Galih Anisah Fatinabilah, Rina Dwiarti

The Influence of Work Motivation, Organizational Commitment, and Job Satisfaction on Organizational Citizenship Behavior at the Yogyakarta Special Region Manpower and Transmigration Office

Introduction

The influence of work motivation, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction on organizational citizenship behavior at the yogyakarta special region manpower and transmigration office. Explore how work motivation, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction impact Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) at the Yogyakarta Manpower Office. Discover key insights.

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to examine how the DIY Manpower and Transmigration Office's staff members' levels of job satisfaction, organisational commitment, and intrinsic motivation affect their OCB. The study's population included 85 workers selected using saturation sampling, and the research methodology was quantitative. The measuring tool used was a Likert scale. The results of the instrument tests demonstrate that the data is valid and trustworthy, distributed normally, and does not exhibit any signs of heteroscedasticity or multicollinearity. According to the study's results, an individual's level of job satisfaction significantly and positively affects their OCB, although work motivation and organisational commitment do not. At the same time, OCB is positively and significantly impacted by all three factors. This study's findings may help guide future studies and business initiatives aimed at enhancing organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB), which in turn impacts the success of organisations in reaching their objectives.

Review

The paper, titled "The Influence of Work Motivation, Organizational Commitment, and Job Satisfaction on Organizational Citizenship Behavior at the Yogyakarta Special Region Manpower and Transmigration Office," addresses a pertinent topic within organizational psychology concerning the antecedents of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB). The study's clear objective is to investigate the impact of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and work motivation on OCB among staff members in a specific regional government office. The abstract indicates a quantitative research methodology, utilizing saturation sampling with 85 participants, and confirms sound preliminary data analysis, including checks for validity, reliability, normality, heteroscedasticity, and multicollinearity. This foundational methodological rigor suggests a careful approach to data quality. While the methodological checks are commendable, the abstract presents a significant ambiguity regarding its core findings. It states that "an individual's level of job satisfaction significantly and positively affects their OCB, although work motivation and organisational commitment do not," immediately followed by the assertion that "At the same time, OCB is positively and significantly impacted by all three factors." This appears contradictory without further clarification. It is critical to differentiate whether this refers to independent effects versus a combined, simultaneous effect in a multiple regression model. This lack of clarity obscures the precise contributions of each independent variable and needs to be thoroughly explained within the results and discussion sections. Furthermore, while saturation sampling of 85 employees from a single office provides a complete picture for that specific context, it inherently limits the generalizability of the findings to broader populations or other organizational settings. Despite the aforementioned ambiguity, the study's stated aim to contribute to future research and business initiatives for enhancing OCB is valuable. If the nuanced relationship between the three antecedents and OCB is properly articulated, particularly the distinction between individual and combined effects, the findings could offer practical insights for the Yogyakarta Special Region Manpower and Transmigration Office. To strengthen the paper for publication, the authors should explicitly clarify the nature of the statistical analyses leading to the seemingly contradictory results. Additionally, a more in-depth discussion on the theoretical framework guiding the selection of these specific antecedents, as well as a robust discussion of the limitations stemming from the single-organization, saturation sampling approach, would significantly enhance the paper's scholarly contribution and interpretability.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.