Quartet of Sustainable Job Security, Job Performance, Organizational Commitment, and Motivation in an Emerging Economy: Focusing on Northern Cyprus

Abstract

High-performing employees are essential for an organization to achieve its goals and gain a competitive advantage. Hence, human resource factors are crucial drivers of an organization’s success. These factors include organizational commitment, which is an employee’s sense of belonging to an organization; motivation, which pushes employees to act in line with the organization’s goals; perceived job security; and sustainable job performance. In particular, job security, including excess job security, has significant effects on sustainable job performance, and policymakers and managers must continuously monitor this relationship via their employment policies. However, the legal and social dimensions of employment policies lack clarity, particularly in developing countries, affecting the development of sustainable economic and social structures. This study focuses on the public and private banking sectors of Northern Cyprus, which operate in a developing economy and cannot provide a sustainable political–social work balance. It analyzes and separately compares data collected from 582 public- and private-sector bank employees, examining the mediating effects of organizational commitment and motivation on the relationship between perceived job security and sustainable performance. The study found that job security positively affects sustainable job performance, with organizational commitment and motivation positively mediating this relationship. Moreover, the positive effects of job security on organizational commitment and motivation and, hence, on sustainable job performance differ across the public and private sectors. The findings of this study can provide a reference for labor employment policies in developing countries aiming to build a sustainable economic structure.

1. Introduction

To ensure continued success and compete with other organizations in the sector, organizations must constantly adapt to developments in environmental conditions and legal restrictions. As organizations respond to national and international macroeconomic crises through restructuring and sustainability strategies, the vital role played by employees’ perceived job security has been emphasized in various studies [1]. Organizations can stand out among the competition and improve sustainability and profitability by differentiating themselves [2], which is primarily achieved by a qualified and effective workforce. In the present day, a high-performing workforce and a conducive working environment are crucial for organizations to achieve their goals. These conditions include job security, which enables employees to prove themselves, earn a living, and secure their future. As the frequency and intensity of economic and political crises have gradually increased across history, the concept of security has not changed fundamentally and has gained a multifaceted meaning based on changes and developments in social and economic conditions. Occupational safety regulations, which emphasize the security and convenience of employees, impose mutual responsibilities on employees and capital owners to ensure the sustainability of an organization’s operations [3]. Moreover, job security has another important role, defined as “employment” [4] or “not losing a job”, which can even precede wage concerns. Job security, which is the continuity of the right to work [5] and the limitation of arbitrary dismissals, thus has an important positive impact on job performance, which is defined as the collective actions and behaviors of employees toward the realization of organizational goals [6]. However, it is not realistic to limit an increase in job performance to the impact of job security. Many mediating factors affect human behavior and can impact performance in differing ways; in the context of job performance, organizational commitment and motivation are among these mediating variables. Organizational commitment is defined as a strong sense of identity within an organization and a sense of belonging to the organization and plays a strong role in determining whether individuals continue to work [7]. Meanwhile, motivation, another dominant mediating factor, is considered the sum of the internal and external effects related to directing individuals to reach a goal. Motivation is the search for and creation of conditions that enable individual employees to work willingly and productively toward achieving organizational goals [8].

In the same vein, numerous studies have been conducted exploring employee behaviors that increase efficiency and productivity to increase organizational performance and eliminate performance-reducing factors affecting the organizational structure and employees’ perception of job security [9,10,11]. This study aims to examine the mediating role of organizational commitment and motivation, the two main factors in achieving organizational goals as perceived by employees, on the impact of employee job security on performance in the public and private sectors. The study primarily aims to determine the relationships among perceived job security, sustainable job performance, and employee satisfaction in these two sectors. By comparing the two sectors, the study can determine the mediating effects of organizational commitment and motivation and investigate their role in overall organizational sustainability. This study should be evaluated within the context of sustainable human resource management [12]. It showed that sustainable human resource management has a moderate effect on perceived employability. However, existing analytical studies have agreed that a unified analysis system and an evaluation scale to evaluate organizations’ human capital have yet to be developed [13]. In current-day working environments, due to the changing economic, social, and technological conditions, employee job security and job performance have become increasingly important organizational variables, and clarifying the relationship between these two variables can provide organizations with a competitive advantage. Therefore, this study has managerial implications in its exploration of the mediating effects of organizational commitment and motivation on this relationship. Following a bibliographic analysis, this notion is reinforced, as no study has incorporated the roles played by the four abovementioned factors on organizational success. Moreover, the public sector has historically outperformed the private sector in terms of perceived job security. However, few studies have incorporated the three major variables of sustained organizational success: job performance, organizational commitment, and motivation. Furthermore, few studies exploring the factors driving organizational success have comparatively analyzed the public and private sectors. This study fills this gap in the literature by explaining employees’ job preferences of employees on a sectoral basis (public or private) as per the country’s socioeconomic structure. Therefore, this study examines the effects of organizational commitment and motivation on general work behaviors, considering the relationship between employees’ perception of job security and fear of unemployment and sustainable job performance according to the sector. This study’s findings contribute to ongoing research on the roles of organizational commitment and motivation (employee psychology) as a mediating variable in the relationship between employees and sustainable business performance.

2. Literature Review

Perceived job security refers to the value judgments that protect employees from individual, environmental, and socioeconomic conditions [14]. It is defined as the protection of employees’ right to work and the maintenance of the employment contract [15]. Depending on their scope, studies have proposed “the perception of continuity with the current state of the work” [16], anxiety and feelings toward involuntary unemployment [17], and the perception of mental helplessness that threatens business continuity [18]. Job security imposes mutual responsibility on employees and employers. The employer cannot terminate the employee’s job without presenting a just cause; meanwhile, the employee is held responsible for providing labor as per the terms of their employment contract. Job security affects various variables related to organizational success, including increased productivity, the formation of desirable work conditions [5], contributions to activities for the improvement of the organization [19], reduction in procrastination behaviors [20], and limiting employee anxiety about the future [21]. In addition, job security increases organizational commitment and motivation, as well as loyalty [22]. Although laying off vulnerable employees is a relatively easy option that lowers organizational expenses, it may result in extreme psychological and traumatic consequences for the employee [23]. The employee contract should clearly define and communicate the job security provided to the employee, and the framework should be accepted voluntarily. If the contract guarantees wages and other benefits, regardless of whether employees perform the job efficiently, a loss of productivity may be observed.

As mentioned previously, job security is an expression of continuity in the employment relationship. In classical law, the equal termination authority granted to employees and employers remains theoretical; therefore, terminating the employment relationship without just cause creates two situations for the employee. First, it changes the working conditions to the detriment of the worker. Second, the worker loses income, jeopardizing their and their family’s livelihood. Since the formation of the working class, economic and financial contractions in organizations were observed to have immediate effects on employees. These effects triggered a debate on the protection of the workforce, leading to the emergence of the concept of job security [24]. Researchers have used the concepts of “security” and “insecurity” to define whether the individual will continue working considering their work–life balance and their level of justifiable concern and/or perceived anxiety. In this regard, “security” refers to a perceived high level of job security, whereas “insecurity” refers to a nominal perception of job security [25]. Meanwhile, other studies have used the concepts of “assurance” [26,27,28,29,30] and “precarity” [31,32,33,34,35] to define the continuity of work provided by the organization to the employee. In this regard, positive and negative labels are attached to the concepts of assurance and precarity as per employees’ perceptions. Job insecurity is interpreted to reflect an individual’s thoughts about losing their job [36], lived anxiety [32], inner powerlessness [18], and personal values [14]. Meanwhile, as a motivating factor [37], job security positively affects job performance [38]. However, a decline in an individual’s work performance is not only predicated on the termination elements of the employment contract but also the effect of organizational variables [39], which is closely related to the individual’s perceptions regarding their future employment status and organizational variables [40]. Job performance relates to the overall behavior of the employee in terms of their positive and negative contributions to organizational goals and success. Just as employees have expectations from the organization, organizations also have expectations from their employees. Job performance is related to an individual’s attitude toward work [41] and the work done or completed [42]. Furthermore, the realization of business objectives depends on the performance of individual employees. Therefore, measuring and evaluating job performance is essential in achieving organizational goals. These aspects involve the degree to which organizational goals and objectives are achieved, the measurement of work performance levels, the criteria of this measurement process, and the measurement standards and intervals [43]. In this regard, work performance is generally divided into “contextual” (individual) and “task” (organizational) work performance, together forming the metric of “holistic” performance [44,45,46]. During an individual’s work-related activities, their job performance comprises social and psychological dimensions. Job performance should, hence, be considered a multidimensional, interpersonal, social, and psychological relationship that consists of personality traits that are related to work inside and outside of the organization. In this regard, an employee’s ability, organizational commitment, motivation, and adaptation to the job are important factors influencing the achievement of desired performance. According to research in the field of organizational psychology, off-duty behavior, an organizational variable, affects organizational commitment, motivation, and work performance [47]. In the work environment, employees exhibit behaviors appropriate to the job roles they are assigned. Although these behaviors are often constrained by situational conditions, they may show significant differences from person to person. Thus, some criteria, generally called benchmarks, are developed to detect these interpersonal differences; these criteria are of great importance for the overall success of the organization. Sustainable job performance plays a fundamental role in organizational success not only for organizations and managers but also for employees. Organizations need employees with high and sustainable performance levels to achieve their goals and gain a competitive advantage in their sector. Meanwhile, for employees, completing one’s tasks and achieving high performance is not only a source of pride, skill, and satisfaction but also comprises the basic conditions for important work-related outcomes, such as a high income, a fulfilling career, and improved social reputation. As a mediating variable, organizational commitment can lead an individual to increase the organization’s efficiency and productivity [10], affecting overall business performance [9]. Therefore, in recent years, policies for increasing organizational commitment, aiming to eliminate performance-reducing factors that negatively affect organizational outcomes and employee perception, have gained importance [11]. Along with loyalty, organizational commitment, defined as an emotional expression of instinct, is considered to play a direct mediating role in job security and productivity [48]. However, various definitions and dimensions of organizational commitment and its relationship with similar concepts have been proposed, eliciting significant debates in the literature. Researchers have defined the concept from different perspectives with respect to their own interests [49]. Organizational commitment can be defined as an individual’s emotions toward the organization and the investments they have made at work, along with the unified identity created at the organization [50]. It can be classified into employees’ sense of responsibility [51], the nature of their attachment to the organization [52], their behavioral needs [53], and three-dimensional attachment [54]. Organizational commitment requires an acceptance of organizational goals and values and a strong belief and willingness to continue working in the organization. Therefore, organizational commitment can be considered as a psychological state reflecting the relationship between the individual and the organization, which determines the employee–organization relationship and the decision to stay or leave. This state has three dimensions. First, emotional commitment, which is based on desire/will, is based on the voluntary commitment of employees and arises from harmony between individual and organizational values. Second, continuance commitment refers to the employee’s desire to stay in the organization owing to their personal investments. Finally, normative commitment is related to the employee’s tendency to be loyal to the organization. For an employee starting a new job, the demographic factors affecting organizational commitment and the period of adaptation to the organization are crucial [55]. İnce and Gül [56] classified the individual factors affecting commitment as “psychological contract, personal characteristics, and job expectations.” These factors may be presented as the nature of the job, the salary, colleagues, the size of the workplace, the organization’s reputation in the sector, and similar organizational characteristics. The nature and status of the position are among the factors that affect commitment. Although the organizational characteristics of a position assume importance for a senior manager, the effectiveness of individual factors and job security may be the same for lower-level employees. In addition, the organization’s management and leadership are determining factors of organizational commitment. Moreover, environmental factors, which include elements originating from outside the organization and occurring in the external domain, play a crucial role in determining organizational commitment. The main external factors include national job opportunities, education level, the sector to which the organization belongs, and sociopolitical and economic conditions. Organizations value and target high organizational commitment among employees; however, a high perception of commitment can create negative individual effects, such as resistance to change, an inclination toward illegality, an increase in stress, and an inability to maintain work–life balance. Meanwhile, low organizational commitment results in absenteeism, unwillingness to work, sloppy work processes, a decline in individual productivity, and noncompliance with business processes.

Motivation occurs as a consequence of the activated needs of an employee after impulses [57]. These needs can be classified as “internal, psychological, social, and physiological needs” [58]. They alert the individual and initiate specific behaviors aimed at fulfilling them. The order of fulfillment of these needs depends on their severity and intensity. A reciprocal relationship appears to exist between these needs and motivation. Due to individual differences regarding their needs, each individual’s motivation comprises different elements [59]. An aversion to and reluctance regarding their work may reflect a low motivation, whereas willingness and a productive attitude toward work may reflect a high motivation [60]. An employee with high work motivation contributes to the achievement of organizational goals and a reduction in employee turnover rate [61]. Organizations can utilize appropriate methods to encourage an employee to adopt certain behaviors by eliminating their lack of motivation. Meanwhile, amotivation is the absence of any desire, neither internal nor external, to perform a behavior. Amotivation occurs when the individual does not value the behavior, feels no external pressure to engage in the behavior, and has no expectations about the outcomes. Amotivated individuals who feel inadequate and that they have little or no control over their behaviors may begin exhibiting demotivating behaviors. Amotivation is an undesirable situation that can be overcome by an external or internal influence. A substantial relationship is thought to exist between motivation and organizational efficiency. Productivity and job performance have a boosting effect on highly motivated individuals at work [8]. Understanding an employee’s needs and motivating them accordingly are referred to as an individual’s needs-oriented behavior and satisfaction [62]. This motivation phase creates a recurring cycle. When developing a motivation strategy, managers should pay attention to the willingness and motivation of the individual, including economic and psychosocial factors [8]. Another study explains the contribution to businesses through mediating auxiliary variables and moderating variables with a theoretical framework [63]. Another study conducted with a meta-analysis revealed that multiple personal characteristics have medium to high correlations with customer loyalty and purchase intention [64].

According to various studies with similar hypotheses to this study, the development and in-depth examination of occupational health and job security policies are becoming increasingly important (Hypothese 1) [64]. Moreover, statistically significant relationships exist between job security and motivation, general, job, social, and manager satisfaction (Hypothese 2) [65]. Wages, working conditions, and cooperation among employees are among the motivating factors, and the job, salary, and working conditions positively affect job performance (Hypotheses 3 and 5) [37]. Finally, organizational justice and equality form the basis of workplaces; distributive justice affects organizational commitment and contributes positively to job performance (Hypothese 4) [66]. This study attempts to explain employees’ job preferences based on sector (public or private) by considering the country’s socioeconomic structure. It focuses on the roles played by organizational commitment and motivation in the relationship between perceived job security, one of the organizational variables, and sustainable job performance.

3. Materials and Methods

The banking sector in Northern Cyprus comprises 21 banks in total, with 2 public, 14 private, and 5 foreign-owned banks. As of September 2022, there were 217 service unit branches in the sector. A total of 3122 personnel were employed in the sector from June to September 2022 [67]. In this context, data were collected from 582 people working in the public and private banking sectors in Northern Cyprus based on random sampling. The participants’ demographic and work-related information is presented in

Table 1. Demographic and work-related information of the participants.

		n	%
Sex	Female	366	62.9
	Male	216	37.1
Age	20–24	20	3.4
	25–30	71	12.2
	31–34	139	23.9
	35–39	146	25.1
	40–44	126	21.6
	45 and above	80	13.7
Marital Status	Married	430	73.9
	Single	152	26.1
Educational Status	Primary School	28	4.8
	High School	200	34.4
	University Graduate	34	5.8
	Master’s	240	41.2
	Doctorate	80	13.7
Which title do you have?	Employee	321	55.2
	Low-Level Management	156	26.8
	Mid-Level Management	91	15.6
	High-Level Management	14	2.4
How many years have you been working at your workplace?	1–4 years	111	19.1
	5–9 years	178	30.6
	10–14 years	172	29.6
	15–19 years	76	13.1
	20–25 years	19	3.3
	25 years or more	26	4.5
What is the total time of your service in the profession?	1–4 years	67	11.5
	5–9 years	136	23.4
	10–14 years	180	30.9
	15–19 years	113	19.4
	20–25 years	52	8.9
	25 years or more	34	5.8
Sectoral structure of your workplace	Public or Public Administration	232	39.9
	>Private Sector	350	60.1

.

The study employed a questionnaire comprising 6 parts and 87 questions. The first part contained eight questions regarding the participants’ demographic and work information. The study used the following scales: the Job Security Index and the Job Security Satisfaction Scale developed by Probst [68], the Job Performance Scale developed by Motowidlo and Van Scotter [69], the nine-item short version of the Organizational Commitment Scale developed by Mowday et al. [56], and the Job Motivation Scale developed by Mottaz [70]. Appendix A 

Table A1. Main variables and subvariables.

Variable		Question Number	Item	Subquestion
	Subvariables
Job Security Scale	Job Security Index	Question 1–6	Your Job Security… What is your job security like in your organization? Indicate to what extent you agree with each statement by selecting the appropriate answer option.	Adequate Job Security
				It’s Disturbing to Have So Little Job Security
				Excellent Job Security
				I’m stressed
				Positive
				Unacceptably Less
	Job Security Satisfaction	Question 7–12	Your Future in the Institution… What is your job future like in your organization? Indicate to what extent you agree with each statement by selecting the appropriate answer option.	Hard to Predict
				Still
				Unknown
				My Job is Almost Guaranteed
				I Am Confident I Can Continue Here
				Uncertain
Job Performance Scale	Task Performance	Question 1–4	I think my professional knowledge is sufficient.
			I think I am competent in performing my job.
			I think my professional skills are sufficient.
			I think I am quick in doing my job.
	Contextual Performance	Question 5–20	I think I am interested in my job.
			I think I like banking.
			I think I am caring and helpful towards customers.
			I think my respect and love towards my customers is enough.
			I think I have care and attention in performing my job.
			I think I work in harmony and cooperation with my friends.
			I think there is complete respect and obedience towards managers.
			I think I am very satisfied with my job.
			I think I am honest and reliable.
			I think I work clean and orderly.
			I think I am polite and friendly.
			I think I comply with the health rules.
			I think I am sincere, sincere and helpful.
			I think I am patient.
			I think I have understanding and tolerance.
			I think I am determined and persistent.
			I think I am energetic and cute.
			I think I can make decisions about my job on my own.
			I think I have a sense of responsibility.
			I think my social relationships are positive.
Organizational Commitment Scale		Question 1–9	I am ready to make efforts beyond what is expected of me to contribute to the success of the institution I work for.
			I speak very positively about my institution, telling my friends that the institution I currently work for is a very good institution to work in.
			I accept any assignment to continue working in this institution.
			I think my personal values and my organization’s values are very similar.
			I am proud to tell other people that I am a part of the organization I work for.
			This organization brings out my most positive aspects in terms of job performance.
			I am very glad that I work in this institution instead of other institutions.
			I really care about the future and success of the institution I work for.
			I think the institution I am currently working in is the best among the institutions I could work for.
Motivation Scale	Intrinsic Motivation	Question 1–9	I am successful in what I do.
			I have responsibility for the work I do.
			My colleagues appreciate me for my work.
			I believe that the work I do is worth doing.
			I believe that I have the authority to do my job fully.
			I believe the work I do is respectable.
			I see myself as an important part of my workplace.
			I have the right to decide on an issue related to my work.
			My managers always appreciate me for my work.
	Extrinsic Motivation	Question 10–24	The management welcomes the leave request and does not reject it.
			Physical conditions are suitable in my working environment.
			Food and beverages such as meals, tea, and coffee are served at the workplace.
			The tools and equipment in the workplace are sufficient.
			My relations with the employees are at a good level.
			Training activities such as meetings, seminars, and conferences are carried out by people who are experts in their fields.
			I believe that the workplace I work in will be better than its current situation in the future.
			My relations with my managers are good.
			I have the opportunity for promotion at my job.
			My managers help resolve conflicts with co-workers or customers.
			I get paid extra for my success.
			I am rewarded for my success.
			Colleagues are always there for me in solving personal and family problems.
			I believe I will retire from this workplace.
			I think the salary I receive from my work is sufficient.

presents the detailed variable measurements.

The normal distribution hypothesis was examined to determine the appropriate method for assessing the differentiation condition. This is because this hypothesis relates to perceived job security, organizational commitment, motivation, and sustainable job performance in accordance with the sectoral structure of the participants’ workplace. The sectoral structure of the workplace has two levels: public and private. An independent sample t-test was used to scale scores, showing a normal distribution at workplace sector structure levels. In addition, the Mann–Whitney U test was used for scale scores that did not show a normal distribution. SPSS Statistics 25 was used to analyze the data. In the work performance model, structural equation modeling was used to examine the direct and indirect effects, using the maximum probability method as the estimation method. A multi-group structural equation modeling analysis was used to examine the work performance model according to the workplace sector structure. The analysis was conducted using AMOS 21.

The study hypotheses and model (Figure 1) demonstrate that a psychological relationship exists between perceived job security and sustainable job performance, with organizational commitment and motivation acting as mediating variables in this relationship.

H1: 

Perceived job security has an effect on organizational commitment.

H2: 

Perceived job security has an effect on motivation.

H3: 

Perceived job security has a direct effect on sustainable job performance.

H4: 

Perceived job security has an impact on sustainable job performance through organizational commitment.

H5: 

Perceived job security has an impact on sustainable job performance through motivation.

Organizational commitment and motivation are considered to play mediating roles in the effect of perceived job security on sustainable job performance. Given that perception directs personal behavior, the model predicts the direction of the effect to be from perceived job security to sustainable job performance. The importance of sustainable business performance is clear in present-day working environments. Highly sustainable employee job performance is an important and vital aim for organizations.

Table 2. Reliability of scale scores.

	Number of Items	Cronbach’s Alpha
Perceived Job Security
Job Security Index	6	0.85
Job Security Satisfaction	6	0.87
Total	12	0.92
Job Performance Scale
Functional Performance	4	0.82
Contextual Performance	20	0.94
Total	24	0.95
Organizational Commitment Scale
Total	9	0.93
Job Motivation Scale
Intrinsic Motivation	9	0.93
Extrinsic Motivation	15	0.89
Total	24	0.93

shows the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scales, demonstrating the reliability of the scale scores used within the scope of this research. The Cronbach alpha value calculated for all scale scores is above 0.70, indicating that all the scales used in this study are reliable.

A validity analysis was performed for each scale to determine the adequacy of the scales used in the research. The results of Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin sampling adequacy measurements and Bartlett’s tests of sphericity for the scales used in this context are presented in

Table 3. Validity of the scales.

	Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy	Approx. Chi-Square	Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
			df	Sig
Per. Job Sec.	0.917	3532.399	55	0.000
Sus. Job Perf.	0.893	8171.102	210	0.000
Organizational Com.	0.923	4194.404	36	0.000
Motivation	0.887	6754.461	210	0.000

.

Control Variables

Before deciding the appropriate method, the normality assumption was examined in evaluating the differentiation status of the subdimensions of the perceived job security, sustainable job performance, organizational commitment, and motivation scales and the total scores according to the structure of the workplace sector in which the participants work. The result shows a normal distribution at the sector level. The scores on the Perceived Job Security, Sustainable Job Performance, Organizational Commitment, and Motivation scales and total scores showed normal distributions. For the normally distributed scale scores, a t-test was used for unrelated samples to examine the differentiation of the participants according to the workplace sector structure. Meanwhile, the Mann–Whitney U test was used to examine the differences between the participants in the workplace.

The scores on the Perceived Job Security Scale, including the subdimensions of the Job Security Index and Job Satisfaction, as well as the total scores; Sustainable Job Performance Scale, including the Task Performance and Contextual Performance subdimensions and total scores; the Organizational Commitment and Motivation Scales; and the subdimensions of Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Motivation as well as total scores differed statistically (p < 0.05). When the averages/rank averages were examined, the scores of public or public administration employees were higher than those of private-sector employees on each scale.

4. Results

Table 4. Differentiation of Job Security Scale scores according to the participants’ workplace sector.

	Group	n	$\overline{\mathbf{X}}$	Rank Av.	Z	p
Job Security Index	Public or public admin.	232	25.08	404.35	13.209 *	0.000
	Private sector	350	19.68	216.70
		n	$\overline{\mathrm{X}}$	ss	t	p
Job Security Satisfaction	Public or public admin.	232	25.06	3.90	18.394 *	0.000
	Private sector	350	18.59	4.32
Job Security	Public or public admin.	232	50.13	7.72	17.938 *	0.000
	Private sector	350	38.27	7.87

* p < 0.05.

presents the participants’ scores on the Job Security Scale, including the Job Security Index and Job Satisfaction subdimensions; the scores show a statistically significant difference based on the participants’ workplace sector (p < 0.05). When the averages/rank averages are examined, the Job Security Scale scores of public or public administration employees are higher than those of private-sector employees. In other words, the perceived job security and satisfaction of public-sector employees are higher than that of private-sector employees.

Table 5. Differentiation of Work Performance Scale scores according to the participants’ workplace sector.

	Group	n	$\overline{\mathbf{X}}$	ss	t	p
Task Performance	Public or public admin.	232	18.30	2.08	4.504 *	0.000
	Private sector	350	17.52	2.00
	Group	n	$\overline{\mathrm{X}}$	Rank Av.	Z	p
Contextual Performance	Public or public admin.	232	92.96	355.66	7.533 *	0.000
	Private sector	350	88.32	248.97
Job Performance	Public or public admin.	232	111.26	355.29	7.478 *	0.000
	Private sector	350	105.84	249.22

* p < 0.05.

presents the participants’ scores on the Job Performance, Task Performance, and Contextual Performance subdimensions scores and the total scores; the scores show a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) based on the participants’ workplace sector. When the averages/rank averages are examined, the scores on the Job Performance Scale are higher for public or public administration employees than private-sector employees. In other words, the job performance of public-sector employees is higher than that of private-sector employees.

Table 6. Differentiation of Organizational Commitment Scale according to participants’ workplace sector.

	Group	n	$\overline{\mathbf{X}}$	Rank Av.	Z	p
Task performance	Public or public admin.	232	40.47	409.08	13.781 *	0.000
	Private sector	350	32.43	213.56

* p < 0.05.

presents the participants’ scores on the Organizational Commitment Scale; the scores show a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) based on the participants’ workplace sector. When the average rank is examined, the scores on the Organizational Commitment Scale are higher for public or public administration employees than private-sector employees. In other words, the organizational commitment of public-sector employees is higher than that of private-sector employees.

Table 7. Differentiation of Motivation Scale scores according to the participants’ workplace sector.

	Group	n	$\overline{\mathbf{X}}$	ss	t	p
Intrinsic motivation	Public or public admin.	232	40.73	4.93	6.100 *	0.000
	Private sector	350	38.29	4.59
Extrinsic motivation	Public or public admin.	232	61.30	8.81	10.027 *	0.000
	Private sector	350	54.27	7.71
Motivation	Public or public admin.	232	102.03	12.94	9.143 *	0.000
	Private sector	350	92.56	11.09

* p < 0.05.

presents the participants’ scores on the Motivation Scale, including the Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Motivation subdimensions and the total scale scores; the scores show a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) based on the participants’ workplace sector. When the averages are examined, the Motivation Scale scores of public or public administration employees are higher than those of private-sector employees. In other words, the motivation of public-sector employees is higher than that of private-sector employees.

Table 8. Direct and indirect effects of perceived job security on job performance.

	Paths	Path Coefficient (Β)	Std. Path Coefficient (β)	p
No mediating variables	Job security → job performance	0.524	0.502	<0.05
	Job security → organizational commitment	0.525	0.720	<0.05
	Job security → motivation	0.924	0.707	<0.05
Model 1	Job Security → organizational commitment (direct impact)	0.525	0.720	<0.05
	Organizational commitment → job performance (direct effect)	0.863	0.602	<0.05
	Job security → job performance (direct effect)	0.072	0.069	0.129
	Job security → org.com.→ job performance (indirect effect)	0.453	0.433
Model 2	Job security → motivation (direct effect)	0.924	0.707	<0.05
	Motivation → job performance (direct effect)	0.506	0.632	<0.05
	Job security → job performance (direct effect)	0.057	0.055	0.208
	Job security → motivation → job performance (indirect effect)	0.467	0.447

and Figure 2 present the mediating roles of organizational commitment and motivation on the effect of job security on job performance. Hence, the effect of job security on job performance without the intermediary variables, on organizational commitment, and on motivation were initially examined. Then, the mediating role of organizational commitment in the relationship between job security and job performance was examined in Model 1, and the mediating role of motivation in the relationship between job security and job performance was investigated in Model 2.

When no mediating variable exists, the standardized path coefficient from job security to job performance is 0.502, which is statistically significant (p < 0.05). A standard unit increase of 1 in the Job Security Scale score causes an increase of 0.502 standard units in the Job Performance Scale score. In other words, job performance increases as perceived job security increases, confirming H3. Meanwhile, the path coefficient from job security to organizational commitment is 0.720, which is statistically significant (p < 0.05). Accordingly, a standard unit increase of 1 in the Job Security Scale score causes an increase of 0.720 standard units in the Organizational Commitment Scale. In other words, as perceived job security increases, organizational commitment also increases, confirming H1. Meanwhile, the path coefficient from job security to motivation is 0.707, which is statistically significant (p < 0.05). Accordingly, a standard unit increase of 1 in the Job Security Scale score causes an increase of 0.707 standard units in the Motivation Scale score. In other words, motivation increases as perceived job security increases, confirming H2.

In Model 1, the path coefficients from job security to organizational commitment (β = 0.525) and from organizational commitment to job performance (0.863) are statistically significant (p < 0.05; Table 8). When organizational commitment is included in the model, the path coefficient from job security to job performance is 0.072 and is not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Therefore, after organizational commitment is included, the significant effect of perceived job security on job performance disappears. Accordingly, organizational commitment has a full mediating effect on the relationship between perceived job security and job performance, confirming H4. The indirect effect of perceived job security on job performance through organizational commitment is 0.453.

In Model 2, the path coefficients from job security to motivation (β = 0.924) and from motivation to job performance (0.506) are statistically significant (p < 0.05; Table 8). When motivation is included in the model, the path coefficient from job security to job performance is 0.057 and is not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Therefore, after motivation is included in the model, the significant effect of perceived job security and job performance disappears. Accordingly, motivation has a full mediating effect on the relationship between perceived job security and job performance, confirming H5. The indirect effect of perceived job security on job performance through motivation is 0.467.

Table 9. Investigation of the mediating roles of organizational commitment and motivation in the effect of perceived job security on job performance.

	Path Coefficient (Β)	Std. Error (Sβ)	Std. Path Coefficient (β)	p
Org. com. ← Job security	0.525	0.021	0.720	<0.05
Motivation ← Job security	0.924	0.038	0.707	<0.05
Job performance ← Job security	−0.079	0.054	−0.079	0.141
Job performance ← Org. com.	0.523	0.061	0.381	<0.05
Job performance ← Motivation	0.356	0.033	0.465	<0.05

and Model 3 in Figure 3 show the model’s results in examining the role of organizational commitment and motivation in the relationship between perceived job security and sustainable job performance. The path coefficients from perceived job security to organizational commitment and from perceived job security to motivation are 0.525 and 0.924, respectively. These relationships are statistically significant (p < 0.05). Given that the path coefficients are positive and the relationships are statistically significant, as perceived job security increases, organizational commitment and motivation also increase. The path coefficients from organizational commitment and motivation to sustainable job performance are 0.523 and 0.356, respectively. Both relationships are statistically significant (p < 0.05). Considering that the path coefficients are positive and the relationships are statistically significant, job performance increases as organizational commitment and motivation increase. The path coefficient from perceived job security to sustainable job performance is not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

Model 4 examines the roles of organizational commitment and motivation in the relationship between perceived job security and sustainable job performance according to the participants’ workplace sector (public vs. private). Multi-group structural equation modeling was used for this investigation, with the results presented in

Table 10. Job performance model according to the workplace sector.

	Public			Private	Group Comparison
	Std. Path Coefficient (β)	p	Std. Path Coefficient (β)	p
Org. com. ← job security	0.538	<0.05	0.612	<0.05	<0.05
Motivation ← job security	0.688	<0.05	0.634	<0.05	<0.05
Job performance ← org. com.	0.561	<0.05	0.327	<0.05	<0.05
Job performance ← motivation	0.208	<0.05	0.452	<0.05	<0.05
Job performance ← job security	0.034	0.642	−0.024	0.699	0.504

${∆\mathsf{\chi }}^2$ = 40,098; S.D. = 5, p < 0.05.

and Figure 4.

In Table 10, the sustainable job performance model demonstrates a statistically significant difference according to workplace sector (∆χ² = 40.098; S.D. = 5, p < 0.05). In other words, the model has differing effects on sustainable job performance in the public and private sectors. The origin of the differentiation case of the model can be determined by examining how each path coefficient differs according to sector. The path coefficient for organizational commitment from perceived job security shows a statistically significant difference according to the workplace sector (p < 0.05). The standardized path coefficient from perceived job security to organizational commitment is 0.538 and 0.612 for public- and private-sector employees, respectively. The positive effect of perceived job security on organizational commitment is higher in the private sector than in the public sector. Meanwhile, the path coefficient from perceived job security to motivation shows a statistically significant difference according to the workplace sector (p < 0.05). The standardized path coefficient from perceived job security to motivation for public- and private-sector employees is 0.688 and 0.634, respectively. Therefore, the positive effect of perceived job security on motivation is higher in the public sector than in the private sector. Meanwhile, the path coefficient from organizational commitment to sustainable job performance shows a statistically significant difference according to the workplace sector (p < 0.05). The standardized path coefficient from organizational commitment to work performance for public- and private-sector employees is 0.561 and 0.327, respectively. The positive impact of organizational commitment on business performance is greater in the public sector than in the private sector. The path coefficient from motivation to sustainable job performance shows a statistically significant difference according to the workplace sector (p < 0.05). The standardized path coefficient from motivation to sustainable job performance for public and private sector employees is 0.208 and 0.452, respectively. The positive impact of motivation on sustainable job performance is greater in the private sector than in the public sector. Finally, the path coefficient from perceived job security to sustainable job performance does not show a statistically significant difference according to the workplace sector (p > 0.05).

5. Discussion

The findings indicate that a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) exists between the workplace sectors for the Perceived Job Security Scale, including the Job Security Index and Job Satisfaction subdimensions; the Job Performance Scale, including the Task Performance and Contextual Performance subdimensions; the Organizational Commitment and Motivation Scales, including the Internal Motivation and Extrinsic Motivation subdimensions; and the total scores. When the averages/rank averages were examined, the perceived job security, sustainable job performance, and organizational commitment scores of public bank employees were higher than those of private-sector employees. In other words, due to the perceptions of high job security in public or publicly administered banks, public-sector employees’ organizational commitment and sustainable job performance scores were higher than those of private-sector employees. These results confirmed the hypotheses regarding the mediating effects of organizational commitment and motivation in the relationship between perceived job security and sustainable job performance. Based on the findings, it was determined that organizational commitment and motivation play a full mediating role in the relationship. The effect of organizational commitment on the impact of perceived job security in sustainable job performance differs significantly according to the workplace sector (p < 0.05). The positive impact of perceived job security on organizational commitment is greater among private-sector employees compared with public-sector employees. The effects of organizational commitment and motivation on sustainable job performance differ significantly according to the workplace sector (p < 0.05). The positive impact of organizational commitment and motivation on sustainable job performance is greater in the public sector than in the private sector.

6. Conclusions

Organizational incentive actions cannot always meet employees’ expectations, and precarious working conditions negatively affect sustained high performance at work. One of the ways to improve employee job performance is to influence the psychological factors of organizational commitment and motivation, which are mediating variables. In Northern Cyprus, employees tend to prefer the public sector over the private sector, primarily because of the job security afforded by working in the public sector. However, a preference for the public sector among the qualified labor force is not healthy for national development.

Considering that Northern Cyprus is outside the scope of the European Union acquis, it applies its own social and political policies. The state authority must make legal arrangements and supervise job security in the private sector. The results of this study confirm the mediating effects of organizational commitment and motivational in the effects of perceived job security on sustainable job performance. As hypothesized, employees with adequate perceived job security, organizational commitment, and motivation comprise the ideal employee profile for organizations. This study reveals that a relationship exists between employees’ perceptions of job security and sustained job performance. Moreover, organizational commitment and motivation play a mediating role in the relationship between these dependent and independent variables, positively affecting this relationship.

The study does have some limitations that should be considered. First, it does not represent developed countries or countries with sufficient employee job security laws. Second, the study focuses on the banking sector. It also ignores other mediating variables (such as organizational climate and organizational support) in the relationship between perceived job security and job performance. Considering the results, the effects of these other variables within the scope of organizational human resource management should be examined. Another research avenue would be to investigate the factors of excessive employee benefits and human resource management, which would be valuable in ensuring sustainable job performance.