The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business

Korea Distribution Science Association (한국유통과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

How Social Intelligence, Integrity, and Self-efficacy Affect Job Satisfaction: Empirical Evidence from Indonesia

  • ALIFUDDIN, Moh. (STMIK Handayani) ;
  • WIDODO, Widodo (Department of Social Science Education, Postgraduate Faculty, Universitas Indraprasta PGRI)
  • Received : 2021.03.30
  • Accepted : 2021.06.17
  • Published : 2021.07.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The study aims to explore the empirical effect of social intelligence, integrity, self-efficacy, and affective commitment on job satisfaction, and also to prove the theoretical model regarding affective commitment as a mediator between social intelligence, integrity, self-efficacy, and job satisfaction. This research uses a quantitative approach to the survey method through a Likert scale model questionnaire. The questionnaire for all research variables is reliable with an alpha coefficient > 0.7. The research participants are comprised of 386 teachers in Indonesia selected by accidental sampling. Data analysis uses path analysis supported by descriptive statistics and correlational matrices. The research results indicate that social intelligence, integrity, self-efficacy, and affective commitment have a significant effect on job satisfaction. Besides, affective commitment also indirectly mediates the effect of social intelligence, integrity, and self-efficacy on job satisfaction. Thus, a new model regarding the effect of social intelligence, integrity, and self-efficacy on job satisfaction mediating by affective commitment was confirmed. The research suggested that the teachers' job satisfaction can improve through social intelligence, integrity, self-efficacy, and affective commitment. Therefore, researchers and practitioners can adopt a new empirical model to enhance job satisfaction through social intelligence, integrity, self-efficacy, and affective commitment in the future.

Keywords

1. Introduction

Job satisfaction is always interesting to look at all the time because its existence is crucial for organizations. Several kinds of research in various organizations, industries, and countries show that job satisfaction is proven to have a significant effect on work engagement (Garg, Dar, & Mishra, 2017) and innovative behavior (Hrnjic & Bijedic, 2015). Recent studies also indicate that job satisfaction affects organizational citizenship behavior (e.g., Motalebi & Marşap, 2020; Moestain, Hamidah, & Kadir, 2020; Gustari & Widodo, 2020). Besides, job satisfaction also influences productivity (Embuldeniya, 2017) and performance (e.g., Oravee, Zayum, & Kokona, 2018; Abdulkhaliq, & Mohammadali, 2019; Ngo, 2021), including organizational performance (e.g., Bakotić, 2016; Miah, 2018). Moreover, job satisfaction is also related to burnout (Khare & Kamalian, 2017) and turnover among employees (e.g., Liu et al., 2019; Romeo, Yepes-Baldó, & Lins, 2020; Effendi et al., 2021). The studies proved that job satisfaction affects organizational conditions at various levels, both at the individual, group, and organizational levels. Under these conditions, the study of job satisfaction will become increasingly important in the future, especially when employees at various levels of the organization need job satisfaction as capital to build innovative behavior, productivity, and performance needed by organizations to survive and compete.

According to Spector (1997), job satisfaction refers to how people feel about their work and various aspects of their work. The extent to which people like (satisfied) and dislike (dissatisfied) their work or job situation matters (Weiss, 2002). For Nelson and Quick (2012), job satisfaction is a positive or pleasant emotional state that arises from job appraisals or work experience. Job satisfaction is also a positive feeling about a person’s job that arises from an assessment of his/her characteristics (Robbins & Judge, 2019). According to Robbins and Coulter (2016), job satisfaction is related to an employee’s general attitude toward his or her job. Job satisfaction also refers to the level of fulfillment gained from work. It is a multidimensional construct due to the nature of the profession (Torres, 2019). Luthan (2013) states that job satisfaction can measure through multi dimensions, among others, work itself, promotion, supervision, and workgroup. Based on several research and studies in various countries, industrial, and occupational sectors, job satisfaction is shown to be influenced by social intelligence, integrity, self-efficacy, and affective commitment.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Social Intelligence and Job Satisfaction

Social intelligence is about understanding how the relationship with bosses and colleagues, family, and friends, shapes our brains and affect our bodies (DuBrin, 2009). Social intelligence refers to a persons’ ability to deal effectively with others (Robbin & Judge, 2019). According to Northouse (2005), social intelligence is related to choosing the appropriate response and ownership of understanding and awareness of the extent to which others in the function of the organization. In practice, social intelligence determines the needs for leadership in special situations (Yukl, 2013). Hence, Elliot, and Dweck (2005) state that the social intelligence perspective is one where people bring their social intelligence (self-conceptions, autobiographical memories, constructs, decision rules, and then contingencies) to bear on the problems that they are currently trying to solve. According to Yukl (2013), social intelligence includes interpersonal skills (such as empathy, social sensitivity, understanding group processes) and organizational knowledge (structure, culture, power relations). Meanwhile, Albrecht, quoted by Newstrom (2017), mentions five indicators of social intelligence: empathy, the appreciation and connection with others; the ability to carry oneself (presence), to project self-worthiness in carrying other people; situational radar, the ingenuity of reading social situations and responding accordingly; clarity, using language effectively to explain and persuade; and authenticity, being real and transparent while projecting honesty. Suppose these indicators, in adequate conditions, can stimulate job satisfaction manifested work itself, promotion, supervision, and work group. The researchers’ studies also concluded that social intelligence influences job satisfaction (e.g., Yahyazadeh-Jeloudar & Lotfi-Goodarzi, 2012; Yamaguchi, 2013). Based on the statements and studies above, the first hypothesis in this study is:

H1: Social intelligence has a direct effect on job satisfaction.

2.2. Integrity and Job Satisfaction

Integrity is essential in individuals’ and organizations’ life. Hopkins, quoted by Sani et al. (2016), states that integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes that connotes a deep commitment to doing the right thing for the right reason, regardless of the circumstances. According to Legault, Al-Khindi, and Inzlicht (2012), in general, integrity also refers to the sense that one is a moral and socially suitable person (e.g., one is intelligent, rational, competent). Integrity is the consistency between ones’ values, words, and actions (Sani et al., 2016). In the work context, integrity is a consistent attitude and behavior to uphold work ethics and professional ethics (Irene, Sodikin, & Guswandi, 2018). From a learning perspective, integrity is the best view in terms of a continual learning process (Robinson, 2011), with the person discovering more about the different aspects of the self and others and how these connect. Koehn (2005) argues that integrity involves developing awareness of the other, including the social and physical environment, the capacity to respond to the other, and the development of moral and life meaning in and through these relationships. This enables the person and organization (Brown, 2005) to develop as a learning entity, providing transparency, consistency, congruence, coherence, and commitment. Integrity also makes it possible to see individuals being responsible for the integrity of a group, not least a profession (Armstrong, Dixon, & Robinson, 1999). Integrity is also manifested in many responses to self-integrity involving defensive psychological alterations aimed at denying, rejecting, or transforming the threat to restore self-worth (Sherman & Cohen, 2002; Sherman & Hartson, 2011). Integrity consists of four indicators: (1) self-integration or wholeness, (2) authenticity, (3) consistency in the face of adversity, and (4) consistency of word and action (Gosling & Huang, 2009). Suppose the indicators, in the right conditions, can stimulate job satisfaction. For example, high integrity teachers should be satisfied with their work, promotion, supervision, and work group. The studies by Abun and Racoma (2017) also concluded that integrity affects job satisfaction. Based on arguments and studies above, the second hypothesis in this study is:

H2: Integrity has a direct effect on job satisfaction.

2.3. Self-Efficacy and Job Satisfaction

Self-efficacy is crucial for individual life. Self-efficacy is basic for motivation, welfare, and personal achievements in all facets of one’s life (Saremi & Rezeghi, 2015). Self efficacy refers to the belief that someone has the skills needed to demonstrate the behavior needed for the success of a task (Colquitt, Lepine, & Wesson, 2019), the ability possessed to do something in a special situation (Lussier, 2008), and someone’s confidence in achieving his/her duties in uncertainty (Wood & Bandura, in Machmud, 2018). Bandura (1994) mentions three dimensions of self-efficacy: (1) generality, this aspect relates broadly to the field of duty or behavior; (2) magnitude, this aspect is related to task difficulty; and (3) strength, this aspect relates to the level of strength or stability of a person against his beliefs. These dimensions, if at a high level, can make someone feel better about their job satisfaction. Several studies show that self efficacy influences job satisfaction, for example, Kim and Kim (2021), Bargsted, Ramírez-Vielma, and Yeves (2019), Jurado et al. (2019), Machmud (2018), Park et al. (2017), Peng and Mao (2015), and Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2014). Based on arguments and studies above, the third hypothesis in this study is:

H3: Self-efficacy has a direct effect on job satisfaction.

2.4. Affective Commitment and Job Satisfaction

In the organizational perspective, commitment is the extent to which an individual identifies with an organization and its goal, manifested in day-to-day work activity (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2012; Beardwell & Thompson, 2014), or the degree to which an employee identifies with the organization and wants to continue actively participating in it, willing to put forth effort on its behalf (Newstrom, 2017; Noe et al., 2019). Organizational commitment is also related to employee believing in the organization’s goal and value, and employee effort to attain the organization’s goals (Doan, Nguyen, & Nguyen, 2020). One aspect of organizational commitment is the affective commitment, which consists of the employees’ emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). For Newstrom (2017), affective commitment reflects employees’ positive emotions to try and remain part of the organization. In the context, Ivancevich, Konopaske, and Matteson (2018) states that commitment involves several attitudes reflected in affection, such as identical to organizational goals, a feeling of being involved in organizational tasks feeling loyal to the organization. The teachers with adequate affective commitment tend to high job satisfaction manifested work itself, promotion, supervision, and work group. Several studies by scholars also claimed that affective commitment affects job satisfaction (e.g., Liu & Bellibas, 2018; Lambert et al., 2019; Loan, 2020). Based on arguments and studies above, the fourth hypothesis in this study is:

H4: Affective commitment has a direct effect on job satisfaction.

2.5. Social Intelligence and Affective Commitment

Based on any studies, affective commitment affects job satisfaction, and other’s are also affected by social intelligence. Social intelligence indicators, such as empathy, situational radar, clarity, and authenticity, in the right conditions, tend to stimulate affective commitment manifested in emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization. For example, the teachers with high empathy have to make extra effort to attach and be involved in various organizational activities. The research carried out by Ellinger et al. (2013), and Tamunosiki-Amadi, Sele, and Ernest (2020) also indicate that social intelligence has a significant correlation with affective commitment. Based on arguments and studies above, the fifth hypothesis in this study is:

H5: Social intelligence has a direct effect on affective commitment.

2.6. Integrity and Affective Commitment

Affective commitment is also influenced by integrity. When the integrity indicators, such as self-integration or wholeness, authenticity, consistency in the face of adversity, and consistency of word and action, at a high level, can drive an affective commitment manifested in emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization. The studies by Pertiwi, Mukhtar, and Supriyati (2018) and Irene, Sodikin, and Guswandi (2018) also concluded that integrity is related to affective commitment. Based on arguments and studies above, the sixth hypothesis in this study is:

H6: Integrity has a direct effect on affective commitment.

2.7. Self-Efficacy and Affective Commitment

Affective commitment is also affected by self-efficacy. The dimensions of self-efficacy: generality, magnitude, and strength (Bandura, 1994), if adequate, can make someone feel better about their commitment to involve in the organization’s activities. Zeb and Nawaz (2016), Lilin (2018), and Ahmad (2019) show that self-efficacy affects affective commitment. Based on arguments and studies above, the seventh hypothesis in this study is:

H7: Self-efficacy has a direct effect on affective commitment.

2.8. Social Intelligence and Job Satisfaction Mediating by Affective Commitment

From the above research results, affective commitment mediates social intelligence’s effect on job satisfaction. The indicators of social intelligence, such as empathy, situational radar, clarity, and authenticity, in the rights, potentially stimulating affective commitment manifested in emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization and then implicate to the job satisfaction manifested work itself, promotion, supervision, and work group (Luthan, 2013). The studies carried out by Ellinger et al. (2013) and Tamunosiki-Amadi, Sele, and Ernest (2020) claimed that social intelligence has a significant correlation with affective commitment, while the studies conducted by Altinoz, Cakiroglu, and Cop (2012), Samuel, Onuoha, and Ojo (2014), and Shafazawana et al. (2016) show that affective commitment affects job satisfaction. Based on arguments and studies above, the eighth hypothesis in this study is:

H8: Social intelligence has an indirect effect on job satisfaction mediating by affective commitment.

2.9. Integrity and Job Satisfaction Mediating by Affective Commitment

Affective commitment also mediates the effect of integrity on job satisfaction. The indicators of integrity, such as self-integration or wholeness, authenticity, consistency in the face of adversity, and consistency of word and action, if at a high level can drive affective commitment manifested in emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization and then influences job satisfaction manifested work itself, promotion, supervision, and work group (Luthan, 2013). The studies carried out by Pertiwi, Mukhtar, and Supriyati (2018) and Irene, Sodikin, and Guswandi (2018) also indicated that integrity affects affective commitment, while the research conducted by Liu and Bellibas (2018), Lambert et al. (2019), and Loan (2020) show that affective commitment influences job satisfaction. Based on arguments and studies above, the ninth hypothesis in this study is:

H9: Integrity has an indirect effect on job satisfaction mediating by affective commitment.

2.10. Self-Efficacy and Job Satisfaction Mediating by Affective Commitment

Finally, affective commitment also mediates the effect of self-efficacy on job satisfaction. The indicators of self efficacy manifested generality, magnitude, and strength (Bandura, 1994), in the right conditions, potentially supporting affective commitment manifested in emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization and then impacted to job satisfaction manifested work itself, promotion, supervision, and work group (Luthan, 2013). The scholars, for example, Lilin (2018) and Ahmad (2019), claimed that self-efficacy affects affective commitment, while the research conducted by Lambert et al. (2019) and Loan (2020) indicate that affective commitment influences job satisfaction. Based on arguments and studies above, the tenth hypothesis in this study is:

H10: Self-efficacy has an indirect effect on job satisfaction mediating by affective commitment.

3. Research Methods

This research uses a quantitative approach to the survey method through a questionnaire in the form of a Likert scale model with five options: 1-strongly disagree, 2-disagree, 3-neutral, 4-agree, and 5-strongly agree to verify the hypotheses (Hair et al., 2018). The questionnaire is designed by the researchers themselves, based on theoretical dimensions or indicators from experts. Social intelligence indicators are empathy, situational radar, clarity, and authenticity (Albrecht, in Newstrom, 2017). Integrity consists of four indicators: self-integration or wholeness, authenticity, consistency in the face of adversity, and consistency of word and action (Gosling & Huang, 2009). Self-efficacy consists of generality, magnitude, and strength (Bandura (1994). The affective commitment indicators include emotional attachment, identification, and involvement (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Job satisfaction consists of four indicators: work itself, promotion, supervision, and work group (Luthan, 2013). The social intelligence questionnaire consists of 10 items with an alpha coefficient = 0.912; integrity consists of eight items with an alpha coefficient = 0.890; self-efficacy consists of nine items with an alpha coefficient = 0.883; affective commitment consists of nine items with an alpha coefficient = 0.896; and job satisfaction consists of 10 items with alpha coefficients = 0.854. All variables have a coefficient of alpha > 0.7, so it is reliable as a research instrument (Van Griethuijsen et al., 2014; Hair et al., 2018).

This research participants comprise 386 teachers in Indonesia spread across four provinces, Jakarta, Banten, West Java, and Riau, determined by accidental sampling based on participants’ willingness to fill in the questionnaire at the time the research was conducted (Widodo, 2019). Description of the participants is shown in Figure 1. The majority of participants are male (63.91%), aged 26–35 years (42.54%), have a bachelor education (74.60%), and have been teaching ≤ five years (34.68%).

OTGHEU_2021_v8n7_625_f0001.png 이미지

Figure 1: Personal Characteristics of the Participants

Data analysis using the path analysis, and path coefficients’ significance uses a t-test supported by descriptive statistics and correlational. Descriptive and correlational analyzes were performed by SPSS version 26, while SEM by LISREL 8.80.

4. Results and Discussion

The descriptive statistics and correlations of the five research variables are shown in Table 1. The mean values of the five variables from the lowest to the highest in succession are integrity (34.53), self-efficacy (37.18), affective commitment (38.87), social intelligence (43.14), and job satisfaction (43.29). Meanwhile, the standard deviation values of the five variables from the lowest to the highest in succession are integrity (3.202), affective commitment (3.516), job satisfaction (4.398), self-efficacy (4.476), and social intelligence (5.658). The correlation analysis results in all variables have significant relationships with the other variables at level p < 0.01. This condition indicates that all the variables have a mutual relationship with each other. The correlation coefficients from the lowest to the highest in succession are social intelligence and self-efficacy (0.402), self-efficacy and affective commitment (0.506), social intelligence and affective commitment (0.521), social intelligence and job satisfaction (0.529), social intelligence and integrity (0.541), affective commitment and job satisfaction (0.550), integrity and self efficacy (0.588), self-efficacy and job satisfaction (0.590), integrity and affective commitment (0.594), and integrity and job satisfaction (0.632).

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics and Correlational Matrix of Variables Variables

OTGHEU_2021_v8n7_625_t0001.png 이미지

**p < 0.01.

The results of hypothesis testing with path analysis of the effects of social intelligence, integrity, and self-efficacy on job satisfaction mediating by affective commitment are summarized in Table 2 and visualized in Figure 2 and Figure 3. The hypothesis testing results show that all hypotheses were supported (t-value > t-table at α = 0.01). Therefore, this study shows that social intelligence, integrity, and self-efficacy have a significant direct effect on affective commitment, and then social intelligence, integrity, self-efficacy, and affective commitment have a significant direct effect on job satisfaction. This study also showed that social intelligence, integrity, and self-efficacy have a significant indirect effect on job satisfaction mediating by affective commitment.

Table 2: Summary of Path Coefficients and T-values

OTGHEU_2021_v8n7_625_t0002.png 이미지

**p < 0.01.

OTGHEU_2021_v8n7_625_f0002.png 이미지

Figure 2: Path Coefficients

OTGHEU_2021_v8n7_625_f0003.png 이미지

Figure 3: T-values

In Figure 2 and Figure 3, the test results of the model with the goodness of fit statistics show the significance with Chi-Square = 0.000, df = 0, p-value = 1.00000 > 0.05, and RMSEA = 0.000 < 0.08, so that the model tested is fit. This result indicates that the empirical data support the theoretical model being test.

This research revealed that social intelligence, integrity, and self-efficacy significantly affected job satisfaction, directly or indirectly mediating by affective commitment. This evidence addressing that affective commitment plays a significant role as a mediator of the effect of social intelligence, integrity, and self-efficacy on job satisfaction. This research also indicates the vitality of teachers’ social intelligence, integrity, self-efficacy, and affective commitment to theirs’ job satisfaction. The existence of teachers’ social intelligence, integrity, self-efficacy, and affective commitment can be an important determinant for increasing or decreasing teachers’ job satisfaction. This is consistent with studies positing that job satisfaction is influenced by social intelligence (e.g., Yahyazadeh-Jeloudar & Lotfi-Goodarzi, 2012; Yamaguchi, 2013), integrity (Abun & Racoma, 2017), self-efficacy (e.g., Ramírez-Vielma, & Yeves, 2019; Jurado et al., 2019), and affective commitment (e.g., Lambert et al., 2019; Loan, 2020).

This empirical fact confirms that social intelligence, integrity, self-efficacy, and affective commitment are vital for teachers’ job satisfaction, so that they need to manage and develop optimally and adequately. Consequently, school principals need to give more attention to teachers’ social intelligence, integrity, self-efficacy, and affective commitment. This attention can be manifested in strategic policies that increase teachers’ social intelligence, integrity, self-efficacy, and affective commitment. These policies must support developing indicators of social intelligence, integrity, self-efficacy, and affective commitment in practice. For social intelligence, the implementation of the principals’ policy must provide goodwill for the development of empathy, situational radar, clarity, and authenticity among teachers. Likewise, in terms of integrity, the implementation of the principals’ policy must generate self-integration, authenticity, consistency in the face of adversity, and consistency of word and action (Gosling & Huang, 2009). Besides, the implementation of the principals’ policy must also encourage generality, magnitude, and strength (Bandura (1994) among teachers so that self-efficacy grows optimally. Finally, implementing the principals’ policy must also stimulate the emergence of emotional attachment, identification, and involvement in organizations’ activities (Meyer & Allen, 1991) among teachers to reflects their affective commitment. Implementation of the principals’ strategic policies, in practice, can be done through training programs, workshops, focus group discussions, gatherings, counseling, games, or other creative activities that stimulate increasing teachers’ social intelligence, integrity, self-efficacy, and affective commitment.

Finally, the research results found a new empirical model of the effect of social intelligence, integrity, and self-efficacy on job satisfaction mediating by affective commitment based on the teachers’ data in Indonesia. This model can discuss among researchers and educational practitioners to built models of job satisfaction. Moreover, the model also can adopt new approaches to increase teachers’ job satisfaction.

5. Conclusion

The research found that social intelligence, integrity, self-efficacy, and affective commitment have a significant effect on job satisfaction. Besides, affective commitment also indirectly mediates the effect of social intelligence, integrity, and self efficacy on job satisfaction. Thus, a new model regarding the effect of social intelligence, integrity, and self-efficacy on job satisfaction mediating by affective commitment was confirmed. The research suggested that the teachers’ job satisfaction can improve through social intelligence, integrity, self-efficacy, and affective commitment. Therefore, researchers and practitioners can adopt a new empirical model to enhance job satisfaction through social intelligence, integrity, self-efficacy, and affective commitment in the future.

References

  1. Abdulkhaliq, S. S., & Mohammadali, Z. (2019). The impact of job satisfaction on employees' performance: A case study of Al Hayat Company - Pepsi Employees in Erbil, Kurdistan Region-Iraq. Management and Economics Review, 4(2), 163-176. https://doi.org/10.24818/mer/2019.12-07
  2. Abun, D., & Racoma, A. P. (2017). Organizational integrity of administrators of divine word colleges in region I, Philippines, and employees' job satisfaction as perceived by the employees. Texila International Journal of Academic Research, 4(1), 1-17.
  3. Ahmad, F. A. A. (2019). The role of organizational commitment in mediating the effect of self-efficacy on employee performance (a case study on PT Tujuh Impian Bersama Jember). International Journal of Research Publication, 24(1), 1-7.
  4. Altinoz, M., Cakiroglu, D., & Cop, S. (2012). The effect of job satisfaction of the talented employees on organizational commitment: A field research. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 58, 322-330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.1007
  5. Armstrong, J., Dixon, R., & Robinson, S. (1999). The Decision Makers. London: Thomas Telford.
  6. Bakotic, D. (2016). Relationship between job satisfaction and organizational performance. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, 29(1), 118-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2016.1163946
  7. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy, in V.S. Ramachandran (ed.) Encyclopedia of human behavior. New York: Academic Press.
  8. Bargsted, M., Ramirez-Vielma, R., & Yeves, J. (2019). Professional self-efficacy and job satisfaction: The mediator role of work design. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 35(3), 157-163. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2019a18
  9. Beardwell, J., & Thompson, A. (2014). Human resource management: A contemporary approach (8th ed.). London: Pearson Education Limited.
  10. Brown, M. (2005). Corporate Integrity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Cascio, W. F. (2016). Managing human resources: Productivity, quality of work-life, profit (10th ed.). New York: Mc-Graw Hill Education.
  12. Colquitt, J. A., Lepine, J. A., & Wesson, M. J. (2019). Organizational behavior: Improving performance and commitment in the workplace (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education Limited.
  13. Doan, T. T. T., Nguyen, L. C. T., & Nguyen, T. D. N. (2020). Emotional intelligence and project success: The roles of transformational leadership and organizational commitment. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(3), 223-233. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no3.223
  14. DuBrin, A. J. (2009). Human relations: Interpersonal job-oriented skill (10th ed.). London: Pearson Education, Inc.
  15. Effendi, M., Nimran, U., Utami, H. N., & Afrianty, T. W. (2021). Effects of psychological capital and gratitude on employees intention to leave: The role of job satisfaction. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 8(2), 1125-1134. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no2.1125
  16. Ellinger, A. E., Musgrove, C. C. F., Ellinger, A. D., Bachrach, D. G., Bas, A. B. E., & Wang, Y. L. (2013). Influences of organizational investments in social capital on service employee commitment and performance. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1124-1133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.03.008
  17. Elliot, A. J., & Dweck, C. S. (2005). Handbook of competence and motivation. New York: The Guilford Press.
  18. Embuldeniya, A. (2017). The impact of employee job satisfaction on employee productivity in the apparel industry of Sri Lanka. EPRA International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (IJMR), 12(3), 6-12.
  19. Garg, K., Dar, I. A., & Mishra, M. (2017). Job satisfaction and work engagement: A study using private sector bank managers. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422317742987
  20. Gosling, M., & Huang, H. (2009). The fit between integrity and integrative social contracts theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 407-417. https://doi10.1007/s10551-010-0425-1
  21. Gustari, I., & Widodo, W. (2020). Exploring the effect of empowerment and GCG on OCB: Mediating by job satisfaction. Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology, 12(5), 753-761. http://doi.org/10.37896/JXAT12.05/1473
  22. Hair, J. F., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. C. (2018). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Uttar Pradesh: India: Cengage India.
  23. Hrnjic, A., & Bijedic, D. (2015). The impact of employee satisfaction on innovation capacity in telecommunications. Entrenova, 10(11), 64-71.
  24. Irene, C.M.M, Sodikin, A., & Guswandi. (2018). Effect of self-efficacy and integrity to organizational performance through commitment organization in PT Rekayasa Engineering Jakarta. Scholars Journal of Economics, Business, and Management (SJEBM), 1049-1056. https://doi.org/10.21276/sjebm.2018.5.11.8
  25. Ivancevich, J. M., Konopaske, R., & Matteson, M. T. (2018). Organizational behavior and management (11th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Company.
  26. Jurado, M. M. M., Perez-Fuentes, M. D. C., Atria, L., Ruiz, N. F. O., & Linares, J. J. G. (2019). Burnout, perceived efficacy, and job satisfaction: Perception of the educational context in high school teachers. Hindawi BioMed Research International, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1021408
  27. Khare, A., & Kamalian, A. (2017). Studying relationship between job satisfaction and burnout (Case study: HSE Managers in Karajroad Industries). Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 22(S7), 1-13.
  28. Kim, D. K., & Kim, B. Y. (2021). The effect of emotional intelligence on job satisfaction: A case study of SME Management Consultants in Korea. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 8(5), 1129-1138. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no5.1129
  29. Koehn, D. (2005). Integrity as a business asset. Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 125-136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-1391-x
  30. Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2012). Organizational behavior (10th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
  31. Lambert, E. G., Keena, L. D., Leone, M., May, D., & Haynes, S. H. (2019). The effects of distributive and procedural justice on job satisfaction and organizational commitment of correctional staff. The Social Science Journal, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.02.002
  32. Legault, L., Al-Khindi, T., & Inzlicht, M. (2012). Preserving integrity in the face of performance threat: Self-affirmation enhances neurophysiological responsiveness to errors. Psychological Science, 23(12), 1455-1460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612448483
  33. Lilin, W. S. (2018). Self-efficacy, organizational commitment, and employee engagement in small and medium-sized enterprises. International Journal of Business Marketing and Management (IJBMM), 3(4), 35-39.
  34. Liu, J., Zhu, B., Wu, J., & Mao, Y. (2019). Job satisfaction, work stress, and turnover intentions among rural health workers: a cross-sectional study in 11 western provinces of China. BMC Family Practice, 20(9), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-019-0904-0
  35. Liu, Y., & Bellibas, M. S. (2018). School factors that are related to school principals' job satisfaction and organizational commitment. International Journal of Educational Research, 90, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.04.002
  36. Loan, L. T. M. (2020). The influence of organizational commitment on employees' job performance: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Management Science Letters, 10, 3307-3312. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.6.007
  37. Lussier, R. N. (2008). Human relations in organizations: A skill-building approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  38. Luthans, F. (2013). Organizational behavior (12th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
  39. Machmud, S. (2018). The influence of self-efficacy on satisfaction and work-related performance. International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration, 4(4), 43-47. https://doi.org/10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.44.1005
  40. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
  41. Miah, Md M. (2018). The impact of employee job satisfaction toward organizational performance: A study of private sector employees in Kuching, East Malaysia. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 8(12), 270-278. https://doi: 10.29322/IJSRP.8.12.2018.p8437
  42. Moestain, I., Hamidah, H., & Kadir, K. (2020). Leadership, quality of work-life, job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior in PT. Pertamina. Management Science Letters, 10, 1213-1224. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.11.037
  43. Motalebi, P., & Marsap, A. (2020). The role of job satisfaction and organizational commitment as a determinant of organizational citizenship behavior among the workers of welfare organization. SSRG International Journal of Economics and Management Studies (SSRG-IJEMS), 7(1), 102-112. https://doi.org/10.14445/23939125/IJEMS-V7I1P113
  44. Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (2012). Organizational behavior: foundations, realities and challenges (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing.
  45. Newstrom, J. W. (2017). Organizational behavior: Human behavior at work (12th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
  46. Ngo, T. T. (2021). Impact of psychological capital on job performance and job satisfaction: A case study in Vietnam. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 8(5), 495-503. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no5.0495
  47. Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. M. (2019). Human resource management: Gaining a competitive advantage (11th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
  48. Northouse, P. G. (2005). Leadership: Theory and practice, third edition. New Delhi: Sage Publications, Inc.
  49. Oravee, A., Zayum, S., & Kokona, B. (2018). Job satisfaction and employee performance in Nasarawa State Water Board, Lafia, Nigeria. Revista CIMEXUS, 13(2), 59-70. https://doi.org/10.33110/cimexus130204
  50. Park, J., Yoon, S., Moon, S. S., Lee, K. H., & Park, J. (2017). The effects of occupational stress, work-centrality, self-efficacy, and job satisfaction on intention to quit among long-term care workers in Korea. Home Health Care Services Quarterly, 36(2), 96-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621424.2017.1333479
  51. Peng, Y., & Mao, C. (2015). The impact of person-job fit on job satisfaction: The mediator role of self efficacy. Social Indicators Research, 121(3), 805-813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0659-x
  52. Pertiwi, R., Mukhtar, M., & Supriyati, Y. (2018). The influence of ethical leadership, integrity, and commitment on organizational citizenship behavior of teacher of State Senior High School at The City of Depok. Journal of Education and Practice, 9(10), 30-38. https://doi.org/10.2991/icoie-18.2019.123
  53. Pham, C. D., Hoang, T.P.D., & Nguyen, Y. T. (2021). Impact of work motivation on satisfaction and turnover of public universities lecturers. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 8(2), 1135-1146. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no2.1135
  54. Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational behavior (18th ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
  55. Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2016). Management (13th ed.). London: Pearson Educated Limited.
  56. Robinson, S. (2011). Leadership Responsibility. Geneva: Peter Lang.
  57. Romeo, M, Yepes-Baldo, M., & Lins, C. (2020). Job satisfaction and turnover intention among people with disabilities working in special employment centers: The moderation effect of organizational commitment. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(1035), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01035
  58. Samuel, T. D., Onuoha, U. D., & Ojo, A. I. (2014). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment: a study of library personnel in private universities in Ogun State, Nigeria. Open Access Library Journal, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1100687
  59. Sani, M. K. J. A., Endin, M. Z., Masrek, M. N., Sahid, N. Z., Baba, J., & Kamis, Y. (2016). Integrity and job performance: The experiences of public library leaders. IBIMA Publishing Journal of Southeast Asian Research, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.5171/2016.452256
  60. Saremi, H., & Rezeghi, A. A. (2015). A study on the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and organizational commitment with job satisfaction in-office employees in Esfarayen City, Iran. International Journal of Life Sciences, 9(6), 15-23. https://doi.org/10.3126/ijls.v9i6.12682
  61. Shafazawana, M. T., Ying, C. Y., Zuliawati, M. S., & Sukumaran, K. (2016). Managing job attitudes: the roles of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on organizational citizenship behaviors. Procardia Economics and Finance, 35, 604-611. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)00074-5
  62. Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2002). Accepting threatening information: Self-affirmation and the reduction of defensive biases. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 119-123. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00182
  63. Sherman, D. K., & Hartson, K. A. (2011). Reconciling self-protection with self-improvement: Self-affirmation theory. In Alicke, M. & Sedikides, C. (Eds.), The handbook of self-enhancement and self-protection (pp. 128-151). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  64. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2014). Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy: Relations with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion. Psychological Reports: Employment Psychology & Marketing, 114, 68-77. https://doi.org/10.2466/14.02.PR0. 114k14w0
  65. Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing.
  66. Tamunosiki-Amadi, J. O., Sele, G. D., & Ernest, O. E. (2020). Social intelligence and employee commitment in bayelsa state health sector. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 11(2), 68-76. https://doi.org/10.30845/ijbss.v11n2p8
  67. Torres, D. G. (2019). Distributed leadership, professional collaboration, and teachers' job satisfaction in U.S. schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 79, 111-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate. 2018.12.001
  68. Van Griethuijsen, R. A. L. F., van Eijck, M. W., Haste, H., den Brok, P. J., Skinner, N. C., Mansour, N., Gencer, A. S., & BouJaoude, A. (2014). Global patterns in students' views of science and interest in science. Research in Science Education, 45(4), 581-603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9438-6.
  69. Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 173-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00045-1
  70. Widodo, W. (2019). Popular & practical research methodologies. Depok: Rajawali Pers.
  71. Yahyazadeh-Jeloudar, S., & Lotfi-Goodarzi, F. (2012). The relationship between social intelligence and job satisfaction among ma and ba teachers. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(3), 209-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/09751122.2012.11890044
  72. Yamaguchi, I. (2013). A Japan-US cross-cultural study of relationships among team autonomy, organizational social capital, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37, 58-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.04.016
  73. Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organization (8th ed.). London: Pearson Education, Inc.
  74. Zeb, M. S., & Nawaz, A. (2016). Impacts of self-efficacy on organizational commitment of academicians a case of Gomal University. Information and Knowledge Management, 6(1), 35-42.