Attitude toward the work and its influence on the

Individual work performance of employees: Basis for

Attitude Management
Abun Damianus, Alvin Luciano, A Ubasa, Theogenia Magallanes, Mary Joy
Encarnacion, Frelyn B Ranay

To cite this version:

Abun Damianus, Alvin Luciano, A Ubasa, Theogenia Magallanes, Mary Joy Encarnacion, et al..
Attitude toward the work and its influence on the Individual work performance of employees: Basis
for Attitude Management. Technium Social Science Journal , 2021, Attitude toward the work and its
influence on the Individual work performance of employees: Basis for Attitude Management, 18 (1),
pp.378-394. �hal-03195389�

HAL Id: hal-03195389

[Link]
Submitted on 20 Apr 2021

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est

archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés.
 Vol. 18, 2021

A new decade
for social changes

ISSN 2668-7798

[Link]
9 772668 779000
 Technium Social Sciences Journal
Vol. 18, 378-394, April, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798
[Link]

Attitude toward the work and its influence on the Individual

work performance of employees: Basis for Attitude
Management

Damianus Abun1, Alvin Luciano A. Ubasa2, Theogenia Magallanes3, Mary Joy

Encarnacion4, Frelyn B. Ranay5
1245
Faculty of the College of Business of Divine Word College of Laoag, Ilocos
Norte, Philippines, 3Faculty of Religious Education of Saint Benedict College of
Northern Luzon, Ilocos Sur, Philippines

[email protected]

Abstract. This study aims to determine the effect of the attitude of employees toward work and
work performance. To establish a theoretical foundation of the study, related literature was
reviewed. The study used descriptive assessment and correlational research design. The data
were gathered through questionnaires and the data were interpreted using descriptive and
inferential statistics in which weighted mean was used to measure the level of extrinsic and
intrinsic work values and work performance. While Pearson r correlation was used to measure
the correlation between attitude toward work and work engagement of employees. The study
found that overal there is a significant correlation between attitude toward work and work
performance. Therefore, the hypothesis of the study is accepted.

Keywords. Attitude, cognitive and affective attitude, work performance

Introduction
Employees’ performance matters much to the survival and competitiveness of any
organization. The vision and mission of an organization can be achieved only through
employees who are willing to exert effort and extra effort to carry out their duties and
responsibilities assigned to them. This is the main concern of employers or managers. Managers
must evaluate work performance regularly to find out if the employees are performing or not
and then from the result of the evaluation, the manager would know that some employees are
not performing and it is only then the manager finds out the reason behind the underperformance
and propose interventions to remedy the problems. Performance evaluation is an evaluation of
a job assigned to a person. It measures the performance of the employees on the job within a
specific period and through it, the manager may know if the employees meet or fail the
expectations (Villanova University, 2020). Underperformance can be caused by many factors
such as knowledge on the job, their feeling toward the job, skills, and motivation. Therefore,
the management should provide tools to evaluate the performance of employees to determine
the factors that affect their performance and the performance evaluation tools must not only
measuring their knowledge and skills but it can also include their feeling toward the job.
Through performance evaluation, the managers can identify the problem and address the

378
 Technium Social Sciences Journal
Vol. 18, 378-394, April, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798
[Link]

problem. Thus, performance evaluation benefits the employee and the organization at the same
time (Laurenz, 2011). Without the performance evaluation, problems can be prolonged and
consequently will lead to the failure of the organization.
As we have pointed out earlier that performance is caused by many factors because there
are no single factors that cause the performance of employees. There can be a lot of factors that
affect the work performance of employees such as attitude toward the work which can be related
to their knowledge and feelings toward the job, skills, and motivation. There have been studies
measuring skills and performance and motivation and performance such as Wade and Parent
(2002) pointed out that deficiencies in technical and organizational skills lead to lower job
performance. This was also confirmed by Tamkin (2005) in his presentation that skills
contribute to business performance. In the case of the influence of motivation toward work
performance, the study also shows that there is a strong correlation between work motivation
and individual and organizational performance (Deressa & Zeru, 2019). However, studies on
the effect of attitude toward work and performance have a mixed result as pointed out by
Omolayo and Oluwafemi (2012) that there is no significant correlation between attitude toward
work and work performance in the private sector. This was also confirmed by the study of
Susanty and Maradipta (2013) on the influence of attitude toward work and work commitment
and work performance. Their study found that there is a positive correlation but the correlation
is not significant. But the study of Abdalkrim and Elhalim (2016) showed otherwise that there
is a correlation between attitude toward work and work performance and work satisfaction. The
mixing result can be caused by the context of the study because these studies are conducted in
different countries such as Nigeria, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia as Schwarz and Bohner (2001)
pointed out that the influence of attitude toward a behavior is context-dependent. Context can
mean the place or the situation in which the person stays and experience the object of the attitude
and therefore influences the behavior. The context can serve as a moderating variable in which
moderate the influence of attitude toward the behavior.
Motivated by the mixed result of the study on the relationship between attitude toward
work or job and work performance, the current study is carried out. Attitude is within the
domain of social psychology and the current study does not problematize the concept of attitude
but we are using the social psychology concept of attitude and its influence on behavior. The
researcher adopts the concept of Allport (1968) that attitude is a key predictor of behavior. The
concept of Allport (1968) was strengthened further by Ajzen (1993) that attitude affects
behavior. Though their concept may not be so conclusive that the only factor affecting behavior
is attitude. Other studies contradicted their positions such as Corey (1937), Freeman and Ataoev
(1960), as cited by Ajzen (1993), Dean (1958). Their study concluded that there is no correlation
between attitude and behavior. Wicker (1969) also confirms the same finding.
Given those conflicting findings, the current researcher still believes that different
workplace environments may affect or may not affect the attitude of employees toward work.
There have been no studies yet to find out the effect of employees’ attitude toward their job can
affect the work performance in the Philippine Context, particularly Divine Word Colleges’
context. This belief is supported by the researcher’s findings of previous studies related to the
influence of attitude toward behavior in the context of Divine Word Colleges in the Ilocos
Region, Philippines. For example, Abun, [Link] (2019) investigated the cognitive and affective
attitude of teachers toward research and their behavioral intention to conduct research and the
study found that there is a correlation between the two variables. Abun and Agoot (2017)
conducted a study to measure the environmental attitude and environmental behavior of the
Divine Word Colleges’ Senior High School and it was found that there is a correlation between
eco-centric attitude and environmental behavior. The context here is the situation and the

379
 Technium Social Sciences Journal
Vol. 18, 378-394, April, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798
[Link]

experience of employees of the workplace can affect their attitude toward the work and
therefore the title of the study is: “Assessing the attitude toward work and work performance of
Divine Word Colleges’ employees in Ilocos Region: the Divine Word Colleges’ Context”. The
context is emphasized because different contexts can have different attitudes toward work. The
culture or practices of a certain institution can affect the attitude of employees of that particular
institution toward work.
The study is divided into five parts: the first part is the rationale of the study in which it
explains the background of the study and the purpose of the study. The second part is about the
related literature that explains different theories of the study. The third part is the research
methodology which discusses the research design, population of the study, the locale of the
study, the research instrument, and statistical treatment of the study. Four-part are empirical
data and analysis and the fifth part is the Result and discussion and conclusion.

Review of Related Literature

The purpose of the literature review is to review the ideas and findings of the previous
literature related to the current study. This is to establish the theoretical foundation of the current
study and also to determine the gap that has not been pursued in the previous studies. There has
been literature that has discussed the concept of attitude and its influence on the behavior of a
person. This part is focusing on different pieces of literature that have discussed the following
topics.

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

Concept of Attitude and its influence on behavior
There are a lot of definitions of attitude. For example, Perloff (2016) defined attitude as
a mental and emotional disposition of a person toward a certain object (Perloff, 2016). Myers
(2013) defines attitude as a favorable and unfavorable reaction of someone toward a certain
object or someone which is shown through one's beliefs, feelings, and intended behavior. It is
a favorable and unfavorable evaluative reaction toward something or someone (Myers, 2013).
Ajzen (1993) understands attitude as an individual disposition to react favorably and
unfavorably toward a certain object, person, institution, or event. Wood (2000) defines attitude
as an evaluation of attitude object which can range from positive to negative evaluation.
Attitude objects can be person, object, event, activities, or ideas (Wood, 2000). Liska (1974)
pointed out that attitude is a favorable and unfavorable evaluative reaction toward something,
object, or person. Eagly and Chaiken (1998) contend that attitude is a psychological tendency
toward a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor. Though these definitions are
offered by different theorists, however, the content of their definition on attitude is the same,
that attitude is an individual reaction, either verbal or non-verbal (Ajzen, 1993) toward a certain
person, object, event, or institution. It is an internal disposition of someone toward something
and can be expressed through verbal and nonverbal reactions. These definitions have in
common, that they have an evaluative structure toward the attitude object (Ajzen, 2001).
Therefore, though attitude is a latent disposition, it can be measured through verbal or nonverbal
reactions.
There are three components of attitude and they are cognitive, affective, and conative
or behavioral components (Rossenberg & Hovland, 1960), Ajzen (1993), and these three
components are interrelated. One can affect others. The cognitive component of the attitude
refers to the beliefs, and thoughts related to the attitude object. Affective components have
something to do with the feelings or emotions of the person toward the attitude object. Lastly
is conative components are related to the way how a person behaves toward the attitude object.

380
 Technium Social Sciences Journal
Vol. 18, 378-394, April, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798
[Link]

Again the way how a person reacts to the attitude object can be positive or negative. Thus all
components of attitude are positive and negative. One may have positive and negative beliefs
or thoughts about a certain object, or one may have a negative or positive feeling about a certain
object. These positive or negative attitudes, positive or negative feelings affect the behavior of
the person toward the object.
Attitude and behavior are two components that cannot be separated because attitude can
influence the behavior of a person. Ajzen (1993) had argued that attitude has a predictive ability
that can explain the behavior. Earlier, Allport (1935) had argued that attitude is a key predictor
of behavior. Liska (1974) also argued that attitude with social support affects the behavior of a
person. Ajzen and Fishbein (2005) had also pointed out that people’s behavior follows from
their beliefs, attitudes, and intentions. Though Ajzen (1993) recognized that attitude relation to
behavior can be influenced by many mediating variables, however, Ajzen (1993) still contends
that accurate prediction of behavior can be determined by assessing attitude and behavior at a
compatible level of generality.
The discussion on the attitude-behavior relations has been controversial because though
some theorists are holding on to the belief that attitude predicts the behavior, however many
also social psychologist have argued otherwise, that the behavior of people is not always aligned
with their beliefs. For example, Chaiklin (2011) argued that the relationship between attitudes
is not always symmetrical or not always perfectly aligned. Abun, [Link]. (2020) made the same
conclusion after he conducted a study on the relationship between the attitude of students toward
corruption and their behavioral intention to corrupt in the future. The study found that there is
no correlation between their attitude toward corruption and their behavior. Though they agree
that corruption is morally bad but such perception does not lead them not to corrupt in the future.
They still corrupt because everybody is doing it. The earlier study conducted by Dean (1958)
on the relationship between attitude toward labor unions and their participation in labor union
meetings found that there is no correlation. The study of wicker (1969) had already found that
there is no correlation between attitude and behavior. The study of Wicker (1969) had
encouraged other social–psychologists to abandon the study on attitude and behavior
correlation. Instead of studying the relationship between attitude and behavior, the group
recommended studying the social context and behavior (De Fleur & Westie, 1958, Deutscher,
1969). Given those controversial findings, Ajzen argued that the discrepancy is caused by other
moderating factors. Attitude is assumed to interact with other moderating variables in their
effect on behavior (Ajzen, 1993 cited from Fazio & Zanna, 1981, Snyder, 1982, Warner &
DeFleuer, 1969). Factor like personality characteristics such as self-monitoring, and the need
for recognition and confidence play as moderating variables in the attitude-behavior relation.
Though the moderating variables are difficult to prove to intervene in the correlation between
attitude and behavior, Ajzen (1993) still maintained his position that attitude-behavior relation
is influenced by other moderating variables. Ajzen and Fishbein (1977, 2000) still maintain that
attitude is key to predict behavior. This is in support of the position of Allport (1968) that
attitude is the key predictor of behavior and “the most distinctive and indispensable concept in
contemporary American social psychology” (p.59). Recent studies somehow support these
arguments. Abun, [Link] (2018) measured the environmental attitude and environmental behavior
of Catholic Colleges’ employees and the study found that the environmental attitude of
employees leads them to their environmental behavior. Earlier, Fitzsimmons and Douglas
(2005) also studied the entrepreneurial attitude of students and the intention to do business in
the future and the study also found that there is a correlation between entrepreneurial attitude
and behavioral intention to do business in the future.

381
 Technium Social Sciences Journal
Vol. 18, 378-394, April, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798
[Link]

Attitude is not innate in the sense that it is given at birth as part of human nature but
attitude is formed through life experience. Ajzen (1993) argued that someone formed an attitude
toward a certain object or person through his/her association with that attitude object. According
to Ajzen (1993), a person can have many beliefs about certain objects but he/she can attend to
only a small number of beliefs, and this form salient beliefs of the person toward the object.
The salient beliefs are considered determinant factors of a person’s attitude. Abun, (2018)
contends that the attitude is formed by the culture where the person is raised and his idea is
similar to the idea of Donald (2002) and Hofstede as cited by Brown (1995). Donald argued
that culture plays an important role in the formation of brain functioning and even brain
structure. Indirectly he pointed out the power of culture in the formation of beliefs and ideas of
a person toward a certain object, person, or events. Since the human mind is programmed by
culture, Brown (1995) argued that it makes the difference why people have a different attitude
and it distinguishes one group from another group.
Attitude toward work and Work Performance.
The concept of attitude toward work cannot be explained without going back to the
concept of an attitude of Ajzen (1993), Myers (2013), Perloff (2016), Liska (1974) that attitude
is a cognitive, affective, and conative reaction toward a certain object, event, person or
institution. In line with this concept, attitude toward works means a cognitive, affective, and
conative reaction of employees toward the work. It is about what employees know or think and
feel about the work and how they would react behaviourally toward the work. The reactions of
people toward the work can be favorable and unfavorable. In short, attitude is evaluation
because it involves a preference for or against the attitude object (Cunningham & Zelazo, 2007)
and it is “it is our relatively enduring evaluation of attitude object”. These reactions are the
result of their exposure or experience toward the work as McLintic (2016) argued that “attitude
is formed over time as we expose to stimuli and make an evaluation”. People tend to react
favorably toward the work when they have encountered good or positive experiences about the
work and they tend to react unfavorably when they did not have a good experience or when
they did not gain anything from the work (McLintic, 2016, Milar and Milar 1996). Bem (1970)
had argued that attitude is formed through direct or indirect experience through the persuasion
of others or media.
Though there are a lot of psychological debates on the enduring relationship between
attitude and behavior, however, many still believe that attitude affects behavior (Ajzen, 1993,
Allport, 1968, Liska, 1974). Attitude–behavior relation theory (Ajzen, 1993) thus argues that
attitude affects the behavior of the person in a sense that people would behave toward a certain
object, person, or institution or work or job favorably or unfavorably depending on his/her
attitude toward the work. Thus, a person needs to have a positive view of the work to improve
his/her performance (Reys, 2020). Bianca (2020) had already pointed out that employees’
attitude impacts their work performance. The same is pointed out by McQuerrey (2019) that
negative and positive attitude toward the work impacts the performance and workplace. A
positive attitude toward work would not only affect organizational and individual performance
but is a key to success (Gill, 2020). Their position is supported by the study of Susanty and
Maradipta (2013) that a positive attitude toward work has a positive effect on job performance.
This is also pointed out in the study of Ahmad and Shah (2010) that attitude toward work can
affect organizational commitment. Thus the challenge of management is how to change a
negative attitude toward work into a positive attitude toward work to reverse the negative effect
on the performance (Post, 2019). Aurora University study’s (2019), Farouk (2014), Berta, [Link]
(2018) also found in its study that job-related attitude affects the job involvement of employees
and productivity, that there is a significant relationship between attitude toward work and work

382
 Technium Social Sciences Journal
Vol. 18, 378-394, April, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798
[Link]

performance and productivity of the individual employee. In other words, individual work
performance has something to do with the employees' attitude toward their work.
Individual performance can be defined as the behaviors that are relevant to the
attainment of the goal of the organization (Campbell, 1990). Attitude toward work can affect
the three components of individual work performance and they are task performance, contextual
performance, and counterproductive work behavior. Task performance can be defined as “the
proficiency by which individuals perform the core technical task central to his/her job”
(Campbell, 1990, cited by Koopmans, [Link], 2014). The second component of individual
performance is contextual performance. Borman and Motowidlo, (1993, cited by Koopmans,
2014) contend that contextual performance is “the behavior that supports the organizational,
social, and psychological environment in which the technical core must function”. Lastly is the
counterproductive behavior component. It is defined as “the behavior that harms the well–being
of the organization" (Rotundo and Sackett, 2002, cited by Koopmans, [Link]. 2014).
Conceptual Framework
Independent Variables Dependent Variables

Individual Work
Employees’ Attitude Performance:
toward Work: - Task Performance
-Cognitive Attitude - Contextual
-Affective Attitude Performance
- Counterproductive
work Behaviour

Source: Ajzen (1993) and Koopmans, [Link] (2014).

Figure 1: It reflects the relationship between employees’ attitudes toward work and their
job performance. Employees’ attitude toward work explains the job performance of employees.
Statement of the Problems
The study tries to determine the correlation between the attitude of employees toward
their work and their work performance. It specifically answers the following questions:
1. What is the attitude of employees toward work in terms of:
a. Cognitive attitude
b. affective attitude
2. What is the job performance of employees in terms of
a. Task performance
b. Contextual performance
c. Counterproductive behavior

383
 Technium Social Sciences Journal
Vol. 18, 378-394, April, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798
[Link]

3. Is there a relationship between employees’ attitudes toward work and their job
performance?

Assumption
A positive and negative attitude toward work can affect the work performance of
employees. Different components of attitude can influence the behavior of employees in
performing their work and these components can be measured.

Hypothesis
Bianca (2020) and McQuerrey (2019) argued that employees’ attitude toward work
affects their job performance or productivity.

Scope and delimitation of the Study

The study covers the employees of Divine Word Colleges in the Ilocos Region and it
covers only the cognitive and affective attitude toward work. The limitation of the study is that
it measures attitude through verbal expression which is measured through questionnaires. To
completely capture the latent attitude of the person, verbal and nonverbal expression of attitude
must be measured and this is homework for future researchers.

III. Research Methodology

The study is carried out to find out the attitude of employees toward their work and its
correlation with the individual work performance (IWP) of Divine Word Colleges’ employees
in the Ilocos Region. Thus this part discusses the research design, the locale of the study,
population of the study, data gathering instruments, data gathering procedures, and statistical
treatment of data.

Research Design
The nature of this study is a descriptive study and therefore it used a descriptive
assessment and descriptive correlational research design. The fundamental characteristics of
descriptive research are to describe what is found in the data collected through questionnaires
and statistical data. It is also used to describe profiles, frequency distribution, describe
characteristics of people, situations, phenomena, or relationship variables. In short, it describes
"what is" about the data (Ariola, 2006, cited by Abun, 2019).
To carry out the study, the descriptive assessment and descriptive correlational method
are deployed. The study would determine the level of attitude of employees toward their work
and their work performance.

The locale of the Study

The locale of the study was the Divine Word Colleges in the Ilocos Region that is
composed of Vigan. Divine Word College of Vigan and Divine Word College of Laoag. Divine
Word College of Vigan is belonged to the Province of Ilocos Sur and is located within the
heritage city of Vigan. Divine Word College of Vigan is run by the Congregation of the Divine
Word Missionaries or known as Society of the Divine Word or in Latin, Societas Verbi Divini
(SVD). While Divine Word College of Laoag belongs to Ilocos Norte Province and is located
in Laoag City.

384
 Technium Social Sciences Journal
Vol. 18, 378-394, April, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798
[Link]

Population
The population of the study was composed of all employees of Divine Word College of
Vigan and Divine Word College of Laoag. Since the total numbers of employees are limited,
and therefore total enumeration is the sampling design of the study.
Data Gathering instruments
The study utilized questionnaires. The first part of the questionnaires on the attitude
toward work was made by the researcher and validated by a panel of experts and the second
part on the work performance was adapted from the IWPQ of Koopmans, [Link] (2014).
Data Gathering Procedures
In compliance with the research integrity and ethical requirement in conducting
research, the data gathering process was followed. The researcher sent a letter to the President
of the Colleges, requesting them to allow the researcher to flow his questionnaires in the college
they manage. The researcher personally met the Presidents and employees and requested them
to answer the questionnaires.
The retrieval of questionnaires was arranged between the President’s representative and
the researcher with the help of employees and faculty of the college.

Statistical Treatment of Data

Since the nature of the study is descriptive research, therefore descriptive statistics and
inferential statistics were used. The weighted mean is used to determine the level of cognitive
and affective attitude toward their work and their work performance and the Pearson r was used
to measure the correlation of employees’ attitude toward work and work performance. The
following ranges of values with their descriptive interpretation will be used:
Statistical Range Descriptive Interpretation
4.21-5.00 Strongly agree/Very High
3.41-4.20 Agree/High
2.61-3.40 Somewhat agree/Moderate
1.81-2.60 Disagree/Low
1.00-1.80 Strongly disagree/Very Low

IV. Empirical Data and Analysis

This part presents data that were gathered through questionnaires. This is the crucial
importance of the validity and quality of research. As scientific research, it has to be supported
by data to prove that actual study has been done. Thus, the presentation of data follows the
statement of the problems of the study.
Problem 1: 1. What is the attitude of employees toward work in terms of:
a. Cognitive attitude,
b. affective attitude
Table 1. The Attitude of Employees toward Work in terms of Cognitive Attitude
INDICATORS Mean DR
1. I know my work. 4.18 A
2. I believe that I can perform my work easily. 3.99 A
3. I have been in the work for quite some time. 3.95 A
4. I am familiar with all the details of my work. 3.98 A
5. I have the skills to carry out my work. 3.99 A
6. I can carry out my work without the help of others. 3.82 A
Composite Mean 3.99 A
Source: Abun, Magallanes, Foronda, & Encarnacion, (2019).

385
 Technium Social Sciences Journal
Vol. 18, 378-394, April, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798
[Link]

Legend:
4.21-5.00 Strongly agree/Very High
3.41-4.20 Agree/High
2.61-3.40 Somewhat agree/Moderate
1.81-2.60 Disagree/Low
1.00-1.80 Strongly disagree/Very Low
As gleaned from the data, it shows that as a whole, the attitude of employees toward
work in terms of their cognitive attitude attained a composite mean of 3.99 which is described
as “agree/high”. This signifies that the attitude of employees toward their work in terms of
cognitive attitude is not very high but high and it is not also moderate, low, or very low. This
rating implies that the knowledge of employees toward their work is considered high but not
very high. Even if the items are taken separately, they all indicate the same level of mean rating
which is described as "agree/high" such as "knowing their work (4.18), believing that they can
perform their work (3.99), having been in the work for quite sometimes (3.95), familiarity with
the details of their work (3.98), having the skills (3.99), and the confidence that they can carry
out their work without the help of others" (3.82).
Table 2. The Attitude of Employees toward Work in terms of Affective Attitude
INDICATORS Mean DR
1. I am happy with my work. 4.02 A
2. I am always eager to show up for work. 3.95 A
3. My work gives me satisfaction. 3.94 A
4. I feel good because I can perform my work. 4.02 A
5. My work is important to me. 4.10 A
6. My work gives me a sense of meaning. 4.07 A
Composite Mean 4.02 A
Source: Source: Abun, Magallanes, Foronda, & Encarnacion, (2019).
Legend:
Legend:
4.21-5.00 Strongly agree/Very High
3.41-4.20 Agree/High
2.61-3.40 Somewhat agree/Moderate
1.81-2.60 Disagree/Low
1.00-1.80 Strongly disagree/Very Low
Based on the data presented in the table, it reveals that as a whole, the attitude of
employees toward their work in terms of affective attitude obtained a composite mean rating of
4.02 which is interpreted as "agree/high". This indicates that the attitude of employees toward
their work in terms of emotional attitude is not very high but high and it is not also moderate,
low, or very low. This result points out that employees not only knowing their job intellectually
but even emotionally they are happy with their job because it gives them meaning and
satisfaction in life. Even when the items are taken singly, they all fall within the same level of
mean rating which is interpreted as "agree/high" such as “being happy with their work (4.02),
eager to show up for work (3.95), giving them satisfaction (3.94), feeling good because they
can perform their work (4.02), the work is important to them (4.10) and giving meaning to
them” (4.07).

386
 Technium Social Sciences Journal
Vol. 18, 378-394, April, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798
[Link]

Table 3. Summary of Attitude toward Work

ITEMS Mean DR
Cognitive Attitude 3.99 A
Affective Attitude 4.02 A
Overall Mean 4.00 A
Legend:
4.21-5.00 Strongly agree/Very High
3.41-4.20 Agree/High
2.61-3.40 Somewhat agree/Moderate
1.81-2.60 Disagree/Low
1.00-1.80 Strongly disagree/Very Low
The data on the summary table portrays that as a whole the attitude of employees toward
their work obtained an overall mean rating of 4.00 which is described as "agree/high". This
overall mean rating depicts a fact that employees' attitude toward their work is not very high
but high and it is not also moderate, low, or very low. Even when the variables are taken singly,
they all are rated within the same level of mean rating which is described as “agree/high” such
as cognitive attitude (3.99) and affective attitude (4.02). This result suggests that intellectually
employees know their work well and emotionally they love their job because it is important to
them and giving meaning to them.
Problem 2: What is the job performance of employees in terms of
a. Task performance
b. Contextual performance
c. Counterproductive behavior

Table 4. Job performance of employees in terms of Task Performance

INDICATORS Mean DR
1. I manage to plan my work so that it was done on time. 3.91 A
2. My planning was optimal. 3.87 A
3. I kept in mind the results that I have to achieve in my work. 3.96 A
4. I was able to separate main issues from side issues at work. 3.93 A
5. I knew how to set the right priorities. 3.95 A
6. I was able to perform my work well with minimal time & effort. 3.80 A
Composite Mean 3.90 A
Source: Koopmans, [Link] (2014).
Legend:
Legend:
4.21-5.00 Strongly agree/Very High
3.41-4.20 Agree/High
2.61-3.40 Somewhat agree/Moderate
1.81-2.60 Disagree/Low
1.00-1.80 Strongly disagree/Very Low
As reflected on the table, the data reveals that as a whole the job performance of
employees in terms of task performance obtained a composite mean rating of 3.90 which is
interpreted as "agree/high". The result signifies that employees' task performance is not very
high but high and it is also not moderate, low, or very low. This implies that employees agree
that they perform their job to a high level. The result indicates that the employees are proficient
enough to perform the technical task. Even when the items are taken separately, they all receive

387
 Technium Social Sciences Journal
Vol. 18, 378-394, April, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798
[Link]

the individual mean rating within the same description as “agree/high” such as “ planning their
work to finish on time (3.91), planning is optimal (3.87), keeping in mind the result that they
are going to achieve (3.96), the capability to separate the main issue from side issues at work
(3.93), knowing how to set the right priorities (3.95), and performing their work well with
minimal time and effort"(3.80).
Table 5. Job performance of employees in terms of Contextual Performance
INDICATORS Mean DR
1. I took on extra responsibilities. 3.84 A
2. I started a new task myself when my old ones were finished. 3.77 A
3. I took on a challenging work task, when available. 3.85 A
4. I worked at keeping my job knowledge up-to-date. 3.92 A
5. I worked at keeping my job skills up-to-date. 3.98 A
6. I came up with creative solutions to new problems. 3.84 A
7. I kept looking for new challenges in my job. 3.85 A
8. I did more than was expected of me. 3.85 A
9. I actively participated in work meetings. 3.87 A
10. I actively look for ways to improve my performance at work. 3.91 A
11. I grasped opportunities when they presented themselves. 3.88 A
12. I knew how to solve difficult situations and setbacks quickly. 3.82 A
Composite Mean 3.87 A
Source: Source: Koopmans, [Link] (2014).
Legend:
4.21-5.00 Strongly agree/Very High
3.41-4.20 Agree/High
2.61-3.40 Somewhat agree/Moderate
1.81-2.60 Disagree/Low
1.00-1.80 Strongly disagree/Very Low
As manifested by the data on the table, it tells that as a whole, the job performance of
employees in terms of contextual performance gained a composite mean of 3.87 which is
described as “ agree/high". This composite mean portrays the fact that the job performance of
employees in terms of contextual performance is considered not very high but high and it is also
not moderate, low, or very low. This result points out that the behavior of employees supports
the organizational, social, and psychological environment in which the technical skills are
performed (Borman & Motowidlo, (1993). Even when the items are taken separately, they all
gain the same level of mean rating which is described as “agree/high” such as “taking extra
responsibilities (3.84), starting a new task when the old ones were finished (3.77), taking on a
challenging work task, when available (3.85), working at keeping their job knowledge up-to-
date (3.92), working at keeping their job skills up-to-date (3.98), coming up with creative
solutions to new problems (3.84), keeping looking for new challenges in my job (3.85), doing
more than was expected of them (3.85), actively participating in work meetings (3.87), actively
looking for ways to improve their performance at work (3.91), grasping opportunities when
they presented themselves (3.88), and knowing how to solve difficult situations and setbacks
quickly” (3.82).

388
 Technium Social Sciences Journal
Vol. 18, 378-394, April, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798
[Link]

Table 6. Job performance of employees in terms of Counterproductive Work

Behavior
INDICATORS Mean DR
1. I complained about unimportant matters at work. 3.30 SWA
2. I made problems greater than they were at work. 3.44 A
3. I focused on the negative aspects of a work situation, instead
of on the positive aspects. 3.53 A
4. I spoke with colleagues about the negative aspects of my
work. 3.36 SWA
5. I spoke with people from outside the organization about the
negative aspects of my work. 3.38 SWA
6. I did less than was expected of me. 3.46 A
7. I managed to get off from a work task easily. 3.33 SWA
8. I sometimes did nothing, while I should have been working. 3.46 A
Composite Mean 3.41 A
Source: Source: Koopmans, [Link] (2014).
Legend:
4.21-5.00 Strongly agree/Very High
3.41-4.20 Agree/High
2.61-3.40 Somewhat agree/Moderate
1.81-2.60 Disagree/Low
1.00-1.80 Strongly disagree/Very Low
As seen in the data, it gives a picture that as a whole the job performance of employees
in terms of counterproductive behavior attained a composite mean rating of 3.41 which is
translated as “agree/high”. Such composite mean rating points out that the job performance of
employees in terms of counterproductive behavior is considered not very high but high and it
is also not moderate, low, or very low. This evaluation signifies that the behavior that harms the
organizational well-being is high. Even when taking them singly, some items are rated within
the description of “somewhat agree and agree” such as “complaining about unimportant matters
at work (3.30), making problems greater than they were at work (3.44), focusing on the negative
aspects of a work situation, instead of on the positive aspects (3.53), speaking with colleagues
about the negative aspects of their work (3.36), speaking with people from outside the
organization about the negative aspects of their work (3.38), doing less than was expected of
them (3.46), manage to get off from a work task easily (3.33) and sometimes doing nothing,
while one should have been working” (3.46).

Table 7. Summary of Job Performance of Employees

ITEMS Mean DR
Task Performance 3.90 A
Contextual Performance 3.87 A
Counterproductive Work Behavior 3.41 A
Overall Mean 3.73 A
Source: Koopmans, [Link] (2014).
Legend:
4.21-5.00 Strongly agree/Very High
3.41-4.20 Agree/High
2.61-3.40 Somewhat agree/Moderate

389
 Technium Social Sciences Journal
Vol. 18, 378-394, April, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798
[Link]

1.81-2.60 Disagree/Low
1.00-1.80 Strongly disagree/Very Low
The summary table shows that as a whole, employees' job performance gained a
composite mean rating of 3.73 which is described as "agree/high". It just simply means that the
job performance of employees with the three sub-variables is not very high but high and it is
also not moderate, low, or very low. On one hand, employees have proficient knowledge of the
technical aspect of their work and on the other hand, their behavior supports the organizational,
social and psychological environment in which they perform their job. But taking it singly, the
data reveals that their counterproductive behavior is also high. This implies that though they
have proficient knowledge and technical skills about their work and proper behavior that
support work environment, however, employees also have counterproductive behavior which
can affect task performance and contextual performance. Counterproductive behavior refers to
the behavior that harms the well-being of the organization.

Table 11. Relationship between attitude toward work and job performance
Task Contextual Counter
Performance Performance productive
Pearson Correlation .644** .605** -.001
Cognitive Attitude Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .991
N 171 171 171
Pearson Correlation .663** .700** .033
Affective Attitude Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .672
N 171 171 171

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Based on the Pearson r correlation table, the data reveals that as a whole there is a
significant correlation at 0.01 level (2-tailed) between attitude toward the work and job
performance. This implies that the attitude of employees toward their work affects their job
performance. This finding suggests that improving job performance can be done by changing
employees' attitudes toward their work. However, taking them singly, both elements of attitudes
such as cognitive and affective attitude are correlated to the two elements such as task
performance and contextual performance but not to the counterproductive behavior. Cognitive
and affective attitudes are not correlated to counter-productive behavior.

V. Result and Discussion

The finding of this study pointed out that there is a correlation between the attitude of
employees toward their work and their work performance. This finding brings us to the
importance of attitude management. Managing the attitude means how the management
improves their cognitive and emotional attitude toward the work. In this regard, the
management must minimize the negative attitude and increase positive attitude, both cognitive
and affective attitude. Increasing positive attitude will mean that management finds ways to
improve their knowledge and skills toward the work and at the same time improves the work
environment for them to love their work. Quarrey (2019) contended that a positive attitude
energizes people to accomplish their work and consequently increase productivity. A positive
attitude is not just about the feeling one has about the job but it is also about what one knows
about the job. Knowledge of a job is an important factor that contributes to performance and it
can affect the emotion of the person doing the job. The two-dimension, cognitive and affective

390
 Technium Social Sciences Journal
Vol. 18, 378-394, April, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798
[Link]

attitude can affect each other. When an employee does not have any idea about his job and how
to go about his job may affect his feeling toward the job (Beswick, 2011). Once the feeling is
affected, then it will affect his/her performance (Pervez, 2010). Managing work performance
requires attitude management.
Work performance has been the primary concern of any organization because
employees' performance can affect the status or the success of the organization. Thus, solving
employees' performance problems may not be easy as we discuss it because it requires a broader
outlook on the different aspects that may affect the employees' performance. Often time,
management focuses their attention on the tangible aspect such as monetary benefits and other
incentives to motivate employees to improve their performance but neglect to address the
intangible elements of employees' contributing factor to performance which is their attitude.
Studies have been conducted along with this concern. Khan and Ghauri (2014), Susanty,
Maradipta, and Jie (2013) found the relationship between attitude and performance. The same
finding was also forwarded by the study of Hettiarachchi and Jayarathna (2014) on the effect
of attitude toward work performance.

Conclusion
After the data has been presented and analyzed, this study concludes that employees’
attitude toward their work is considered high and there is also considered high. The study further
found that their attitude toward work affects their work performance. The Pearson r correlation
found that there is a correlation between attitude toward work and work performance, and
therefore the hypothesis of the study is accepted. Thus, such a result concludes that enhancing
the work performance of employees can be done through enhancing their attitude toward the
work.
This study contributes to the discussion on organizational behavior theory. Topics
related to organizational behavior must be broadened to include the topic of the effect of attitude
toward human behavior. Motivation and work performance are just products of a positive
attitude toward the work. The study also recognizes its limitation because of a limited number
of the population included in the study. The next study needs to include a wider population.

References
[1] Abun, D., Magallanes, Th., Foronda, S.L., Encarnacion, M.J. (2020). Students’ Attitude
toward Corruption and their Behavioural Intention to Corrupt or not to Corrupt in the
Future: The Philippines’ Context. Journal of the Social Sciences, 48 (1).
[2] Abun, D. & Agoot, F. (2017). Measuring Environmental Attitude and Environmental
Behavior of Senior High School Students of Divine Word Colleges in Region I,
Philippines. EPH-International Journal of Education Research, 1(2).
[3] Abun, D., Magallanes, T., Foronda, S.L., & Encarnacion, M.J. (2019). Investigation of
Cognitive and Affective Attitude of Teachers toward Research and their Behavioral
Intention to Conduct Research in the Future. Journal of Humanities and Education
Development (JHED), 1(5). [Link]
[4] Abun, D. (2018). Environmental Attitude and Environmental Behavior of Catholic
Colleges' Employees in Region I, Philippines. Texila International Journal of Academic
Research, 4(1).
[5] Abdalkrim, G.M. & Elhalim, T.A.A. (2016). Attitude toward Work, Job Satisfaction,
and Job Performance. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and
Social Sciences, 6(12)

391
 Technium Social Sciences Journal
Vol. 18, 378-394, April, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798
[Link]

[6] Ajzen, I. (1993). New Directions in Attitude Measurement. New York: Walter de
Gruyter.
[7] Ajzen, Icek (2001). "Nature and Operation of Attitudes". Annual Review of
Psychology. 52: 27–
58. [Link] PMID 11148298. S2CID 15064083
[8] Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The Influence of Attitudes on Behavior. In D.
Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (p. 173–
221). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
[9] Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude – Behavior Relations: A Theoretical Analysis
and Review of Empirical Research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918.
[10] Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2000). Attitudes and the Attitude-Behavior relation:
Reasoned and Automatic Processes. In W. Stroebe & [Link], (Eds.). European
Review of Social Psychology, Vol. 11, pp. 1-33. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
[11] Allport, G.W. (1935). Attitudes. In: Murchinson, C. (Ed.). A Handbook of Social
Psychology, pp. 798-844. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press
[12] Allport, G.W. (1968). The Historical background of Modern Social Psychology. In G.
Lindsay and E. Aronson (Eds.). Handbook of Social Psychology. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley
[13] Aurora University (2019). Studies Show Your Workplace Mindset Impacts Your
Performance. Business Insider. Retrieved from [Link]
[14] Berta, W., Laporte, A., Pereirra, T., Ginsburg, L., Dass, A.R., Deber, R., Baumann, A.,
Cranley, L., Bourgeault, I., Lum, J., Gamble, B., Pilkington, K., Haroun, V., & Neves,
P. (2018). Relationship between Work Outcomes, Work Attitude and Work
Environment of Health Workers in Ontario Long Term care home, and Community Care
Settings. Hum Resour Health 16(15). [Link]
[15] Beswick, K. (2011). Knowledge/Beliefs and Their Relationship to Emotions. Paper
Presented at the MAVI – 16 Conference, University of Tasmania.
[16] Bianca, A. (2020). Employee Attitude vs. Job Performance. Chron. Retrieved from
[Link]
[17] Borman, W. C., and Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to
include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, and W. C. Borman (Eds.),
Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco: Jossey Bass
[18] Brown, A. (1995). Organizational Culture. London: Pitman Publishing.
[19] Campbell, J. P. (1990a). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial
and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette, and L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook
of industrial and organizational psychology, 1, 687-732. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
[20] Chaiklin, H. (2011). Attitude, Behavior, and Social Practice. The Journal of Sociology
& Social Welfare, 38(1).
[21] Cunningham, W. A., & Zelazo, P. D. (2007). Attitudes and evaluations: A social
cognitive neuroscience perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(3), 97–104;
[22] Dean, L. (1958). Interaction, Reported and Observed: The Case of One Local Union.
Human Organization, 17(3), 36-44.
[23] DeFleur, M.L. & Westie, F.R. (1958). Verbal Attitude and Overt Acts: An Experiment
on the Salience of Attitude. American Sociological Review 23(6), 667
[24] Deressa, A.T., Zeru, G. Work motivation and its effects on organizational
performance: the case of nurses in Hawassa public and private hospitals: Mixed method
study approach. BMC Res Notes 12, 213. [Link]

392
 Technium Social Sciences Journal
Vol. 18, 378-394, April, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798
[Link]

[25] Deutscher, I. (1968). Looking Backward: Case Study on the Progress of methodology
in sociological research. American Sociologist, 4, 35-41.
[26] Donald, M. (2002). A Mind So Rare: The Evolution of Human Consciousness. New
York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
[27] Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1998). Attitude, Structure, and Function. In Handbook of
Social Psychology, ed. D.T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fisk, and G. Lindsey, 269–322. New
York: McGowan-Hill.
[28] Farouk, I. (2014). Exploring Employee Attitude and Productivity at the Electricity
Company of Ghana, Ashanti-East. Unpublished Master Thesis: Kwame Nkrumah Uni.
Of Science and Tech.
[29] Fazio, R.H., & Zanna, M.P. (1981). Direct Experience and Attitude Behavior
Consistency. In: Berkowitz, L. (Ed.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14,
161-202. New York: Academic Press
[30] Fitzsimmons, J.R., Douglas, E.J. (2005), Entrepreneurial Attitudes and Entrepreneurial
Intentions: A Cross-Cultural Study of Potential Entrepreneurs in India, China, Thailand,
and Australia. BabsonKauffman Entrepreneurial Research Conference, Wellesley, MA.
[31] Freeman, L. C., & Ataoev, T. (1960). The invalidity of indirect and direct measures of
attitude toward cheating. Journal of Personality, 28, 443-447.
[32] Gil, N. (2020). A Positive attitude at Work can be the Key to Your Success. Resume
Target. Retrieved from [Link]
[33] Hettiarachchi, H.A.H. & Jayarathna, D.Y. (2014). The effect of Employee Work-
Related Attitudes on Employee Job Performance: A Study of Tertiary and Vocational
Education Sector in Sri Lanka. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 16 (4), 74-
83.
[34] Khan, I. & Ghauri, T.A. (2014). Impact of Attitude on Employees Performance: A
Study of Textile Industry in Punjab, Pakistan. World Applied Sciences
Journal 30(ICMRP 25):191-197.[Link]
[35] Koopmans, L., Bernards, C.M., Hildebrandt, V.H., Buuren, S., Beek, A.J., Van der,
H.C.W. (2014). Improving the Individual Work Performance Questionnaires Using
Rasch Analysis. Journal of Applied Measurement, 15(2), 160-175.
[36] Laurenz, P. (2011). Why Evaluate? Performance Evaluation is one of the Most
Important Communication Tools. Central SD SHRM. Retrieved from
[Link]
[37] Liska, A. E. (1974). The Impact of Attitude on Behavior: Attitude-Social Support
Interaction. Pacific Sociological Review, 17(1), 83-97.
[38] McLintic, M. (2016). How Attitude is Formed and Predict Our Behavior. Firebrand.
Retrieved from [Link]
[39] McQuerrey, L. (2019). How does Positive and Negative Attitude Affect the
Workplace? Chron. Retrieved from [Link]
[40] Milar, M.G. & Milar, K.U. (1996). The Effect of Direct and Indirect Experience on
Affective and Cognitive Responses and Attitude-behaviour Relations. Journal of
Experimental and Social Psychology, 32(6), 561-579
[41] Myers, D. (2013). Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hills
[42] Omolayo, B.O. & Oluwafemi, A. (2012). Influence of Workers' Attitude towards Time
and Work on Perceived Job Performance in Private and Public Sectors. Journal of
Management and Strategy, 3(3).
[43] Pervez, M.A. (2010). Impact of Emotions on Employees’ Job Performance: An
Evidence of Organizations in Pakistan. Retrieved from [Link]

393
 Technium Social Sciences Journal
Vol. 18, 378-394, April, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798
[Link]

[44] Post, J. (2019). How to Develop a Positive Attitude in the Workplace. Business News
Daily. Retrieved from [Link]
[45] McQuerrey, L. (2019). How Do Negative and Positive Attitudes Affect the
Workplace? Chron. Retrieved from [Link]
[46] Reys, J. (2020). Attitude: Sample Performance Review Phrases. IHATE Performance
Reviews. Retrieved from [Link]
[47] Richard M. Perloff, R.M. (2016). The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and
Attitudes in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Routledge.
[48] Rosenberg, M.J. & Hovland, C.I. (1960). Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral
Components of Attitudes. In M. J. Rosenberg, C. I. Hovland (eds.), Attitude
Organization and Change: An Analysis of Consistency Among Attitude Components.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
[49] Rotundo, M., and Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship,
and counterproductive performance to global ratings of performance: A policy-
capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66-80
[50] Schwarcz, N. & Bohner, G. (2001). The Construction of Attitudes. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell, 436-457
[51] Snyder, M. (1982). When believing Means doing: Creating Links between attitudes
and behavior. In: Zanna, M.P. Higgins, E.T. & Herman, C.P. (Eds.). Consistency in
Social Behavior. The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 2, pp. 105-130. Hills-dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[52] Susanty, A. & Maradipta, R. (2013). Employee’s Job Performance: The Effect of
Attitude toward Works, Organizational Commitment, and Job Satisfaction. Jurnal
Teknik Industri, 15(1).
[53] Susanty, A., & Maradipta, R. (2013). Analysis of the Effect of Attitude toward Works,
Organizational Commitment, and Job Satisfaction on Employees’ Job Performance.
European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 1(10), 15-24.
[54] Tamkin, P. (2005). The Contribution of Skills to Business Performance. Institute for
Employment Studies. Retrieved from [Link]
[55] Villanova University (2020). Understanding Performance Evaluations. Retrieved from
[Link]
[56] Wade, M. & Parent, M. (2002). Relationship between Job Skills and Performance: A
Study of Webmasters. Journal of Management Information System, 18(3), 71-96.
[57] Warner, L.G., & DeFleur, M.L. (1969). Attitude as an Interactional Concept: Social
Constraint and social distance as intervening variables between attitude and action.
American Sociological Review, 34, 153-169.
[58] Wicker, A.W. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt
behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 41-78.
[59] Wood, W. (2000). "Attitude Change: Persuasion and Social Influence". Annual
Review of Psychology. 51: 539-570.
[Link] PMID 10751980. S2CID 4944989

394