International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 3, No.

4, August 2012

Self-Efficacy, Effort, Job Performance, Job Satisfaction,

and Turnover Intention: The Effect of Personal
Characteristics on Organization Performance
Ming-Cheng Lai and Yen-Chun Chen

satisfaction.
Abstract—In the global competitive environment, how to Everyone has different characteristics. If the organization
establish and maintain the customer relationship is an primarily realized what kind of characteristics of the
important concept of the success. The connection and service of employees is essential in operation, they could use it as a
frontline employees to the consumer could play an important
role and keep the long-term relationship. Therefore, managers
screening term of recruitment. On the other side, it also could
need to find out the effective way in enhance the job make job seeker know the required of the characteristics.
performance and job satisfaction of frontline employees, help The understanding of the employees who has been hired, will
them provide prominent service, and keep the good long-term help them adapt to the organization much easier, furthermore,
relationship with the customers. For the organization, there is a reduce the misapplication. The existence of good
large body of literature that focuses on the variables of coordination and reaction between the employees and
organization and how they effect on the frontline employees and
job satisfaction. In contrast, little work has pay attention on the
organizational environments for employees will reveal job
personal characteristics, such as the effect of self-efficacy and performance, less the frustration, and reduce the people’s
effort on job performance and job satisfaction. To shed light on turnover intention.
these potentially complex relationships, this research was Managers consider the quality of internal service would
chosen on the basis of convenience sampling and was selected lead the employees’ satisfaction. A satisfied employee could
from automobile sales persons of Taipei, Taiwan. Among the deliver the high-value service which will bring the
total amount of 803 copies, a usable sample of 616
customer’s satisfaction and stimulate the customer loyalty.
questionnaires was utilized in this study, yielding a response
rate of 76.7%. We use the structural equation modeling (SEM) The frontline employee is not only play an important role in
with LISREL to analyze and test the data. The results reveal connection between the firm and customer, but represents the
that (1) Self-efficacy has a positive effect on job performance firm by the quality of service provided. Therefore, when
and job satisfaction; (2) effort has a positive effect on job frontline employee promote and deliver the service,
performance and job satisfaction; (3) job satisfaction has a interactions between employee and customer have effects on
negative effect on turnover intention. These results increase
benefits in both of them. Because frontline employees mainly
understanding of the effect of personal characteristics on
organization performance and helped organization to explore create the revenues and produce costs of the organization,
the management policies. how to increase the productivity of the frontline employee
has been an important issue to both firms and academic study.
Index Terms—Self efficacy, effort, job performance, job As the result, we focus on the characteristics (self efficacy,
satisfaction, turnover intention. effort) of frontline employees and how it influenced the
organization performance (job performance, job satisfaction,
turnover intention). The research was chosen on the basis of
I. INTRODUCTION convenience sampling and was selected from automobile
With the changes of the external environment, sales persons of Taipei, Taiwan.
organization competitiveness is no longer relay on the
tangible assets, but the numbers of the intangible assets. How
to establish and keep the long-term customer relationship is II. LITERATURE REVIEW
the critical point. By work together within and across Krishnan et al. (2002) [3] noted that complex position
organizations, up and down the hierarchy, both of the setting will influence the self-efficacy directly. Wood and
organization policy and goal will be growing and sustainable Bandura (1989) [4] also mentions that self-efficacy will
management. affect the belief of self-ability, mobility of positing, cognitive
Kusluvan(2003) [1] notes that frontline employees play an resources, and the activities that need to practice in live.
important role in connect and service to the customers, and Scholars mostly feel there have a considerable extent
keep the long-term relationship. In George and correlation between self-efficacy and performance. Wood
Weimerskirch’s (1994) [2] work shows that firms’ and Bandura (1989) [4] proposed a persuasive discussion. It
investment in relative resources plans stand by the successful says high level self-efficacy will raise the personal
services, thus to improve the job performance and job performance. Since self-efficacy grows over time, employees
could learn how to deal with the conflicts that happened in
Manuscript received May 17, 2012; revised June 15, 2012. workplace.
The authors are with National Taipei College of Business, (e-mail: McDonald and Siegall (1992) [5] proposed that
[email protected]; [email protected]).

387
 International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 3, No. 4, August 2012

self-efficacy and job satisfaction have a positive correlation. response rate of 76.7%.
Bradley and Roberts (2004) [6] discover that self-efficacy
A. Sample Profile
rise the job satisfaction.
Lam, Lo, and Chan (2002) [7] point out that the show of In this approach, summarize the demographic
turnover intention of enterprise may cause a huge cost. characteristics of the respondents, things as gender, age and
Boshoff and Allen (2000) [8] showing the effective services so on. Table I shows the respondents’ demographics.
could restore the performance and reduce employee’s B. Scale Reliabilities and Validity
turnover intention. Viator (2001) [9] point out that the
From the Table II, the analysis shows the good reliabilities
performance and turnover intention have a negative
and validity of the data. On the other side, we also adopt the
correlation.
other discriminant validity as table 3. The analysis also shows
the good discriminant validity. (Narver, Slater and
III. METHODOLOGY Maclachlan, 2004) [10]
C. Model Assessment
A. The Hypothesized Model
After the analyzed of the scale reliabilities and validity, in
Based on the theoretical framework shows in Figure 1, six this approach, we use the structural equation modeling (SEM)
major hypotheses were proposed: with LISREL to analyze the data and the overall structure
H1 ：Employees’ ”Self-efficacy” has a positive effect on model in the fitness and the results of hypotheses testing.
“Job performance.” The fitness of the research, the indexes showed:
H2 ：Employees’ “Self-efficacy” has positive effect on RMSEA=0.18, CFI=0.96, NFI=0.95, GFI=0.96, AGFI=0.81
“Job satisfaction.” and SRMR=0.051, seems have the good fit.
H3 ：Employees’ “Effort” has a positive effect on “Job Test of Hypotheses
performance.” The results of hypotheses testing are summarized in the
H4 ：Employees’ “Effort” has a positive effect on “Job table IV.
satisfaction.”
H5 ：Employees’ “Job performance" has a negative effect
on “Turnover intention.” V. CONCLUSION
H6 ：Employees’ “Job satisfaction” has a negative effect
on “Turnover intention.” A. Self-efficacy has a Positive Effect on Job Performance
Regarding our work, the hypotheses 1 is proposed:
B. Data Analysis and Results Self-efficacy has a positive effect on Job performance. The
Among the total amount of 803 copies, 635 returned. analysis results lend support for H1. Our finding is consistent
Eliminate the omission or incomplete answer, leaving 616 with the finding of Wang and Netemever (2002) [11]. A
usable responses for analysis, yielding a response rate of person who has the high self-efficacy will look forward to
76.7%. being better than other colleagues. As the result, they will set
C. Sample Profile a high standard, meanwhile expect the better performance
In this approach, summarize the demographic characteristics than others.
of the respondents, things as gender, age and so on. Table I B. Self-efficacy has a Positive Effect on Job Satisfaction
shows the respondents’
Regarding our work, the hypotheses 2 is proposed:
demographics.
Self-efficacy has a positive effect on Job satisfaction. The
H1
Self-efficacy Job performance analysis results lend support for H2. It is consistent with the
results of Menguc’s (1996) [12] work. Self-efficacy could
H5
continue keep the successful experiences and usually set the
H2
relative variables is controllable. Therefore, employees with
the high self-efficacy, have the superior abilities and
Turnover intention
performance, as soon as the increasing of job satisfaction that
H3 obtained from work.
H6

C. Effort has a Positive Effect on Job Performance

H4
Effort Job satisfaction Regarding our work, the hypotheses 3 is proposed: Effort
Fig. 1. Theoretical framework. has a positive effect on Job performance. This is echoes the
research that proposed by Menguc (1996) [12]. In our
research, we measure the personal statues, completeness, and
IV. DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS abilities of the jobs. Employees will make effort to do the
This research was chosen on the basis of convenience work, therefore, on the base of it, they will defined the good
sampling and was selected from automobile sales persons of performance as the reach in effort and will have a relatively
Taipei, Taiwan. Among the total amount of 803 copies, 635 high evaluation in performance. In this research, we know the
returned. Eliminate the omission or incomplete answer, positive relationship between the effort and job performance.
leaving 616 usable responses for analysis, yielding a

388
 International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 3, No. 4, August 2012

TABLE I: RESPONDENTS’ DEMOGRAPHICS (N=616)

Variable Category Sample size %
Male 515 83.60
Gender
Female 101 16.40
Less than 25 21 3.41
26~30 85 13.80
31~35 151 24.51
36~40 145 23.54
Age
41~45 113 18.34
46~50 74 12.01
51~55 25 4.06
More than 56 2 0.32
High School 240 38.96
College 250 40.58
Education
University 120 19.48
Master 6 0.97
Less than 30,000 98 15.91
Less than 40,000 185 30.03
Less than 50,000 141 22.89
Income (Per month)
51,000~ 80,000 126 20.45
81,000~ 120,000 46 7.47
More than 120,000 20 3.25
Less than 2 88 14.29
3~5 160 25.97
6~10 150 24.35
Work experience (Years)
11~15 110 17.86
16~20 81 13.15
More than 20 27 4.38
Single 184 29.87
marital status Married 419 68.02
One-parent 13 2.11
frontline employees
170 27.60
(Administrator)
Services Team leader 33 5.36
Technical director 9 1.46
Factory director 4 0.65
frontline employees
Department 319 51.79
(assistant, sales)
Operation
Intermediate managers 32 5.19
Directors 13 2.11
Employees 26 4.22
Administrator Team leader 3 0.49
Directors 7 1.14

TABLE II: SCALE RELIABILITIES AND VALIDITY

Number of Factor Explained

Variables Cronbach’s α Eigenvalue (CR) (AVE)
questionnaire loading Variance

0.782
Self-efficacy 6 0.903 ～ 4.051 67.514 0.903 0.6099
0.847

0.826
Effort 5 0.928 ～ 3.907 78.142 0.9295 0.7259
0.910

0.770
Job performance 5 0.883 ～ 3.453 69.053 0.8869 0.6125
0.875

0.724
Job satisfaction 7 0.924 ～ 4.839 69.125 0.9249 0.641
0.891

0.508
Turnover
3 0.694 ～ 1.992 66.411 0.6854 0.6043
intention
0.940

389
 International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 3, No. 4, August 2012

TABLE III: ANALYSIS OF DISCRIMINATE VALIDITY

Turnover
Variables Self-efficacy Effort Job performance Job satisfaction
intention
Self-efficacy 0.781*
Effort 0.638 0.852*
Job performance 0.700 0.565 0.783*
Job satisfaction 0.467 0.398 0.534 0.801*
Turnover intention -0.179 -0.180 -0.207 -0.290 0.777*
“*”are square roots of average variable extracted (AVE)

TABLE IV: HYPOTHESES-TESTING RESULTS

Theoretical model
Hypotheses
path coefficient t value Conclusion
H1:Self-efficacy & Job performance 0.65 15.65＊ Support
H2:Self-efficacy & Job satisfaction 0.47 7.83＊ Support
H3:Effort & Job performance 0.24 5.46＊ Support
H4:Effort & Job satisfaction 0.24 3.68＊ Support
H5:Job performance & Turnover intention -0.08 -1.77 Not Support
H6:Job satisfaction & Turnover intention -0.24 -6.10＊ Support

satisfaction and turnover intention which is consistent with

D. Effort has a Positive Effect on Job Satisfaction
Karatepea (2005)’s [13] work. Since the little of turnover
Regarding our work, the hypotheses 4 is proposed: Effort intention, the research indicates that all of the respondent are
has a positive effect on Job satisfaction. The results proved satisfy in the firm’s facilities and mechanism, such as policies,
the significant positive relationship between the effort and payment, work environment and so on. Firms should
job satisfaction. The results are consistent with Menguc’s consider offering more policies which could reinforce the job
(1996) [12] works. It indicated that employee’s job satisfaction. For example, welfares, reward, and bonus.
satisfaction would increases by finish the work in deadline,
do the best to apply the abilities, and completeness of the G. Limitations and Future Research Directions
responsibilities coverage. As the result, well-appointed In our research, the relationship between job performance
scheduling, detailed the work standard, and the job and turnover intention did not have the significant result and
description could assist the employees in getting more targets can’t be supported. As the result, we hope to conduct further
to measure the effort. Because of the maturely supporting research in this area.
policies, would enhance the effect of effort on the job To our measurement, because of the lake of the literature
satisfaction. in the topics in this work which is observed by the author, we
have short of the theoretical support. Therefore, the research
E. Job Performance has a Negative Effect on Turnover
side with the exploratory research needs the further replicated
Intention
and amended.
Regarding our work, the hypotheses 5 is proposed: Job To the variables, thus we focus on the service-side, there
performance has a negative effect on Turnover intention. The still have other organization variables. We recommend the
result shows that there has no significant positive relationship follow-up research to include the relevance of variables in
between the job performance and turnover intention. It is organization theory, such as customer orientation and
inconsistent with Boshoff and Allen’s (2000) [8] work. There organizational culture, etc..
have a possible reason is the adoption of Karatepea’s (2005) Another direction for further research is to assess these
[13] measurement that focus on self-evaluation of employees, theories in other industry. Test in different fields, will raise
but the external objective perspective. Employees may the understanding in a great diversity of the industries.
consider the high performance as an advantage that could
help to find a better job. In this research, sales person that REFERENCES
have large percentage of samples, balanced the rewards
[1] S. Kusluvan, “Employee attitudes and behaviors and their roles for
against the high performance mentality. Since the failure of tourism and hospitality businesses,” In S. Kusluvan (Ed.), Managing
equilibrium caused the discontent and rise the turnover employee attitudes and behaviors in the tourism and hospitality, New
intention. York: Nova Science Publishers, pp. 25–50, 2003.
[2] S. George and W. A. “Total quality management: Strategies and
F. Job Satisfaction has a Negative Effect on Turnover techniques proven at today’s most successful companies,” New York:
Wiley.1994.
Intention [3] B. C. Krishnan, R. G. Netemeyer, and J. S. Boles, “Self-efficacy,
Regarding our work, the hypotheses 6 is proposed: Job competitiveness, and effort as antecedents of salesperson
satisfaction has a negative effect on turnover. The analysis performance,” Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management,
pp.285-295, 2002.
shows the significant positive relationship between the job

390
 International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 3, No. 4, August 2012

[4] R. Wood and A. Bandura, “Social cognitive theory of organizational [9] R. E. Viator, “The association of formal and informal public
management,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 14, no.3, 1989. accounting mentoring with role stress and related job outcomes,”
[5] T. McDonald and M. Siegall, “The effects of technological Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 26, pp.73–93, 2001.
self-efficacy and job focus on job performance, attitudes, and [10] Narver, C. John, F. Stanley Slater, and D. L. MacLachlan, “Responsive
withdrawal behaviors,” The Journal of Psychology, vol. 126, no.5, and proactive market orientation and new-product success,” Journal of
pp.465–475, 1992. Product Innovation Management, vol.21, pp.334-347. 2004.
[6] D. E. Bradley and J. A. Roberts, “Self-employment and job satisfaction: [11] G. Wang, and R. G. Netemeyer, “The effects of job autonomy,
Investigating the role of self-efficacy, depression, and seniority,” customer demandingness, and trait competitiveness on salesperson
Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 42, no.1, pp.37–58, 2004. learning, self-efficacy, and performance,” Journal of the Academy of
[7] T. Lam, A. Lo, and J. Chan, “New employees’ turnover intentions and Marketing Science, vol. 30, no.3, pp.217–228, 2002.
organizational commitment in the Hong Kong hotel industry,” Journal [12] B. Menguc, “Evidence for Turkish industrial salespeople: Testing the
of Hospitality and Tourism Research, vol. 26, no.3, pp.217–234, 2002. applicability of a conceptual model for the effect of effort on sales
[8] C. Boshoff and J. Allen, “The influence of selected antecedents on performance and job satisfaction,” European Journal of Marketing, vol.
frontline staff’s perceptions of service recovery performance,” 30, no.1, pp.33–51, 1996.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, vol. 11, no.1, [13] K. Osman M., “The effects of selected individual characteristics on
pp.63–90, 2000. frontline employee performance and job satisfaction,”2005.

391