Employee Performance in Technology Startups: A Conceptual Framework of Managerial Practices, Organizational Culture, Self-Efficacy, and Industry Pressure

Employee Performance in Technology Startups: A Conceptual Framework of Managerial Practices, Organizational Culture, Self-Efficacy, and Industry Pressure

Authors

  • Jiaming Shen Kuala Lumpur University of Science & Technology, Kuala Lumpur, 43000, Malaysia; Zhejiang Business College, Hangzhou,310053, China
  • Jaspal Singh Joginder Singh Sunway University, Bandar Sunway, 47500, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63808/iod.v2i3.444

Keywords:

Employee performance, technology startups, managerial practices, organizational culture, self-efficacy, industry pressure, conceptual framework

Abstract

Employee performance is a persistent concern for technology startups because employees work with fluid roles, limited formal systems, and rapid market and technological change. This conceptual paper develops a testable framework linking founders’ managerial practices, organizational culture, and employees’ self-efficacy to employee performance, with industry pressure as a contextual moderator. Job Demands-Resources theory explains how managerial practices and culture operate as job resources and how self-efficacy operates as a personal resource. Contingency theory explains why the value of these resources may depend on external pressure. Six hypotheses are developed. The three internal resources are expected to improve employee performance, and industry pressure is expected to strengthen these positive relationships within a non-overwhelming range because clear direction, collaboration, learning, and confidence become more valuable as competitive and technological demands increase. Extreme pressure is treated as a boundary condition that may instead exhaust resources. No empirical data have been collected or analyzed for this manuscript. To support future testing, the paper specifies a proposed cross-sectional survey of technology-startup employees in Hangzhou, China, including purposive recruitment, a power-based sample-size rationale, multi-item measures, common-method-bias remedies, ethical procedures, and a complete PLS-SEM reporting plan. The framework clarifies how internal resources and environmental demands may jointly shape performance in resource-constrained startups.

References

[1] Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 945–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.945

[2] Ahmed, T., Chaojun, Y., Hongjuan, Y., & Mahmood, S. (2022). The impact of empowering leadership on job performance of higher education institutions employees: Mediating role of goal clarity and self-efficacy. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 15, 677–694. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S357083

[3] Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115

[4] Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.

[5] Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301

[6] Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[7] Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530805000106

[8] Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organization Science, 6(2), 204–223. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.2.204

[9] Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. Sage.

[10] Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

[11] Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage.

[12] Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8

[13] Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700304

[14] Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., van Buuren, S., van der Beek, A. J., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2014). Improving the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire using Rasch analysis. Journal of Applied Measurement, 15(2), 160–175.

[15] Lu, C., Du, D., & Xu, X. M. (2016). What differentiates employees’ job performance under stressful situations: The role of general self-efficacy. The Journal of Psychology, 150(8), 837–848. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2016.1203277

[16] Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

[17] Pratiwi, L. A., & Nawangsari, L. C. (2021). Organizational citizenship behavior while mediating self-efficacy, servant leadership and organization culture on employee performance. European Journal of Business and Management Research, 6(1), 225–231. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejbmr.2021.6.1.713

[18] Prommer, L., Tiberius, V., & Kraus, S. (2020). Exploring the future of startup leadership development. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 14, e00200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2020.e00200

[19] Revilla, M. A., Saris, W. E., & Krosnick, J. A. (2014). Choosing the number of categories in agree-disagree scales. Sociological Methods & Research, 43(1), 73–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113509605

[20] Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). NFER-Nelson.

[21] Tummers, L. G., & Bakker, A. B. (2021). Leadership and Job Demands-Resources theory: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 722080. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.722080

Downloads

Published

2026-09-28
Loading...