Autonomy, workload, work-life balance and job

International Journal of Educational Management Autonomy, workload, work-life balance and job performance among teachers Johanim Johari, Fee Yean Tan, Zati Iwani Tjik Zulkarnain,

Downloaded by Universiti Utara Malaysia At 00:33 07 January 2018 (PT)

Article information: To cite this document: Johanim Johari, Fee Yean Tan, Zati Iwani Tjik Zulkarnain, (2018) "Autonomy, workload, work-life balance and job performance among teachers", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 32 Issue: 1, pp.107-120, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-10-2016-0226 Permanent link to this document: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-10-2016-0226 Downloaded on: 07 January 2018, At: 00:33 (PT) References: this document contains references to 72 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 159 times since 2018*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2016),"Work-life balance and its relationship with organizational pride and job satisfaction", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31 Iss 2 pp. 586-602 https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-09-2014-0272 (2016),"Job characteristics, work involvement, and job performance of public servants", European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 40 Iss 7 pp. 554-575 https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-07-2015-0051

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Token:Eprints:FYJY4ETU7YTS4DBUCPXF:

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.


*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354X.htm

Autonomy, workload, work-life balance and job performance among teachers Johanim Johari, Fee Yean Tan and Zati Iwani Tjik Zulkarnain School of Business Management, College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Malaysia

Job performance among teachers 107 Received 25 October 2016 Accepted 4 May 2017


Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the influence of autonomy, workload, and work-life balance on job performance among teachers. A survey was carried out among teachers in public schools in the Northern Region of Peninsular Malaysia. Design/methodology/approach – This study adopted a quantitative approach to address the research objectives. A total of 302 teachers reported on their level of autonomy, workload, and work-life balance as well as job performance. Data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 17.0 and Partial Least Square (Smart PLS) version 2.0. Findings – Based on the statistical analyses conducted, the findings reported that autonomy and work-life balance had a significant impact on respondents’ job performance. Workload, on the other hand, had no substantial bearing on job performance among school teachers in this study. Practical implications – In terms of practical ramifications, the management of schools need to focus on measures to enhance autonomy and work-life balance in improving job performance among teachers. Finally, directions for future research and conclusion of the study are also presented. Originality/value – Discussions emphasized on the importance of work-life balance and autonomy in elevating job performance among teachers. This study also provided partial support to the Border and Boundary Theory. Keywords Malaysia, Autonomy, Teachers, Job performance, Work-life balance, Workload Paper type Research paper

Introduction Education sector nowadays is required to undertake greater challenges in fulfilling the global demands and expectations of the twenty-first century. This is crucial to ensure the competitiveness and sustainability of the nation in the long run. Similarly, in the context of Malaysia, the education sector of the country has gone through continuous transformation throughout the years. The reformation carried out aims to improve teaching and learning standards in schools and higher education institutions. As Malaysia aspires to be a developed country by the year 2020, education is deemed important as it is one of the indicators to measure the success of a nation. Hence, various measures have been taken by the government in an effort to improve the quality of education in the country. In 2011, the School-Based Assessment (SBA) was introduced by the Ministry of Education. The main purpose of SBA is to improve the effectiveness of the system in measuring students’ academic progress. It is believed that such system will provide more opportunities for teachers to monitor students on an on-going basis by providing feedback to improve the learning ability of students (Brown, 2001; Maxwell and Cumming, 2011). On top of that, the National Education Blueprint, which was released in 2013, aims to place Malaysia in the top third in the world in terms of performance in international assessments, as measured by outcomes in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study and the Programme for International Student Assessment within 15 years. It also aspires to reduce the current urban-rural, socio-economic and gender achievement gaps significantly by 2020.

International Journal of Educational Management Vol. 32 No. 1, 2018 pp. 107-120 © Emerald Publishing Limited 0951-354X DOI 10.1108/IJEM-10-2016-0226

IJEM 32,1


108

To catapult the level of education standard in the country, the role of teachers should be continuously enhanced as they are main the pillars in the sector. Generally, teachers assume various duties, such as assisting schools in administrative tasks, handling student discipline, engaging in extra-curricular activities, monitoring student attendance, and evaluating students’ homework. Teachers are also expected to act as sport teachers, to get involved in the Parents-Teachers Association, and importantly to meet the requirements of their jobs. Teachers face pressure on a constant basis from schools’ inspectorate supervision and they are also required to attend staff development programs. Teachers are also expected to work during holidays to ensure that lesson plans from the education department went smoothly as planned (Adam, 2002). In other words, teachers do not only serve as educators to disseminate knowledge, but also as a manager, planner, facilitator, and exemplary to the community. Evidently, teachers, like any other professionals, have a great amount of responsibilities in their job. Hence, in order to carry out their duties diligently without any short comings, teachers need to be given more autonomy in performing their work. This is crucial as they are required to make informed decisions about the education of their students, especially in determining the teaching strategies, curriculum, and academic support. In line with this, Pearson and Moomaw (2006) asserted that teaching should be recognized as a professional career and teachers should be given more empowerment to resolve problems related to motivation, satisfaction, and stress among those in this profession. Nevertheless, highly regulated and complex job descriptions would stifle teachers’ freedom and creativity and this may result in a number of undesirable outcomes including lack of focus in teaching that ultimately result in low student achievement. According to Goyal and Arora (2012), the failure to achieve the right balance in terms of effort and reward is significantly correlated to the lack of control over workload and lack of energy in meeting personal needs and commitment. The imbalance between these two will lead to fatigue, poor performance, and deteriorated quality of life. The National Union of Teachers revealed that 90 percent of teachers have considered to give up their career in teaching within the last two years due to the high workload. In this vein, Azizi et al. (2010) reported that one of the causes for workplace stress among teachers is the heavy workload. This was supported by Bridges and Searle (2011) who concurred that heavy workload would affect morale, quality of life, and job satisfaction of employees. In the context of teachers, such adverse impact would inevitably affect the quality of teaching and the quality of education at large. Another issue worth noting is lack of work-life balance among teachers. According to Goyal and Arora (2012), most employees around the globe are under pressure to balance the priorities of family and work. Even though career growth is an important factor in achieving the goal of life, in most instances it is distracted with day-to-day responsibilities. Punia and Kamboj (2013) pointed out that teachers nowadays face greater challenges in achieving a balance between professional and personal life due to the lack of boundary between life and work. In the light of these issues, the objective of this study is to examine the influence of autonomy, workload, and work-life balance on job performance among teachers. Literature review Job performance Job performance is one of the important constructs that has continuously been given serious attention in the fields of both organizational psychology and human resources management. Jamal (2007) defined job performance as an individual’s ability to successfully perform tasks by using resources available at work. On the other hand, Borman and Motowidlo (1993) proposed that job performance is a concept that includes both task performance and contextual performance. The latter focuses on the importance of social skills as predictors of job performance. Task performance is defined as the effectiveness of job incumbents in


performing activities that contribute to the organization’s technical core (Borman and Motowidlo, 1997). Contextual performance is defined as performance that is not formally required as part of the job but helps to shape the social and psychological context of the organization (Borman and Motowidlo, 1993). Griffin (2005, in Inayatullah and Jehangir, 2013) pointed out that performance of an individual is determined by three factors, namely environment at work, motivation, and the ability to do the job. This is underpinned by Chandrasekar (2011), who purported that workplace environment strongly impacts employee morale, productivity, and job performance. If the workplace environment is not favored by employees, they will be demotivated and their performance level will deteriorate. For instance, poorly designed work timings, unsuitable authorities or duties, lack of appreciation, and lack of personal decision making opportunity would result in dissatisfaction among employees. Such constraints would create pressure on employees, which would have adverse impacts on employees’ job performance. According to Obilade (1999), teacher’s performance can be interpreted as the tasks and responsibilities carried out by teachers in a certain period of time in line with the school system in achieving organizational goals. Peretemode (1996) added that job performance is determined by the level of employees’ day-to-day participation in various activities at their respective institution. Apart from that, teachers are also burdened with administrative work that should not be included in their job descriptions. Numerous tasks at work with ambiguous roles and responsibilities at the workplace would jeopardize the quality of work-life balance among teachers. Autonomy Job autonomy is defined as the extent to which a certain work can provide great freedom, independence, and discretion of the individual in work scheduling and determine the procedures to be used in implementing them. According to Pearson and Hall (1993), this concept has been defined as teachers’ perception on the level of control that they have over their work environment and also themselves. Additionally, Diab et al. (2011) in Gavriliuk (2010) defined teacher autonomy as “the capacity to take control of one’s own teaching”. Based on the seminal work of Hackman and Oldham (1975), autonomy is one of five job characteristics that determine the level of motivation of a job incumbent. Hackman and Oldham (1975) asserted that autonomy leads to a critical psychological state whereby “experienced responsibility for outcomes of the work”, which in turn leads to results, such as better work efficiency and higher level of internal job motivation. In other words, this factor is posited to result in increased motivation and effectiveness of a job. Literature has documented consistent findings on the impact of autonomy on various outcomes among employees. Davis and Wilson (2000) reported that motivation and autonomy are the crucial elements in escalating job satisfaction and alleviating job stress among teachers. Similarly, Bacharach et al. (1986) found that constraints, such as lack of autonomy and sense of helplessness, are highly associated with stress, frustration and anxiety among teachers. Bandura (1997) shared the same notion that confidence in executing tasks will highly influence the quality of job performance. In parallel fashion, Wang and Netemeyer (2002) reported that job autonomy has a positive relationship with job performance. A study by Saragih (2011) substantiated the empirical link between autonomy and job performance. This is because higher job autonomy leads to greater confidence in the performance of a certain task. In the context of teachers, Lamb and Reinders (2008) pointed out that teaching profession should be granted sufficient freedom in determining the best solution or methods in ensuring students’ engagement in learning is in place. Importantly, teachers are in the best position to understand students’ needs and to overcome their learning problems. As such, it is purported that: H1. Autonomy exerts a positive and significant impact on job performance.

Job performance among teachers 109

IJEM 32,1


110

Workload Workload refers to all activities involving employees’ time spent in performing professional duties, responsibilities and interests at work, either directly or indirectly. In the teaching context, similar definition of workload are put forward by various scholars in coining this concept among teachers (Harold, 1984). Shukri (1998) defined workload as the responsibilities given to teachers, either in the classroom or outside the classroom. Azita (2012) opined that workload is the amount of time spent by teachers in performing various tasks ranging from teaching and learning, co-curricular activities, meetings, etc. that are related to official duties as a teacher during or after school hours. Sharifah et al. (2014) and Punia and Kamboj (2013) also provided a much alike definition on this concept in which workload is defined as the amount of time taken by teachers to set up their official duties inside or outside school hours. Hence, teachers’ workload not only requires their time in schools but teachers also have to spend extra hours after work in order to be more effective and productive in their teaching profession. According to Easthope and Easthope (2000), intensified teaching workload includes the development of the teacher-student ratio. This is due to the fact that teachers are continuously burdened with new tasks added to their job descriptions. This situation deteriorates job satisfaction and organizational commitment among teachers, which ultimately affects the quality of their job performance. This notion is corroborated by the empirical findings by Hassam et al. (2011) study, which reported that long working hours due to extra workload may have an inverse impact on job satisfaction as this circumstance interferes with one’s well-being at work and home. Similar results are echoed in the studies by Nachreiner (1995), Oron-Gilad et al. (2008) and Yeh and Wickens (1988). Drawing on these empirical result, it is posited that: H2. Workload exerts a negative and significant impact on job performance. Work-life balance According to Abendroth and Dulk (2011), work-life balance refers to the harmonious interface between the different domains of life. Daipuria and Kakar (2013) defined work-life balance as seeking for a balance between work from life and feeling comfortable with both work and family commitments. Work-life balance concept is built on the idea that work life and personal life are complementary of each other in bringing perfection to one’s life. In similar vein, Saikia (2011) defined this concept as the extent to which a person is involved and equally satisfied with their work and personal roles. Byrne (2005) asserted that the success in achieving a balance between work and life can bring multiple benefits to employers since employees are more motivated, productive, and less stressful. This is because they feel valued by their respective employer. Work-life balance also may result in improved productivity and reduced absenteeism and turnover rate. Organizations that embrace the work-life balance concept are most preferred by potential employees and they will also gain the reputation as an employer of choice. On the other side of the continuum, work-family conflict is the concept that explains on the need of individuals to perform multiple roles, for instance as husband and wife, parents, and friends in their social life. In the context of this study, work-life balance is deemed important to ensure the effectiveness of teachers in all institutions they are attached to (Duxbury, 2003; Punia and Kamboj, 2013). This is attributed to the fact that over the course of their career, teachers will stumble into problems and challenges in achieving a balance between professional and personal life due to the lack of boundaries between work and personal life (Punia and Kamboj, 2013). A study by Beehr and Newman (1978) revealed that the stronger desire for achievement may lead a person to try harder to improve their efforts in working life, at the expense of their personal life. Unfortunately, this will reduce the level


of satisfaction and increase the level of stress experienced by employees. It is also worthy to note that only a handful of studies have looked into the work-life balance aspects among teaching professionals (Bell et al., 2012). Morris and Madsen (2007) asserted that studies in this field is crucial in contributing to strategic development policies, practices, programs, and interventions that integrate the aspects of work-life balance, particularly among those who are involved in teaching profession. By having adequate empirical support on this, human resources professional can acquire a thorough understanding on the work-life balance concept and identify measure how to ensure work-life balance among teachers are in place. The role of work-life balance in predicting job performance has received much attention in the literature. Rego and Pina e Cunha (2009) and Harrington and Ladge (2009) reported that employees, who successfully fulfill the role and commitment of families, demonstrate more excellent job performance. Bloom and Van Reenen (2006) stated that work-life balance has proven to be the significant predictors of various organizational outcomes, including employee retention and productivity. Hence, it is proposed that:


H3. Work-life balance exerts a positive and significant impact on job performance. Research framework Past studies (e.g. Doherty, 2010; Bhatnagar, 2007; Saks, 2006; Shuck, 2011) have documented that workload, autonomy, and work-life balance are the significant predictors of job performance. This assertion aligns with the assumptions of the Border and Boundary Theories. Boundary theory is a general cognitive theory of social classification that focuses on methods that people develop, maintain, or alter in an effort to manage the world around them. In essence, this theory revolves around the different meanings that people assign to home and work and the ease and frequency of transitioning between roles (Zerubavel, 1996). This theory concerns the cognitive, physical, and other behavioral boundaries that exist between individual’s work and family domain, which are distinct domains (Allen et al., 2014). The boundaries vary across individuals. If individuals keep their work and family separately, the boundary is considered thick, and vice versa. Border theory focuses on the boundaries that divide the times, places, and people associated with work vs family roles (Allen et al., 2014). The integral part of this theory is work-family balance, which also refers to the “satisfaction and good functioning at work and at home, with a minimum of role conflict” (Clark, 2000). Clark (2000) posited that work-life balance can be achieved through various ways depending on two important elements, namely similarities of the work and family domains as well as the strength of the boundaries between the aforesaid domains. Underpinned by the Border and Boundary Theories, this research attempts to examine the influence of autonomy, workload, and work-life balance on teachers’ job performance in schools in the Northern Region of Peninsular Malaysia. Figure 1 shows the theoretical framework of this research. The independent variables are autonomy, workload, and work-life balance while the dependent variable is job performance. Autonomy Workload

Work-life balance

Job performance Figure 1. Research framework

IJEM 32,1


112

Methodology Research design, sampling, instrumentation, and sample items This study used a quantitative approach to measure the relationship between workload, work-life balance, autonomy, and job performance. This study focused on public schools in the Northern Region of Peninsular Malaysia. Questionnaires were distributed to 350 teachers in various secondary schools. Out of 350 questionnaires distributed, 302 questionnaires, which constitute of 83.6 percent response rate, were returned and usable for further analysis. Self-administered questionnaire were used to gather data on autonomy, workload, work-life balance, and job performance among teachers. In this study, the questionnaire adopted from original sources and some modifications were made to suit the context of the study. A total of 59 items with the five-point Likert scale were used to measure all variables understudy. In all, 18 items adapted from QPS Nordic by Dallner et al. (2000) and Jackson et al. (1993) to measure autonomy. Sample items for this construct are “I can set my own work pace” and “I can decide myself when I am going to take a break.” Items on work-life balance, which consist of 15 items, were adopted from Work Interference with Personal Life scale developed by Fisher-McCauley et al. (2003). Sample items for this measure are “My personal life suffers because of work” and “I neglected my personal needs because of work.” Five questions adopted from Quantitative Workload Inventory developed by Spector and Jex (1998) were used to gauge the workload factor. Sample items for this construct are “My job requires me to work very fast” and “My job leaves me with little time to get things done.” Finally, a total of 21 items, which were adapted from Williams and Anderson (1991), were used to assess job performance. Sample items for this measure include “I fulfill responsibilities specified in my job descriptions” and “I conserve and protect organizational properties.” Data analysis technique Statistical Package for Social Science Software version 17.0 and Partial Least Square (Smart PLS) version 2.0 were used for data analysis. A reliability test was done by observing the Cronbach’s α value with the cut-off point of 0.60. A regression analysis was conducted to examine the influence of workload, autonomy, and work-life balance on job performance among teachers. Findings Respondent’s demographic profile Out of 302 respondents, a total of 243 or 80.5 percent of the teachers are female, while the rest are male. In terms of age, 29.1 percent of the respondents are in the age group of 46-50 years old while only 1.7 percent are below than 25. The vast majority of respondents or 90.1 percent in this study are married. A total of 242 or 82.1 percent of the respondents have bachelor’s degree, 24 or 7.9 percent of the respondents have master’s degree, while the rest have secondary-school certificate and diploma qualifications. A total of 197 or 65.2 percent respondents have worked as teachers for more than 16 years. As for positions, a total of 115 respondent or 38.1 percent are senior teachers, 31.1 percent are middle level teachers while 44 or 14.6 percent are junior teachers. To test the research hypotheses, partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) technique was used through Smart PLS 2.0. This technique of analysis was performed to test the theoretically supported relationships that exist among variables of interest (Chin, 2010). As proposed by Chin and Newsted (1999), PLS-SEM also is a useful technique to analyze a complex research model as depicted in this study, which includes three independent variables (i.e. with more than five indicators) and one dependent variable. Prior to using this technique of analysis, data were screened for the accuracy of the data input and outlier detection. This was done through a procedure suggested by Tabachnick


and Fidell (2007). Besides that, common method bias was also examined to assess whether it would pose a threat in this study. This test is necessary to ensure that the results of data analysis are not affected by a single source of data method employed in this study. According to Podsakoff et al. (2003), un-rotated exploratory factor analysis can be used to detect for possible existence of common method variance. They contended that if the first factor extracted from the un-rotated exploratory factor analysis accounts less than 50 percent threshold, then such bias is not a threat. The result indicated that the extraction of the first factor accounted 16.07 percent out of the total 70.75 percent variance, suggesting that common method variance issue is not established in the present study.


Assessing the measurement model Once the data screening was completed, the reflective measurement model was assessed. This process began with the test of indicator’s loading and reliability. From the analysis performed, one item from autonomy (QA5) and workload (QWL2), seven items (QWLB7, QWLB8, QWLB9, QWLB12, QWLB13, QWLB14, and QWLB15) from work-life balance, and five items of independent variable (i.e. job performance) were deleted from further analysis due to its low reliability value that is less than cut-off values 0.40 for exploratory research (Hulland, 1999). Table I show the summarized results. Next, the internal consistency reliability was established by checking the composite reliability (CR) coefficients of each construct (Henseler et al., 2009). All CR coefficients were above 0.70, suggesting that the internal consistency reliability for each construct were acceptable (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). In addition, the values of average variance extracted (AVE) were also observed to determine the convergent validity of autonomy, workload, work-life balance, and job performance. The results indicated that the value of AVE for all constructs were laid well above the threshold value of 0.50. (Barclay et al., 1995; Bagozzi and Yi, 1988), lending the evidence of convergent validity for each dimensions.

Model construct Autonomy

Measurement items

Item loading

Item reliability

QA1 0.736 0.542 QA2 0.820 0.672 QA3 0.825 0.681 QA4 0.769 0.591 QA6 0.863 0.745 QA7 0.766 0.587 QA8 0.766 0.587 Workload QWL1 0.652 0.425 QWL3 0.696 0.484 QWL4 0.803 0.645 QWL5 0.911 0.830 Work-life balance QWLB1 0.716 0.513 QWLB2 0.785 0.616 QWLB3 0.727 0.529 QWLB4 0.838 0.702 QWLB5 0.849 0.721 QWLB6 0.764 0.584 QWLB10 0.759 0.576 QWLB11 0.782 0.612 Job performance QJP6 0.844 0.712 QJP7 0.909 0.826 Notes: CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted; R2, R square

CR

AVE

R2

0.922

0.629

–

0.853

0.596

–

0.925

0.606

–

0.869

0.769

0.281

Table I. Results of reflective measurement model

IJEM 32,1


114

To ascertain the discriminant validity, Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) criterion was employed. They suggested that the square root of AVE should be greater than the correlation coefficient of the respective construct. Table II depicts that each square root of AVE value was greater than the correlation coefficients of the respective constructs, suggesting adequate discriminant validity. To further check on this validity, cross-loadings of each indicators were also observed (Hair et al., 2014). It was found that none of the indicators has significantly cross-loaded. Thus, this further confirms the establishment of discriminant validity of the constructs (Figure 2). Assessment of structural model After the measurement model was assessed for its reliability and validity, the structural model was tested. Three criteria, namely R2 of endogenous latent variables, prediction relevance (Q2), and estimates for path coefficients for model fit assessment, were used. The results of the study indicated that 28.1 percent of the variance in job performance was explained by autonomy, workload, and work-life balance. The effect size ( f2) of constructs is also calculated to determine if these exogenous variables have a substantial impact on the Constructs

1

2

3

4

1. Autonomy 0.793 2. Workload 0.196 0.772 3. Work-life balance −0.078 0.338 0.778 4. Job performance −0.316 −0.248 −0.397 0.877 Table II. Discriminant validity Note: Diagonals (in italic) represent the square root of AVE while the other entries represent the correlation of reflective constructs coefficients

QA1 QA2 QA3 QA4 QA6

0.736 0.820 0.825 0.769 0.863 0.766 0.766

0.000 Autonomy

QA7

–0.340

QA8 QWL1 QWL3 QWL4

0.652 0.696 0.803 0.911

QJP6_recode –0.043

0.000

0.844 0.281

QJP7_recode Job performance

Workload

QWL5 –0.409 QWLB1 QWLB2 QWLB3

Figure 2. Measurement model

QWLB4 QWLB5

0.716 0.838 0.849 0.764 0.759

0.909

0.000 Work-life balance

0.727 0.785 0.782

QWLB11 QWLB10 QWLB6


endogenous construct, which is job performance. Cohen (1988) proposed the values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 represent small, medium, and large effects, respectively. Hence, the effect size of work-life balance on job performance is medium, while the effect size of autonomy and workload on job performance is small. Table III illustrates the result of the effect size. This study also used prediction relevance (Q2) as an additional test for model fit. To evaluate the predictive validity of a model using PLS, Q2 was calculated via blindfolding procedure. As suggested by Hair et al. (2014), if the Q2 is greater than 0 then the model can be viewed as having a predictive relevance. Q2 only applies to endogenous construct (i.e. job performance). Using an omission distance of six with the sample size of 302, the result showed that the model has adequate predictive relevance as the Q2 values are 0.213, that is above 0. Table III depicts the result on analysis of effect size. Besides that, the path coefficients of the three independent variables (i.e. autonomy, workload, and work-life balance) on job performance were gathered via analysis of PLS bootstrapping (5,000 resamples). The results showed that only workload had no significant influence on job performance. Hence, only H1 and H3 posited earlier in this study were supported. Table IV presents the results on path coefficients and hypotheses testing (Figure 3).


Discussions To recapitulate, the result showed that autonomy has positively impacted job performance among teachers. This indicated that teachers who have higher level of autonomy are more likely to demonstrate excellent job performance. According to Spector (1986) and Saragih (2011), work autonomy allows employees to determine the order and pacing of their task assignment, as well as procedures required to complete their tasks. Further, Abott (2014) asserted that teachers are in the best position to make decisions on how to effectively conduct teaching and learning for their students. They should be given as much autonomy as possible when it comes to choosing teaching strategies, lesson design, and also in providing academic support to students. To put it differently, by having greater autonomy, job performance of teachers can be enhanced. The results also reported that workload had no significant impact on job performance among teachers. This finding is inconsistent to previous studies by Nachreiner (1995), Oron-Gilad et al. (2008) and Yeh and Wickens (1988). A plausible explanation to this is that most teachers in the study have more than 16 years of experience in the teaching field.

Exogenous variables

R2 excluded

f2

Autonomy 0.180 0.141 Workload 0.279 0.003 Work-life balance 0.136 0.202 Notes: R2 included ¼ 0.281; R2 excluded ¼ coefficient of determination of focal predictor that excluded from the model; f2 ¼ (R2 included − R2 excluded)/(1 − R2 included)

Hypotheses

Relationship

H1 Autonomy → job performance H2 Workload → job performance H3 Work-life balance → job performance Note: t-valueW2.33 (significant at **p o0.01)

Coefficient

t-value

Supported

−0.340 −0.043 −0.409

7.547** 0.937 9.112**

Yes No Yes

Table III. Analysis of effect size ( f2)

Table IV. Path coefficients and hypotheses testing

IJEM 32,1 Autonomy

116

7.547


0.937

Workload

Job performance 9.112

Figure 3. Structural model

Work-life balance

They may have the expertise required in performing their work because they have adequate experience in executing their tasks and responsibilities related to teaching. Hence, heavy workload has no bearing on job performance among teachers in this study. Based on the results, it is evident that work-life balance has a significant relationship with job performance. The finding is in line with the results reported by Rego and Pina e Cunha (2009), Harrington and Ladge (2009), Parkes and Langford (2008), and Bloom and Van Reenen (2006). This suggests that teachers, who are able to juggle work and life and control and manage problems by themselves, are able to perform at their best at work. This is because by having a better personal life, teachers tend to have better mood at the workplace. The good psychological well-being and harmony in life help teachers to concentrate on their work and catapult their performance level. Implications, recommendations, and conclusion Taken together, the findings of this research have provided theoretical and practical implications in the domain of all variables understudy. Specifically, this study has provided additional empirical evidence to the body of knowledge with regard to the linkage between workload, work-life balance, autonomy, and job performance. As for practical ramification, the research results validated the notion that autonomy and work-life balance are of utmost importance in boosting job performance among teachers. Practically put, in reviewing the existing policies and procedures with regard to performance management, the aforesaid factors deserve a higher level of scrutiny in any educational setting. This is attributed to the

fact that teachers would engage in high performance behavior if the management of schools provide adequate autonomy and work-life balance for them to perform at their best. This study has highlighted several directions for further research endeavors. Future research should replicate the framework of this study in other settings, such as private schools or higher education institutions. Importantly, studies on these aspects in other perspectives would perhaps yield interesting perspective and understanding with regard to job performance across different settings. Finally, a comparative study between various contexts would be very useful in understanding factors related to job performance in different nature of organizations.


References Abendroth, A.K. and Dulk, L. (2011), “Support for the work-life balance in Europe: the impact of state, workplace and family support on work-life balance satisfaction”, Journal Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 234-256. Abott, S. (2014), “Teacher autonomy definition – the Glossary of Education”, available at: http://edglossary.org/teacher-autonomy/ (accessed March 15, 2015). Adam, B. (2002), “Primary school teacher’s workload of Malay language stream in Sibu Division, Sarawak”, Master’s thesis, University Putra Malaysia, Serdang. Allen, J., Balfour, R., Bell, R. and Marmot, M. (2014), “Social determinants of mental health”, International Review of Psychiatry, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 392-407. Azita, A.R. (2012), “Secondary school teachers’ workload in Batu Pahat, Johor Darul Takzim”, Master’s thesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai Johor. Azizi, Y., Jamaludin, R. and Mazeni, I. (2010), “Factors that contributed stress among secondary school teachers in four states in Malaysia”, Asia Pacific Journal of Educators and Education, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 103-136. Bacharach, S.B., Bauer, S.C. and Conley, S. (1986), “Organizational analysis of stress: the case of elementary and secondary schools”, Work and Occupations, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 7-32. Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, W.H. Freemand and Company, New York, NY. Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94. Barclay, D., Thompson, R. and Higgins, C. (1995), “The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: personal computer adoption and use an illustration”, Technology Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 285-309. Beehr, T.A. and Newman, J.E. (1978), “Job stress, employee health, and organizational effectiveness: a facet analysis, model, and literature review”, Journal of Personnel Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 665-699. Bell, A.S., Rajendran, D. and Theiler, S. (2012), “Job stress, wellbeing, work-life balance and work- life conflict among Australian academics”, Electronic Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 25-37. Bhatnagar, J. (2007), “Talent management strategy of employee engagement in Indian ITES employees: key to retention”, Employee Relations, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 640-663. Bloom, N. and Van Reenen, J. (2006), “Management practices, work-life balance, and productivity: a review of some recent evidence”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 457-482. Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1993), “Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance”, in Schmitt, N. and Borman, W.C. (Eds), Personnel Selection in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 71-98. Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1997), “Task performance and contextual performance: the meaning for personnel selection research”, Human Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 99-109. Bridges, S. and Searle, A. (2011), “Changing workloads of primary school teachers: I seem to live on the edge of chaos”, School Leadership and Management, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 413-433.


IJEM 32,1

118

Brown, G.T.L. (2001), “School-based assessment methods: development and implementation”, Journal of Assessment Paradigm, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 30-32. Byrne, U. (2005), “Work-life balance: why are we talking about it at all”, Business Information Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 53-59. Chandrasekar, K. (2011), “Workplace environment and its impact on organisational performance in public sector organizations”, International Journal of Enterprise Computing and Business Systems, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-19. Chin, W.W. (2010), “How to write up and report PLS analyses”, in Esposito Vinzi, V., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J. and Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 655-690.


Chin, W.W. and Newsted, P.R. (1999), “Structural equation modelling analysis with small samples using partial least squares”, in Hoyle, R.H. (Ed.), Statistical Strategies for Small Samples Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 307-341. Clark, S.C. (2000), “Work/family border theory: a new theory of work/family balance”, Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 747-770. Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Science, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Daipuria, P. and Kakar, D. (2013), “Work-life balance for working parents: perspectives and strategies”, Journal of Strategic Human Resource Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 45-52. Dallner, M., Elo, A.-L., Gamberale, F., Hottinen, V., Knardahl, S., Lindström, K., Skogstad, A. and Ørhede, E. (2000), “Validation of the general Nordic questionnaire (QPSNordic) for psychological and social factors at work”, Nordic Council of Ministers, Nord, 171pp. Davis, J. and Wilson, S.M. (2000), “Principles’ efforts to empower teachers: effects on teacher motivation and job satisfaction and stress”, The Clearing House, Vol. 73 No. 6, pp. 349-357. Diab, N.Y., Monnier, N. and Lavinal, F. (2011), “Pilot study on university English teachers’ professional autonomy in France”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 20-29. Doherty, J. (2010), “Teaching styles in physical education and Mosston’s spectrum”, KAHPERD Journal, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 4-6. Duxbury, L. (2003), “Work-life conflict in Canada in the new millennium: a status report”, Sydney Papers, Vol. 15 No. 1, p. 78. Easthope, C. and Easthope, G. (2000), “Intensification, extension and complexity of teachers’ workload”, British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 43-58. Fisher-McCauley, G., Stanton, J., Jolton, J. and Gavin, J. (2003), “Modelling the relationship between work-life balance and organisational outcomes”, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial-Organisational Psychology, Orlando, FL. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50. Gavriliuk, O. (2010), “Development of professional autonomy in university teachers”, Proceedings of Advances in Business-related Scientific Research Conference, Olbia, November 8-10. Goyal, M. and Arora, S. (2012), “Harnessing work: family life balance among teachers in educational institutions”, International Journal of Applied Services Marketing Perspectives, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 170-176. Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1975), “Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory”, Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 250-279. Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2014), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publications, Incorporated. Harold, Y.K. (1984), “Faculty workload: research, theory, and interpretation. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Report No. 10”, available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED259691 (accessed May 12, 2014).

Hassam, I., Tahir, M.Q. and Muhammad Aslam, K. (2011), “The retrenchment effect on job performance with mediating effect of work life balance”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 5 No. 21, pp. 8642-8648.

Job performance among teachers

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. and Sinkovics, R. (2009), “The use of partial least squares path modelling in international marketing”, Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 277-320.

119

Harrington, B. and Ladge, J. (2009), “Present dynamics and future directions for organizations”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 148-157.

Hulland, J. (1999), “Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 195-204.


Inayatullah, A. and Jehangir, P. (2013), “Teacher’s job performance: the role of motivation”, Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 78-99. Jackson, P.R., Wall, T.D., Martin, R. and Davids, K. (1993), “New measures of job control, cognitive demand and production responsibility”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 5, pp. 753-762. Jamal, M. (2007), “Type-a behaviour in a multinational organization: a study of two countries”, Stress and Health, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 101-109. Lamb, T. and Reinders, H. (2008), Learner and Teacher Autonomy: Concepts, Realities and Response, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam. Maxwell, G.S. and Cumming, J.J. (2011), “Managing without public examinations: successful and sustained curriculum and assessment reform in Queensland”, in Yates, L., Collins, C. and O’Connor, K. (Eds), Australia’s Curriculum Dilemmas: State Perspectives and Changing Times, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, pp. 202-222. Morris, M.L. and Madsen, S.R. (2007), “Advancing work-life integration in individuals, organizations, and communities”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 439-454. Nachreiner, F. (1995), “Standards for ergonomics principles relating to the design of work systems and to mental workload”, Applied Ergonomics Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 259-263. Obilade, S.O. (1999), “Leadership qualities and styles as they relate to instructional productivity”, The Manager Ibadan: Department of Educational Management, University of Ibadan, Nigeria, pp. 25-32. Oron-Gilad, T., Szalma, J., Stafford, S. and Hancock, P. (2008), “The workload and performance relationship in the real world: a study of police officers in a field shooting exercise”, International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 119-131. Parkes, L.P. and Langford, P.H. (2008), “Work-life balance or work-life alignment? A test of the importance of work-life balance for employee engagement and intention to stay in organizations”, Journal of Management and Organization, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 267-284. Pearson, L.C. and Hall, B.C. (1993), “Initial construct validation of the teaching autonomy scale”, Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 172-177. Pearson, L.C. and Moomaw, W. (2006), “The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism”, Educational Research Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 38-54. Peretemode, V.F. (1996), Education Administrations Applied Concepts and Theoretical Perspective, Lagos, Joja Educational Research, Nigeria, pp. 36-50. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903. Punia, V. and Kamboj, M. (2013), “Quality of work-life balance among teachers in higher education institutions”, Learning Community, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 197-208. Rego, A. and Pina e Cunha, M. (2009), “Do the opportunities for learning and personal development lead to happiness? It depends on work-family conciliation”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 334-348.

IJEM 32,1


120

Saikia, J.N. (2011), “A study of the work life balance among the academics of higher education institutions: a case study of Golaghat District”, available at: www.scribd.com/doc/75846987/ Work-Life-Balance-A-Research-Paper (accessed February 6, 2014). Saks, A.M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 600-619. Saragih, S. (2011), “The effects of job autonomy on work outcomes: self-efficacy as an intervening variable”, International Research Journal of Business Studies, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 203-215. Sharifah, S., Suhaida, A.K. and Soaib, A. (2014), “Workload of technical secondary school teachers: management and administration perceptions”, Malaysian Online Journal of Education Management, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 21-35. Shuck, B. (2011), “Four emerging perspectives of employee engagement: an integrative literature review”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 20 No. 10, pp. 1-25. Shukri, M.S. (1998), “Beban tugas di kalangan guru sekolah rendah”, unpublished master dissertation, University Utara Malaysia, available at: http//:etd.uum.edu.my/.../1.MUHAMMAD_SHUKRI_ BIN_SALLEH_-_... (accessed May 30, 2014). Spector, P.E. (1986), “Perceived control by employees: a meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work”, Human Relations, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 1005-1016. Spector, P.E. and Jex, S.M. (1998), “Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory and physical symptoms inventory”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 356-367. Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed., Pearson Education, Boston, MA. Wang, G. and Netemeyer, R. (2002), “The effects of job autonomy, customer demandingness, and trait competitiveness on salesperson learning, self-efficacy and performance”, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 217-228. Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991), “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship behaviour and in-role behaviours”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 601-617. Yeh, Y.Y. and Wickens, C. (1988), “Disassociation of performance and subjective measures of workload”, Human Factors, Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 111-120. Zerubavel, E. (1996), “Social memories: steps to a sociology of the past”, Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 283-299, available at: https://link.springer.com/journal/11133/19/3/page/1 Further reading Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Mena, J.A. (2012), An Assessment of the Use of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Corresponding author Johanim Johari can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]