Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol.

9, Supplementary Issue 1 133

The Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction on the Effect

of Motivation to Organizational Commitment and
Work Engagement of Private Secondary High School
Teachers in Metro-Manila

Ronaldo A. Manalo*
Research Center for Social Sciences and Education (RCSSED),
University of Santo Tomas, Manila, Philippines

Belinda de Castro
Research Center for Social Sciences and Education (RCSSED), University of Santo Tomas,
Manila, Philippines

Chin Uy
Research Center for Social Sciences and Education (RCSSED), University of Santo Tomas,
Manila, Philippines

ABSTRACT
This descriptive-causal study aimed to determine the levels and effects of teachers’ motivation
and job satisfaction to their commitment and work engagement. The data were collected from
1,098 private secondary school teachers in Metro-Manila chosen using purposive sampling.
Descriptive statistics such as mean and standard deviation were used and Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM) was utilized for determining the relationships of the latent variables. Results
revealed that teachers are motivated and with high level of job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and work engagement. SEM showed the significant positive effects of motivation
and job satisfaction to organizational commitment and work engagement. The model also
revealed that job satisfaction mediated the effect of motivation on the teachers’ organizational
commitment and work engagement. This implies that teachers who are motivated and satisfied
in their job also have high level of work engagement and organizational commitment. The
results of the study can be used by policy-makers as basis for creating policies and programs
that will help improve the welfare of the teachers. Creating family spirit and strong sense of
belongingness are very important for the teachers. Programs and activities should be organized
in order to improve these aspects.

Keywords: motivation, work engagement, organizational commitment, job satisfaction

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Education is one sector of prime consideration in raising the country’s economic
competitiveness (Cabauatan & Manalo, 2018). It is for this reason that governments usually
allocate a significant portion of their budget for improving the quality of education. Enough
classrooms and reasonable teacher-student ratio (Khan & Iqbal, 2012), well prepared textbooks
(Mahmood, 2011), enough learning resources (Jeong, & Hmelo-Silver, 2010), and technology
infrastructures (Jhurree, 2005) are some of the areas that are given attention. However, the
teachers, being one of the key players in education, should also be given enough attention to
ensure better delivery of instruction. There is a need to provide enough support and assistance
so that they could perform their tasks effectively.

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Supplementary Issue 1 134

By and large, it is vital that different strategies are developed to nurture the human capital
involved in delivering basic education. The government and the school owners should give
priority to the welfare of the teachers. Different monetary and non-monetary strategies are
being introduced to keep teachers motivated to teach. Accordi ng to Adelabu (2005), teachers
are not motivated because they are dissatisfied with their working conditions. This is due to
low and irregular payment of salaries, low status of the teaching profession in the society,
insufficient opportunities for career and personal advancement, poor working environment
including high teacher-student ratio, and inadequate fringe benefits. Teachers strongly respond
to financial incentives (Duflo, Hanna, & Rya, 2012) and programs for financial incentive for
teachers happen to be popular in trying to improve the learning outcome (Fryer, 2013).
However, in some countries, the status of teachers declined significantly particularly those with
low income (Bennell, 2004). There is also a tendency that teachers become less effective in
later phases of their professional lives (Day & Gu, 2007). Therefore, it is important to
investigate the different motivational factors affecting the teachers’ working behavior. Despite
the importance of teachers’ motivation and incentives, there is still dearth in quality researches
done on these topics, thereby the need for the study (Bennell, 2004).
In the Philippines, the implementation of the k to 12 program calls for an assessment of
the teachers working behaviors. The study was conceptualized based on the Department of
Education (DepEd) Order No. 39, s. 2016 about the “Adoption of Basic Education Research
Agenda.” It seeks to contribute to the DepEd research agenda in the area of Human Resource
Development specifically on employees’ welfare. It focused on the different motivational
factors that affect teachers’ commitment, work engagement, and job satisfaction and aimed to
establish the mediating role of job satisfaction on the effect of motivation on the private
secondary school teachers’ commitment and work engagement.
The study aimed to determine if motivation and job satisfaction affect their organizational
commitment and job satisfaction, and to find out if job satisfaction mediate the effect of
motivation on organizational commitment and work engagement. Results of the study can be
used as basis for creating research-based policy, and in organizing programs and activities that
will help improve the welfare of the teachers. The study is significant because the results can
provide a portrait of the current level of teachers’ motivation, commitment, work engagement,
and job satisfaction. The result can be used to develop an effective mechanism or strategy in
reducing the gap among private secondary school teachers. Results of the study can also be
used in creating policies that will benefit not only the teachers but the entire education
institution in the areas of resource allocation and provision of monetary and non-monetary
incentives.

2.0 THEORECTICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 Theoretical Framework
Employees are motivated to work due to their desire to satisfy their needs. According to
Sinclair (2008), motivation is what moves us to do something. The study is anchored on the
theory of motivation developed by Maslow. This theory of motivation is used by many
organizations not only for attracting and keeping potential employees but also to motivate them
and improve their working behavior (Sadri & Bowen, 2011). In this study, teachers’ level of
motivation was assessed considering Maslow’s hierarchy of needs such as physiological,
safety, belongingness, esteem, and self-actualization.

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Supplementary Issue 1 135

2.2 Literature Review

2.2.1 Motivation
In any organization, the working behavior of any employee is affected by different
factors. Monetary and non-monetary factors served as teachers’ motivation to have positive
working behavior. Therefore, incentives and intrinsic motivation should be considered
simultaneously in any school organization (Cerasoli, Nicklin, & Ford, 2014). These will
motivate teachers to do their responsibilities (Sinclair, 2008) and increase their willingness to
improve their performance (Urwick, Mapuru & Nkhoboti, 2005). Teachers are motivated due
to financial incentives (Duflo et al., 2012). According to Fryer, (2013), one of the strategies
used in improving the learning outcomes is to help the teachers through the financial incentive
programs however, he found out that teachers’ incentive program does not significantly
contribute to students’ school performance. According to Farid (2011), factors such as
classroom environment, student’s behavior, rewards, and incentives are related to their
motivation. According to Thomas (2016), some of the factors influencing teachers’ motivation
are enjoying students and loving the teaching profession for intrinsic motivation, and salary
and further education for extrinsic motivation. According to Bunchoowong (2015), some of
the motivational factors for private sector employees are “compensation, extra bonus, social
security, group accident insurance, career path progression, good working environment,
friendly colleagues, and well balanced work-family life.” While Parker (2003) identified self-
satisfaction as intrinsic motivation, and decreased workload and flexible scheduling as extrinsic
motivators. In this study, motivation of the teachers was measured in terms of extrinsic
motivation which are their physiological, safety, belongingness, esteem, self-actualization
needs, and their intrinsic motivation.
2.2.2 Job satisfaction
One of the important assets contributing to the organizational success is the employee
(Salleh, Zahari, Said, & Ali (2016). The practices in the organization that promote quality
functioning of the employees are highly encouraged (Fernet, Trépanier, Austin, Gagné, &
Forest, 2015). It is important that organizations are aware of the different factors affecting
employees’ satisfaction and dissatisfaction. According to (Parvin & Kabir, 2011), job
satisfaction describes how a member of the organization is satisfied with his or her job while
according to Sunaryo and Suyono (2013), “job satisfaction refers to the attitude of employee
towards work.”
There are monetary and non-monetary factors affecting job satisfaction. According to
Kiruja and Mukuru (2018), low pay and unfavorable working environment contribute to
employees’ dissatisfaction. Poor working environment such as poor lighting and ventilation,
and poor supervisory relationships can contribute to job dissatisfaction of employees (Dartey-
Baah, & Amoako, 2011). Additionally, other factors such as workload, overtime, fatigue,
boredom, and stress also contributed to employees’ dissatisfaction (Jain & Kaur, 2014).
However, good working condition as indicated by the availability of recreational, health and
safety facilities, and fun in the workplace can contribute to employees' job satisfaction (Jain &
Kaur, 2014). According to Bozeman and Gaughan (2011), pay that reflect their market value
and respect of the co-workers can contribute to the employees’ feeling of satisfaction.
Employees who highly value money are more satisfied when they received salary increase (Tan
& Waheed, 2011). According to Smith and Shields (2013), aside from adequacy of income,
good experience with the supervisors affect job satisfaction. Good relationship with the
managers is an important predictor of employee’ job satisfaction (Taylor & Westover, 2011).

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Supplementary Issue 1 136

While aside from salary, relation with co-worker is an important factor influencing job
satisfaction (Parvin & Kabir, 2011). Poor relationship with co-workers can affect the feelings
and performance of the employees therefore, in order to improve interpersonal relationships
within the organization, social bonding should be part of the intervention program (Fernet,
Gagné, & Austin, 2010).
In the field of education, teachers are not happy due to their workloads and multiple
responsibilities (Dehaloo, 2011). However, improving the teachers' quality of social
relationships in the organization can help enhance their job satisfaction (Van Maele, & Van
Houtte, 2012). Additionally, leadership plays a very important role in an organization.
According to Aydin, Sarier, and Uysa (2013), when leadership style shifted from transactional
to transformational, the teachers’ level of job satisfaction increases. In many educational
institution, teachers are more likely to stay in the organization because of their satisfaction in
the teaching profession and not with any teaching-related duties (Perrachione, Rosser, &
Petersen, 2008).
Several studies were already conducted about the relationship of motivation and job
satisfaction. According to Smith and Shields (2013), motivation is positively related to job
satisfaction. This supported the findings of Saleem, Mahmood, and Mahmood (2010). Khalid,
Salim, and Loke (2011) that motivation affects job satisfaction. Different motivational factors
were already investigated and found to have significant effect on employees’ job satisfaction.
According to Stringer, Didham, and Theivananthampillai (2011), pay has the strongest
association with job satisfaction. Recognition given to employees can bring job satisfaction
(Dartey-Baah & Amoako, 2011). Employees who were given task according to their expertise
can bring high satisfaction (Shah, Akhtar, Zafar, & Riaz, 2012). Additionally, Khalid et al.
(2011) found out that rewards also have positive effect job satisfaction.
On the contrary, Ahmed, Nawaz, Iqbal, Ali, Shaukat, and Usman (2010) revealed that
extrinsic motivation is not significantly related to employee job satisfaction. Therefore, it is
important that aside from the different extrinsic motivators, intrinsic motivation should also be
given attention. There is significant positive relationship between intrinsic motivation and job
satisfaction (Ahmed et al., 2010; Shah et al., 2012). According to Wesover and Taylor (2010)
intrinsic motivation affects job satisfaction. Satisfied employees have higher level of overall
motivation (Li, Hu, Zhou, He, Fan, Liu, & Sun, 2014). Therefore, considering the needs of the
employees in designing programs can contribute to employees' motivation and satisfaction
(Dartey-Baah, & Amoako. 2011). Motivation and job satisfaction are major important factors
for keeping employees (Bonenberger, Aikins, Akweongo, & Wyss, 2014) although motivation
is more important than job satisfaction (Sunarsih, 2017). In the educational organizations,
studies also revealed that there is positive relationship between motivation and job satisfaction
of teachers. According to Maharjan (2012), there is positive association between work
motivation and teachers' job satisfaction. Furthermore, motivation positively affects the
teachers' job satisfaction (Arifin, 2015). The study hypothesized that:
H1: Higher level of motivation leads to higher level of job satisfaction of the respondent
teachers.
2.2.3 Organizational Commitment
One of the important elements needed to boost productivity and efficiency of any
organization is the employees' organization commitment (Salleh et al., 2016). According to
Malik, Nawab, Naeemn and Danish, (2010), “organizational commitment refers to the
employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization.”

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Supplementary Issue 1 137

“It is the strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular

organization” (Markovits, Davis, Fay, & Dick, 2010) and “reflects the binding force that
inspires individuals to take part in a course of actions that are relevant to both the organization
and the individual" (Trivellas, 2011). According to Wright, Chrstensen, and Isett (2013),
employees’ compassion and self-sacrifice are significantly related to their commitment.
Organizational commitment has significant positive relationship with job performance
(Trivellas, 2011). This could be one of the reasons why many organizations are seeking for
reasonable balance between employee commitment and performance of the organization
(Danish & Usman, 2010). Factors that are significantly related to organizational commitment
must be taken into consideration. Bulut and Culha (2010) found out that motivation to training,
access to training, benefits of training, and support for training have positive effect in the
organizational commitment of the employees. Jehanzeb, Rasheed, and Rasheed (2013) also
found out that there is significant correlation between organizational commitment and
employees' training.
By and large, leaders of the organization play significant role in improving the
employees’ organizational commitment. They must be aware of the leadership style promoting
higher commitment of the employees. According to Keskes (2014), transformational leadership
is positively related to employee organizational commitment. Changes is normal in the
organization in order to keep the organizations’ competitiveness. However, it is also normal
that some degree of resistance is present to some members of the organization especially to the
employees. However, according to Wright et al. (2013), employees who are properly informed
in the changes in the organization are likely to have commitment to change. In the educational
setting, the increasing demands of the schools require teachers’ commitment that will
contribute to the realization of the school goals (Runhaar, Konermann, & Sanders, 2013). In
this study, organizational commitment was measured in terms of their affective, continuance,
and internalization commitments.
Several studies were already conducted about the relationship of motivation to
organizational commitment. According to Trivellas (2011), motivation is expected to
contribute to employees’ commitment. Studies showed that there is significant positive
association between motivation and organizational commitment (Salleh et al., 2016) and
motivation has significant positive effect on employee's organizational commitment
(Kontoghiorghes, 2016). Organizational commitment is significantly predicted by intrinsic
motivation (Choong, Lau, & Wong, 2011). Specifically, intrinsic motivation is significantly
correlated to the different dimensions of organizational commitment such as affective,
continuance, and normative commitments (Choong et al., 2011). They also revealed that
intrinsic motivation significantly predicts organizational commitment. Therefore, to promote
better organizational performance, motivated and committed employees are needed (Battistelli,
Galletta, Portoghese, & Vandenberghe, 2013).
Studies were also conducted about the relationship of job satisfaction and organizational
commitment. Results of the previous studies revealed that there is significant positive
relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Naderi Anari, 2012;
Katsikea, Theodosiou, Perdikis, & Kehagias, 2011; Fruend, 2005). Job satisfaction has
significant positive effect on organizational commitment (Eslami & Gharakhani, 2012; Aban,
Perez, Ricarte, & Chiu, 2019) specifically to affective commitment (Canrinus, Helms-Lorenz,
Beijaard, Buitink, & Hofman, 2012). Employees’ satisfaction due to different benefits is
positively related to organizational commitment (Caillier, 2013). Factors of job satisfaction
such as promotions, personal relationships, and favorable working conditions have significant
positive effects on organizational commitment (Eslami & Gharakhani, 2012). Health and

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Supplementary Issue 1 138

wellness programs has greater influence on organizational commitment as compared to flexible

work schedules (Caillier, 2013). However, job autonomy satisfaction has stronger effect on
organizational commitment compared to pay satisfaction (Froese & Xiao, 2012). Enhancing
job satisfaction is necessary in order to improve the organizational commitment of the
employees (Eslami & Gharakhani, 2012). This study hypothesized that:
H2: Higher level of motivation leads to higher level of commitment of the respondent
teachers.
H3: Higher level of job satisfaction leads to higher level of commitment of the respondent
teachers.
2.2.4 Work Engagement
Work engagement is another important factor that is given attention by many
organizations and researchers. Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonza´lez-Roma, and Bakker (2002)
described it as the “employees’ positive and fulfilling work-related state of mind characterized
by vigor, dedication, and absorption.” According to Bakker (2011), “engaged employees are
bursting with energy, dedicated to their work, immersed in their work activities, open to new
information, more productive and more willing to go extra mile which are indications that they
are fully connected with their work roles.”
According to Bay, An, and Laguador (2014), teachers will have better work engagement
if enough services are provided. High level of employees’ work engagement can lead to greater
commitment and satisfaction, lower absenteeism and quit rates, improved health and well-
being, and better in-role and extra-role performance (Alzyoud, Othman, & Isa, 2015).
According to Burke and El-Kot (2010), engagement predicts various work outcomes such
as job satisfaction and intent to quit. Ariani (2013) also found out that employee engagement
is positively related to individual job performance of the employee. Because of the positive
contribution of work engagement at the individual and organizational levels (Alzyoud et al.,
2015), assessing the employees’ personal characteristics together with their work engagement
is necessary in order to generate information that can be used as basis for creating programs
that will help improve work engagement level of the employees. According to Putra, Cho, and
Lin (2017), intrinsic motivation played a significant role in improving the work engagement of
the employees. Aside from motivation, job satisfaction also positively affects work
engagement (Rayton & Yalabik, 2014). Their finding supported the claims of Ram and
Prabhakar (2011) and Yeh (2013). According to Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2011), lack of
satisfaction is likely to affect the teachers' work engagement. This study hypothesized that:
H4: Higher level of motivation leads to higher level of work engagement of the respondent
teachers.
H5: High level of job satisfaction leads to higher level of work engagement of the respondent
teachers.
2.3 Conceptual Framework

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Supplementary Issue 1 139

Figure 1. Hypothesized model showing the relationships of the variables investigated

The hypothesized model shows the effect of motivation to teachers’ commitment, work
engagement, and job satisfaction. It also shows the relationships of job satisfaction to
organizational commitment and work engagement.

3.0 METHOD
3.1 Design
The study used a quantitative descriptive-causal study design. Survey method was used
in gathering data. Descriptive design was used in presenting the teachers level of motivation,
organizational commitment, work engagement, and job satisfaction. While the causal design
was used in determining the effect of motivation to organizational commitment, work
engagement, and job satisfaction, and the effect of job satisfaction to work organizational
commitment and work engagement.
3.2 Sample and Study Site
GPower was used in determining the sample size. Considering small effect size (f2 =
.02), 95% confidence level (α = .05), statistical power of .95 (1 – β = .05) with 4 predictors
in the model, at least 934 respondents are needed. The 1098 private secondary school teachers
in Metro-Manila is more than enough to meet the requirements of the study.
3.3 Instrumentation
The instrument was divided into five parts. Part 1 is about the profile of the respondents,
Part II measures the teachers’ motivations, Part III is for commitment, Part IV is for work
engagement, and Part V for job satisfaction. The instruments were adapted from previous
researchers and were subjected for content and reliability testing to ensure that they measure
what they are expected to measure.
A five point Likert scale was used to measure the teachers’ level of motivation (26
items, α = .968) based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs such as physiological (4 itemsα =
.930), safety (4 items, α = .928), belongingness (5 items, α = .900), esteem (3 items, α = .798),

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Supplementary Issue 1 140

and self-actualization (5 items, α = .939). The teachers’ level of intrinsic motivation was also
assessed (5 items, α = .912).
Organizational commitment (17 items, α = .925) with three dimensions was measured
using a 7-point Likert scale (1–completely disagree to 7–completely agree). Affective
commitment (8 items, α = .852), continuance commitment (5 items, α = .839), and
internalization commitment (4 items, α = .938) all obtained acceptable reliability coefficients.
Instrument was adapted from the study of Delobbe and Vandenberghe (2000).
Work engagement (17 items, α = .928) with three dimensions was measured using 7-
point Likert scale (0–never to 6–everyday) to determine the teachers’ feeling about their job.
Vigor (6 items, α = .814), dedication (5 items, α = .947), and absorption (6 items, α = .905)
all obtained acceptable reliability coefficients. Instrument was adopted from the Utretch
Work Engagement Scale (UWES) developed by Schaufeli, Bakker, and Salanova (2006).
Job satisfaction (22 items, α = .947) with five dimensions was measured using a 6-point
Likert scale (1-highly unsatisfied to 6-highly satisfied). Economic satisfaction (3 items, α =
.909), security satisfaction (4 items, α = .803), social satisfaction (2 items, α = .865),
psychological satisfaction (10 items, α = .914), and satisfaction with the teaching profession
(3 items, α = .741) all obtained acceptable reliability coefficients. Items were adapted from
Opatha (2015).
3.4 Data Gathering Procedure
From the complete list of private secondary schools in Metro-Manila, schools were
grouped according to districts and cities they belong. After grouping the different schools,
selection of the respondent schools was done purposively to make sure that teachers from the
selected schools can really help in meeting the objectives of this study. In order to facilitate
a smooth data gathering, letters to the principals or school owners were made to ask for their
permission and allow their teachers to participate in the study.
3.5 Ethical Consideration
The involvement of the teachers was on a voluntary basis. Teachers’ participation was
not influenced by rewards or intimidation. Consent form was prepared indicating the
objectives and significance of the study. Respondents were not required to write their names
and school affiliations to protect their interest and that of their organizations.
3.6 Data Analysis
Mean and standard deviation were used to describe the teachers’ level of motivation,
organizational commitment, work engagement, and job satisfaction. Kurtosis and skewness
were also used to describe the behavior of the data. Confirmatory factor analysis was
conducted by considering only indicators with significant factors loading and standardized
estimates. Composite and Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients of all the constructs are
greater than .70 with average variance extracted (AVE) greater than .50 and square root of
the average variance extracted greater than the inter-construct correlation coefficients.
WarpPLS version 5 was used in analyzing the relationships of the variable using structural
equation modeling. Different model and quality fit indices were used to assess the model
validity.

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Supplementary Issue 1 141

4.0 RESULTS
Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using WarpPLS version 5 utilizing the
combined loadings and cross-loadings together with the standardized estimates in determining
the validity of each indicator. All indicators with significant loadings and indicator weights
were retained while indictors with low loadings and indicator weights and are not significant
were removed.
Table 1.
Loadings and standardized estimates of the indicators of motivational dimensions
Regression
Effect
Factor Loading Estimate
size
Loading SE Estimate SE
Physiological
1. Salary 0.855** 0.028 0.291** 0.029 0.249
2. Fringe benefits 0.885** 0.028 0.301** 0.029 0.266
3. Personal/professional growth 0.865** 0.028 0.294** 0.029 0.254
4. Learning resources and facilities 0.823** 0.028 0.280** 0.029 0.230
Safety
5. Safety of the working environment 0.841** 0.028 0.292** 0.029 0.246
6. Security of tenure 0.842** 0.028 0.292** 0.029 0.246
7. School Risk Management Program 0.865** 0.028 0.300** 0.029 0.259
8. Physical work environment 0.847** 0.028 0.294** 0.029 0.249
Belongingness
9. Relationship with co-teachers 0.793** 0.028 0.240** 0.030 0.190
10. Relationship with administrators 0.846** 0.028 0.256** 0.030 0.217
11. Relationship with students 0.794** 0.028 0.240** 0.030 0.191
12. Relationship with parents 0.816** 0.028 0.247** 0.030 0.202
13. Leadership and supervision 0.814** 0.028 0.246** 0.030 0.200
Esteem
14. Promotional opportunities 0.868** 0.028 0.374** 0.029 0.325
15. Respect in the workplace 0.863** 0.028 0.372** 0.029 0.322
16. Recognition of work 0.905** 0.028 0.390** 0.029 0.353
Self-actualization
17. Represent the school in important
0.847** 0.028 0.226** 0.030 0.192
activities
18. Opportunity to share expertise 0.851** 0.028 0.227** 0.030 0.193
19. Opportunity to mentor other teachers 0.880** 0.028 0.235** 0.030 0.207
20. Involvement in decision making 0.891** 0.028 0.238** 0.030 0.212
21. Opportunity of lead committee works 0.856** 0.028 0.229** 0.030 0.196
Intrinsic
22. Feeling appreciated 0.860** 0.028 0.237** 0.030 0.204
23. Enjoying a sense of challenge 0.852** 0.028 0.235** 0.030 0.200
24. Enjoyment at work 0.885** 0.028 0.244** 0.030 0.216
25. Satisfaction at accomplishments 0.895** 0.028 0.247** 0.030 0.221
26. Experience with the students 0.760** 0.028 0.209** 0.030 0.159
** Significant at p < .01
Table 1 shows the factor loading and standardized estimates of the motivational
dimensions. The factor loadings are all greater than .5 which are all significant (p < .001). This
shows that the 26 items are useful in in measuring the teachers’ motivation. The standardized
estimates of the physiological ranges from .291 to .301 which are all significant (p < .001) and
have medium effect sizes. The safety dimension of motivation have standardized estimates

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Supplementary Issue 1 142

ranging from .292 to .300 (p < .001) producing medium effect sizes. The standardized estimates
of belongingnesss dimension range from .240 to .256 (p < .001) corresponding to medium
effect sizes. Esteem dimension rages from .372 to .390 (p < .001) with effect sizes from
medium to high. Self-actualization ranges from .226 to .238 (p < .001) corresponding to
medium effect sizes and intrinsic dimesion ranges from .209 to .247 (p < .001) corresponding
to medium effect sizes.
Table 2.
Loadings and standardized estimates of the indicators of organizational commitment
dimensions
Regression
Loading Estimate Effect
Loading SE Estimate SE size
Affective
1. I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization. 0.834** 0.028 0.239** 0.030 0.199
2. I feel ‘emotionally attached’ to this organization. 0.875** 0.028 0.251** 0.030 0.220
3. I feel like ’part of the family’ at my organization. 0.887** 0.028 0.254** 0.030 0.226
4. I enjoy discussing my organization with people
0.862** 0.028 0.247** 0.030 0.213
outside it.
5. I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my
0.693** 0.029 0.199** 0.030 0.138
own.
Continuance
7. I would be unhappy to spend the rest of my career
0.541** 0.029 0.143** 0.030 0.077
with this organization
8. I feel that I have enough options to consider leaving
0.690** 0.029 0.182** 0.030 0.125
this organization.
9. One of the few consequences of leaving this
organization would be the scarcity of available 0.819** 0.028 0.216** 0.030 0.177
alternatives.
10. I am afraid of what might happen if I quit my job
0.806** 0.028 0.212** 0.030 0.171
without having another one lined up.
11. One of the major reasons I continue to work for this
organization is that leaving would require
considerable personal sacrifice – another 0.815** 0.028 0.215** 0.030 0.175
organization may not match the overall benefits I
have here.
12. Right now, staying with my organization is a matter
0.796** 0.028 0.210** 0.030 0.167
of necessity as much as desire.
13. It would be very hard for me to leave my
0.638** 0.029 0.168** 0.030 0.107
organization right now, even if I wanted to.
Internalization
14. My attachment to this organization is primarily
based on the similarity of my values and those 0.880** 0.028 0.287** 0.029 0.253
represented by the organization.
15. The reason I prefer this organization to others is
0.911** 0.028 0.298** 0.029 0.271
because of what it stands for, its values.
16. Since joining this organization, my personal values
and those of the organization have become more 0.910** 0.028 0.297** 0.029 0.271
similar.
17. If the values of this organization were different, I
0.793** 0.028 0.259** 0.030 0.205
would not be as attached to this organization.
** Significant at p < .01

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Supplementary Issue 1 143

Table 2 shows the factor loading and standardized estimates of the organizational
commitment dimensions. The factor loadings are all greater than .5 which are all significant (p
< .001). Item 6 (This organization doesn’t have a great deal of personal meaning for me) was
remove due to very low factor loading and standardized estimate which is not significant. This
shows that the remaining 16 items are useful in in measuring the teachers’ organizational
commitment. The standardized estimates of the affective commitment ranges from .199 to .254
which are all significant (p < .001) and have medium effect sizes. The continuance commitment
have standardized estimates ranging from .143 to .216 (p < .001) producing medium effect
sizes. While the standardized estimates of internalization commitment range from .259 to .298
(p < .001) corresponding to medium effect sizes.
Table 3.
Loadings and standardized estimates of the indicators of work engagement dimensions
Regression
Loading Estimate Effect
Loading SE Estimate SE size
Vigor
1. At my work, I feel like bursting with energy. 0.396** 0.029 0.114** 0.030 0.045
2. At my job, I feel strong and vigorous. 0.822** 0.028 0.236** 0.030 0.194
3. When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to
0.822** 0.028 0.236** 0.030 0.194
work.
4. I can continue to work for long periods of time. 0.806** 0.028 0.232** 0.030 0.187
5. At my job, I am mentally resilient. 0.830** 0.028 0.238** 0.030 0.198
6. At my job, I always persevere, even when things do
0.795** 0.028 0.229** 0.030 0.182
not go well.
Dedication
7. I find the work that I do meaningful and purposeful. 0.870** 0.028 0.227** 0.030 0.197
8. I am enthusiastic about my job. 0.900** 0.028 0.235** 0.030 0.211
9. My job inspires me. 0.909** 0.028 0.237** 0.030 0.215
10. I am proud of the work that I do. 0.880** 0.028 0.229** 0.030 0.202
11. My job is challenging enough. 0.818** 0.028 0.213** 0.030 0.174
Absorption
12. Time flies when I am at work. 0.771** 0.028 0.201** 0.030 0.155
13. When I work, I forget everything else around me. 0.762** 0.028 0.199** 0.030 0.151
14. I feel happy when I work intensely. 0.796** 0.028 0.208** 0.030 0.165
15. I am immersed in my work. 0.858** 0.028 0.224** 0.030 0.192
16. I get carried away when I work. 0.838** 0.028 0.219** 0.030 0.183
17. It is difficult to detach myself from my job. 0.767** 0.028 0.200** 0.030 0.153
** Significant at p < .01
Table 3 shows the factor loading and standardized estimates of the work engagement
dimensions. The factor loadings are all greater than .5 which are all significant (p < .001) except
item WE1 with factor loading of .394 however it is still significant. This shows that the 17
items are useful in in measuring the teachers’ work engagement. The standardized estimates of
vigor ranges from .114 to .238 which are all significant (p < .001) and have small to medium
effect sizes. Dedication has standardized estimates ranging from .213 to .237 (p < .001)
producing medium effect sizes. While the standardized estimate of absorption ranges from .199
to .224 (p < .001) corresponding to medium effect sizes.

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Supplementary Issue 1 144

Table 4.
Loadings and standardized estimates of the indicators of job satisfaction dimensions
Regression
Loading Estimate Effect
Loading SE Estimate SE size
Economic
1. Adequacy of pay to meet food and clothing needs 0.887** 0.028 0.383** 0.029 0.339
2. Possibility of saving some money for housing 0.878** 0.028 0.379** 0.029 0.333
3. Adequacy of comfortable working conditions 0.871** 0.028 0.376** 0.029 0.328
Security
4. Job security 0.848** 0.028 0.296** 0.029 0.252
5. Adequacy of pay increments 0.874** 0.028 0.306** 0.029 0.267
6. Adequacy of safe working conditions 0.819** 0.028 0.286** 0.029 0.234
7. Adequacy of medical, retirement and insurance
facilities 0.841** 0.028 0.294** 0.029 0.247
Social
8. Opportunity to have friends and social interactions 0.876** 0.028 0.571** 0.029 0.500
9. Manager friendliness 0.876** 0.028 0.571** 0.029 0.500
Psychological
10. My pay matches the relative worth of my job. 0.705** 0.028 0.121** 0.03 0.085
11. My pay is equal to the pay of similar employees. 0.675** 0.029 0.116** 0.03 0.078
12. Opportunities for promotions 0.774** 0.028 0.133** 0.03 0.103
13. Management encouragement for high achievement 0.833** 0.028 0.143** 0.03 0.119
14. Allowed to develop new and original ideas. 0.844** 0.028 0.145** 0.03 0.122
15. Opportunity to use my various skills and
knowledge 0.799** 0.028 0.137** 0.03 0.109
16. Opportunity to do a complete work 0.800** 0.028 0.137** 0.03 0.110
17. Importance of my work on the lives of others 0.650** 0.029 0.111** 0.03 0.072
18. Given power to plan and control my job 0.738** 0.028 0.126** 0.03 0.093
19. Given information about my work performance,
progress and improvement. 0.796** 0.028 0.136** 0.03 0.108
Profession
20. Teaching is an interesting job for me. 0.902** 0.028 0.381** 0.029 0.344
21. I feel satisfied with my ability for doing my job. 0.889** 0.028 0.376** 0.029 0.334
22. Teaching is a challenging job for me 0.872** 0.028 0.369** 0.029 0.322
** Significant at p < .01
Table 4 shows the factor loading and standardized estimates of the dimensions of
teachers’ job satisfaction. The factor loadings are all greater than .5 which are all significant (p
< .001). This shows that the 22 items are useful in in measuring the teachers’ job satisfaction.
The standardized estimates of the economic satisfaction ranges from .376 to .389 which are all
significant (p < .001) and have medium effect sizes. The security satsifaction have standardized
estimates ranging from .294 to .306 (p < .001) producing medium effect sizes. The standardized
estimates of social satisfaction dimension is .571 (p < .001) corresponding to large effect size.
The psychological satisfaction ranges from .111 to .145 (p < .001) with medium effect size,
and satisfaction with the teaching profession ranges from .369 to .381 with medium effect size.

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Supplementary Issue 1 145

Table 5.
Correlations among the dimensions of motivation with composite and reliability coefficients,
AVEs and square roots of AVEs

No. of items

Cronbach's
Composite
reliability

alpha

AVE
Motivation (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

(1) .91 .88 .73 (0.858

4
Physiological 7 0 5 )
(2) .91 .87 .72 (0.849
4 0.781
Safety 2 1 0 )
(3) .90 .87 .66 (0.813
5 0.541 0.561
Belongingness 7 1 1 )
(4) .91 .85 .77 (0.879
3 0.677 0.655 0.689
Esteem 1 3 3 )
(5) .93 .91 .74 (0.865
5 0.618 0.622 0.646 0.750
Self-actualization 7 6 8 )
(6) .92 .90 .72 (0.852
5 0.608 0.601 0.623 0.676 0.686
Intrinsic 9 4 6 )

Table 5 shows the six dimensions of teachers’ motivation having composite reliability
coefficient of at least .907 which indicated good similarities of different indicators while the
Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient is at least .853 and indicated good level of internal
consistency of the items. The average variance extracted of at least .720 indicated good
convergent validity. The square roots of the average variances extracted on the diagonal are
greater than the correlation coefficient on the same rows and columns. This indicates good
construct validity of teachers’ motivational dimensions.
Table 6.
Correlations among the dimensions of organizational commitment with composite and
reliability coefficients, AVEs and square roots of AVEs
Cronbach's
Composite
reliability
No. of

alpha
items

AVE

Organizational
(1) (2) (3)
Commitment

(1) Affective 6 .865 .790 .581 (0.762)

7 (0.736
(2) Continuance .890 .854 .542 0.020
)
4 (0.875
(3) Internalization .929 .897 .766 0.607 0.228
)

Table 6 shows the three dimensions used in measuring the teachers’ organizational
commitment having composite reliability of at least .865 and Cronbach’s alpha value of at least
.790. The average variance extracted is at least .541 and square roots of the average variance
extracted are greater than inter-construct correlation. This indicated good internal consistency
and good convergent validity of the instrument used for measuring teachers’ organizational
commitment.

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Supplementary Issue 1 146

Table 7.
Correlations among the dimensions of work engagement with composite and reliability
coefficients, AVEs and square roots of AVEs

Cronbach's
Composite
reliability
No. of

alpha
items

AVE
Work Engagement (1) (2) (3)

(1) Vigor 6 .888 .844 .580 (0.762)

(2) Dedication 5 .943 .924 .768 0.746 (0.876)
(3) Absorption 6 914 .887 .639 0.693 0.728 (0.800)

Table 7 shows the three dimensions used in measuring the teachers’ work engagement
having composite reliability of at least .888 and Cronbach’s alpha value of at least .844. The
average variance extracted is at least .580 and square roots of the average variance extracted
are greater than inter-construct correlation. This indicated good internal consistency and good
convergent validity of the instrument used for measuring teachers’ work engagement.
Table 8.
Correlations among the dimensions of job satisfaction with composite and reliability coefficients, AVEs
and square roots of AVEs
Cronbach's
Composite
reliability
No. of

alpha
items

AVE

Job Satisfaction (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

(1)
3 .910 .852 .772 (0.878)
Economic
(2)
4 .910 .867 .716 0.813 (0.846)
Security
(3)
2 .868 .696 .767 0.439 0.526 (0.876)
Social
(4)
10 .933 .920 .584 0.713 0.778 0.642 (0.764)
Psychological
(5)
3 .918 .866 .788 0.362 0.433 0.552 0.545 (0.888)
Profession

Table 8 shows the five dimensions used in measuring the teachers’ job satisfaction having
composite reliability coefficients of at least .868 and Cronbach’s alpha values of at least .696.
The average variance extracted is at least .584 and square roots of the average variance
extracted are greater than inter-construct correlation. This indicated good internal consistency
and good convergent validity of the instrument used for measuring teachers’ job satisfaction.
Table 9.
Descriptive statistics of the dimensions of teachers’ motivation, organizational commitment, work
engagement, and job satisfaction
Standard Standard
Mean Skewness Kurtosis
Deviation Error
Motivation
Physiological 4.103 0.812 0.025 -0.775 0.074
Safety 4.192 0.724 0.022 -0.769 0.292

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Supplementary Issue 1 147

Belongingness 4.268 0.642 0.019 -1.056 1.974

Esteem 4.192 0.777 0.023 -0.925 0.562
Self-actualization 4.074 0.794 0.024 -0.808 0.490
Intrinsic 4.372 0.671 0.020 -1.166 1.397
Organizational Commitment
Affective 5.365 0.957 0.029 -0.704 1.148
Continuance 4.424 1.369 0.041 -0.319 -0.581
Internalization 5.272 1.188 0.036 -0.694 0.328
Work Engagement
Vigor 4.770 0.829 0.025 -0.940 1.359
Dedication 5.116 0.936 0.028 -1.243 1.368
Absorption 4.704 0.949 0.029 -0.780 0.355
Job satisfaction
Economic 4.434 1.068 0.032 -0.700 0.676
Security 4.548 0.991 0.030 -0.711 0.820
Social 4.855 0.914 0.028 -0.945 1.596
Psychological 4.588 0.855 0.026 -0.970 1.938
Profession 5.154 0.842 0.025 -1.175 2.128

In table 9, the results of descriptive statistics revealed teachers have high level of intrinsic
motivation (M = 4.372, SD = .671). Teachers are motivated because of the different extrinsic
factors such as their feeling of sense of belongingness in the organization (M = 4.268, SD =
.642), safety (M = 4.192, SD = .724), and esteem (M = 4.192, SD = .777). Considering the
dimensions of teachers’ organizational commitment, affective commitment is the highest (M =
5.365, SD = .957) followed by internalization commitment (M = 5.272, SD = 1.188). The
teachers’ dedication (M = 5.116, SD = .936) contributed to their high work engagement level.
While teacher positive attitude towards the teaching profession (M = 5.154, SD = .842) and
social satisfaction (M = 4.855, SD = .914) contributed to the teacher overall job satisfaction.
Different model fit and quality indices were used in assessing the structural equation
model. The average path coefficient (APC = .348, p < .001), average R-squared (ARS = .363,
p < .001), and average adjusted R-squared (AARS = .362, p < .001) are all significant. The
average block variance inflation factor (AVIF = 1.745) and average full collinearity variance
inflation factor (AFVIF = 1.745) obtained the ideal values of less than 3.3. Tenenhaus
Goodness of Fit (GoF = .499) is large and with an ideal value of Sympson's paradox ratio
(SPR=1.000) and R-squared contribution ratio (RSCR = 1.000) obtained also the ideal value.
The statistical suppression ratio (SSR = 1.000) and nonlinear bivariate causality direction ration
(NLBCDR = 1.000) also obtained the acceptable values. The different model fit indicated that
the model fits with the data very well.

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Supplementary Issue 1 148

Figure 2. Structural equation model showing the effect of motivation on organizational

commitment and work engagement with and without job satisfaction as mediating variable
The results of the structural equation model revealed that motivation has direct positive
effect on the employees’ organizational commitment (β = .52, p < .001) and work engagement
(β = .45, p < .001) without the mediating role of job satisfaction. Around 25% of the variability
in organizational commitment and 20% of the variability in work engagement of the employees
can be explained by motivation alone. With job satisfaction as the mediating variable, the
positive effect of motivation to organizational commitment (β = .23, p < .001) and work
engagement (β = .20, p < .001) are still significant. Motivation and job satisfaction explained
39% of the variability in organizational commitment and 30% of the variability in work
engagement. The presence of job satisfaction as mediating variable reduced the effect of
motivation to organizational commitment and work engagement but increased the percent of
variability that can be explained. These results indicate that job satisfaction significantly
mediated the effect of motivation on employees’ organizational commitment and work
engagement. Additional, both motivation and job satisfaction have greater effect on
organizational commitment than work engagement.
Table 10.
Indirect total effect of motivation to organizational commitment and work engagement
Standardized Standard p- Effect
Interpretation
Estimate Errors value size
Direct Effect
Organizational <
Motivation  .230 .030 .119 Small
Commitment .001
Work <
Motivation  .203 .030 .091 Small
Engagement .001
Indirect Effect
Organizational <
Motivation  .287 .021 .148 Small
Commitment .001

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Supplementary Issue 1 149

Work <
Motivation  .251 .021 .113 Small
Engagement .001
Total Effect
Organizational <
Motivation  .517 .029 .267 Medium
Commitment .001
Work <
Motivation  .454 .029 .204 Medium
Engagement .001

Table 10 showed the direct, indirect, and total effect of motivation to organizational
commitment and work engagement. Results revealed that direct, indirect, and total effect of
motivation are all significant. The direct effect of motivation has small effect size to
organizational commitment (f2 = .119), and work engagement (f2 = .091). The indirect effect
of motivation to organizational commitment (β = .287, p < .001) and to work engagement (β =
.251, p < .001) were also significant but with small effect size (f2 = .148 and f2 = .113
respectively). The total effect of motivation to organizational commitment (β = .517, p < .001)
and to work engagement (β = .454, p < .001) resulted to medium effect sizes (f2 = .267 and f2
= .204 respectively. This implies that job satisfaction mediated the effect of motivation to
organizational commitment and work engagement. The effect of motivation to organizational
commitment and work engagement is greater when the employees are satisfied.
Table 11.
Factor loading and standardized estimate of the dimensions of motivation, organizational
commitment, work engagement, and job satisfaction
Standardized estimate
Effect
Estimate SE p-value
Size
Motivation
Physiological 0.197 0.030 <0.001 0.165
Safety 0.197 0.030 <0.001 0.164
Belongingness 0.189 0.030 <0.001 0.151
Esteem 0.208 0.030 <0.001 0.184
Self-actualization 0.202 0.030 <0.001 0.173
Intrinsic 0.195 0.030 <0.001 0.162
Organizational commitment
Affective 0.512 0.029 <0.001 0.434
Continuance 0.207 0.030 <0.001 0.071
Internalization 0.547 0.029 <0.001 0.495
Work engagement
Vigor 0.368 0.029 <0.001 0.332
Dedication 0.374 0.029 <0.001 0.342
Absorption 0.365 0.029 <0.001 0.326
Job satisfaction
Economic 0.248 0.030 <0.001 0.206
Security 0.264 0.030 <0.001 0.234
Social 0.228 0.030 <0.001 0.174
Psychological 0.272 0.030 <0.001 0.248

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Supplementary Issue 1 150

Profession 0.203 0.030 <0.001 0.139

The table 11 shows that the 6 dimensions are useful in measuring the teachers’
motivation. Although the standardized estimates of all dimensions are all significant (p < .01),
the teachers’ motivation is greatly reflected in their esteem (β = .208, p < .01) and self-
actualization (β = .202, p < .01) aspects. The overall motivational level of the teachers
significantly explains all the dimensions with medium effect size. Considering the dimensions
of organizational commitment, all standardized regression estimates are significant (P < .01)
with small effect size to continuance commitment and large effect size to affective and
internalization commitments. The standardized estimate on the three dimensions of work
engagement are all significant (p < .01) with medium effect sizes. The best indicator of the
teachers’ organizational commitment is the teachers’ dedication β = .374, p < .01). The five
dimensions of teachers’ job satisfaction are all significant (p < .01) with small to medium effect
sizes. The teachers’ job satisfaction is greatly reflected in their security (β = .264, p < .01) and
psychological (β = .272, p < .01) satisfactions.

5.0 DISCUSSION
WarpPLS version 5 was used to determine the relationships among teachers’ motivation,
job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and work engagement. The study found that there
is significant positive relationship between motivation and job satisfaction indicating that
teachers with higher level of motivation are more satisfied in their job, supporting the findings
of Smith and Shields (2013), Saleem, Mahmood, and Mahmood (2010) and Khalid, Salim, and
Loke, (2011). In improving job satisfaction, it is important to consider motivations such as pay
(Stringer, Didham, & Theivananthampillai, 2011), employee recognition (Dartey-Baah &
Amoako, 2011), assigning task according to expertise (Shah, Akhtar, Zafar, & Riaz, 2012), and
other rewards (Khalid, Salim, & Loke, 2011).
Private secondary school teachers are motivated due to their feeling of belongingness in
the organization. Their positive relationships with their co-teachers and students keep them
motivated. The teachers’ motivation greatly explained their esteem which happens when there
is respect in the workplace and self-actualization when they are given opportunity to share their
expertise. Additionally, teachers have high level of job satisfaction because of their love for
the teaching profession. They find teaching challenging and interesting. They find satisfaction
for doing their job. The teachers’ overall job satisfaction is greatly explained by their security
satisfaction which is having a safe working condition and their psychological satisfaction
thinking the importance of their work on the lives of other.
The study also found that there is significant positive relationship between motivation
and organizational commitment. This is consistent to the findings of Kontoghiorghes (2016)
and Salleh, Zahari, Said, and Ali (2016). Then again, consistent to the findings of Naderi Anari
(2012), Katsikea, Theodosiou, Perdikis, and Kehagias (2011), Fruend (2005), Eslami and
Gharakhani, 2012), and Caillier (2013), there is also positive relationship between job
satisfaction and organizational commitment. As put forward by Battistelli, Galletta,
Portoghese, and Vandenberghe (2013), motivated and committed employees are needed to
promote organizational performance.

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Supplementary Issue 1 151

Table 12.
Correlation among the dimensions of the motivation, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and work engagement.
Motivation Commitment Engagement

Self-actualization
Belongingness

Internalization
Physiological

Continuance

Absorption
Dedication
Affective
Intrinsic
Esteem
Safety

Vigor
Economic .509** .441** .349** .432** .399** .387** .414** .237** .416** .301** .267** .283**
Security .516** .500** .367** .458** .464** .421** .426** .232** .457** .319** .319** .311**
Job Satisfaction Social .343** .419** .432** .376** .394** .388** .395** .085** .427** .373** .459** .378**
Psychological .518** .507** .463** .509** .528** .501** .526** .208** .533** .401** .409** .389**
Profession .283** .382** .332** .301** .310** .370** .258** .085** .365** .426** .589** .468**
Affective .351** .373** .351** .354** .405** .372**
Organizational Continuance .200** .167** .141** .195** .189** .131**
Commitment
Internalization .350** .369** .343** .372** .387** .344**
Vigor .301** .328** .314** .300** .329** .399**
Work Engagement Dedication .285** .355** .345** .310** .323** .400**
Absorption .284** .317** .301** .277** .318** .333**
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 12 showed the positive correlations among the dimensions of motivation, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
work engagement. Results revealed that between motivation and job satisfaction, highest correlation existed between self-actualization
and psychological (r = .528, p < .01), physiological and psychological (r = .518, p < .01), and between physiological and security (r =
.516, p < .01). Between motivation and organizational commitment, highest correlation existed between self-actualization and affective
(r = .405, p < .01), self-actualization and internalization (r = .387, p < .01), and between safety and affective (r = .373, p < .01). Between
motivation and work engagement, highest correlation existed between intrinsic and dedication (r = .400, p < .01), intrinsic and vigor (r
= .399, p < .01), and between intrinsic and absorption (r = .333, p < .01). Between job satisfaction and organizational commitment,
highest correlation existed between psychological and internalization (r = .533, p < .01), psychological and affective (r = .526, p < .01),
and security and internalization (r = .457, p < .01). Between job satisfaction and work engagement, highest correlation existed between
profession and dedication (r = .589, p < .01), profession and absorption (r = .468, p < .01), and between social and dedication (r = .459,
p < .01).

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Supplementary Issue 1 152

Secondary school teachers were proven to have high level of organizational commitment
due to their high level of affective commitment. Their sense of belongingness and positive feeling
that they are part of the organization contributed to their strong commitment to the organization.
Then again, the teachers’ overall level of organizational commitment is greatly explained by their
internalization commitment. Teachers prefer their organization because of the value it stands for.
In order to further enhance the organizational commitment of the employees, we may
consider promotions, personal relationships, and favorable working conditions as posited by
Eslami and Gharakhani (2012), job autonomy (Froese & Xiao, 2012), health and wellness (Caillier,
2013), quality of supervision and pay satisfaction (Malik, Nawab, Naeemn & Danish, 2010). As
put forward by Eslami & Gharakhani (2012), enhancing job satisfaction is necessary in order to
improve the organizational commitment of the employees.
It was also established that motivation and job satisfaction are significantly related to work
engagement. Many organizations focus on the different extrinsic motivations. However, according
to Putra, Cho, and Lin (2017), intrinsic motivation played a significant role in improving the work
engagement of the employees. Thus, both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation should be given equal
importance. The significant positive relationship between job satisfaction and work engagement
supported the studies of Rayton and Yalabik (2014), Ram and Prabhakar (2011), and Yeh (2013).
As posited by Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2011), lack of satisfaction is likely to affect the teachers'
work engagement.
The study proved that teachers have high level of work engagement due to their high level
of dedication. They are more engaged because they are proud of what they are doing, they find
their work challenging, and they find their work meaningful and purposeful.

6.0 CONCLUSION
The structural equation model revealed that teachers’ motivation is significantly and
positively related to organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and work engagement. This
positive relationship indicates that higher level of motivation resulted to higher level of
organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and work engagement. The model also revealed that
teachers’ motivation has the greatest effect on job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is also significantly
and positively related to organizational commitment and work engagement. This indicates that
higher level of job satisfaction results to higher level of organizational commitment and work
engagement. Additionally, job satisfaction has greater effect on organizational commitment than
work engagement.
Aside from the significant direct effect of motivation to organizational commitment and
work engagement, the indirect and total effect were also significant when the relationships are
partially mediated by job satisfaction. The effect of motivation to organizational commitment and
work engagement is greater when the employees are satisfied. In the area of human resource
management, organizational commitment and work engagement are important factors in keeping
potential teachers. The role of motivation and job satisfaction in improving the organizational
commitment and work engagement of the teachers should be given serious attention. Sense of

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Supplementary Issue 1 153

belongingness and family spirit in the organization are very important for the teachers. It is also
important that teachers have psychological satisfaction.
Considering the results of the study, programs and activities should be organized by school
administrator to improve teacher’s motivation. Policies on assignment of workload should be
reviewed to provide teachers better work-life balance to further motivate them to be more satisfied,
committed and engaged in their work.

REFERENCES

[1] Aban, C. I., Perez, V. B., Ricarte, K. G., & Chiu J.L. (2019). The Relationship of
Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Perceived Organizational Support of
Telecommuters in the National Capital Region. Review of Integrative Business and
Economics Research, 8(4), 162-197

[2] Adelabu, M. A. (2005). Teacher motivation and incentives in Nigeria. Retrieved

February, 11, 2019 from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.520.26&rep=rep1&type=pdf

[3] Ahmed, I., Nawaz, M. M., Iqbal, N., Ali, I., Shaukat, Z., & Usman, A. (2010). Effects of
motivational factors on employees job satisfaction a case study of University of the Punjab,
Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(3), 70.

[4] Alzyoud, A. A., Othman, S. Z., & Isa, M. F. M. (2015). Examining the role of job
resources on work engagement in the academic setting. Asian Social Science, 11(3), 103.

[5] Ariani, D. W. (2013). The relationship between employee engagement, organizational

citizenship behavior, and counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of
Business Administration, 4(2), 46.

[6] Arifin, H. M. (2015). The Influence of Competence, Motivation, and Organisational

Culture to High School Teacher Job Satisfaction and Performance. International Education
Studies, 8(1), 38-45.

[7] Aydin, A., Sarier, Y., & Uysal, S. (2013). The Effect of School Principals' Leadership
Styles on Teachers' Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction. Educational
sciences: Theory and practice, 13(2), 806-811.

[8] Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current directions

in psychological science, 20(4), 265-269.

[9] Battistelli, A., Galletta, M., Portoghese, I., & Vandenberghe, C. (2013). Mindsets of
commitment and motivation: Interrelationships and contribution to work outcomes. The
Journal of psychology, 147(1), 17-48.

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Supplementary Issue 1 154

[10] Bay, A. B., An, I. L., & Laguador, J. M. (2014). Organizational satisfaction and work
engagement of Filipino teachers in an Asian university. International Journal of
Multidisciplinary Academic Research, 2(4), 32-41.

[11] Bennell, P. (2004). Teacher motivation and incentives in sub-Saharan Africa and
Asia. Knowledge and Skills for Development, Brighton.

[12] Bonenberger, M., Aikins, M., Akweongo, P., & Wyss, K. (2014). The effects of health
worker motivation and job satisfaction on turnover intention in Ghana: a cross-sectional
study. Human resources for health, 12(1), 43.

[13] Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2011). Job satisfaction among university faculty:
Individual, work, and institutional determinants. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(2),
154-186.

[14] Bulut, C., & Culha, O. (2010). The effects of organizational training on organizational
commitment. International Journal of Training and Development, 14(4), 309-322.

[15] Bunchoowong, D. (2015). Work Motivation in Public vs Private Sector Case Study of
Department of Highway Thailand. Review of Integrative Business and Economics
Research, 4(3), 216.

[16] Burke, R. J., & El-Kot, G. (2010). Work engagement among managers and professionals in
Egypt: Potential antecedents and consequences. African Journal of Economic and
Management Studies, 1(1), 42-60.

[17] Cabauatan, R. R., & Manalo, R. A. (2018). A Comparative Analysis on Selected Issues on
Economics of Education in ASEAN Countries. Review of Integrative Business and
Economics Research, 7, 68-78.
[18] Caillier, J. G. (2013). Satisfaction with work-life benefits and organizational
commitment/job involvement: Is there a connection?. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 33(4), 340-364.

[19] Canrinus, E. T., Helms-Lorenz, M., Beijaard, D., Buitink, J., & Hofman, A. (2012). Self-
efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation and commitment: exploring the relationships between
indicators of teachers’ professional identity. European journal of psychology of
education, 27(1), 115-132.

[20] Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic
incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological
bulletin, 140(4), 980.

[21] Choong, Y. O., Lau, T. C., & Wong, K. L. (2011). Intrinsic motivation and organizational
commitment in the Malaysian private higher education institutions: An empirical
study. Researchers World, 2(4), 91.

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Supplementary Issue 1 155

[22] Danish, R. Q., & Usman, A. (2010). Impact of reward and recognition on job satisfaction
and motivation: An empirical study from Pakistan. International journal of business and
management, 5(2), 159.

[23] Dartey-Baah, K., & Amoako, G. K. (2011). Application of Frederick Herzberg’s Two-
Factor theory in assessing and understanding employee motivation at work: a Ghanaian
Perspective. European Journal of Business and Management, 3(9), 1-8.

[24] Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2007). Variations in the conditions for teachers' professional learning
and development: Sustaining commitment and effectiveness over a career. Oxford Review
of Education, 33(4), 423-443.

[25] Dehaloo, G. (2011). The motivation and job satisfaction of secondary school teachers in
Kwazulu-Natal: An education management perspective (Doctoral dissertation).

[26] Delobbe, N., & Vandenberghe, C. (2000). A four-dimensional model of organizational

commitment among Belgian employees. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 16(2), 125.

[27] Duflo, E., Hanna, R., & Rya, S. P. (2012). Incentives work: Getting teachers to come to
school. The American Economic Review, 102(4), 1241-1278.

[28] Eslami, J., & Gharakhani, D. (2012). Organizational commitment and job
satisfaction. ARPN Journal of Science and Technology, 2(2), 85-91.

[29] Farid, M. T. A. S. (2011). Factors affecting teachers’ motivation. International journal of

Business and social science, 2(1).

[30] Fernet, C., Gagné, M., & Austin, S. (2010). When does quality of relationships with
coworkers predict burnout over time? The moderating role of work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 31(8), 1163-1180.

[31] Fernet, C., Trépanier, S. G., Austin, S., Gagné, M., & Forest, J. (2015). Transformational
leadership and optimal functioning at work: On the mediating role of employees' perceived
job characteristics and motivation. Work & Stress, 29(1), 11-31.

[32] Froese, F. J., & Xiao, S. (2012). Work values, job satisfaction and organizational
commitment in China. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 23(10), 2144-2162.

[33] Fruend, A. (2005). Commitment and job satisfaction as predictors of turnover intentions
among welfare workers. Administration in Social Work, 19 (2), 5–22.

[34] Fryer, R. G. (2013). Teacher incentives and student achievement: Evidence from New
York City public schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 31(2), 373-407.

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Supplementary Issue 1 156

[35] Jain, R., & Kaur, S. (2014). Impact of work environment on job satisfaction. International
Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 4(1), 1-8.

[36] Jehanzeb, K., Rasheed, A., & Rasheed, M. F. (2013). Organizational commitment and
turnover intentions: Impact of employee's training in private sector of Saudi
Arabia. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(8), 79.

[37] Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2010). Productive use of learning resources in an online
problem-based learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(1), 84-99.
[38] Jhurree, V. (2005). Technology integration in education in developing countries: Guidelines
to policy makers. International Education Journal, 6(4), 467-483.

[39] Katsikea, E., Theodosiou, M., Perdikis, N., & Kehagias, J. (2011). The effects of
organizational structure and job characteristics on export sales managers’ job satisfaction
and organizational commitment. Journal of World Business, 46(2), 221-233.

[40] Keskes, I. (2014). Relationship between leadership styles and dimensions of employee
organizational commitment: A critical review and discussion of future
directions. Intangible Capital, 10(1).

[41] Khalid, K., Salim, H. M., & Loke, S. P. (2011). The impact of rewards and motivation on
job satisfaction in water utility industry. In International Conference on Financial
Management and Economics, IACSIT Press. Singapore2011.

[42] Khan, P., & Iqbal, M. (2012). Overcrowded classroom: A serious problem for
teachers. University of Science and Information Technology, 49, 10162-10165.
[43] Kiruja, E. K., & Mukuru, E. (2018). Effect of motivation on employee performance in
public middle level technical training institutions in Kenya. IJAME.

[44] Kontoghiorghes, C. (2016). Linking high performance organizational culture and talent
management: satisfaction/motivation and organizational commitment as mediators. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(16), 1833-1853.

[45] Li, L., Hu, H., Zhou, H., He, C., Fan, L., Liu, X., & Sun, T. (2014). Work stress, work
motivation and their effects on job satisfaction in community health workers: a cross-
sectional survey in China. BMJ open, 4(6), e004897.

[46] Maharjan, S. (2012). Association between work motivation and job satisfaction of college
teachers. Administration and Management Review, 24(2), 45-55.

[47] Malik, M. E., Nawab, S., Naeem, B., & Danish, R. Q. (2010). Job satisfaction and
organizational commitment of university teachers in public sector of
Pakistan. International journal of business and management, 5(6), 17.

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Supplementary Issue 1 157

[48] Mahmood, K. (2011). Conformity to quality characteristics of textbooks: The illusion of

textbook evaluation in Pakistan. Journal of research and Reflections in Education, 5(2),
170-190.
[49] Markovits, Y., Davis, A. J., Fay, D., & Dick, R. V. (2010). The link between job
satisfaction and organizational commitment: Differences between public and private sector
employees. International Public Management Journal, 13(2), 177-196.

[50] Naderi Anari, N. (2012). Teachers: emotional intelligence, job satisfaction, and
organizational commitment. Journal of workplace Learning, 24(4), 256-269.

[51] Opatha, H, HDNP. 2015. Organizational Behaviour: the human side of work. , Colombo:
Department of Human Resource Management, University of Sri Jayewardenepura

[52] Parker, A. (2003). Motivation and incentives for distance faculty. Online Journal of
Distance Learning Administration, 6(3), 1-6.

[53] Parvin, M. M., & Kabir, M. N. (2011). Factors affecting employee job satisfaction of
pharmaceutical sector. Australian journal of business and management research, 1(9), 113.

[54] Perrachione, B. A., Rosser, V. J., & Petersen, G. J. (2008). Why Do They Stay?
Elementary Teachers' Perceptions of Job Satisfaction and Retention. Professional
Educator, 32(2), n2.

[55] Putra, E. D., Cho, S., & Liu, J. (2017). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on work
engagement in the hospitality industry: Test of motivation crowding theory. Tourism and
Hospitality Research, 17(2), 228-241.

[56] Ram, P., & Prabhakar, G. V. (2011). The role of employee engagement in work-related
outcomes. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business, 1(3), 47-61.

[57] Rayton, B. A., & Yalabik, Z. Y. (2014). Work engagement, psychological contract breach
and job satisfaction. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(17),
2382-2400.

[58] Runhaar, P., Konermann, J., & Sanders, K. (2013). Teachers' organizational citizenship
behaviour: Considering the roles of their work engagement, autonomy and leader–member
exchange. Teaching and Teacher Education, 30, 99-108.

[59] Sadri, G., & Bowen, C. R. (2011). Meeting employee requirements: Maslow's hierarchy of
needs is still a reliable guide to motivating staff. Industrial engineer, 43(10), 44-49.
[60] Saleem, R., Mahmood, A., & Mahmood, A. (2010). Effect of work motivation on job
satisfaction in mobile telecommunication service organizations of Pakistan. International
journal of business and management, 5(11), 213.

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Supplementary Issue 1 158

[61] Salleh, S. M., Zahari, A. S. M., Said, N. S. M., & Ali, S. R. O. (2016). The influence of
work motivation on organizational commitment in the workplace. Journal of Applied
Environmental and Biological Sciences, 6(5S), 139-143.

[62] Shah, M. J., Akhtar, G., Zafar, H., & Riaz, A. (2012). Job satisfaction and motivation of
teachers of public educational institutions. International Journal of Business and Social
Science, 3(8).

[63] Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work
engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and
psychological measurement, 66(4), 701-716.

[64] Schaufeli, W., Salanova, M., Gonza'lez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. (2002). The measurement
of burnout and engagement: A confirmatory factor analytic approach'Journal of Happiness
Studies.

[65] Sinclair, C. (2008). Initial and changing student teacher motivation and commitment to
teaching. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 79-104.

[66] Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2011). Teacher job satisfaction and motivation to leave
the teaching profession: Relations with school context, feeling of belonging, and emotional
exhaustion. Teaching and teacher education, 27(6), 1029-1038.

[67] Smith, D. B., & Shields, J. (2013). Factors related to social service workers' job
satisfaction: Revisiting Herzberg's motivation to work. Administration in Social
Work, 37(2), 189-198.

[68] Stringer, C., Didham, J., & Theivananthampillai, P. (2011). Motivation, pay satisfaction,
and job satisfaction of front-line employees. Qualitative Research in Accounting &
Management, 8(2), 161-179.

[69] Sunaryo, S., & Suyono, J. (2013). A test of model of the relationship between public
service motivation, job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. Review
Integrative Business & Economics, 2(1), 384.

[70] Sunarsih, N. (2017). Influence of Organizational Climate, Motivation, and Job Satisfaction
on Employee Performance. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 6,
262-276.

[71] Tan, T. H., & Waheed, A. (2011). Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory and job
satisfaction in the Malaysian retail sector: The mediating effect of love of money.

[72] Taylor, J., & Westover, J. H. (2011). Job satisfaction in the public service: The effects of
public service motivation, workplace attributes and work relations. Public Management
Review, 13(5), 731-751.

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Supplementary Issue 1 159

[73] Thomas, M. A. (2016). Teacher motivation and incentives. 25 Ways to Improve Learning,
41.

[74] Trivellas, P. (2011, December). Work motivation and job performance of frontline
employees: the mediating role of organizational commitment. In 2011 IEEE International
Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (pp. 1878-1882).
IEEE.

[75] Urwick, J., Mapuru, P., & Nkhoboti, M. (2005). Teacher motivation and incentives in
Lesotho. Maseru: Lesotho College of Education.

[76] Van Maele, D., & Van Houtte, M. (2012). The role of teacher and faculty trust in forming
teachers' job satisfaction: Do years of experience make a difference?. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 28(6), 879-889.

[77] Westover, J. H., & Taylor, J. (2010). International differences in job satisfaction: The
effects of public service motivation, rewards and work relations. International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, 59(8), 811-828.

[78] Wright, B. E., Christensen, R. K., & Isett, K. R. (2013). Motivated to adapt? The role of
public service motivation as employees face organizational change. Public Administration
Review, 73(5), 738-747.

[79] Yeh, C. M. (2013). Tourism involvement, work engagement and job satisfaction among
frontline hotel employees. Annals of Tourism Research, 42, 214-239.

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)