DEVELOPMENT OF AN INDIVIDUAL WORK PERFORMANCE AND WORK DESIGN

QUESTIONNAIREBy : Mohd Faizal Hamzah

Ph.D. Candidate, University of Technology MARA (Malaysia) & Senior Librarian, University of Malaya (Malaysia)

Email: faizal586@um.edu.my

AUTHORS

Mr. Mohd Faizal HamzahPh.D. Candidate, University of Technology MARA (Malaysia) & Senior Librarian, University of Malaya (Malaysia)Faizal586@gmail.com or Faizal586@um.edu.my

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mohamad Noorman MasrekSenior Lecturer, Faculty of Information Management, University of Technology MARA (Malaysia)

Irwan Kamaruddin Abdul Kadir (Dr.)Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Information Management, University of Technology MARA (Malaysia)

AGENDA

• Introduction

• History and Definition

• Methods

• Pilot-testing

• Results and Discussion

• Conclusion

AB

STR

AC

T• Background – Based on the literature search, the number of instrument consisting of work

performances and work design are very limited in library science fields. Previous researchalso believed that knowledge about work design is very limited among the librarian.Therefore the instrument to measure work design and work performance is almost non-existence in library fields. Hence, the objective of this study is to propose a set ofquestionnaires to measure work performance and work design at the individual level. Thequestionnaire was developed based on 1) two dimensional of work performance dimensionnamely, task performance, and contextual performance, 2) two dimensional of work designdimension consisted of task character and knowledge characteristic and 3) a set of corecompetencies for the librarians. Methodology – the instrument used for this study is aquestionnaire. The items in the questionnaire were developed based on the proposedconceptual framework of the previous study. To report content validity for the instrument,the researcher conducted several pre-testing sessions to evaluate the instrument. Afterpretesting the instrument, 225 respondents were involved during the pilot test session ofthe instrument. The data were analyzed using SPSS to identify the Cronbach’s Alpha valueand inter-item correlation value for each of the items. The reliability of the instrument wasreported in the table. Findings – the feedback from experts during pre-testing wereanalyzed and the amendment was made to suit the local setting of the respondents. TheReliability of the proposed instrument was identified. Based on the inter-item correlationvalue, several items have been removed. The instrument proposed can be used to measurework performance and work design in any library.

• Keywords: Work Performance, Work Design, Questionnaire, Work Design, and WorkPerformance Instrument

Objective of the article

To proposed a set of questionnaire

To provide a empirical

validation of the study

To highlight the process of

questionnaire development

Provide literature on work design study in Library

fields

INTRODUCTION

The revolution of the working environments had to change the motivation indicators of the work performance among employees.

What Influence motivation indicators

Technology factor

Social-Life Salaries?

In any profession, work performances and work design are becoming the key to derive the survival of the organization.

Productivity COSTMission and

visionReturn on

investment

In Malaysia Perspective

1962• National productivity corporation was established [now: the Malaysia

Productivity Corporation (MPC) ]

2009

• the Prime Minister of Malaysia had highlighted on the performance as one the important key in guiding the government sector to succeed.

• Performance Management and Delivery Unit (PEMANDU)

Today• Current practice – Key performance indicators, SKT and etc

• Performance based management – Talent management.. etc

PROBLEM STATEMENT

• There is no previous validate theoretical framework or model that the researcher can refer to this matter.

• The previous study, especially in library fields,

didn’t highlight work design as a part in work performance models.

• The number of literature in Work design and work performance is still very limited.

WHAT IS WORK PERFORMANCE AND WORK DESIGN?

WORK PERFORMANCE

work performance as the ability of employees to perform and fulfill

task given to meet the organization’s expectation.

WORK DESIGN

Improving work standard, get rid of hazards for the better working process, promote

effectiveness, and conserve the physical effort to fulfill and

accomplish the job.

HISTORY

• According to Goodson (1997), work performance has been used as standard evaluation during Wei-Dynasty.

Work Performance

• The concept of work design has been discussed since 1970 to till around the mid-1830s during the industrial revolution in Great Britain (Katz, 2015; Sharon & Wall, 1998).

Competencies

FRAMEWORK

• The modification of the theories and model was made to suit the librarian working environment.

• The individual work performance for the librarian was developed based on the three-dimensional conceptual frameworks, in which consist of work performance, core competencies, and work design.

• The original conceptual framework has been modified to fit the nature of the academic librarian.

THE PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL

FRAMEWORK

Task Characteristics

Knowledge

Characteristics

Competencies

Task Performance

Contextual

Performance

Work Design (IV)Work Performance (DV) (H3) Making sense: Ray (2014),

Hernaus and Mikulics (2014), Hernaus

and Poloski (2014), Hackman and

Oldham (1976), and Herzberg (1966).

(H4 & H7) Making sense: Morgeson

and Champion (2003b), Boyatzis (1982),

Li and Voola (2005), Hackman and

Oldman (1976), Rayburn (2014).

(H1 & H2) Making sense: Li and

Voola (2015), Garg and Rastogi (2006),

Rayburn (2014), Khan (2015), Khan et

al. (2015), Koopmans, Bernaards et al.

(2014), Koopmans et al. (2012),

Koopmans et al. (2011)

H3

(H5,H6, H8 & H9 : Mediating) Making

sense: Garg & Rastogi (2006), Rayburn

(2014), Li and Voola (2005), Hernaus

and Mikulic (2014), Hernaus and Poliski

(2014).

• Emotional intelligence

• Cognitive abilities

• Library leadership

• Collection management

• Technology management

• Research and reference service

• Content organization and

structure

• Autonomy

• Task Variety

• Task Significance

• Task Identity

• Job Complexity

• Information

Processing

• Problem-Solving

• Skill Variety

PRETESTING

Pretesting Pilot

TestingFinding

WHY PRETESTING?

Pretesting is a test of the appropriateness and understanding of the question in the survey

The aim of pretesting is not to act as data collection but to

identify feedback and identify a problem in the

questions

Pretesting helps the researcher to identify any problems such as

misleading questions, grammatical errors,

incomplete questions, misspellings

NUMBER OF EVALUATORS IN PRE-TESTING

• Kianpour et al. (2017) suggested three is the minimum number of the panel for pretesting the instrument.

• On the other hand, Babonea and Voicu (2008)suggested that the number of a panel of expertise should be three to eight expertise.

• Sekaran and Bougie (2013a), and Hulland, Baumgartner, and Smith (2017) the number of expertise should be limited and not too big.

PANEL EXPERTS

No Panel experts Time frame to study

the instrument

1 Associate Professor 2 - University of Malaya 1 Weeks

2 Senior Lecturer (Dr) - University of Technology MARA 1 weeks

3 Senior Librarian (S48) - University of Malaya Library Two weeks

4 Senior Librarian (S44) - University of Malaya Library Two weeks

5 Senior Librarian (S44) - University of Malaya Library Two weeks

6 Senior Librarian (S44) - University of Malaya Library Two weeks

FEEDBACK FROM THE PRE-TESTING OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

FEEDBACK FROM THE PRE-TESTING OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

PILOT TESTING

Pretesting Pilot

TestingFinding

PILOT-TESTING

• After pre-tested, 326 respondents were involved during the pilot test session of the instrument.

• The data were analyzed using SmartPLS to identify the convergent validity (AVE), Cronbach’sAlpha, and factor loading for each dimension.

• In total there is 20 academic library involve. In total, 340 questionnaires were distributed to all public Academic Library in Malaysia. A total of 326 (95.88%) were returned.

FINDING

• Respondent’s demographic profile for pilot-testing

• Value of the Cronbach’s alpha for each item in the instruments

• Inter-item correlation matrix

RESPONDENT’S DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE FOR PILOT-TESTING

Frequency Percent

Gender

Male 74 32.9

Female 151 67.1

Age

Less 25 2 .9

26-29 13 5.8

30-34 53 23.6

35-39 54 24.0

40-44 52 23.1

45-49 27 12.0

50 above 24 10.7

Number of Service

Less than one year 1 .4

1-5 years 23 10.2

6-10 years 75 33.3

11-15years 62 27.6

16-20 years 33 14.7

More than 20 years 31 13.8

Total 225 100.0

Value of the Cronbach’s Alpha for each item in the instruments

• Even though the value of the Cronbach’s alpha is sufficient, the researcher decided to observed inter-item correlation to double confirm the overall reliability of the items in the instrument.

Inter-item Correlation: Rule of thumb

• According to Piedmont (2014), the main objective of inter-item correlations is to observe the scores of each item in a scale.

• Piedmont (2014) and Momani (2016) believed that the inter-item correlation value should not less than 0.20. Items with a value less than 0.20 may not represent the same content domain.

Inter-Item Correlation Matrix : Problematic dimension

THE PROPOSED QUESTIONNAIRE

Work Performance

• Task Performance

• Contextual performance

Competencies

• Emotional intelligence

• Cognitive Abilities

• Library Leadership

• Collection Management

• Technology Management

• Research And Reference Service

• Content Organization And Structure

Work design

• Task characteristic

• Knowledge Characteristic

1 2 3

Section A: Work Performance

1. Work Performance Question

1.1 Task performance WP_TP1: I always plan my work so that it will be completed on timeWP_TP2: I always prioritize and organize my workWP_TP3: I always execute my work well with minimal time and effortWP_TP4: I always use my time efficiently to finish my tasks

1.2 Contextual performance

WP_CP1: I am always able to assemble my appointments WP_CP2: I am always able to execute my responsibilitiesWP_CP3: I always can collaborate/work together with othersWP_CP4: My coworker understand me well when I tell them somethingWP_CP5: I always use feedback that I obtain from my co-workersWP_CP6: I believe that library users/patrons are satisfied with my work

SECTION B: COMPETENCIES

Emotional intelligence

Cognitive Abilities

Library Leadership

Collection Management

Technology Management

Research And Reference

Service

Content Organization

And Structure

Section B: Competencies

2. Librarian competencies

Question

2.1 Emotional intelligence

C_EI1: I am able to voice my opinion to new viewpoints C_EI2: I am able to identify my own potentials and capabilitiesC_EI3: I am able to execute my tasks according to the professional standardsC_EI4: I am able to maintain and establish close relationships with my coworkers

2.2 Cognitive abilities C_CA2: I am able to talk and consult with my coworker on how to solve problems especially when I am not sure about my tasksC_CA3: I am able to make a decision and understand the consequencesC_CA4: I am able to make a decision as an opportunity to solve a problem

2.3 Library leadership C_LL1: I am able to contribute to the professional goalsC_LL2: I am able to promote the librarianship’s professional identityC_LL3: I am able to review the job description, job scope and update it if necessaryC_LL4: I am able to motivate and influence coworkers/employees for training when needed

2.4 Collection management

C_CM1: I am able to understand the circulation procedures and policies in the libraryC_CM2: I am able to develop remote access to resourcesC_CM3: I am able to understand the acquisition procedures and policies in the libraryC_CM4: I am able to understand the policies and plans in collection development

2.5 Technology management

C_TM3: I am be able to understand the information security policies in the libraryC_TM4: I am be able to use and understand the library content management systemC_TM5: I am be able to understand the use of social media for libraryC_TM6: I am be able to incorporate technology such as social media into a library’s technology development plan

2.6 Research and reference service

C_RRS1: I am be able to modify and evaluate methods of information analysisC_RRS2: I am be able to understand and develop information literacy programC_RRS4: I am be able to identify and evaluate physical and digital the reference tools C_RRS5: I am be able to create and customize a reference management system

2.7 Content organization and

structure

C_COS1: I am be able to understand and interpret bibliographic recordsC_COS2: I am be able to understand the use of metadataC_COS3: I am be able to use bibliographic and authority recordsC_COS5: I am be able to understand and apply classification standards

SECTION C: WORK DESIGN

Work Design

Knowledge characteristic

Task Characteristic

Autonomy Task Variety

Task SignificanceTask Identity

Job ComplexityInformation Processing

Problem-SolvingSkill Variety

Section C: Work Design3.1 Task

characteristic - 3.1.1

Autonomy

Question

3.1.1.1 Work scheduling autonomy

WD_TCAU1: My job allows me to plan how I do my workWD_TCAU2: My job allows me to decide the order in which things are doneWD_TCAU3: My job allows me to make my own decisions about how to schedule my workWD_TCAU4: My job allows me to have a flexible working schedule so that I can complete my tasks

3.1.1.2 Decision-making autonomy

WD_TCAU5: My job gives me a chance to use my personal initiative or judgment in carrying out the work.WD_TCAU6: My job allows me to make decisions on my ownWD_TCAU7: My job provides me with significant autonomy in making decisions.WD_TCAU8: My job allows me to propose new solutions for decision making

3.1.1.3 Work methods autonomy

WD_TCAU9: I can make decisions to choose suitable methods in completing my work.WD_TCAU10: I am given freedom and opportunity to choose how I complete my workWD_TCAU11: I can make my own decisions on how I can complete my work.WD_TCAU12: The methods that I choose to improve the way I organize my work

3.1.2 Task variety WD_TCTV1: My job involves a great deal of task varietyWD_TCTV2: My job requires me to perform a number of different tasksWD_TCTV3: My job is not boring but satisfying because it involves a variety of tasks

3.1.3 Task significance

WD_TCTS1: My job is very significant in the broader scheme of things. WD_TCTS2: The output of my work significantly affects my coworker in the libraryWD_TCTS3: My job has a larger significance on people outside the libraryWD_TCTS4: My job might influence the decision making in the library

3.1.4 Task identity WD_TCTI1: My job allows me to identify my work.WD_TCTI2: My job allows me to arrange my own work so that I can complete it wellWD_TCTI3: My job is arranged so that I can complete my workWD_TCTI4: My job requires me to complete a piece of work that has an obvious beginning and end

3.2.1 Job complexity WD_KCJC1: My job scope is complexWD_KCJC2: My job requires me to do complicated tasksWD_KCJC3: I need to perform multitasking task at a time

3.2.2 Information processing

WD_KCIP1: My job requires me to observe a great deal of information.WD_KCIP2: I need to think critically to perform my jobWD_KCIP3: My job requires me to keep track of more than one thing at a time.WD_KCIP4: My job requires me to analyze a lot of information and data

3.1.4 Problem-solving

WD_KCPS1: My job requires me to solve problems that have no obvious/direct answerWD_KCPS2: I need to be creative to perform my jobWD_KCPS3: My job often requires me to solve problems that I have not encountered beforeWD_KCPS4: My job requires me to produce unique ideas to solve the problems

3.1.5 Skill variety WD_KCSV1: My job requires a variety of skillsWD_KCSV2: My job requires me to utilize a variety of different skills in order to finish the work.WD_KCSV3: My job requires me to use a number of complex or high-level skillsWD_KCSV4: I need to learn a number of new skills to complete my tasks.

CONCLUSION

• Developing a questionnaire for quantitative research is very crucial.

• Feedback from the expertise and the result from the pilot test show that the questionnaire can be used as an instrument to study work performance and work design.

• Moreover, the value of the Cronbach’s Alpha shows that the reliability of the instrument is strong to represent the study.

CITATIONS

• Abadie, A., Diamond, A., & Hainmueller, J. (2015). Comparative politics and the synthetic control method. American Journal of Political Science, 59(2), 495-510.

• Abrizah, A. (1999). Competencies for teacher librarians in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 4(2).

• American Library Association. (2007). Types of Libraries. Retrieved 14 March 2017, from http://www.ala.org/educationcareers/careers/librarycareerssite/typesoflibraries

• Bilal, H., Shah, B., Qureshi, Q. A., & Khan, I. (2014). Impact of performance appraisal othe n job performance of employees in private sector universities of developing countries. Public Policy and Administration Research, 4(7).

• Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming: Routledge.

• Campbell, J. P., & Wiernik, B. M. (2015). The modeling and assessment of work performance. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 47-74.

• Carter, C. R., Kale, R., & Grimm, C. M. (2000). Environmental purchasing and firm performance: an empirical investigation. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 36(3), 219-228.

• Collins, D. (2003). Pretesting survey instruments: an overview of cognitive methods. Quality of life research, 12(3), 229-238.

• Dahan, S. M., Taib, M. Y., Zainudin, N. M., & Ismail, F. (2016). Surveying users' perception of academic library services quality: A case study in Universiti Malaysia Pahang (UMP) Library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42(1), 38-43. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.10.006

• Davenport, T. H. (2008). Improving knowledge worker performance. From Strategy to Execution, 215-235. • DeNisi, A. S., & Gonzalez, J. A. (2017). Design performance appraisal systems to improve performance. The

Blackwell Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behaviour, 63-75.

Mohd Faizal HamzahPh.D. Candidate, University of Technology MARA (Malaysia) & Senior Librarian, University of Malaya (Malaysia)Email: faizal586@um.edu.my