Determinants of job performance measurement for employees in the agricultural sector: From the perspective of porter’s theory

Introduction

Job performance is a core concept within work and organizational psychology (Korman, 1977). The attention surrounding the topic has presumably started in the 30's (Bass, 1985) [12] . According to Lafta et al., (2007) [19] , the researchers have made progress during the past ten or fifteen years, in clarifying and extending the job performance concept. The researchers have adopted various perspectives for studying the job performance (Suliman, 2005). According to Borman (1997) [13] , that job performance is a continuous process to controversial issue between organizations researchers. On the other hand, Campbell (1990) [14] mentioned to that job performance consists of the observable behaviors that people do in their jobs that are relevant to the goals of the organization. However, Bass (1985) [12] said that concept of job performance refers to the degree of achievement of the mission at work place that builds up an employee job. According to Kormanis (1977), that job performance is an abstract, dynamic and variable concept. On the other hand, Porter et al., (1965) believed although the job performance is abstract, dynamic and variable concept, group of researchers tried to put the determinants of job performance in an attempt to frame this dynamic concept. In the same context, Bass (1985) [12] referred that while the concept of job performance appraisal is not new, yet the study of employee perception of the concept is still going on. On the other hand, Suliman (2005) referred that job performance has been used widely as the most important criterion in appraisal processes of the level of job performance. Therefore, there is a need for proper appraisal processes of the level of job performance and evaluate the performance of employee at work (Potosky, 2001).

Literature Review

Numerous studies on the job performance determinants have been conducted to conceptualize and operationalize job performance, identify its determinants and indicators (Barrick, 1991) [11] . In another perspective, Campbell (1990) [14] mentioned that job performance made up of multiple determinants, these determinants, in turn, are made up of indicators that can be measured directly. From the foregoing deduces that researchers have adopted various perspectives for studying job performance determinants (Potosky, 2001; Lafta et al., 2016; Saleh et al., 2025) [, 23, 43] . According to Bass (1985) [12] , there are two determinants of job performance: individual inputs (i.e. individual difference variables) and job context (i.e. situational variables). In line with the above, Campbell (1990) [14] referred the performance can be determined by levels of achievement of each job and the fulfilment of organizational regulations, expectations and requirements for an official role. In the same context, Ghanbari (2012) mentioned that three determinants of job performance: declarative knowledge (it includes knowledge about facts, principles, goals), procedural knowledge and skills (it includes cognitive and psychomotor skills, physical skill) and motivation (Ridha et www.extensionjournal.com al., 2020). Below is a complete overview of determinants of job performance measurement from the perspective of porter's theory: Porter et al., Theory 1968 who came up with a comprehensive testable theory available could any substantial progress in order to realize the relationship between the workers perceptions with the job performance through merging the various aspects which is finally called the Porter et al., (Avolio et al., 1990) [10] . On the other hand, Adeyemi (2006) [1] said job performance determinants research conducted by Porter et al., Theory 1968 develops a range of independent job performance scales applicable across organizations can be regarded as one of most impressive studies to date. According to Mitchell (1997), Porter et al., Theory has the most popular one of measuring the job performance determinants in the organizations. Theory 1968 was designed to measure three (3) determinants of job performance (Campbell, 1990; Lafta et al., 2011) [14,21] .

First determinant, individual effort

today's world, targets of organizations can be reached only if the employees brought together for a certain purpose do their job willingly and voluntarily (Borman et al., 1997) [13] . It became pivotal that for management of organization to pay special attention to individual effort determinant to thereby ensuring optimization of human resources (Lafta et al., 2017) [32] . According to Porter et al., Theory (1968), individual effort determinant means the amount of effort exerted and the proportion of workers enthusiasm to perform the works and their motivation level to the job performance. On the other hand, since the individuals are social beings, their needs and expectations change in course of time and when these expectations are not met; negative attitudes can also be reflected in their individual effort in performing the job (Josias, 2005). El-Maharmah (1996) [15] , which concluded that employee involvement with centralized decisions will lead to increased performance, and if individual participation is allowed, discretion will increase and lead to enhanced loyalty and commitment.

Second determinant, individual abilities and traits

Individual abilities and traits determinant is a long-lasting research subject on human resource management and organizational psychology merits (Ghanbari & Eskandari, 2012). According to Porter et al. Theory (1968), individual abilities and traits determinant relates to the abilities include knowledge, skills and intellectual capacity to perform the job and this determinant refers traits which are important for many jobs are endurance, perseverance and goal directedness. Hence, it became necessary for the management of organizations to pay special attention to abilities as a determinant on increasing the motivation towards the work (Al-Hafidh, 2024).

Third determinant, role perceptions

According to Porter et al. Theory (1968), role perception determinant is represented by the individual's behavior during the works based on their perceptions and how the work is performed in the organization. In addition, (Ramadan, 2023) [39] pointed that identification of the level of job performance requires of realizing of the factors that determine this level and the amount of interaction between these factors so, the organizational environment of organizations should be directly related with role perception determinant for the staffs in order to ability for them to adapt on the case of emergencies at work and complied regulations (Jasim, 2016) [17] .

Conclusion

In spite of the diversities in the definitions of job performance determinants, there is also agreement in the three aspects which are: firstly, employee: means what he or she possesses of knowledge, skills, values, attitudes, and motivation. Secondly, job: it means the requirements and challenges of the job and offer of employment.

Recommendations

It is very important for the organizations to determine of job performance measurement to evaluate performance of employees, which is very helpful to evaluate the achievement of organizational goals and to develop the strategies of the organizations, because there are a set of the reasons contributing to low level of job performance appraisal processes such as: inadequate pay, poor career structure, lack of promotion opportunities, inadequate policy appraisal processes at work, poor physical working conditions, lack of employees' attitudes and leadership behavior weakness.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementsThe author would like to acknowledge the Department of Agricultural Extension and Technology Transfer, College of Agricultural Engineering Sciences, University of Baghdad, for supporting this research.

References

1. Adeyemi TO. Organizational climate and teachers' job performance in 252 primary schools in Ondo State, Nigeria. African Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology and Sport Facilitation. 2006;8(1):38-54.
2. Adnan SA, Lafta AH. Environmental obstacles in the process of rationalizing irrigation water and treatment methods from the point of view of farmers in Baghdad province. International Journal of Agricultural and www.extensionjournal.com Statistical Sciences. 2022;18(1):2281-2286. https://connectjournals.com/03899.2022.18.2281
3. Adnan SA, Lafta AH. Obstacles to extension service in the process of rationalizing irrigation water and treatment methods from the viewpoint of farmers in Baghdad governorate. NeuroQuantology. 2022;20(6):7324-7334. doi:10.14704/nq.2022.20.6.NQ22735.
4. Alabboodi MT, Lafta AH. Training requirements for integrated management of diffusing agricultural innovation incubators among rural youth in Iraq. MSW Management Journal. 2026;36(1S):2990-2994. doi:10.7492/1wy03932.
5. Al-Awsi AI, Al-Saad IH, Lafta AH. Wheat grain farmers desire to the use of central pivot irrigation: a survey study in Al-Saqlawia region. Anbar Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2008;6(1):343-352.
6. Al-Hafidh AZ, Lafta AH. The reality of diffusion fodder crops from FAO/European Union to support the livelihoods of rural families in rural and semi-urban areas in Nineveh Governorate. Political Issues Journal. 2024;1(1):262-284.
7. Al Karoot AS, Lafta AH. The role of economic empowerment of rural women and enhancing active participation in the transition to sustainable farming systems in Iraq. MSW Management Journal. 2026;36(1S):145-150. doi:10.7492/m09r0r42.
8. Al Khafaji NJM, Lafta AH. Problems encountered by beekeepers in the field of breeding imported bees in Iraq. International Journal of Agricultural and Statistical Sciences. 2022;18(1):2269-2274. https://connectjournals.com/03899.2022.18.2269
9. Al-Kubaisy MIS, Lafta AH. The productive obstacles in the process of marketing agricultural vegetables in Fallujah district. Annals of the Romanian Society for Cell Biology. 2021;25(4):14124-14134.
10. Avolio BJ, Waldman DA, McDaniel MA. Age and work performance in non-managerial jobs: the effects of experience and occupational type. Academy of Management Journal. 1990;1(6):69-82.
11. Bass BM. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press; 1985.
12. Borman WC, Motowidlo SJ. Task performance and contextual performance: the meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance. 1997;10(2):99109.
13. El-Maharmah TM. Organizational climate in administrative organizational behavior of the staff. Journal of Administrator and Audience. 1996;65(1):102-125.
14. Hatem MS, Lafta AH. Evaluation of the training programs conducted by the Training and Qualification Center of the Agricultural Extension and Training Directorate from the trainees' perspective in Iraq. MSW Management Journal. 2026;36(1S):2995-2998. doi:10.7492/n36fg020.
15. Jasim A, Norsida I, Nolila S, Lafta AH, Man N, Latiff IA, et al. The learning experience of Iraq middle-aged adult learner in online undergraduate degree. Developing Country Studies. 2015;5(21):56-60.
16. Khamis AI, Hasan AMA, Lafta AH. Work ethics and its impact on efficiency of workers performance of agricultural extension zone. Annals of Forest Research. 2022;65(1):4468-4491.
17. Lafta AH. The level of job performance of agricultural extension workers in the General Board of Agricultural Extension and Cooperative. Iraqi Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2007;38(4):10-16.
18. Lafta AH. Constraints to technology transfer as viewed by extension farmers. Iraqi Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2009;40(4):86-91.
19. Lafta AH. Factors affecting work motivations and their relationship to performance. Iraqi Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2011;42(2):103-110.
20. Lafta AH. Trends in agricultural extension workers towards the profession of agricultural extension. Journal of Kerbala University. 2011;9(2):292-298.
21. Lafta AH. Conceptualizing workplace conflict from diverse perspectives. Journal of Business and Management. 2016;18(1):49-53. doi:10.9790/487X18144953.
22. Lafta AH, Al Khafaji NJM. The work environment of agricultural extension workers in the agricultural extension organization in Iraq. International Journal of Agricultural and Statistical Sciences. 2022;18(1):24352438. https://connectjournals.com/03899.2022.18.2435
23. Lafta AH, Alwan MF. Satisfaction of farmers benefiting from the training centers and farms indicative of its. Diyala Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2012;4(1):235-247.
24. Lafta AH, Challob MA, Ridha BAJ. Study on major constraints and problems facing agricultural extension workers in Iraq. Annals of the Romanian Society for Cell Biology. 2021;25(4):8440-8447.
25. Lafta AH, Fayadh SU, Alwan MF. Work environment and their impact on the performance of workers in the field of agricultural extension. Journal of Kerbala University. 2012;1(1):21-27.
26. Lafta AH, Jasim M. A synthesis of research papers in adult learning literature. Journal of Business and Management. 2016;18(1):45-48. doi:10.9790/487X18144548.
27. Lafta AH, Jasem SD, Hamad TN. Job satisfaction of agricultural extension workers in Iraq. Iraqi Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2007;38(5):24-33.
28. Lafta AH, Man N, Salih JS, Samah B, Nawi N, Yusof R. A need for investigating organizational climate and its impact on performance. European Journal of Business and Management. 2016;8(3):136-142.
29. Lafta AH, Mazher SH, Khamees AA. The level effect of organizational climate on workers in the General Board of Agricultural Extension and Cooperative in Iraq. Iraqi Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2007;38(5):15-23.
30. Lafta AH, Salih JM, Man N, Samah BA. Adult learning and lifelong learning and their socio-economic contribution. Information and Knowledge Management. 2016;6(1):113-118.
31. Litwin GH, Stringer RA. Motivation and organizational climate. Boston (MA): Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration, Division of Research; 1968.
32. Mahmoud YA, Lafta AH, Fayadh SU. Knowledge level of side damages of horticultural growers when using excess fertilizers. Iraqi Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2009;40(6):101-107.
33. Mahmoud YA, Lafta AH, Fayadh SU. The reality of use of fertilizers by farmers in the orchards district of Tarmiya, Baghdad, and the degree of knowledge of their risks. Anbar Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2010;8(4):281-288.
34. Rakhit MN, Lafta AH. The role of agricultural extension in enabling vegetable farmers to face climate change in Iraq: case study in Baghdad and Babylon governorates. Iraqi Journal of Market Research and Consumer Protection. 2025;17(2):120-137. doi:10.28936/jmracpc17.2.2025.(12).
35. Rakhit MN, Lafta AH. Practices of vegetable farmers to face climate change in Iraq: case study in Baghdad and Babylon provinces. Iraqi Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2026;57(4):1199-1213. doi:10.36103/akha0472.
36. Ramadan NA, Lafta AH. Obstacles of agricultural extension workers in implementing the activities of the Agricultural Extension and Training Organization and the proposed solutions. Iraqi Journal of Market Research and Consumer Protection. 2025;17(1):153162. doi:10.28936/jmracpc17.1.2025.(14).
37. Rana SH, Lafta AH. The challenges facing rural women in addressing climate change in Abu Ghraib district and strategies to address them. Political Issues Journal. 2024;1(1):155-165.
38. Rana SH, Lafta AH. Sustainability standards of agricultural innovation platforms to empower rural women in transition to sustainable family agricultural systems in Baghdad governorate. Journal of Educational and Psychological Research. 2025;22(84):331-354.
39. College/University. Diyala Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2010;2(1):76-87.
40. Saleh JM, Khamis AI, Hamid RM, Lafta AH, Aldabbagh EJ. The relationship between job satisfaction and the performance of agricultural extension workers: a perspective in a changing world. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. 2026;15(2):61-66. doi:10.11648/j.aff.20261502.12.
41. Saleh JM, Man N, Lafta AH, Salih MH, Latiff IA, Nawi NM, et al. Needs of farmers for guidance publications to the development of agricultural extension in Anbar, Iraq. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development. 2015;6(24):51-59.