Background
(2011),employeesarethemostvaluableasseti n anyo r g a n i z a t i o n A successfulandh i g h l y p r o d u c t i v e businesscanb e achievedbyengagingtheminimprovingtheirperformance. Notallemployeesareequalint h e i r workingandtheyhavedifferentm o d e s o f workingi n t h a t somehavet h e highestc a p a b i l i t y regardlessoftheincentivewhileothersmayhaveanocca sionaljump- start.Iftheyarehandledeffectively,theresultcanbegreaterproductivityandincreasedemployeemo rale.Employeesi n a firma r e requiredt o generatea totalcommitmentt o desiredstandardso f perf ormancet o achievea competitiveadvantageandimprovedperformancef o r s u s t a i n i n g t h a t c ompetitiveadvantageatleastforaprolongedperiodoftime, ifnotforever.
Accordingt o Judge& Ferris(1993),perhapst h e r e i s n o h u m a n resourcessystemm o r e imp ortanti n companieso t h e r t h a n performanceevaluationandt h e ratingso f employees’perform ancerepresentcriticaldecisionsthathighlyinfluenceavarietyofsubsequenthumanresourcesact ionsandoutcomes.
(citationbyM c K i n s e y (2012)),Vietnam’se c o n o m y c o n t i n u e s t o growstrongly,w i t hGDPi n 2 0 0 6 growing8 2 percent(IMF,2006)andin2007at8.4%.Boththeindustryandservice
2 sectors(whichincludetrade,h o s p i t a l i t y andtourism,banking,education,realestate,andcon sultingservices)contributes
40percentt o t h e totalc o u n t r y GDPw h i l e t h e p o r t i o n f o r agriculturalsector(where5
7 percentofthetotalpopulationisemployed)wasmerely20percent.Attheendof2005,thep o p u l a t i o n ofVietnamwas83.1million.Seventypercentofthispopulationislivinginruralar easversus30percentlivinginurbanareas.Overall,95percentofthecountry’spopulationi s i n t h e laborforce.
Tofacilitateatransitiontowardhigherproductivityoperations,Vietnamneedstoreplacelowwagec ostswithnewsourcesofcomparativeadvantage.ThoughVietnamhasclearlyestablisheditselfa sanattractivei n v e s t m e n t l o c a t i o n f o r foreigni n v e s t o r s , i t lagsbehindm a n y o f i t s Asianpeersi n overallinternationalcompetitivenessr a n k i n g s Int h e WorldEconomicForum globalcompetitivenessranking,2 0 1 0 -
2011,V i e t n a m ’ s ranked5 0 o u t o f 1 3 9 countries.Manyoftheareasshowingthelargestgaps whencomparedwithotherAsianeconomiesa r e wellrecognized,andVietnamh a s a l r e a d y star tedt o a d d r e s s m a n y o f t h e s e shortcomings.Itshowedthattheemployees’performanceofViet namesecompanieshavethel o w e f f i c i e n c y versuso t h e r Asianc o u n t r i e s T h a t ’ s a b ig i s s u e th at V i e t n a m e s e companiesneedt o s o l v e i n t h e n e a r f u t u r e i n o r d e r t o h a v e t h e highcompetitivew i t h others.TheVietnamcompetitivenessrankingis showed in theExhibit1.1.
Employees’performancei s anessentialpartf o r t h e successo f anyo r g a n i z a t i o n , andi t isaffect edbyn u m b e r o f factors.T h e performanceo f employeesi s affectedbymanyfactorswhichcomefr omb o t h i n s i d e ando u t s i d e s u c h asleadership,earning,promotionopportunities,workin genvironment,employeeemployerr e l a t i o n s h i p , leadershipcommitment,organizationalfactor sandetc.
Researchquestionsandobjectives
Thisresearchistoidentify,measurefactorsaffectingemployees'performanceanddeterminet h e r elationshipamongthem.Theresearchquestionsarepresentedas:
Which willinfluence employees’performancethe most?
- Identifyt h e organizationalfactorst h a t impactemployees’performancei n Vietnamesecompa nies
Researchscope
Vietnamesecompaniesarenumerousandofdifferenttypes.Howeverduetothelimitationso f dataavailability,researchfundsandtime,thescopeofthisresearchisthereforelimitedtoallkinds ofVietnamesecompanies in theSouthernAreaofVietnam
Respondentso f t h i s researchi n c l u d e d e p a r t m e n t head,managers,teamleadersandsuper visors.
Theemployees’performancewillbeevaluatedbytheresultattheendof2011.Theresearchdurationi s six months.
Researchcontribution
Thecontributionof thisresearchis finding the wayto improvetheemployees'performanceinVietnamesecompaniesbyfocusingonimprovingtheorg anizationalfactorsdefinedinmeasurementscales.
Researchstructure
This thesis consists of five chapters Chapter 1, titled "Introduction," provides an overview of the research area, outlining the defined problems, research questions, objectives, scope, and sources of information Chapter 2, "Literature Review," summarizes key concepts and theories related to employee performance from previous studies, synthesizing these theories to develop an initial research model and hypotheses Chapter 3, "Research Methodology," details the research process and presents the analyzed results from a pilot survey Chapter 4, "Data Analysis," discusses the results of the data collected from the survey Finally, Chapter 5, "Conclusions," wraps up the findings and implications of the research.
” discussesthemainfindingin Chapter4theimplicationsof theresult, based onwhichconclusionsandrecommendationsareprovided.
Theoreticalreview
Employees’performance
Performance management is a strategic approach aimed at enhancing organizational success by improving individual and team performance (Armstrong & Baron, 1998) It emphasizes that people, rather than capital, are the key to gaining a competitive advantage (Reynolds & Ablett, 1998) The primary goal of performance management is to transform the potential of human resources into actual performance by eliminating barriers and motivating employees (Kandula, 2006) By effectively managing and developing talent, organizations can significantly boost their competitive capacity, which is the essence of performance management (Cabrera & Banache, 1999).
Accordingt o Kandula( 2 0 0 6 ) t h e k e y t o goodperformancei s a s t r o n g culture.H e furtherm a i n t a i n s thatduetodifferenceinorganizationalculture,samestrategiesdonotyieldsameresult sfortwoorganizationsinthe sameindustryandinthesamelocation.Apositive ands t r o n g culturec a n m a k e ana v e r a g e i n d i v i d u a l performanda c h i e v e b r i l l i a n t l y where asa negativeandweakculturemaydemotivateanoutstandingemployeetounderperformandendu p w i t h n o achievement.Thereforeorganizationalculturehasanactiveanddirectr o l e i n performanc emanagement.
MurphyandCleveland(1995)believethatresearchonculturewillcontributet o t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f performancemanagement.M a g e e ( 2 0 0 2 ) contendst h a t withoutconsideringt h e impacto f organizationalculture,organizationalpracticess u c h asperfor mancemanagementcould becounterproductive becausethe twoareinterdependentandchangein onewillimpacttheother.
Employeesarethemostvaluableassetinanyorganization.Asuccessfulandhighlyproductivebu sinesscanbeachievedbyengagingtheminimprovingtheirperformance.Notallemployeesa r e eq uali n their working andt h e y havedifferentmodes o f working inthat s o m e havethehighe stcapabilityregardlessoftheincentivewhileothersmayh a v e anoccasionaljump- start.Ift he y arehandledeffectively,theresult canbe greaterproductivity andincreasedemplo yeemorale.Employeesinafirmarerequiredtogenerateatotalcommitmenttodesiredstandardsorga nizationalfactorsperformancetoachieveacompetitiveadvantageandimprovedperformanceforsus tainingthatcompetitiveadvantageatleastforaprolongedperiodoftime,if notforever.
Accordingt o Judge& Ferris(1993),perhapst h e r e i s n o h u m a n resourcessystemm o r e imp ortantinorganizationsotherthanperformanceevaluation andtheratingsofemployees’perfor mancerepresentcriticaldecisionsthathighlyinfluenceavarietyofsubsequenthumanresourcesa ctionsandoutcomes.
Performanceisthe importanttermused i n themodern organizationalstructure.Ithasbeen identi fiedfromdifferentmeanings.Accordingtoprocessview,performanceisdefinedastheconversiono feffortsintoproductivitiesinordertoachievesomeparticularresults.
Performancem e a n s b o t h behaviorandresult.Behavioremanatesfromt h e performerandtransfo rmsperformancefromabstractionintoaction.Notjustameanstoanend,thebehaviori s alsoano u t c o m e i n i t s e l f , t h e p r o d u c t o f m e n t a l andphysicalefforta p p l i e d t o t h e t a s k , whichcanbe judged apartfromtheresult(Armstrong,2000).
Bates& Holton (1995)havepointedo u t t h a t performancei s a multidimensionalconstruct,t h e measuremento f w h i c h variesd e p e n d i n g o n a v a r i e t y o f factors(Armstrong,2000).A m o r e comprehensivev i e w o f performancei s achievedi f i t i s definedasembracingb o t h behavior andoutcomes(Armstrong,2000).Employees’performance( E P ) i s animportantfactorthatcontrib utestoimprovetheoutcomes,behaviorandtraitsoftheemployees.Ithelpst o i m p r o v e the productivityof theorganization.
Nickols(2003)andFort&Voltero(2004)identifysimilarfactorthatarecloselyrelatedandaffectp roviderperformanceintheworkplace.Theyinclude:cleargoalsandjobexpectations, suitablerepertoire,i m m e d i a t e feedback,s k i l l s t o perform,knowledgeoft h e organizationalstr ucture,functionalfeedbacksystem,s o u n d metalm o d e l s , sufficientm o t i v a t i o n throughs elf-satisfactionandincentives.
Job performance is a crucial activity that reflects both the goals and the means necessary for achievement, showcasing an employee's efficiency in reaching desired outcomes It represents the efforts made by employees within an organization to attain specific objectives, with actual results being the key metrics companies use for objective measurement This study highlights the effectiveness of job performance through six essential elements: planning, goals and objectives, organizing, decision-making, individual abilities, and characteristics.
Organizationalfactors
AccordingtoMohamadSalimZahargier&NimalathasanBalasundaram(2011),there arean u m b e r o f factorst h a t m a y beaffectingt h e employees’performance.Eachemployeemayhavea differentimpactfromdifferentthingsatt h e workplace.T h e i r attitudeandb e h a v i o r canplayavital roleintheirperformance.Employeesdonotperforminavacuum.Therearea varietyoforganizatio nalfactors,suchas:
Identifyingthesefactorscanhelpimproverecruitment, retentionandorganizational results. Hence,in anattempttofillthe researchgap,the presentstudy wasinitiatedtoidentify thefacto rswhichaffectemployees’performancein Vietnamesecompanies.
Literatureo n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l culturei s reviewedu s i n g sourceswhichs p e c i f i c a l l y addressissuesrelevanttolibrariansaswellassourcesfromotherdisciplines.Theinformationgather edi s o r d e r e d t h e m a t i c a l l y andincludesinvestigationsi n t o d i f f e r e n t m o d e l s u s e d f o r t ypologies,theaffectsorganizationalculturehasonperformance,themeasurabilityoforganizational culture,andwaysi n whichorganizationscanmanage culturalchange.Organizationalculturewaso nceseenas“howthingsaredonearoundhere”(Drennan,1992)
Your jobs aresufficiently well-planned before fieldwork begins
Yourplansandorganizeswork well,coordinateswithothers,andestablishesappropria te priorities.
Youallocateresourceseffectively http://www.lawdepot.com/ contracts/employee- evaluation-australia/
Assignsprioritiesexceptionallywell http:// www.thehealthcaregroup.co m/pdf/90585.pdf
Performancegoalsformy workgroupare clearlydefined UTSEmployeeSurveyQ u e s t i o n s Clearprioritiesareestablishedformydepartment
UTSEmployeeSurveyQ u e s t i o n s Youabletoidentifyissuesandrelationshipswhencomp aringdata fromvarioussources http://www.lawdepot.com/ contracts/employee- evaluation-australia/ Youare effectiveinpreparing reportsorbudgets
Youmeetalltherequirementsofthejob http:// www.samplequestionnaire.co m/employee-evaluation.html
Youoftenmissdeadlines http://www.lawdepot.com/ contracts/employee- evaluation-australia/
Youare familiarwiththetechnicalrequirementsofyourjob Youcaninitiate,manageandbringtoacloseacompleted project
Youmeetsetdeadlines onaregularbasis http:// www.samplequestionnaire.co m/employee-evaluation.html Proactive atfindingnewtasks,astasksarecompleted,rathertha nwaiting foramanagertogivefurtherdirection.
The organization'spoliciesforpromotionandadvancemen tare alwaysfair. http:// www.custominsight.com/ employee-engagement- survey/sample-survey- items.asp
Irecommendmyorganizationasa goodplacetowork http://www.opm.gov/ surveys/results/Employee/ 2011EmployeeSurveyResul ts.asp
The environmentinthisorganizationsupportsabalance betweenworkandpersonallife. http:// www.custominsight.com/ employee-engagement- survey/sample-survey- items.asp
Overall,informationinthisorganizationiscommunic atedwell http:// www.performanceprograms. com/surveys/
What_Employers-Ask.html Informationandknowledge are sharedopenlywithinthisorganization http:// www.custominsight.com/ employee-engagement- survey/sample-survey- items.asp
Ihaveenoughinformationtodomyjobwell. http://www.opm.gov/ surveys/results/Employee/ 2011EmployeeSurveyResul ts.asp
Thereisemphasisonteamworkinthisorganization UTSEmployeeSurveyQ u e s t i o n s Managementissupportiveofitsemployees http:// www.performanceprograms. com/surveys/
The people I work with collaborate effectively to accomplish our goals, reflecting the importance of organizational culture in management According to Schein's definition from 1985, organizational culture is the learned product of group experiences that influence individual behaviors Unlike organizational climate, which is more overt, organizational culture operates subtly within an organization Additionally, organizational culture is distinct from organizational structure, as the latter focuses on the relationships between individuals rather than the shared values and practices that define the culture.
Various models exist for categorizing cultures, but the question of whether one culture type is superior to another remains Early studies indicated that strong cultures, characterized by widely accepted beliefs within organizations, tend to perform better than those lacking shared values However, excessively strong cultures can lead to stagnation and hinder adaptability to environmental changes Schein predicted that future cultures would emphasize active learning and training For librarians, defining performance is crucial before determining the best culture Initial research linked library culture to a lack of goals, prompting calls for adopting business models to boost productivity Yet, business models may not align well with libraries, where performance is more closely tied to service quality Tools like LibQUAL+ and the Balanced Scorecard have been suggested to measure service quality in academic libraries While some advocate for these measures, others caution against relying solely on them, emphasizing the need to consider unique factors affecting libraries Additionally, the presence of subcultures and demographic variations within organizations can complicate the relationship between culture and performance.
Organizationalculturea n d performancerelationhasb e e n e x a m i n e d bym a n y researchers(Ogbonna& Harris,2 0 0 0 ; Rousseau,1 9 9 0 ; Kotter& Heskett, 1 9 9 2 ; Marcoulides& Heck,1993),notmuch researchhasbeendoneonorganizational cultureasacontextualfactorofper formancemanagement(Magee,2002).Thereforet h e s e c o n d p u r p o s e o f t h i s paperi s todeterm inet h e r e l a t i o n s h i p betweenc o m p o n e n t s o f organizationalcultureandperformance managementpractices,a pervasivehumanresource developmentandmanagementpractice.T h i s s t u d y isindentedtofillthese gaps.
H1:Therei s a p osi ti ve relationshipbetweenOrganizationalCultureandEmployees’performanc e.
Many enterprises restrict their productivity enhancement efforts to skill acquisition, overlooking the significant impact of the work environment on employee performance According to Akinyele (2010), approximately 80% of productivity issues stem from organizational work environments The ability of businesses to navigate risks and uncertainties in today's dynamic economic landscape largely hinges on their effective utilization of human resources The success of any organization is contingent upon the meaningful use of its financial and physical assets Furthermore, the performance of a corporate entity, which is crucial for its survival and growth, is significantly influenced by workforce productivity Yesufu (2000) emphasized that a nation's wealth and the socio-economic well-being of its citizens rely on the effectiveness and efficiency of its various components Labor is considered the most dynamic factor in wealth creation, possessing the potential to energize and catalyze all other resources.
Conduciveworke n v i r o n m e n t ensurest h e w e l l - b e i n g ofemployeesw h i c h i n v a r i a b l y w i l l enablet h e m e x e r t themselvest o t h e i r r olesw i t h allvigourt h a t m a y t r a n s l a t e t o higherp r o d u c t i v i t y (Akinyele,2007).
Theneedtoprovideasafeworkenvironmentforemployeeshashadalonghistoryinhumanresource management.SpectorandBeer(1994)acknowledgedthatworksystemscannotonlyaffectcommitm ent,competence,costeffectivenessandcongruencebutalsohavelongtermconsequenceforworker s’well-being;therearesomeevidencestoindicatethatworksystemsdesignsmayhaveeffects onphysicalhealth,mentalhealthandlongevityo f lifeitself.Conduciveworke n v i r o n m e n t ens urest h e well- beingofemployeesw h i c h i n v a r i a b l y w i l l enablet h e m e x e r t themselvest o t h e i r rol esw i t h allvigourt h a t m a y t r a n s l a t e t o higherp r o d u c t i v i t y (Akinyele,2007).
Kohun (1992) defines the work environment as the totality of forces, actions, and influential factors that affect an employee's activities and performance It encompasses the interrelationships between employees and their working environment Brenner (2004) emphasized that an organization's ability to share knowledge relies on how well the work environment is designed to function as an asset, ultimately enhancing effectiveness and allowing employees to benefit from collective knowledge He also argued that a work environment tailored to employee satisfaction and the free exchange of ideas serves as a powerful motivator for increased productivity When appropriately designed, the work environment significantly boosts employee motivation and productivity.
Workenvironment,accordingtoOpperman(2002),isacompositeofthreemajorsub- environmentsvia:thetechnicalenvironment,thehumanenvironmentandtheorganizationalenvir onment.Technicalenvironmentreferstotools, equipment,technologicalinfrastructure ando t h e r physicalo r technicalelements.T h e technicalenvironmentc r e a t e s elementst h a t enableem ployeesperformtheirrespectiveresponsibilitiesandactivities.
Thehumanenvironmentreferstopeers,otherswithwhomemployeesrelates,teamandworkgroups,i nteractionalissues,theleadershipandmanagement.Thisenvironmentisdesignedins u c h awayt hatencouragesinformalinteractionintheworkplacesothattheopportunitytoshareknowledge andexchangeideascouldbeenhanced.Thisisabasistoattainmaximumproductivity.Organization alenvironmentincludesystems,procedures,practices,valuesandphilosophies.Managementhasc ontroloverorganizationalenvironment.Measurementsystemw h e r e p e o p l e a r e rewardedo n quantity,hencew o r k e r s w i l l h a v e l i t t l e interesti n helpingt h o s e workersw h o aret r y i n g t o improvequality.T h u s , i s s u e s o f organizationalenvironmentinfluence employee’sproductivity.
Itisgenerallyagreedthatthemoremanagercananswerthequestionofwhatmotivatestheiremplo yeesaccurately,the moreeffectivetheywillbeatenhancingperformanceandadvancingt h e n o t i o n o f organizationalaccountability( C h e r n i s & Kane,2004).Lambart(2005)opinesthat“la bourproductivityisrarelymeasureddirectlybutinferredfromchangesi n employees’attitudeand behavioursuchasorganizationcommitment,organizationalcitizenshipbehaviourandj o b satisfac tion”.A n effectivew o r k e n v i r o n m e n t management
13 entailsmakingworkenvironmentattractive,creative,comfortable,satisfactoryandm o t i v a t i n g toemployeessoastogiveemployeesasenseofprideandpurposeinwhattheyd o (Brenner, 2004).
Effective communication skills are essential for success, as they determine how well a message is transmitted and understood (Palazzolo, 2008) Communication involves the exchange of information between a sender and a receiver, and it is only successful when the receiver comprehends the intended message Many organizational problems arise from poor communication, with leaders who fail to convey clear messages leaving individuals to guess the meaning, which reflects a failure in leadership (Baldoni, 2003) Ineffective communication can lead to confusion and ultimately cause even the best plans to fail.
Theprobablefutureim pa ct o n t h e organizationw i l l continuet o b e detrimentalandfurtherdistanc et h e relationsbetweenl i n e andstaffpersonneli f communicationbarriersa r e n o t identifiedand alternativesf o r internalorganizationalcommunicationscannotb e evaluatedandimplemented.Inh undredsofsurveysatdifferentcompanies,employeescitepoorcommunicationsasthegreatestsour ceofwastedtime,effortandmaterialaswellasinternalandexternalconflict(Ladew,1 9 9 8 , p.101). Organizationalm i s t r u s t , decreasedemployeemorale,lackofproduction,andqualityofservi cebeingprovidedcouldallbecontributedtoongoingpoorinternalcommunicationsif notcorrectedorimproved upon.
TeamworkisdefinedbyScarnati(2001,p.5)“asacooperativeprocessthatallowsordinarypeopleto achieveextraordinaryresults”.Harris&Harris(1996)alsoexplainthat ateamhasacommongoalorpurposewhereteammemberscandevelopeffective,mutualrelationship stoachieveteamgoals.T e a m w o r k repliesu p o n i n d i v i d u a l s workingt o g e t h e r i n a coopera tive
Achieving common team goals through shared knowledge and skills is essential for effective teamwork Research consistently emphasizes that a team's focus on a clear purpose and common objectives is crucial for success (Fisher, Hunter, & Macrosson, 1997; Johnson & Johnson, 1995, 1999; Parker, 1990; Harris & Harris, 1996) In many organizations, teams play a vital role and should be integrated into the delivery of tertiary units Successful teamwork thrives on the synergy among members, fostering an environment where everyone is motivated to contribute and participate, ultimately nurturing a positive and effective team atmosphere Team members must exhibit flexibility to adapt to cooperative work settings, where collaboration and social interdependence lead to the achievement of shared goals rather than competing for individual success (Luca & Tarricone, 2001).
Bowersetal.d i v i d e h u m a n teamworki n t o threedimensions:cognitions,s k i l l s , andattitudes. Thecognitionorknowledgecategoryincludesinformationaboutthetasksuchasateammission, objectives,norms,problemmodels,andresources.Teamworkskillsi n c l u d e behaviorssuch asadaptability,performancemonitoring,leadership, communicationpatterns,andinterpersonalc oordination.A t t i t u d e s measuret h e p a r t i c i p a n t s ’ feelingsaboutt h e team:teamcohesion, mutualtrust,andimportanceofteamwork.
Relationshipbetweenorganizationalfactorsandemployees'performance
An organization is a system of interacting elements, structured into levels and decision-making units (Martinelli, 2001) Identifying these elements is crucial for organizational researchers Richard L Daft categorized the contextual dimensions of organizations, including size, technology, environment, aims, strategy, and culture (Gholampourrad, 2003) Numerous studies have explored how the alignment between organizational contexts influences variations in performance However, existing literature lacks an understanding of the mechanisms that explain how organizational context affects effectiveness Knowledge management may serve as a mediating factor linking organizational context to effectiveness (Zheng et al., 2010) Researchers have highlighted three key factors in managing knowledge: enablers, processes, and outcomes.
15 rganizationalperformance.Knowledgemanagementenablers(orinfluencingfactors)areorga nizationalmechanismfor
15 fosteringk n o w l e d g e consistently.Enablers,i n fact,ares o m e organizationalelementst h a t inf luencek n o w l e d g e managementprocesses.K n o w l e d g e p r o c e s s canbethoughto f asa s tructuredcoordinationformanagingknowledgeeffectively.Typicallyknowledgeprocessesi n c l u d e activitiess u c h ascreation,sharing,storage,andusageth at direstknowledgethroughoutt heorganizationandthethirdfactorisorganizationalperformance(LeeandChoi,2003).
Every organization is established with specific objectives that can be achieved by effectively utilizing resources such as manpower, machines, materials, and money Among these, manpower is the most crucial, as it directly impacts the performance of tasks necessary for reaching organizational goals In today's rapidly changing business environment, companies must adapt to uncontrollable external factors like social, cultural, legal, political, economic, technological, and competitive changes A deep understanding of these factors is essential for successful planning and execution The demand for highly skilled and dedicated manpower is increasingly vital in a competitive market, where organizations struggle to start, survive, stabilize, and excel Firms that leverage their talented workforce can gain a significant competitive advantage Employee performance across various functions—such as production, marketing, finance, and human resources—plays a critical role in the overall success of the organization To maximize output, it is essential that employees are properly trained, motivated, and supported through effective management policies, benefits, and communication Management must recognize the importance of employee performance and take timely actions to develop and motivate their workforce, ultimately positioning the company to lead in the market and seize available opportunities.
Insummary,t h i s p a r t presentedt h e theoreticalr e v i e w o f e m p l o y e e s ' performance,or ganizationalfactorsandt h e relationshipbetweene m p l o y e e s ' performanceandorganizationalf actorsonpreviousstudiesarepresented.
MostpreviousstudiesconsiderthatorganizationalfactorsshouldbebasedonOrganizationalCultur e,W o r k i n g E n v i r o n m e n t , CommunicationandT e a m w o r k M a n y studiesi n t h e fieldpeo plemanagementhavepresentedlist of organizationalfactors.
Thereis l i m i t e d r e s e a r c h o n t h e strengthoft he relationshipbetweenorganizationalfactorsand employees' performance,andt h e intercorrelationsamong thesefactors Thereareeven l e s s analysisonthecausaleffectsbetweenthesefactorsandemployees'performance,e s p e c i a l l y in Vietnamesecompanies.
Basedonthetheoreticalreview,therearefourhypothesesdevelopedandtheresearchmodelw i l l b e developedandpresented in the nextpart.
Researchmodel
Ino r d e r t o accessh o w t h e i n f l u e nceo f criticalfactorst o t h e employees’performancei n Vi etnamesecompanies,threefactorsincludingIndividualRelatedFactors,JobRelatedFactors,Org anizationRelatedFactorsw i l l b e u s e d asp o t e n t i a l predictorso f employees’performancea spresentedinFigure2.1.
Fromthetheoreticalreview,theprevioussessionhasintroducedthecriticalfactorsidentifiedi n pre viousstudy.This session willpresentaResearchframeworkthat will beusedto exploret h e directrelationshipbetweent h e criticalfactorsandemployees’performancei n Vietna mesecompanies.T h e contentsm e n t i o n e d belowareresearchhypothesesbasedo n s t u d y model.Toimplementthestudyvariousdependent,independentandmoderatingvariableswill bedefinedforthismodel.Theindependentvariableiscriticalfactorsandthedependentvariable isemployees’performance.
Thesefourvariableshavebeen chosenbecausewewantto see therelationshipbetweenthem.Forexample,ifthecriticalfactorsareimplementedthendoestheya ffecttotheemployees’
TEAM: Teamwork performance.Tostudythesefourvariables,theirtoolsarealsoidentifiedthroughwhichtherelati onshipbetweenthetwowouldbestudied.Itisevidentfromtheexistingliteraturethattherea r e ide ntifiedvariableswhichinfluencet h e employees’performance.T h e researchframeworkmodelis mentioned inFigure2.1.
Hypothesessummary
H1:Thereis a p osi t iverelationshipbetweenOrganizationalCultureandEmployees’performance. H2:ThereisapositiverelationshipbetweenWorkingEnvironmentandEmployees’performance. H3:Thereis a positiverelationshipbetweenCommunicationandEmployees’performance.
Summary
Ino r d e r t o determinet h e organizationalfactorst h a t affectt h e employees'performance,a n u m b e r o f factorsh a v e beenp r o p o s e d t o bep o t e n t i a l predictors.Thesefactorsa r e Organiz ationalCulture,WorkingEnvironment,CommunicationandTeamwork.Theresearchm o d e l th attakesintoaccountthedirectrelationshipsbetweentheorganizationalfactorsandemployee s'performancewasdeveloped.
Thischapterpresentedasummaryofdefinitionsandperceptionsinliteraturefortheconceptso f emp loyees'performance.Giventherehasnopreviousresearchconductedtodeterminetheorganizationa lfactorso r i d e n t i f y the seto f criteriau s e d t o measuret h e e m p l o y e e s ' performanceinVietna mesecompanies.Basedonthefindingsofthischapteronorganizationalfactors,thisresearchwillatt empttofindoutthesetoforganizationalfactorsandsetofemployees'performanceinVietna mesecompaniesaswellasmeasuretherelationshipbetweenthem.
Theresearchmethodologydevelopedtotestthehypothesesderivedfromtheproposedresearchmod el is presented in thenextchapter.
Literature Review In-depth Interviews Revision First Draft Questionnaire
Official Survey Reliability Analysis Factor Analysis Regression AnalysisConclusions & Recommendations
Introduction
ThischapterwillintroduceresearchmethodologythatisusedtotesttheResearchframeworkdevelo pedi n p r e v i o u s session.Itw i l l presentresearchdesign,h o w t o generatesurveyedquestionna ires,howtosurvey forresearchdata,howtoaccessthisdatasettoknowifitisreliableandanaly zethedatafrompilotsurveybyreliabilityandfactoranalysisandhowtoconductthefinalsurveyt ocollectthedataforanalysis
Researchdesign
Thepurposeofthisstepistocreateasetofdraftquestionnairesforpilotsurveytomeasureindep endentanddependentvariableswhichweredefinedinresearchmodel.Thisstepisusedt o makesure thattheinitialResearchframework,itsvariablesandtheconceptsregardingthecriticalfactorsdevel opedinprevioussessionaresuitable withVietnamesecompanies.
Thepurposeofp i l o t s u r v e y i s t o p r e l i m i n a r i l y t e s t t h e r e l i a b i l i t y oft h e factorsu s e d , t h e l o g i c a l i t y andsuitabilityofthequestionnairesandseeifthereshouldbeanymodific ationorimprovementneeded.Reliability analysiswasusedtotestfortheconsistency ofthe measurement.
Inthisstep,theofficialquestionnaireis finalized followingthefindingsfrom thepilotsurvey.T h e officialquestionnaireismadeinbothEnglishandVietnameseversionwith Likertscaleo f 5pointsgiventhetargetedrespondentsareallemployees’levelswhoshouldhavea deepv i e w o n t h e questionsa s k e d T h e measuresarepresentedi n T a b l e 2 1 T h e measure mentscaleo f indicatorsi s Likerts c a l e from1 t o 5 s u c h ass t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e , disagree,neutra l,agree,andstronglyagree.
Thequestionnairewasdesignedtostudytheimpactofcriticalfactorsonemployees’performancei n V i e t n a m e s e c o m p a n i e s T h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e includeda t o t a l o f 20questionsandwasd esignedonLikertscaletypefrom1 to5suchasstronglydisagree,disagree,neutral,agree,andstronglyagree.
Measurementscale
Allthefactorsfromthemodelinthisresearchareoriginalfrommanypreviousstudieswithciting. Basedo n t h e literaturereviewbriefing,them o s t appreciatem e a s u r e m e n t s c a l e i s a multivaria tescaleappliedforthisresearch.
Insummary,basedonthe previousresearchandafterrefinement,20variablesareselectedandgrou pedaccordingtotheir characteristic,namely:individual relatedfactors,jobrelatedfactors,org anizationalrelatedfactorsandemployees’performance.Thelistofvariablesandmeasurementscale using forthisresearchis summarized inTable3.1
ORGC1 TheOrganization'spoliciesfor promotion andadvancement arealwaysfair http:// www.custominsight.com/ employee-engagement- survey/sample-survey- items.asp
ORGC2 Everybodyistreated fairlyinthisorganization ORGC3 Thisorganizationrespectsitsemployees ORGC4 Theleadersofthisorganization knowwhat theyaredoing
WENV1 Thisorganizationhasareal interestinthewelfareandsatisfaction of thosewhoworkhere
WENV2 Irecommendmyorganizationasagoodplacetowork http://www.opm.gov/ surveys/results/Employee/ 2011EmployeeSurveyResult s.asp
WENV3 Theenvironmentinthisorganizationsupportsabalancebet weenworkand personallife. http:// www.custominsight.com/ employee-engagement- survey/sample-survey- items.asp
COM1 Comparedtootherorganizations,thisorganizationhasusef ul method of communication.
COM2 Overall,informationinthisorganizationiscommunicated well http:// www.performanceprograms.c om/surveys/
COM3 Informationandknowledgearesharedopenlywithinthisor ganization http:// www.custominsight.com/ employee-engagement- survey/sample-survey- items.asp
COM4 Ihaveenoughinformationtodomyjobwell. http://www.opm.gov/ surveys/results/Employee/ 2011EmployeeSurveyResult s.asp
TEAM1 Thereisemphasisonteamworkinthisorganization UTSEmployeeSurveyQuestio ns TEAM2 Managementissupportiveofitsemployees http:// www.performanceprograms.c om/surveys/
TEAM4 ThepeopleIworkwithcooperatetogetthejob done. http://www.opm.gov/ surveys/results/Employee/ 2011EmployeeSurveyResult s.asp
Samplesize
Thesamples i z e i s determinedaccordingt o t e c h n i q u e o f m u l t i variableanalysis.Factora nalysisandm u l t i regressionm e t h o d s areu s e d f o r t h i s research.Infactoranalysis,t h e sa mplesizeshouldbeaslargeaspossiblewiththeminimumshouldbeatleastfivetimesasm a n y o bservationsasthenumberoffactorsto beanalyzedandpreferablynotlessthan100.
Asthereare20variables usedforthefactorsanalysis,theminimum samplesizeshouldbe1
0 0 ( 2 0 x 5 ) Inaddition,f o r t h e m u l t i regressionm o d e l , m i n i m u m s a m p l e s i z e s h o u l d b e equalt o nP+8m,w h i c h m aren u m b e r o f independentvariables( T a b a c h n i c k andF idell,1996).WiththeinitialResearchmodel,thereare3independentvariables;minimumsamp les i z e forthisshouldbe170(50+8x15).Inlightoftheabovetworequirements, thisresearc hchoosethebiggestsamplesize.Therefore,samplesizeusedforthisresearchshould be170.
Samplingtechniques
Inq u a n t i t a t i v e researches,i t i s believedt h a t i f t h e samplei s c a r e f u l l y o b t a i n e d , i t i s t h e n p o s s i b l e t o generalizet h e resultst o t h e w h o l e p o p u l a t i o n assuggestedby.T h e rese archeru s e d simplerandomsamplingtechniqueswhereforeachcompany,thespeakerwascontacte dfirstandlistsofpermanentemployeeswereobtainedthroughwhichemployeesindifferentdepa rtmentswererandomlychosen.
Datacollectionmethods
Primarydata collection
Theprimarydatacollectionmethodexploredtheoriginalityofdatathroughgatheringinformation relevanttothestudy.PrimarydatawasobtainedfromrespondentsinVietnamesecompanies.Byusin gofthequestionnairesandinterviewmanuals,theresearchgathereddatafromtherespondentswhic hinfactweretheprimaryconcernofthis surveydesignapproach.
Secondarydatacollection
Secondarydatacollectionexploredmethodssupplementarytotheabovemethodwheredata wasobtainedfromVietnamesecompaniesr e c o r d s (obtainedfromheadso f variousdepartmentsa ndspeakers),dissertations,textbooks,theinternetandothermaterials(suchasjournals,newspapers ,etc.)asfoundusefultothestudy.Thiskindofdatacollectionmethodwasalsoimportantt o t h e s t u d y e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e literaturereviewands e s s i o n f i v e o f t h i s study.
Dataqualitycontrol
Validity
Aftercollectingdatafrommainsurvey,theExploratoryFactorAnalysis(EFA)methodwasappl iedto explorethe interrelationshipbetweenthevariables.
Reliability
To assess the internal consistency of the survey data, Cronbach's alpha and item-to-total correlation coefficients will be utilized to eliminate inappropriate items The formula for standardized Cronbach's alpha is defined by the number of items, the average inter-item covariance, and the average variance Increasing the number of items generally leads to a higher alpha, while a low average inter-item correlation results in a lower alpha Conversely, a rise in the average inter-item correlation will enhance Cronbach's alpha In most social science research contexts, a Cronbach's alpha of 0.60 or higher is deemed acceptable.
Dataanalysismethod
The study utilized a statistical package for social scientists to analyze respondents' data through descriptive and inferential statistics Descriptive statistics were employed to numerically and graphically present the overall data, while Pearson’s correlation coefficient was calculated to convert categorical data into numerical representations This involved creating frequency tables, graphics, and correlation tables to effectively describe the gathered data Inferential statistics were derived from descriptive statistics for each objective, utilizing percentages to draw conclusions from the collected data Techniques such as histogram curves were applied to make inferences and predictions about the broader population based on a sample The researcher made generalizations using authentic data, supplemented by qualitative insights from interviews and personal observations.
This chapter outlines the research methodology employed in the study, which consists of three main phases The initial phase involved a literature review and interviews aimed at preliminarily assessing the content and applicability of various measures based on existing literature Additionally, the interviews helped identify key informants for the research The second phase included a pilot survey conducted with 34 potential respondents from Vietnamese companies in Ho Chi Minh City to refine the measures Most constructs were measured using multiple items, which were further refined through reliability analysis (item-total correlation and Cronbach’s alpha) and factor analysis Modifications to the measures were made following this refining process, and the preliminary assessment indicated that the scales used to measure the theoretical constructs in the study exhibited acceptable levels of reliability The subsequent chapters will present the data analysis from the main survey and discuss the statistical results of the hypothesis testing.
Thischapterw i l l presentt h e assessmento f m e a s u r e m e n t scalesandr e s u l t o f hypotheses t e s t i n g aboutorganizationalfactorsonemployees’performanceinVietnamesecompaniesin
Beforestartingwiththeofficialsurvey,apre- testedonasmallsample(n4)ofrandomlyselectedemployeesi n ordert o establisha highdeg reeofr e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e measurementscales.
TheCronbach’sa l p h at e s t i s carriedo u t i n ordert o t e s t t h e r e l i a b i l i t y oft h e measurements cales.T h e conditiono f eachscalesareo v e r 0 6 i s acceptablef o r t h e r e l i a b i l i t y oft h e m B esides,inordertoincreasetheCronbach’salphaofthescales,thevariableswhichtheitem- totalcorrelationaresmallerthan 0.3areconsidered to bedeleted.
AstheresultofCronbach’sAlphaofOrganizationalCultureisshownintheTable4.1above,i t is(0.8 16)whichislargerthan0.6,andalltheCorrectedItem-TotalCorrelationintheTable
4.1arelargerthan0.3.Therefore,thesevariablesareacceptedforExploratoryFactorAnalysis(EFA)later.
Organizationculture–ORGC(4items).Cronbach’sAlpha=0.816
Workingenvironment–WENV(3items).Cronbach’sAlpha=0.722
Communication– COM(4items).Cronbach’sAlpha=0.795
Teamwork– TEAM(4items).Cronbach’sAlpha=0.739
Employees'performance– EP (5items).Cronbach’sAlpha=0.865
EnvironmentisshownintheTable4.1above,i t is(0.722)whichislargerthan0.6,andalltheCorrected Item-TotalCorrelationintheTable
4.1arelargerthan0.3.Therefore,thesevariablesareacceptedforExploratoryFactorAnalysis(E FA)later.
EnvironmentisshownintheTable4.1above,i t is(0.795)whichislargerthan0.6,andalltheCorrected Item-TotalCorrelationintheTable
4.1arelargerthan0.3.Therefore,thesevariablesareacceptedforExploratoryFactorAnalysis(E FA)later.
Ast h e resulto f Cronbach’sA l p h a ofTeamW o r k iss h o w n i n t h e T a b l e 4 1 above,i t i s (0.73 9)whichislargerthan0.6,andalltheCorrectedItem-
TotalCorrelationintheTable4.1arelargerthan0.3 Therefore,these variablesareacceptedforE x p l o r a t o r y FactorAnalysis(EFA) later.
TotalCorrelationint h e Table4 1 a r e largert h a n 0 3 Therefore,t h e s e variablesa r e accept edf o r E x p l o r a t o r y FactorAnalysis(EFA) later.
Withalltheresultsabove,therewasthehighreliability,andthepilottestinghadaverygoodresult.The refore,theauthorcancontinuewith theofficialsurvey.
Outof175respondentsintermofage,thereare108respondents(61.7%)arefrom25to30yearsold ,while53respondents(30.3%)from30to40yearsoldand14respondents(8%)arel e s s t h a n
Inthepercentageofownershipoftherespondents,thenumberofrespondentswhoarefromt h e PrivateC o m p a n y i s 4 4 % , ForeignInvestmentC o m p a n y i s 22.9%,andS t a t e -
O w n e d C o m p a n y is20.6%.Otherwise,9 7 % o f t h e respondentsarefromM u l t i - n a t i o n a l C o m p a n y and2.9%areJoint-StockCompany.Theresultsarein theTable4.2.
Int h e percentageo f j o b levelo f t h e respondents,t h e n u m b e r ofrespondentsw h o Staffis3 2 % , TeamLeaderis 28%, andManageris 24% Otherwise,13.7%ofthe respondentsareDirectors and2.3%areAssistantsDirector.Theresultsarein theTable4.2.
Firstly,theCronbach’salphatestiscarriedoutinordertotestthereliabilityofthemeasurementsc ales.Theconditionofeachscalesareover0.6isacceptableforthereliability
29 ofthem.Besides,inordertoincreasetheCronbach’salphaofthescales,thevariableswhicht h e ite m-totalcorrelationaresmallerthan 0.3 areconsideredto bedeleted.
Secondly,t h e EFAi s alsoconductedt o t e s t t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e m e a s u r e m e n t scales.T h e principalcomponentextractionmethodisusedthevarimaxrotationmethod.Thecriteriafort h e validityofEFAmethodformeasurementscalesaretheEigenvalueisgreaterthan1andt h e t o t a l variableexplainedisover50%.
AstheresultofCronbach’sAlphaofOrganizationalCultureisshownintheTable4.3,itis(0.791 )whichislargerthan0.6,andalltheCorrectedItem-
TotalCorrelationintheTable4.3arelargerthan0.3 Therefore,t h e s e variablesa re acceptedforE xploratory FactorAnalysis(EFA)later.
AstheresultofCronbach’sAlphaofWorkingEnvironmenti s shownintheTable4.3,itis(0.6 74)whichislargerthan0.6,andalltheCorrectedItem-
TotalCorrelationintheTable4.3arelargerthan0.3 Therefore,these variablesareacceptedforE x p l o r a t o r y FactorAnalysis(EFA) later.
AstheresultofCronbach’sAlphaofWorkingEnvironmenti s shownintheTable4.3,itis(0.7 82)whichislargerthan0.6,andalltheCorrectedItem-
TotalCorrelationintheTable4.3arelargerthan 0.3 Therefore,these variablesareacceptedforE x p l o r a t o r y FactorAnalysis(EFA) later.
Ast h e resulto f Cronbach’sA l p h a o fTeamW o r k i s s h o w n i n theTable4 3 , i t i s (0.699)whic hi s largert h a n 0 6 , andallt h e C o r r e c t e d Item-
TotalCorrelationi n t h e Table4 3 a r e largert h a n 0 3 Therefore,t h e s e variablesa r e accep tedf o r E x p l o r a t o r y FactorAnalysis(EFA)later.
AstheresultofCronbach’sAlphaofEmployee’sPerformanceisshownintheTable4.3,itis(0.855)w hichislargerthan0.6,andalltheCorrectedItem-
TotalCorrelationintheTable4.3arelargerthan0.3 Therefore,these variablesareacceptedforE x p l o r a t o r y FactorAnalysis(EFA) later.
Organizationculture–ORGC(4items).Cronbach’sAlpha=0.791
Workingenvironment–WENV(3items).Cronbach’sAlpha=0.674
Communication– COM(4items).Cronbach’sAlpha=0.782
Teamwork– TEAM(4items).Cronbach’sAlpha=0.699
Employees'performance– EP (5items).Cronbach’sAlpha=0.855
E F A ) m e t h o d conductedto testthe validityof themeasurement ofscales.
TheEFAte st in g hasshowedthe result t ha t KMO valuesofallthe independentfactorsare gr eaterthan0.6attheBartlett’sTestSignificance of.000(whichissmallerthan0.05).So,t h e extractedvariancemeets therequirementofEFAtesting.Theresults arein theTable4.4.
Bartlett'sTestof Sphericity Approx.Chi-Square 1671.182 df 105
Withtheeigenvaluesoffourfactorsisgreaterthan1,theresultofthishasshowedthatthefactorsi nthisconstructionwereaswhatthehypothesesassumed.Alltheeigenvaluesinthel i s t e d area bove1 ( 5 8 0 5 , 2 0 3 1 , 1 6 1 1 , 1.056).Besides,t h e percentageo f cumulativehase x p l a i n e d o f the 70.022%of thevariances.Theresultsarein theAppendixC.
Table4.7:KMOandBarlett;stest foremployees’performance
Bartlett'sTestof Sphericity Approx.Chi-Square 412.740 df 10
Otherwise,intheRotatedcomponentmatrix,theloadingofthevariablesonthefourindependentf actorsw e r e chosen.T h i s determinedt h a t then a t u r e o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g latentvariablestha tpresentedbyeachcomponent.Theresultsarein theTable4.5.
Thevalueo f eachv a r i a b l e i n eachcomponents h o u l d b e m o r e t h a n 0.4t o s h o w a strongco rrelationinthatcomponentandhigherthanothervaluesmorethan 0.25.
AfterEFA,3variablesweredeletedbecausetheywerenotqualifiedfromthecriteriaofEFAt e s t i n g ( W E N V 2 , C O M 1 , TEAM1).T h e scalesreducedfrom1 5 itemst o 1 2 itemsandregroupint o 4groupsastheTable4.5 Theresultsarein theTable 4.5.
Thereareseveralchangesinfactors.Thismeanstheperceptionofintervieweesaboutsomevariab lesisdifferentfromthehypothesesofthestudyandsomeprevioustheory.However,t h i s chan gereflectsthethoughtandperceptionoftherespondentsaboutthefactorsactuallyinfluencee mployees’performance.AfterE F A , variablesi n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l factorsaregroupedagainasbel ow:
Component 1:OrganizationalCulture(ORGC): ORGC 1, ORGC 2, ORGC 3,TEAM3.
Component 2:Leadership(LEAD):ORGC 4, COM 2, TEAM 2.
Component 3:Communication(COM):COM 3, COM 4,TEAM4.
Component 4:WorkingEnvironment(WENV):WENV1,WENV3.
AfterEFA,three variablesinTeamworkfactorsweredividedinto3components, thereforeTe amworkfactorwasd e l e t e d Therea r e n e w c o m p o n e n t ( C o m p o n e n t 2 ) t h a t hadt h e 3 variables(ORGC4, COM 2,TEAM2),andnamed isLeadershipfactor.
Newfourfactorsarecheckedonreliabilityagainbecauseoldgroupswerebrokenandtheoldvalueofr eliabilityisnotqualifiedanymore.TheCronbach’salphavaluesofallthefactorsover0.6andqual ified.Theresultsarein theTable4.6.
AfterEFA,t h r e e v a r i a b l e s O R G C 4 , C O M 2 , TEAM2 a r e groupedi n newcomponent ( C o m p o n e n t 2 ) asTable4 9 Int h e measurementscale,t h e s e variabless h o w e d t h e sa mep o i n t t h a t i s leadershipstyles.Therefore,Component 2 will becalledbyLeadershipfactor.
In recent times, leadership has evolved into a more effective approach for managing employees and organizations, transitioning from traditional personnel administration to a focus on Human Resource Management This shift necessitates the strategic integration of new leadership styles to effectively manage human capital According to Hersey (1988), effective leaders must be adept diagnosticians, tailoring their styles to meet the demands of their specific situations The level of direction and social support a leader provides to subordinates is contingent upon their leadership style and the context in which they operate Despite the long-standing existence of local councils, the ongoing exodus of talent highlights an administrative issue where the interplay of leadership, style, situation, and performance criteria has been neglected Consequently, employee performance suffers due to inadequate direction and the failure to apply strategic leadership styles in daily operations Research indicates a significant lack of a corporate approach, which is critical for sustaining effective leadership processes, particularly in large work environments.
Job satisfaction is crucial for organizational strength and significantly impacts employee performance Research indicates a positive correlation between satisfied employees and organizational productivity, as satisfied individuals tend to perform better than their less satisfied counterparts (Ostroff, 1992) Leadership also plays a vital role in influencing employee performance (Ogbonna & Harris, 2000), drawing considerable attention to the relationship between leadership styles and performance outcomes (Gadot, 2006) Organizations aim to enhance employee performance, with studies suggesting that transformational leadership can effectively boost job satisfaction and help achieve organizational goals (Howell & Merenda, 1999) Additionally, research on extraverted leadership has shown promising results, indicating that employee performance improves under extraverted leaders, particularly when employees exhibit passive behavior.
TheKMOvaluefortheemployees’satisfactionfactoris0.754whichisgreaterthan0.6andt h e Ba rtlett’sT e s t o f S p h e r i c i t y valuei s significantatt h e Sig.valuei s 0 0 0 (0.4)whichisgoodtousethemodeltoexplainorganizationalfactorsaffectt o empl oyees’performance.
Co ef fi ci en t s
Standardized Coe ffi cie n ts t Sig CollinearityStatistics
TheModelSummaryTablehasshowntheRvalueis0.732andtheR- squareis0.536.Therehasillustratedthatthereisatightcorrelationbetweenthedependentvariablesi nemployees’performancefactorandt h e variableso f 4 i n d e p e n d e n t factors.O t h e r w i s e , t h e adjustedR squareis0.525(>0.4)whichisgoodtousethemodeltoexplainorganizationalfactors affectt o employees’performance.
TheAnovaTablehasalsodescribedthatSig.valueis.000whichissmallerthan0.05.Thise x p l a i n e d thevariablesof4independentfactorsarereliableenoughforthevarianceofthe
0.115 0.13 0.489 EP - Employees’ performance LEAD – Leadership
WENV - Working Environment employees’performancefactort o p r e d i c t w h i c h m a y p o s i t i v e l y i n f l u e n c e t h e empl oyees’performanceofVietnamese companiesinHCMC.
TheModelSummaryTablehasshowntheRvalueis0.732andtheR- squareis0.536.Therehasillustratedthatthereisatightcorrelationbetweenthedependentvariablesi nemployees’performancefactorandt h e variableso f 4 i n d e p e n d e n t factors.O t h e r w i s e , t h e adjustedR squareis0.525(>0.4)whichisgoodtousethemodeltoexplainorganizationalfactors affectt o employees’performance.
TheAnovaTablehasalsodescribedthatSig.valueis.000whichissmallerthan0.05.Thise x p l a i n e d thevariablesof4independentfactorsarereliableenoughforthevarianceofthe employee s’performancefactort o p r e d i c t w h i c h m a y p o s i t i v e l y i n f l u e n c e t h e employees’per formanceofVietnamese companiesin HCMC.
ANOVAanalysisforthevalueofFI.130(sig=0.00).ToleranceandVIFvaluesintheCoefficie ntsTable showthat donotexistmulticollinearitybecauseVIFofallvariablesa r e lessthan2andgenerallyaccepted.RuleiswhentheVIFexceeds10itisasignofmulticollinearity.
ORGC,C O M , LEADentered.Evaluatemultiplelinearregressionm o d e l , t h e coefficiento f det erminationR 2(R square)isusedtoaccesstherelevanceoftheresearchmodel.R2coefficient whenasses sing therelevanceo f t h e m o d e l i s 0 5 3 6 , thereforet h e researchm o d e l i s appropriate,t h e resultals oshowsthatR 2adjusted smallerthanR 2, usethissystemtoassesstherelevanceofmodeli s saferandmor eaccuratebecauseitdoesnotexaggeratethedegreeofconsistencywiththem o d e l R 2adjusted is 0.525indicatesthat52.5% ofthevariancecanbe predictedfromtheindependentvariables.
Testingt h e linearr e l a t i o n s h i p betweend e p e n d e n t variable( E m p l o y e e s’performance )andindependentvariables(OrganizationalCulture,W o r k i n g Environment,Communication,Le adership)toexaminethedependentvariablehasalinearrelationshipwiththeentiresetofindepende ntvariablesornot.ThetestingresultshowsthatR 2adjusted is0.525,thisindicatesm u l t i p l e linearr egressionmodel wasconstructedin accordancewith thedatasetis 52.5%.W i t h thisdata,the linearregressionmodelismadeinaccordancewiththedataanditcanbe usedinpractice.
IntheCoefficientsmodel,thereare4independentfactorsofthismodeladaptedthecriteriaand theregressionequation oftheemployees’performancecan beshown below(Sig.valueis
TheStandardizedCoefficientsBetais alsousedin theequationto show theresultE P 0 1 1 5 *ORGC ORGC+0.13*ORGCLEAD+0.489*ORGC COM +0.231*ORGCWENV
H1:Therei s a positiverelationshipbetweenOrganizationalCulturea n d Employees’perfor mance.
’Performance(EP)is0.13,t- valueis1.901(0.05,b u t n e a r l y 6 % oftolerance).T h i s m e a n s at t h e percentageof9 5 o f confidence,t h e r e i s a statisticsevidencet o concludea l e s s p o s i t i v e impactbetweenOrganizationalCulturet o Employees’Performancei n V i e t n a m e sec o m p a n i e s i n H C M C Therefore,t h e H 1 i s weaksupportedf o r t h e researchm o d e l andOrganizati onalCulturepositivelyi m p a c t s t h e Employees’Performance.
There is a positive relationship between leadership and employee performance, as indicated by a standardized regression coefficient (beta) of 0.115 and a t-value of 1.954, with a significance value of 0.052 This suggests that, at a 95% confidence level, there is statistical evidence of a low positive impact of leadership on employee performance in Vietnamese companies located in Ho Chi Minh City Consequently, the hypothesis (H2) is weakly supported in the research model, while organizational culture is shown to positively influence employee performance.
TheStandardizedr e g r e s s i o n coefficientsb e t a ofCommunication( C O M ) o n Employee s’Performanceis0.489,t- valueis7.708(>2)andtheSigvalueis.000(2)andt h e S i g v a l u e i s 0 0 0 (