Javascript is required
Al-Ansi, A. (2022). Investigating characteristics of learning environments during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Can. J. Learn. Technol., 48(81). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Al-Ansi, A. M. (2021). Student’s anxiety and recruitment during COVID-19 pandemic: Role of university, specialization and employment expectation. Persp. Nauki Obrazovan, 49(1), 404–413. [Google Scholar]
Ali, B. J., & Anwar, G. (2021). An empirical study of employees’ motivation and its influence job satisfaction. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag., 5(5), 21–30. [Google Scholar]
Alnoor, A. M., Al‐Abrrow, H., Abdullah, H., & Abbas, S. (2020). The impact of self‐efficacy on employees’ ability to accept new technology in an Iraqi university. Glob. Bus. Organ. Excell., 39(2), 41–50. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Alromaihi, M. A., Alshomaly, Z. A., & George, S. (2017). Job satisfaction and employee performance: A theoretical review of the relationship between the two variables. Int. J. Adv. Res. Manag. Soc. Sci., 6(1), 1–20. [Google Scholar]
Arif, M., Hayat, Z., Abd El-Hack, M. E., Saeed, M., Imran, H. M., Alowaimer, A. N., Saadeldin, I. M., Taha, A. E., & Swelum, A. A. (2019). Impacts of supplementing broiler diets with a powder mixture of black cumin, Moringa and chicory seeds. South African Journal of Animal Science, 49(3), 564–572. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Astuti, S. D., Shodikin, A., & Ud-Din, M. (2020). Islamic leadership, Islamic work culture, and employee performance: The mediating role of work motivation and job satisfaction. J. Asian Finan. Econ. Bus., 7(11), 1059–1068. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Babin, B. J., & Boles, J. S. (1996). The effects of perceived co-worker involvement and supervisor support on service provider role stress, performance and job satisfaction. J. Retailing., 72(1), 57–75. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Badrianto, Y., & Ekhsan, M. (2020). Effect of work environment and job satisfaction on employee performance in pt. Nesinak industries. J. Bus. Manag. Account., 2(1). [Google Scholar]
Belias, D., & Koustelios, A. (2014). Organizational culture and job satisfaction: A review. Int. Rev. Manag. Mark., 4(2), 132–149. [Google Scholar]
Berliana, M., Siregar, N., & Gustian, H. D. (2018). The model of job satisfaction and employee performance. Int. Rev. Manag. Mark., 8(6), 41–46. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. A. (1992). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation models. Sociol. Methods Res., 21(2), 205–229. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Chien, G. C., Mao, I., Nergui, E., & Chang, W. (2020). The effect of work motivation on employee performance: Empirical evidence from 4-star hotels in Mongolia. J. Hum. Resour. Hosp. Tour., 19(4), 473–495. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Chipunza, C., & Malo, B. (2017). Organizational culture and job satisfaction among academic professionals at a South African university of technology. Probl. Perspect. Manag., 15(2), 148–161. [Google Scholar]
da Cruz Carvalho, A., Riana, I. G., & Soares, A. D. C. (2020). Motivation on job satisfaction and employee performance. Int. Res. J. Manag. IT Soc. Sci., 7(5), 13–23. [Google Scholar]
Davison, H. K., LeBreton, J. M., Stewart, S. M., & Bing, M. N. (2020). Investigating curvilinear relationships of explicit and implicit aggression with workplace outcomes. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol., 29(4), 501–514. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Fidyah, D. N., & Setiawati, T. (2020). Influence of organizational culture and employee engagement on employee performance: Job satisfaction as intervening variable. Rev. Integr. Bus. Econ. Res., 9(4), 64–81. [Google Scholar]
Garad, A., Budiyanto, G., & Ansi, A. M. A. (2021). Impact of covid-19 pandemic on the global economy and future prospects: A systematic review of global reports. J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol., 99(4), 1–15. [Google Scholar]
Girdwichai, L., & Sriviboon, C. (2020). Employee motivation and performance: Do the work environment and the training matter. J. Secur. Sustain. Issues., 9, 42–54. [Google Scholar]
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
Hajiali, I., Kessi, A. M. F., Budiandriani, B., Prihatin, E., & Sufri, M. M. (2022). Determination of work motivation, leadership style, employee competence on job satisfaction and employee performance. Gold. Ratio Hum. Resour., 2(1), 57–69. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Harpaz, I. (1990). The importance of work goals: An international perspective. J. Int. Bus. Stud., 21, 75–93. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Hassi, A., Balambo, M. A., & Aboramadan, M. (2021). Impacts of spirituality, intrinsic religiosity and Islamic work ethics on employee performance in Morocco: the mediating role of intrinsic motivation. J. Islam. Account. Bus. Res., 12(3), 439–456. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Hitka, M., Schmidtová, J., Lorincová, S., Štarchoň, P., Weberová, D., & Kampf, R. (2021). Sustainability of human resource management processes through employee motivation and job satisfaction. Acta Polytech. Hung., 18(2), 7–26. https://doi.org/-- [Google Scholar]
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede’s culture dimensions: An independent validation using Rokeach’s value survey. J. Cross Cult. Psychol., 15(4), 417–433. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Adm. Sci. Q., 35(2), 286–316. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Indiyati, D., Ghina, A., & Romadhona, A. F. (2021). Human resource competencies, organizational culture, and employee performance. Int J. Sci. Soc., 3(1), 1–10. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Inuwa, M. (2016). Job satisfaction and employee performance: An empirical approach. Millen. Univ. J., 1(1), 90–103. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Irwan, A., Mahfudnurnajamuddin, M., Nujum, S., & Mangkona, S. (2020). The effect of leadership style, work motivation and organizational culture on employee performance mediated by job satisfaction. Int. J. Multicult. Multirelig. Underst., 7(8), 642–657. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Isensee, C., Teuteberg, F., Griese, K. M., & Topi, C. (2020). The relationship between organizational culture, sustainability, and digitalization in SMEs: A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod., 275, 122944. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Islam, R., & bin Mohd Rasad, S. (2006). Employee performance evaluation by the AHP: A case study. Asia Pac. Manag. Rev., 11(3), 163–176. [Google Scholar]
Janićijević, N., Nikčević, G., & Vasić, V. (2018). The influence of organizational culture on job satisfaction. Econ. Ann., 63(219), 83–114. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Jufrizen, J., Mukmin, M., Nurmala, D., & Jasin, H. (2021). Effect of moderation of work motivation on the influence of organizational culture on organizational commitment and employee performance. Int. J. Bus. Econ., 2(2), 86–98. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Kosec, Z., Sekulic, S., Wilson-Gahan, S., Rostohar, K., Tusak, M., & Bon, M. (2022). Correlation between Employee Performance, Well-Being, Job Satisfaction, and Life Satisfaction in Sedentary Jobs in Slovenian Enterprises. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health., 19(16), 10427. [Google Scholar]
Koul, R., Lerdpornkulrat, T., & Poondej, C. (2017). Gender contentedness in aspirations to become engineers or medical doctors. Eur. J. Eng. Educ., 42(6), 1422–1438. [Google Scholar]
Kovach, K. A. (1987). What motivates employees? Workers and supervisors give different answers. Bus. Horiz., 30(5), 58–65. [Google Scholar]
Kuswati, Y. (2020). The effect of motivation on employee performance. Budapest Int. Res. Crit. Inst. J., 3(2), 995–1002. [Google Scholar]
Li, J., & Lambert, V. A. (2008). Workplace stressors, coping, demographics and job satisfaction in Chinese intensive care nurses. Nurs. Crit. Care., 13(1), 12–24. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Lindner, J. R. (1998). Understanding employee motivation. J. Extension., 36(3), 1–8. [Google Scholar]
Liu, Y., Hassan, M., Chupradit, S., Ageli, M., Shoukry, A. M., & Aldeek, F. F. (2021). Aggressive workplace behavior, motivation, and worker’s output: Mediating effect of religiosity among the service sector employees. Aggress. Violent Behav., 101625. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Lohmöller, J. B. (1989). Predictive vs. structural modeling: PLS vs. ML. Latent Variable Path Modeling with Partial Least Squares, 199–226. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Loong Lee, W., & Chong, A. L. (2019). The effects of entrepreneurial orientation on the performance of the Malaysian manufacturing sector. Asia Pac. J. Bus. Adm., 11(1), 30–45. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Lu, J. G., Nisbett, R. E., & Morris, M. W. (2022). The surprising underperformance of East Asians in US law and business schools: The liability of low assertiveness and the ameliorative potential of online classrooms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 119(13), e2118244119. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Manzoor, F., Wei, L., & Asif, M. (2021). Intrinsic rewards and employee’s performance with the mediating mechanism of employee’s motivation. Front. Psychol., 12, 563070. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Orgambídez-Ramos, A., & de Almeida, H. (2017). Work engagement, social support, and job satisfaction in Portuguese nursing staff: A winning combination. Appl. Nurs. Res., 36, 37–41. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Paais, M., & Pattiruhu, J. R. (2020). Effect of motivation, leadership, and organizational culture on satisfaction and employee performance. J. Asian Finan. Econ. Bus., 7(8), 577–588. [Google Scholar]
Pallawagau, A. (2021). The Impact of organizational culture, and work motivation on employee performance through employee job satisfaction PT. Kasmar Tiar Raya. Int. J. Econ. Manage. Bus. Soc. Sci., 1(1), 11–21. [Google Scholar]
Rasool, S. F., Wang, M., Tang, M., Saeed, A., & Iqbal, J. (2021). How toxic workplace environment effects the employee engagement: The mediating role of organizational support and employee wellbeing. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health., 18(5), 2294. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Rinny, P., Purba, C. B., & Handiman, U. T. (2020). The influence of compensation, job promotion, and job satisfaction on employee performance of Mercubuana University. Int. J. Bus. Mark. Manage., 5(2), 39–48. [Google Scholar]
Rivaldo, Y. (2021). Leadership and motivation to performance through job satisfaction of hotel employees at D’Merlion Batam. The Winners., 22(1), 25–30. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Riyanto, S., Endri, E., & Herlisha, N. (2021). Effect of work motivation and job satisfaction on employee performance: Mediating role of employee engagement. Probl. Perspect. Manag., 19(3), 162. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Roos, W., & Van Eeden, R. (2008). The relationship between employee motivation, job satisfaction and corporate culture. SA J. Industr. Psych., 34(1), 54–63. [Google Scholar]
Sapta, I., Muafi, M., & Setini, N. M. (2021). The role of technology, organizational culture, and job satisfaction in improving employee performance during the Covid-19 pandemic. J. Asian Finan. Econ. Bus., 8(1), 495–505. [Google Scholar]
Schall, M. A. (2019). The relationship between remote work and job satisfaction: The mediating roles of perceived autonomy, work-family conflict, and telecommuting intensity [Phdthesis]. In San Jose State University. [Google Scholar]
Schein, E. H. (1985). Increasing organizational effectiveness through better human resource planning and development. Read Hum Res Mana., 376. [Google Scholar]
Shareef, R. A., & Atan, T. (2019). The influence of ethical leadership on academic employees’ organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intention: Mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Manag. Decis., 57(3), 583–605. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Singh, S. K., Pradhan, R. K., Panigrahy, N. P., & Jena, L. K. (2019). Self-efficacy and workplace well-being: moderating role of sustainability practices. Bench. Int. J., 26(6), 1692–1708. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Soomro, B. A., & Shah, N. (2019). Determining the impact of entrepreneurial orientation and organizational culture on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and employee’s performance. S. Asian J. Bus. Stud., 8(3), 266–282. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Straub, D., Boudreau, M. C., & Gefen, D. (2004). Validation guidelines for IS positivist research. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst., 13(1), 24. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Suchyadi, Y. (2017). Relationship between Work motivation and organizational culture in enhancing professional attitudes of Pakuan University Lecturers. J. Hum. Soc. Stud., 1(1), 41–45. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Sudiardhita, K. I., Mukhtar, S., Hartono, B., Sariwulan, T., & Nikensari, S. I. (2018). The effect of compensation, motivation of employee and work satisfaction to employee performance Pt. Bank Xyz (Persero) Tbk. Acad. Strat. Mgmt. J., 17(4), 1–14. [Google Scholar]
Tran, Q. H. (2021). Organisational culture, leadership behaviour and job satisfaction in the Vietnam context. Int. J. Organ. Anal., 29(1), 136–154. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Tsai, Y. (2011). Relationship between organizational culture, leadership behavior and job satisfaction. BMC Health Serv. Res., 11(1), 1–9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Twalib, M. H., & Kariuki, M. M. (2020). Influence of motivation on employee performance at Telkom Kenya limited. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. Edu., 2(11), 421–431. [Google Scholar]
Vinzi, V. E., Chin, W. W., Henseler, J., & Wang, H. W. (2010). Handbook of partial least squares. Springer Berlin: Heidelberg. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Wahjoedi, T. (2021). The effect of organizational culture on employee performance mediated by job satisfaction and work motivation: Evident from SMEs in Indonesia. Manage. Sci. Lett., 11(7), 2053–2060. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Widarko, A., & Anwarodin, M. K. (2022). Work motivation and organizational culture on work performance: Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) as mediating variable. Gold. Ratio Hum. Resour. Manage., 2(2), 123–138. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Wiley, C. (1997). What motivates employees according to over 40 years of motivation surveys. Int. J. Manpow., 18(3), 263–280. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Wu, L. F., Huang, I. C., Huang, W. C., & Du, P. L. (2019). Aligning organizational culture and operations strategy to improve innovation outcomes: An integrated perspective in organizational management. J. Organ. Chang. Manag., 32(2), 224–250. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Yandi, A., & Havidz, H. B. H. (2022). Employee performance model: Work engagement through job satisfaction and organizational commitment (A study of human resource management literature study). Dinasti Int. J. Manage. Sci., 3(3), 547–565. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Yanti, E. D., & Sanny, A. (2019). The influence of motivation, organizational commitment, and organizational culture to the performance of employee universitas Pembangunan Panca Budi. Int. J. Res. Rev., 6(10), 176–184. [Google Scholar]
Yuan, K. H., & Hayashi, K. (2003). Bootstrap approach to inference and power analysis based on three test statistics for covariance structure models. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol., 56(1), 93–110. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Yue, C. A., & Thelen, P. D. (2023). Words matter: The impact of workplace verbal aggressiveness on workgroup relationship conflict, work-life conflict, and employee-organization relationships. Public Relat. Rev., 49(1), 102292. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Yusuf, M. (2021). The effects of the intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation on employee performance with job satisfaction as an intervening variable at pt. Alwi Assegaf Palembang. Manag. Bus. Account., 20(1), 18–31. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Search
Open Access
Research article

Examining the Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction between Motivation, Organizational Culture, and Employee Performance in Higher Education: A Case Study in the Arab Region

abdullah m. al-ansi1,2*,
mohammed jaboob3,
ali mohsin salim ba awain4
1
Faculty of Education, Thamar University, 55755 Thamar, Yemen
2
Faculty of Economic and Business, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, 55183 Yogyakarta, Indonesia
3
Deputy Director of VC Office, Vice Chancellor’s Office, Dhofar University, 211 Salalah, Sultanate of Oman
4
College of Economics and Business Administration, University of Technology and Applied Science, 611 Nizwa, Sultanate of Oman
Education Science and Management
|
Volume 1, Issue 1, 2023
|
Pages 30-42
Received: 05-08-2023,
Revised: 06-10-2023,
Accepted: 06-16-2023,
Available online: 06-24-2023
View Full Article|Download PDF

Abstract:

This study aimed to examine the correlation among motivation, organizational culture and employee performance and the mediation role of job satisfaction in higher education. A more productive and positive work environment was created by organizations by understanding the connection among these factors. This study provided valuable insight into how to create a culture of motivation and satisfaction to improve employee performance. 364 participants were selected from Yemeni and Omani universities, including academics and staff. A cross-sectional survey design was employed, with participants selected using stratified random sampling. Questionnaires were contributed online using emails and social media applications and analyzed by PLS-4. Results of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) revealed that extrinsic motivation had a negative impact on employee performance while organizational culture had a significant positive impact in dynamic environment. Results also highlighted the positive role of job satisfaction represented by supervisor-employee engagement, incentives and promotion in enhancing performance in dynamic environment. Researchers recommended to aggressively increase job satisfaction and employee performance with extrinsic motivation in dynamic environment in Arabic region.

Keywords: Motivation, Organizational culture, Job satisfaction, Employee performance, Dynamic environment, Higher education

1. Introduction

Motivation and organizational culture are two key components of a successful business. A positive and motivated workforce has high performance, improved morale, and greater job satisfaction (S​u​c​h​y​a​d​i​,​ ​2​0​1​7). If an organization's culture focuses on recognizing the individual capabilities of its employees and rewarding them for their hard work, including incentives, competitive compensation packages (e.g. salary, health benefits, retirement packages), adequate feedback on performance improvement, emphasis on strong work ethics and excellent customer service (A​r​i​f​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​9; I​s​e​n​s​e​e​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​0; P​a​a​i​s​ ​&​ ​P​a​t​t​i​r​u​h​u​,​ ​2​0​2​0), this increases the productivity of employees and make them better engage in achieving the organization's mission, thus helping fuel their motivation to succeed.

Furthermore, employee performance is closely related to job satisfaction because a large part of their work attitude and motivation is heavily influenced by their satisfaction with the tasks at hand (H​a​j​i​a​l​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2; K​u​s​w​a​t​i​,​ ​2​0​2​0). Thus, when considering employee performance, managers mediate job satisfaction to make employees satisfied with their roles and responsibilities, by better communicating with employees, planning how to complete complex tasks the best, making continued employee development plans, and providing competitive salary packages for the best employees (R​i​y​a​n​t​o​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1; Y​a​n​d​i​ ​&​ ​H​a​v​i​d​z​,​ ​2​0​2​2). Effectively mediating job satisfaction plays a major role in helping organizations improve employee performance.

Although the impact of motivation and organizational culture on performance has been studied, the impact is expected to differ in dynamic environment. Many learning approaches have changed and new approaches have emerged during and after the Covid-19 pandemic, and the pandemic still has a noticeable impact on the learning environment (A​.​ ​A​l​-​A​n​s​i​,​ ​2​0​2​2). No research has studied the impact in dynamic environment, and this study filled the research gap. This study aimed to investigate the impact of motivation and organizational culture on both job satisfaction and employee performance, and the indirect impact of these variables on employee performance through job satisfaction. After the Covid-19 pandemic has become a new normal in educational institutions, some universities have been using mixed learning approaches during and after the pandemic. This study was conducted under this condition. Based on prior literature, this study tried to answer the following two main questions:

Q1: Has the impact of motivation and organizational culture on job satisfaction and employee performance changed during and after the Covid-19 pandemic?

Q2: Do motivation and organizational culture enhance employee performance through job satisfaction?

1.1 Dynamic Environment

The Covid-19 pandemic caused unprecedented disruption to the traditional learning environment (G​a​r​a​d​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1), with most educational institutions forced to change their curricula online. As the world gradually reopens, the new "post-Covid" learning environment is significantly different. Both public and private schools and universities now need to take into account social distancing measures, which necessitates smaller classes and more distance between teachers and students. In addition, contact tracing systems need to be set up alongside improvements in ventilation and sanitization routines. Education authorities should also consider innovative approaches, such as improved digital infrastructure and blended learning strategies (combining online learning with occasional physical presence) for a successful transition of remote education. All these changes mean that there's a lot of work ahead for educational institutions when planning for the post-Covid education. But after adequately preparing all stakeholders, now educators can ensure their safe return to the classrooms.

In addition, organizations have been increasingly advised to review and adapt their environments to achieve optimal employee performance and job satisfaction. The needs and expectations of employees and the nature of work have changed significantly in recent years. To ensure productive outcomes, managers should pay close attention to both physical working environment and any cultural or social norm developing within a team. Where appropriate, employers should also consider providing training to improve the skills of employees and then increase their job satisfaction, thus maximizing the potential of the organization.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Motivation and Employee Performance

Employee motivation is an important factor in the workplace, because it affects the commitment level, energy, and innovation of employees. Motivated employees are more productive than unmotivated ones (G​i​r​d​w​i​c​h​a​i​ ​&​ ​S​r​i​v​i​b​o​o​n​,​ ​2​0​2​0), and those involved in goal setting may be more motivated (A​l​n​o​o​r​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​0). Intrinsic rewards, such as recognition and rewards, have been found to be positively correlated to work performance, while extrinsic rewards, such as income, are also motivating factors for some employees (M​a​n​z​o​o​r​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1). Employee motivation is beneficial for both employers and employees. For employers, motivated staff are more productive and contribute to more revenues. For employees, motivation increases job satisfaction, improves morale and a sense of accomplishment (P​a​a​i​s​ ​&​ ​P​a​t​t​i​r​u​h​u​,​ ​2​0​2​0). Employers should strive to encourage employee motivation through intrinsic rewards, such as recognition and rewards, as well as extrinsic rewards, such as money or other incentives.

Furthermore, intrinsic motivation is an important factor of employee performance. Evidence has shown that employees who are intrinsically motivated, such as a sense of accomplishment or the satisfaction of contributing to the organization, increase their performance, including productivity and quality of work (H​a​s​s​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1; T​w​a​l​i​b​ ​&​ ​K​a​r​i​u​k​i​,​ ​2​0​2​0). In addition, intrinsic motivation reduces turnover rates, because employees feel more committed to their work and are less likely to become disappointed (S​h​a​r​e​e​f​ ​&​ ​A​t​a​n​,​ ​2​0​1​9). Organizations looking to improve employee performance should foster intrinsic motivation by offering meaningful recognition, providing autonomy in decision-making roles, or creating career development opportunities for employees. By focusing on intrinsic motivators and investing in personnel development initiatives, organizations create a more committed workforce, thus ultimately helping achieve long-term success.

On the other hand, extrinsic motivation boosts employee performance through good working conditions, noble policies, security, and reliable relations among peers (Y​u​s​u​f​,​ ​2​0​2​1). Extrinsic motivation is also tangible, arises from outside of an individual, and can be identified by rewards meted out by the employer. On the contrary, intrinsic motivation is intangible and comes from within an individual, and employees perform well when they feel interested and pleased in their jobs (C​h​i​e​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​0). Extrinsic motivation has positive relationships with turnover intention and burnout, but a negative correlation with work performance. Intrinsic motivation encourages employees to do things for their own satisfaction rather than external rewards. Based on this literature, the first hypothesis was formulated as follows:

H1: Motivation has a positive impact on employee performance in dynamic environment.

H1a: Extrinsic motivation has a positive impact on employee performance.

H1b: Intrinsic motivation has a positive impact on employee performance.

2.2 Organizational Culture and Employee Performance

Organizational culture has a tremendous influence on employee performance and engagement (F​i​d​y​a​h​ ​&​ ​S​e​t​i​a​w​a​t​i​,​ ​2​0​2​0; I​n​d​i​y​a​t​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1). A positive organizational culture empowers employees to be innovative and productive, and provides clear direction, consistent feedback, job satisfaction, fair compensation, work/life balance, attractive benefits and reward opportunities (S​o​o​m​r​o​ ​&​ ​S​h​a​h​,​ ​2​0​1​9). Conversely, a negative organizational culture results in low morale among employees, who may become demotivated with their jobs and less likely to contribute to organizational success. Ultimately, organizations with a culture focusing on employee well-being tend to acquire better results, combined with higher-level engagement from their workforce. In conclusion, there is a direct link between organizational culture and employee performance. A positive corporate culture has shared beliefs that align with the organization's mission and values, which leads to increased employee engagement, productivity, and loyalty (J​u​f​r​i​z​e​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1).

Although some studies have investigated the seven different dimensions of organizational culture and its relationships with performance and other variables, this study focused on two dimensions, aggressiveness and outcome orientation, because they are more related to dynamic environment. Aggressive culture in the workplace has a positive impact on employee performance if it is managed correctly. This culture encourages employees to be proactive and take initiatives, resulting in improved productivity and efficiency (Y​u​e​ ​&​ ​T​h​e​l​e​n​,​ ​2​0​2​3). Employees are more likely to feel motivated when they are given the opportunity to innovate and challenge themselves, because the chance of success inherent in this type of environment is greater (S​i​n​g​h​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​9). Furthermore, by promoting competition among staff, such as incentives or rewards schemes, team members are encouraged to strive to achieve higher-level excellence while facilitating better collaboration among them. Although it's important for organizations to foster an aggressive culture that fosters ambition, it should be balanced between rewarding risk-taking and penalizing destructive behavior (D​a​v​i​s​o​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​0). Additionally, managers should model appropriate behaviors and create an environment in which all employees feel safe, respected and valued so they can thrive in their roles.

Furthermore, outcome orientation is a type of work motivation, which highly motivates employees by outcomes rather than extrinsic rewards (W​u​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​9). This manifests as a focus on meeting deadlines and goals, or competing with peers to achieve higher-level performance. Outcome orientation is linked to improved employee performance, because it creates an environment of challenge and self-improvement that encourages employees to reach the best possible results (S​o​o​m​r​o​ ​&​ ​S​h​a​h​,​ ​2​0​1​9). The focus on excellence may lead to increased job satisfaction and workplace happiness, which contributes to higher overall productivity of teams. Additionally, well-defined outcome standards help set expectations for employee performance, helping managers ensure consistency across all team members. Based on this literature, the second hypothesis of research was formulated as follows:

H2: Organizational culture has a positive impact on employee performance in dynamic environment.

H2a: Aggressive approach has a positive impact on employee performance.

H2b: Outcome orientation style has a positive impact on employee performance.

2.3 Job Satisfaction and Employee Performance

Job satisfaction is an essential tool for enhancing employee performance. It is linked to increased productivity, with content employees more productive than their unhappy peers (d​a​ ​C​r​u​z​ ​C​a​r​v​a​l​h​o​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​0). When employees are satisfied with their jobs, they are more likely to be productive, engaged and willing to make extra efforts. Research has shown that satisfied and engaged employees are more likely to stay with the company, which reduces turnover, increases retention and decreases expenditure (A​l​r​o​m​a​i​h​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​7; B​a​d​r​i​a​n​t​o​ ​&​ ​E​k​h​s​a​n​,​ ​2​0​2​0; B​e​r​l​i​a​n​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​8; I​n​u​w​a​,​ ​2​0​1​6). However, job satisfaction alone is not enough to ensure employee performance. Other factors, such as clear goals, management support, and adequate compensation, also play a role. When employees feel appreciated, supported, and properly compensated, they are more likely to be motivated and productive.

Furthermore, supervisors and co-workers play an important role in creating job satisfaction and ensuring that employees are comfortable and satisfied in their environment. Supervisors provide development opportunities for employees and feedback on their performance. They also focus on creating an environment where employees feel safe, respected, and valued (O​r​g​a​m​b​í​d​e​z​-​R​a​m​o​s​ ​&​ ​d​e​ ​A​l​m​e​i​d​a​,​ ​2​0​1​7). Studies have found a strong correlation between job satisfaction and employee performance (K​o​s​e​c​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2). Research has determined that positive workplace satisfaction boosts productivity, with the performance of unhappy workers less productive than that of their content colleagues. Additionally, studies have confirmed that work performance is correlated to life and job satisfaction for employees in sedentary jobs, and there are relationships between job performance and job satisfaction of individuals working in some industries (R​i​y​a​n​t​o​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1). Furthermore, some studies have indicated that the happier the employees are with their jobs, the better their job performance (B​a​d​r​i​a​n​t​o​ ​&​ ​E​k​h​s​a​n​,​ ​2​0​2​0).

In addition, job satisfaction is an integral factor in successfully assessing employee performance within any professional organization. It has a direct influence on how hard both supervisors and workers are willing to work, how content they feel and ultimately the quality of their output. Through programs, such as career planning and promotion initiatives, supervisors help create a sense of job security, which promotes engagement and inspires commitment of employees, thus enhancing their performance in the long run (R​i​n​n​y​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​0). Prior studies have also revealed that flexibility and autonomy are linked to higher motivation levels and improved work performance and quality, demonstrating the impact of job satisfaction on employee productivity and results (S​c​h​a​l​l​,​ ​2​0​1​9). Based on this literature, the third hypothesis was formulated as follows:

H3: Job satisfaction has a positive impact on employee performance.

H3a: Behaviors of supervisors and co-workers have a positive impact on job satisfaction.

H3b: Incentives & promotion have a positive impact on job satisfaction.

2.4 Motivation and Job Satisfaction

Motivation and job satisfaction are closely intertwined elements of the workplace. Research has found a positive correlation between motivated and satisfied employees, and employers who provide an engaging and rewarding working environment for their staff have obtained greater productivity levels, better job performance, greater loyalty, less absenteeism and improved business outcomes (A​s​t​u​t​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​0; R​i​v​a​l​d​o​,​ ​2​0​2​1). To increase motivation in employees, employers and supervisors ensure their work is stimulating and meaningful while at the same time offering incentives (e.g., bonuses or rewards) and flexible work arrangements with better work/life balance, recognizing employee contributions, creating a culture of open communication and making them in charge of tasks and processes (A​l​i​ ​&​ ​A​n​w​a​r​,​ ​2​0​2​1; d​a​ ​C​r​u​z​ ​C​a​r​v​a​l​h​o​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​0). Increased job satisfaction likewise leads to greater motivation, because employees strive for higher achievements when their efforts are recognized and they feel valued and respected. In conclusion, both motivation strategies as well as increased job satisfaction have many advantages for businesses across all sectors.

Furthermore, job satisfaction and motivation are related but distinct concepts. Job satisfaction is an individual's emotional response to his/her current job condition, while motivation is the driving force to pursue and satisfy one’s needs (R​o​o​s​ ​&​ ​V​a​n​ ​E​e​d​e​n​,​ ​2​0​0​8). Job satisfaction can be increased through managing the things valued by employees, such as monetary rewards, peer recognition, awards, personal growth and self-satisfaction (H​i​t​k​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1). On the other hand, motivation can also be increased by providing adequate opportunities for employees to realize their full potential (S​u​d​i​a​r​d​h​i​t​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​8). Creating a work environment that is conducive to both motivation and job satisfaction is essential in ensuring employee productivity and engagement. A motivated employee is likely to be more productive, engaged at a higher level, and more committed to his/her job. Although many studies have investigated the relationships between motivation and jobs satisfaction, this study concentrated on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and job satisfaction, including the roles of supervisors and co-workers, incentives and promotion. The fourth hypothesis was formulated based on these limitations as follows:

H4: Motivation has a positive impact on job satisfaction.

H4a: Intrinsic motivation has a positive impact on supervision and co-worker engagement.

H4b: Intrinsic motivation has a positive impact on incentives and promotion.

H4c: Extrinsic motivation has a positive impact on supervision and co-worker engagement.

H4d: Extrinsic motivation has a positive impact on incentives and promotion.

2.5 Organizational Culture and Job Satisfaction

Organizational culture is of vital importance when considering job satisfaction. A strong organizational culture reflects the values and beliefs of the organization, which positively impacts employees by encouraging a sense of belonging (B​e​l​i​a​s​ ​&​ ​K​o​u​s​t​e​l​i​o​s​,​ ​2​0​1​4), which leads to better performance, collaboration, and job satisfaction due to increased mutual understanding. Organizations strive to create an inclusive culture that encourages organizational innovation and supports employee growth and development. Furthermore, rewarding employees for their achievements in a fair manner also contributes to job satisfaction because it shows appreciation for their efforts (H​i​t​k​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1). In addition, when organizations foster a positive cultural environment, this helps foster job satisfaction among employees and create a productive work environment beneficial for all parties involved.

Prior studies have found that organizational culture is positively correlated to job satisfaction (B​e​l​i​a​s​ ​&​ ​K​o​u​s​t​e​l​i​o​s​,​ ​2​0​1​4; J​a​n​i​ć​i​j​e​v​i​ć​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​8; T​s​a​i​,​ ​2​0​1​1), and that organizations with positive work environments are more likely to have higher employee satisfaction (S​a​p​t​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1). Organizational culture refers to the attitudes and behaviors adopted by employees of an organization, which affect its function and total well-being (S​o​o​m​r​o​ ​&​ ​S​h​a​h​,​ ​2​0​1​9). Moreover, factors, such as manager’s behaviors, clan and adhocracy cultures, market and hierarchy cultures, and other aspects of organizational climate, all influence job satisfaction (T​r​a​n​,​ ​2​0​2​1).

In addition, aggressiveness in an organizational culture has a large impact on job satisfaction, with multiple potential outcomes (C​h​i​p​u​n​z​a​ ​&​ ​M​a​l​o​,​ ​2​0​1​7). Prior studies have indicated that aggressive environments lead to reduced collaboration and innovation, whereas non-aggressive atmospheres are correlated to more team-oriented activities, improved communication and creativity within the working environment (R​a​s​o​o​l​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1). However, it is important for managers to create and maintain an appropriate level of aggressiveness, because too little assertiveness leads to low productivity due to unorganized or lackadaisical processes, while too much aggression may foster a toxic workplace which fails to encourage camaraderie among staff (L​i​u​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1; L​u​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2). By effectively regulating aggression to create balanced cultures, organizations are able to provide employees with high-level job satisfaction while improving collaborative practices between peers.

On the other hand, outcome orientation is a type of organizational culture that emphasizes results over processes, based on the belief that outstanding performance should be achieved and measured to achieve success (S​o​o​m​r​o​ ​&​ ​S​h​a​h​,​ ​2​0​1​9). This type of culture is often associated with job satisfaction because employees feel motivated when their worth has been proved by successful outcomes. Outcome orientation also enables employees to take ownership of their work by setting clear goals and objectives, and the resulting motivation facilitates deeper engagement and commitment (L​o​o​n​g​ ​L​e​e​ ​&​ ​C​h​o​n​g​,​ ​2​0​1​9). Furthermore, such an environment frequently nurtures growth opportunities because it allows managers to reward high-achieving individuals who have exceeded expectations. On the whole, outcome-oriented cultures lead to increased job satisfaction because they provide a platform for employees to be excellent and successful. Based on the literature, the fifth hypothesis of research was formulated as follows:

H5: Organizational cultural has a positive impact on job satisfaction.

H5a: Aggressiveness has a positive impact on supervision and co-worker engagement.

H5b: Aggressiveness has a positive impact on incentives and promotion.

H5c: Outcome orientation has a positive impact on supervision and co-worker engagement.

H5d: Outcome orientation has a positive impact on incentives and promotion.

In conclusion, Figure 1 illustrates the framework of this study, including the main hypotheses that motivation and organizational culture were used as predicators of employee performance with job satisfaction as mediator.

Figure 1. Study framework

3. Methods

3.1 Participants

This study was conducted in higher educational institutions with reference to the opinions of lecturers and staff about their motivation, job satisfaction and performance. The sample size of this study consists of 364 academics and staff of Yemeni and Omani universities. The surveys were constructed in Google drive and distributed online through social media and emails. Characteristics of participants are illustrated in Table 1.

3.2 Measures

Questionnaires included four parts. To measure intrinsic and extrinsic motivation model of K​o​v​a​c​h​ ​(​1​9​8​7​), W​i​l​e​y​ ​(​1​9​9​7​), H​a​r​p​a​z​ ​(​1​9​9​0​) and L​i​n​d​n​e​r​ ​(​1​9​9​8​), 10 items were adopted with five for each, while organizational culture, including two dimensions of aggressiveness and outcome orientation, had six items from prior studies, including S​c​h​e​i​n​ ​(​1​9​8​5​), H​o​f​s​t​e​d​e​ ​&​ ​B​o​n​d​ ​(​1​9​8​4​), and H​o​f​s​t​e​d​e​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​1​9​9​0​). For the dimensions of job satisfaction, this study concentrated on the behaviors of supervisors and co-workers (B​a​b​i​n​ ​&​ ​B​o​l​e​s​,​ ​1​9​9​6), intensives and promotions (L​i​ ​&​ ​L​a​m​b​e​r​t​,​ ​2​0​0​8) with five items for each dimension. The fourth part included the dimension of employee performance with seven items (I​s​l​a​m​ ​&​ ​b​i​n​ ​M​o​h​d​ ​R​a​s​a​d​,​ ​2​0​0​6). These questionnaires were revised again to be more suitable for this study, and can be further clarified and processed where required to ensure the effectiveness of questions.

Table 1. Demographics of Sample

Measure

Item

Frequency

Percentage

Gender

Female

Male

112

252

30.7%

69.3%

Position

Qualification

Academic

Staff

Bachelor

Master

Ph.D.

226

138

164

102

98

62%

38%

45%

28%

27%

Years of experience

Less than 5

5-10

11-15

More than 15

112

85

106

61

30.8%

23.4%

29%

16.8%

Country

Yemen

Oman

215

149

59%

41%

3.3 Outer Model Analysis

Before testing hypotheses, data was processed to ensure validity and reliability, factor loading and model fit. Therefore, PLS-SEM 4 was used to analyze data.

3.3.1 Fornell-Larcker criterion

By conducting Fornell-Larcker criterion, discriminant validity of measurement models was processed. Table 2 illustrates the results, indicating that square roots of AVE (in bold) is greater than other contracts. This criterion ensured that a construct measure was empirically unique and represented phenomena of interest (H​a​i​r​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​0).

Table 2. Fornell-Larcker criterion

Variables

EP

ExM

Inc. & P

InM

OC Aggr

OCOO

Sup & Co

Employee performance

0.631

Extrinsic motivation

0.405

0.719

Incentives & promotion

0.674

0.450

0.704

Intrinsic motivation

0.529

0.588

0.467

0.736

OC aggressiveness

0.674

0.569

0.553

0.594

0.779

OC outcome orientation

0.728

0.548

0.606

0.630

0.785

0.724

Supervision & co-worker

0.645

0.575

0.566

0.504

0.675

0.668

0.778

3.3.2 Construct reliability and validity

Further analysis was conducted to examine the reliability and validity among variables. To be reliable, Cronback’s alpha should be more than 0.7 and consistent to measure these variables (S​t​r​a​u​b​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​0​4). Table 3 illustrates that Cronback’s alpha reliability coefficient is greater than 0.70 while composite reliability is also acceptable (K​o​u​l​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​7). In addition, average variance extracted (AVE) is more than 0.5 for all variables, which means that more constructs were explained than errors.

Table 3. Reliability and validity analysis

Reliability and validity

Cronbach's alpha

Composite reliability

Composite reliability

AVE

Employee performance

0.739

0.804

0.800

0.509

Extrinsic motivation

0.768

0.829

0.838

0.517

Incentives & promotion

0.751

0.799

0.828

0.506

Intrinsic motivation

0.784

0.830

0.853

0.542

OC aggressiveness

0.870

0.876

0.902

0.606

Outcome orientation

0.816

0.853

0.866

0.524

Supervision & co-worker

0.825

0.623

0.802

0.514

3.4 Outer Loadings

Outer factor loading analysis was conducted to ensure how well questions represented variables in this study. Factor loading over 0.7 was recommended (V​i​n​z​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​0). Table 4 shows the outer loading factor for all items used in this study is above 0.7 and acceptable, except the sixth item of employee performance (EP6) and the sixth item of organizational culture dimension, outcome orientation (OCOO6).

Table 4. Outer factor loading

EP

EXM

Ince. &Pro.

INM

OC Aggr.

OCOO

S &CO

EP1

0.765

EP2

0.747

EP3

0.706

EP4

0.700

EP5

0.761

EP6

0.697

EP7

0.735

EXM1

0.822

EXM2

0.778

EXM3

0.817

EXM4

0.746

EXM5

0.767

INM1

0.778

INM2

0.859

INM3

0.830

INM4

0.793

INM5

0.783

JSP1

0.791

JSP2

0.763

JSP3

0.787

JSP4

0.820

JSP5

0.821

JSS1

0.714

JSS2

0.727

JSS3

0.763

JSS4

0.829

JSS5

0.855

OCA1

0.706

OCA2

0.835

OCA3

0.794

OCA4

0.791

OCA5

0.811

OCA6

0.727

OCOO1

0.831

OCOO2

0.748

OCOO3

0.742

OCOO4

0.748

OCOO5

0.841

OCOO6

0.686

3.4.1 Model fit

By conducting Bollen-Stine bootstrapping procedure (B​o​l​l​e​n​ ​&​ ​S​t​i​n​e​,​ ​1​9​9​2; Y​u​a​n​ ​&​ ​H​a​y​a​s​h​i​,​ ​2​0​0​3), the final data processing step was executed to check model fit. The results in Table 5 indicate that the difference between correlation matrix implied and empirical correlation matrix is small. According to L​o​h​m​ö​l​l​e​r​ ​(​1​9​8​9​), values of Chi-square and NFI also represent a good model fit with more than 90% NFI.

Table 5. Bootstrap-based test (model of goodness fit)

Saturated model

Estimated model

SRMR

0.078

0.078

d_ULS

5.855

5.882

d_G

1.815

1.826

Chi-square

2225.213

2230.419

NFI

0.950

0.953

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Hypotheses Testing

SEM-PLS 4 was adopted to measure the impact of motivation and organizational culture on employee performance. The analysis results included three parts, namely, R test, path coefficient analysis and total indirect effect.

4.1.1 R square

Results in Table 6 explain R2 for two-stage analysis. The R square for employee performance is 0.648, which means motivation, organizational culture and job satisfaction explain 64% of employee performance. The second and third R squares were related to job satisfaction, and two dimensions with different values were explained by motivation and organizational culture.

Table 6. R square statistics

R-square

R-square adjusted

Employee performance

0.657

0.648

Incentives & promotion

0.398

0.388

Supervision & co-worker

0.542

0.535

4.2 Path Analysis

Table 7 illustrates the path analysis of direct impact of motivation and organizational culture on both job satisfaction and employee performance in addition to the impact of job satisfaction on employee performance.

Table 7. Path coefficient analysis

STDEV

T statistics

P values

Extrinsic motivation -> Employee performance

0.055

3.027

0.002

Extrinsic motivation -> Incentives & promotion

0.068

1.684

0.092

Extrinsic motivation -> Supervision & co-worker

0.069

3.502

0.000

Intrinsic motivation -> Employee performance

0.048

1.768

0.077

Intrinsic motivation -> Incentives & promotion

0.081

0.895

0.371

Intrinsic motivation -> Supervision & co-worker

0.063

0.155

0.877

OC aggressiveness -> Employee performance

0.072

2.253

0.024

OC aggressiveness -> Incentives & promotion

0.089

1.579

0.114

OC aggressiveness -> Supervision & co-worker

0.082

3.747

0.000

Outcome orientation -> Employee performance

0.085

3.651

0.000

Outcome orientation -> Incentives & promotion

0.096

4.019

0.000

Outcome orientation -> Supervision & co-worker

0.078

3.861

0.000

Supervision & co-worker -> Employee performance

0.069

2.900

0.004

Incentives & promotion -> Employee performance

0.058

5.463

0.000

Results in Table 7 revealed that intrinsic motivation had an insignificant positive impact (p>.05) on employee performance, while extrinsic motivation has a significant positive impact (p<.05) on employee performance, which denied H1a and accepted H1b. Both organizational culture dimensions, i.e., aggressiveness and outcome orientation, had a significant positive impact on employee performance with p<.05, which confirmed H2a and H2b. Furthermore, job satisfaction obtained through supervision and co-worker behavior and incentives and promotions had a significant positive impact on employee performance with p<.05, which also confirmed H3a and H3b, respectively. Further analysis was conducted to examine the impact of motivation and organizational culture on job satisfaction, and the results showed that intrinsic motivation had an insignificant positive impact (p>.05) on both supervision & co-worker and incentives & promotion, while extrinsic motivation had a significant positive impact (p<.05) on supervision & co-worker, and insignificant positive impact on incentives & promotion with p>.05, which did not support H4a, b &c but supported H4d. Finally, the impact of organizational culture on job satisfaction through aggressiveness and outcome orientation was analyzed. The results showed that aggressiveness had a significant impact on supervision & co-worker (p<.05) and an insignificant impact on incentives & promotion with p>.05, while outcome orientation had a significant impact on both supervision & co-worker and incentives & promotion with p<.05, which confirmed H5a, c & d and did not support H5b.

4.3 Total Indirect Effect

In addition, indirect impact of motivation and organizational culture dimensions were measured as part of the analysis. Table 8 illustrates that indirect impact of extrinsic motivation is significant with p<.05 while intrinsic motivation impact on employee performance is insignificant (p>.05). Aggressiveness and outcome orientation of organizational culture also have significant indirect impact on employee performance with p < .05. This indirect impact was measured through the mediation role of job satisfaction.

Table 8. Total indirect effect

Original sample

TIE

STDEV

T statistics

P values

Ext-Moti -> EP

-0.067

0.085

0.032

2.675

0.007

INT-Moti -> EP

0.097

0.021

0.031

0.674

0.501

OC-Aggr -> EP

0.065

0.106

0.042

2.507

0.012

OCOO -> EP

-0.134

0.184

0.046

4.010

0.000

4.4 Discussion

Although many prior studies have investigated the relationships among motivation, organizational culture and employee performance (J​u​f​r​i​z​e​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1; P​a​a​i​s​ ​&​ ​P​a​t​t​i​r​u​h​u​,​ ​2​0​2​0; P​a​l​l​a​w​a​g​a​u​,​ ​2​0​2​1; W​i​d​a​r​k​o​ ​&​ ​A​n​w​a​r​o​d​i​n​,​ ​2​0​2​2), this study used two dimensions of motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic) and organizational culture (aggressiveness and outcome orientation). These dimensions were chosen based on their huge role in dynamic environment during and after the Covid-19 pandemic. In addition, this study incorporated job satisfaction as mediator to emphasize the importance of acceptation and engagement of employees when they worked online in higher education sector. Academic and staff needed to be motivated and ready for unexpected change of learning environment due to the pandemic. This study revealed important thoughts different from motivation and satisfaction in working environment.

Regarding hypotheses testing, the study results revealed that generally motivation had a partial significant impact on employee performance while organizational culture and job satisfaction had a full significant impact, which confirmed the main hypotheses H1 partially, H2 and H3. Furthermore, H4 and H5 were confirmed partially as well. Many of prior studies support these results, including (I​r​w​a​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​0; W​a​h​j​o​e​d​i​,​ ​2​0​2​1; Y​a​n​t​i​ ​&​ ​S​a​n​n​y​,​ ​2​0​1​9). Figure 2 illustrates the inner model analysis and partial impact on job satisfaction and employee performance.

Figure 2. SEM-PLS analysis (inner model)

Furthermore, results highlighted an important issue related to job satisfaction in dynamic environment, i.e., extrinsic motivation was more important than intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation was represented by increase of incentives, motivation of supervisors and more engagement with co-workers through social media and interactive platforms during the Covid-19 pandemic (A​.​ ​A​l​-​A​n​s​i​,​ ​2​0​2​2). Learning environment became more flexible and attractive in new normal after the pandemic, and many educational methods used during the pandemic are still in use and preferable for many lecturers and staff (A​.​ ​M​.​ ​A​l​-​A​n​s​i​,​ ​2​0​2​1). Another important result of this study was emphasizing the positive role of outcome orientation on both job satisfaction and employee performance, which was significant in both cases, indicating that the focus should be in outcome than effectiveness in dynamic environment. In addition, aggressive behaviors of managers during the crisis led to a negative impact on incentives and promotion, which have not been discussed to knowledge of researchers in this study.

5. Conclusion

This study highlighted the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, organizational culture aggressiveness and outcome orientation on supervision and co-worker engagement, incentives and promotion and employee performance in dynamic environment. Study of educational environment was a good example of dynamic environment because the pandemic had a significant impact on the learning environment. Results revealed that extrinsic motivation, organizational culture aggressiveness and outcome orientation had a significant impact on supervision and co-worker engagement and employee performance. While intrinsic motivation had an insignificant impact on supervision and co-worker engagement, incentives and promotion and employee performance. Furthermore, extrinsic motivation, organizational culture aggressiveness and outcome orientation had an insignificant impact on incentives and promotion. Another important result was that the impact of extrinsic motivation on employee performance was negative.

In general, results revealed that motivation had a partially negative impact on employee performance. While both organizational culture and job satisfaction had a significant positive impact on employee performance in dynamic environment. Furthermore, motivation was not correlated to incentives and promotion but extrinsic motivation was correlated to supervision and co-worker engagement. These results gave a clear answer to research questions that prior theories and research outcomes were different in dynamic environment. Results recommended that the best approach was to aggressively increase job satisfaction and employee performance with extrinsic motivation in dynamic environment.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References
Al-Ansi, A. (2022). Investigating characteristics of learning environments during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Can. J. Learn. Technol., 48(81). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Al-Ansi, A. M. (2021). Student’s anxiety and recruitment during COVID-19 pandemic: Role of university, specialization and employment expectation. Persp. Nauki Obrazovan, 49(1), 404–413. [Google Scholar]
Ali, B. J., & Anwar, G. (2021). An empirical study of employees’ motivation and its influence job satisfaction. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag., 5(5), 21–30. [Google Scholar]
Alnoor, A. M., Al‐Abrrow, H., Abdullah, H., & Abbas, S. (2020). The impact of self‐efficacy on employees’ ability to accept new technology in an Iraqi university. Glob. Bus. Organ. Excell., 39(2), 41–50. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Alromaihi, M. A., Alshomaly, Z. A., & George, S. (2017). Job satisfaction and employee performance: A theoretical review of the relationship between the two variables. Int. J. Adv. Res. Manag. Soc. Sci., 6(1), 1–20. [Google Scholar]
Arif, M., Hayat, Z., Abd El-Hack, M. E., Saeed, M., Imran, H. M., Alowaimer, A. N., Saadeldin, I. M., Taha, A. E., & Swelum, A. A. (2019). Impacts of supplementing broiler diets with a powder mixture of black cumin, Moringa and chicory seeds. South African Journal of Animal Science, 49(3), 564–572. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Astuti, S. D., Shodikin, A., & Ud-Din, M. (2020). Islamic leadership, Islamic work culture, and employee performance: The mediating role of work motivation and job satisfaction. J. Asian Finan. Econ. Bus., 7(11), 1059–1068. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Babin, B. J., & Boles, J. S. (1996). The effects of perceived co-worker involvement and supervisor support on service provider role stress, performance and job satisfaction. J. Retailing., 72(1), 57–75. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Badrianto, Y., & Ekhsan, M. (2020). Effect of work environment and job satisfaction on employee performance in pt. Nesinak industries. J. Bus. Manag. Account., 2(1). [Google Scholar]
Belias, D., & Koustelios, A. (2014). Organizational culture and job satisfaction: A review. Int. Rev. Manag. Mark., 4(2), 132–149. [Google Scholar]
Berliana, M., Siregar, N., & Gustian, H. D. (2018). The model of job satisfaction and employee performance. Int. Rev. Manag. Mark., 8(6), 41–46. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. A. (1992). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation models. Sociol. Methods Res., 21(2), 205–229. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Chien, G. C., Mao, I., Nergui, E., & Chang, W. (2020). The effect of work motivation on employee performance: Empirical evidence from 4-star hotels in Mongolia. J. Hum. Resour. Hosp. Tour., 19(4), 473–495. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Chipunza, C., & Malo, B. (2017). Organizational culture and job satisfaction among academic professionals at a South African university of technology. Probl. Perspect. Manag., 15(2), 148–161. [Google Scholar]
da Cruz Carvalho, A., Riana, I. G., & Soares, A. D. C. (2020). Motivation on job satisfaction and employee performance. Int. Res. J. Manag. IT Soc. Sci., 7(5), 13–23. [Google Scholar]
Davison, H. K., LeBreton, J. M., Stewart, S. M., & Bing, M. N. (2020). Investigating curvilinear relationships of explicit and implicit aggression with workplace outcomes. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol., 29(4), 501–514. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Fidyah, D. N., & Setiawati, T. (2020). Influence of organizational culture and employee engagement on employee performance: Job satisfaction as intervening variable. Rev. Integr. Bus. Econ. Res., 9(4), 64–81. [Google Scholar]
Garad, A., Budiyanto, G., & Ansi, A. M. A. (2021). Impact of covid-19 pandemic on the global economy and future prospects: A systematic review of global reports. J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol., 99(4), 1–15. [Google Scholar]
Girdwichai, L., & Sriviboon, C. (2020). Employee motivation and performance: Do the work environment and the training matter. J. Secur. Sustain. Issues., 9, 42–54. [Google Scholar]
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
Hajiali, I., Kessi, A. M. F., Budiandriani, B., Prihatin, E., & Sufri, M. M. (2022). Determination of work motivation, leadership style, employee competence on job satisfaction and employee performance. Gold. Ratio Hum. Resour., 2(1), 57–69. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Harpaz, I. (1990). The importance of work goals: An international perspective. J. Int. Bus. Stud., 21, 75–93. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Hassi, A., Balambo, M. A., & Aboramadan, M. (2021). Impacts of spirituality, intrinsic religiosity and Islamic work ethics on employee performance in Morocco: the mediating role of intrinsic motivation. J. Islam. Account. Bus. Res., 12(3), 439–456. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Hitka, M., Schmidtová, J., Lorincová, S., Štarchoň, P., Weberová, D., & Kampf, R. (2021). Sustainability of human resource management processes through employee motivation and job satisfaction. Acta Polytech. Hung., 18(2), 7–26. https://doi.org/-- [Google Scholar]
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede’s culture dimensions: An independent validation using Rokeach’s value survey. J. Cross Cult. Psychol., 15(4), 417–433. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Adm. Sci. Q., 35(2), 286–316. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Indiyati, D., Ghina, A., & Romadhona, A. F. (2021). Human resource competencies, organizational culture, and employee performance. Int J. Sci. Soc., 3(1), 1–10. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Inuwa, M. (2016). Job satisfaction and employee performance: An empirical approach. Millen. Univ. J., 1(1), 90–103. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Irwan, A., Mahfudnurnajamuddin, M., Nujum, S., & Mangkona, S. (2020). The effect of leadership style, work motivation and organizational culture on employee performance mediated by job satisfaction. Int. J. Multicult. Multirelig. Underst., 7(8), 642–657. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Isensee, C., Teuteberg, F., Griese, K. M., & Topi, C. (2020). The relationship between organizational culture, sustainability, and digitalization in SMEs: A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod., 275, 122944. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Islam, R., & bin Mohd Rasad, S. (2006). Employee performance evaluation by the AHP: A case study. Asia Pac. Manag. Rev., 11(3), 163–176. [Google Scholar]
Janićijević, N., Nikčević, G., & Vasić, V. (2018). The influence of organizational culture on job satisfaction. Econ. Ann., 63(219), 83–114. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Jufrizen, J., Mukmin, M., Nurmala, D., & Jasin, H. (2021). Effect of moderation of work motivation on the influence of organizational culture on organizational commitment and employee performance. Int. J. Bus. Econ., 2(2), 86–98. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Kosec, Z., Sekulic, S., Wilson-Gahan, S., Rostohar, K., Tusak, M., & Bon, M. (2022). Correlation between Employee Performance, Well-Being, Job Satisfaction, and Life Satisfaction in Sedentary Jobs in Slovenian Enterprises. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health., 19(16), 10427. [Google Scholar]
Koul, R., Lerdpornkulrat, T., & Poondej, C. (2017). Gender contentedness in aspirations to become engineers or medical doctors. Eur. J. Eng. Educ., 42(6), 1422–1438. [Google Scholar]
Kovach, K. A. (1987). What motivates employees? Workers and supervisors give different answers. Bus. Horiz., 30(5), 58–65. [Google Scholar]
Kuswati, Y. (2020). The effect of motivation on employee performance. Budapest Int. Res. Crit. Inst. J., 3(2), 995–1002. [Google Scholar]
Li, J., & Lambert, V. A. (2008). Workplace stressors, coping, demographics and job satisfaction in Chinese intensive care nurses. Nurs. Crit. Care., 13(1), 12–24. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Lindner, J. R. (1998). Understanding employee motivation. J. Extension., 36(3), 1–8. [Google Scholar]
Liu, Y., Hassan, M., Chupradit, S., Ageli, M., Shoukry, A. M., & Aldeek, F. F. (2021). Aggressive workplace behavior, motivation, and worker’s output: Mediating effect of religiosity among the service sector employees. Aggress. Violent Behav., 101625. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Lohmöller, J. B. (1989). Predictive vs. structural modeling: PLS vs. ML. Latent Variable Path Modeling with Partial Least Squares, 199–226. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Loong Lee, W., & Chong, A. L. (2019). The effects of entrepreneurial orientation on the performance of the Malaysian manufacturing sector. Asia Pac. J. Bus. Adm., 11(1), 30–45. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Lu, J. G., Nisbett, R. E., & Morris, M. W. (2022). The surprising underperformance of East Asians in US law and business schools: The liability of low assertiveness and the ameliorative potential of online classrooms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 119(13), e2118244119. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Manzoor, F., Wei, L., & Asif, M. (2021). Intrinsic rewards and employee’s performance with the mediating mechanism of employee’s motivation. Front. Psychol., 12, 563070. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Orgambídez-Ramos, A., & de Almeida, H. (2017). Work engagement, social support, and job satisfaction in Portuguese nursing staff: A winning combination. Appl. Nurs. Res., 36, 37–41. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Paais, M., & Pattiruhu, J. R. (2020). Effect of motivation, leadership, and organizational culture on satisfaction and employee performance. J. Asian Finan. Econ. Bus., 7(8), 577–588. [Google Scholar]
Pallawagau, A. (2021). The Impact of organizational culture, and work motivation on employee performance through employee job satisfaction PT. Kasmar Tiar Raya. Int. J. Econ. Manage. Bus. Soc. Sci., 1(1), 11–21. [Google Scholar]
Rasool, S. F., Wang, M., Tang, M., Saeed, A., & Iqbal, J. (2021). How toxic workplace environment effects the employee engagement: The mediating role of organizational support and employee wellbeing. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health., 18(5), 2294. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Rinny, P., Purba, C. B., & Handiman, U. T. (2020). The influence of compensation, job promotion, and job satisfaction on employee performance of Mercubuana University. Int. J. Bus. Mark. Manage., 5(2), 39–48. [Google Scholar]
Rivaldo, Y. (2021). Leadership and motivation to performance through job satisfaction of hotel employees at D’Merlion Batam. The Winners., 22(1), 25–30. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Riyanto, S., Endri, E., & Herlisha, N. (2021). Effect of work motivation and job satisfaction on employee performance: Mediating role of employee engagement. Probl. Perspect. Manag., 19(3), 162. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Roos, W., & Van Eeden, R. (2008). The relationship between employee motivation, job satisfaction and corporate culture. SA J. Industr. Psych., 34(1), 54–63. [Google Scholar]
Sapta, I., Muafi, M., & Setini, N. M. (2021). The role of technology, organizational culture, and job satisfaction in improving employee performance during the Covid-19 pandemic. J. Asian Finan. Econ. Bus., 8(1), 495–505. [Google Scholar]
Schall, M. A. (2019). The relationship between remote work and job satisfaction: The mediating roles of perceived autonomy, work-family conflict, and telecommuting intensity [Phdthesis]. In San Jose State University. [Google Scholar]
Schein, E. H. (1985). Increasing organizational effectiveness through better human resource planning and development. Read Hum Res Mana., 376. [Google Scholar]
Shareef, R. A., & Atan, T. (2019). The influence of ethical leadership on academic employees’ organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intention: Mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Manag. Decis., 57(3), 583–605. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Singh, S. K., Pradhan, R. K., Panigrahy, N. P., & Jena, L. K. (2019). Self-efficacy and workplace well-being: moderating role of sustainability practices. Bench. Int. J., 26(6), 1692–1708. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Soomro, B. A., & Shah, N. (2019). Determining the impact of entrepreneurial orientation and organizational culture on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and employee’s performance. S. Asian J. Bus. Stud., 8(3), 266–282. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Straub, D., Boudreau, M. C., & Gefen, D. (2004). Validation guidelines for IS positivist research. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst., 13(1), 24. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Suchyadi, Y. (2017). Relationship between Work motivation and organizational culture in enhancing professional attitudes of Pakuan University Lecturers. J. Hum. Soc. Stud., 1(1), 41–45. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Sudiardhita, K. I., Mukhtar, S., Hartono, B., Sariwulan, T., & Nikensari, S. I. (2018). The effect of compensation, motivation of employee and work satisfaction to employee performance Pt. Bank Xyz (Persero) Tbk. Acad. Strat. Mgmt. J., 17(4), 1–14. [Google Scholar]
Tran, Q. H. (2021). Organisational culture, leadership behaviour and job satisfaction in the Vietnam context. Int. J. Organ. Anal., 29(1), 136–154. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Tsai, Y. (2011). Relationship between organizational culture, leadership behavior and job satisfaction. BMC Health Serv. Res., 11(1), 1–9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Twalib, M. H., & Kariuki, M. M. (2020). Influence of motivation on employee performance at Telkom Kenya limited. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. Edu., 2(11), 421–431. [Google Scholar]
Vinzi, V. E., Chin, W. W., Henseler, J., & Wang, H. W. (2010). Handbook of partial least squares. Springer Berlin: Heidelberg. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Wahjoedi, T. (2021). The effect of organizational culture on employee performance mediated by job satisfaction and work motivation: Evident from SMEs in Indonesia. Manage. Sci. Lett., 11(7), 2053–2060. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Widarko, A., & Anwarodin, M. K. (2022). Work motivation and organizational culture on work performance: Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) as mediating variable. Gold. Ratio Hum. Resour. Manage., 2(2), 123–138. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Wiley, C. (1997). What motivates employees according to over 40 years of motivation surveys. Int. J. Manpow., 18(3), 263–280. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Wu, L. F., Huang, I. C., Huang, W. C., & Du, P. L. (2019). Aligning organizational culture and operations strategy to improve innovation outcomes: An integrated perspective in organizational management. J. Organ. Chang. Manag., 32(2), 224–250. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Yandi, A., & Havidz, H. B. H. (2022). Employee performance model: Work engagement through job satisfaction and organizational commitment (A study of human resource management literature study). Dinasti Int. J. Manage. Sci., 3(3), 547–565. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Yanti, E. D., & Sanny, A. (2019). The influence of motivation, organizational commitment, and organizational culture to the performance of employee universitas Pembangunan Panca Budi. Int. J. Res. Rev., 6(10), 176–184. [Google Scholar]
Yuan, K. H., & Hayashi, K. (2003). Bootstrap approach to inference and power analysis based on three test statistics for covariance structure models. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol., 56(1), 93–110. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Yue, C. A., & Thelen, P. D. (2023). Words matter: The impact of workplace verbal aggressiveness on workgroup relationship conflict, work-life conflict, and employee-organization relationships. Public Relat. Rev., 49(1), 102292. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Yusuf, M. (2021). The effects of the intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation on employee performance with job satisfaction as an intervening variable at pt. Alwi Assegaf Palembang. Manag. Bus. Account., 20(1), 18–31. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

Cite this:
APA Style
IEEE Style
BibTex Style
MLA Style
Chicago Style
GB-T-7714-2015
Al-Ansi, A. M., Jaboob, M., & Awain, A. M. S. B. (2023). Examining the Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction between Motivation, Organizational Culture, and Employee Performance in Higher Education: A Case Study in the Arab Region. Educ. Sci. Manag., 1(1), 30-42. https://doi.org/10.56578/esm010104
A. M. Al-Ansi, M. Jaboob, and A. M. S. B. Awain, "Examining the Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction between Motivation, Organizational Culture, and Employee Performance in Higher Education: A Case Study in the Arab Region," Educ. Sci. Manag., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 30-42, 2023. https://doi.org/10.56578/esm010104
@research-article{Al-ansi2023ExaminingTM,
title={Examining the Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction between Motivation, Organizational Culture, and Employee Performance in Higher Education: A Case Study in the Arab Region},
author={Abdullah M. Al-Ansi and Mohammed Jaboob and Ali Mohsin Salim Ba Awain},
journal={Education Science and Management},
year={2023},
page={30-42},
doi={https://doi.org/10.56578/esm010104}
}
Abdullah M. Al-Ansi, et al. "Examining the Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction between Motivation, Organizational Culture, and Employee Performance in Higher Education: A Case Study in the Arab Region." Education Science and Management, v 1, pp 30-42. doi: https://doi.org/10.56578/esm010104
Abdullah M. Al-Ansi, Mohammed Jaboob and Ali Mohsin Salim Ba Awain. "Examining the Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction between Motivation, Organizational Culture, and Employee Performance in Higher Education: A Case Study in the Arab Region." Education Science and Management, 1, (2023): 30-42. doi: https://doi.org/10.56578/esm010104
Al-ansi A. M.Jaboob M., Awain A. M. S. B.. Examining the Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction between Motivation, Organizational Culture, and Employee Performance in Higher Education: A Case Study in the Arab Region[J]. Education Science and Management, 2023, 1(1): 30-42. https://doi.org/10.56578/esm010104
cc
©2023 by the author(s). Published by Acadlore Publishing Services Limited, Hong Kong. This article is available for free download and can be reused and cited, provided that the original published version is credited, under the CC BY 4.0 license.