International Journal of Basic Sciences & Applied Research. Vol., 3 (11), 781-786, 2014 Available online at http://www.isicenter.org ISSN 2147-3749 2014 A Survey about the Correlation between, Job Satisfaction, Job Performance, Job Tension and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) in Faculty Members of East Azerbaijan PNU Ahad Derakhshani 1*, Abolfazl Ghasemzadeh 2 1 Department of Educational Administration, Marand Branch, Islamic Azad University, Marand, Iran 2 Assistant Professor of Educational Administration, Department of Education, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University, Iran * Corresponding Author Email: derakhshany@pnush.ac.ir Abstract The current research aim is surveying the correlation between accountability, job satisfaction, job performance, job tension and organizational citizenship behavior in faculty members of East Azerbaijan PNU. The research population includes all male and female faculty members of East Azarbaijan PNU: there are 75 female faculty members and 140 male faculty members. The statistical sample considering Morgan table was 171 individuals. The research method is descriptive-correlative. In current research the measuring tools is questionnaire: Hochwarter et al questionnaire (2005) was used for measuring accountability, Brayfield and Rothe (1951) questionnaire was used for measuring job satisfaction, House and Rizzo (1972) questionnaire was used for measuring job tension, Patterson (1990) questionnaire was used for measuring job performance and Podsakoff et al (2000) questionnaire was used for measuring OCB. Reliability of the questionnaires was calculated through Cronbach s alpha. Data were analyzed by the use of Pearson correlation coefficient and multiple regression tests. Research results showed that there is a positive significant correlation between accountability, job satisfaction, job performance, job tension and OCB. On the other hand, research results showed that variables of satisfaction, performance, job tension and OCB have a predictive role on accountability. Job satisfaction, performance, tension and OCB explained 52% of variance of accountability. Keywords:, Job satisfaction, Job performance, Job tension, OCB. Introduction An effective and practical accountability system is one of the inevitable necessities in an efficient system and a justicedemanding society. The prerequisite of a higher education system to have required utility and response to the common expectations of the public is emphasis on an organizational system of accountability and selecting teachers that are accountable in order to help in designing and developing programs and running the assigned tasks and to be a useful tools for reaching the higher education system goals and improve the spirit of accountability and institutionalizing it in the organization culture and ultimately providing more service for the society. Program for promoting the individual accountability of the faculty members is considered as a part of university programs and higher education centers and it has a special position and paying attention to that is considered as development of human capital. A few previous researches have surveyed the correlation between accountability and OCB, but the results of these studies are vague and inconsistent. For example findings of Frink et al (1995) showed a negative correlation between these two variables, which means that increase of accountability results in decrease of OCB. Yet, in another study a positive and significant correlation was observed between these two variables (Mitchel et al., 1998). Royle et al (2005) showed that for individuals with high self-efficacy the increased accountability is accompanied by increased citizenship behavior, but increased accountability in individuals with low self-efficacy is accompanied by decreased organizational citizenship behavior. As the previous researches have confirmed the correlation between accountability and a few positive psychological and behavioral outcomes (Breaux et al., 2009). Fandt (1990) showed that staff with accountability have shown higher performance compared to the staff with low accountability. Davis et al (2007) showed the positive correlation between accountability and job performance. Thoms et al (2002) reached similar conclusion. Unlike the above theoretical and experimental researches, there are some researches showing the adverse impact of accountability on job satisfaction (Breaux et al., 2009). Also the study by 781
Hall et al (2003) showed no correlation between accountability and job satisfaction. A deeper survey in the literature of accountability shows that these findings are not very surprising. Unlike the positive effects, accountability also has a dark side, which means decreased flexibility and decreased cooperation between the members. In this research it has been tried to search the correlation between accountability, job satisfaction, performance, job tension and OCB in faculty members of East Azerbaijan PNU. Methodology From the point of aim the current research is an applied research and from the point of data collection it is a descriptivecorrelative research. In this type of research the correlation between variables is analyzed according to the research aim. Based on this purpose in the current research the correlation method is used for surveying the correlation between accountability, job satisfaction, job performance, job tension and OCB in faculty members of East Azerbaijan PNU. Participants and sampling method The current research population includes all male and female faculty members of East Azerbaijan PNU during academic year 2013-2014 which is equal to 215 individuals. The current research sampling method is single-stage cluster sampling. In current research Morgan table has been used for sampling. Measuring tools questionnaire: In order to measure the perceptual accountability a one-dimensional scale having 8 questions has been used. This tool has been provided by Hochwarter et al (2005). This questionnaire has been completed based on a 7- degree Likert scale (from completely disagree=1 to completely agree=7). Scores of each of 8 items were collected and a total score for each individual in this scale was considered. The Cronbach s Alpha for this questionnaire in different foreign researches has a range from 0.73 to 0.91 (Hall & Ferris, 2010; Hall et al., 2009; Breaux et al., 2008; Hall et al., 2003; Hochwarter et al., 2005). Also the previous researches have confirmed the validity of the structure and one-dimensionality of this structure (Hall et al., 2003; Hochwarter et al., 2005). In current research Conbach s Alpha coefficient has been used for surveying the reliability of this questionnaire. Its internal consistency for the whole scale (Alpha coefficient) is 0.70. Job satisfaction questionnaire: The 5-question questionnaire of Brayfield and Roths (1951) was used for measuring the job satisfaction in faculty members. This questionnaire evaluates the satisfaction of faculty members based on a continuum of total satisfaction (score 5) to dissatisfaction (score 1) which is designed in the form of indirect phrases. Total achieved scores indicate the individual s overall satisfaction. Answers are measured with a Likert scale of 1(completely disagree) to 5(completely agree). The Cronbach s Alpha for this questionnaire has been achieved in many different foreign researches (Breaux et al, 2009): 0.74; Breaux et al (2008) 0.87; Hall et al (2009) 0.90, thus this questionnaire has an acceptable reliability coefficient. In current research the Cronbach s alpha has been used for surveying the reliability of this questionnaire. Its internal consistency for the whole scale is Alpha coefficient= 0.88. Job tension questionnaire: Job tension was measured by the use of a 6-question tool provided by House and Rizzo (1972). This tool is designed with a Likert scale of (1= completely disagree to 5= completely agree) (Breaux et al, 2008). The Cronbach s alpha of this questionnaire has been confirmed in previous researches (Breaux et al., 2008). Also in current research Cronbach s alpha has been used for surveying the reliability of this questionnaire. Its internal consistency for the whole scale is 0.88. Job performance questionnaire: 15-question job performance questionnaire was designed by Paterson (1990) and it was translated by Shekarkan and Arshadi in Iran. This questionnaire has been answered based on a 5-degree Likert scale (1= completely disagree to 5= completely agree). Face validity and content validity and reliability of this questionnaire has been formerly confirmed by Shekarkan and Arshadi. Also the Cornbach s Alpha has been used in the current research in order to survey the reliability of this questionnaire. Its internal consistency for the whole scale is 0.93. OCB questionnaire: OCB is measured by the use of a 6-question questionnaire provided by Podsakoff et al (2000). This questionnaire with a 5-degree Likert scale with options of completely agree, agree, no comment, disagree and completely disagree measures the OCB in faculty members. This questionnaire has an appropriate validity and reliability and it has been used in different researches (Hall et al, 2009). Cronbach s Alpha has been used in order to survey the reliability of this questionnaire. Alpha coefficient of 0.85 is calculated for this questionnaire. Data analysis Pearson correlation coefficient test has been used for surveying the correlation between two variables. Also the multipleregression test has been used for predicting a dependent variable from several independent variables. Results Table 1. Correlation between the variables of job satisfaction and accountability. Job satisfaction Pearson correlation coefficient 0.337** Amount of P 0.000 **Significance level of 0.01% 782
Based on table 1 the Pearson correlation coefficient is equal to P= 0.001, r= 0.34, thus there is a positive and significant correlation between two variables of job satisfaction and accountability, in other words the increased accountability of faculty members is accompanied by increased job satisfaction. Job performance **Significance level of 0.01% Table 2. Correlation between the variables of job performance and accountability. Pearson correlation coefficient 0.42** Amount of P 0.000 Based on the above table the Pearson correlation coefficient is equal to P= 0.001, r= 0.42, thus there is a positive and significant correlation between two variables of job performance and accountability. In other words the increased accountability in faculty members is accompanied by increased job performance. Job tension *Significance level of 0.05%. Table 3. Correlation between variables of job tension and accountability. Pearson correlation coefficient 0.16* Amount of P 0.036 Based on table 3, Pearson correlation coefficient is equal to P= 0.036, r= 0.16, thus there is a positive and significant correlation between two variables of job tension and accountability. In other words, increased accountability from the faculty members is accompanied by increased job tension. Citizenship behavior **Significance level of 0.01%. Table 4. Correlation between the variables of citizenship behavior and accountability. Pearson correlation coefficient 0.40** Amount of P 0.000 Based on table 4, Pearson correlation coefficient is equal to P= 0.001, r= 0.40, thus there is a positive and significant correlation between two variables of OCB and accountability. In other words increased accountability from faculty members is accompanied by increased OCB. Results of stepwise multiple-regression analysis test Model 1 2 3 4 Correlation 0.42 0.46 0.48 0.52 Table 5. Values of correlation and coefficient of determination in regression equation. Coefficient of determination Coefficient of determination (adjusted) Estimated standard error 0.176 0.171 13.3 0.213 0.20 13.1 0.23 0.22 12.9 0.27 0.25 12.6 1 2 3 Table 6. Processing variance of multiple-regression. Model SS df Mean square F Sig. Regression 6482.8 1 6482.8 Remainder 7.30318 169 179.3 36.1 0.000 Total 36800.9 170 Regression 7835.8 2 3917.9 Remainder 28965.07 168 172.4 22.74 0.000 Total 36800.9 170 Regression 8608.9 3 2869.6 Remainder 28191.9 167 168.8 16.9 0.000 783
4 Total 36800.9 170 Regression 10100.2 4 2525.0 Remainder 26700.7 166 160.8 Total 36800.9 170 6482.8 15.6 0.000 Table 7. Table of standardized and non-standardized coefficients of significant independent variables. Non-standardized Coefficients Standardized Value of t- Coefficients statistics Sig. Model B Coefficient of Beta Std.Error Fixed Amount 12.108 6.683 1.812 0.072 Performance 0.25 0.10 0.21 2.399 0.018 Tension 0.16 0.046 0.246 3.3 0.001 Satisfaction 0.224 0.074 0.262 3.3 0.003 Citizenship Behavior 0.167 0.098 0.145 1.7 0.049 Test result Rejection of Amount of calculated F (test statistics F= 15.6) is bigger than table F and it is placed in the antonym hypothesis zone. Significance level is much smaller than the error level (α= 0.01 while p= 0.000) thus the linear correlation between variables is confirmed, which means that there is a linear correlation between the mentioned variables, thus we can use the multiple-regression test. Based on the above table information, the multiple regression coefficient for predicting the accountability of faculty members from job performance, tension and OCB in organization is equal to R= 0.52 and the coefficient of determination is equal to R*= 0.27 and it shows that with approximately 27% from the independent variables it is possible to predict the faculty members accountability in the current research (table 6). As it is observable in table 7, variables of job satisfaction, performance, tension and OCB have a significant impact factor. β = 0.21, β= 0.246, β= 0.26, β= 0.14 Discussion and Conclusion Results showed that there is a positive significant correlation between two variables of individual accountability and job satisfaction. This finding is consistent with previous studies in this area such as the findings of Hall et al (2009), Breaux et al (2008, 2009), Sorenson et al (2009) and Thoms et al (2002). In research concepts related to this topic, Thoms et al (2002) reached a poor correlation between two variables of accountability and job satisfaction in workers; while the correlation between the two above variables in population of factory managers indicates a moderate positive and significant correlation. A few studies about the accountability models (Sorenson et al., 2009) in which accountability is considered as their main variable indicate that implementing such kinds of models results in increased job satisfaction. Also in a research named correlation between job satisfaction and accountability, Sorenson et al (2009) on 337 nurses achieved a positive and significant correlation between these two variables (r= 0.319). Data analysis also showed that there is a significant correlation between accountability and job performance. These results are also consistent with the findings of Frink and Ferris (1998), Hall et al (2009), Hchwarter et al (2007). Theoretical and research concepts indicate the positive effect of accountability on performance (Schlenker et al., 1994; Yarnold et al., 1988); especially if there is no minimum of accountability in individuals, staff will do what they like and this results in disorders in organization. Based on the research concepts, although the accountability is related to some of the important work results such as OCB (Frink & Klimoski, 1998), it has the most important correlation with job performance (Schlenker et al., 1994). Results also showed that increased accountability from faculty members is accompanied by increased job tension, and the research evidences indicate that accountability as a stressor in work environment with forceful reactions plays an important role in activities. When the accountability conditions are accompanied by fear of evaluation, they may result in individual s anxiety. In support of this, Seagull-Jacob and Yates argue that accountability for job outcomes increases the decision making tension, additionally, individuals should usually balance between a few answer-seeking people (Frink & Klimoski, 2004). Based on the finding of Hall et al (2006) accountability is accompanied by a higher level of job tension. Laird et al (2009) also found a direct and significant correlation between job tension and accountability. At the same positivity of accountability outcomes, based on Schlenker and Vigould (1994), ambiguity, demands and pressures related to the expectations change the positive correlation of accountability and performance. Ultimately, due to the effect of accountability on competition especially in case of lack of resources it could increase the job tension (Hchwarter et al., 2007). Based on the viewpoint of Hall et al (2003) high accountability may have negative outcomes, because the staff feel that they are severely under control. Negative outcomes may also occur because of the increased roles or pressures. In tension literature, significant number of researches has surveyed the role of adaptation in correlations between tension and negative outcomes that are usually called as the pressure. Considerable amount of researches surveyed the issue that how individuals cope with these outcomes (Hall et al., 2003). Also in the current research the positive and significant correlation between two variables of individual accountability and OCB is observed. Frink et al (1995) showed a negative correlation between these two variables, which means that increased accountability is accompanied by decreased OCB; yet in another research, there was a positive and significant correlation between these two variables (Mitchel et al., 1998). Royle et al (2005) showed that for individuals with high self-efficacy, increased accountability is accompanied by increased OCB. Ferris et al (1997) Van Dyne et al (1994) in their researches found out that OCB H0 784
and accountability have a positive and significant correlation with job performance of staff. In a research by Borman et al (2001) showed that although OCB is not a part of official job description of staff, it has a positive correlation with job performance. In a research, Frink and Klimoski (1998) showed that OCB and accountability have a significant correlation with each other. Thus improving the accountability of faculty members ultimately results in increased job satisfaction, job performance, and OCB. Since the job satisfaction, job performance, job tension and OCB have a predictive role in accountability of faculty members it is suggested to provide the required conditions and facilities for job satisfaction, job performance, job tension and OCB in faculty members. References Borman WC, Penner LA, Allen TD, Motowidlo SJ, 2001. Personality predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 9: 52-65. Brayfield A, Rothe HF, 1951. An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology. 35: 307-311. Breaux DM, Munyon TP, Hochwarter WA, Ferris GR, 2009. Politics as moderator of the accountability job satisfaction Relationship: evidence across three studies. Journal of Management. 35: 307-326. Breaux DM, Perrewe PL, Hall AT, Frink DD, Hochwarter WA, 2008.Time to try a little tenderness?. The detrimental effects of accountability when coupled with abusive supervision. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. 15: 111-122. Davis K, Newstrom JW, 1985. Human behavior at work: organizational behavior. 7rd edon. NY: MacGraw-Hill Publications. Fandt PM, Ferris GR, 1990. The management of information and impression: when employees behave opportunistically. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 45: 140-158. Ferris GR, Dulebohn JH, Frink DD, George-Falvy J, Mitchell TR, Matthews LM, 1997. Job and organizational characteristics, accountability and employee influence. Journal of Managerial Issues. 9: 163-175. Frink DD, Ferris GR, 1999. The moderating effects of accountability on the conscientious-performance relationship. Journal of Business and Psychology. 13: 515-524. Frink DD, Klimoski RJ, 1998. Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resource management. Research in Personal and Human Resource Management. 16: 1-15. Frink DD, Klimoski RJ, 2004. Advancing accountability theory and practice: introduction to the human resources management review special edition.human Resource Management Review. 14: 1-17. Frink DD, Klimoski RJ, Hopper H, Mitchell TR, Mero NP, Motowidlo SJ, 1995. Two faces of accountability effects. Symposium presented at the Academy of Management, 55 th Annual Meeting, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Hall AT, Ferris GR, 2010. and extra-role behavior. Employ Response Rights J. 23, 131-144. Hall AT, Frink DD, Ferris GR, Hochwarter WA, Kacmar CJ, Bowen MG, 2003. in human resources management. In: Schriesheim CA, Neider L. (Edn.), New directions in human resource management. CT: Information Age Publications. Hall AT, Royle MT, Brymer RA, Perrewe PL, Ferris GR, Hochwarter WA, 2006. Relationship between felt accountability as a stressor and strain reactions: the neutralizing role of autonomy across two studies. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 11: 87-99. Hall AT, Zinko R, Perryman AA, Ferris GR, 2009. Organizational citizenship behavior: mediators in the relationship between accountability and job performance and satisfaction. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. 15: 381-392. Hchwarter WA, Ferris GR, Gavin MB, Perrewe PL, Hall AT, Frink DD, 2007. Political skill as neutralizer of felt accountabilityjob tension effects on job performance ratings: a longitudinal investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 102: 226-239. Hochwarter WA, Perrewe PL, Hall AT, Ferris GR, 2005. Negative affectivity as a moderator of the form and magnitude of the relationship between felt accountability and job tension. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 26: 517-534. House RJ, Rizzo JR, 1972. Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 7: 467-505. Laird MD, Perryman AA, Hochwarter WA, Ferris GR, Zinko R, 2009. The moderating effects of personal reputation on accountability-strain relationship. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 14: 70-83. Mitchel TR, Hopper H, Daniels D, George-Falvy J, Ferris GR, 1998. Power, accountability, and inappropriate actions. Applied Psychology: An International Review. 47: 497-517. Podsakoff PM, Mackenzie SB, Paine JB, Bachrach DG, 2000. Organizational citizenship behavior: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management. 6: 513-563. Royle M, Hall AT, Hochwarter WA, Perrewe P, Ferris GR, 2005.The interactive effects of accountability and job self-efficacy on political behavior. Organizational Analysis. 13: 53-71. Schlenker BR, Britt TW, Pennington J, Murphy R, Doherty K, 1994. The triangle model of responsibility. Psychological Review. 101: 632-652. Sorenson EE, Scherb CA, Specht JP, Loes JL, 2009. The relationship between RN job satisfaction and accountability. Western Journal of Nursing Research. 31: 872-888. Thoms P, Does JJ, Scott KS, 2002. Relationship between accountability, job satisfaction, and trust. Human Resource Development Quarterly. 13: 307-323. Van Dyne L, Graham JW, Dienesch RM, 1994. Organizational citizenship behavior: construct redefinition, measurement, and 785
validation. Academy of Management Journal. 37: 765-802. Yarnold PR, Mueser KT, Lyons JS, 1988. Type a behavior, accountability, and work rate in small groups. Journals of Research in Personality. 22: 353-360. 786