Training practices and job performance in public universities: leveraging on self-efficacy and organizational politics

Figures & data

Figure 1. Hypothesized theoretical Framework.

Table 1. Demographic profile of respondents.

Variable	Categories	Frequency	Percentage
Sex	Male	185	49.9
	Female	175	47.2
	Missing	11	3.0
Age	Below 24 years	16	4.3
	25-29 years	58	15.6
	30-34 years	84	22.6
	35-39 years	50	13.5
	40-49 years	120	32.3
	50 years and above	39	10.5
	Missing	4	1.1
Highest academic qualification	Technical/Vocational	13	3.5
	SSSCE	9	2.4
	Diploma/HND	39	10.5
	Bachelors’ Degree	144	38.8
	Masters’ Degree	136	36.7
	Doctorate Degree	29	7.8
	Missing	1	0.3
Staff category	Senior Member	85	22.9
	Senior Staff	183	49.3
	Junior Staff	91	24.5
	Missing	3	0.8
Length of service	Below 1 year	59	15.9
	2-3 years	63	17.0
	4-6 years	57	15.4
	Above 6 years	179	48.2
	Missing	13	3.5
	No	58	15.6
	Missing	4	1.1

Table 2. Reliability and validity tests.

Construct	Items	Loadings	Bootstrap	AVE	CR	CA
Training	Training programs that guide you towards professional and career development are provided	.598 (fixed)	.599	.560	.883	.882
	There are regular seminars and professional speeches	.877 (9.910)	.876
	Workshop focused on equipping you with relevant competencies and skills	.756 (9.537)	.757
	Conference and symposium are provided…	.736 (9.230)	.737
Self-efficacy	When I am confronted with a challenge, I can usually find…	.761 (fixed)	.763	.468	.813	.810
	I have confidence when performing my roles	.618 (9.292)	.616
	I can stay calm when I face difficulties as I can rely …	.645 (9.684)	.645
	I try to find innovative ways of doing things	.785 (11.40)	.785
	I can usually manage to solve difficult issues if I try hard	.588 (8.835)	.587
Organizational politics	People do what is best for them not what’s best for the organization	.763 (fixed)	.762	.502	.831	.829
	People are working behind the scenes to ensure that they …	.762 (11.781)	.762
	Many employees are trying to maneuver their way into …	.791 (12.154)	.790
	Individuals are stabbing each other in the back to look…	.673 (10.439)	.675
	There is a group of people in my department who constantly ….	.516 (7.937)	.514
Task performance	I make sure I am able to achieve the results expected of me	.581 (fixed)	.581	.532	.819	.819
	I adequately complete assigned duties without much supervision	.806 (9.031)	.805
	I fulfil multiple responsibilities to achieve organisational goals	.755 (8.874)	.752
	I am passionate about my work	.763 (8.828)	.759
Contextual performance	I corporate with other workers in my department	.723 (fixed)	.722	.502	.800	.799
	I am able to accept and learn from my mistakes	.781 (10.15)	.782
	I actively take part in group discussions and work meetings	.613 (8.71)	.608
	I communicate with my co-workers and superiors	.708 (9.83)	.700
Adaptive performance	I come up with creative solutions to problems	.824 (fixed)	.824	.597	.851	.850
	I keep institutional records/ information up to date	.816 (14.75)	.816
	I can effectively handle my work in the face of changes	.874 (15.62)	.872
	I can deal with unexpected event	.527 (8.69)	.525
Fitness indices of measurement model
	Test	X^2/df	CFI	SRMR	RMSEA
	Score	3.77	0.98	0.04	0.07

Note: Estimates in parenthesis are the T-Values.

Table 3. Validation of first order construct.

CFA model	χ^2	df	χ^2/df	P-Value	RMSEA	CFI	SRMR
1. Training	0.015	2	0.008	.99	.00	1.00	.00
2. Self-efficacy	8.732	5	1.746	.12	.05	0.99	.03
3. Organisational politics	1.765	5	.353	.88	.00	1.00	.01
4. Task performance	1.422	2	.711	.49	.00	1.00	.01
5. Contextual performance	2.260	2	1.130	.32	.02	.99	.01
6. Adaptive performance	1.206	2	.603	.55	.00	1.00	.00

Note: χ² =Chi-square; DF = degree of freedom; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; SRMR = standardized root mean.

Table 4. Descriptive and correlation analysis.

	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Training	2.877	0.876	1.000
2. SE	4.069	0.626	.139*	1000
3. OP	3.372	0.791	.012	.021	1.000
4. Task	4.357	0.618	.063	.591**	.133*	1.000
5. Contextual	4.348	0.563	.105	.569**	.069	.662**	1.000
6. Adaptive	4.156	0.679	.258**	.527**	−.013	.562**	.585**	1.000

Note: * and ** indicate significance at the 5% and 1% levels, respectively; SE, self-efficacy and OP, organizational politics.

Table 5. SEM regression analysis.

Variable	Task performance (1)	Contextual performance (2)	Adaptive performance (3)
Intercept	4.27 (.210)***	4.43 (.20)***	4.14 (.245)***
Gender	.121 (.06)**	−0.012 (.057)	−0.02 (.07)
Age	.012 (.025)	−0.004 (.02)	−0.011 (.029)
Academic Qualification	−0.031 (.036)	−0.013 (.035)	0.02 (.042)
Hypothesised paths
Training	0.049 (.053)	−0.006 (.05)	0.24 (0.062)***
OP	0.141 (0.04)***	0.08 (.038)**	−0.006 (.047)
SE	0.58 (.049)***	0.51 (.046)***	0.559 (0.057)***
Training*OP	0.01 (.026)	0.049 (.024)**	−0.044 (.031)
SE*OP	−0.12 (.026)***	−0.07 (.024)***	−0.052 (.03)*
Model fit
Deviance	5474.22	5446.67	5559.06
X^2 (p-value)	0.625 (0.732)	0.625 (0.732)	0.625 (0.732)
RMSEA	0.000	0.000	0.000
CFI	1.000	1.000	1.000
SRMR	0.000	0.000	0.000
AIC	5508.22	5480.66	5592.06
R-square	0.162	0.118	0.127

Note: (1).

*** p < 0.01.

** p < 0.05.

* p > 0.1,

(2) SE, Self-efficacy; OP, organizational, CFI, comparative fit index.

Figure 2. Path Diagram of the Effect of Training, Self-Efficacy and Organisational Politics on Overall Performance.

Figure 3. Path Diagram of the Effect of Training, Self-Efficacy and Organisational Politics on Task Performance.

Figure 4. Path Diagram of the Effect of Training, Self-Efficacy and Organisational Politics on Contextual Performance.

Figure 5. Path Diagram of the Effect of Training, Self-Efficacy and Organisational Politics on Adaptive Performance.

Figure 6. Plot of the Moderation of Organisational Politics on Self-Efficacy – Adaptive Performance Relationship.

Figure 7. Plot of the Moderation of Organisational Politics on Self-Efficacy – Contextual Performance Relationship.

Figure 8. Plot of the Moderation of Organisational Politics on Self-Efficacy – Task Performance Relationship.

Figure 9. Plot of the Moderation of Organisational Politics on Training – Adaptive Performance Relationship.

Table 6. Mediating effect of self-efficacy (indirect effect).

	Indirect effect - without interactions
	Adaptive performance	Task performance	Contextual performance
Politics	−.014 [−.069 .041]	−.014 [−.073 .043]	0.012 [−.063 .037]
Training	.10 [.025 .174]	.11 [.027 .178]	−0.091 [−.159 −.024]
	Indirect effect—with interactions
	Adaptive performance	Task performance	Contextual performance
Politics	−.012 [−.068 .041]	−.014 [−.070 .043]	0.013 [−.061 .037]
Training	.10 [.025 .173]	.10 [.026 .178]	−0.089 [−.156 −.023]

Note: bias corrected confidence interval in parentheses.

Data availability statement

Data availability statement will be made available on request.