The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2049-3983.htm

EBHRM
4,2
The interaction effect of job
redesign and job satisfaction on
employee performance
162 Sununta Siengthai and Patarakhuan Pila-Ngarm
Received 19 January 2015
School of Management, Asian Institute of Technology, Klong Luang, Thailand
Revised 3 June 2015
14 September 2015
5 November 2015 Abstract
Accepted 14 November 2015 Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of job redesign as well as that of the
interaction effect of job redesign and job satisfaction on employee performance.
Design/methodology/approach – The qualitative research method is used, i.e., in-depth interviews,
to validate the questionnaire which is modified based on the well-established Job Diagnostic Survey
instrument. A large-scale questionnaire survey was conducted in 2012 taking the hotel and resort
industry and the banking industry in Thailand as its research sites. Multiple regression analysis was
used to analyse the survey data obtained from 295 sample respondent managers.
Findings – It is found that job redesign is significantly and inversely related to employee
performance. Meanwhile job satisfaction is found to be positively and significantly related to
employee performance. Moreover, the interaction effect between job redesign and job satisfaction is
found to be positively and significantly related to employee performance. Furthermore, when
controlled for demographic characteristics of sample respondents, it is found that being in the age
group of 37-47 years old is significantly and inversely related to employee performance. These findings
suggest that when firms implement job redesign, it is likely that it will negatively influence employee
performance in the first stage of change. Hence, firms should try to enhance employee job satisfaction
while implementing job redesign so that the job redesign will result in improved employee performance.
The findings suggest that implementing job redesign without concerned employees experiencing job
satisfaction or merely implementing job redesign can result in a possible decreased employee
performance. These findings also suggest that any proposed job redesign will be an effective
HR strategy to significantly mobilize employee performance only when firms ensure that the
implementation of job redesign involves the concerned employees and enhances their job satisfaction.
Originality/value – Job redesign by itself is found to have a significant negative effect on employee
performance while job satisfaction is found to always positively and significantly influence employee
performance. This study ascertains the positive interaction effect of job redesign and job satisfaction
for employee performance improvement. These findings suggest that job satisfaction positively
moderates the effect of job redesign on employee performance.
Keywords Job satisfaction, Banking, Thailand, Employee performance, Hotels and resort,
Job redesign, Middle-level manager
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Job redesign has been used as one of the HR strategies to develop a new dynamic and
productive life in a rapidly changing business environment. It has been
well-established that well-designed job characteristics ( JC) will enhance employee
motivation and hence their performance improvement (Hackman and Oldham, 1976).

Evidence-based HRM: a Global This manuscript is based on a paper presented at the 2013 Conference of MAGScholar in Dubai
Forum for Empirical Scholarship (11-14 November 2013). The authors are grateful for all constructive comments received,
Vol. 4 No. 2, 2016
pp. 162-180 especially those from Dr Kim Fam, and from two anonymous referees of the paper. The authors
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2049-3983
are also indebted to Dr Fabian Homberg, the Associate Editor of EBHRM whose guidance
DOI 10.1108/EBHRM-01-2015-0001 significantly improved the quality of the manuscript.
As employees are organizational assets that are renewable, they become a key driver Effect of job
for change, especially in a rapidly changing environment. Firms need to continuously redesign and
redesign jobs to align with their business strategy and enhance organizational
performance. To date, several studies have examined the direct link between job
job satisfaction
redesign and performance and job satisfaction and performance. Many empirical
studies support the Hackman-Oldham theory of job design with respect to the
significant relationship with product quality improvement (Michalos et al., 2013). 163
The empirical studies on the relationship of these aspects of job design with employee
performance, work outcomes, and/or productivity have been reported previously
( Johlke and Iyer, 2013; Yeo and Li, 2011; Kahya, 2007; Rhoads et al., 2002). However,
there have been few studies that examine whether there is any link among job redesign,
job satisfaction, and employee performance. This relationship is important for HR
managers due to benefits which are expected to increase effective employee
performance. As job redesign includes activities or work-related changes that improve
work quality of employees or employee productivity (Wood et al., 2012; Maxwell, 2008;
Morgeson et al., 2006), it is expected that job redesign has a significant influence on
employee performance improvement. We aim to investigate the effect of job redesign
on employee performance. In addition, we also assert that there is an interaction effect
of job redesign and job satisfaction, which positively influences employee performance.
During the past decade, the volume of Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) in banks
has increased (IMAA, 2013). It is thus conceivable that M&A can be utilized as trends
metrics in support of a popular firm strategy to strengthen businesses in a turbulent
environment. In the Southeast Asian region in particular, the regional economic
integration, i.e., the ASEAN economic community, is expected to materialize by the end
of 2015. In Thailand, since the advent of information technology a few decades ago,
many organizations have experienced and implemented forms of business process
re-engineering to better serve their customers. In this process, job redesign has been
used to ensure the efficiency and productivity of employees. This development has
become particularly visible in business organizations, particularly those in service
sectors, such as banking and finance, insurance, hotels, telecommunications, etc.
Few studies in Thailand have investigated job redesign. Akaraborworn and McLean
(2002) study the role and impact of human resource development during the country’s
1997 economic crisis. The results confirm that human resource development could
support employees in job design processes. In the private sector, it is reported that
job rotation is intended for organizational restructuring. Moreover, the average of
interval rotation is about one-and-a-half years in a private service company and about
two years in a private manufacturing company. “Knowledge, skills, and abilities” are
found to be significant decision criteria. In addition, Jaturanonda et al. (2006) assert that
job rotation is a common management practice in Thai organizations. They study 500
Thai organizations from both private and public sectors. The results show that the
respondents positively perceive the purpose of job rotation to improve efficiency or
productivity of the organization. Similar to the findings of Akaraborworn and McLean
(2002), they find that in order to rotate employee to new jobs, knowledge, skills, and
abilities are found to be the decision criteria. Khahan (2013) examines the effect among
JC, job satisfaction, and work adjustment of new graduates working in 305 various
organization sizes of Thailand. The study asserts that JC are positively related to work
adjustment and job satisfaction. Job satisfaction also has a positive influence on work
adjustment. Internally, job redesign and job satisfaction also become significant
approaches to improve employee performance and hence business performance.
EBHRM Job redesign is utilized to encourage employees to perform activities in an efficient and
4,2 effective manner. Holman et al. (2010) find that job redesign plays an intervention role
as a mediator to improve employee well-being. Consequently, job redesign tends to be
an effective HR strategy for solving performance problems and reducing costs that are
significant to organizations.
This current study investigates whether job redesign and job satisfaction impact on
164 employee performance. The analysis also explores whether job redesign and job
satisfaction jointly display an interaction effect on employee performance. The context
of the study is the service sector in Thailand, which has been set as the target sector in
the country’s 11th National Economic and Social Development Plan for sustainable
growth and is expected to continue to grow significantly in the future. Hotel, resort and
banking industries are taken as our specific research sites. These industry sectors have
continuously played a significant role in the economic growth of Thailand.

2. Literature review and hypotheses

2.1 Job redesign and employee performance
Job performance can be described as a behaviour or action by employees at the
individual level (Campbell, 1990). Judge et al. (2001) argue that job performance is an
important outcome of core self-evaluation (CSE). Individuals with high-CSE scores are
more motivated to perform in their jobs. They will perform the job better by increasing
in confidence and abilities. Their model asserts that CSE is positively related to both
job satisfaction and individual performance. Several studies espouse the individual
performance concept and have confirmed employee performance relationship with
various variables. Lentz and Allen (2009) find that a career plateau is significantly
related to a reduction in job performance. Morrow et al. (2012) assert that job
redesign influences employee attitude, behaviour, and organizational commitment.
Past research also investigated employee performance in relation to organizational
outcomes such as productivity, firm growth, and firm performance (e.g. Ubeda et al., 2013;
Sadikoglu and Zehir, 2010).
In organizations, job design is one of the effective ways to increase the performance
of employees. Job design can solve problems such as those related to skills, work
overload, repetitiveness, and increase in working hours (Allwood and Lee, 2004).
Internally, when organizations experience changes due to market competition or
expansion of the firm’s business operations, job redesign has a focus on administrative
changes that improve working conditions with work design. For example, job redesign
is needed when business process re-engineering is implemented (e.g. the introduction of
information technology) to enhance the effectiveness of customer service.
Well-designed jobs also lead to increased employee well-being (Strümpfer, 2006).
Job redesign is thus an alternative approach to reduce job dissatisfaction and enhance
the motivational potential of a job. Maxwell (2008) asserts that job design motivation
and teamwork are positively related to productivity. Job design is also found to be a
strategy to enhance employees’ work environment. Mohr and Zoghi (2008) suggest a
relationship between job satisfaction and high-involvement work practices.
Their findings show that employee satisfaction can increase participation in high-
involvement practices. In addition, job satisfaction is positively associated with work
design involvement that requires high-problem solving skill levels for job rotation
plans. Job enrichment is one such job design technique that contributes to a more
interesting, challenging and satisfying job. De Menezes (2012) studies the relationship
between job enrichment and job satisfaction and ascertains the positive relationship
between the two variables. Rhoads et al. (2002) explore the correlation between JC and Effect of job
job satisfaction. Control, variety, feedback, and autonomy are JC that are found to be redesign and
positively related to job satisfaction.
Thus, work design has an influence on productivity and is essential in providing a
job satisfaction
challenging and satisfying opportunity in organizations.
In the Asian context, Ali and Zia-ur-Rehman (2014) find that job design can improve
employee performance. The job characteristics model ( JCM) has been applied to 165
investigate the impact of job design and employee performance in the fast-moving
consumer goods sector in Pakistan. Findings assert a significant and positive
relationship between job design and employee performance. Al-Homayan et al. (2013)
study the impact of job performance level on a sample of 632 nurses in public sector
hospitals in Saudi Arabia. The study examines the direct relationship between job
performance and job resources (i.e. skill variety, task significance, task identity,
feedback, and job security). The results suggest direct significant relationships
between a nurse’s job performance and job resources. Job resources also increase the
level of nurses’ job performance. In addition, Al-Ahmadi (2009) finds that job design
significantly and positively contributes to employee performance.
Therefore, based on the above literature review, the following hypothesis
is formulated:
H1. Job redesign is positively related to employee performance.

2.2 Job satisfaction and employee performance

Job satisfaction can be defined as a measurement of one’s job or experiences in terms of
positive emotion or enjoyment in the job (Locke, 1976) and of people’s feelings (like or
dislike) in the job (Spector, 1997). These definitions refer to individual emotions that
tend to lead to being more productive, creative, and committed to a job. Employee
satisfaction also refers to job satisfaction that can relate to work itself.
Employee satisfaction is an important source of employee motivation. Herzberg
(1968) asserts that hygiene factors and motivator factors influence employee
motivation. Motivator factors are related to job satisfaction and hygiene factors are
related to job dissatisfaction levels. There are several studies that investigate employee
satisfaction and performance. Falkenburg and Schyns (2007) support the assertion that
job satisfaction positively affects organizational commitment and hence performance.
Judge et al. (2001) confirmed that job satisfaction is related to job performance.
Antoncic and Antoncic (2011) explain that employee satisfaction has a positive
influence on four dimensions of work (general satisfaction with work; employee
relationships; remuneration, benefits and organizational culture; and employee loyalty).
Hence, this impact has a positive influence on firm growth. Perera et al. (2014) use
structural equation modelling to analyse the relationship between job satisfaction and
job performance in the apparel sector of Sri Lanka. The findings assert that job
satisfaction has a significant positive effect on job performance.
In addition, key JC can be used to describe the motivating potential of a job redesign.
The JCM is widely used as a conceptual framework and instrument for employee
motivation enhancement. For instance, Rhoads et al. (2002) found that there is a positive
correlation between JC (control, variety, feedback, and autonomy) and job satisfaction.
A high level of these JC tends to increase job satisfaction and performance.
The majority of the managers in their study lacked variety and autonomy on the
job, felt dissatisfaction and lack of commitment to their job. Unsurprisingly, a
EBHRM high-turnover intention was also observed. De Menezes (2012) finds that job
4,2 enrichment is positively related to job satisfaction. Hadi and Adil (2010) ascertain the
work motivation and job satisfaction of bank managers in Pakistan. Using multiple
regression analyses, their findings reveal that overall JC display a significant and
positive correlation with intrinsic motivation. Skill variety, task significance, and task
identity are significantly and positively related to job satisfaction. Task identity and
166 work feedback have significant and positive correlations with extrinsic motivation.
Bhatti et al. (2012) study job satisfaction and motivation in the banking industry in
Pakistan. Their results reveal that JC have a positive and significant effect on employee
job satisfaction, internal work motivation, and growth satisfaction. Netemeyer and
Maxham (2010) investigated the relationship among job satisfaction, job performance,
and customer contact. Results reveal a positive relationship between job satisfaction
and job performance. Most of the studies reviewed above found a positive relationship
between job satisfaction and improved employee performance. We hypothesize that:
H2. Job satisfaction is positively related to employee performance.

2.3 Job redesign and job satisfaction on employee performance

The above observations notwithstanding, to date there has not been a study that
simultaneously examines the relationship between the job redesign-job satisfaction
interaction and employee performance, although the relevant literature suggests a
moderation effect might be possible in this context. Humphrey et al. (2007) examine
work design theory using a meta-analytic review method based on a total of 259
studies. Their findings reveal a strong and positive relationship between JC (autonomy,
skill variety, task identity, task significance, and feedback) and job satisfaction, growth
satisfaction, internal work motivation, and job performance. Truxillo et al. (2012)
discuss the possible joint effects of age and JC on job satisfaction and performance.
Based on a relevant literature review, they developed a series of propositions, related to
JCM and job satisfaction and performance. The propositions stipulate that “autonomy,
task variety, task significance, and feedback from the job will relate more positively to
the satisfaction, engagement, and performance of older workers” (Truxillo et al., 2012,
p. 8). Wood et al. (2012) test job enrichment content, but their results suggest that
enrichment does not display a strongly significant effect on productivity. Job design is
associated with quality and job satisfaction. However, high-job satisfaction is strongly
related with higher employee productivity and better quality. Parker (2014) reviews
research on motivation and argues that job design can improve employee learning,
maintenance, and development for outcomes, such as productivity and quality.
Furthermore, Holman et al. (2010) study the mediating role of JC in job redesign as an
intervention in health insurance and health care in the UK. Their multilevel regression
results suggest that “job redesign intervention increases job resources ( job control,
participation in decision-making, feedback and skill utilization), and job redesign
intervention will allow employees an increase in well-being” (Holman et al., 2010, p. 98).
We deduce that this is likely to enhance employee performance. They also found a
significant interaction effect between time of measurement and experimental group.
Job redesign is a significant mediator between job control and well-being. Since none of
the existing studies investigated the interaction effect of job redesign and job
satisfaction on employee performance, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H3. Job redesign and job satisfaction is jointly positively related to employee
performance.
3. Research methodology Effect of job
3.1 Measures redesign and
We formulated our conceptual model, exhibiting the causal relationship among the three
main constructs: job redesign (R), job satisfaction (S), and employee performance (EP). We
job satisfaction
developed our research instrument for data collection by using the results from
in-depth interviews to modify, to some extent, the Job Diagnostic Survey ( JDS) instrument
developed by Hackman and Oldham (1974). Hackman and Oldham (1974) developed 167
the JCM asserting that the perception of task environment influences employee response.
Key JC could be used to describe the motivating potential of a job redesign. Many studies
have investigated the effect of JC on employee motivation and performance using the
JDS (Boonzaaier et al., 2001; Rhoads et al., 2002; Rathi and Barath, 2013).
We commenced the analysis with a qualitative method to verify and improve draft
questionnaire items. The semi-structured interview protocol with open-ended questions
is developed to collect data as the basic information of the sample organizations from
both managerial and operational levels. First, we tested the interview protocol by
interviewing nine interviewees from different hierarchies. After adjusting the protocol,
we conducted an additional 18 interviews. We used the result of the interviews to
further improve our draft questionnaire which was developed based on our literature
review. The content validity of the questionnaire was validated with Item Objective
Congruence Index (Rovinelli and Hambleton, 1977).
Then, the pilot study was conducted in order to pre-test the research plan, method;
and to pre-test the research instrument in which the key questions may be modified for
the subsequent large-scale survey. Experienced practitioners were selected to
participate in the pilot study (expert opinion survey) based on the following criteria:
first, being a HR-manager (mid-level manager) with five or more years of work
experience; and second, being with the current company at least five years. The pilot
study results were then used to finalize the instrument for quantitative
operationalisation. We pre-tested the questionnaire with 36 sample respondents in
the sample banks. According to Nunnally (1978), Cronbach’s α should be greater than
0.70. The Cronbach’s α reliability of the three main constructs yielded the following:
0.8698 for job redesign (R), 0.8774 for job satisfaction (S), and 0.8257 for employee
performance (EP). The questions were developed with 101 items in six sections.
In addition, we measured the symmetry of data using skewness and kurtosis. The pilot
study’s results further improved the actual field survey. We retained all items of the
research instrument used in the pilot test since the items displayed high reliability.
The questionnaire was developed to capture employee performance. Since our data
set is cross-sectional we have taken into account the issue of common method bias
(CMB). CMB potentially inflates correlations among constructs of interest since they
are collected with the same method and at the same point in time (Meade et al., 2007).
CMB is pervasive and can be a major internal validity issue in social science research
(Sharma et al., 2009). There are several prevalent techniques for controlling and
detecting CMB including Harman’s single factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003) and
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) marker technique (Lindell and Whitney, 2001).
Podsakoff et al. (2003) suggest that CFA tends to be the most rigorous approach. We
applied Harman’s single factor test and CFA in this study.
A basic assumption of Harman’s single factor test is described as either: “[…] (1) a
single factor will emerge from the factor analysis; or (2) one general factor will account
for the majority of the covariance among the measures” (Podsakoff et al., 2003, p. 889).
Furthermore, “if a single factor is obtained or if one factor accounts for a majority of the
EBHRM covariance in the independent and criterion variables, then the threat of common
4,2 method bias is high” (Devaraj et al., 2002, p. 323). On the entire sample (n ¼ 295;
82 survey items), we tested the responses by using Harman’s single factor test.
One single factor accounted for 28.196 per cent of the variance, suggesting that CMB is
not a problem in this study.
We used a seven-point Likert scale questionnaire. We measured job redesign with
168 25 questions adopted from the JDS; job satisfaction with 14 questions based on
Herzberg’s two-factor theory and employee performance with three questions
(see, Table AI). For job satisfaction, we used CFA to confirm the construct
(see, Table AII). Regression analyses were used to test our hypotheses.

3.2 Sample
There are 231 hotels and resorts that are listed companies in the Thai Hotels
Association Directory in 2012. We directly sent our questionnaires to all of them. For
the banking sector, ten commercial banks are listed companies in both the Stock
Exchange in Thailand and the Bank of Thailand. The questionnaire was distributed
by the Head Office of each bank, at both head office and branch level following our
survey instructions.
The rationale for the selection of middle-level managers as survey participants
included: first, several organizations in Thailand experienced business process
engineering due to the advent of information technology in the last few decades and
middle-level managers experienced the job redesign process themselves as well as
overseeing the job redesign process among other employees under their supervision;
second, a middle-level manager is the intermediate manager accountable to a higher
level superior while directly managing employees at the operational level. Hence,
middle-level managers are employees who are expected to understand those in both,
higher and lower level positions; and third, middle-level managers are professionals
who are aware that their self-report will be beneficial for organization improvement and
they are responsible for their unit’s performance. Their self-report reflected in the
completed questionnaire can thus be reliable to a certain extent.

3.3 Profiles of sample respondents

A total of 1,324 questionnaires were sent to the sample firms: 924 questionnaires for
sample hotels and resorts, and 400 questionnaires for sample banks. A total of 295
usable questionnaires were returned, representing a 22.28 per cent response
rate. When considering the response rate by sector, 136 (or 14.17 per cent) usable
questionnaires were returned from hotels and resorts and 159 (or 39.8 per cent)
usable questionnaires were returned from banks. For the combined sample
observations, the Cronbach’s α coefficient equals 0.962. For the entire sample
(n ¼ 295), we tested for non-response bias by using: first, χ2 test to compare observed
data with expected data; and second, the independent sample t-test to compare sample
respondents who returned the completed questionnaires in the first round of the
survey and those who responded in the final round of the survey follow-up, who are
assumed to be similar to those who never responded. Based on the χ2 test with key
variables, the results suggest that the two groups of sample respondents are not
significantly different (at 0.05 level of significance).
As shown in Table I, the results suggest that the majority of the sample respondents
are female (59.7 per cent) and are found to be in the so-called “Generation X” (58.6 per cent
 n %
Effect of job
redesign and
Gender job satisfaction
Male 119 40.3
Female 176 59.7
Age
Below 32 years (Gen-Y)a 71 24.1 169
33-47 years (Gen-X) 173 58.6
48-66 years (Baby Boom) 51 17.3
Type of organization
Bank 159 53.9
Hotel and resorts 136 46.1
Hotel and resorts category
5 stars 45 15.3
4 stars 63 21.4
3 stars 28 9.5
Educational attainment
oBachelor’s degree 25 8.5
Bachelor’s degree 189 64.1
Master’s degree 81 27.5
Years of experience in current position
⩽5 178 60.3
6-10 72 24.4
11-15 20 6.8
16-20 5 1.7
21-25 6 2.0
26-30 3 1.0 Table I.
W35 3 1.0 Demographic profile
Invalid response 8 2.7 of sample
Notes: n ¼ 295. a12-32 years old ¼ Gen-Y respondents

are in the 33-47 years age group). In terms of the hotels and resorts category, the
majority of sample respondents (63 respondents, 21.4 per cent) are from four-star
hotels. Most sample respondents attained a bachelor’s degree (64.1 per cent). Finally,
the majority of the sample respondents have had less than five years of work
experiences in their current position (178 respondents or 60.3 per cent).

4. Results and discussions

4.1 On JC and job satisfaction
Based on factor analysis of JC, the mean value of each variable seems to be high: most
of them are greater than 5. The results of the principal axis factoring extraction and
varimax rotation methods suggest five factors, which strongly confirm the JCM
(Hackman and Oldham, 1976): autonomy, task significance, job feedback, skill variety,
and task identity (see, Table II). The KMO-Bartlett value is 0.917. Factor loadings of
all variables are between 0.499 and 0.752. The Cronbach’s α of all variables range from
0.764 to 0.8733. The mean values of variables are between 5.07 and 6.27. The factor
analysis of job satisfaction identifies two factors: motivation factors and hygiene
factors, which strongly confirm Herzberg’s two-factor theory (Table III). The
EBHRM Structure Factor loading Mean Items mean α Reliability
4,2
Factor I: autonomy (Eigenvalue ¼ 9.315) α ¼ 0.842 5.415 0.8733
Autonomy 0.686 5.40
Autonomous authority 0.562 5.39
Decision 0.651 5.07
Job feedback 0.465 5.75
170 Colleagues feedback 0.527 5.34
Reveal ideas 0.601 5.54
Job redesign 0.668 5.08
Factor II: task significance (Eigenvalue ¼ 2.088) 5.866 0.840
Know process 0.482 5.86
Job significant 0.555 5.74
Affect the policy 0.659 5.80
Job value 0.648 6.06
Factor III: job feedback (Eigenvalue ¼ 1.548) 5.935 0.756
Meeting and appraise 0.505 5.38
Work with co-worker 0.526 6.13
Teamwork 0.612 6.09
Helpful co-workers 0.552 5.87
Trustworthiness 0.536 6.21
Factor IV: skill variety (Eigenvalue ¼ 1.184) 5.867 0.814
Skill variety 0.594 5.77
Knowledge variety 0.752 5.79
Acquire knowledge 0.629 6.05

Table II. Factor V: task identity (Eigenvalue ¼ 1.021) 5.991 0.764

The confirmatory Technique skill 0.570 5.73
factor analysis results Responsibility 0.642 6.27
of job characteristics Job pride 0.499 5.97
and mean value Notes: Extraction method: principal axis factoring; rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization.
of each factor KMO ¼ 0.917; Bartlett’s test Sig. ¼ 0.00

KMO-Bartlett test value is 0.934. The factor loadings of all variables are greater than 0.6.
Cronbach’s α of all variables are greater than 0.8, with mean values of each variable
ranging from 5.27 to 6.03.

4.2 Regression results

Table IV provides the means, standard deviation, and correlation matrix of the core
independent variables. It indicates that all variables are statistically and significantly
correlated. Based on the regression analyses (Table V) of three regression models,
Model 1 serves as our base model incorporating all core independent variables: job
redesign, job satisfaction, and the interaction effect term. We recall that this was
hypothesized to influence employee performance. Then, Model 2 is tested with one
control dummy variable (industry sector, banking). In Model 3, a regression was
performed with all core independent variables and all control variables, including
industry, and demographic characteristics of sample respondents. It is unexpectedly
found that job redesign is significantly and inversely related to employee performance,
at the 0.10 level, in all three models. Job satisfaction is, however, found to be
consistently positively and significantly related to employee performance, at the 0.05
Construct Variables Factor loading Mean Item means α Reliability
Effect of job
redesign and
Factor I: MFac (5 items) (Eigenvalue ¼ 1.439) 5.846 0.892 job satisfaction
d51 – Achievement 0.787 5.813
d52 – Recognition 0.828 5.891
d53 – The work itself 0.722 5.755
d54 – Job receives 0.698 5.810
d55 – Career path and advancement 0.555 5.967 171
Factor II: HFac (9 items) (Eigenvalue ¼ 7.758) 5.623 0.926
d56 – Salary 0.723 5.315
d57 – Possibility of growth 0.679 5.423
d58 – Subordinate and peer 0.708 5.779
d59 – Status (the pride of occupation) 0.628 6.040
d60 – Company policy and administration 0.740 5.684
d61 – Working conditions 0.623 5.505 Table III.
d62 – Personal life 0.674 5.657 The factor analysis
d63 – Security 0.723 5.728 result of motivation
d64 – Supervision-technical 0.730 5.474 and mean value of
Notes: Extraction method: rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization. KMO ¼ 0.934; Sig. ¼ 0.00 each variable

Var. Mean SD 1 2 3 4 Table IV.

Mean, standard
1. Employee performance (ep2) 5.6599 0.89169 (0.774) deviation, and
2. Job redesign (r1) 5.4446 1.17388 0.200*** (0.922) correlations matrix
3. Job satisfaction (s1) 5.7031 0.79832 0.643*** 0.385*** (0.937) of the core
4. Job Red. × Job Sat. (r_s) 31.4102 8.89905 0.447*** 0.898*** 0.733*** 1 independent
Notes: n ¼ 295. Cronbach’s α reliabilities in the parenthesis. ***p o0.001 level (two-tailed) variables

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

B B B

(Constant) 3.246*** 3.259*** 3.289***

Job redesign (r1) −0.36* −0.338* −0.347*
Job satisfaction (s1) 0.447** 0.434** 0.459**
Job redesign × job satisfaction (r_s) 0.058* 0.059* 0.058***
Hotel −0.163** 0.155
33-47 years (Gen-X) −0.289*
48-66 years (Baby Boom) −0.253
Male 0.005
Lower than bachelor’s degree −0.025
Master’s degree −0.075 Table V.
Less than 6 years −0.143 Regression results
6-10 years 0.061 on the interaction
More than 10 years −0.005 effect of job redesign
Adjusted R2 0.421 0.421 0.427 and job satisfaction
F 70.811 54.546 19.283 on employee
Notes: n ¼ 295. Dependent variable ¼ EP2. *p o0.10; **po 0.05; ***p o0.01 performance
EBHRM level in all models. Moreover, the interaction effect between job redesign and job
4,2 satisfaction is found to be positively and significantly related to employee performance,
at the 0.10 level in Models 1 2 and at the 0.001 level in Model 3. The adjusted R2 ranges
from 0.421 in Model 1 to 0.427 in Model 3, indicating that the model can significantly
explain the variation in employee performance.
Since the interaction term of job redesign and job satisfaction (r_s) is found to be
172 significantly positive (i.e. β ¼ 0.058, po0.10), we conducted simple slope test (see, Aiken
and West, 1991; Preacher et al., 2006; Dawson, 2014) to examine the relationship between
the job redesign and employee performance (EP2). The simple slope test reveals that the
effect of job redesign on employee performance is moderated by the job satisfaction level.
We note that the relationship between job redesign and employee performance is
inversely related. The plotted interaction is presented in Figure 1.

5. Discussion
Our empirical results suggest relationships among job redesign, job satisfaction, and
employee performance. The findings (Table V), however, seem to generate unexpected
results. Our regression results reveal that job redesign is significantly but inversely
related to employee performance. This runs counter to the assumption (H1) that job
redesign is positively related to employee performance. Thus, H1 is not supported.
An arguably plausible explanation of this finding suggests that if job redesign is
implemented without due consideration of concerned managerial employees, these
employees may not be satisfied and committed to their redesigned job. Amongst such
experienced managers, whose promoted managerial status presumably derived from
strong performances prior to the job redesign process, a performance deterioration in a
changed environment without consultation may not be altogether surprising. What is
more, the results of Model 3 suggest that age of the sample respondents tends to be
negatively related to employee performance. This seems to suggest that it may be more
difficult to use job redesign for the purpose of performance improvement with
employees in an older age group. Conversely, this may also imply that job redesign
may work more effectively with a younger age group of employees.
In response to H2, we find that job satisfaction is positively and significantly related
to employee performance in all models. Perhaps even more interestingly, the interaction

5
Low-Job Sat.
4.5
High-Job Sat.
Dependent variable

3.5

2.5

1.5
Figure 1.
The plot interaction 1
pattern between Low-job redesign High-job redesign
job redesign and
job satisfaction Notes: Dependent variable = EP2; independent
variable = JobRe; and moderator variable = JobSat
effect (H3) between job redesign and job satisfaction is found to be positively and Effect of job
significantly related to employee performance. However, we note that the beta redesign and
coefficients of job satisfaction ( JS) are much higher than those of the job redesign ( JR)
and the interaction effect variable (r_s). In addition, job satisfaction positively
job satisfaction
moderates the impact of job redesign on employee performance, as suggested by the
positive effect of the interaction variable. Further interpretations of the relationship
between job redesign and job satisfaction may be warranted. 173
Our finding on the interaction effect suggests a positive relationship between these
two independent variables and employee performance. To some extent, this supports
findings by other researchers such as Hadi and Adil (2010) who investigated the
interaction effect of JC and work motivation to predict bank employee performance in
Pakistan. Morgeson et al. (2006) assert that the positive effect of redesigning work is
related to the nature of work, driven predominantly by task characteristics (work
scheduling autonomy, decision-making autonomy, work methods autonomy, task
variety, significance, task identity, and feedback related to the job) that are related to
job satisfaction. Furthermore, knowledge characteristics ( job complexity, information
processing requirements, problem solving, and skill variety) are found to be related to
job satisfaction. Thus, a knowledge-based job redesign that enhances employee job
satisfaction can enhance employee performance.
In more generic terms and in the spirit of participative decision-making, we suggest
that involvement and consultation matters. Amongst middle-level managers, this
arguably matters even more, because their enhanced job satisfaction can be utilised to
oversee others under their supervision and achieve the efficiency and effectiveness in
redesigned job goals.

6. Conclusion, managerial implications, and future work

6.1 Conclusion and managerial implications
In this study, we aim to contribute to the literature on job design and employee
performance. We hypothesized an effect of job redesign on employee performance and
considered a possible joint interaction effect of job redesign and job satisfaction on
employee performance. As the analysis was deemed to be particularly meaningful to
the service sector, which is growing rapidly in ASEAN, we chose the hotel, resort, and
banking sectors of Thailand as our evidence-based study context.
Our sample was composed of middle-level managers. This design provided a different
focus compared with previous studies that focused largely on general employees. Thus,
our managerial implications provide powerful lessons for top management when
supporting middle-level managers in the change process. Based on the statistical analyses
of 295 sample respondents who are middle-level managers in the chosen industry sectors,
we uncover that job redesign itself is inversely related to employee performance.
We suggest that employee performance can only be improved if the job redesign process
is implemented in such a way that affected employees experience a notable degree of job
satisfaction. We speculate that this, in turn, means that in the process of job redesign
implementation, concerned employees should be involved in the change process. Griffin
(1991) concurs when investigating the long-term effects of work redesign on employee
perception, reporting on the crucial role of attitudes (such as job satisfaction and
commitment) and behaviour. It follows that in change management, job redesign can be
utilised as a method to improve performance. However, if job redesign is implemented
without the involvement of concerned employees, it is unlikely that employees will
experience a job satisfaction boost in the process. To this end, the outcome of changes in
EBHRM JC will be negatively related to employee performance, as evidenced in this study. It is
4,2 therefore very important for managers to involve employees (Gyan-Baffour, 1999; Wade
and Parent, 2002) in the process of work or job redesign, and in such a manner that
employees feel satisfied and committed to the change process. Positive performance
outcomes can be expected as a consequence.
Job redesign is a conceivable way to mobilize employee performance through the
174 interaction with job satisfaction. We deduce that job satisfaction could be a key link to
employee performance mobilization. To this end, we suggest that prior to an
implemented job redesign, the organizational HR function should provide relevant
support endeavours that will increase employee job satisfaction (i.e. training, coaching,
etc.). In addition, and crucially, any job redesign requires an underpinning of
involvement and consultation with concerned employees. Organizational
communication can be an important facet in this scenario, enhancing employee
psychological commitment towards an effective job redesign. After all, a committed
relationship between employee and manager influences performance (Buble et al., 2014;
Białas and Morska w Gdyni, 2009; Sawyerr et al., 2009).

6.2 Limitation of the study and future work

We recognize a number of limitations in our study. The analysis of cross-sectional data
limits causality claims to mere inferences rather than scientific proof. In the banking
sector, the questionnaires were distributed by the head office, which compromises
assumptions of random sampling of our survey for this sector. We also note that
employee performance in this study is concerned with in-role performance as task
performance only. Job performance can, of course, be categorized by two dimensions:
in-role (task) performance and extra-role (contextual) performance (Conway, 1999).
In-role performance refers to individual behaviour that performs the duties required by
the job (Christian et al., 2011) whereas extra-role performance points at behaviour
outside role expectations, also often termed organizational citizenship behaviour (Zhu,
2013). An investigation of extra-role performance enhancement would be a worthwhile
endeavour. Finally, due to time and budget constraints, we were unable to cover
broader contexts or extend our analysis to alternate business sectors in the service (and
non-service) industries. Future studies may wish to narrow this gap.

References
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions,
Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Akaraborworn, C.T. and McLean, G.N. (2002), “The changing roles of HRD in Thailand during
the current economic crisis”, International Journal of Human Resources Development and
Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 64-77.
Al-Ahmadi, H. (2009), “Factors affecting performance of hospital nurses in Riyadh region, Saudi
Arabia”, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 40-54.
Al-Homayan, A.M., Shamsudin, F.M., Subramaniam, C. and Islam, R. (2013), “Impacts of job
performance level on nurses in public sector hospitals”, American Journal of Applied
Sciences, Vol. 10 No. 9, pp. 1115-1123.
Ali, N. and Zia-ur-Rehman, M. (2014), “Impact of job design on employee performance, mediating
role of job satisfaction: a study of FMCG’s sector in Pakistan”, International Journal of
Business and Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 70-79.
Antoncic, J.A. and Antoncic, B. (2011), “Employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and firm growth: Effect of job
a model”, Industrial Management & Data system, Vol. 111 No. 4, pp. 589-607.
redesign and
Bhatti, N., Syed, A.A.S.G. and Shaikh, F.M. (2012), “Job satisfaction and motivation in banking job satisfaction
industry in Pakistan”, Journal of Asian Business Strategy, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 54-62.
Bialas, S. and Morska w Gdyni, A. (2009), “Power distance as a determinant of relationship
between manager and employees in the enterprises with foreign capital”, Journal of
Intercultural Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 105-115. 175
Boonzaaier, B., Ficker, B. and Rust, B. (2001), “A review of research on the job characteristics
model and the attendant job diagnostic survey”, South African Journal of Business
Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 11-34.
Buble, M., Juras, A. and Matic, I. (2014), “The relationship between manager’s leadership styles
and motivation”, Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 161-193.
Campbell, J.P. (1990), “Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and
organizational psychology”, in Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed., Consulting Psychologists Press,
Palo Alto, CA, pp. 678-732.
Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S. and Slaughter, J.E. (2011), “Work engagement: a quantitative review
and test of its relations with task and contextual performance”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 89-136.
Conway, J.M. (1999), “Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance for
managerial jobs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 3-13.
Dawson, J.F. (2014), “Moderation in management research: what, why, when and how”, Journal of
Business and Psychology, Vol. 29, pp. 1-19.
De Menezes, L.M. (2012), “Job satisfaction and quality management: an empirical analysis”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 32 No. 3,
pp. 308-328.
Devaraj, S., Fan, M. and Kohli, R. (2002), “Antecedents of B2C channel satisfaction and
preference: validating e-commerce metrics”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 316-333.
Falkenburg, K. and Schyns, B. (2007), “Work satisfaction, organizational commitment and
withdrawal behaviors”, Management Research News, Vol. 30 No. 10, pp. 708-723.
Griffin, R. (1991), “Effects of work redesign on employee perceptions, attitudes, and
behaviors: a long-term investigation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 2,
pp. 425-235.
Gyan-Baffour, G. (1999), “The effects of employee participation and work design on firm
performance: a managerial perspective”, Management Research News, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 1-12.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1974), “The job diagnostic survey: an instrument for the
diagnosis of jobs and the evaluation of job redesign projects”, Technical Report No. 4,
US Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service Document,
Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976), “Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 250-279.
Hadi, R. and Adil, A. (2010), “Job characteristics as predictors of work motivation and job
satisfaction of bank employees”, Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 294-299.
Herzberg, F. (1968), “One more time: how do you motivate employees?”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 53-62.
EBHRM Holman, D.J., Axtell, C.M., Sprgg, C.A., Totterdell, P. and Wall, T.D. (2010), “The mediating role of
job characteristics in job redesign interventions: a serendipitous quasi-experiment”,
4,2 Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 84-105.
Humphrey, S.E., Nahrgang, J.D. and Morgeson, F.P. (2007), “Integrating motivational, social,
and contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical
extension of the work design literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 5,
176 pp. 1332-1356.
IMAA (2013), “Banking industry trends of M&A between 1985 and 2013”, available at:
www.imaa-institute.org/statistics-mergers-acquisitions.html (accessed 21 May 2014).
Jaturanonda, C., Nanthavanij, S. and Chongphaisal, P. (2006), “A survey study on weights of
decision criteria for job rotation in Thailand: comparison between public and private
sectors”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 17 No. 10,
pp. 1834-1851.
Johlke, M.C. and Iyer, R. (2013), “A model of retail job characteristics, employee role ambiguity,
external customer mind-set, and sales performance”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 58-67.
Judge, T.A., Bono, J.C., Thoresen, C.J. and Patton, G.K. (2001), “The job satisfaction-job
performance relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review”, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 127 No. 3, pp. 376-407.
Kahya, E. (2007), “The effects of job characteristics and working conditions on job performance
international”, Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 37, pp. 515-523.
Khahan, N.N. (2013), “Influence of job characteristics and job satisfaction effect work adjustment
for entering labor market of new graduates in Thailand”, International Journal of Business
and Social Science, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 95-103.
Lentz, E. and Allen, T.D. (2009), “The role of mentoring others in the career plateauing
phenomenon”, Group & Organizational Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 358-384.
Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2001), “Accounting for common method variance in cross-
sectional research designs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 114-121.
Locke, E.A. (1976), “The nature and causes of job satisfaction”, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL,
pp. 1297-1349.
Maxwell, J.R. (2008), “Work system design to improve the economic performance of the firm”,
Business Process Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 432-446.
Meade, A.W., Watson, A.M. and Kroustalis, C.M. (2007), “Assessing common methods bias in
organizational research”, Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York, NY.
Michalos, G., Makris, S. and Chryssolouris, G. (2013), “The effect of job rotation during assembly
on the quality of final product”, CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology,
Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 187-197.
Mohr, R. and Zoghi, C. (2008), “High-involvement work design and job satisfaction”,
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 275-296.
Morgeson, F.P., Johnson, M.D., Campion, M.A. and Medsker, G.J. (2006), “Understanding reactions
to job redesign: a quasi-experimental investigation of the moderating effects of
organizational context on perceptions of performance behavior”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 333-363.
Morrow, P.C., McElroy, J.C. and Scheibe, K.P. (2012), “Influencing organizational commitment
through office redesign”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 81, pp. 99-111.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Effect of job
Parker, S.K. (2014), “Beyond motivation: job and work design for development, health, redesign and
ambidexterity, and more”, The Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 65, January, job satisfaction
pp. 661-691.
Perera, G.D.N., Khatibi, A., Navaratna, N. and Chinna, K. (2014), “Job satisfaction and job
performance among factory employees in apparel sector”, Asian Journal of Management
Sciences & Education, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 96-104. 177
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases
in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Preacher, K.J., Curran, P.J. and Bauer, D.J. (2006), “Computational tools for probing interactions in
multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis”, Journal of
Educational and Behavioral Statistics, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 437-448.
Rathi, N. and Barath, M. (2013), “Work-family conflict and job and family satisfaction:
moderating effect of social support among police personnel”, Equality, Diversity and
Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 438-454.
Rhoads, G.R., Swinyard, W.R., Geurts, M.D. and Price, W.D. (2002), “Retailing as a career:
a comparative study of marketers”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 71-76.
Rovinelli, R.J. and Hambleton, R.K. (1977), “On the use of content specialists in the assessment of
criterion-referenced test item validity”, Dutch Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 2,
pp. 49-60.
Sadikoglu, E. and Zehir, C. (2010), “Investigating the effects of innovation and employee
performance on the relationship between total quality management practices and firm
performance: an empirical study of Turkish firms”, International Journal Production
Economics, Vol. 127, pp. 13-26.
Sawyerr, O.O., Srinivas, S. and Wang, S. (2009), “Call center employee personality factors and
service performance”, Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 301-317.
Spector, P. (1997), Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes and Consequences, Sage, CA.
Strümpfer, D.J.W. (2006), “The strengths perspective: fortigenesis in adult life”, Social Indicators
Research, Vol. 77, pp. 11-36.
Truxillo, D., Cadiz, D., Rineer, J., Zaniboni, S. and Fraccaroli, F. (2012), “A lifespan perspective on
job design: fitting the worker to the job to promote job satisfaction”, Organizational
Psychology Review, Vol. 1 No. 21, pp. 1-22.
Ubeda, G.M., Marco, L.B., Sabater, S.V. and García, L.F. (2013), “Does training influence
organisational performance? Analysis of the Spanish hotel sector”, European Journal of
Training and Development, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 380-413.
Wade, W.R. and Parent, M. (2002), “Relationship between job skill and performance: a study of
webmasters”, Journal of Management Information System, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 71-96.
Wood, S., Veldhoven, M.V., Croon, M. and Menezes, L.M. (2012), “Enriched job design, high
involvement management and organizational performance: the mediating roles of job
satisfaction and well-being”, Human Relations, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 419-446.
Yeo, R.K. and Li, J. (2011), “Working out the quality of work life: a career development perspective
with insights for human resource management”, Human Resource Management
International Digest, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 39-45.
Zhu, Y. (2013), “Individual behaviour: in-role and extra-role”, International Journal of Business
Administration, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 23-27.
EBHRM Further reading
4,2 Allison, P. (2012), “When can you safely ignore multicollinearity?”, 10 September, available at:
http://statisticalhorizons.com/multicollinearity (accessed 14 October 2015).
Birnbaum, D. and Somers, M.J. (1995), “Another look at work design in hospitals: redesigning the work
roles of nurses”, Journal of Health Human Service Administration, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 303-316.
Byrne, M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS, Routledge Taylor and Francis
178 Group, New York, NY and London.
Campion, M.A., Mumford, T.V., Morgeson, F.P. and Nahrgang, J.D. (2005), “Work redesign: eight
obstacles and opportunities”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 367-390.
Craig, R.L. (1976), Training and Development Handbook: A Guide to Human Resource
Development, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., New York, NY.
Edgar, F. and Geare, A. (2005), “HRM practice and employee attitudes: different measures-
different results”, Personnel Review, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 534-549.
Johnson, A. (2007), Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, 6th ed.,
Pearson Education Inc.
Mayfiel, M. and Mayfield, J. (2009), “The role of leader-follower relationships in leader
communication: a test using the LMX and motivating language models”, The Journal of
Business Inquiry, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 65-82.
Sels, L., Winne, S.D., Maes, J., Delmotte, J., Faems, D. and Anneleen, F. (2006), “Unravelling the
HRM-performance link: value-creating and cost-increasing effects of small business HRM”,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 319-342.
Slocum, J.W. Jr (1981), “Job redesign: improving the quality of work life”, Journal of Experiential
Learning and Simulation, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 17-36.
Sonnentag, S. and Ilies, R.M. (2011), “Intra-individual process linking work and employee
well-being: introduction into the special issue”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32
No. 4, pp. 521-525.
Wooldridge, J. (2009), Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach, Southwestern Cengage
Learning, OH, 865pp.
Appendix Effect of job
redesign and
job satisfaction
Variables Items

JobRe
c26 Does your job require you using a variety of skill and ability? 179
c27 Your job requires you to know many things in organization
c28 Your job require you often to acquire knowledge
c29 Your job requires you to use techniques, skills, and high-level skills
c30 Does your job involve a complete piece of work that has an obvious beginning and end?
c31 Your job requires high responsibility
c32 Your job is giving up to be a pride for you (reverse coding)
c33 Your job requires you to do an entire piece of work from beginning to end
c34 How significant is your job? Does your job significantly effect on work life of other people?
c35 Your job has obviously significant impact on policy or organization
c36 Your job is a worthy job in itself
c37 Your job is significant to coordinate with other division
c38 How much autonomy and decision on your own is there in your job?
c39 Your job requires you to listen to other ideas
c40 Your job requires high-autonomous authority
c41 You are a top decision-maker in your job or your team
c42 Does your job style or job itself let you know feedback about your work performance?
c43 Do your managers or colleagues let you know feedback about your job?
c44 Your job requires you to disclose your idea
c45 Your job require intermittently meeting, sharing, or evaluating
c46 Your job can redesign by own job
c47 Does your Job require you to work closely with other people?
c48 Your job require you to do in teamwork
c49 Your job give your opportunity to helps other people while you doing a job
c50 Your job require you to trust your colleagues
JobSat
d51 How satisfied are you with your personal job’s achievement?
d52 How satisfied are you with the recognition and the feeling of worthwhile accomplishment
you got from doing your job?
d53 How satisfied are you with the level of challenging in your job. The work itself gives
opportunity to use creativity or do the job at beginning and end by you?
d54 How satisfied are you with your job that receives to assign?
d55 Do you understand your career path and your advancement well?
d56 How satisfied are you with your salary welfare and benefit?
d57 How satisfied are you with your possibility of growth that you gain from your job?
d58 How satisfied are you with the relationship level with your subordinate and peers?
d59 How satisfied are you with the pride in your occupation and the feeling of your honourable job?
d60 How satisfied are you with company policy and administration?
d61 How satisfied are you with working environment, work equipment, etc.?
d62 Does your job make your happy life or make your family life to be happy?
d63 How satisfied are you with the job security for the future?
d64 How satisfied are you with fair treatment that you receive from your manager?
EP2
b21 Organization success in HCI? Table AI.
b23 Apply knowledge to add value to my job? Descriptions of
b25 Improve my job operation? the variables, items,
Notes: EP, employee performance; JobRe, job redesign; JobSat, job satisfaction and coding
EBHRM Initial Eigenvalues Extraction sums of squared loadings
4,2 Component Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative %

1 23.121 28.196 28.196 23.121 28.196 28.196

2 8.379 10.219 38.415 8.379 10.219 38.415
3 5.157 6.289 44.704 5.157 6.289 44.704
4 3.778 4.607 49.311 3.778 4.607 49.311
180 5 3.436 4.190 53.502 3.436 4.190 53.502
6 2.710 3.304 56.806 2.710 3.304 56.806
7 1.921 2.342 59.148 1.921 2.342 59.148
8 1.656 2.020 61.168 1.656 2.020 61.168
9 1.505 1.835 63.003 1.505 1.835 63.003
10 1.366 1.666 64.669 1.366 1.666 64.669
11 1.314 1.603 66.272 1.314 1.603 66.272
12 1.235 1.506 67.778 1.235 1.506 67.778
13 1.220 1.488 69.266 1.220 1.488 69.266
14 1.164 1.419 70.685 1.164 1.419 70.685
15 1.059 1.291 71.976 1.059 1.291 71.976
16 1.008 1.229 73.206 1.008 1.229 73.206
17 0.978 1.193 74.398
Table AII. ⋮
Harman’s single 82 0.027 0.034 100.000
factor test Notes: CFA, Eigenvalues greater than 1. Extraction method: principal component analysis

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.