This chapter discusses Papua New Guinea Public Sector in brief. It also discusses previous relevant literatures of the four variables and it dimensions. It further discusses the proposed hypothesis.
Papua New Guinea Public Sector
Papua New Guinea is a member of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, Asia–Pacific Economic Cooperation, Non- Aligned Movement, Pacific Community, Pacific Islands Forum, United Nations and World Trade Organization.
According to the Department of Personnel Management (DPM) (Retrieved November 01, 2017, from http://www.dpm.gov.pg/about/about-us.php.), Papua New Guinea is an emerging nation and being member to some of these groups, the objective is to assist each other in terms of development. PNG is in the process of restructuring the state sector for efficiency and more effective delivery of services. Public-private partnerships and privatization of state-owned enterprises are initiatives which the Government continues to explore to implement its medium-term development goals. The public sector is comprised of all public entities such as central government, state government, local government and state-owned enterprises (SOE). The primary function of the public sector is to provide and ensure that accessible quality services meet the needs of citizens and stakeholders. Furthermore, the public sector is to ensure the effective administration in public order and safety, education, health and social care, and other necessary functions to meet the demands and needs of stakeholders and citizens. In Papua New Guinea, DPM governs and oversees the public sector. It is an important agency within the government with the purpose of regulating and implementing government’s policy initiatives and the public-sector reform systems. This fundamental role of DPM positions it as a central agency within the public sector and plays a pivotal
role in providing strategic leadership and human resource management that promotes good working relationships and thorough dialogue with all other agencies, thus enabling quality services delivery to citizens and stake holders. According to the Public Service Management Act, DPM is tasked to deliver leadership in the three distinctive areas; industrial relations, employment and human resource development and management. Hence, the public sector recognizes and accepts human resource management functions as central to improving service delivery services.
Organizational Commitment
OC can be referred to as the bond in which employees encounter with their organization. Generally speaking, committed employees typically has sense of belonging that bonded them to their organizations, thus they are more aware of the organizational goals. Increased OC leads to better the job performance and lower the turnover rate (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Hence, they are proactive in offering their support. This organizational commitment remains a key contributing factor to an organizational success. Meyer and Allen (1991) suggest a three-component model of OC, that can be studied jointly. These include Affective commitment, Continuance commitment and Normative commitment. They further claimed that employees may
experience all these forms of OC in varying degrees within their organization (Meyer
& Allen, 1991). This asserts that the relationship of employees with the organization will become clearer by understanding all these three-components together.
Affective Commitment (AC)
AC refers to employees' psychological attachment to an organization based on their identification with the objectives and values of their employer (Meyer & Allen, 1991). This denotes the emotional attachment of employees to an organization. Special attention has been given to AC by experts with the view that employees with high level of AC are more productive in their performance. Furthermore, these employees turn to
be loyal and less likely to quit and more industrious. One reason for employees to become loyal to the organization is closely associated to how well they are able to satisfy their needs at work (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Likewise, in the study by Luchak and Gellatly (2007), employees with low level of AC are unlikely to be devoted, thus may be absent from work or engage themselves in activities harmful to the organization.
The significance of AC has not been lost on organizational leaders who are more prone to emphasize its significance relating to attracting, motivating and retaining key talent (Handfield-Jones, Michaels & Axelrod, 2001). This has contributed to ongoing changes in the work practices such as attracting and retaining of new generations of employees with different values who are entering the workforce (D'Amato & Herzfeldt, 2008). Thus, the benefits of high level of AC can potentially enhance and maintain employees’ commitment with their organization. Organizations should give ample consideration on how they can create “high involvement” or “high commitment”
workplace settings (Hom et al., 2009). Given such consideration, it is vital that organizations create work environment where different related work practices underpin and bolster one another to create such settings.
Continuance Commitment (CC)
CC refers to the employees’ commitment to their organization in relation to the personal costs associated with the employee leaving the organization (Hackett, Bycio
& Hausdorf, 1994). This denote as the “fear of loss”. Becker (1960) refers CC to as
“side bets” which implied CC as a function of the perceived cost of leaving an organization. Most people remain because they feel absolutely part of their organization (Meyer, Allen & Smith,1993). Such sense of commitment happens when employees evaluate the associate advantages and disadvantages of leaving their organization.
Employees feel that there are more benefits to stick with their organization than to leave
it. The underlying reason for continuance-committed employees vary nevertheless the main reasons relate to scarcity of work alternatives, and equal or satisfactory compensation in other organizations. Other reasons may include the loss of professional position and skill-related roles acquired over the years or social relationship with colleagues (Meyer & Allen, 1990).
The conceptualization of this type of commitment was inspired by the theory of
"side-bet" by Becker (1960). According to Becker’s theory, the cumulative effect of employees’ loyalty to their organization with the assumption of the possible benefit of pay increase due to long term service with organization or being elevated to a desired seniority position, tend to make it more difficult for employees to leave their organization. This implies that the benefit received from the time and energy invested in the organization are higher and cannot be wasted (Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972; Jaros, Jermier, Koehler & Sincich, 1993). Thus, the employee remains committed to the organization in order to avoid losing the benefits gained from these investments. The person calculates their investments in the organization and what they would gain if they retain their membership in the organization and what they have to lose if they leave the organization. For example, the employee feels the necessity to remain with his/her organization so as to avoid being underpaid or not getting better benefits in the new organization. Another example is that there is no avenue to utilize their acquired skills that can only be utilized in their current organization or even better opportunities to progress their career (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001).
Normative Commitment (NC)
NC is defined as an employee’s feeling of obligation and commitment to his or her organization (Meyer & Allen, 1990). With this type of commitment, employees have a strong sense of attachment with their organization, which they may refuse to quit in pursue of better opportunities even if they are unhappy in work-related matters.
Their impression justifies their intention to remain with their organization regardless of disparity. In other words, NC relates to how much employees feel the sense of obligation that they should stay with their organization (Meyer et al.,1993). Amid NC employees feel that it is selfish to exit their organization which would have devastating effects on the colleagues and organization in overall. Such guilt feeling varies, nevertheless employees do not want to quit because they do not want to create gaps in skills and knowledge within the organization which would affect the performance of the organization. It is believed that individuals’ encounters prior and after they have joined their organizations, influences their NC. Additionally, in the study by Meyer &
Allen (1990) emphasize that socialization outside of work such as family socialization also plays a part in shaping how an employee’s NC develops (1990). NC remains the least studied of the three components in OC (Bergman, 2006).
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
In the organizational literature, the concept of OCB and its definition that is widely accepted was derived by Organ (1988). Organ defines OCB as behaviors exhibited by employees, which are excluded within the scope of required duties and outside the rewarding system and is performed voluntarily. Apart from Organ, Hunt (1999) defines OCB as favorable, natural and voluntary, nonobligatory behaviors delivered by the organizational members who have open general intentions to increase the organizational performance. These definitions entail the benefit OCB can bring to the organization, groups and the individuals. Within the research field, there is no firm and agreed definitions of OCB which implies that there are many dimensions to the term (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine & Bachrach, 2000). This is supported by Organ (1988) who examined OCB and proposed it under the follow headings as altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, sportsmanship and civil virtue.
Altruism
Altruism is defined as the voluntary actions of organizational members with the intention to assist fellow members in their line of duties and overcoming problems within the organization (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 2000). This definition explains altruism as the act to promote someone else’s welfare, even at a risk or cost to oneself.
This denotes that humans are not fundamentally self-interested as may be assumed.
This can be further acknowledged with the attitude of assisting trainees in getting them to acquaint with the work processes, sharing work burden of fellow colleagues, sharing resources, etc. (Podsakoff et al., 2000). The helping behavior does not limit only to organizational members but can be found displayed outside the organization (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 2000).
Courtesy
Courtesy is characterized by ambition and benevolent attitude. It is defined as mutual respect among group members to prevent the possible conflict generated by their relationships. This behavior sums up all behaviors as it assists individual in problem in avoiding problems to transpire. An example of this attitude is to prevent other organizational member from distress that may result from a certain event (Organ, 1988). Courtesy expressed between virtual team members is an important element in injecting confidence into the team, confidence that is vital for individuals, groups and organization.
Conscientiousness
It is defined as behaviors that cause organizational members to perform tasks beyond what is expected of them (Hunt, 1999). This attitude upholds high-level work awareness, which includes voluntary behavior that goes beyond the lowest expected role definition and performance of organizational members. Conscientious people are energetic, ambitious and hardworking (Mahdiuon, Ghahramani & Sharif, 2010). An
example may be performing an overtime work without demanding overtime payment (Schnake, Dumler & Cochran, 1993).
Sportsmanship
Sportsmanship is defined as mannerly behaviors which helps avoid unnecessary complaint among organizational members at work. In the study by Organ (1988), sportsmanship is a behavior that tolerates occasional hardships and deprivations in good spirit for the sake of organizational accomplishments. Sportsmanship reduces and help avoids harsh behaviors that may cause tension at workplace while working together in a creative, innovative, and productive manner that promotes a corporative atmosphere within the organization (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 2000). The examples of this attitude include refraining from complaining about overstressing problems that exist in the work, refrain from accusing workmates of faults, tolerating organizational problems, behaving in a manner that avoids any tension or quarrel with colleagues and to be always respectful with fellow co-workers (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 2000).
Civil Virtue
Civic Virtue can be defined as manners characterizing individual’s participation in organizational related activities (Naami & Shokrkon, 2003). This definition implies a high level of interest and loyalty of individual to their organization. Individuals view their personal ways as important and beneficial to the success of their organization. In other words, it is the behavior that indicate an employee concern for the organization.
This is demonstrated through participation of organizational members in meetings, an employee interest in compliance to organizational policies, delivering opinions that contributes to the strategies of the organization, ensuring organization to avoid hazards, etc. (Organ, 1988).
Organizational Innovation
Despite the size or the type of the organization, if the organization desires to
compete and succeed in the contemporary world, it is necessary to adopt a culture of innovation. The need for innovation is evident everyday as a result of constant competition and advancement in technology both locally and internationally and the improvement in the way services and products are delivered. Digital advancement continues to revolutionize the way people work and organization operates. Hence, innovation is essential to keeping up with these rapid changes. The literature on OI reflects various definitions of the concept (Mol & Birkinshaw, 2009).
According to the research, the pioneer scientific studies and definition for innovation in organizations was derived from administrative innovation (Daft, 1978; Damanpour, 1991), which defined innovation as changes in organizational structure and human resource practices. Recent studies, however, define it in terms of management innovation (Hamel, 2009; Mol & Birkinshaw, 2009), managerial innovation (Damanpour & Aravind, 2011) or OI standpoint (Battisti & Stoneman, 2010).
This study attempts to use the definition offered by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which incorporates the essence of both the traditional and more recent definitions. The OECD (2005), defines OI as the implementation of new organizational method in organizational practices, workplace organization, products and services or external relationships. The concept of OI brings new perspective to the organization and force them to emphasize new ways of doing things and the tendency for change within organizations. Organizations should continually create new products, systems, and service items to make every department addresses client’s demands if they want to achieve their long-term success (Chang, 2008). Thus, constant change and improvement in the way service and products are delivered is key to organizational success.
OI features differentiate it from other organizational changes as it involves the implementation of new organizational method as the result of strategic management
decisions (OECD, 2005). This ensures that new methods are implemented in distributing responsibilities and structuring of activities in workplace involves.
According to the report by OECD (2005), it encourages organization to update their organizational practices and procedures by applying new methods. Furthermore, the new organizational methods should create conducive atmosphere to establish external relationship with other organizations and collaboratively adopt and utilize new systems innovatively for mutual benefit.
Knowledge Sharing
KS is the process in which knowledge, explicit or implicit, is collectively shared amongst individuals in turn resulting in the creation and addition of new knowledge (Hoof, Ridder & Aukema, 2004). KS that is systemized within an organization is characterized as explicit knowledge sharing. Since it is relatively simple to capture, codify and transmit explicit knowledge its sharing practices have become more commonplace in the office setting. In comparison, implicit knowledge sharing relies on face-to-face intercommunication. It is thus very much dependent on the willingness and capacity of individuals for the sharing and use of any shared knowledge (Holste &
Fields, 2010; Lin, 2007; Lee, Endres, Chowdhury & Alam, 2007). Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) and Polanyi (1966), coin human experience as the basis for implicit knowledge sharing.
Furthermore, Senge (1998), acknowledges that employees tend to share their knowledge when individuals become genuinely concerned for others development. In order for the organizational to meet its goals and objectives, many of them have begun to advocate KS behavior among employees. Many organizations promote the implementation of knowledge sharing strategy and have even declared to have profited from this strategy (Alam, Abdullah, Ishak & Zain, 2009). Despite this, Szulanski (1996) highlights that many organizations are still struggling with knowledge sharing.
Individuals does not unnecessarily their share knowledge unless they are convinced of the importance and relevance to do so (Ryu, Ho & Han, 2003). However, in the study by Hidding and Shireen (1998), when knowledge is not shared or utilized appropriately, it becomes useless. Employees are unwilling to share their knowledge because it may be linked to the idea that if they do so, it could unknowingly harm their uniqueness or equity (Hendriks, 1999).
Hypotheses Development
Organizational Commitment and Organizational Innovation
Generally, top performers are the ones who are more committed and have better performance rates than those who are less committed. They are more willing and enthusiastic about making efforts to accomplish organizational goals. Bartlett (2001) reported that OC produces positive tendencies with regard to employee behavior and desirable work outcomes. This means that OC can also be an indicator for pro-organizational behaviors. This further indicates that committed employee is less likely to avoid job duties or quit his/her organization (Watson & Papamarcos, 2002). Watson and Papamarcos further state that increases in OC tends to reduce transaction costs in organizations, which in turn create competitive advantages that accrue for the OI. The greater increase the performance the organization has, the more competitive the organization becomes, which determines its innovation. In other words, OI is the result of OC performance. OC enhances the improvement of OI.
AC is more associated with an individual’s value, beliefs and wishes that helps to improve the individual’s work attitude and thus towards OI, inevitably promoting OI. The more connected employees’ emotions are with the organization, the more willing employees are to take up innovative activities to enhance the organizational performance (Eisenberg, Fasolo & Davis-LaMastro, 1990). Key employees are crucial to the organization and therefore organization must make sure to retain them or else
losing them can be damaging for the organization to maintain its performance. AC creates the need for employee to be more willing to share failure or risk of innovation with the organization and to enable them to remain with organization ensuring the continuity of innovation (Bartlett, 2001)
When CC is not entirely determined by AC, it usually depends on the costs that associate with exiting the organization. In other words, CC is associated to calculated costs of exiting the organization. Individual with such attitude are more likely to exit the organization if she or he finds the cost of staying in the firm to be higher than that of leaving the organization. However, the organizational culture also determines CC such that when an employee discovers the organization to be supportive, he or she will have a higher desire to remain with the organization. This can encourage an interest in learning in the employee, which has greater positive effect on learning performance.
Learning performance is crucial to OI (Chen & Francesco, 2000). So logically CC has a positive effect on organizational innovation.
With NC, employees prefer to stay on with their organization out of sense of obligation which emphasize employees’ loyalty. NC derives from employees’ sense of moral duty and the value system. It can also be as a result of AC or from the consequence of socialization among employees and their commitment to the co-workers and their organization. According to Chen and Francesco (2000), an individual with strong NC will tend to be willing to perform in the organization and be a good
“organizational citizen”, which would have a more significant and positive effect on his or her performance. Committed employees are more willing to go further in their required line of duties to contribute meaningfully to the organizational success (Slack, Orife & Anderson, 2010). The more loyal the employee are, the higher the learning
“organizational citizen”, which would have a more significant and positive effect on his or her performance. Committed employees are more willing to go further in their required line of duties to contribute meaningfully to the organizational success (Slack, Orife & Anderson, 2010). The more loyal the employee are, the higher the learning