______________________________________________________________
Impact of Job Insecurity and Mediation Role Job Satisfaction with Task Performance in Manufacturing Industry Employees in the Era of the Covid 19 Pandemic
Toni Candra1, Rojuaniah2
1,2Faculty of Economic and Business, Universitas Esa Unggul, Indonesia
I. Introduction
Development is a change towards improvement (Shah et al, 2020). Advances in technological developments today encourage companies to compete to use engine power in their production processes. Furthermore, Ivanov (2021) also said that most of the work in the company had been occupied by robots. The use of robots in the company can minimize expenses, shorten production time, and increase the company's competitiveness (Stankevičiūtė et al., 2021). The many benefits that robots produce for companies make employees worry about the current work positions that robots may replace in the future (Zhang, 2019). This sense of worry is commonly known as job insecurity in educational sciences.
This study aims to confirm the impact caused by job insecurity on organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and work engagement, as well as the role of job satisfaction mediation on the task performance of manufacturing industry employees. Furthermore, this research focuses on the position of the leadership team to senior managers who have used digital machines in the manufacturing industry.
Abstract
This research aims to explore the negative influence of job insecurity on organizational commitment, job satisfaction, work engagement, and the role of job satisfaction mediation on task performance. In addition, the influence of affective organizational commitment and work engagement on job satisfaction.
Furthermore, this study also wanted to confirm the positive influence of job satisfaction on task performance and the role of job satisfaction as a mediator variable that links the influence of job insecurity, affective organizational commitment, and work engagement to task performance, especially for employees of the manufacturing industry. The data collection process was carried out from December 2021 to January 2022 during the Covid-19 pandemic.The research sample was determined using purposive sampling with 150 employees. This study used the structural equation model (SEM) method to analyze the data acquisition. The results found are that job insecurity was proven to reduce affective organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and work engagement. Furthermore, affective organizational commitment can increase job satisfaction. Then, job satisfaction plays an active role in improving task performance. Furthermore, job satisfaction contributes to mediating job insecurity relationships and affective organizational commitment to task performance but cannot mediate work engagement relationships to task performance because work engagement does not influence job satisfaction.
Keywords
job insecurity; affective organizational commitment; job satisfaction; work engagement;
task performance
Budapest International Research and Critics Institute-Journal (BIRCI-Journal) Volume 5, No 3, August 2022, Page: 23267-23279 e-ISSN: 2615-3076 (Online), p-ISSN: 2615-1715 (Print)
www.bircu-journal.com/index.php/birci email: [email protected]
23268
II. Review of Literature
2.1 Job Insecurity (JI) and Affective Organizational Commitment (AOC)
A high organizational commitment to employees tends to lead them to work better within an organization (Fernández-Mesa et al., 2020). However, employees' worries and anxieties towards their work can decrease their sense of emotional attachment to their organization (Huang, Zhang, Zhang, & Long, 2020). Sverke & Hellgren (2002); Shin et al. (2019) It reveals that affective organizational commitment can be negatively affected by job insecurity. Study Chirumbolo et al. (2017) It found that job insecurity in workers had a negative impact on affective organizational commitment. Similar to these results, Urbanaviciute et al. (2018) ; Jiang & Lavaysse (2018) also stated that job insecurity has a role in reducing the affective organizational commitment rate. Based on the explanation above, the hypotheses that can be proposed are:
H1: Job insecurity negatively affects organizational commitment.
2.2 Job Insecurity (JI) and Job Satisfaction (JS)
Witte, Pienaar, & Cuyper (2016) have discussed the relationship of job insecurity to job satisfaction. This is in line with the previous theory that job insecurity in employees makes them unable to feel satisfaction with their work (Ashford, 1989). Next, Cuyper et al.
(2009) prove that job insecurity can affect an individual's satisfaction in the job he is doing. Other researchers also argue that a worker who perceives a threat to his work position can reduce their feelings of satisfaction at his work (Emanuel, Molino, Presti, Spagnoli, & Ghislieri, 2018). Several other researchers also found a negative influence of job insecurity on job satisfaction (Sverke et al., 2002; Cheng & Chan, 2008; Chirumbolo et al., 2017; Jiang & Lavaysse, 2018; Lee et al., 2018; Callea et al. , 2019) . Based on the above statement, the hypotheses that can be built are:
H2: Job insecurity negatively affects job satisfaction.
2.3 Job Insecurity (JI) and Work Engagement (WE)
In psychological contract theory, psychological contracts relate to explicit or implicit promises given by organizations to employees while they are carrying out their work (Schreurs, Emmerik, Gunter, & Germeys, 2012). Supporting the statement, Piccoli et al.
(2016) Stated if job insecurity is a violation of the psychological contract. Psychologically disturbed employees tend to stay away from work as well as their organization (De Cupyer et al., 2008). Park & Ono, (2016) found that job insecurity can negatively predict work engagement in workers in Korea. Likewise, the results of the Jiang & Lavaysse study (2018); Lee et al. (2018) ; Stankevičiūtė et al. (2021) It also confirms the negative relationship between job insecurity and work engagement. Based on this explanation, the hypotheses that can be proposed are:
H3: Job insecurity negatively affects work engagement.
2.4 Affective Organizational Commitment (AOC) and Job Satisfaction (JS)
Qureshi et al. (2019) explains that affective organizational commitment plays a role in increasing job satisfaction. Employees who are already committed to their organization will be satisfied with the work (Cao et al., 2020). Afonso et al., (2021) also stated that there is a positive influence of employee commitment to their organization on improving their job satisfaction. Previously, Pelenk (2020) discussed the relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction. His research reveals that employees tend to feel satisfied at their jobs after the employee has a strong commitment to his organization. Several studies have confirmed the positive and significant influence of affective organizational commitment on job satisfaction (e.g., Qureshi et al., 2019; Cao et al., 2020; Afonso et al., 2021). Based on the above statement, the hypotheses that can be built are:
H4: Affective organizational commitment has a positive effect on job satisfaction.
2.5 Work Engagement (WE) and Job Satisfaction (JS)
The relationship between work engagement and job satisfaction has been extensively researched before (Jutengren et al. , 2020) . Research Jutengren et al. (2020) explained that work engagement can increase job satisfaction in employees when they work. Studi Čerović et al. (2020) Find that job satisfaction can be influenced by work engagement through heavy work investment. Workers who already have high involvement in their work, tend to do all kinds of work well and make their best contribution to the organization, so the employee will be satisfied with his work (Čerović et al., 2020). Further researchers have confirmed the positive effect of work engagement on job satisfaction (e.g., Ari et al., 2020; Jung & Yoon, 2021). Based on the above statement, the hypotheses that can be built are:
H5: Work engagement has a positive effect on job satisfaction.
2.6 Job Satisfaction (JS) and Task Performance (TP)
Koopmans, Bernaards, Hildebrandt, Cw, & Vet (2013); Motowidlo & Scotter (2015) explained that task performance is one of the important aspects of employee productivity that must be considered because it will have an impact on the organization. The progress of the organization depends on the performance and achievements of its employees (District et al., 2021). District et al. (2021) Stated that the performance and achievements of employees one of them can be influenced by job satisfaction. Furthermore, Nemteanu &
Dabija (2021) also showed a positive correlation relationship between job satisfaction and task performance. If a worker has satisfaction with his work, then the worker is likely to perform all his tasks very well (Nemteanu & Dabija, 2021). Researchers have previously found that there is a direct effect of job satisfaction on overall work performance (e.g., Shmailan, 2016; Urquhart, 2017). Alessandri, Borgogni, & Latham (2017); Lee et al.
(2018); Ota et al. (2019) ; Huang & Zhang (2020); Khalid (2020); Nemteanu & Dabija (2021); Casu, Mariani, Chiesa, Guglielmi, & Gremigni (2021) also prove that employees who have a high level of job satisfaction are also high levels of their task performance.
Based on the above statement, the hypotheses that can be built are:
H6: Job satisfaction has a positive effect on task performance
2.7 Job Satisfaction Mediation Role (JS)
Stankevičiūtė et al. (2021) explains that job satisfaction can be associated with various employee psychic factors such as job insecurity, affective organizational commitment, and work engagement. Job satisfaction is also proven to be determined by the level of employee involvement in his work (Čerović et al., 2020). Employees who are already satisfied with their work, tend to contribute more to the work (District et al., 2021), which will later appear to be in their work productivity. Nemteanu & Dabija (2021) stated that one of the results of job satisfaction is high task performance in employees. Based on the above statement, the hypotheses that can be built are:
H7a: Job satisfaction mediates the relationship of job insecurity to task performance.
H7b: Job satisfaction mediates relationships, affective organizational commitment to task performance.
H7c: Job satisfaction mediates the work engagement relationship to task performance.
From the hypothesis above, here is a model of the hypothesis:
Figure 1. Research Model III. Research Method
The study used survey methods by distributing questionnaires online to collect data in the study. Furthermore, the data collected will be measured by the likert scale method that has four alternative answers, namely on the score of four strongly agreed assessments (SS), scores of three agreed assessments (S), scores of two disapproval assessments (TS) and scores of one strongly disagreed assessment (STS). The study adopted measurements from Stankevičiūtė et al. (2021) on the variables Job insecurity (4 statements), Affective organizational commitment (3 statements), and Work engagement (3 statements).
Furthermore, the study also adopted measurements from Nemteanu & Dabija (2021) on Job satisfaction (10 statements) and Task performance (5 statements). The total statement in this study as many as 25 items, for more details, can be seen in attachments 2 and 3.
Online questionnaires were sent as part of the study's data collection process. A four- point Likert scale will be used to evaluate the information gathered, with each point denoting one of four possible outcomes: agreement (S), disapproval (D), dissatisfaction (S), and extreme disagreement (D) (STS). There were four measures of job insecurity, three statements of emotional organizational commitment, and one statement of work
engagement used in the research by Stankevicita et al in (2021). (3 statements). Nemteanu
& Dabija (2021) were used to assess job satisfaction (10 items) and task performance in the research as well (5 statements). Attachments 2 and 3 include more information on the study's overall statement, which includes up to 25 distinct things.
Furthermore, the method used to determine the sample is purposive sampling. The population in this study was employees of PT. Adis Dimension Footwear Group (ADF 1, ADF2, MKU) located in the Tangerang region with the following criteria, (1) employees who have positions as a team leader to senior manager, and (2) have used digital machines in their work processes. Data collection will be carried out from December 2021 to January 2022 during the Covid-19 pandemic. In the validity and reliability test on the questionnaire, the study used factor analysis by looking at the values listed in Kaiser Meyer-Olkin (KMO), Measure of Sampling Adequacy (MSA), Cronbach's Alpha value with a minimum limit of 0.5 (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2013). As for processing and analyzing the data in this study, we used the Structural Equation Model (SEM).
The results of pretest data processing stated that most statements are declared valid and reliable, but there are still some invalid and reliable statements. Some of the statements in question include js1, JS2, JS8, JS9, JS10 on job satisfaction variables and TP5 on task performance variables. Thus, the total statements used as questionnaires in this study were as many as 19 statements. Based on sem analysis methods, the determination of the number of research samples is as much as 5 times the number of statements (Hair et al., 2013), then this study uses a minimum sample of (19x5) 95 respondents.
IV. Results and Discussion
4.1 Results
Based on the dissemination of questionnaires conducted online through google form, the data collected was as many as 150 respondents. From the data obtained, the number of female respondents was 32% and men as much as 68%. Furthermore, the majority of respondents in this study occupied the position of Manager / Senior Specialist as much as 31%. While the majority of the final education status of respondents in this study was S1 as much as 55%. The full demographic data can be seen in appendix 4. In the results of the SEM Lisrel analysis there is a statement that the indicator value is below 0.50, namely TP1, or it can be said that TP1 on the task performance variable is not positively correlated, therefore the TP1 statement is omitted in the data processing process for hypothesis testing.
All variables are declared valid because they have a loading factor value above 0.50.
Furthermore, reliability test results with a minimum limit of construct reliability value of 0.60 and variance extracted value of 0.50 (Hair et al., 2014). Construct reliability values in job insecurity (JI) 0.75, affective organizational commitment (AOC) 0.81, job satisfaction (JS) 0.80, work engagement (WE) 0.76, and task performance (TP) 0.82.
Variance extracted value at job insecurity (JI) 0.43, affective organizational commitment (AOC) 0.59, job satisfaction (JS) 0.45, work engagement (WE) 0.51, and task performance (TP) 0.61.
Furthermore, the results of structural tests by looking at the value of R2 in each equation, then obtained the following results: the first result, the affective organizational commitment (AOC) variable is affected by job insecurity (JI) with the value of R2 is 0.60.
Thus, it can be interpreted that 60% of affective organizational commitment (AOC) variables can be explained by variables by job insecurity (JI), the remaining 40% is influenced by other variables that are not in this study. The second result, the job
satisfaction variable (JS) is influenced by job insecurity (JI), affective organizational commitment (AOC), and work engagement (WE) with an R2 value of 0.85. Thus, it can be interpreted that 85% of job satisfaction (JS) variables can be explained by variables by job insecurity (JI), affective organizational commitment (AOC), and work engagement (WE), the remaining 15% is influenced by other variables that are not present in this study. The third result, the work engagement (WE) variable is influenced by job insecurity (JI) with an R2 value of 0.33. Thus, it can be interpreted that 33% of work engagement (WE) variables can be explained by variables by job insecurity (JI), the remaining 67% are influenced by other variables that are not in this study. The fourth result, the task performance variable (TP) is influenced by job satisfaction (JS) with an R2 value of 0.15. Thus, it can be interpreted that 15% of task performance variables (TP) can be explained by job satisfaction (JS) variables, the remaining 85% is influenced by other variables that are not in this study.
In the model conformity test, the analysis results showed that there are still several items whose match rates are good fit in Chi Square, ECVI, AIC and CAIC, Fit Index, and RMSEA. And there are marginal fit items, namely Critical N and Goodness of Fit which can be seen in attachment 5. Here are the results of the study described in the T-Value diagram:
Figure 2. Path Diagram T-Value
Mediation Variable Role Analysis
From the T-Value diagram path image shows that job satisfaction (JS) did not succeed in fully mediating the work engagement (WE) and task performance (TP) relationships, work engagement (WE) had no effect on job satisfaction (JS) with a value of t = 0.53 (<1.96), although job satisfaction (JS) had an effect on job satisfaction (JS). task performance (TP) with a value of t = 6.62 (>1.96). Furthermore, job satisfaction (JS) proved successful in mediating the relationship of job insecurity (JI) and affective organizational commitment (AOC) to task performance (TP), because job insecurity (JI) affects job satisfaction (JS) with a value of t = 2.38 (>1.96), and affect organizational commitment (AOC) affects the impact job satisfaction (JS) with a value of t = 2.80 (>1.96).
Based on the T-Value Diagram Path as figure 2 above, it can be presented as follows research model testing:
Table 1. Research Model Hypothesis Test
Hypothesis Hypothesis Statement T-Value Information
H1
Job insecurity (JI) negatively affects the affective organizational commitment (AOC).
6,66 Data supports
hypothesis H2 Job insecurity (JI) negatively affects job
satisfaction (JS). 2,38 Data supports
hypothesis H3 Job insecurity (JI) negatively affects work
engagement (WE). 4,76 Data supports
hypothesis H4
Affective organizational commitment (AOC) has a positive effect on job satisfaction (JS).
2,80 Data supports
hypothesis H5
Work engagement (WE) has a positive
effect on job satisfaction (JS). 0,53
The data does not
support the
hypothesis.
H6 Job satisfaction (JS) has a positive effect
on task performance (TP). 6,62 Data hypothesis supports
H7a
Job satisfaction (JS) mediates job insecurity (JI) relationships against task performance (TP).
JI to JS 2,38
JS to TP 6,62
Data supports hypothesis
H7b
Job satisfaction (JS) mediates relationships, affective organizational commitment (AOC) against task performance (TP).
AOC to JS 2,80
JS to TP 6,62
Data supports hypothesis
H7c
Job satisfaction (JS) mediates the work engagement (WE) relationship to task performance (TP).
WE to JS 0,53
JS to TP 6,62
The data does not
support the
hypothesis.
Based on the table above, it is known that there are 2 hypotheses that have a T-Value value below 1.96 (H5, H7c), so it can be said that the data obtained does not support the hypothesis.
4.2 Discussion
This study aims to determine the influence of job insecurity (JI) on affective organizational commitment (AOC), job satisfaction (JS), and work engagement (WE).
Furthermore, the influence of job satisfaction (JS) on task performance (TP). Then the role of job satisfaction mediation (JS) on job insecurity (JI), organizational commitment (AOC), and work engagement (WE) to task performance (TP) relationships in PT employees. Adis Dimension Footwear Group. The results obtained from the hypothesis test submitted are as follows:
The results showed that job insecurity (JI) was shown to have a negative influence on affective organizational commitment (AOC). This result supports the previous theory that job insecurity (JI) plays a role in determining the negative affective organizational commitment (AOC) level of employees (e.g., Chirumbolo et al., 2017; Urbanaviciute et al., 2018; Jiang & Lavaysse, 2018). Employees who have concerns about their work tend to be negative about anything related to the job. Shin et al. (2019) Job insecurity (JI) is able to encourage employees not to have a strong commitment to the organization where they work. During a pandemic like today, employees certainly have anxiety about their work conditions, and this condition is what makes the level of emotional commitment and stability of their performance decrease (Sun, Sik, & Hyun, 2021). Factory employees are
no exception, they have a fairly high sense of concern, in addition to regarding working conditions, they are also worried about health, which is why the desire to commit to work is low.
Further results showed that job insecurity (JI) has a negative influence on job satisfaction (JS). Employees who have job insecurity (JI) will generally feel very high concerns about their work and dissatisfaction with the job. Job satisfaction (JS) in employees will decrease, when they begin to feel discomfort while working. This statement is in line with witte et al. (2016); Lee et al. (2018); Callea et al. (2019) on the negative impact of job insecurity (JI) on employee satisfaction and performance. The previous theory also revealed that job insecurity (JI) is a factor that must be considered by companies if they want to create Job satisfaction (JS) in their employees (Ashford, 1989).
As explained earlier, factory employees, especially during the pandemic, certainly have high anxiety and worry. That's what makes them unable to enjoy what they're doing. Covid 19 pandemic caused all efforts not to be as maximal as expected (Sihombing and Nasib, 2020). Factory employees tend to do repetitive work and it is easy to experience boredom, coupled with adverse conditions such as the Covid-19 pandemic. Respondents to this study showed that if the concern for work makes them unable to exert all their abilities properly, so there will be no satisfaction in their current work.
After that, this study proved that job insecurity (JI) has a negative influence on work engagement (WE). Job insecurity (JI) in employees makes them not want to have more involvement and interest in their work. This result is in accordance with Jiang & Lavaysse theory (2018); Lee et al. (2018) ; Stankevičiūtė et al. (2021) who concluded that job insecurity (JI) contributes negatively to the level of work engagement (WE). Job insecurity caused by covid-19 formed a negative view of respondents in their organization, one of which was feeling worried about how they could keep their current jobs. These concerns that make them always respond negatively to work such as a decrease in their mental state, spirit, and sense of involvement in the work. According to Schreurs et al. (2012) , to overcome these problems, the organization must pay attention to the psychological condition of each employee. If employees feel that all their psychological needs are well met, then they will naturally show high involvement in their organization of work (De Cupyer et al., 2008).
The study also found that affective organizational commitment (AOC) had a positive effect on job satisfaction (JS). An employee's strong commitment to his organization can encourage them to love and enjoy work within the organization. These results support previous research that proves that there is a positive role of affective organizational commitment (AOC) in increasing job satisfaction (JS) in employees (e.g., Qureshi et al., 2019; Cao et al., 2020; Afonso et al., 2021). Employees' strong commitment to their work makes them always have a positive view of anything related to the work (Cao et al., 2020).
Respondents to this study showed that high affective commitment to employees can lead them to use all their abilities and skills when doing tasks. This is what encourages their satisfaction with their work continues to increase, as well as their work performance (Afonso et al., 2021). Sun et al. (2021) ; Chanana (2021) also revealed that the high commitment of employees to an organization will be directly proportional to their satisfaction with their duties and responsibilities towards the organization.
Furthermore, this study showed that work engagement (WE) had no positive effect on job satisfaction (JS). This result is different from some previous studies that have found a positive influence of work engagement (WE) on job satisfaction (JS) in employees (e.g., Jutengren et al. , 2020; Čerović et al., 2020; Ari et al., 2020). Thangaraj (2020) explained that the satisfaction of employees of their work is not necessarily caused by their
attachment to the job, but because of their trust in all the values contained in the organization in which they work. Most of the respondents to this study were long-time employees, therefore their satisfaction at work was no longer caused by their involvement in the organization. This is because, factory employees have a pattern of repetitive tasks every day, so they feel unable to issue and exert all their abilities and skills while working.
Pandemic conditions like today force them to have to work harder without regard to the amount of time spent or the surrounding environment. These activities are carried out solely because they make it a routine that aims to maintain their lives.
In essence, the pandemic made the space for factory employees smaller, so they only focused on their work until the work time was over. Thus, it can be concluded that the high engagement that exists in respondents, does not have a positive impact on the level of job satisfaction (JS). This is in accordance with Jones's theory (2018) which reveals that work engagement has no role in determining the level of job satisfaction in employees.
Furthermore, Thangaraj (2020) explained that managers or leaders in an organization must be able to make the right strategy to build a sense of engagement and high commitment to employees, thus, it is easy for the organization to create employee satisfaction with their employees. Based on the statement, it can be concluded that in order to get the satisfaction of respondents, organizations must pay attention to the high level of their commitment to the organization. This expression is the same as explained earlier if the affective commitment of employees can contribute actively in increasing job satisfaction (JS) positively.
This research proves that job satisfaction (JS) has a positive effect on task performance (TP). High satisfaction in employees will encourage them to be more excited while working. These results support several previous studies that also found a positive contribution of job satisfaction (JS) to task performance (TP) in employees (e.g., Khalid, 2020; Nemteanu & Dabija, 2021) . Employees who love their work will tend to encourage them to enjoy and do every task very well. No matter what the conditions are even during the pandemic, if employees already have a high level of satisfaction with their work, then by themselves, they always try to make their best contribution and dedication to the company or organization they work for. Factory employees with a high level of satisfaction, generally have a high spirit and diligent when working, even they will not hesitate to help complete tasks belonging to their colleagues. This activity is to maintain, build, and support the organization to continue to progress and develop. This statement is similar to the opinion of Nemteanu & Dabija (2021) which states that there is a positive influence of job satisfaction (JS) on task performance (TP).
Respondents in this study showed that job satisfaction (JS) is influenced by their job insecurity (JI) and affective organizational commitment (AOC) to the organization. Here it can be seen if the job satisfaction (JS) of respondents has a positive impact on their work performance, so it can be said that job satisfaction (JS) can connect the influence of job insecurity (JI) and affective organizational commitment (AOC) on the task performance (TP) of factory employees. The statement supports several previous theories that reveal the relationship of job insecurity (JI), affective organizational commitment (AOC) with job satisfaction (JS) (e.g., Jiang & Lavaysse, 2018; Lee et al., 2018; Qureshi et al., 2019; Cao et al., 2020; Afonso et al., 2021; Stankevičiūtė et al., 2021), as well as job satisfaction (JS) relationship with task performance (TP) (e.g., Khalid, 2020; Nemteanu & Dabija, 2021) .
Furthermore, job satisfaction (JS) in respondents was found to be unable to be a mediator that connects work engagement (WE) to task performance (TP). This is because respondents' job satisfaction is not determined by their level of involvement in their work.
These results are in line with Jones' study (2018) which proved that there is no significant relationship between work engagement (WE) and job satisfaction (JS). For respondents to this study, involvement is not a trigger factor for their satisfaction with their work. Job satisfaction in employees can be triggered by their positive psychological views and conditions related to their work (Thangaraj, 2020). The organization should also consider and pay attention to the psychological condition of each of its employees in order to easily build satisfaction in each employee. Positive individual psychological conditions have also been shown to improve their work performance (Nemteanu & Dabija, 2021). Increased work performance in employees not only has a positive impact on their own but can also provide benefits for the organization or company.
V. Conclusion
The results of this study showed that job insecurity (JI) proved to have a positive effect on affective organizational commitment (AOC), job satisfaction (JS), and work engagement (WE). Furthermore, affective organizational commitment (AOC) has a positive effect on job satisfaction (JS). While work engagement (WE) does not have a positive effect on job satisfaction (JS). Then, job satisfaction (JS) affects task performance (TP) positively. The last point, job satisfaction (JS) can mediate the relationship of job insecurity (JI) and affective organizational commitment (AOC) to task performance (TP), but does not mediate the work engagement (WE) relationship with task performance. (TP) on manufacturing industry employees in Tanggerang. Respondents in this study were dominated by employees who had worked in the company for a long time. Their satisfaction is not caused by their involvement in the company but by their psychological and organizational commitment.
References
Alessandri, G., Borgogni, L., & Latham, G. P. (2017). A Dynamic Model of the Longitudinal Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Supervisor-Rated Job
Performance. Applied Psychology, 66(2), 207–232.
https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12091
Bataineh, K. adnan. (2019). Impact of Work-Life Balance, Happiness at Work, on Employee Performance. International Business Research, 12(2), 99.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v12n2p99
Bernhard-oettel, C., Berntson, E., Witte, H. De, & Alarco, B. (2008). Employability and Employees' Well-Being: 57(3), 488–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464- 0597.2008.00332.x
Callea, A., Università, L., Ss, M., & Luigi, C. (2019). The associations of quantitative / qualitative job insecurity and well-being : the role of self-esteem. (January 2018).
https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000091
De Cuyper, N., Notelaers, G., & De Witte, H. (2009). Job Insecurity and Employability in Fixed-Term Contractors, Agency Workers, and Permanent Workers: Associations With Job Satisfaction and Affective Organizational Commitment. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(2), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014603
Dorta-Afonso, D., González-de-la-Rosa, M., García-Rodríguez, F. J., & Romero- Domínguez, L. (2021). Effects of high-performance work systems (HPWS) on hospitality employees' outcomes through their organizational commitment, motivation, and job satisfaction. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(6).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063226
Ersen, Ö., & Bilgiç, R. (2018). The effect of proactive and preventive coping styles on personal and organizational outcomes: Be proactive if you want good outcomes.
Cogent Psychology, 5(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2018.1492865 Fernández-Mesa, A., Llopis, O., García-Granero, A., & Olmos-Peñuela, J. (2020).
Enhancing organisational commitment through task significance: the moderating role of openness to experience. European Management Journal, 38(4), 602–612.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.12.010
Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job Insecurity: Toward Conceptual Clarity.
Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 438–448.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4279673
Hair, J. F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B. J.; Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis.
In Statistica Neerlandica.
Ivanov, S. (2021). ROBONOMICS: The Journal of the Automated Economy. (March).
Jiang, L., & Lavaysse, L.M. (2018). Cognitive and Affective Job Insecurity: A Meta- Analysis and a Primary Study. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2307–2342.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318773853
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C.M., Hildebrandt, V. H., Cw, H., & Vet, D. (2013). Measuring individual work performance : Identifying and selecting indicators. 00, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-131659
Lee, C., Huang, G. H., & Ashford, S. J. (2018). Job insecurity and the changing workplace:
Recent developments and the future trends in job insecurity research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(November 2017), 335–359. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104651
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A Three-Component Conceptualization Of Organizational Commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230501997_5
Nemteanu, M. S., Dabija, D.C., & Stanca, L. (2021). The Influence Of Teleworking On Performance And Employees' Counterproductive Behaviour. Amphitheater Economic, 23(58), 601–619. https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2021/58/601
Ota, E., Wang, H., Frye, N. L., Knowles, R. R., Ota, E., Wang, H., ... Knowles, R. R.
(2019). A Redox Strategy for Light-Driven , Out-of-Equilibrium Isomerizations and Application to Catalytic C – C Bond Cleavage Reactions A Redox Strategy for Light- Driven , Out-of-Equilibrium Isomeriza- tions and Application to Catalytic C – C Bond Cleavage React. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.8b12552
Park, J. H., & Ono, M. (2016). Effects of workplace bullying on work engagement and health : the mediating role of job insecurity. 5192(March).
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1155164
Pelenk, S. E. (2020). The Mediation Effect of Leader Support in the Effect of Organizational Commitment on Job Satisfaction: A Research in the Turkish Textile Business. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 9, 227–242.
https://doi.org/10.33844/ijol.2020.60508
Piccoli, B., Reisel, W. D., & Witte, H. De. (2019). Understanding the Relationship Between Job Insecurity and Performance : Hindrance or Challenge Effect ? 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845319833189
Piccoli, B., Witte, H. D. E., & Reisel, W. D. (2016). Personality and Social Psychology Job insecurity and discretionary behaviors: Social exchange perspective versus group value model. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12340
Qureshi, M. A., Qureshi, J. A., Thebo, J. A., Shaikh, G.M., Brohi, N. A., & Qaiser, S.
(2019). The nexus of employee's commitment, job satisfaction, and job performance:
An analysis of FMCG industries of Pakistan. Cogent Business and Management, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1654189
Rosenblatt, Z., Talmud, I., & Ruvio, A. (1999). A Gender-based Framework of the Experience of Job Insecurity and Its Effects on Work Attitudes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 197–217.
https://doi.org/10.1080/135943299398320
Salas-Vallina, Andres, Alegre, J., & Fernandez, R. (2017). Happiness at work and organisational citizenship behaviour: Is organisational learning a missing link?
International Journal of Manpower, 38(3), 470–488. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-10- 2015-0163
Salas-Vallina, Andrés, Alegre Vidal, J., & Fernandez, R. (2017). On the Road to Happiness at Work (HAW): Transformational Leadership, Organizational Learning Capability and Happiness at Work. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 27(1), 292–310.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
Schreurs, B. H. J., Emmerik, I. H. Van, Gunter, H., & Germeys, A. F. (2012). A Weekly Diary Study in the Buffering Role of Social Support in the Relationship between Job Insecurity and Employee Performance. Human Resource Management, 51(2), 259–
280. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm
Shin, Y., Hur, W.M., Moon, T. W., & Lee, S. (2019). A motivational perspective on job insecurity: Relationships between job insecurity, intrinsic motivation, and performance and behavioral outcomes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16101812
Shmailan, A. S. Bin. (2016). The relationship between job satisfaction, job performance and employee engagement: An explorative study. Issues in Business Management and Economics, 4(1), 1–8.
Shoss, M. K. (2017). Job Insecurity: An Integrative Review and Agenda for Future
Research. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1911–1939.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317691574
Sihombing, E. H., Nasib. (2020). The Decision of Choosing Course in the Era of Covid 19 through the Telemarketing Program, Personal Selling and College Image. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute-Journal (BIRCI-Journal) Volume 3, No.
4, Page: 2843-2850.
Stankevičiūtė, Ž., Staniškienė, E., & Ramanauskaitė, J. (2021). The impact of job insecurity on employee happiness at work: A case of robotised production line operators in furniture industry in Lithuania. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(3), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031563
Sun, H., Sik, Y., & Hyun, H. (2021). COVID-19: The effects of job insecurity on the job engagement and turnover intent of deluxe hotel employees and the moderating role of generational characteristics. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 92(January), 1–9.
Sverke, M., & Hellgren, J. (2002). The Nature of Job Insecurity: Understanding Employment Uncertainty on the Brink of a New Millennium. Applied Psychology, 51(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.0077z
Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Näswall, K. (2002). No security: A meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(3), 242–264. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.7.3.242
Sverke, M., Låstad, L., Hellgren, J., Richter, A., & Näswall, K. (2019). A meta-analysis of job insecurity and employee performance: testing temporal aspects, rating source, welfare regime, and union density as moderators. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(14).
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16142536
Thangaraj, J. (2020). Employee Engagement and Its Impact on Job Satisfaction. (August), 0–16.
Urbanaviciute, I., Lazauskaite-Zabielske, J., Vander Elst, T., & De Witte, H. (2018).
Qualitative job insecurity and turnover intention: The mediating role of basic psychological needs in public and private sectors. Career Development International, 23(3), 274–290. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-07-2017-0117
Urquhart, A. (2017). The Volatility of Bitcoin. SSRN Electronic Journal, 127(3), 376–407.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2921082
Witasari, J., & Gustomo, A. (2020). Understanding The Effect of Human Capital Management Practices, Psychological Capital, and Employee Engagement To Employee Performances 2 . Literature Study / Hypotheses Development. 13(1), 1–
15.
Wright, B. E., & Kim, S. (2004). Participation's Influence on Job Satisfaction: The Importance of Job Characteristics. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 24(1), 18–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X03259860
Zhang, P. (2019). Automation, wage inequality and implications of a robot tax.
International Review of Economics and Finance, 59, 500–509.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2018.10.013
