Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce ISSN: 1204-5357
ISSN: 1204-5357
+44-175-271-2024Al-Dubai MM*
Management Development Institute of Singapore, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Gopalan V
SRM Institute of Science and Technology, India
Alaghbari Ma
Department of Business Administration, Applied Science University (ASU), Kingdom of Bahrain
Hamood AM
Al-Madinah International University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Visit for more related articles at Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce
This study was aimed at identifying the relationship between human resource practices and employee performance among employees in Yemeni Telecommunication Public companies. It also aimed to examine the moderating role of job satisfaction on the relationship between human resource practices such as (work environment, reward, fairness and job performance). The study population included employees from Public Telecommunication Corporation (PTC) located in Sana'a, Yemen. The researcher used Raosoft to determine the required sample. The sample size refers to the total number of employees in PTC, where the numbers of employees in Sana’a branch are 800 employees. The sample size is 260, which was randomly selected. The questionnaires were distributed to 365 employees, from which 262 were retrieved. The study reached the following results: There is a significant relationship between work environment and employees performance. There is a significant relationship between reward and employees' performance. There is a significant relationship between fairness and employees' performance. Job satisfaction has a significant impact on the relationship between work environment and fairness and employees' performance. However, it does not have the effect on the relationship between reward and employees' performance. Based on the research findings, some practical and theoretical implications were discussed.
Employees Performance; Fairness; Job Satisfaction; Reward; Work Environment; Yemen
Human resource management practices (HRMP) is one of the most important management functions due to its focus on the human element, which is the most valuable resource for management and the most productive in the world. There are multiple sections in HRMP such as the Department of Planning, Training and Development Department, the Department of Performance and motivation, and many more. Human resources management and development is an essential part of most organizations. It aims at strengthening organizational capacities and enabling companies to attract and qualify the necessary competencies capable of keeping pace with current and future challenges.
Human resources can contribute strongly to the achievement of goals and profit for the Organization. Human resources management means, in short, the optimal use of the available and expected human element. The efficiency, capabilities, and experience of this human element and its enthusiasm for action depend on the efficiency and success of the organization in achieving its objectives. Therefore, management scientists are interested to determine the principles that help make the most of each individual in the organization through themanagement of human resources. These foundations begin with planning, selection, training, incentives, evaluation, and everything related to the human element [1-14] negotiations, human resources management has the role of initial communication with staff representatives.
Rewards
Rewards play a significant role in supporting workers' job performance in organizations. The administrative organizations greatly benefit from applying the rewards system through multiple ways which are reflected on job performance, such as focusing efforts and evaluating their effectiveness and evaluating workers' achievement and their actual abilities. The material rewards are called direct compensation systems, which include salaries, wages, bonuses, etc. Rewards are one of the most critical factors which evaluate the workers' efficiency in the entity or organizations [5].
Motivation is the key factor in organizations, and it is one of the proper methods to get the best of workers, whether the reward was moral or material. Motivation may take many forms, positive or negative. In addition, motivation may differ from one person to another, from one place to another, and from time to time. The motivation methods have undertaken many stages; the first of which is the traditional method which focuses on material rewards only. The second stage, which was adopted by the School of Human Relations, focused on moral rewards, along with the material ones. The third stage is the modern stage, which linked the material and moral rewards together [15-17].
Rewards play an active and significant role in the productivity of workers. The significance of rewards stems from the individual's need to recognize the importance of their efforts and achievement [18]. The appreciation of others' work through rewards is an essential matter, which contributes to satisfying the basic needs of interacting within the individual [9].
Job Satisfaction
There were many different definitions that tried to define the concept of job satisfaction, as a result of the diversity and differences of the views that attempted to define this concept. One of the initial definitions of the concept of job satisfaction in general is the one given by Ginzberg and Herma [6]. They suggested that there are three different types of job satisfaction such as internal satisfaction factors which originate from job happiness, the individual’s sense of achieving social levels of success, and the achievement of own personal abilities from success. In the same manner, external satisfaction factors which are the rewards, wages, and relationships. The amount of such is not important; it is more about how much this amount is to the expectations of the individual as a function of his values and objectives.
Work Environment and Performance
The environment influencing any organization includes internal and external factors, events and organizations outside its borders (political, legal, social, technical). These factors could be simple and predictable or complex and uncertain. The factors also include some important individual elements that affect performance in personal organizations, perception, motivation, abilities, attitudes and learning abilities.
Rewards and Performance
Rewards are an element of organizational work, without which no organizations can achieve its full objectives. They are many ways which the organization expresses appreciation to its employees for their outstanding performance and excellent work, which is one of the ways that help the organizations achieve its objectives along with the availability of material resources of the organizations and the experience of the employees of the organizations in their respective fields [10].
The rewards cannot achieve the organization’s objectives except through the existence of a mechanism of action such as conducting extensive training in order to enhance the job performance. To put it simple, employee training is an element that the organization must be aware of in order to raise their efficiency and provide training opportunities for all employees, as this leads to the organizations achieving their roles [15].
Fairness and Performance
Assuring citizen’s fairness is the basis of justice, freedom and social peace, and its purpose is to safeguard the rights and freedoms of citizens in the forms of discrimination that restricts these rights. Fairness is meant to provide equal opportunities for individuals to benefit from a particular situation if their circumstances are equal to that situation. The principle of fairness has different manifestations before the law, justice and fairness in the exercise of public functions in the state, as well as in the employee's entitlement to rewards and promotion.
Fairness in the exercise of public functions in the state means that people are equal in the principle of appointment to public office and are equal in wages, salaries, rights and duties. There is no doubt that the distinction between different jobs in terms of benefits, salaries or guarantees is not compatible with equality in public office because such equality is only between those with similar conditions and qualifications. There is nothing to prevent the establishment of regulations categories of staff that are consistent with the nature of the functions and the system of work, particularly with regard to equality and access to employment rights and their benefits from bonuses and promotion [19,20].
The officials must redress the employees with all transparency and credibility; the distinguished employees should not be deprived of his rights, and all employees are equal in performance because when the rights are lost, justice becomes absent. It is thus not an exaggeration to state that the number of employees oppressed in our organizations is steadily increasing, especially if the employees who deserve promotion are not granted so and those who do not have the qualifications are granted promotions. The worst feeling that an employee can have at work is his sense of injustice in his career [21].
In this study, surveys approach a quantitative data collection method and have been utilized to collect data on human resource practices effecting employee in the Yemeni telecommunication’s industry.
Study Population
In this study 800 employees were targeted as population in the Public Telecommunications Corporation (PTC) in the Republic of Yemen and Sana’a branch only is taken and their population is 800.Thus, the sample size was (260) based on (Raosoft) website.
Sample Size
The sample size identify the total number of employees in the PTC, Sanaa branch where their population is 800, and the sample size is 260. According to (Raosoft) website and Sekaran [20] table, the sample size used in this study was 260 since Sana’a branch only taken and 365 questionnaires were distributed to the employees. However, all that has been retrieved 262 questionnaires from which data were collected for this study (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Conceptual Model.
Descriptive Statistics
We applied the Descriptive Statistics in order to explain the elementary features of the data used in this study. It provides simple outlines about the sample and the measures. From Table 1 below, it shows the mean and the standard deviation. The mean was computed in order to measure the central tendency of the data was used in this study. On the other hand, the standard deviation also was computed in order to indicate the level to which items within each variable differ from the mean of the variable.
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics.
| Variables of the study |
N | Mean | Std. Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Work Environment | 262 | 3.5511 | 0.73619 |
| Reward | 262 | 3.3710 | 0.74613 |
| Fairness | 262 | 3.1672 | 0.76933 |
| Job Satisfaction | 262 | 3.3076 | 0.75801 |
| Performance | 262 | 3.3832 | 0.75243 |
From Table 1 below, it revealed that, all variables were used in this study obtained mean greater than the average. Additionally, it indicates that Work Environment obtained the highest mean of 3.5511 and the lowest mean value was belonged to the Reward with the value of 3.1672. Moreover, Table 1, shows the results of the standard deviation and it revealed that Fairness variable was the greatest deviated from its mean SD=.76933 which indicate high variability among staff perception toward Fairness. On the other hand, the Work environment variable obtained the lowest deviated factor with SD=.73619.
Reliability Analysis
Basically, reliability analysis was applied to guarantee internal steadiness of the items which is used the Cronbach’s Alpha measure (Cronbach’s Alpha, 1951) mainly to test the reliability of each independent variables (Work environment, Reward, Fairness and job satisfaction as moderator) and dependent variable ( employee performance) as well. Klassen [13] said the bare minimum acceptable alpha for scale reliability to be reliable is 0.60. Nevertheless, according to Nunnally [16] 0.70 is considered as good measurement for items to be considered reliable. Sekaran [20] stated that the better the reliability is the value of Cronbach alpha closer to 1.0. Generally, if reliabilities values are less than 0.60 they are considered to be non-reliable, whereas the reliabilities values that falls between 0.70, is considered to be reliable , and those greater 0 .80 are considered to be of good reliability. As explained in Table 2 below all the independent variables and dependent variable were in the range between 0.816 and 0.864. Moreover, Reliability analysis of the working environment was.845, reward factor had an alpha of .841, next is the fairness factor which obtained 0.816. Additionally, the moderator factor which is job satisfaction obtained .835. Finally is the dependent variables which is employee performance got Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.864 which is the highest.
Table 2: Reliability Analysis.
| Factors | Cronbach's Alpha |
N of Items | Items deleted |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Work Environment | 0.845 | 5 | - |
| 2 | Reward | 0.841 | 5 | - |
| 3 | Fairness | 0.816 | 5 | - |
| 4 | Job Satisfaction | 0.835 | 5 | - |
| 5 | Employee Performance |
0.864 | 5 | - |
To sum up, all the independent variables and dependent variables considered as reliable and their reliability analysis was running by five items for each variable’s (Table 3).
Multiple Regression Analysis
Multiple regressions are an extension of simple linear regression. It is used when we want to predict the value of a variable based on the value of two or more other variables. The variable researcher want to predict is called the dependent variable (Employee Performance). While the variables researcher is using to predict the value of the dependent variable are called the independent variables which are (Work environment, reward, Fairness and job satisfaction as a moderator).
Model Summary
A model summary is automatically created when running regression modeling or a classification modeling. R: Multiple correlation coefficient between all the independent variables in the model and the Dependent variable which shows very significant relationship by obtaining R=83.6 %. R-squared is a statistical measure of how close the data are to the fitted regression line. The result in the model summary table shows the model summary and the overall fit statistics. Findings shows that the adjusted R² of the model is 0.695 with R²=0.699 which means that the linear regression explain 69.9 % of the variance in the data (Table 4).
Table 3: Correlation Analysis.
| Work Environment | Reward | Fairness | Job satisfaction | Performance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Work Environment | Pearson Correlation | 1 | 0.491 | 0.507 | 0.534 | 0.544 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||
| N | 262 | 262 | 262 | 262 | 262 | |
| Reward | Pearson Correlation |
0.491 | 1 | 0.663 | 0.411 | 0.815 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||
| N | 262 | 262 | 262 | 262 | 262 | |
| Fairness | Pearson Correlation |
0.507 | 0.663 | 1 | 0.439 | 0.634 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||
| N | 262 | 262 | 262 | 262 | 262 | |
| Job satisfaction | Pearson Correlation |
0.534 | 0.411 | 0.439 | 1 | 0.501 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||
| N | 262 | 262 | 262 | 262 | 262 | |
| Employee Performance | Pearson Correlation |
0.544 | 0.815 | 0.634 | 0.501 | 1 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||
| N | 262 | 262 | 262 | 262 | 262 | |
NOVA Analysis
Table 5 below, With F=199.319 and 261 degrees of freedom the test is highly significant, thus we can assume that there is a linear relationship between all the variables that applied in the model of this paper.
Table 5: ANOVA.
| Model | Sum of Squares | Df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Regression | 103.227 | 3 | 34.409 | 199.319 | 0.000 |
| Residual | 44.539 | 258 | 0.173 | |||
| Total | 147.766 | 261 |
Coefficients Analysis
H1: There is a significant relationship between work environment and employees performance. Table 6 below, indicate the result of regression analysis which reveal that the work environment factor significantly influenced employees performance (β=0.162; and P-value=0.000).
Table 6: Coefficients.
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | Sig. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | Std. Error | Beta | |||
| 1 | (Constant) | 0.197 | 0.143 | 0.169 | |
| Work environment | 0.166 | 0.042 | 0.162 | 0.000 | |
| Reward | 0.664 | 0.047 | 0.659 | 0.000 | |
| Fairness | 0.113 | 0.046 | 0.116 | 0.016 | |
H2: There is a significant relationship between rewards and employees performance.
As indicated in Table 6 below, the result of regression analysis reveal that the reward factor has significant influence on the employees performance (β=0.659; and P-value=0.000)
H3: There is a significant relationship between fairness and employees performance
As indicated in Table 6 below, the result of regression analysis reveal that the fairness factor has significant influence on the employees performance (β=0.116; and P-value=0.016)
Regression Analysis with Moderator
In this section of researcher applied the regression analysis again by including the moderator factor to the analysis which is the job satisfaction in order to find out the potential significant of moderator and the independent variables level on performance
Model Summary
In this part, researcher has conducted the regression analysis again by including the moderator variable which is the job satisfaction. A model summary is automatically created when running regression modeling or a classification modeling. R, Multiple correlation coefficient between all the independent variables in the model, the moderator variable and the Dependent variable which shows very significant relationship by obtaining R=89.1%. R-squared is a statistical measure of how close the data are to the fitted regression line. The result in the model summary table shows the model summary and the overall fit statistics. Findings shows that the adjusted R² of the model is 79.1 with R²=0.794 which means that the linear regression explain 79.4 % of the variance in the data.
By comparing the model summary result with including the moderator with the model summary without the moderator, it shows that, it has significant relationship by obtaining R=89.1% and the fitness of the model is greater than the model without the moderator by obtaining R-squared=79.4%.
There is potentially significant moderation between work environment, reward fairness and job satisfaction on employee performance (Table 7).
Table 7: Model Summary.
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.891 | 0.794 | 0.791 | 0.34414 |
ANOVA Analysis
The Table 8 below, With F=247.678 and 261 degrees of freedom the test is highly significant, thus we can assume that there is a linear relationship between the all the variables that applied in the model of this research including the moderator variable which is the job satisfaction.
Table 8: ANOVAa.
| Model | Sum of Squares | Df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Regression | 117.330 | 4 | 29.332 | 247.678 | 0.000b |
| Residual | 30.436 | 257 | 0.118 | |||
| Total | 147.766 | 261 | ||||
aDependent Variable: Employee Performance.
bPredictors: (Constant), Job Satisfaction_Employee Performance, Work environment_Job Satisfaction, Fairness_Job Satisfaction, Rewards_Job Satisfaction.
In model one without the moderator term significant, F (3, 258)=199.319, p<0.01.
In model two with including the moderator, its significant, F (4, 257)=247.678, p<0.01.
All in all, the results shows that both models one and two are significant; however, the model significantly with including the moderator is greater than the model 1 without including the moderator.
Coefficients Analysis Including the Moderator
Multiple regression analysis was applied to determine whether or not the relationship between Independent variables (work environment, reward, fairness) and dependent variable (employee performance) are depends on the moderator variable (job satisfaction). To represent the interaction between (work environment, reward, and fairness) and job satisfaction, the variables were first centered and multiplied together.
This analysis revealed that, the effect of work environment and Fairness have greater influence on Employee performance by depending on job satisfaction. However, reward, was not have significance influence on the Employee performance by depending on the job satisfaction.
The standardized B and sig. values that emerged from this analysis are presented in Table 9 below.
Table 9: Coefficients.
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | Sig. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | Std. Error | Beta | |||
| 1 | (Constant) | 1.917 | 0.065 | 0.000 | |
| Work environment_Jo b satisfaction |
-0.072 | 0.010 | -0.414 | 0.000 | |
| Reward_Job satisfaction |
-0.012 | 0.015 | 0.059 | 0.430 | |
| Fairness_Job satisfaction |
-0.029 | 0.011 | -0.162 | 0.010 | |
| Job satisfaction_Em ployee Performance |
0.242 | 0.015 | 0.4154 | 0.000 | |
In this instance, the Sig. value that pertains to the Reward and Job satisfaction term is greater than 0.05 and thus does not obtain significance. Accordingly, the researcher would conclude that, there is no proof exists that job satisfaction moderates or influences the impact of reward on performance. On the other hand, the Sig. value that pertains to work environment and job satisfaction is 0.000, which is less than 0.05 and thus reached significance. Additionally, the Sig. value that pertains to work fairness and job satisfaction is 0.010 which is less than 0.05 and thus achieved the level of significance as shown in Table 9. Hence, job satisfaction highly moderates the effect of work environment, fairness on employee’s performance but not the reward.
Discussion of the Findings and Hypotheses Testing
H1: There is a significant relationship between work environment and employees performance. According to the Westfall [22] the Sig. value which is less than 0.05 in the regression analysis test means there is a positive relationship between the two variables. Therefore, Table 9 above indicates that there is a positive relationship between work environment and employees performance in public organization in Yemen as it obtained Sig. Value of (P=0.000) which is less than 0.05. Due to that this findings conclude that there is significance relationship between work environment and employees performance.
Beta value of work environment above which is -0.404 would indicate that; the corresponding independent variable which is work environment is negatively correlated with the job performance, which means surprisingly staff performance will be better in basic or not good working environment.
This finding is consistent with the findings of Diamantidis and Chatzoglou [4], which found out that there is Significance relationship between working environment and employee performance, meaning that when the employee is satisfied with the work environment the result of employee’s performance will be higher. Furthermore, Omolo [17] found out that; the performance of the employee in the organization is significantly influenced by the work environment as having good environment in the workplace can make employees performance better.
H2: There is a significant relationship between rewards and employees performance.
Hochberg [8] stated that, there is appositive significance relationship between two variables as they obtain P-value, less than, 0.01, o.05 and 0.10. Moreover, Westfall [22] said that, the Sig. value which is less than 0.05 in the regression analysis test means there is a positive relationship between the two variables. Hence, Table 9 above indicates that there is no a positive relationship between reward and employees performance in public organization in Yemen as it obtained Sig. Value of (P=0.430) which is greater than 0.05. Due to that, the researcher concludes that there is no significance relationship between reward and employees performance.
Sajuyigbe et al. [19] concluded that reward dimensions have significant effect on employee performance. The findings found that pay, performance rewards bonus, recognition and compliment are the means that organizations management can practice to motivate employees in order for them to perform efficiently and effectively. Additionally, rewards, has a significant effect on the employees perceptions of service recovery performance [2]. Jenkins et.al [12] stated that the increases in the financial rewards rise the quantity of work performed by the employees.
Those finding from previous studies, goes equally with the findings of this study in model one where there is no moderator.
In model two, with including the moderator in the analysis, the results shows that, job satisfaction has no significance influence on reward toward the employee’s performance in public organization in Yemen. For illustrations; by including the job satisfaction as moderator to the relationship between reward and the employees performance. The research found out that, job satisfaction has no significance changes on the relationship between reward and employees performance; due to the fact today the employee’s situation in Yemen is very difficult due to ongoing war and more than seven months majority of the employees in the public organizations didn’t receive their salary. Therefore, the logic justifications for this results, is that the people today with this current situations care more about their reward and payment not about job satisfaction as everyone to work in whatever conditions.
H3: There is a significant relationship between fairness and employees performance Hochberg [8], said, there is appositive significance relationship between two variables as they obtain P-value, less than, 0.01., 0.05 and 0.10. Furthermore, Goodman (1999) stated that, the Sig. value which is less than 0.05 in the regression analysis test means there is a positive relationship between the two variables. In conjunction, Table 9 above indicates that there is a positive relationship between Fairness and employees performance in public organization in Yemen as it obtained Sig. Value of (P=0.01 0) which is smaller than 0.05. Due to that, researcher has concluded that there is a positives significance relationship between Fairness and employees performance. This finding goes equally with the findings of previous studies such as Aryee, et al. [1] who found out that fairness to be related to task performance and the appropriate performance dimensions of interpersonal facilitation and job dedication. Moreover, Janssen [11] stated that managers who perceive effort-reward fairness perform better.
Beta value of work environment above which is -0.162 would indicate that; the corresponding independent variable which is work environment is negatively correlated with the job performance, which means surprisingly staff performance will be better in basic or not good job fairness. Normally negative beta value means a negative relationship. It may be significant but it is negative
H4: Job satisfaction moderates the relationship between work environment and employees performance.
Hochberg [8] stated that, there is appositive significance relationship between two variables as they obtain P-value, less than, 0.01., 0.05 and 0.10. Moreover, Westfall [22] said that, the Sig. value which is less than 0.05 in the regression analysis test means there is a positive relationship between the two variables. From Table 9, we notice that the relationship between the work environment and the employee performance is moderated by the job satisfaction as they got Sig. value of (0.000). Due to that, the researcher concluded that, job satisfaction has moderate effect on the relationship between of work environment and employee’s performance the public organization in Yemen.
H5: Job satisfaction moderates the relationship between rewards and employees performance. From Table 9, it revealed that the job satisfaction has no moderate effect between the Reward and the employees’ performance in public organization in Yemen as they obtained Sig. value of (P=0.430). Due to that, the researcher concluded that, job satisfaction has no moderate effect between the Reward and the employees’ performance in public organization in Yemen. Hochberg [8] stated that, there is appositive significance relationship between two variables as they obtain P-value, less than, 0.01, 0.05 and 0.10. Moreover, Westfall [22] said that, the Sig. value which is less than 0.05 in the regression analysis test means there is a positive relationship between the two variables.
H6: Job satisfaction moderates the relationship between fairness and employees performance. Hochberg [8] stated that, there is appositive significance relationship between two variables as they obtain P-value, less than, 0.01., 0.05 and 0.10. Moreover, Westfall [22] said that, the Sig. value which is less than 0.05 in the regression analysis test means there is a positive relationship between the two variables. From Table 9, we notice that the relationship between the Fairness and the employee performance is moderated by the job satisfaction as they got Sig. value of (0.010). Due to that, the researcher concluded that, job satisfaction has moderate effect on the relationship between of Fairness and employee’s performance the public organization in Yemen.
As the research didn’t find previous studies used the job satisfaction as moderator between (work environment, reward and fairness and the employees performance, this is considered as the contribution of the research as it is found out that, job satisfaction has significance effect of work environment, fairness on employee’s performance in the public organization in Yemen. However, the findings indicated that job satisfaction has no moderate relationship between rewards and the employee’s performance in the public organization in Yemen.
In this paper, the researcher discussed the findings based on the research questions; this research provides evidence that job satisfaction can play an important role on the relationship between work environment, fairness and employee performance. However, job satisfaction as the moderator has no significant effect on the relationship between reward and employees performance in public telecommunication companies in Yemen.
Practical and Theoretical Implications
The research might be supportive of national policymakers, and even towards companies. On one hand, it supports the country in planning the strategy and contrivance to the countrywide policies to improve employee performance on a national level and to increase the level of employee performance in public telecommunication companies in Yemen.
Overall, work environment, reward and fairness must be strategically established to boost the performance of the employees. On the other hand, ignoring work environment, reward and fairness factors will lead to negative effect towards the general performance of the employees. From the findings, there is negative relationship between work environment and employee performance, which means that employees with poor working environment tend to have better performance. This finding as to the best knowledge level of the researcher is unique compared to the findings from previous studies regarding work environment and employee performance. This may be due the fact that, Yemen is undergoing war and the majority of business entities were shut down while some entities have not been capable of paying the salaries to their staff. That is work environment is not an important factor, at least for the current time. Actually, this finding is an important contribution to new knowledge and future studies.
Recommendations for Further Research
Futures researchers can enhance the current research in terms of steadiness and regularity of the sample size distribution. In fact, these can be achieved by distributing or by designing the questionnaires equally to a large number of participants. Additionally, researchers in the future are recommended to include more new variables that can influence employee performance in Yemen, such as job security, shadowing, secondment and 4.0 technologies as well.
Management Development Institute of Singapore in Tashkent, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Applied Science University (ASU) and Al-Madinah International University supported this work.
Copyright © 2024 Research and Reviews, All Rights Reserved