1

A PATH ANALYSIS OF WORK PERFORMANCE AS ESTIMATED

BY INNOVATIVE WORK BEHAVIOR, ORGANIZATIONAL
LEARNING AND WORK ENGAGEMENT OF PRINT
MEDIA EMPLOYEES IN REGION XI

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Work performance is one of the major concerns for all business

organizations. In fact, the performance of employees can be viewed as very

important element for the organization to become successful, especially in

industries where manpower innovative skills are essential to have competitive

advantage with the others. This means that the company should engage their

employees to innovations and actively looks for ways of improving its services

and to cater to the needs of its customers. Moreover, upgrading, retaining, and

transfer of knowledge are necessary to improve employee outcomes.

Furthermore, refining the state of mind of the employees is crucial to make them

dedicated and goal oriented.

Performance at work is more than ever a subject that interests companies,

senior management, executives and employees in general, regardless of their

level of responsibility (Kennard, 2014). An employer may set performance

standards that an employee is required to meet. However, work performance can

greatly be affected which may vary on what affects your performance the most. It

might be health or the lack of support at work or even their personal life
 2

contributing to lack of motivation and low energy levels on how to perform

(Kennard, 2014).

Organizations face a number of competitive challenges such as

embracing technology, managing change, keeping the customers satisfied,

developing intellectual assets, and containing costs (HPWS). All these

challenges require efficient and high performance employees to compete in the

global environment. However, recent studies reported decline in employee

performance in many companies. Avery et al., (2011), noted tardiness and

absenteeism of full-time employees in the United States resulted in productivity

losses costing organizations between $200 to $700 per employee missed

workday.

Organizations lose an average of $47,000 when replacing each employee

with 2 years tenure or more, and approximately $9,000 per year replacing each

first-year employee (Avery et al., 2011). Moreover, the case in Iran as reported

by Beheshtifar and Nazarian (2013) revealed that employees who do not feel

connected exhibited dissatisfaction through withdrawal behaviors such as a

reduction in productivity, absenteeism, low employee morale, and high turnover

rates.

Information Technology related businesses experienced decline due to

manpower problems. In India, global software major Wipro removed 600-700

employees, ostensibly for non-performance or not rising to its expectations.

However, the company reported that attrition takes place every quarter when

employees leave voluntarily for various reasons or involuntarily when asked to go

 3

for non-performance or not measuring up to the expectations during appraisal

(Khaleej Times, 2017). In Asia Pacific, the employers have unwavering

commitment to productivity. However, the service businesses in the Philippines

are facing the reality of a productivity slowdown as a result of declining work

performance of employees (Towers Watson, 2015).

In the printing industry, Doveton Press (2016) revealed that the decrease

in revenue from 2012 is expected to continue declining, falling 2.0% during the

year to an estimated $76.6 billion. In order to adapt to declining demand, printing

industry diversifies into cross-media products, including multimedia layout and

design. Nevertheless, it is recognized that the manpower performance also

provide a very important role to cope with loses by developing their skills to put

up innovations and have quality.

In addition, printing industry growth in 2004 was driven primarily by digital

printing and a range of auxiliary services. This trend was anticipated to continue

and accelerate in 2005 (Lamparter, 2005). The market for digital printing was

growing at a faster rate than that of the overall print market. However, the growth

rate is slower than the rate predicted by many industry analysts a few years ago

(Biscos, 2004). Moreover, there are many printing companies who have invested

in digital equipment are using it alongside traditional technologies such as offset

lithography. In order for print media to remain relevant and exciting, it does need

to recognize the changes in the industry and consumers and be willing to

innovate.
 4

Among the noted antecedents of work performance are innovative work

behavior, work engagement, and organizational learning. The study of Leong &

Rasli (2014) has showed that innovative work behavior has significant and

positive association with work performance. Furthermore, similar strong positive

relationships have been found out between work engagement and performance

(Kim, Kolb, & Kim, 2012), and organizational learning and performance (Jimenez

& Valle, 2011).

For longer time researchers in the field of human resources have been

interested to find out the factors that affects the performance of employees.

Nevertheless, knowledge remained limited regarding the characteristics and

dynamics of variables relevant to work performance. Although predictors such as

innovative work behavior (Janssen, Van de Vliert, & West, 2004), work

engagement (Kim, Kolb, & Kim, 2012), and organizational learning (Jimenez &

Valle, 2011) were found to be important antecedents, most of the studies are

focused on the bivariate association between the said predictors on work

performance. To date, the researcher has not come across the study that

determine the combined influence of innovative work behavior, work

engagement, and organizational learning on the work performance of employees,

and the examination of inter-variable relationships. Furthermore, it is rare in the

literature that the study group is focused on printing business which is one of the

relevant industries in the digital world.

With this scenario, there is a need to conduct a study about the

interrelationship of the factors such as innovative work behavior, work

 5

engagement, and organizational learning and its effect on the work performance,

and to find the best fit model of work performance suited for print media

business. In this way, the best fit model can be adopted by print media business

owners for policy making and company guidelines to further improve the work

performance of its employees.

Statement of the Problem

This study determined the best fit model of work performance among print

media employees in Region XI. More specifically, this sought answers to the

following questions:

1. What is the level of innovative work behavior of employees in terms of:

1.1 idea generation

1.2 idea promotion

1.3 idea implementation?

3. What is the level of organizational learning in terms of:

3.1 management commitment

3.2 system perspective

3.3 openness and experimentation

3.4 knowledge transfer and integration?

2. What is the level of work engagement of employees in terms of:

2.1 vigor

2.2 dedication

2.3 absorption?

4. What is the level of work performance in terms of:

 6

4.1 task performance

4.2 contextual performance?

5. Is there a significant relationship between

5.1 innovative work behavior and work performance

5.2 work engagement and work performance

5.3 organizational learning and work performance

6. Do innovative work behavior, work engagement, and organizational learning

significantly predict the work performance of employees?

7. What model best fits work performance of print media employees?

Review of Related Literature

The review of literature includes information from various sources such as

peer- reviewed articles, studies, and books on concepts related to work

performance innovative work behavior, organizational learning, and work

engagement.

Innovative Work Behavior

Innovativeness described as the procedure in which new ideas are put

into practice. Rogers (2005) describes innovativeness as the level to which an

individual or other part of adoption is relatively earlier in embracing a new ideas

than other members of a social scheme and organizes adopters based totally

about the age at who those undertake an innovation.

According to the study of Khan, Aslam and Riaz (2012) stated that the

innovative work behavior is perceived as containing of four interrelated sets of

activities, namely: recognition of the problem, idea generation, promotion and

 7

realization. Moreover, in the study of Farr and Ford (2007) described innovative

work behavior as an individual's behavior that aims to attain the start and

planned introduction within a work role, group or organization of new and

valuable ideas, practices, products or procedures.

In the study of Scott and Bruce (1994) and Janssen (2001) considered

individual innovative work behavior in the office as complex behavior containing

of a set of three dissimilar behavioral tasks: idea generation, idea promotion, and

idea realization. Furthermore, in the study of De Spiegelaere, Van Gyes, Van

Hootegem (2012), stated the innovative work behavior was all employee

behavior focused at the group, overview and/or presentation of ideas, practices,

products or procedures, new to the relevant unit of adoption that apparently

meaningfully benefit the significant unit of acceptance.

However, innovative work behavior usually embraces exploration of

opportunities and the generation of new ideas, but could also contain behaviors

directed towards applying change, implementing new knowledge or refining

processes to improve personal and/or business performance (Mumford, 2003;

Zhou & Shalley, 2003). In addition, an innovative work behavior is usually seen to

incorporate a broad set of behaviors related to the formulation of ideas,

generating support for them, and helping their implementation (Scott & Bruce,

2003; Janssen 2001).

However, most of the previous work focused on the employee’s originality

and the generation of innovative ideas, in other words, on the early phases of the

innovation process. There were several researchers have called for prolonging
 8

the construct and to devote more scientific attention to the implementation of

ideas (Mumford, 2003; Zhou & Shalley, 2003). Therefore, an innovative work

behavior is commonly enclosed in the perspective of how persons could help the

achievement of initiation and intentional introduction of new and valuable ideas,

processes, products or procedures (Leong and Rasli, 2014). In every

organization the managers main concerned is innovation that faces with the

challenges of mobilizing the innovative potential of all sorts of employees (De

Spiegelaere, VanGyes, Van Hootegem, 2012).

In the aspect of the idea generation, the author define as the process of

creating, developing, and communicating ideas which are abstract, concrete, or

visual in which it includes the process of constructing through the idea,

innovating the concept, developing the process, and bringing the concept to

reality (Murcko, 2014). Moreover, idea generation comprises all stages of a

thought cycle, from innovation, to development, to actualization. According to the

study Frodesiak (2014), the idea generation is an essential part of the design

process in both education and practices that involved in the systematic search for

new product Ideas.

However, an organization has to generate many ideas in order to find one

that is worth pursuing. According to Ho et al., (2014 the most difficult part of

being a creative of any kind is idea generation. In particular, according to

Mumford (2003) suggests that ultimately, the person is the source of any new

idea. With this an employee would be able to innovate, besides being aware of a
 9

need or an opportunity, the ability to construct new ways to address the need is

also crucial (Kanter, 2005).

In this study reveals that the generation of ideas may relate to new

products, services or processes, the entry of new markets, improvements in

current work processes, or in general terms, solutions to identified problems

(Kanter, 2005; Van de Ven, 2006). In addition, the important of an idea

generation appears on the combination and reorganization of information and

present concepts to solve problems or to improve performance. Meanwhile a

good idea generators were persons who can handle problems or performance

gaps from a different approach.

Furthermore, according to Kanter (2005) stated that championing is a

relevant aspect of innovative work behavior once an idea is generated and cited

also in his study that the most ideas need to be sold. However, any ideas may

have some validity and appear to seal a performance gap, and for most ideas it

is unclear whether their benefits would be exceeded the cost in the developing

and implementing the ideas and in the resistance to change was expected.

An idea promotion came out as a term for the promotion of the idea after

the generation of the idea. It understands how a certain idea can lead to its

realization and eventually enhancement of communicated idea. The ability to

continuously innovate and improve products, services and work processes is

nowadays crucial for organizations. Individual employees need to be both willing

and able to innovate if a continuous flow of innovations is to be realized

(Janssen, 2001).
 10

Moreover, the idea that actions of individual employees are of crucial

importance for continuous innovation and improvement is not just found in

academic literature on innovation (Van de Ven, 2006; Janssen, 2001), but also

stressed in work on several other popular management principles, such as total

quality management (McLoughlin et al., 2009) and corporate entrepreneurship

(Sharma & Chrisman, 2008).

According to Dorenboschet al., 2005; Kanter, 2005 cited that the tasks can

partly build on each other (e.g. ideas are generated based on opportunities

explored or problems recognized), they are also iteratively connected by

feedback loops (e.g. the promotion of an idea may lead to the exploration of

further opportunities or ideas). Hence, the tasks do not follow a linear sequence

and are rather complexly related. Kanter (2005) emphasized that the innovative

individual who takes prime responsibility for the introduction of innovations is

often not formally appointed, but rather someone who feels a strong personal

commitment to a particular idea and is able to 'sell' it to others.

In the idea realization there are individual innovation has been studied in

terms of personality characteristics, outputs, and behaviors. For instance, Hurt,

Joseph, and Cook (1997) focus on generalized willingness to change, a

personality-based aspect of individual innovation. A study conducted by West

(2002) revealed that the measure of role innovation captures how many changes

an individual has initiated in his or her job in comparison to the last role occupant.

Similarly, Axtell et al., (2010) measure assesses individuals' self-ratings of

their suggestions and realized innovations. Both take an output based view of
 11

individual innovation. Others conceptualize individual innovation as a set of

discretionary employee behaviors (Scott & Bruce, 2005).

Moreover, innovative work behavior does not only include idea generation,

but also behaviors needed to implement ideas and achieve improvements that

will enhance personal and/or business performance. It has a clearer applied

component and is expected to result in innovative output. West (2002) mentioned

that creativity can be seen as a crucial component of innovative work behavior,

most evident in the beginning of the innovation process, when problems or

performance gaps are recognized and ideas are generated in response to a

perceived need for innovation.

Mumford (2008) stresses that in the real world performance, the

expression, shaping and execution of ideas represents another important

component of creative work and considers the investigation of implementing

ideas to be an important emerging issue for creativity research. The realization of

something new begins with a person identifying new opportunities (Basadur,

2004).

Organizational learning

Organizational learning is a product of organizational inquiry. This means

that whenever expected outcome differs from actual outcome, an individual or

group will engage in inquiry to understand and, if necessary, solve this

inconsistency. In the process of organizational inquiry, the individual will interact

with other members of the organization and learning will take place. Learning is

therefore a direct product of this interaction. The expectation is to acquire more

knowledge via learning so as to enhance its competitiveness (Markovic, 2008).

 12

Therefore, within an organization, it is extremely important to be good at creating,

acquiring, transforming, and utilizing knowledge so as to correct its behavior by

organizational learning in order to cope well with the rapid-changing environment

(Senge, 1990; Real, Leal & Rolda’n, 2006).

Moreover, organizational learning is a critical factor to an organization’s

long-term performance and survival (Yukl, 2009). On the other hand, Calantone,

Cavusgil& Zhao (2002) proposed that an organization collects knowledge and

information from various sources and ensure their activity and the guidance for

application in future operations. They proposed four constituent elements for

organizational learning as the criteria for assessment described as follows. The

commitment to learning: Learning should be viewed as the major rooted value for

a company and should be deep rooted in the organizational culture. This value

also affects how much actively its members will act with the learning attitude

(Chaveerug & Ussahawantichakit, 2008). Shared vision: the management should

share the company’s vision for future developments and further provide the

learning direction so as to make commitments to the company and achieve the

goal. Open mind: This deals with creative thinking beyond the rules and the

degree of belief and assumption to actively challenge the existing conventions

that have been held for a long term (Santos- Vijande, Sanzo-Perez, Alarez-

Gonzalez, & Vazquez-Casielles, 2005; Chaveerug & Ussahawantichakit, 2008).

Knowledge sharing within the organization: The overall belief of the organization

can be enhanced by the learning and knowledge diffusion across departments.

The knowledge and experiences of different departments should be accumulated

 13

and stored in the organizational memory so as to enhance organizational

performance.

In addition, organizational learning is believed to be a latent construct and

many researchers have treated it as a second order latent construct (Jerez-

Gomez, Cespedes-Lorente et al. 2005; López, Peón et al. 2005; Panayides

2007; Azadegan and Dooley 2010; Škerlavaj, Song et al. 2010; Jiménez-Jiménez

and Sanz-Valle 2011; Nasution, Mavondo et al. 2011). Many other researchers,

have however, treated organizational learning as a first order construct (Bontis,

Crossan et al. 2002; Lloren-Montes, Javier-Moreno et al. 2005; Garcia-Morales,

Llorens-Montes et al. 2006; Aragón-Correa, García-Morales et al. 2007; Garcıá-

Morales 2008; García-Morales 2011). Jerez-Gomez, Cespedes-Lorente, and

Valle-Cabrera (2005) believed that organizational learning is a second order

construct indicated by four first order constructs. The first order constructs were

management commitment, system perspective, openness and experimentation

and knowledge transfer and integration.

Similarly, Jiménez-Jiménez and Sanz-Valle (2011) believed that

organizational learning is a second order constructs also indicated by four first

order constructs which, however, in their case were knowledge acquisition,

knowledge distribution, knowledge interpretation and organizational memory.

Azadegan & Dooley (2010), on the other hand, also treated organizational

learning as a second order construct but considered it to be one that was

indicated by only two first order constructs namely explorative learning and

exploitative learning.
 14

Organizational learning relates to the level of learning, the time frame and

to managerial intervention (Drew & Smith, 1995; Drejer, 2000; Chang & Huang

2002; Burnes, Cooper et al. 2003; Chang & Lee, 2007; Birkenkrahe, 2008; Au,

Carpenter et al., 2009; Ahlgren & Tett 2010; Cho, 2010; Lam & Lambermont-

Ford, 2010; López Sánchez, 2010). As knowledge acquisition, distribution,

usage, and storage occur through the interactions between the organization’s

members (Elkjaer, 2004) and social constructions (Klimecki & Lassleben, 1998;

Stacey 2003) the sociological perspective was accepted as a frame of thinking

for this research. Organizational learning in this research is therefore assumed to

be influenced by the structural interaction of organizational members in specific

social interactions, supported by transformational leadership and empowered

employees.

The managerial commitment refers that managers recognize the

relevance of learning for organizational success and they create a culture that

reinforces the acquisition, creation, and transfer of knowledge as fundamental

values (Jerez-Gomez et al., 2005). Organizational learning is a strategic variable

for firms that seek to introduce new products or create new markets because of

the need to innovate continuously in order to survive intense competition (Cefis &

Marsili, 2005). It is therefore, necessary to stimulate the development of factors

that contribute to innovation and enable the introduction of new ideas, products,

services, and systems ahead of other competitors in the industry (Lloréns, Ruiz &

Garcia, 2005). Organizational learning “supports creativity, inspires new

knowledge and ideas and increases the potential to understand and apply them,
 15

favors organizational intelligence and (with the culture) forms a background for

orientation to organizational innovation” (García, Llorens, & Verdu 2008). High

levels of commitment to learning are attributed to greater innovative orientation

and activity (Ussahawanitchakit, 2008).

System perspective. System perspective involves bringing the

organization’s members together around a common identity (Senge, 1990;

Sinkula, Baker & Noordewier, 1997). The different individuals, departments, and

areas of the firm should have a clear view of the organization’s goals objectives

and realize how they can help in their development (Hult & Ferrel,1997;

JerezGomez et al., 2005).

Beeson and Davis (2000) argue that the systems perspective, applied to

organizations in its classic formulations fails to give a sufficient account of

change. The emphasis on boundary, environment, feedback and adaptive

response presumes that management is readily identified as the control center,

which directs the organization’s operations. Thus, the model attributes a central

role to management and overestimates management’s power to control events

and actions. This produces an impression that organizational change must be

managed, and that managers can always manage change.

Openness and experimentation. Openness and interaction with the

external environment refers as the extent of relationships with the external

environment and a climate of openness that encourages the new ideas and

points of views. The external environment of an organization is defined as factors

that are beyond the organization’s direct control of influence that determines its
 16

opportunities and risks. It involves industrial elements such as competitors and

suppliers, and the economic, social, political and legal systems (Chiva et al.,

2007; Jerez-Gomez et al., 2005; Leonard-Barton, 1992; Sinkula, Baker and

Noordewier, 1997). Experimentation refers the degree of freedom employees

exploit in the pursuit of new ways (OzanOnağ et al., 2014). Procedia - Social

and Behavioral Sciences of doing the job and freedom to take risks and degree

to which new ideas and suggestions are attended to and dealt with

sympathetically (Chiva et al., 2007; Goh & Richards, 1997).

Knowledge transfer and integration. Knowledge transfer and integration

consists of two closely linked processes, which happens simultaneously rather

than sequentially: internal transfer and integration of knowledge. The efficacy of

these two processes relies on the previous existence of absorptive capacity

implying the lack of internal barriers that inhibit the transfer of best practices

within the firm (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Jerez-Gomez et al., 2005).

Work Engagement

Work engagement is an important indicator among work attitudes. The

information related to work learning, work resources, work performance, turnover

intention, innovation, and service atmosphere can be acquired so as to reflect an

individual’s willingness of devotion to his/her job (Robbins, 2001; Song, et al.,

2012). When the work engagement is at a lower level, an individual tends to

distance him/herself from his/her job role so as to keep him/herself from

generating the performance that is required for his/her job role.

On the contrary, when the work engagement is higher, an individual

devotes all of his/her efforts into the job role and goes all out comprehensively.
 17

When an individual recognize the importance of his/her job, he/she is willing to

devote and participate. For example, his/her managements and colleagues will

support so that the employee’s work engagement is enhanced (Schaufeli &

Bakker, 2004; Fleming & Asplund, 2007). Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) proposed

that a high degree of job demands and the lack of resource will generate mental

storming and eventually lead to job burnouts or even health problems. It will also

generate certain specific attitudes and behavioral results such as turnover

intention, reduced commitments to the organization, reduced job satisfaction, and

reduced degree of work engagement

Engagement is a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is

characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption. Rather than a momentary and

specific state, engagement refers to a more persistent and pervasive affective-

cognitive state that is not focused on any particular object, event, individual, or

behavior (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá & Bakker, 2006).

Work engagement has become a well-known construct to both

researchers and practitioners. An emerging body of research is beginning to

converge around a common conceptualization of work engagement as connoting

high levels of personal investment in the work tasks performed on a job (Macey

and Schneider, 2008; Rich et al., 2010). Many researchers have argued that

engagement, as a motivational variable, should lead to high levels of job

performance (Rich et al., 2010; Schaufeli et al., 2006). Work engagement

represents a commonality among physical, emotional, and cognitive energies

that individuals bring to their work role. In this sense, work engagement is more
 18

than just the investment of a single aspect of the self. It represents the

investment of multiple dimensions (physical, emotional, and cognitive), leading to

the simultaneous and holistic experience (Rich et al., 2010).

Vigor. Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy and mental

resilience while working, the willingness to invest effort in one’s work, and

persistence even in the face of difficulties (Schaufeli et. al., 2006; Gonzalez-

Roma et al., 2006). Schaufeli et al. (2006) suggests vigor and dedication are

opposite two of the burnout dimensions (emotional exhaustion and cynicism,

respectively).Vigorous individuals are ready to put lot of energy in their work and

strongly carry on in the face of obstacles.

The Multidimensional Approach, Saks (2006) defined employee

engagement as a distinct and unique construct consisting of cognitive, emotional,

and behavioral components that are associated with individual role performance.

This definition is quite similar to that of Kahn (1990) because it also focuses on

role performance at work.

Research has revealed that engaged employees are highly energetic, self-

efficacious individuals who exercise influence over events that affect their lives

(Bakker, 2009). Because of their positive attitude and activity level, engaged

employees create their own positive feedback, in terms of appreciation,

recognition, and success. Although engaged employees do feel tired after a long

day of hard work, they describe their tiredness as a rather pleasant state

because it is associated with positive accomplishments. Finally, engaged

employees enjoy other things outside work. Unlike workaholics, engaged

 19

employees do not work hard because of a strong and irresistible inner drive, but

because for them working is fun (Gorgievski, Bakker & Schaufeli, 2010)

Shirom’s (2003) concept of vigor at work is defined as a positive affective

experience involving energetic resources including feelings of physical strength,

emotional energy, and cognitive liveliness. The Shirom (2003) Vigor Measure

includes 14 items in total, tapping physical strength (“I feel full of pep,”),

emotional energy (“I feel able to show warmth to others,”), and cognitive

liveliness (“I feel mentally alert.”) at work. Vigor has been treated as a stable

person level variable, and individuals undoubtedly can be characterized by their

typical level of vigor at work. However, the components of vigor seem likely to

fluctuate within person from moment to moment or day to day, so this concept

may benefit from being studied at a more transient level as well.

Dedication. Dedication is characterized by being strongly involved in

one‟s work and experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, pride,

inspiration, and challenge (Schaufeli et al., 2004; Gonzalez-Roma et al., 2006).

The term employee engagement refers to an individual’s involvement and

satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm for work (Harter, Schmidt and Hayes,

2002). Thus, like the definitions of other consultancy firms, Gallup’s engagement

concept seems to overlap with well-known traditional constructs such as job

involvement and job satisfaction. Nevertheless, the Satisfaction-Engagement

approach has had a significant impact in academia as well, because Gallup's

research has established meaningful links between employee engagement and

 20

business unit outcomes, such as customer satisfaction, profit, productivity, and

turnover (Harter et al., 2002)

Contemporary organizations need employees, who are psychologically

connected to their work; who are willing and able to invest themselves fully in

their roles; who are proactive and committed to high quality performance

standards. They need employees who are engaged with their work (Bakker &

Leiter, 2010).

Absorption. Absorption is characterized by being fully concentrated and

happily engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one has

difficulties with detaching oneself from work. In addition, absorption was identified

by Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) as the third component of work engagement.

Rothbard, (2001) defines engagement as psychological presence and

goes further and says that it involves two critical components: attention and

absorption. Attention refers to cognitive availability and the amount of time one

spends thinking about a role while absorption the intensity of one’s focus on a

role.

Based on the work of Kahn (1990) and May, Gilson, and Harter (2004)

developed an engagement inventory that consists of three dimensions: cognitive,

emotional and physical engagement. The items that are included in this inventory

show a striking resemblance with those included in the absorption, dedication,

and vigor scales of the UWES (Schaufeli et al., 2004), respectively. It appeared

particularly that the cognitive engagement and absorption scales are strongly

related, whereas the physical engagement and the vigor scales are only weakly
 21

related, with the emotional engagement and dedication scales somewhere in

between (Viljevac, Cooper-Thomas and Saks, 2012). Recently, and also building

on the work of Kahn (1990) the Intellectual, Social, Affective (ISA) Engagement

Scale was introduced (Soane, Truss, Alfes et al, 2012).

Moreover engagement focuses work performed at a job and represents

the willingness to dedicate physical, cognitive, and emotional resources to this

work. In support of this, results from a meta-analytic study testing the role of

engagement as a mediator of the relation between antecedents and job

performance found a direct effect between work engagement and task, and

contextual performance (Christian, et al., 2011).

Work Performance

Work performance is an individual output in terms of quality and quantity

expected from every employee in a particular job. Individual performance is most

of the time determined by motivation and the will and ability to do the job (Kahn,

1990). As cited by Murcko (2014), this term refers to the work related activities

expected of an employee and how well those activities were executed. Many

business personnel directors assess the job performance of each employee on

an annual or quarterly basis in order to help them identify suggested areas for

improvement.

Performance at work is more than ever a subject that interests companies,

senior management, executives and employees in general, regardless of their

level of responsibility (Kennard, 2014). An employer may set performance

 22

standards that an employee is required to meet. Standards must be both

reasonable and relevant to the workplace (CCMA.org.za, 2014).

According to Chang (2002), in the past, work changed from a relatively

single activity oriented dynamic to complex set of tasks performed at different

locations in and out of the office. Work performance can greatly be affected

which may vary on what affects your performance the most. It might be health or

the lack of support at work or even their personal life contributing to lack of

motivation and low energy levels on how to perform (Kennard, 2014).

A research conducted in Chuka University in Kenya on employees’

satisfaction and work environment by Tsuma, J., et al., (2015) among 50

employees which constituted of senior management, supervisory staff, teaching

staff and non – teaching staff. It revealed clearly that these employees were

dissatisfied with communication, it was therefore important for management to

ensure smooth flow of both up – down and down – up flow of information.

Regarding work environment, employees showed great dissatisfaction on

different aspects including: physical working conditions and materials provided to

them to perform their work. For employees to be productive, the management

needs to avail the right equipment, facilities and materials for employees to feel

relieved.

The organization should develop clear guidelines on determining and

selecting prospective employees for various training and development

opportunities. Boggie (2005) maintains that in order to provide good service, the

quality of employees is critical to ensure success. It is for this reason that the
 23

area of job satisfaction be explored in order to gain a better insight thereof. This

will provide executive managers with important information to enable them to

stimulate greater job satisfaction amongst employees (Boggie, 2005).

Employee work performance usually involves motivations and job

satisfaction that strengthen or weaken those task performances (Ngalyuka

,2000). There are different approaches to motivation, various types of

motivations, as well as the factors that influence job satisfaction, which refers to

attitudes of a single employee. These jobs related attitudes predispose an

employee to behave in certain ways (Newstrom,& Davis, 2002). Defining

motivation at work and establishing how managers can best develop it in their

employees has long been a major and central topic of research for the specialists

in the fields of human resource management, organizational behaviour and

occupational psychology. It is a field of study characterized by the presence of

large numbers of theories, vigorous debates and several distinct traditions. There

is no single generally accepted answer to the question of what motivates us to

work or what makes a certain job satisfying for a given individual (Redman,&

Wilkinson, 2002) A different tradition in thinking about motivation centres on the

motivation of effective leadership in organizations and stresses its significance

rather than the design and structural factors identified above (Lam, 1998). While

there seems to be no definitive construct for the term ‘leadership’ most, however

imply a relationship with motivation.

The definition for leadership suggests that the ability to get others to follow

or willingly comply is essential. At the very least, leadership can be described as

 24

a process by which it is possible to inspire others. John Adair has demonstrated

that the leader must be action centered (Redman, & Wilkinson, 2002). In his

approach, the leader must address three areas of need: to achieve the task, to

maintain the team, and to develop the individual’s needs. This is referred to as

the functional approach to leadership. The task functions require the leader to

achieve the objectives of the group, allocate resources, organize duties and

responsibilities, control quality, manage performance and review progress. Team

functions require the leader to maintain morale and build the team spirit, maintain

the cohesiveness of the group, set the standards and maintain discipline and

establish effective communication.

Moreover, individual functions involve the leader’s requirement to address

the needs of individual members, dealing with personal problems, giving praise

and reconciling conflicts, and finally developing the potential of each individual

including facilitation of job satisfaction for the employees. Evidently, the leader of

the group has influence on the individual’s input in task performance. It is for this

reason that industrial psychologists use many different selection tools to pick the

right person for the job. Among the most widely used personnel selection tools

are application forms, psychological testes, interviews, and work sample tests

(Santock, 2003). Whereas employees put vetted and approved leaders in

management position, the existence of ‘troubled’ employees whose personal

problems affect their work performance is still recorded. The range of employee

problems is wide and indicates lack of employees’ assistance closely woven into
 25

the system of the organization to solve corporate and personal problems (Carroll

and Walton, 2000).

Important aspects of job satisfaction include pay, one’s supervisor, the

nature of tasks performed, an employee’s co-workers or team, and the

immediate working conditions. For many people money is the main reason for

working, but there are many other factors, which people take into account when

deciding to take or remain in a job.

Task performance. Task performance was defined as the effectiveness

with which job incumbents perform activities that contribute to the organization’s

technical core (Borman and Motowidlo, 2003). They describe task performance

as behaviors that directly or indirectly contribute to the organization’s technical

core, and contextual performance as behaviors that support the organizational,

social and psychological environment in which the technical core must function.

Examples of contextual activities are volunteering, persisting, helping,

cooperating and following rules. Task activities usually vary between different

jobs, whereas contextual activities are common to many or all jobs.

In Murphy’s (1999) framework, the first dimension, labeled task behaviors,

could be considered task performance. Campbell (1994) himself stated that his

first two dimensions, job-specific task proficiency (core job tasks) and non–job-

specific task proficiency (tasks not specific to a given job, but expected of all

employees), represent task performance. Viswesvaran’s (2007) first three

dimensions, productivity, quality, and job knowledge, could be considered task

performance. Later developed individual work performance frameworks all

 26

included one dimension to describe task performance. The only exception was

Renn and Fedor’s (2001) framework, in which task performance was split into

work quantity and quality.

Arvey & Mussio (1998), described task performance of clerical workers,

using the dimensions of working accurately, showing concern for time and detail

and planning. Jiambalvo described task performance for public accountants as

understanding, planning, and revising work. Engelbrecht and Fischer (2004)

divided task performance for managers into action orientation (eg, getting things

done, decisiveness), task structuring (eg, leadership, planning), and probing,

synthesis, and judgment (problem resolution). Furthermore, Tettet and Burnett

(2003) divided task performance for managers into traditional functions (eg,

decision making, planning) and occupational acumen and concerns (eg, job

knowledge, concern for quantity and quality). According to Berry et al., (2007),

the validity evidence for Agreeableness and Extraversion has been mixed with

regard to task performance, although the validity of these traits may depend on

the job.

Contextual performance. Contextual performance concerns aspects of

an individual’s performance which maintains and enhances an organisation’s

social network and the psychological climate that supports technical tasks.

Borman and Motowidlo, (1997) contend that it is the contextual dimensions of job

performance, rather than the technical components, that can be predicted from

personality constructs and Borman, Penner, Allen and Motowidlo (2001)

conclude that personality (Conscientiousness and Dependability) correlates more

 27

highly with organisational citizenship behaviours than with task performance. It

appears that, conversely, cognitive abilities are more relevant for the prediction of

task performance (Arvey & Murphy, 1998). Other research asserts that when the

personality variables used in the prediction of performance are derived through

job analysis, they predict task-related performance, as well as contextual job

performance (Griffith & Jenkins, 2004). Griffith & Jenkins (2004) go on to state

that in order to predict narrow aspects of performance, narrow traits (more

specific, primary or facet level) should be used rather than broad global traits

such as the FFM’s Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion,

Agreeableness and Neuroticism.

Moreover, contextual performance was defined as performance that is not

formally required as part of the job but that helps shape the social and

psychological context of the organization (Borman and Motowidlo, 1997).

Contextual performance has been further suggested to have two facets:

interpersonal facilitation and job dedication. (1) Interpersonal facilitation includes

“cooperative, considerate, and helpful acts that assist co-workers’ performance”.

On the other hand, (2) job dedication, includes self-disciplined, motivated acts

such as working hard, taking initiative, and following rules to support

organizational objectives (Van Scotter and Motowidlo, 1996). Contextual

performance and related elements of performance, such as organizational

citizenship behavior (Bateman and Organ, 1983; Smith et al., 2003), prosocial

organizational behavior (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986), and extra-role performance

(Van Dyne et al., 2004), contribute to organizational effectiveness. According to

 28

the fact that the concept of contextual performance has several related

constructs in other names, the existing theories and empirical studies reviewed in

this study also include contextual performance and all related constructs.

In both generic and job-specific frameworks, one or more dimensions of

contextual performance have been included. Contextual performance can be

defined as individual behaviors that support the organizational, social, and

psychological environment in which the technical core must function. Job-specific

frameworks often used multiple, more specific dimensions to describe contextual

performance. For example, Arvey and Mussio (1998) described contextual

performance of clerical workers, using the dimensions of cooperating and taking

on extra load, showing responsibility and initiative, dealing with others in the

organization, and dealing with public. Campbell et al., (1998) distinguished

general soldiering proficiency, effort, leadership, personal discipline, and physical

fitness and military bearing as dimensions of work performance in the army.

Borman and Brush (2003) distinguished leadership and supervision,

interpersonal dealings and communication, and useful personal behavior and

skills as dimensions of managerial work performance. Altogether, dimensions

frequently named under contextual performance are communication, effort,

discipline interpersonal behavior, and leading and developing others. Less

frequently named dimensions are planning, solving problems, administration, and

showing responsibility. The validities for Extraversion with contextual

performance and counterproductive behavior are generally weak (Berry et al.,

2007; Boorman et al., 2001; Salgado et al., 2003). Similarly, Openness to

 29

Experience has not demonstrated significant validities for task, contextual, or

counterproductive performance.

Relationship among variables

Innovative work behavior reflects the individual’s ability to adapt effectively

to the job by modifying themselves or the work environment through innovation

(Janssen, van de Vliert, & West, 2004). Research has shown that being creative

at work is likely to enable employees to enhance their personal performance

(Gilson, 2008; Gong, Huang, & Farh 2009). Similarly, the introduction and

application of new technologies and new work methods that are “better” than

existing ones is associated with increased individual performance in terms of

efficiency and/or effectiveness gains (Anderson, Rungtusanatham, & Schroeder

1994; Benner & Tushman 2003; Hammer & Stanton 1999).

The literature stream focusing extensively on the relation between the

employment relation- ship and innovation is the High-Performance Work

Systems (HPWS) literature. According to Boxall (2012) the High-Performance

Work System literature is founded on the central claim that ‘there exists a system

of work practices that leads in some way to superior organizational performance’.

This literature thus focuses on discovering which set of human resource

practices are effective in increasing overall performance. The underlying

assumption of this research is that the superior organizational performance is

caused by changed behavioral patterns of employees.

Studies describe an individual as an agent for change, development and

adaption in a continuous manner towards achieving self-organizing, proactive,

 30

self- regulating, and self-reflecting (Bandura, 2005). This study links employees

IWB to performance from an employee's perspective in an automotive

organization based on a few reasons. First, although innovation has been

recognized as important ingredient to the organizations’ success and long term

survival, few studies has examine the relationship from an individual perspective.

Second, studies on WRP and IWB tend focus on validation of its constructs (Neal

et al., 2012)

Campbell et al. (1990) argued that there are three basic determinants of

performance. They are declarative knowledge, which is knowledge about facts

and things, skills and procedural knowledge and skill, which are the different

types of skills for the knowledge of how to carry out a particular task.

Previous studies that underline the positive effects that organizational

learning has on business performance differ on what they understand by

performance. The prescriptive literature considers financial results as business

performance (Lei et al, 1999). Although these outcomes are important, there may

be more proximate outcomes that may mediate the relationship with financial

results. For example, outcomes of organizational learning behaviors may include

changes in values and assumptions (Argyris & Schön, 1978), skills (Fiol & Lyles,

1985), systems and structures (Levitt and March, 1988), core competencies

(Prahalad & Hamel, 1990), organisational innovativeness and competitiveness

(Nason, 1994), corporate success, and employee satisfaction (Bontis et al,

2002). It has been established, on the base of credit union industry in Ohio

(Dimovski, 1994) and Slovenian companies with more than 100 employees in
 31

2003 and 2004 (Škerlavaj et al, 2007), that better developed organisational

learning contributes to improved organisational performance in financial as well

as non- financial terms.

Furthermore, a research conducted by Škerlavaj and Dimovski (2006)

demonstrated the statistically significant positive and strong impact of

organisational learning on organisational performance from the employee

perspective. Companies which invest efforts into the systematic approach to

organisational learning profit in terms of an augmented level of employee trust in

the leadership, improved efficiency of work organisation, a more committed

workforce, decreased costs of work per employee, increased employee

satisfaction and increased employee flexibility. At the same time, Škerlavaj et al

(2007) established a statistically significant link between organizational learning

culture on organizational performance, based on medium and large Slovenian

companies.

Work engagement is an important indicator among work attitudes. The

information related to work learning, work resources, work performance, turnover

intention, innovation, and service atmosphere can be acquired so as to reflect an

individual’s willingness of devotion to his/her job (Robbins, 2014; Kim et al.,

2012). When the work engagement is at a lower level, an individual tends to

distance him/herself from his/her job role so as to keep him/herself from

generating the performance that is required for his/her job role.

According to Salanova et al. (2008) used information about employees

and 152 customers to show that work engagement predicted employee

 32

performance and customer loyalty. Saks (2006) used data relating to 102

employees with very different job and organizational attachments to show that

work engagement is related to outcomes like job satisfaction, organizational

commitment or organizational citizenship behavior. In the study, the work

engagment mediated the relations between the job characteristics as

antecedents and the outcomes.

In addition, the work engagement has been linked to various positive

organizational outcomes in terms of productive employee behaviour (Bakker &

Demerouti, 2008; Salanova et al., 2005) and was found to be an important

mediating variable in the relation between job characteristics and employee

outcomes (Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2013; Saks, 2006).

Theoretical Framework

This study is anchored on the propositions of Janssen, Van de Vliert, &

West (2004) in the link between innovative work behavior and performance,

relationship of organizational learning and work performance (Campbell et al.,

1990) and work engagement and work performance (Rich, Lepine, & Crawford

2010).

Performance is a function of ability and motivation (Judge, Erez, & Bono

1998; Vroom 1964). Prior work on performance has found that a motivational

concept, such as work engagement has an important impact on performance

(Rich, Lepine, & Crawford 2010). Similarly, research has found that job-specific

methods and skills is an important determinant of performance (Schmidt &

 33

Hunter, 1998). In line with this, the present work expects innovative work

behavior to be another ability factor that is associated with performance.

Innovative work behavior reflects the individual’s ability to adapt effectively

to the job by modifying themselves or the work environment through innovation

(Janssen, Van de Vliert, & West, 2004). This means that innovative work

behavior enables employees to perform. Further, each of the two sub-

components of innovative work behavior (creativity and implementation) qualifies

employees’ performance. Research has shown that being creative at work is

likely to enable employees to enhance their personal performance (Gilson 2008;

Gong, Huang, & Farh 2009). Similarly, the introduction and application of new

technologies and new work methods that are “better” than existing ones is

associated with increased individual performance in terms of efficiency and/or

effectiveness gains (Anderson, Rungtusanatham, and Schroeder 1994; Benner &

Tushman 2003; Hammer & Stanton 1999).

Meanwhile, Campbell et al. (1990) argued that there are three basic

determinants of performance. These include declarative knowledge which is

knowledge about facts and things, and procedural knowledge which are the

different types of skills on how to carry out a particular task. In relation to the

study, these declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge are referring to

the organizational learning.

Conceptual Framework

The hypothesized models show the conceptual framework that displays

the relationships of the variables. The framework has three exogenous variables,
 34

namely: innovative work behavior, work engagement, and organizational

learning. On the other hand, the endogenous variable is the work performance of

employees. Innovative work behavior refers to employee behavior directed at the

generation, introduction and/or application of ideas, processes, products or

procedures, new to the relevant unit of adoption that supposedly significantly

benefit the relevant unit of adoption (De Spiegelaere, Van Gyes, Van Hootegem,

2012). While work engagement is a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind

that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption. Rather than a

momentary and specific state, engagement refers to a more persistent and

pervasive affective-cognitive state that is not focused on any particular object,

event, individual, or behavior (Schaufeli, Salanova, & Bakker, 2006).

The organizational learning refers to the structural interaction of

organizational members in specific social interactions, supported by

transformational leadership and empowered employees. Moreover it is a form of

knowledge acquisition, distribution, usage, and storage occur through the

interactions between the organization’s members (Elkjaer 2004) and social

constructions (Klimecki and Lassleben 1998; Stacey 2003). Lastly, Work

performance is an individual output in terms of quality and quantity expected from

every employee in a particular job. Individual performance is most of the time

determined by motivation and the will and ability to do the job (Kennard, 2014).

Figure 1 shows the Hypothesized Model 1 displaying the direct effect of

innovative work behavior, work engagement, and organizational learning on the

work performance of employees.

 35

Figure 2 shows the Hypothesized Model 2 displaying the interrelationship

of innovative work behavior, work engagement, and organizational learning.

Moreover, it also shows the direct effect of exogenous variables on work

performance.

Figure 3 shows the Hypothesized Model 3 displaying the Direct Effect of

Innovative Work Behavior and Work Engagement on Organizational Learning

and Work Performance.

Figure 4 shows the Hypothesized Model 4 displaying the Direct Effect of

Organizational Learning on Innovative Work Behavior, Work Engagement and

Work Performance

Figure 5 shows the Hypothesized Model 5 displaying the correlation of two

exogenous variables, namely innovative work behavior and work engagement. It

also displayed the direct effect of innovative work behavior and work

engagement on organizational learning and work performance.

 36

Figure 1. Hypothesized Model 1 showing the direct effect of

Exogenous variables on the Work Performance
 37

Figure 2. Hypothesized Model 2 showing the interrelationship of Exogenous

Variables and its direct effect on Work Performance
 38

Figure 3. Hypothesized Model 3 showing the Direct Effect of Innovative Work

Behavior and Work Engagement on Organizational
Learning and Work Performance.
 39

Figure 4. Hypothesized Model 4 showing the Direct Effect of Organizational

Learning on Innovative Work Behavior, Work
Engagement and Work Performance
 40

Figure 5. Hypothesized Model 5 showing the correlation between Innovative work

Behavior and Work Engagement, and their Direct Effect on Organizational
learning and Work Performance
 41

CHAPTER 2

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the research design, research locale, respondents,

research instruments, data gathering procedure, and statistical tools.

Research design

This study employed a quantitative research method utilizing a

descriptive-correlational research design. Quantitative research deals in

numbers, logic and objective stance and it focuses on numeric and unchanging

data and detailed, convergent reasoning, generation of a variety of ideas about a

research problem. The main characteristics are: the data is usually gathered

using structured research instruments, the results are based on larger sample

sizes that are representative of the population, the research study can usually be

replicated or repeated, given the high reliability and the researcher uses research

tools, such as questionnaires or computer software to collect numerical data

(Babbie, 2010).

Descriptive research design is used to obtain information concerning the

current status of the phenomena to describe (Shuttleworth, 2008). Moreover, it is

a fact finding study that allowed the researcher to examine characteristics,

behaviors, and experiences of study participants (Calmorin, 2007). Furthermore,

 42

the correlational design is used to identify the strength and nature of association

between two or more variables (Creswell, 2003).

Quantitative research deals in numbers, logic and objective stance. It

focuses on numeric and unchanging data and detailed, convergent reasoning,

Meanwhile, the correlational design is a technique to describe and

measure the degree of association (or relationship) between two or more

variables or sets of scores (Creswell, 2002). Correlational research investigates

the relationship of the dependent and independent variable and uses surveys,

classification and data reduction techniques, and assessments of relations

among variables. Furthermore, Kalla (2011) states that a correlational study

determines the relationship of two or more variables which means it will find out if

the increase or decrease of a variable can increase or decrease another variable.

In addition, Siegle (2015) stated that correlational studies do not influence any

variables but only look at relationships among them. He further said that

correlation has direction which is positive or negative and that correlations can

differ in the degree or strength of the relationship.

In the study, it determined the levels of innovative work behavior, work

engagement, organizational learning, and work performance. Moreover, the

interrelationship of the exogenous and endogenous variables, and as well as the

best fit model of work performance was investigated.

Research Locale

The study was conducted in Region XI which is located at the

Southeastern part of Mindanao. The region is composed of five provinces,

 43

namely: Davao del Sur, Davao Oriental, Davao Occidental, Davao del Norte and

Compostela Valley. Davao City is the largest city in the island of Mindanao and

serves as the regional center of Region XI. Davao del Sur is a province located in

Davao region which is bordered by Davao City to the north, and Cotabato, Sultan

Kudarat, South Cotabato, and Sarangani to the west. Lastly, Davao del Norte is

another province located in the Davao Region which borders the province of

Agusan del Sur to the north, Bukidnon to the west.

Davao City is one of the largest cities geographically with land area of

244,000 hectares touted as the world’s largest in land area. It is a "Crown Jewel"

of Mindanao in terms of economic activity and is also one of the Philippine’s

progressive cities. While the Davao del Sur was created from the old province of

Davao in 1967. Davao derived its name from the Bagobo word Daba-Daba

referring to the Sacred Brass of the tribe´s legendary chieftain, Datu Duli, who

lived in Mount Apo.

Furthermore, the officially the City of Digos is a 2nd class city and capital

of the province of Davao del Sur. The city lies on the western shores of the

Davao gulf and southern foothills of Mount Apo on the island of Mindanao,

centrally located between the two major cities in Mindanao, Davao City and

General Santos City. Moreover, the Province of Davao del Norte is situated at

the southeastern part of Region XI, bounded by Agusan del Sur on the North,

Bukidnon on the Northeast, Davao City on the West, Davao Gulf on the South

and the Province of Compostela Valley on the East. On the other hand, Tagum

City is a 1st class city and capital of the province of Davao del Norte. It is the
 44

most populous component city in Mindanao. It is one of the top most livable cities

in the Philippines, and was one of the finalists in Most Child Friendly City in the

Philippines.

REGION XI
Figure 6. Geographic Distribution of the
Sampling Area in Region XI
 45

Research Respondents

The employees of print media companies in Region XI were the

respondents particularly those in printing press business industry that offers

printing, publications, and adverting services. There were 419 employees of

printing industry participated in the study. Moreover, the 419 sample size were

needed in the study as suggested by Kenny (2000) in performing path analysis.

The purposive sampling technique was employed in selecting the

respondents. This technique is a form of non-probability sampling in which

decisions concerning the individuals to be included in the sample are taken by

the researcher, based upon a variety of criteria which may include specialist

knowledge of the research issue, or capacity and willingness to participate in the

research (Oliver, 2006). To attain homogeneity, only those employees having

one year of experience were selected as respondents of this study.

Research Instrument

The study was employed the questionnaires adapted from different

studies and to fit the context of the respondents of this study. The instrument was

divided into four parts such as Innovative Work Behavior, Work Engagement,
 46

Organization learning and Work Performance. The first tool was innovative work

behavior questionnaire and this tool was adapted from Janssen (2000). This tool

consists of 3 indicators: Idea generation, idea promotion and idea

implementation. The first part of the questionnaire used the Likert Scaling

Technique using a five point scale identifying 5 as the highest and 1 as the

lowest. The reliability of the original scale was 0.85, and the reliability of the

locally adapted version of the scale was high (Spearman Brown-‘r’ = 0.84 and

Cronbach’s Alpha-‘r’ = 0.95). The item total correlation of the locally adapted

version ranged from 0.44 to 0.78. The ratings are described as follows:

Range of Means Description Interpretation

4.20-5.00 Very High The respondents always

exhibit innovative work behavior

3.40-4.19 High The respondents oftentimes exhibit

Innovative behavior

2.60-3.39 Moderate The respondents occasionally

exhibit innovative work behavior

1.80-2.59 Low The respondents rarely exhibit

innovative work behavior

1.00-1.79 Very Low The respondents never exhibit

innovative work behave

The second tool was organizational learning. This questionnaire was

adapted from Gomez et al. (2005) which consists of four indicators namely:

management commitment, system perspective, openness and experimentation,

and knowledge transfer and integration. There were 17-items construct from 5-

Strongly Agree to 1- Strongly disagree. The scale has higher internal consistency

of items with Crobach’s alpha value of .87.

 47

Range of Means Description Interpretation

4.20-5.00 Very High The company always manifest

organizational learning

3.40-4.19 High The company oftentimes

manifest organizational learning

2.60-3.39 Moderate The company sometimes

manifest organizational learning

1.80-2.59 Low The company rarely manifest

organizational learning

1.00-1.79 Very Low The company does not manifest

organizational learning

The second tool was work engagement. This tool was adopted from

Schaufeli and Bakker (2003) which contains series of statements reflecting three

areas: vigor, dedication, and absorption. Respondent’s rate statements on a

scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating never and 5 always. The construct has high

reliability with alpha value of .83.

Range of Means Description Interpretation

4.20-5.00 Very High The respondents always exhibit

work engagement

3.40-4.19 High The respondents oftentimes

Exhibit work engagement

2.60-3.39 Moderate The respondents sometimes

exhibit work engagement

1.80-2.59 Low The respondents rarely exhibit

work engagement

1.00-1.79 Very Low The respondents does not exhibit

work engagement
 48

The fourth tool was work performance. This questionnaire was adopted

from Koopsman et al. (2014) which has three indicators namely: task

performance, contextual performance, and counter-productive work behavior.

The tool was 19-item construct from 5-Always to 1- Never. The Cronbach’s alpha

values of the two indicators have better reliability with greater than .70

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for both task performance and contextual

performance subscales.

Range of Means Description Interpretation

4.20-5.00 Very High The respondent always

exhibit desirable work performance

3.40-4.19 High The respondent oftentimes exhibit

desirable work performance

2.60-3.39 Moderate The respondent occasionally exhibit

desirable work performance

1.80-2.59 Low The respondent rarely exhibit

good work performance

1.00-1.79 Very Low The respondent never exhibit

good work performance

Data Gathering Procedure

The researcher was personally administered the collection of data. The

following steps were performed by the researcher in the conduct of this study.

First, permission from the Dean of the Graduate School of the University of

Immaculate Conception was obtained to conduct the study. Second, a letter

requesting to conduct research study in printing industry were sent to the

managers. Third, after the approval, the researcher with the help of the company

representatives communicate with the supervisor for appropriate schedule of

 49

data gathering without disrupting the work and also to give enough time to

facilitate the giving of instruction in answering the questionnaire. Furthermore the

researcher consulted also an experts for the technical aspects of the paper.

Before the data collection, the respondents were requested to sign

informed consent which is specified in the instrument for their voluntary

participation of the study. Only those who signed the informed consent were

considered as part of the study. The researcher also assured that the responses

of the respondents were kept confidential and their names were not appeared in

any part of this study. Moreover, the signatures of the respondents in the

informed consent form were secured before the actual schedule of data

gathering. Hence, the manner of recruitment is free of coercion, undue influence,

or inducement.

After retrieving all the questionnaires, a data screening was performed to

minimize the possible outliers during the analysis. After which, the data were

encoded, tabulated, and analyzed.

Statistical Tools

The mean and standard deviation were used to determine the levels of

innovative work behavior, work engagement, organizational learning, and work

performance. On the other hand, Pearson Product Moment Correlation was

utilized to determine the relationships of innovative work behavior, work

engagement, organizational learning, and work performance. Moreover it was

used to find the significance of the relationship between the dependent and

independent variable. Multiple Regression Analysis was used to measure the

 50

influence of innovative work behavior, work engagement and organizational

learning on the work performance. Lastly, Structural Equation Modeling was

employed to assess the interrelationships of the variables. In evaluating the

goodness of fit of the models, the following indices were computed: CMIN/DF,

Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Root Mean Square

Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and P of close Fit (PCLOSE).

Ethical Considerations

In order to ensure that the study was conducted in an ethical manner, the

study was reviewed by the Ethical Research Committee of the University of

Immaculate Conception. Permission from appropriate authorities was sought to

ensure that the objective conduct of the study and followed the prescribed

parameters. The researcher followed data privacy guideline to assure that the

data cannot be traced back to the participants to protect their identities and to

ensure anonymity of the respondents and the de-identification of any personal

information shared.

In administering the survey questionnaires, the researcher ensured that a

full disclosure of the nature of the research explaining thoroughly and properly

the purpose and benefits of the study as well as the confidentiality of their

response. The respondents was also be given a chance to ask questions related

to the study. It is ensured that there is no conflict of interest among the

participants and the researcher. Hence, no deception in the research process

especially in the collection of data and all of the necessary information to

facilitate the completion of the study are disclosed to the participants.

 51

Moreover, the questionnaire was used in the study did not contain any

degrading or unacceptable statement that could be offensive to the respondents.

Likewise, it was designed purely to collect information related to the study and no

private questions were asked. Coding was applied to protect the identity of the

respondents and the results of the study of work performance depends upon for

them to decide whether the results would be known to other companies or

groups of people. The manner of storage of data would be done in electronic

saving or sent it to my personal email so that it would not be lost and can be

retrieved anytime when badly needed for the benefit of the research

respondents. The researcher were stored and safeguard all answered

questionnaires in a secured steel cabinet or wooden cabinet with a padlock. The

data notebook and field notes were kept in a secured place to avoid fabrication.

The researcher made sure that formal permission from the respective study sites

were secured.
 52

CHAPTER 3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter presents the tabulated data, findings of the study, analysis

and interpretation of the data obtained from the respondents. The first part

discussed the levels of innovative work behavior, organizational learning, work

engagement and work performance. The second part shows the relationship

between the independent variables, dependent variable. The third part presents

the variables that best predict work performance. Lastly, the fourth part is the

presentation of best model fit analysis.

Level of Innovative Work Behavior

Table 1 shows the level of innovative work behavior of the printing

industry in Region XI. The innovative work behavior contains three indicators,

namely idea generation, idea promotion and idea realization.

Table 1
Level of Innovative Work Behavior
Innovative Work Behavior Mean SD Descripti
on
IDEA GENERATION
I am creating new ideas for difficult issues. 4.03 .861 High
I am searching out new working methods, techniques, or 4.11 .754 High
instruments.
I am generating original solutions to problems 4.06 .922 High
Category mean 4.07 .700 HIGH
IDEA PROMOTION
I am mobilizing support for innovative ideas. 4.00 .882 High
I am acquiring approval for innovative ideas. 4.79 .554 Very High
I am making important organizational members enthusiastic for 4.03 .771 High
innovative ideas.
4.27 .556 VERY
Category mean
HIGH
IDEA REALIZATION
I am transforming innovative ideas into useful applications. 4.12 .747 High
I am introducing innovative ideas into the work environment in a 4.19 .774 High
systematic way.
I am evaluating the utility of innovative ideas. 4.12 .781 High
Category mean 4.15 .633 HIGH
OVERALL MEAN 4.16 .513 HIGH
 53

In terms of idea generation, the employee of print media exhibit a high

level of innovative work behavior in searching out new working methods,

techniques, or instruments with the highest mean of 4.11. Meanwhile, the lowest

mean is in the aspect of creating new ideas for difficult issues with a mean of

4.03. The category mean is 4.07 which refers to the description of high. This

means that the employees oftentimes exhibit innovative work behavior in terms

of idea generation. This support the study of Kanter (2005) that the individual is

the source of any new idea, able to innovate and construct new ways to address

the need. Hence, good idea generators are individuals who can approach

problems or performance gaps from a different angle.

In the idea promotion, the results show that the employee of print media

has a very high innovative work behavior in acquiring approval for innovative

ideas with the mean of 4.79. On the other hand, the lowest mean is 4.00 in terms

of mobilizing support for innovative ideas. The category mean is 4.27 which is

described as very high. This means that the employees always exhibit innovative

work behavior in terms of idea promotion. This further suggests that employees

continually support innovation to improve better their products. This conforms to

the study of Janssen (2001) that the individual employees need to continuously

collaborate in innovating and improving products, services and work processes.

Moreover, also in study of Kanter (2005) that he emphasizes the innovative

individual who takes prime responsibility for the introduction of innovations is

often not formally appointed, but rather someone who feels a strong personal

commitment to a particular idea and is able to sell it to others.

 54

In the idea realization, the highest level of innovative work behavior is

introducing innovative ideas into the work environment in a systematic way

having a mean of 4.19. The lowest mean are 4.12 in the aspects of transforming

innovative ideas into useful applications and evaluating the utility of innovative

ideas. Nevertheless, the category mean is 4.15 which is described as high. This

indicates that the employees oftentimes exhibit innovative work behavior in terms

of idea realization. This is further suggests that the employees considered their

individual role in producing ideas that can be helpful to the company. This

support the study of West (2002) that the measure of role innovation captures

how many changes an individual has initiated in his or her job in comparison to

the last role occupant.

Meanwhile, the overall mean is 4.16 which can be described as high. This

means that the employees oftentimes exhibit innovative work behavior. This

result corresponds to the study of Leong and Rasli (2014), innovative work

behavior is generally framed in the context of how individuals could facilitate the

achievement of initiation and intentional introduction of new and useful ideas,

processes, products or procedures. Moreover, innovation is a central concern for

organizations that the managers faced with the challenge of mobilizing the

innovative potential of all sorts of employees (De Spiegelaere, VanGyes, Van

Hootegem, 2012).

Level of Organizational Learning

Table 2 shows the level of organizational learning of printing industry. The

organizational learning contains of four indicators such as management

 55

commitment, system perspective, openness and experimentation and knowledge

transfer and integration.

Table 2
Level of Organizational Learning
Organizational Learning
Mean SD Description
MANAGEMENT COMMITMENT
Our managers frequently involve their staff in important decision making 4.21 .870 Very High
processes.
Employee learning is considered more of an expense than an investment in
4.02 .871 High
our company.
Our company’s management looks favorably on carrying out changes in any
4.15 .825 High
area to adapt to and/or keep ahead of new environmental situations.
Employee learning capability is considered a key factor in our company. 4.20 .773 Very high
In our company, innovative ideas that work are rewarded. 4.08 .861 High
Category mean 4.13 .588 High
SYSTEM PERSPECTIVE
All employees have generalized knowledge regarding our company’s 4.00 .772 High
objectives
All parts that make up our company (departments, sections, work teams, and
4.02 .838 High
individuals) are well aware of how they contribute to achieving the overall
objectives.
All parts that make up this firm are interconnected, working together in a
4.11 .745 High
coordinated fashion.
Category mean 4.04 .640 High
OPENNESS AND EXPERIMENTATION
Our company promotes experimentation and innovation as a way of improving
4.02 .861 High
the work processes.
Our company follows up what other firms in the sector are doing, adopting
4.02 .779 High
those practices and techniques it believes to be useful and interesting.
Experiences and ideas provided by external sources (advisors, customers,
3.96 .786 High
training firms, etc.) are considered a useful instrument for our company’s
learning.
Part of our company’s culture is that employees can express their opinions
4.03 .861 High
and make suggestions regarding the procedures and methods in place for
carrying out tasks.
Category mean 4.01 .627 High
KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER AND INTEGRATION
Errors and failures are always discussed and analyzed in our company, on all
3.96 .946 High
levels.
Employees have the chance to talk among themselves about new ideas,
3.98 .857 High
programs, and activities that might be of use to our company.
In our company, teamwork is not the usual way to work 3.71 1.072 High
Our company has instruments for sharing knowledge. 4.04 .908 High
Our organization’s mission statement identifies values to which all employees
4.00 .758 High
must conform.
Category mean 3.94 .732 HIGH
Overall 4.03 .539 HIGH
 56

In terms of system perspective, it shows a high level of organizational

learning in the item of All parts that make up this firm are interconnected, working

together in a coordinated fashion with a mean of 4.11. Hence, the lowest mean is

4.00 in the item of All employees have generalized knowledge regarding our

company’s objectives. Meanwhile the category mean of systems perspective is

4.04, described as high. This means that system perspective is oftentimes

evident in print media business. This support the study of Beeson and Davis

(2000) that the systems perspective, applied to organizations in its classic

formulations fails to give a sufficient account of change. Thus, the model

attributes a central role to management and overestimates management’s power

to control events and actions. Moreover, it produces an impression that

organizational change must be managed, and that managers can always

manage change.

In particular, the openness and experimentation have the highest mean of

4.02 in the item Part of our company’s culture is that employees can express

their opinions and make suggestions regarding the procedures and methods in

place for carrying out tasks. On the other hand, the lowest mean is 3.96 in the

item Experiences and ideas provided by external sources (advisors, customers,

training firms, etc.) are considered a useful instrument for our company’s

learning. The category mean is 4.01, described as high. This denotes that

openness and experimentation are oftentimes evident in print media business.

Thus, the environments of organizational learning capability, firms definitely favor

 57

openness and experimentation to search for new, innovative, and flexible

solutions to current and future conditions and problems based on the possible

uses of different methods and procedures. This is explained by Goh and Richard

(1997) that the firms can present the opportunities for openness and

experimentation and can effectively design the challenges of openness and

experimentation activities through compensation systems of innovation and risk-

taking rewards.

In terms of knowledge transfer and integration, the employee of printing

industry exhibit a high level of organizational learning in the item Our company

has instruments for sharing knowledge with the highest mean of 4.04.

Meanwhile, the lowest mean is in the item of In our company, teamwork is not

the usual way to work with a mean of 3.71. The category mean is 3.94 which

refers to the description of high. This indicates that knowledge transfer and

integration is oftentimes evident in print media business. Furthermore, the

employee needs knowledge transfer and integration leads to the creation of a

collective corpus of knowledge rooted in organizational culture, work processes,

and organizational memory. This support the study of Akgun et al., (2007) that

the firms with greater knowledge transfer and integration tend to recover and

apply knowledge to different situations that guarantee firms' constant learning to

rotate among organizational members in order to enhance organizational

commitment, and earn business excellence and performance.

The overall mean is 4.03, described as high. This denotes that

organizational learning is oftentimes evident in print media business. This can be

 58

attributed to the high level of organizational learning of the employees of print

media in terms of management commitment, system perspective, openness and

experimentation and knowledge and integration. It means that the firm with

greater effective strategy likely appear to success in the rigorous environments.

This support the study of Garvin (2000) that the organizational learning has

become one of the essential instruments for firms' operations, competitive

advantage, and performance. Moreover, the organizational learning by the

employee helps to understand customer needs and market requirements very

well, and respond them effectively.

Level of Work Engagement

Table 3 shows the level of work engagement of the employees of print

media in Region XI. The work engagement has three indicators, namely vigor,

dedication and absorption.

In terms of vigor, the employee of print media exhibit a high level of work

engagement in the item I can continue working for very long periods at a time

with the highest mean of 4.07. Meanwhile, the lowest mean is in the item of

When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work with a mean of 3.80. The

category mean is 3.98 which refers to the description of high. This denotes that

the employees oftentimes manifest vigor in the workplace. This result

corresponds to the study of Schaufeli et al. (2006) that vigor characterized by

high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, the willingness to

invest effort in one’s work, and persistence even in the face of difficulties. This
 59

means also that vigorous employees are ready to put lot of energy in their work

and strongly carry on in the face of obstacles.

Table 3
Level of Work Engagement
Work Engagement Mean SD Description
VIGOR
At my work, I feel bursting with energy 4.00 .956 High
At my job, I feel strong and vigorous 3.95 .808 High
When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work 3.80 .893 High
I can continue working for very long periods at a time 4.07 .871 High
At my job, I am very resilient, mentally 4.03 .776 High
At my work I always persevere, even when things do not 4.02 .864 High
go well
Category mean 3.98 .625 HIGH
DEDICATION
I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose 4.19 .883 High
I am enthusiastic about my job 4.00 .817 High
My job inspires me 4.09 .819 High
I am proud on the work that I do 4.27 .798 Very High
To me, my job is challenging 4.38 .784 Very High
Category mean 4.19 .616 HIGH
ABSORPTION
Time flies when I'm working 4.03 .849 High

When I am working, I forget everything else around me 3.93 .865 High

I feel happy when I am working intensely 4.02 .817 High
I am immersed in my work 3.97 .824 High
I get carried away when I’m working 3.95 .862 High
It is difficult to detach myself from my job* 3.83 .897 High
Category mean 3.95 .615 HIGH
Overall 4.04 .494 HIGH

In the dedication, the results show that the employees of printing industry

has a very high work engagement in the item To me, my job is challenging with

the mean of 4.38. On the other hand, the lowest mean is 4.00 in the item I am

enthusiastic about my job. The category mean is 4.19 which is described as high.

This indicates that the employees oftentimes manifest dedication in the

 60

workplace. This result also suggests that employees are devoted in their job and

consider it as challenging and inspiring. This is further explained in the study of

Schaufeli et al. (2006) that the dedication mean to those employee who are

strongly involved in one’s work and experiencing a sense of significance,

enthusiasm, and challenges in a work place.

In terms of absorption, the highest level of work engagement is in the item

of Time flies when I'm working with a mean of 4.03. The lowest mean is 3.83 in

the aspects of It is difficult to detach myself from my job. Nevertheless, the

category mean is 3.95 which is described as high. This denotes that the

employees oftentimes manifest absorption in the workplace. This result shows

that the absorption characterized by being fully concentrated and happily

engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulties

with detaching oneself from work. This is aligned to the study of Schaufeli et al.

(2006) in terms of absorption which distinguishes employees work engagement

from burnout.

Meanwhile, the overall mean is 4.04 which can be described as high. This

means that the employees of print media oftentimes exhibit work engagement. In

short, engaged employees have high levels of energy and are enthusiastic about

their work. Moreover, they are often fully immersed in their work so that time flies.

This support the study of Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) when the work

engagement is higher, it means that the employee devotes all of his/her efforts

into the job role and goes all out comprehensively and they recognizes the

importance of his/her job.

 61

Level of Work Performance

The table 4 presents the result of level of work performance of employees

among print media in Region XI. There are two indicators of work performance

namely task performance and contextual performance.

Table 4
Level of Work Performance
WORK PERFORMANCE Mean SD Description
TASK PERFORMANCE
I managed to plan my work so that it was done on time 4.21 .845 Very High
My planning was optional. 3.96 .734 High
I kept in mind the results that I had noticed achieve in my 3.95 .742 High
work.
I kept in mind the results that I had noticed achieve in my 3.96 .893 High
work.
I knew how to set the right priorities. 4.11 .783 High
I was able to perform my work well with minimal time and 4.06 .678 High
effort.
Collaboration with others was very productive. 4.13 .884 High
Category mean 4.05 .554 HIGH
CONTEXTUAL PERFORMANCE
I took extra responsibilities 4.00 .753 High
I started new tasks myself, when my old ones were finished 3.98 .732 High
I took on challenging work tasks, when available 4.04 .730 High
I worked at keeping my job knowledge up-to-date 4.02 .791 High
I worked at keeping my job skills up-to-date. 4.02 .887 High
I came up with creative solutions to new problems. 4.13 .787 High
I kept looking for new challenges in my job. 4.13 .786 High
I did more than as expected of me 4.01 .855 High
I actively participated in work meetings 4.03 .887 High
I actively looked for ways to improve my performance at work 3.92 .777 High
I grasped opportunities when they presented themselves. 3.86 .796 High
I knew how to solve difficult situations and setbacks quickly 3.80 .796 High
Category mean 4.00 .530 HIGH
Overall 4.02 .494 HIGH
 62

In particular, the task performance it shows a very high mean of 4.21 in

the item I managed to plan my work so that it was done on time. On the other

hand, the lowest mean is 3.95 in the item I kept in mind the results that I had

noticed achieve in my work. The category mean is 4.05, described as high. This

means that task performance is oftentimes observed among employees in print

media business. This suggests that task performance as behaviors that directly

or indirectly contribute to the organization’s technical core, and contextual

performance as behaviors that support the organizational, social and

psychological environment in which the technical core must function. This

conforms to the study of Borman and Motowidlo (2003) that task activities usually

vary between different jobs, whereas contextual activities are common to many

or all jobs.

In terms of contextual performance, the highest level of work performance

are in the two items of I came up with creative solutions to new problems and I

kept looking for new challenges in my job with a mean of 4.13. The lowest mean

is 3.80 in the aspect of I grasped opportunities when they presented themselves.

Nevertheless, the category mean is 4.00 which is described as high. This

denotes that contextual performance is oftentimes observed among employees

in print media business. This support the study of Borman and Motowidlo, (1997)

that contextual performance concern aspects of an individual’s performance

which maintains and enhances an organization social network and the

psychological climate that supports technical tasks.

 63

The results show the overall mean of 4.02 which can be described as

high. This indicates that work performance is oftentimes observed among the

employees in print media business. This further denotes that the work

performance is an individual output in terms of quality and quantity expected from

every employee in a particular job. This support the study of Kennard, (2014) that

the work performance can greatly be affected which may vary on what affects

your performance the most. It might be health or the lack of support at work or

even their personal life contributing to lack of motivation and low energy levels on

how to perform.

Relationship between the Independent Variables and Work Performance

Table 5 shows relationship between innovative work behavior,

organizational learning, work engagement and work performance of employees.

The results show that all the independent variables have significant relationship

with the work performance of employees (p<.05).

Table 5
Relationship between the Variables
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES WORK PERFORMANCE

R p-value Remarks

Innovative Work Behavior .332 .000 Significant

Organizational learning .552 .000 Significant

Work Engagement .576 .000 Significant

In particular, there is a significant relationship between innovative work

behavior and work performance of employees (r=.332, p<.05). The strength of

 64

correlation between the two variables is low and has a directly proportional

relationship as revealed by the coefficient of .332. This suggests that the

increase in innovative work behavior would essentially increase the work

performance of employees. This conforms the study of Yuan and Woodman

(2010) that innovative work behavior has a direct link on the performance of

employees of every business. Moreover, Yuan and Woodman (2010) explained

that the more innovative are the employees in their workplace, the greater

performance is achieved. In the same way, other findings have shown that being

creative at work is likely to enable employees to enhance their personal

performance (Gilson, 2008; Gong, Huang, & Farh 2009).

In the same way, there is a significant and moderate strength of

relationship between organizational learning and work performance (r=.552,

p<.05). This means that as the organizational learning increases, the work

performance would also likely increase. This support the study of Škerlavaj et al.,

(2007), that the better developed organizational learning contributes to improved

organizational performance in financial as well as non- financial terms. Moreover,

previous researches also supported the findings of this study that the outcomes

of organizational learning behaviors may include changes in values and

assumptions (Argyris & Schön, 1978), skills (Fiol & Lyles, 1985), systems and

structures (Levitt and March, 1988), core competencies (Prahalad & Hamel,

1990), organizational innovativeness and competitiveness (Nason, 1994),

corporate success, and employee satisfaction (Bontis et al, 2002).

 65

Similarly, there is a significant relationship between work engagement and

work performance of employees as shown in the p-value that is less than .05 and

positive correlation coefficient of .576. This means that those employees who

have high work engagement are more likely having better work performance.

This result conforms to the study of Saks (2006) that the employees with very

different job and organizational attachments to show that work engagement is

related to outcomes like job satisfaction, organizational commitment or

organizational citizenship behavior, and work performance. In addition, the work

engagement has been linked to various positive organizational outcomes in

terms of productive employee behaviour (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Salanova et

al., 2005)

Influence of Innovative Work Behavior, Organizational Learning, and Work

Engagement on the Work Performance of Employees

Table 6 presents the results of regression analysis which purpose is to

show the significant predictors of work performance. The results indicate that

among the three independent variables, only the organizational learning and

work engagement were found to be significant predictors of work performance.

Table 6
Influence of Innovative Work Behavior, Organizational Learning, and Work
Engagement on the Work Performance of Employees
Independent Variables Unstandardized Standardized t p-value Remarks
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 1.359 .185 7.336 .000
Innovative Work Behavior -.013 .046 -.013 -.282 .778 Not Significant
Organizational Learning .295 .051 .322 5.753 .000 Significant
Work Engagement .378 .049 .378 7.659 .000 Significant

Note: R=.625, R-square=.391, F=88.890, P<.05

 66

In particular, the organizational learning have significant direct effect on

the work performance of employees (β=.322, p<.05). This means that the

regression weight for organizational learning in the prediction of work

performance is significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

Thus, for every unit increase in organizational learning, there is a corresponding

increase in the work performance by .322. Through this, would imply that

organizational learning can improve better the work performance of employees.

This support the study of Škerlavaj and Dimovski (2006) that demonstrated the

statistically significant positive and strong impact of organizational learning on

organizational performance from the employee perspective. Moreover, this

finding supports the notion of Campbell et al. (1990) as they argued that

organizational learning is a strong determinant of performance.

Similarly, the work engagement significantly predict the work performance

of employees (β=.378, p<.05). This means that the regression weight for work

engagement in the prediction of work performance is significantly different from

zero at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). In other words, when the work engagement is

increase by 1, the work performance would increase by .378. This conforms the

study of Demerouti and Cropanzano (2010) that the employee engagement has

a positive influence on organizational performance. Furthermore, the result aligns

to the proposition of Rich, Lepine, and Crawford (2010) that work engagement is

an important contributor to the work performance of employees in many

organizations.
 67

On the other hand, the influence of innovative work behavior on work

performance has a p-value greater than .05. This means that innovative work

behavior does not significantly predict the work performance on a singular

capacity but it needs the support of the other variable. This further denotes that

innovative work behavior reflects the individual’s ability to adapt effectively to the

job by modifying themselves or the work environment through innovation. This

finding does not support the proposition of Janssen, Van de Vliert, & West (2004)

on the direct link between innovative work behavior and performance. Hence,

Janssen, Van de Vliert, & West (2004) also suggest that the impact of innovative

work behavior may not be direct but can be inferred in an indirect manner.

Lastly, the findings were apparent in the results of the regression analysis

in which 39.1 percent of the variance of work performance can be explained by

the model as indicated by R2 = 39.1. This would mean that 60.9 percent of the

variation can be attributed to other factors aside from the independent variables

in the model.

Tests of Hypothesized Models

Figure 7 presents the direct relationship of exogenous on the endogenous

variables. Based on the results, the amount of variance explained by the

combined influence of innovative work behavior, organizational learning, and

work engagement on work performance is 29 percent. Meanwhile, the

organizational learning and work engagement significantly predict work

performance with beta values of .35 and .41, respectively. However, innovative

work behavior does not significantly predict work performance (β=-.01, p>.05).
 68

Furthermore, the goodness of fit results revealed that the values were not within

the range of the indices criteria as shown by CMIN/DF > 3.0, (NFI, TLI, CFI, GFI

< 0.95), and RMSEA > 0.08 with a PCLOSE < 0.05. This means that the model

does not fit with the data.

INDEX MODEL FIT VALUE

CMIN/DF 131.417
P-value .000
NFI .345
TLI -.314
CFI .343
GFI .686
RMSEA .559
PCLOSE .000

Figure 7. Test of Hypothesize Model 1

Figure 8 presents the results of Hypothesized Model 2. Based on the

results, a total of 36 percent of the variance of work performance is explained by

the combined influence of innovative work behavior, organizational learning, and

work engagement. Meanwhile, the organizational learning and work engagement

significantly predict work performance with beta values of .30 and .39,

respectively. However, innovative work behavior does not significantly predict

work performance (β=-.01, p>.05). Moreover, the goodness of fit results revealed

that the values were not within the range of the indices criteria as shown by

CMIN/DF > 3.0, (NFI, TLI, CFI, GFI < 0.95), and RMSEA > 0.08 with a PCLOSE
 69

< 0.05. This means that Hypothesized Model 2 does not fit with the data and a

poor fit model of work performance.

INDEX MODEL FIT VALUE

CMIN/DF 76.111
P-value .000
NFI .874
TLI .243
CFI .874
GFI .923
RMSEA .424
PCLOSE .000

Figure 8. Test of Hypothesize Model 2

Figure 9 presents the results of Hypothesized Model 3. Based on the

results, a total of 36 percent of the variance of work performance is explained by

the combined influence of innovative work behavior, organizational learning, and

work engagement. Moreover, innovative work behavior and work engagement

explain 45 percent of the variance of organizational learning. Meanwhile, the

organizational learning and work engagement significantly predict work

performance with beta values of .30 and .39, respectively. However, innovative

work behavior does not significantly predict work performance (β=-.01, p>.05).

Furthermore, innovative work behavior and work engagement have direct effect
 70

on organizational learning with beta values of .44 and .50, respectively. The

goodness of fit results revealed that the values were not within the range of the

indices criteria as shown by CMIN/DF > 3.0, (NFI, TLI, CFI, GFI < 0.95), and

RMSEA > 0.08 with a PCLOSE < 0.05. This means that Hypothesized Model 3

does not fit with the data and a poor fit model of work performance.

INDEX MODEL FIT VALUE

CMIN/DF 76.111
P-value .000
NFI .874
TLI .243
CFI .874
GFI .923
RMSEA .424
PCLOSE .000

Figure 9. Test of Hypothesize Model 3

Figure 10 presents the results of Hypothesized Model 4. Based on the

results, a total of 36 percent of the variance of work performance is explained by

the combined influence of organizational learning and work engagement.

Moreover, innovative work behavior and work engagement explain 45 percent of

the variance of organizational learning. Meanwhile, the organizational learning

and work engagement significantly predict work performance with beta values of
 71

.30 and .39, respectively. Furthermore, innovative work behavior and work

engagement have direct effect on organizational learning with beta values of .44

and .50, respectively. The goodness of fit results revealed that the values were

not within the range of the indices criteria as shown by CMIN/DF > 3.0, (NFI, TLI,

CFI, GFI < 0.95), and RMSEA > 0.08 with a PCLOSE < 0.05. This means that

Hypothesized Model 4 does not fit with the data and a poor fit model of work

performance.

INDEX MODEL FIT VALUE

CMIN/DF 38.096
P-value .000
NFI .873
TLI .626
CFI .875
GFI .923
RMSEA .298
PCLOSE .000

Figure 10. Test of Hypothesize Model 4

Summary of goodness of fit measures of the Hypothesized Model 1 to 4

This study has proposed five hypothesized models to be tested for best fit

model which were built based from literatures and theories. Each model was

analyzed using fit indices as revealed in Table 7. It shows that Hypothesized

 72

Model 1 to 4 have poor model fit values and do not achieve the criteria set by

each indices. This means that the hypothesized models 1 to 4 are not good fitting

models for work performance among print media employees.

Table 7
Summary of goodness of fit measures of the Hypothesized Model 1 to 4
Model CMIN P-value NFI TLI CFI GFI RMSEA Pclose

1 131.417, P=.000 .345 -.314 .343 .686 .559 .000

2 76.111, P= .000 .874 .243 .874 .923 .424 .000

3 76.111, P= .000 .874 .243 .874 .923 .424 .000

4 38.096, P=.000 .873 .626 .875 .923 .298 .000

Best Fit Model of Work Performance

The hypothesized model 5 in standardized estimates is presented in

Figure 11. It can be observed in the results that 39 percent of the variance of

work performance is explained by the combined influenced organizational

learning and work engagement. On the other hand, a total of 53 percent of the

organizational learning variation can be attributed to innovative work behavior

and work engagement. Furthermore, the model illustrates the relationship of

innovative work behavior and work engagement (r=.41, p<.05), and the direct

effect of innovative work behavior and work engagement on organizational

learning with beta values of .40 and .46, respectively. On the other hand, it

shows the direct effect of organizational learning and work engagement on work

performance with beta values of .31 and .38, respectively.

 73

Figure 11. Best Fit Model Hypothesize Model 5

Moreover, performance is a function of ability and motivation. The result is

aligned to the proposition of Rich et al. (2010) that prior work on performance has

found that a motivational concept, such as work engagement has an important

impact on performance. The result also supported the study of Janssen, Van de

Vliert, & West (2004) that innovative work behavior reflects the individual’s ability

to adapt effectively to the job by modifying themselves or the work environment

through innovation. This means that innovative work behavior enables

employees to perform. Meanwhile, another proposition by Campbell et al. (1990)

that there are three basic determinants of performance. These include

declarative knowledge which is knowledge about facts and things, and

procedural knowledge which are the different types of skills on how to carry out a

particular task.
 74

Table 7 presented the effects of the independent variables to the

dependent variable. It can be gleaned in the results that work engagement and

organizational learning have significant direct effect on work performance with p-

value less than 0.05, and beta values of .377 and .315, respectively. Though the

innovative work behavior does not have direct effect on work performance, it can

be noted that it has a significant indirect effect on work performance which is

mediated by organizational learning (β=.128, p<.05). Nevertheless, the work

engagement also show a significant indirect effect on work performance as

mediated by organizational learning (β=.146, p<.05). This implies that

organizational learning is a factor that explains the relationship of innovative work

behavior and work engagement on the work performance of employees.

Table 7. Standardized direct, indirect and total effect estimates on Work

Performance in Hypothesized Model 5.
INDEPENDENT DIRECT INDIRECT TOTAL
P P P
VARIABLES EFFECT EFFECT EFFECT

IWB - - .128 .005 .128 .005

WE .377 .012 .146 .003 .523 .008

OL .315 .003 - - .315 .003

Furthermore, all independent variables have significant total effects on

work performance. More specifically, the work engagement has the highest total

effect (β=.523, p<.05) which is followed by organizational learning (β=.315,

p<.05) and the lowest effect is displayed by innovative work behavior (β=.128,

p<.05). This denotes that innovative work behavior, work engagement, and
 75

organizational learning have valuable contribution to improve the work

performance of employees.

As shown in Table 8, all model fit value have successfully met the criteria

set by each index (CMIN/DF=1.290 with its p-value > 0.05, (NFI, TLI, CFI, and

GFI > .95), and RMSEA < 0.08 with a PCLOSE > 0.05. This means that the

model fits well with the data which can best explain the work performance of

employees. This support the study of Arbuckle and Wothke (1999) denoting that

CMIN/DF should be less than 3.0, and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) and

Comparative Fit Index (CFI) should be close to 0.90. Moreover, the RMSEA and

PCLOSE values are conforms the study of MacCallum, Browne and Sugawara

(1996) indicating 0.01, 0.05, and 0.08 as excellent, good, and mediocre fit

respectively, with P of close fit (PCLOSE) that is greater than 0.05.

Table 8
Goodness of fit measures of the Hypothesized Model 5.
INDEX CRITERION MODEL FIT VALUE
CMIN/DF < 3.0 .080
P-value >.05 .778
NFI > .95 1.00
TLI > .95 1.00
CFI > .95 1.00
GFI > .95 1.00
RMSEA < .08 .000
PCLOSE > .05 .866
 76

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study attempted to investigate the innovative work behavior,

organizational learning, work engagement and work performance of employees

of print media. The relationship of independent variables with the dependent

variable was also examined. On the other hand, the study also endeavored to

explore the predictors and the best fit model of work performance.

Findings

Based on the results the summary of findings was provided:

1. The level of innovative work behavior among print media employees

revealed the result with the overall mean of 4.16 which can be described

as high. Among the indicators of innovative work behavior, only idea

promotion reached the very high category mean of 4.27 while the idea

generation with a category mean of 4.07 and idea realization with a

category mean of 4.15 which were described as high.

2. The level of organizational learning of print media employees, the result

provided that all items have generated a mean score that is between the

range of 3.40 to 4.19 with the overall mean of 4.03 which has described

as high.

3. The level of work engagement of print media employees exhibit a high

category mean in all indicators with the corresponding overall mean of

4.04 which described as high. The work engagement in terms of

 77

dedication has a highest category mean of 4.19 while the vigor with a

category mean of 3.98 and absorption with a category mean of 3.95.

4. The level of work performance is high in two indicators with an overall

mean of 4.02. The task performance has a category mean of 4.05 which

is higher than the contextual performance with a category mean of 4.00.

5. The innovative work behavior, organizational learning, work engagement

and work performance of employees have significant relationship with

the work performance of employees with the p-value that is less than

0.05.

6. The results indicate that among the three independent variables, only

the organizational learning and work engagement were found to be

significant predictors of work performance. The organizational learning

have significant direct effect on the work performance of employees

(β=.322, p<.05) and the work engagement significantly predict the work

performance of employees (β=.378, p<.05). On the other hand, the

influence of innovative work behavior on work performance has a p-

value greater than .05. This means that innovative work behavior does

not significantly predict the work performance of employees.The best fit

model of work performance is Hypothesized Model 5 which passed all

the goodness of fit indices having a CMIN/DF=1.290 with its p-value >

0.05, (NFI, TLI, CFI, and GFI > .95), and RMSEA < 0.08 with a PCLOSE

> 0.05.
 78

Conclusions

Based on the findings, the following conclusions were drawn:

1. The level of innovative work behavior of print media employees is high. In

particular, the employee of print media oftentimes exhibit the in terms of

idea generation, idea promotion and idea realization. This means that the

employees in all print media oftentimes exhibit innovative work behavior.

2. The employees of print media have high level of organizational learning.

This denotes that the employees oftentimes manifest organizational

learning. In other words, the employees of print media have positive

response in organizational learning in terms of management commitment,

system perspective, openness and experimentation and knowledge

transfer and integration.

3. The work engagement of print media employees have high level in terms

of vigor, dedication and absorption. This indicates that employees of print

media oftentimes exhibit work engagement.

4. The level of work performance of print media employees is high in terms

of task performance and contextual performance. This denotes that

employees of print media oftentimes exhibit work performance.

 79

5. There is a significant relationship between innovative work behavior,

organizational learning, work engagement and work performance of print

media employees.

6. Among the three independent variables, only the organizational learning

and work engagement significantly predict employees work performance

while the innovative work behavior does significantly predict employees

work performance. This implies that organizational learning and work

engagement can improve better the work performance of employees while

the innovative work behavior does not contribute to the employees work

performance.

7. The best fit model is hypothesized model 5. The model shows the work

engagement and organizational learning have significant direct effect on

work performance while innovative work behavior does not have direct

effect on work performance and it has a significant indirect effect on work

performance which is mediated by organizational learning. On other hand

the work engagement also show a significant indirect effect on work

performance as mediated by organizational learning. This implies that

organizational learning is a factor that explains the relationship of

innovative work behavior and work engagement on the work performance

of employees.
 80

Recommendations

Based on the findings, the following recommendations were drawn:

1. The level of innovative work behavior of print media employees is high

implying that whatever innovations implemented should be sustained.

However, print media management may emphasize the importance

of different innovative skills of the employees. Allocation of

sufficient funds for training of employees like advanced multimedia

training is needed to update the skills of the employees in terms of

conceptualizing design.

2. Since the organizational leaning in terms of knowledge transfer and

integration has lowest mean score, it is suggested that management

may conduct a monthly meeting and employee consultation to raise

their concerns and ideas that would help the company.

3. The level of work engagement of print media employees is high

implying that whatever is being implemented currently by the print

media management should be sustained. However, print media

management may design and conduct activities for enhancement of

the employees and management relationship. By cultivating and

maintaining these relationships, it reduces the risk that the employees

will quit.

4. The level of work performance of print media employees is high. This

suggest that whatever programs implemented currently by the

management should be sustained. Nevertheless, still the management

 81

may enhance in the aspect contextual performance of the employees

like solving difficult situations. The management also looked for

another strategies that help improve the employee’s performance and

emphasize the reward and incentives.

5. Since that there is a significant relationship between innovative work

behavior, organizational learning, work engagement and work

performance of print media employees. This suggest that whatever

programs implemented by the management in terms of innovative work

behavior, organizational learning, work engagement and work

performance should be sustained. Nevertheless, management may still

enhanced like advanced training of multimedia, teambuilding, rewards

and incentives.

6. Since organizational learning and work engagement were significant

predictors of employees work performance, it is recommended that the

management of print media will consider these variables in formulating

training like advance multimedia, seminars on capacity building , and

rewards and incentives program to improve employees work

performance.

7. It is recommended that model 5, being the best fit model of work

performance, will be adopted in the formulation of management

policies of print media in Region XI.

 82

REFERENCES

Adler, P. S. (1990), “Shared learning”, Management Science, Vol. 36, No. 8, pp.
938-957. Adler, P. S., Clark, K. B. (1991), “Behind the learning curve: a
sketch of the learning process”, Management Science, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp.
267-281.

Ahlgren, L., & Tett, L. 2010. Work-based learning, identity and organizational
culture. Studies in Continuing Education, 32(1): 17-27.

Anderson, J.C., Rungtusanatham, M., & Schroeder, R.G. (1994). A Theory of

Quality Management Underlying the Deming Management Method.
Academy Of Management Review, 19(3), 472-509.

Aragón-Correa, J. A., García-Morales, V. J., & Cordón-Pozo, E. ( 2007).

Leadership and organizational learning's role on innovation and
performance: Lessons from Spain. Industrial Marketing Management,
36(3): 349-359.

Arbuckle, J., & Wothke, W. (1999). AMOS 4 user’s reference guide. Chicago:
Smallwaters Corporation.

Argyris, C., Schön, D. A., (1996), Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and
Practice. Reading: Addison-Wesley

Au, Y. A., Carpenter, D., Chen, X., & Clark, J. G. (2009). Virtual organizational
learning in open source software development projects. Information and
Management, 46(1): 9-15.

Arvey, D., Mussio SJ. (1998). A test of expectancy theory in a field setting using
female clerical employees. J Vocat Behav;3:421–432

Arvey, R. D., & Murphy K.R. (1998). Performance evaluations in work settings.
Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 141-168.

Avery, D., Volpone, S., McKay, P., King, E., & Wilson, D. (2011). Is relational
demography relative? How employment status influences effects of
supervisor subordinate demographic similarity. Journal of Business &
Psychology, 27, 83- 98. doi:10.1007/s10869-011-9230-9

Axtell, C.M., Holman, D.J., Unsworth, K.L., Wall, T.D., P.E. Waterson & E.
Harrington (2010). Shop floor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and
implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology. 73, 265-285.
 83

Azadegan, A., & Dooley, K. J. 2010. Supplier innovativeness, organizational

learning styles and manufacturer performance: An empirical assessment.
Journal of Operations Management, 28(6): 488-505.
Bakker, A. (2009). Positive organizational behavior: engaged employees in \
flourishing organizations, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29,
Issue 2, pp. 147 – 154.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement.

Career Development International, 13(3), 209–223.
doi:10.1108/13620430810870476

Bakker, A.B. and Leiter, M.P. (2010) Work Engagement: A Handbook of

Essential Theory and Research, Psychology Press, New York, NY.

Bakker A.B, Xanthopoulou D. (2013). Creativity and charisma among female

leaders: the role of resources and work engagement. Int. J. Hum.
Resource. Manag. 24:2760–79

Bandura, A. (2005). The primacy of self-regulation in health promotion. Applied

Psychology: An International Review, 54(2): 245-254.

Babbie, E. & Mouton, J., (2010). The practice of social research. 10th Ed
Republic of South Africa [RSA], Cape Town: Oxford University Press
Southern Africa.

Basadur, M. (2004). Leading others to think innovatively together: Creative

leadership. Leadership Quarterly. 15 (1). 103-121.

Bateman T.S., & Organ, D.W., (1983). Job Satisfaction and the good soldier; The
Relationship between affect and employee citizenship. Academy
Management Journal, 26,587-595.

Beeson, I., and C. Davis. (2000). “Emergence and accomplishment in

organizational change”. Journal of Organizational Change Management,
13(2), 178-189.

Beheshtifar, M., & Nazarian, R. (2013). Role of Occupational Stress in

organizations. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research In
Business, Vol 4, No 9.

Benner, M., Tushman, M., (2003). Process management and technological

innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries.
Working paper. The Wharton School, University of Permsylvania,
Philadelphia

Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance,

 84

organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-

analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410−424.

Birkenkrahe, M. (2008). System constellations as a tool supporting organizational

learning and change processes. International Journal of Learning and
Change, 3(2): 125-144.

Borman, W. C. and Brush, D. H. (2003). More progress toward a taxonomy of

managerial performance requirements', Human Performance, 6: 1-21.

Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2001). Personality
predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, 9, 52−69.

Borman, W. C and Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual

performance: The meaning for personnel selection research', Human
Performance, 10: 99-109

Boud, D. (2006). Creating the space for reflection at work. In D. Boud, P.

Cressey, & P. Docherty (Eds.), Productive reflection at work. Learning for
changing organizations (pp. 158–169). London: Routledge.

Boggie, T. (2005). Unhappy employees [Electronic version]. Credit Union

Management, 28(4), 34-37.

Bontis, N., Crossan, M., Hulland, J. (2002), “Managing an organizational learning

system by alignign stocks and flows”, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 437-469.

Boxall, P. (2012). High-performance work systems: what, why, how and for
whom? Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50(2), 169–186.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-7941.2011.00012.x

Brief A.P., & Motowidlo S.J.,(1986). Prosocial organizational behavior. Academy

sof Management Review, 11, 710-725.

Burnes, B., Cooper, C., & West, P. 2003. Organizational learning: The new
management paradigm? Management Decision, 41(5/6): 452-464

Burton WN, Pransky G, Conti DJ, Chen CY, Edington DW., (2004). The
association of medical conditions and presenteeism. J Occup Environ
Med. 46(suppl):S38–S45.

Calantone, R.J., Cavusgil, S.T.,& Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm

innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing
Management, 31(6), pp 515-524.
 85

Calmorin, L., (2007). Statistics in education and the sciences (with application to
research) Fil 370.21 P156

Campbell J.P. (1994). Alternative models of job performance and their

implications for selection and classification. In: Rumsey MG, Walker CB,
Harris JH, eds. Personnel Selection and Classification. Hillsdale, NJ, and
England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.,pp:33–51

Campbell, J. P. (1990). 'Modeling the Performance Prediction Problem in

Industrial and Organizational Psychology', in M. D. Dunnette and L. M.
Hough (eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
PaloAlto: Consulting Psychologists Press. Vol. 1: pp. 687-732.

Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H. and Sager, C. E. (1998) 'A theory of
performance', in C. W. Schmitt and W. C. A. Borman (eds), Personnel
Selection in Organizations. San Francisco: JosseyBass, pp. 35-70.

Carroll, M. & Walton, M. (2000). Handbook of Counselling in Organisations.

London: Sage Publications

Cefis, E., & Marsili, O. (2005). A matter of life and death: innovation and firm
survival. Industrial & Corporate Change, 14, 1167-1192.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icc/dth081

CCMA.org.za, (2014).Get the power of the CCMA behind you Retrieved from
http://www.labourguide.co.za/ccma-informations/364-get-the-power-of-the-
ccma-behind-you

Chang, S.-C., & Huang, P.-C. (2002). Corporate multinationalism, organizational

learning, and market reaction to international joint ventures: Evidence from
Taiwan. Global Finance Journal, 13(2): 181-194.
Chang, S.-C., & Lee, M.-S. (2007). A study on relationship among leadership,
organizational culture, the operation of learning organization and
employee's job satisfaction. The Learning Organization, 14(2): 155-185

Chaveerug, A., & Ussahawanitchakit, P. (2008). Learning orientation, innovation

capability, and organizational performance in Thai audit firms: Moderating
effects of organizational climate and uncertainty environment. Review of
Business Research, 8(2), 92-102.

Christian M.S., Garza A.S., Slaughter J.E. (2011). Work engagement: A

quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual
performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89–136.

Chiva, R., Alegre, J., & Lapiedra, R.( 2007). Measuring organizational learning
capability among the workforce. International Journal of Manpower,
28(3/4): 224-242.
 86

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed

methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting and

evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.), Upper Saddle
River, N.J.: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Cohen W. M. and Levinthal D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective

on learning and ınnovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, No.
1, Special Issue: Technology,Organizations, and Innovation, pp.
128-152.

Demerouti, E. and Cropanzano, R., 2010. From thought to action: employee work
engagement and job performance. In: Bakker, A.B. and Leiter, M.P (Eds)
Work Engagement : A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research.
Psychology Press, Hove, pp. 147- 163.

Dimovski, V., (1994). Organizational Learning and Competitive Advantage.

Cleveland: PhD Thesis.

De Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, V., Van Hootegem, G. (2012). Job Design and
Innovative Work Behavior: Retrieved January 20, 2014, from
https://www.academia.edu/5748854/5_Job_Design_and_Innovative_Wor
_Behavior_One_Size_Does_Not_Fit_All_Types_of_Employees_

Dorenbosch, L., M. van Engen & M. Verhagen (2005), On-the-job Innovation:

The Impact of Job Design and Human Resource Management through
Production Ownership, Creativity and innovation management, 14 (2),
129-141
Doveton Press, (2016). The current state of the printing industry. Retrieved from
https://dovetonpress.co.uk/the-current-state-of-the-printing-industry

Drejer, A. (2000). Organisational learning and competence development. The

Learning Organization, 7(4): 206-220

Drew, S. S. W., & Smith, P. A. C. (1995). The Learning organization: “change

proofing” and strategy. The Learning Organization, 2(1): 4-14.

Elkjaer, B., (2004). Organizational learning: the ‘third way. Management

Learning, 35(4): 419-434

Engelbrecht A.S, Fischer A.H (2004). The managerial performance implications

 87

of a developmental assessment center process. Hum Relat. 1995;48:387–

404

Escorpizo R., (2008). Understanding work productivity and its application to

work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Int J Indust Ergon.38:291–297.

Farr,J.L. and Ford , C.(2007). Lack of studies on individual innovation, from

http://www. researchgate. net/post/Lack_of_ studies_on_individual_
innovation

Fiol, C.M. and Lyles, M.A. (1985). Organizational Leaming. Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 10, pp. 803-813.

Fleming, J. H., & Asplund, J. (2007), Human sigma: Managing the employee-
customer encounter. New York: Gallup Press.

Frodesiak, A. (2014). Ideation (Idea Generation). Retrieved January 21, 2014,

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideation_(idea_generation

García-Morales, V. J., Lloréns-Montes, F. J., & Verdú-Jover, A. J. (2008). The

effects of transformational leadership on organizational performance
through knowledge and innovation. British Journal of Management, 19:
299-319.

Garvin, D.A. 2000. Learning in action: A guide to putting the learning organization
to work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press

Gilson L.L., (2008). Why be creative: A review of the practical outcomes

associated with creativity at the individual, group, and organizational
levels.In Zhou J, Shalley CE (Eds.). Handbook of organizational creativity,
pp. 303-322

Goh, S.C. & Richards, G. (1997). Benchmarking the learning capability of

organization. European Management Journal 15(5):575-583.

Gong Y, Huang JC, Farh JL (2009). Employee Learning Orientation,

tranformational Leadership, and Employee Creativity: The Mediating role
of Creative Self Efficacy. Acad. Manage. J. , 52 (4): 765–778

Gonzalez-Roma, V., Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Lloret, S. (2006),

“Burnout and work engagement: independent factors or opposite poles?”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior,Vol. 68, pp. 165-74.

Gorgievski, M., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2010). Work engagement and
workaholism: Comparing the selfemployed and salaried employees.
Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 83–96
 88

Griffith, R., & Jenkins, M. (2004). Using personality constructs to predict

performance: Narrow or broad bandwidth. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 19, 255-269.

Hammer, M., & Stanton, S., (1999). How process enterprises really work.
Harvard Business Review, 77(6): 108-118.

Harris, B. (2007). Flickr in art history class – how fun!

http://smarthistory.org/blog/88/flickr-in- art history-class-how-fun/ [viewed
13 Jun 2009].

Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L. (2002) Business-Unit-Level

Relationship between Employee Satisfaction, Employee Engagement, and
Business Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268-
279.

Hult, G. T. M., Ferrell, O. C., (1997). Global organizational learning effects on

cycle time performance. Journal of Business Research, 55(5): 377- 387.

Hurt, H. Joseph, K & Cook, C. (1977), Scale for the measurement of

innovativeness, Human Communication Research, Vol. 4, pp. 58-65.

Janssen, O. (2001). Psychological Capital and Individual Innovative Behavior.

Retrieved, January 20, 2014, from wenku.baidu. com/view/
a2847586e53a5802 16fcfea4.html

Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E. and West, M. (2004). The bright and dark side of
individual and group innovation: a special issue introduction. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25, 129–145.

Jerez-Gomez, P., Cespedes-Lorente, J., & Valle-Cabrera, J. (2005).

Organizational learning capability: a proposal for measurement. Journal of
Business Research, 56(6), 715
725http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.11.002..

Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Cegarra-Navarro, J. G. 2007. The performance effect of

organizational learning and market orientation. Industrial Marketing
Management, 36(6): 694-708.

Jiménez-Jiménez, D. & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational

learning, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 64 (4), 408-
417.

Kahn, W.A. (1990) ‘Psychological conditions of personal engagement and

disengagement at work’, Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724
 89

Kanter, R.M.(2005).Journal Management, Retrieved, January 24, 2014, from

http://www.uk.sagepub.com/fineman/Reading%20On/Chapter%2010d%20
-%20Ven%20der%20Vegt%20and%20Janssen.pdf

Khaleej Times, (2017).So, is the print media really dying?. Retrieved from
https://www.khaleejtimes.com/editorials-columns/so-is-the-print-media-
really-dying

Kennard, D. (2014). The effects of family responsibilities on the work

commitment and job performance of non-professional women. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67: 283–296.
doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1994.tb00568

Kim W., Park C. H., Song J. H., Yoon S. W. (2012). Building a systematic model
of employee engagement: The implications to research in human resource
development. In Wang J., Gedro J. (Eds.), 2012 Conference proceedings
of the academy of human resource development (pp. 3916-3949). St.
Paul, MN: Academy of Human Resource Development.

Klimecki, R., & Lassleben, H. (1998). Modes of organizational learning:

indications from an empirical study. Management Learning, 29(4): 405-
430.

Konrad, A.M. (2006) ‘Engaging employees through high-involvement work

practices’, Ivey Business Journal, March/April, pp1-6.

Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C.M., Hildebrandt, V.H., Buuren, S. van, Beek, A.J.
Van der, Vet, H.C.W. de. Improving the Individual Work Performance
Questionnaire using Rasch analysis. Journal of Applied Measurement:
2014, 15(2), 160-175

Koopmans L, Bernaards CM, Hildebrandt VH, De Vet HCW, Van der Beek AJ.
Construct Validity of the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire.
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2014;56(3).

Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C.M., Hildebrandt, V.H., Buuren, S. van, Beek, A.J.
Van der, Vet, H.C.W. de. Improving the Individual Work Performance
Questionnaire using Rasch analysis. Journal of Applied Measurement:
2014,

Lam, S. S. K. (1998), “Organizational Performance and Learning Styles in Hong

Kong”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 138, No. 3, pp. 401-403.
 90

Lam, A., & Lambermont-Ford, J.-P. (2010). Knowledge sharing in organizational

contexts: a motivation-based perspective. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 14(1): 51-66.

Lei, D., Slocum, J. W., Pitts, R. A., (1999), “Designing organizations for
competitive advantage: the power of unlearning and learning”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 24-38.

Leong, C., Rasli A., (2014). The Relationship between innovative work behavior
on work role performance: An empirical study. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 129 ( 2014 ) 592 – 600

Leonard-Barton D. (1992). The factory as a learning laboratory, Sloan

Management Review, pp. 23-38.

Lloréns Montes, F. J., Ruiz Moreno, A., & Garcı́ a Morales, V. (2005). Influence of
support leadership and teamwork cohesion on organizational learning,
innovation and performance: an empirical examination. Technovation,
25(10): 1159-1172.

López, P.S., Sánchez, J. Á. 2010. Organizational learning and value creation in

business markets. European Journal of Marketing, 44(11/12): 1612-1641

López, P. S., Peón, J. M. M., & Ordás, C. J. V. (2005). Human resource

practices, organizational learning and business performance. Human
Resource Development International, 8(2): 147-164.

MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W. & Sugawara, H.M. (1996). Power analysis and
determination of sample size for covariance structure
modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130-149.

Macey,W.H. & Schneider, B. (2008), “The meaning of employee

engagement”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 3-30. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [Infotrieve]

May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. and Harter, L.M. (2004) The Psychological Conditions of
Meaningfulness, Safety and Availability and the Engagement of the
Human Spirit at Work. Journal of Occupational and Organisational
Psychology, 77, 11-37

McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M.J.W. (2008). Future learning landscapes: Transforming

pedagogy through social software. Innovate: Journal of Online Education,
4(5).http://innovateonline.info/pdf/vol4_issue5/Future_Learning_Landscap
es- __Transforming_Pedagogy_through_Social_Software.pdf

Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2008). Leading
 91

creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadership

Quarterly, 13, 705-750.

Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock
in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 107-120

Murcko, T., (2014). Idea Generation. Retrieved January 20, 2014,

fromhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/idea-generation.html

Murcko, T. (2014).Information Management. Retrieved January 24, 2014, from

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/information-management.
html

Murphy, K.R., (1999). Job performance and productivity. In: Murphy KR, Saal
FE, eds. Psychology in Organizations: Integrating Science and Practice.
Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc; 1990:157–176

Nason, G.P., (1994).The wavethresh package; Wavelet transform and

Thresholding software for S, Available from the StatLib archive,
[email protected]

Nyalyuka, J. M. (2010). ‘An investigation of factors that contribution on job

satisfaction among the rural* primary schools teachers’ Unpublished M.Ed
Thesis, Kenyatta University.

Neal, A., Yeo, G., Koy, A., Xiao, T. (2012). Predicting the form and direction of
work role performance from the Big 5 model of personality traits. Journal
of Organisational Behavior, 33(2), 175-192.

Newstrom, W. J. & Davis, K. (2002). Organizational Behavior: Human Behavior

at Work, 11th Ed. McGraw-Hill/Irwin

OzanOnağ, A., Tepeci, M., & AyçeBaşalp, A. (2014).Organizational learning

capability and its impact on firm innovativeness. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 150, 708 – 717.

Panayides, P. M. (2007). The impact of organizational learning on relationship

orientation, logistics service effectiveness and performance. Industrial
Marketing Management, 36(1): 68-80.

Prahalad, C. K., Hamel, G., (1990). The core competence of the corporation.
Harvard Business Review, v. 68, n. 3, p. 79-91.

Purcell, J., Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Rayton, B. and Swart, J. (2003)
Understanding the People and Performance Link: Unlocking the Black
Box. London, CIPD.
 92

Rasli , A.M (2014). The impact of workplace ostracism in service

organizations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30, 836-
844. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.01.004

Real, J., Leal, A., Roldan, J., (2006). Information technology as determinant of
organizational learning and technological distinctive competencies.
Industrial Marketing Management 35:505-521.

Redman, T.,&Wilkinson, A. (2002). Contemporary Human Resource

Management: Texts and Cases. (eds.) Harlow: Pearson Education.

Renn R.W, & Fedor D.B., (2001). Development and field test of a feedback
seeking, self efficacy, and goal setting model of work performance. J
Manag. pp;27: 563

Riaz, M. N. (2012). Leadership styles as predictors of decision making styles

(Unpublished M.Phil Thesis). National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-
Azam University

Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A. and Crawford, E.R. (2010) Job Engagement:
Antecedents and Effects on Job Performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 53, 617-635. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468988

Rogers, E. M. (2005). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free
Press.

Robbins, S. P. (2014). Organizational Behavior (14th Ed.). Upper Saddle River,

New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Rotundo M, Sackett PR., (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and
counterproductive performance to global ratings of performance: a
policycapturing approach. J Appl Psychol.;87:66–80

Rothbard, N.P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in

work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655684.

Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). A cross-national study of work

engagement as a mediator between job resources and proactive
behaviour. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
19(1), 116. doi:10.1080/09585190701763982

Salgado, J. F., Anderson, N., Moscoso, S., Bertua, J. P. (2003). A meta-analytic

study of general mental ability validity for different occupations in the
European community'.(Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 1068-1081.

Saks M Alan, (2006) "Antecedents and consequences of employee

engagement", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 Iss: 7, pp.600 –
 93

619

Santos-Vijande, M. L., Sanzo-Pérez, M. J., Á lvarez-González, L. I., & Vázquez-

Casielles, R. (2005). Organizational learning and market orientation:
Interface and effects on performance. Industrial Marketing Management,
34(3), 187-202.

Santrock, J.W. (2003). Evaluating self-help books. Invited keynote address at the
Midwestern Teaching of Psychology meeting, DeKalb, IL

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their
relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293-315.

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2006). The Measurement of

Work Engagement with a Short Questionnaire: A Cross-National Study.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701-716

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). Development of a general solution to the

problem of validity generalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 529-
540

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path

model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management
Journal, 37(3), 580–607. Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of coaction,
expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity.
Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 483–503.

Scott, S.G., & R.A. Bruce (2005). Following the leader in R&D: The joint effect of
subordinate problem-solving style and leader-member relations on
innovative behavior, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 45
(1), pp. 3-10.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York:Doubleday.

Shirom, A. (2003). Job-related burnout. In J. C. Quick, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.),

Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 245/265). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.

Shuttleworth, M. (2008). Case Study Research Design. Experiment Resources.

Available at: http://www.experiment-resources.com/case-studyresearch-
design.html
 94

Siegle, D., 2015). University of Connecticut . Retrieved from" Educational

Research Basics by Del Siegle": researchbasics.education.uconn.edu.

Simonin, B.L. (1997), “The Importance of Collaborative Know-how: An Empirical

Test of the Learning Organization”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.
40, No. 5, pp. 1150- 1173

Sinkula, J., Baker, W., & Noordewier, T. (1997). A framework for market-based
Organizational Learning: Linking values, knowledge and behavior. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25, 305-318.

Škerlavaj, M., Dimovski, V. (2006). “Influence of organizational learning on

organizational performance from the employee perspective: The Case of
Slovenia”, Management, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 75-90

Škerlavaj, M., Indihar Štemberger, M., Škrinjar, R., Dimovski, V. (2007).

“Organizational Learning Culture - The Missing Link between Business
Process Change and Organizational Performance”, International Journal
of Production Economics (in press).

Škerlavaj, M., Song, J. H., & Lee, Y. (2010). Organizational learning culture,
innovative culture and innovations in South Korean firms. Expert Systems
with Applications, 37(9): 6390-6403.

Sloan, T. R., Hyland, P. W. B., Beckett, R. C. (2002), “Learning as a Competitive

Advantage: Innovative Training in the Australian Aerospace Industry”,
International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 341-
352.

Smith, C.S.; Folkard, S.; Fuller, J.A., (2003). "Shiftwork and working hours", in
J.C. Quick and L.E. Tetrick (eds): Handbook of Occupational Health
Psychology (Washington, DC, American Psychological Association).

Soane, E., Truss, C., Alfes, K., Shantz, A., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M., (2012).
Development and application of a new measure of employee engagement:
the ISA engagement scale. Human Resource Development International,
15 (5). pp. 529-547. ISSN 1367-8868

Song, J. H., Uhm, D., & Yoon, S. W. (2012). Organizational knowledge creation
practice. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(3): 243-
259.

Stacey, R. (2003). Organizations as complex responsive processes of relating.

Journal of Innovative Management, Winter 2002/2003: 27-39.
 95

Tett, R., & Burnett, D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500−517.

Tower Watson (2015).Performance management audit Make it better and make it

matter. Retrieved from [email protected].

Tsuma, J., Jomo K., (2015). Effect of Job Design on Employee Satisfaction levels
in private universities in Kenya; A Case study of Mount Kenya University.
Vol. 2 (92), pp 1314 – 1340,

Tucker, P. (2006). "The impact of rest breaks upon accident risk, fatigue and
performance: a review", in Work and Stress, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 123-137.

Ussahawanitchakit, P. (2008). Impacts of Organizational Learning on Innovation

Orientation and Firm Efficiency: an Empirical Assessment of Accounting
Firms in Thailand. International Journal of Business Research, 8(4), 1-12.

Van de Ven, A. (2006). Central problems in the management of innovation.

Management Science, 32. 590-607.

Van Dyne, L. and Ellis, J.B. (2004). Job creep: A reactance theory perspective on
Organizational citizenship behavior as over-fulfillment of obligations’, in
J.A.M. Coyle–Shapiro, L.M. Shore, M.S. Taylor and L.E. Tetrick (eds), The
employment relationship: Examining psychological and contextual
perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 181–205

Van Scotter j.R., & Motowidlo s.J., (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job
dedication as dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. J
ournal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525-531.

Viljevac A., Cooper-Thomas H.D., Saks A.M. (2012). An investigation into the
validity of two measures of work engagement. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 23(17), 3692–3709

Viswesvaran C. (2000). Ones DS. Perspectives on models of job performance.

Int J Select Assessm.pp;8:216–226.

Viswesvaran C. (2007). Assessment of individual job performance: a review of

the past century and a look ahead. In: Anderson N, Ones DS, Sinangil HK,
Viswesvaran C, eds. Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational
Psychology. Vol 1: Personnel Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications Ltd; pp:110–126.

Vits, J., Gelders, L. (2002), “Performance improvement theory”, International

 96

Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 77, No. 3, pp. 285-298.

West, S.G.(2002). Toward a multi‐dimensional measure of individual innovative.

Retrieved January 21, 2014, from http://www.deepdyve. com/lp/emerald-
publishing/toward-a-multi-dimensional-measure-of-individual-innovative-
behavior-WFfmRV0Nqm

Yukl, G. (2009). Leading organizational learning: Reflections on theory and

research. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 49-53.

Zhou, J. & C.E. Shalley (2003), Research on employee creativity: a critical review
and proposal for future research directions, In: Martocchio, J.J. & G.R.
Ferris (eds.) (2003), Research in personnel and human resource
management, Oxford, England: Elsevier.