Employee productivity 139 5 0.557
Employee performance 139 4 0.710
Employee innovation 137 5 0.649
Organizational 132 5 0.733
performance
Job security 135 5 0.660
Over all 143 24 0.626
Table 3 shows the reliability of each measure of the questioner. For the given sample Cronbach’s
Coefficient alpha varies from .557 to .733. Employee productivity with 97.2%, Employee
performance with 97.2%, Employee innovation with 95.8%, Organizational performance with
92.3% and Job security with 94.4% which shows that each multi-item construct possesses high
reliability. The high Cronbach’s alpha value for each construct implies that they are internally
consistent. The overall reliability of the questioner is 0.626.

Factor Analysis:
To validate the construct validity (Convergent and discriminant validity), factor analysis is
conducted using the PCA technique with Varimax rotation method. Results of PCA are shown in
Table 4, 5 and 6 respectively. KMO measure of sampling adequacy test and Bartlett’s test of
sphericity is applied to check whether the data is adequate for factor analysis.
Table 4 KMO and Bartlett’s test
Constructs No of items KMO Measure Bartlett’s Test Bartlett’s Test
of Sample of Sphericity of Sphericity
adequacy Chi-Square Significance
Employee productivity 5 0.661 51.968 0.000
Employee performance 4 0.712 108.4 0.000
Employee innovation 5 0.712 86.87 0.000
Organizational 5 0.774 120.4 0.000
performance
Job security 5 0.709 89.02 0.000

The value of KMO=0.5 is poor, KMO=0.6 is acceptable and KMO=1 is more suitable for factor
analysis. However, Hutcheson and Sofroniou (1999) further explain that (KMO=0.5 and 0.7)
considered as unsatisfactory and (KMO=0.7, 0.8), (KMO=0.8 and 0.9) considered as satisfactory
whereas value above 0.9 is considered as absolute perfect Hinton et al., (2004). Based on Hinton
(2004) it is reveled from table 4 that value of KMO for each construct is well above acceptable
level of 0.6. KMO = 0.661 for Employee productivity, KMO = 0.712 for Employee performance,
KMO = 0.712 for Employee innovation, KMO=0.774 for Organizational performance and
KMO=0.709 for Job security, which shows that it is worth conducting factor analysis in the case
of the present data.
Bartlett’s test of sphericity is conducted to check the significance of the relationship between the
items of a construct. If there is no relationship among the items of a construct then it will be
pointless to go ahead with the factor analysis. Bartlett’s test assumes a null hypothesis of no
correlation. Generally, a p-value < 0.05 confirms the significance of the relationship among items
variables. Table 4 reflects that the p-value of Bartlett’s test in the case of all constructs is less than
0.001 which provides evidence against the null hypothesis of no correlation. So we can continue
with factor analysis.
Table 5 Eigen values and total variance explained
Constructs Components Initial Eigenvalues
Total % of variance Cumulative % of
explained variance
explained
 Employee Comp 1 1.829 36.577 36.577
productivity
Employee Comp 1 2.151 53.778 53.778
performance
Employee Comp 1 2.113 42.252 42.252
innovation
Organizational Comp 1 2.421 48.427 48.427
performance
Job security Comp 1 2.129 42.574 42.574
Generally those components of a construct considered to be the principal components that have an
eigenvalue greater than 1 and they are used for further analysis. Table 5 contains all Eigenvalues
and also shows total variance explained for the constructs. Only one principal component was
extracted from each of the three constructs by using the PCA extraction method: EP (consisted of
5 items explaining 36.5% variance), EPER (consisted of 4 items explaining 53.77% variance), EI
(consisted of 5 items explaining 42.25% variance), OP (consisted of 5 items explaining 48.42%
variance) and JS (consisted of 5 items explaining 42.57% variance).

3.1.3 Factor Loadings

Table 6 Component Matrix
ITEMS COMPONENT
Employee Productivity
Improvement in quality of work overtime .484
Eager to learn productive ways .629
Ablity to deliver within the set deadlines .680
steadily increased in employee’s output .582
Overtime we have increased the quality service delivered .631
Employee Performance
Complete the duties specified in my job description .548
Meet all the formal performance requirements of the job .737
Fulfil all requirements required my job .796
Never neglect aspects of the job that my is obligated to perform .821
Employee Innovation
Always creating new ideas for difficult issues .713
Always searching out new working methods, techniques, or instruments .706
Always generating original solutions for problem .677
Always making important organizational members enthusiastic for innovative .432
ideas
Always introducing innovative ideas into the work environment .679
Organizational Performance
Monitor our short-term gains and long-term return .658
Provide performance incentives and/or consequences for non-performance .690
Monitor our employee turnover .730
Measure hours of in-house training per employee .696
Emphasize on results related to output, quality and outcomes .704
Job Security
 my job provides for a secure future .650
My pay and the amount of work I do .757
How my pay compares with that for similar jobs in other companies .725
The way layoffs and transfers are avoided in my job .607
my job provides for steady employment .490
According to Straub et al. (2004), the minimum value for the loading of all items should be greater
than 0.40. For all constructs (EP, EPer, EI, OP, JS) all related items are loaded on just one principal
component with varied factor loadings ranging from 0.432 to 0.821 as shown in the table no 6.
The above illustrated results satisfy the criteria of construct validity including both discriminant
and convergent validity. This means that the collected data from this particular instrument is valid.

3.1.4 Regression Analysis And Sobel Test For Mediation

Conditions to apply Sobel test.
The assumptions of applying sobel test are as under:
3. Positive and significant regression coefficients between Independent and dependent
variables.
4. Positive and significant regression coefficients between Independent and mediating
variables.
5. Positive and significant regression coefficients between mediating and dependent
variables.
Table 7 Regression Analysis
Independent Dependent Variable
Variable (Organizational
performance)
Employee .193
productivity (2.047)

Table 7.1 Regression Analysis

Independent Dependent Variable
Variable (Organizational
performance)
Employee .137
performance (1.528)

Table 7.2 Regression Analysis

Independent Dependent Variable
Variable (Organizational
performance)
Employee .423**
innovation (5.357)
Table 7.3 Regression Analysis
Independent Dependent Variable
Variable (Organizational
performance)
Job security .062
(.695)

Table 7.4 Regression Analysis

Independent Variables Dependent
variables (Job
security)
Employee productivity .325**
(3.704)
Employee performance .202
(2.394)
Employee innovation .077
(.894)

Here ** means beta is significant at 1% LOS and * means beta is Significant at 5% LOS
From above tables 7, 7.1. 7.2, 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5 it is show that there is positive and significant
relationship between independent and dependent variable, Mediating and Dependent variable and
independent and dependent variable so we can apply sobel test to check the mediating role of
mediating variables on dependent variables in presence of independent variables.
In order to apply Sobel test, we have to find the T vales of independent and dependent variables
and Mediating and Dependent variables in presence of independent variables.
Table 7.5 Sobel Test
Independent Mediator Dependent Sobel test P-
variables variable Variable Statistic Values
Employee Job security Organizational 0.00399999 0.99
productivity performance
Employee Job security Organizational 0.48728731 0.63
performance performance
Employee Job security Organizational 0.41759907 0.68
innovation performance

Above table 7.5 shows there is no significant impact of mediating variables i.e. student care and
competence on student satisfaction in presence of Independent variable i.e. teacher experience.
While competence and student care mediates the effect on student satisfaction in presence of
Qualification of teachers. If we consider level of significance at 10% then competence and student
care mediates their effect on student satisfaction in presence of both Experience and Qualification
of teachers.
Table 8 (Direct effect of Independent variables on Dependent Variable)
Independent variables Dependent Variable
(organizational
performance)
Employee productivity .193
(2.047)
Employee performance .137
(1.528)
Employee innovation .423**
(5.357)

Here ** means beta is significant at 1% LOS and * means beta is Significant at 5% LOS
Results shows that Qualification of teach significantly affect the students satisfaction i.e. Beta
(.423 with p value < 1%)
Table 8.1 Regression for Mediation Analysis
Independent variables Dependent Variable
(organizational
performance)
Employee .202
productivity (1.984)
Job security .000
(.004)

Here ** means beta is significant at 1% LOS and * means beta is Significant at 5% LOS
Results show that JS does not mediates between employee productivity and organizational
performance.
Table 8.2 Regression for Mediation Analysis
Independent variables Dependent Variable
(organizational
performance)
Employee .129
performance (1.377)
Job security .051
(.521)

Here ** means beta is significant at 1% LOS and * means beta is Significant at 5% LOS
Results show that JS does not mediates the relationship between employee performance and
organizational performance.
Table 8.3 Regression for Mediation Analysis
 Independent variables Dependent Variable
(organizational
performance)
Employee innovation .419**
(5.111)
Job security .034
(.419)

Here ** means beta is significant at 1% LOS and * means beta is Significant at 5% LOS
Results show that JS does not mediates the relationship between employee innovation and
organizational performance.

1. Results and discussions

Table 10 Results
Hypothesis Comments
H1 There is no relationship between employee .193
productivity and organizational performance. (2.047)
See table 7
H2 There is no relationship between employee .137
performance and organizational performance. (1.528)
See table 7.1
H3 There is a positive relationship between .423**
employee innovation and organizational (5.357)
performance. Supported with 1% level of
Sig See table 7.2
H4 There is no relationship between job security and .062
organizational performance (.695)
See table 7.3
H5 There is positive relationship between employee .325**
productivity and job security. (3.704)
Supported with 1% level of
Sig See table 7.4
H6 There is no relationship between employee .202
performance and job security. (2.394)
See table 7.4
H7 There is a no relationship between employee .077
innovation and job security. (.894)
See table 7.4
H8 Job security does not mediates the relationship .000
between employee productivity and (.004)
organizational performance. See table 8.1
 H9 Job security does not mediates the relationship .051
between employee performance and (.521)
organizational performance. See table 8.2
H10 Job security does not mediates the relationship .034
between employee innovation and organizational (.419)
performance. See table 8.3

2. Discussion
The Results shows that qualification of module leader significantly effects the student
satisfaction. And experience of the teacher having insignificant effect on student
satisfaction. Student care partially mediates between qualification and student satisfaction,
similarly competence and teaching methodology partially mediates between qualification
and student satisfaction. So the policy makers should focus on the qualification of a teacher,
the experience should be given Weightage but the qualification of module leader should be
given priority.

3. Limitations
Following are few limitations of the study
1. The data was taken from govt. employees (teaching and non-teaching staff).
2. Job security must be consider as independent variable or add more mediating variables
3. The mode of collecting data is only questioners; there must be some FGD and
interviews as well.
4. Role of private organization staff in organizational performance is also missing.

4. Further Research Directions

1. The study can be extended to private schools, college, Govt. universities, Govt.
College. .
2. Sample size can be bigger to generalize the results.
3. The role of compensation or monetary reward or motivation could be added ,
4. Interviews and FGD are also recommended for better results.
References

1. Straub, Detmar, Boudreau, Marie-Claude, & Gefen, David. (2004). Validation guidelines
for IS positivist research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,
13(24), 380-427
2. Duo – Aka, U (2003). Measuring productivity: Issues and problems in productivity in
Nigeria. Proceeding of National Conference on Productivity, NISER
 Questionnaire

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
1. Your gender
Male [ ] Female [ ]
2. What is your designation?
Teaching staff [ ] Non-teaching staff [ ]

Employee Productivity

Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly

Statement agree agree nor disagree
disagree
Employees quality of work improves
1. overtime
Employees are eager to learn on ways of
2. making themselves more productive
Employees are able to deliver within the set
3. deadlines
Employees have steadily increased their
4. personal output
Overtime we have increased customer
5. satisfaction with the quality service
delivered
PMBOK Guide (2007)

Employee’s performance

Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly

Statement agree agree nor disagree
disagree
I always complete the duties specified in
1. my job description
I meet all the formal performance
2. requirements of the job
I fulfil all requirements required my job
3.
I never neglect aspects of the job that my is
5. obligated to perform
Acad Manag J. 2004
Employee’s innovation

Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly

Statement agree agree nor disagree
disagree
He/she always creating new ideas for
1. difficult issues
He/she always searching out new
2. working methods, techniques, or
instruments
He/she always generating original
3. solutions for problem
He/she always making important
4. organizational members enthusiastic for
innovative ideas
He/she always introducing innovative
5. ideas into the work environment in a
systematic way

Shin, Yuan, and Zhou’ (2017)

Organizational performance
Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly
Statement agree agree nor disagree
disagree
We monitor our short-term gains and long-
1. term return
We provide performance incentives and/or
2. consequences for non-performance
We monitor our employee turnover
3.
We measure hours of in-house training per
4. employee
 We emphasize on results related to output,
5. quality and outcomes rather than how the
work is performed.
Kaplan and Norton (1992; 1996a), Mann (2008)

Job security
Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly
Statement agree agree nor disagree
disagree
The way my job provides for a secure
1. future
My pay and the amount of work I do.
2.
How my pay compares with that for similar
3. jobs in other companies
The way layoffs and transfers are avoided
4. in my job
. The way my job provides for steady
5. employment
(Halepota, 2011, p.103), Ravichandran et al. (2015)