Journal About Organizational Behaviour

8/6/2019 Journal About Organizational Behaviour

1/21

1

A Study of the Relationship among Employee PersonalityCharacteristics, Organizational Culture, Leadership Style,

Organizational Commitment, and Task performance-

With the High-Tech Industry in Taiwan as an Example

Li-Yu Tseng

Ph.D. Program in Business Administration, Fu Jen Catholic University.

8F., No.278, Wenlin N. Rd., Beitou Dist., Taipei City 112, Taiwan R.O.C.

[email protected]

Tian-Shyug Lee

Graduate Institute of Management Fu Jen Catholic University.

No.510, Jhongiheng Rd., Sinjhuang City, Taipei County 24205, Taiwan, ROC

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

Past studies about task performance of high-tech industry mainly focused on the

relationship among working stress, working characteristics, employee motivation, and

compensation system. Based on the above reasoning, this study tries to detect whether

employee personality, different organizational culture, and different leadership style

will have impact on organizational commitment and hence raising the task

performance of employee. In order to verify the above hypothesis, 304 employees

from high-tech public companies in Taiwan were selected as illustrative example

using the popular LISREL software as the analytic tool. The research findings can be

summarized as follows. First, it indicates that high-tech companies whose employeesexhibiting appropriate personality characteristics have positive effect on

organizational commitment. Second, high-tech companies exhibiting innovative

culture and supportive culture also have significant impact on organizational

commitment. Third, it will help raise task performance when employees have more

value commitment and effort commitment. In addition, organizational commitment

acted as an intermediary role between employee personality characteristics,

organizational culture, and task performance; that is, employee personality

characteristics and organizational culture would indirectly influence task performance

through organizational commitment.

KEYWORDS: Employee Personality Characteristics, Organizational Culture,

Leadership Style, Organizational Commitment, Task Performance

INTRODUCTION

Facing the rise of BRIS and Next Eleven(N-11), during the governments

consideration of the economic policies, market demand and international

competitiveness, apart from facilitating enthusiastically the upgrade of the traditional

industries, it is also a key development to promote the ten most newly developed

high-technology industries, i.e. consumer electronics, communications, information,

semiconductor, precision machinery and automation, aviation, advanced materials,

specialty chemicals and pharmaceutical, health care and pollution prevention andcontrol industries, etc. It enables the proportion of Taiwans high-technology


2/21

2

industries rising from 27.4% to 42.3% of the manufacturing output

(http://doit.moea.gov.tw).

With the rapidly changing global economic environment and facing the impact of

globalization and the waves of the financial tsunami, corporations cannot earn high

profits simply by using physical assets and relying sales of products. Therefore, thefocus is gradually shifted from the use of strategy to the importance of people

(Cohen, 2005). Employees personality characteristics reflect unique personal

characteristics and will result dynamical characteristics in response to different

environments. Employees of high-technology industries work under high stress every

day. Its more necessary to find out employees personality characteristics so that they

can be assigned to the appropriate work and have task satisfaction. Therefore,

personality has a considerably explanatory and predictive power to individual

behaviors. In addition, if personality matches the job nature, it enables employees to

work proficiently. Their task performance can be enhanced and thereby creates the

corporate performance.

Facing the increasingly stringent international competitive conditions, economy of

speed becomes the commercial symbol of this century (Sprenger, 2004); teamwork

has become the important element for the corporate success; and trust is the catalyst

of teamwork. Regardless of the interactions of supervisors and subordinates or among

colleagues, trust can create a great synergy. In particular, the behaviour leadership of

obtaining others trust, respect, faith and cooperation needs to encourage every

individual to pursue the vision enthusiastically and proactively through goal settings,

promotion of employee participation and communication as well as motivation. If the

corporate wants to enhance employees work quality and performance, employees and

the management must have mutual trust; and effective leadership is used to encourage

employees to complete their work enthusiastically prompting the organization to

achieve the expected goals.

Corporate members share among themselves the humanity creation, ideas, values,

assumptions, and even the perception within the organization. They have common

characteristics describing the differences among organizations. They integrate

themselves, group and the system variables of the organization to form the

organizational culture which differentiate from other organizations (Dyer, 1985;

Robbins, 1989). Organizational culture is a system of economic power distribution

(Dobson, 1990). It is a power facilitating the unity, cohesion and mutual assistance

and cooperation among the corporate members; and also a strong force for themembers to fight for the corporation goals jointly (Gordon & Ditomaso, 1992).

Organization culture can certainly take advantage of heroes and models of good

image, or use its powerful environment and selectively consolidated system to reward

the qualified employees (Dessler, 2001), in order to exercise an internal power and

make employees be initiatively dedicative to the company (Gardner, 1985).

Organizational commitment is that employees identify themselves with an

organization and its goals; and hope to maintain as a member of the organization.

(Mayer & Schoorman, 1998). It refers also that the members of the organization are

willing to pay efforts, respect, and be faithful to the organization or in pursuit of their

goals, in return for a condition for satisfaction (Hodge et al., 1996). To start the trustmechanism is the best way for employees to agree with the organization and its goals


3/21

3

(Sprenger, 2004). Leaders should enthusiastically start to work from themselves. If

the trust component in an organization is greater, employees will feel that the control

measures can help to provide information and support; and also are encouraged to

trust each others. It will lead to a series of trust building and feedback (Sprenger,

2004); and encourage employees to have a strong desire to maintain the identity as a

member of an organization; trust and accept the organizational goals and values and be willing to pay a high degree of efforts to the organization (Porter et al., 1974).

Thus, employees will be self-motivated at work.

Task performance refers to the value of an employees contribution to the work; the

quality or quantity of work, i.e. employee productivity. High productivity of

employees means overall high operating performance. Schermerhorn (1989) believes

that a good task performance is generally based that the organization's human

resources have the ability to complete its work, be willing to pay necessary efforts,

and have the appropriate support. Ability is the most important among them. However,

Campbell (1990) thinks that task performance is the behaviour of en individual

member of an organization, to complete the organizations expectation and performthe regulated and formal role as required. In other words, employees have the ability

to complete the work within a specified period of time; and subordinates or a group

achieve the objective of a project contributing to the organizational goals.

In this rapidly competitive era, corporations pursue their own interests by focusing on

achieving its strategic goals and assessing its business performance in terms of

considering strategies, resources allocation, coordination and control, etc. in order to

enhance business performance, however, completion of work efficiently by

employees, the source of task performance, is neglected. Furthermore, the previous

studies of high-technology industries were focused on stress at work, organizational

performance, and location and selection strategies for research centres. In this study, it

is to investigate the reasons for affecting the task performance of employees in the

high-technology industries by employees personality characteristics, organizational

culture, leadership styles, organizational commitment, etc. Meanwhile, it is based on

the linear structural relationship model by the combination of factor analysis and path

analysis to simultaneously deal with the causal relationship between multiple sets of

independent variables and dependent variables. In this study, LISREL is used to

verify the variables of the hypotheses of the employees personality characteristics,

organizational culture, leadership styles, organizational commitment and task

performance. It is expected to provide the proposal for strategic management to the

business sectors by the objective empirical results.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

The measure of organizational commitment

Organizational commitment refers to the individual behaviour to an organization in

terms of concern and loyalty. When the employees are more loyal to the organization,

he or she has a higher organizational commitment (Angle & Perry, 1981). Porter et al.

(1974) believes that organizational commitment is consisted of value commitment

which an individual trusts and accepts and commits to the organizational goals and

values; effort commitment which an individual has a high degree of effort

commitment to an organization; and retention commitment which an individual is

willing to maintain the membership in the organization. Stevens, Beyer & Trice (1978)thinks that employees are willing to remain in an organization and pay more efforts


4/21

4

belong to normative commitment. It is because they believe that it is in line with the

organizational norms. Furthermore, organizational members measure the difference

between their contribution to an organization and the rewards from the organization

that refers to exchange commitment. The Allen & Meyer (l991) has proposed that

employees organizational commitment is consisted of affective commitment which

means organizational members are willing and have an idea of hoping and remainingto provide service in an organization; and continuance commitment which means the

awareness of the employment opportunity outside an organization and costs of

leaving an organization; and normative commitment which is remaining loyalty to an

organization. In this study, all previous research studies are reviewed and the diverse

characteristics of the high-technology employees are considered; and the different

views from Porter et al. (1974), Stevens, Beyer & Trice (1978), Allen & Meyer (l991),

etc. are summarized. Therefore, organizational commitment will be divided into

dimensions of normative commitment and exchange commitment, etc.

The measure of leadership styles

Facing the competitive changing market, corporate development and survival dependsentirely the leader of an organization. A leaders order and behaviour is associated

closely to a companys future development. A leader needs to motivate employees to

enhance their hierarchy of needs and inspire their self-conscious behaviours. Burns

(1978), Bass (1985), Bass & Avolio (1997) and other scholars have suggested that

transactional leadership which means a leader should use tangible and intangible

conditions to exchange with subordinates; transformational leadership which means a

leader with personal charisma inspires subordinates with personal care and

intellectuals to improve their hierarchy of needs in order to achieve a high-level goals.

It will be more helpful to manage subordinates to achieve the objectives (Gustafson,

2001). Therefore, leadership will include styles of transactional and transformational

leadership, etc. in this study.

Personality characteristics and organizational commitment

Personality is the unique interpersonal characteristics. It can be predicted the future

behaviour from the past behaviour (McCrae & Costa, 1986). Individual response to

situations causes structural and dynamic nature of performance (Pervin & John, 1997).

It determines the permanent nature and tendency for the similarity and diversity

between an individual and others (David, 1989). Rotter (1954), according to the social

learning theory, has proposed the locus of control concept. Personality includes

internal control which means that employees, with individuals abilities and attributes,

are able to control their own destiny; and external control means that all things in lifeare controlled by external forces. Friedman & Rosenman (1974) have proposed the

Type A and Type B personality theory. An individual with Type A personality traits

has a strong incentive to overcome obstacles, likes competition, enjoys the power and

recognition, and likes the energetic and efficient way of doing things. On the contrary,

an individual with Type B personality traits is more relaxed and patient; work hard

occasionally, but less impetuous than Type A individuals. As there is intensive

competition in the high-technology industries, employees should have characteristics

internally, e.g. the ability of overcoming difficulties, energetic and face continuously

challenges, etc. Thus, the independent variables of this study will be according to the

Type A and Type B personality theory of Friedman & Rosenman (1974) and the locus

of control concept of the internal and external control of Rotter (1954).


5/21

5

Personality characteristics affect the tendency of an individual to identify oneself with

an organization, such as individuals motivation of achievement, values and ideas,

gender roles, explicit requirements, etc. Different personality characteristics

differentiate significantly organizational commitment (Luthans, Baack & Taylor,

1987). Employees with Type A personality or internal control have the higher

organizational commitment. Therefore, this study is based on the above academicstudies which have shown that personality characteristics are significantly related to

organizational commitment, and further investigate if employees with different

personality characteristics will significantly differentiate organizational commitment.

It is summarized as hypothesis below:

H1: Employees with different personality will significantly differentiate

organizational commitment.

H1-1 Employees with Locus of Control personality will significantlyhigher organizational commitment

H1-2 Employees with Type A personality will significantly higherorganizational commitment

Organizational culture and organizational commitment

Organizational culture is that organizational members share a common system of

values which differentiates an organization from another organization (Robbins,

1998). It is a set of values, beliefs and patterns of behaviours for establishing the core

system of an organization (Dension, 1990). Wallach (1983) believes that an

organization is flexible, internal and external oriented and has proposed that

organizational cultures can be divided into bureaucratic culture, innovative culture

and supportive culture. Until 1985, Cameron thinks that effective culture should also

be considered. As the high-technology industries have the characteristics such astechnology, capital, technological labour-intensive, high risk, and short product life

cycle, etc, the innovative culture and supportive culture of Wallach (1983) will be

used as the dimensions of organizational culture in this study.

Reimann & Wiener (1988) suggest that the core values of an organizations members

exist strongly in the organizational culture when the cultural beliefs are widely shared

by themselves. Thus, a logical measurement is one of the ways to strengthen

organizational culture and the degree of members commitment to their organization

(Banner & Gagne, 1995). Moreover, organizational commitment regulates the

pressure generated by the internalization of the integrity that enables staff to behave in

line with an organizations goals and interests (Wiener, 1982), therefore, the higherthe consistency of the organizational culture and the stronger the intensity, the higher

the employees can commit. Situations such as turnover, absence as well as work

inefficiently, etc. will not be easily occurred. Thus, the dimensions of organizational

culture, innovative culture and supportive culture proposed by Wallach (1983), will

be used in this study. The hypothesis is summarized below:

H2: Different corporate culture differentiates employees organizational

commitment.

H2-1 Corporate with innovative culture, employees organizationalcommitment will be higher

H2-2 Corporate with supportive culture, employees organizationalcommitment will be higher


6/21

6

Leadership styles and organizational commitment

Ever since the organizational behaviour began among mankind, leader is the most

influential factor for the organizational operation in the integration process between

individuals and organizations; and has both identities no matter between the leader

and followers or between the manager and subordinates. Hewlett-Packard hasdeveloped from a garage business, with 6,700 employees worldwide currently,

showing a clear path for forming a great company is the key of leadership (Malone,

2007). Therefore, the problem arising from the leadership is related to the success or

failure of an organization and the employees benefits and also enhances the

organizational effectiveness. A Transactional leader uses a rewards system for

organizational goals setting and awards employees with good performance. In

recognition of employees achievements makes them get a sense of accomplishment

in the organization, and be willing to pay efforts, ability and loyal to the

organizational goals (Hodge et al., 1996). Furthermore, a transformational leader

provides vision and mission, is good at communicating with employees, gives

individual concern; enhances employees a sense of belonging and loyalty, so thatemployees have the desire to maintain memberships in the organization; are willing to

invest a high level of efforts for the organization to assist it to reach its goals. Below

is the hypothesis in this study:

H3: Different leadership styles differentiate employees willingness to commit to

the organization

H3-1Leadership style with transformational leader will higher employeeswillingness to commit to the organization

H3-2 Leadership style with transactional leader will higher employees

willingness to commit to the organization

The measure of task performance and its influencing factors

The so-called "performance" refers to a measure of the achievement of the goals for

an organization. It is used as indicators and measurement methods to present the level

of achievement in the mission, goals and objectives (Duquette & Stowe, 1993). Task

performance is the quality and volume of achieved task or work performed by an

individual or a group (Schermerhorm, 1999). Task performance refers to an

employees total value of inconsecutive behavioural events at a standard time, in

terms of behaviour, tasks, evaluation and multi-dimensions. It is used as the default

variable number of future-driven development and effective motivation (Borman &

Motowidlo, 1997). Browning (2006), Elizabeth (1990), Mcgrath (1993) and Donna(1996) believe that the measurements of performance indicators are nothing more

than the Efficiency, Effectiveness and Quality. However, Borman & Motowidlo

(1993) believe that the indicators, Efficiency and Effectiveness in task performance

should be classified as task performance; Quality is classified as contextual

performance.

Robbins (1998) believes that the measurement for task performance can be divided

into two categories: employees work outcome and employees work behaviours

(including some employees characteristics). Employees in the high-technology

industries face the rapid changing external environment, in addition to evaluate the

work efficiency, work effectiveness and work quality, it needs also to consider work

behaviours such as self-motivated at work, attention and alertness, obey the norms atwork, etc.; and work outcomes such as unspoken consensus among colleagues, goals


7/21

7

achievements, recognition of work performance and willing to undertake additional

work, etc. Therefore, the arguments from Borman & Motowidlo (1993), Robbins

(1998) are summarized as two major dimensions: work outcome and work behaviour.

Organizational commitment and task performance

Organizational commitment is that individuals identify themselves with anorganization and its goal; and the extent of hoping to maintain as a member of the

organization (Mayer & Schoorman, 1998); facilitate employees to have a sense of

identity; be proud of being a member of an organization and practice it on the task

performance. In order words, employees identify themselves with the values of an

organization and make every effort to help the organization to achieve its goals and

expectation; and perform behaviours as regulated or formal required roles (Campbell,

1990). The higher the employees loyalty, sense of identity and participation in

organizational activities, the higher organizational commitment the employees will

have (Robbins, 2001). Employees will then converse this organizational commitment

to work hard and expect to create task performance for an organization. Thus, highly

committed employees show good task performance such as proactive efforts and work behaviour in coping with the organizational goals and achieving the work outcome

(Steers, 1977).

H4: The higher an employee's organizational commitment to the company, the

better an employee's task performance.

H4-1 Employee's with normative organizational commitment, will gethigher task performance.

H4-2 Employee's with exchange organizational commitment, will gethigher task performance.

Personality characteristics, organizational commitment and task performance

Every employee has different personality characteristics which affects the deeply-

rooted patterns of behaviour of employees and predicts the performance of individual

behaviour (Wiggins, 1996). If a company understands the locus of control of

employees who are self control of everything (with traits of internal control) or

believe everything is controlled by external situations (with traits of external control);

would like to achieve the greatest in the shortest time (Type A personality) or often

set a deadline for themselves or work relatively slower (Type B personality);

employees can be assigned to appropriate work position according to their diverse

personality traits, thereby, it enables them to achieve the job objectives efficiently and

complete the tasks of the organization (Brouther, 2002); appropriate personnel can beselected and qualified employees can be retained (Furnham & Miller, 1997).

H5: Different employees personality characteristics differentiates their

willingness to task performance

Allport (1961) believes that personality characteristics determine an individuals

adaptation of the external environment, and the unique patterns of ideas and

behaviours, so employees behaviour will reflect their unique personality

characteristics. If an individual has a positive evaluation of an organization and

psychologically involvement, and focus on work roles after joining an organization

(Buchanan, 1974), it can develop to an affection of loyalty to an organization. If acompany can make use of organizational commitment, encourage employees to trust


8/21

8

and accept the goals and values of an organization and make them be willing to work

towards to the organizational goals and values. Then, there will be employees with

high organizational commitment. It can help to enhance task performance in an

organization such as completing tasks within limited time, a high rate of

accomplished goals and reducing the rate of customer complaints, etc.

H6: Employees with different personality characteristics and organizational

commitment affect them to have better task performance.

Organizational culture, organizational commitment and task performance

Organizational culture is a pattern of shared values and beliefs for developing the

code of conducts and norms in a company (Osland, Kolb & Rubi, 2004). It is also the

right way of how organizational members think and deal with the internal integration

and external problems. It helps the organizational members to understand the idea and

experience of how to handle things in an organization (Griffin, 2005). Therefore, the

conversion of organizational culture to the guidelines of employees behaviours will

help to improve the work efficiency of employees.

H7: Different organizational culture differentiates employees willingness

towards their task performance.

When a corporate makes use of organizational culture to unite strongly all the

employees within the organization, the employees will develop organizational

commitment and agree with the organization and its goals. When employees hope to

become a permanent member of an organization (Mitchell, 1992, Robbins, 2001),

they will demonstrate their own work ability to be recognized by the management and

accepted by an organization and will be more willing to pay more efforts for an

organization (Angle & Perry, 1981). This can make employees to achieve all the tasks

and objectives at work, and thus enhance employees work efficiency.

H8: Different organizational culture and the impact of organizational

commitment affect employees to have better task performance.

Leadership styles, organizational commitment and task performance

Leadership is the art of achieving the work objectives by others (Mhut, 2002), and to

make the organizational members more confident to achieve the organizational goals

(Dubrin, 2004), so that leadership can be said as the ability to influence a group to

achieve its objectives (Robbins, 2001). Yammarino & Bass (1990) believe thattransformational leadership understands how to encourage the followers and inspire

the employees to make the greatest efforts to reach a high level of performance

standards; however, Bass (1985) believes that transactional leaders focus on the

process that a leader is committed to exchange rewards with subordinate. Employees

can then understand how to get rewarded and are willing to work hard for achieving

the organizational goals.

H9: Different leadership styles differentiate employees willingness to task

performance.

A leader with transactional leadership can make use of tangible and intangibleconditions to exchange with subordinates; or a leader, with transformational


9/21

9

leadership, with personal charisma inspires subordinates with personal care and

intellectuals to improve employees hierarchy of needs. If the organization can create

the organizational commitment by recognition of an organization and its goals; and

enhance the degree of employees wish of membership in an organization, it can

reduce the employees intention of turnover (Micales & Spector, 1982) and make

employees focus on putting efforts to reach organizational goals.

H10: Different leadership styles are adopted and the impacts of organizational

commitment affect employees to have a better task performance.

Establishment of the research framework

Task performance is the basic element for employees to create the corporate values.

The objective of task performance does not only measure the degree of job

accomplished by employees and the performance of current work situation, but also

enables employees to understand their created work values, quality and productivity

for an organization (Byars & Rue, 2001). As the task performance of employees are

related to their personality characteristics, it will help a company to enhanceorganizational competitiveness if there are positive, hardworking, self-motivated

employees; the leader makes use of enlightened leadership; and together with

organizational culture which unites employees. However, the previous articles of task

performance have not been focused on the dimensions of personality characteristics,

organizational culture, leadership styles and organizational commitment, etc. to

investigate the causality. In this study, as shown in Figure 1, the research framework

will be a combination of personality characteristics, organizational culture, leadership

styles as independent variables, organizational commitment as the intervening

variable, and task performance as the dependent variable.

METHODS AND RESEARCH DESIGN

Measurement of variables and operational definition

LISREL has the hypotheses-testing capabilities and can also eliminate obvious

multicollinearity of the independent variables; a variable becomes another variables

dependent variable. It can also be a variable for a variable number of contingency, to

analyze the characteristics of a complex casual relationship better than path analysis

(Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993), In addition, LISREL is not only used for the chi-square

test, to verify the theoretical model and distribution of data type, but also for testing

the significance of a special path by the t value or sequential chi - squire difference

test. A part of LISREL is to describe the relationship of the structural equation model

between the latent variable, which cannot be observed directly; another part is todescribe the measurement model of the relationship between the directly observed

H1

Figure 1 Conceptual Framework

Note: H1H2H3H4H5H7H9are Direct EffectsH6H8H10 areIndirect Effects

Employee PersonalityCharacteristics

Organizational Culture

Leadership Style

Organizational

CommitmentTask Performance

H2

H7H3

H4

H9

H5H6

H8

H10


10/21

10

manifest variables (Hair et al., 1998). With the framework of this study, the initial

definition of the latent exogenous variables are personality characteristics (1),

organizational culture (2) and leadership styles (3); and the latent endogenous

variables are organizational commitment (1) and task performance (2). The

measurement for the exogenous manifest variable (X) and the endogenous manifest

variable (Y) will be combined to the theories and the interview experience anddevelop a 5-point Likert-scale questionnaire for investigation. The details are

described as follows:

Personality characteristics

Personality characteristics refers to an individuals psychological and physiological

phenomena. It shows the unique psychological characteristics in response to different

time and situations, thus, to determine the patterns of behaviour and ways of thinking

for adaptation of environment. It can be divided as follows:

(1) Internal / external locus of control: one believes that the creation of job

opportunities depends on oneself (Rotter, 1954); Regardless of job contents, one canachieve it; Take action if one is not satisfied with the decision made by the boss

enthusiastically; can achieve the assigned work by the organization; can achieve the

goals (Brissett & Nowick, 1976); strive to become an excellent employee (Spector &

O'Connell, 1994); job promotion is for employees with good task performance (Rotter,

1954); work seriously should be awarded with given deserved reward; ones

behaviour determines ones own life (Spector & O'Connell, 1994).

(2) Type A /B: have the concept of punctuality and never be late for work or attending

conference; show a positive and competitive attitude (Friedman & Rosenman, 1974);

be willing to bear the stress; in pursuit of efficiency (Friedman & Rosenman, 1974 ;

Caplan & Jones, 1975; Carrer & Glass, 1987;); do not easily reveal the feeling of any

matter; work overtime voluntarily or carry the job to work at home; have a feeling of

guilty if one has too much leisure time; set the progress of work and deadlines; pay

attention to personal achievements; not easily lose ones temper; think about the

unfinished work (Jenkins, 1976; Chesney & Rosenmna, 1980).

Organizational culture

Organizational culture is a common system of values followed by organization

members from the top management to all subordinates. It is also the internal

guidelines for behaviours in a company that differentiate from another company. It

can be divided into:(1) Innovative culture: adventurous and enterprising spirit; encourage employees to

accept new ideas or to be innovative; operate independently; autonomy is given;

encourage to express views / ideas; collect customer-related information

enthusiastically (Wallach, 1983).

(2) Supportive culture: cooperation; mutual trust; equal treatment; emphasis on

interpersonal relationships; give often encouragement and rewards; a harmonious

working atmosphere; give others a sense of security (Wallach, 1983).

Leadership styles

Leadership styles from the leaders can be divided as follows:

(1) Transformational leadership: a model for employees to respect and learn from;enable employees to feel happy and proud of; trust the managers who have ability to


11/21

11

overcome work difficulty and power of judgement; use methods to encourage

employees; enable employees be enthusiastic about the assigned tasks; set a high

standard for employees task performance (Burns, 1978); able to point out the current

direction of thinking for employees; able to give concerns at the appropriate time;

able to understand the need of employees; express gratitude at the appropriate time; is

willing to spend time to instruct employees; encourage employees; use a new way ofthinking to think about the old problems; emphasize that employees use wisdom to

solve their problems.

(2) Transactional leadership: will get the desired returns as long as one works hard;

can negotiate with the direct supervisor about the task performance; extent of

involvement is closely related to return of investments; exchange what employees

need with support; the direct supervisor is satisfied with a good task done by the same

method (Bass, 1985; Avolio & Bass, 1989); talk with employees only about the scope

of matters which they need to know; accept employees new practice of work but do

not actively encourage it (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994).

Organizational commitment

Organizational commitment is that organizational members identify themselves with

the organization and are willing to pay additional efforts to achieve the organizational

goals. It can be divided as follows:

have a high organizational commitment; be proud of being a member of an

organization; be concerned about a companys future development and visions; fully

develop ones abilities; a company is significantly important for employees personal

work achievement and career development; personal values and corporate values are

very closely to each others; the company is an ideal work place; employees are

satisfied with working hard in a company; have a affective emotion to the company;

be willing to pay additional efforts; have the responsibility to work hard (Porter et al.,

1974); try the best to overcome difficulties at work; take the initiative to help

colleagues to solve the problems at work; teach the new colleagues with ones own

work experience; take initiative to collect and learn the required and work-related

information and skills (Stevens, Beyer, & Trice, 1978); feel to have a bright future if

remaining to work in the company; hope to continue to work at the company; have

paid a lot of efforts for the company; employees do not consider to change the job; be

still willing to remain in the company (Allen & Meyer, l991).

Task performance

Personal knowledge, ability and role, cognitive expectation on an individual at anorganization influence the extent of individual efforts to an organization and the job

performance. It can be divided as follows: follow the standard of operating procedures;

overcome the problem by oneself; have mutual support and assistance if colleagues

encounter problems at work; follow the instructions to complete the work; pay highly

attention and increase alertness; with dedicated spirit of responsibility; be attentive

and obey the safety and health-related matters (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993); high

morale and efficiency /good attendance; complete the work within the time scheduled;

co-operate to achieve the organization goals; recognize the performance of colleagues;

the quality of work is recognized by the direct supervisor; be willing to undertake

additional work; contribute a lot to the work unit (Robbins, 1998).

Target of sample and the operational model


12/21

12

In view of the high-technology industries have been the leading industry for economic

development in Taiwan recently, and the operation for high-technology industries

must have a specialized knowledge and technology, abundant high-technology talents

as well as accumulation of such cutting-edge technology are important successful

factors, therefore, selection of personnel is very import. They must have personality

characteristics such as being able to work under a stressful environment, has a senseof satisfaction and full of ambition; so that it can enable the organization full of

vitality, competition and determination internally and externally. Moreover, leaders

for the high-technology industries are different from traditional manufacturing or

service industries. Facing the highly competitive environment, and threatened by

global competitors, speed is the most essential no matter in aspects of production,

sales and marketing or research and development. Under such high working pressure,

termination or turnover rate is high, job-hopping spree is even popular, in addition to

the specialization of division of labour, diverse workforce, recruitment and training

and development need to be highly emphasized. Thus, how a leader could make use

of his/her leadership style to integrate the high technological labour under such

industry with special characteristic environment , to enhance employees to commit tothe organization, identification, cohesion, consensus and lead them work towards the

mission and establish friendship among colleagues, aiming to enable the formation of

a closely community between employees and the organization, in order that

employees are retained and capacity of the organization is maintained under the high

labour mobility rate. However, the previous studies of high-technology industries

often neglected the assessment of personality characteristics, employees willingness

to commit to the organization and achieve its goals, thus increasing the significant

importance of their own task performance. The high technological industries are

particularly selected as the target of samples in this study.

As the purpose of this study is emphasized to investigate the influence of the

employee personality characteristics, leadership styles, organizational culture to

organizational commitment for the high-technology industries in Taiwan, the

employees in the these industries from the listed companies and the OTC companies

of the Ministry of Finance R.O.C., strictly confidential, are selected as the target for

the sample and respondents to fill in the questionnaires and enables a consistency of

recovery to the population. A total of 512 questionnaires have been distributed and

372 copies are received. After deducting 68 incomplete questionnaires, 304

questionnaires are valid and the effective return rate is 59.4% which supports the

framework for the operational model. It is shown in Figure 2:

3

2

1

Figure 2 Structure Equation Model of Research

4

2

1

3

1

X

21

X

y32

y

11

21

Employee Personality

CharacteristicsTask

Performance2Organizational

Commitment

Normative

Commitment

Y1

Exchange

Commitment

Y2

Locus of

Control

AB Style

X2

Work

Behavior

Y4

WorkOutcomes

Y3

y11

y21

2

4

3

X

41

X

12Organizational

Culture2

Innovative

Culture

X3

Supportive

Culture

X4

6

5

X

61

X

13

Leadership

Style3

Transformatio

nal

Leadership

Transactional

LeadershipX6


13/21

13

DATA ANALYSIS AND EMPIRICAL RESULTS

Validity and reliability analysis

Validity can accurately measure the extent of what researchers measure (Chen, 2000),

while reliability is the consistency of measuring results by the same measuring tools

and target of research in various environments. The design of the questionnaire in this

study is reviewed by the relevant literature and the actual situation of high-technologyindustries. To ensure the integrity and representativeness of the contents of

questionnaire, experts and practitioners are repeatedly requested to make amendments,

thus, it should meet the standard of validity. At the same time, in order to verify the

questionnaires construct validity, not only the individual items and the correlation

coefficient of the total score are used (Kerlinger, 1986); and eliminate the items of

insignificant relationship between the operational definitions such as action (0.310),

reveal easily (0.245), independent operations (0.383), standards setting (0.270), etc.;

but also factor analysis, according to Kaiser criteria, by retaining the factors with

characteristic value which is larger than 1; and then tested by extracting the common

factor coefficient (extension of validity). Then, Cronbach's coefficient is used to test

the reliability of this study. If the reliability coefficient is above 0.80, it reaches thehigh reliability standards. If it is larger then 0.70, it is regarded as the acceptable

reliability (Wortzel, 1979). From Table 1, the Cronbach's coefficients of this study

are between 0.711 ~ 0.896 and show the internal consistency of all variables.

Table 1 Reliability Analysis

Latent Variable Manifest Variables Cronbachs Latent

Variable

Manifest

VariablesCronbachs

EmployeePersonality

Characteristics

1

Internal / externallocus of control X1

0.728 OrganizationalCommitment

1

NormativeCommitment Y1

0.856

AB Style X2 0.788Exchange

Commitment Y20.849

OrganizationalCulture

2

Innovative cultureX3 0.840 Task

Performance2

Work OutcomesY3 0.896

Supportive culture

X40.778

Work Behaviour

Y40.867

LeadershipStyle3

Transformational

leadership X50.845

Transactionalleadership X6

0.711

Basic information of the respondents

In the 304 valid questionnaires, the proportion of the basic information among the

respondents can be accounted for: gender: male (56.2%) and female (43.8%); Level of

education: university (42.1%) and research institute or above (38.5%) share themajority; years of service: 1-3 years (28.9%) is the majority and is followed by 5-10

years (21.4%) and 10 years (18.4%); years of establishment of the parent company in

the country: the majority is more than 20 years (about 46.1%); the majority of

respondents who belong to telecommunication (28.6%) and information industries

(27.3%); the amount of capital is more than 50 hundred million (43.1%); the amount

of sales is more than 100 hundred million (41.1%); the number of employees in the

parent company in the country is more than 1,001 people is majority (about 29.3%),

the next is between 100 and 250 people (about 28.9%). The high-technology

industries have a huge amount of capital, according to the capital amount from the

parent companies, and the time establishment is up to 20 years and employees of

1,001 people are the majority.


14/21

14

To confirm whether the variables of this study are in line with the normal assumption,

structural equation model is used for analysis. It is in line with the normal tests,

skewness, in which the absolute value of S coefficient is less than 3; and the kurtosis,

in which the absolute value of K coefficient is less than 10 (Kline, 1998). The results

of the absolute values of S coefficient of all latent variables are between -0.351 ~

0.602; the absolute values of K coefficient are between -0.008 ~ 2.199. All meet thenormal requirements. The details of results are shown on Table 3. Next, to assess the

means of all measuring variables in the samples, for personality characteristics, the

mean of Type A/B is the highest (3.6441, standard deviation: 0.5342), showing that

the personality characteristics of high technological labour tend to prefer competition,

recognition, working hard, work in an efficient way of full of ambition and energy

(Friedman & Rosenman, 1974; Chesny & Rosenman, 1980); Moreover, the latent

variable of the organizational culture shows innovative culture (3.4485, standard

deviation: 0.7752) is higher than supportive culture (3.4485, standard deviation:

0.6991), showing that the high-technology organizations value the employees

creativities and challenges more than providing them a warm family feeling

environment. Furthermore, for the leadership styles, transformational leadership(3.4024, standard deviation: 0.7466) is higher than transactional leadership (3.2146,

standard deviation: 0.6514); for organizational commitment, effort commitment is the

highest (3.6102, standard deviation: 0.7026); for job performance, work outcome is

higher than work behaviour.

Table 2 Results of Overall Model Fitness

Manifest VariablesCoefficient

of Skewed

Coefficient

of KurtosisMin Max Mean Std. Var.

Locus of Control X1 0.570 0.304 1.50 5.00 3.5822 0.6573 0.432

AB Style X2 0.111 0.197 2.00 5.00 3.6441 0.5342 0.286

Innovative culture X3 -0.351 -0.008 1.00 5.00 3.5197 0.7752 0.601

Supportive culture X4 0.445 1.207 1.00 5.00 3.4485 0.6991 0.489

Transformational leadership X5 0.602 0.752 1.00 5.00 3.4024 0.7466 0.557

Transactional leadership X6 0.388 0.828 1.00 5.00 3.2146 0.6514 0.424

Normative Commitment Y1 0.450 0.991 1.00 5.00 3.4353 0.6799 0.462

Exchange Commitment Y2 0.548 0.567 1.00 5.00 3.6102 0.7026 0.494

Work Outcomes Y3 0.574 2.199 1.22 5.00 3.7387 0.5036 0.254

Work Behaviour Y4 0.377 1.817 1.00 5.00 3.5954 0.5577 0.311

Testing of overall model fitness

For the LISREL analyses, the samples of the overall model fit achieve the results withdetails in Table 4: (1) the overall rate of the sample 2 is 1.915 which is correspond to

the standard of less than 3. The goodness of fit index GFI is very close to 1 and is in

line with the test standard of more than 0.9. (3) The adjusted goodness of fit index

AGFI is larger than 0.8, representing model fit is good. (4) The root mean square

residual RMR, which reflects the fitted residuals variance /mean covariance, is

0.011 which is less than 0.05. (5) The incremental fit index IFI is larger than 0.9,

indicating the model fitness is excellent (Bentler & Bonett, 1980).

Table 3 Fit Indices for Measurement Model for the Research ModelFitting Indexand Standard

2Ratio0.8 RMR 0.9

Fitting Index 1.9150.8 0.0110.9


15/21

15

Testing of the intrinsic quality of a model

In this study, the samples are all in line with the LISREL model of the internal quality

control. The results of the square multiple correlation (SMC) of the individual

manifest variables are equivalent to R2 value of manifest variables and latent

variables, larger than 0.5 (See details in Table 5), and the component reliability of the

latent variables is also larger than 0.6, representing the Cronbach's coefficient ofeach latent variable has a very high reliability .

Table 4 Fitness of Internal Structure of Model

Item

Employee PersonalityCharacteristics(1)

OrganizationalCulture(2)

LeadershipStyle(3)

OrganizationalCommitment(1)

TaskPerformance(2)

X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4

SMC 0.43 0.94 0.59 0.78 0.89 0.98 0.62 0.52 0.78 0.81

LambdaLoading

0.68 0.97 0.77 0.88 0.94 0.99 0.79 0.75 0.89 0.90

CR 0.621 0.804 0.660 0.771 0.885

AVE 0.7275 0.8370 0.7245 0.8135 0.8985

As the measurement of construct validity by LISREL model covers whether different

manifest variables can effectively measure the convergent validity of the same latent

variable, and also focuses on one latent variable and design manifest variables if they

are different from discriminant validity of other latent variables. Convergent validity

is usually observed from the average variance extracted of the latent variables. The

higher the average variance extracted, the higher the reliability and convergent

validity the latent variables have. Fornell & Larcker (1981) have suggested that the

standard value is larger than 0.5 representing each manifest variable have explanatory

power of the average variation of the latent variables. In this study, the average

variance extracted of the samples is between 0.7245 and 0.8985 (See details in Table5), representing each manifest variable can test a considerable extent of the latent

variables (Sharma, 1996). Next is the discriminant validity (See details in Table 6).

Espinoza (1999) finds that an average variance extracted of latent variables must

larger than any one of the non-diagonal pair potential variables, the square of the

correlation coefficient can be regarded as discriminant validity. Each latent variable in

this study has sufficient discriminant validity among the variables.

Table 5 Discriminant Validity

Item

Employee

Personality

Characteristic


LeadershipStyle

OrganizationalCommitment

TaskPerformance

Employee

PersonalityCharacteristic

0.7275


0.409 0.8370

LeadershipStyle

0.390 0.625 0.7245

OrganizationalCommitment

0.398 0.682 0.532 0.8135

TaskPerformance

0.511 0.652 0.500 0.705 0.8985


16/21

16

Testing of path relationships

Testing of employees personality characteristics, organizational culture and

leadership styles to organizational commitment respectively

High-technology industries select employees with personality characteristics which

suit the corporation in terms of values, willingness to work hard and job satisfaction

and so on will have a better performance. Then, employees have a high commitmentto the organization (11=0.46)(See details in Table 7), hypothesis H1 is verified to be

in line with the arguments of Hellriegel & Richards (1998) and Chen & Lin(2001)

who emphasize that personality characteristics affect employees identifications to an

organization. Furthermore, the core values of members in an organization exist

strongly in a corporate culture. It is sufficient to measure employees identifications

and support to an organization (21=0.75), hypothesis H2 is verified to be in line with

Banner & Gagne (1995), Wiener (1982) who has proposed and discussed that

organizational culture and organizational commitment are closely related. In this

study, it is found that leadership styles is an important factor affecting the operation of

an organization in the past, but employees has a majority of seventh grade in the

current job market flaunting self-centred; focus more on interaction between peers, incontrast of the leadership style of making use of rewarding system or personal

charisma which are unable to attract the seventh grade, thus, using of transactional or

transformational leadership style has no significant impact on organizational

commitment (31 = -0.10), hypothesis H3 cannot be verified.

Testing of organizational commitment to the task performance

The high-technology industries are one of the competitive industries. If the company

wants to have a good competitive advantage, the fundamental element is that

employees are involved at work and have a positive participation. A company needs

to enable its members to have organizational commitment, i.e. a sense of identity and

be willing to reach the organizational goals. The higher the organizational

commitment employees have, the higher the identification and loyalty they have.

Employees will then expect individual performance be recognized by the organization

and be proud of being a member of it. So that they will enthusiastically collect and

learn the required skills at workplace, be willing to work together with colleagues to

accomplish the organizational goals; to perform the best at work and recognized and

awarded by supervisors (21=0.75) (See details in Table 8). Hypothesis H4 is verified.

It is in line with Steers (1977), Mayer & Schoorman (1998), Campbell (1990),

Robbins (2001) who has proposed and discussed that employees will converse the

organizational commitment to the hard work and expectations to create good job

performance for the organization.

Testing of employees personality characteristics, organizational culture and

leadership styles to the task performance

When the high-technology companies have found the employees whose personality

characteristics are appropriate to the organization, they can develop their own

capability and enhance their task performance in the workplace. (See details in Table

7). Moreover, a common way of thinking and ground rules for the organizational

culture will guide the employees to complete the work properly and efficiently (See

details in Table 7). Hypotheses H5, H7 and H9 are verified.

Testing of employee personality characteristics, organizational culture and

leadership styles to task performance through organizational commitment


17/21

17

Personality characteristics, organizational culture, with the impact of organizational

commitment as an intervening variable, show the significantly indirect influence to

task performance except leadership styles. This can be explained that, in the high-

technology companies, enhancing the task performance directly does not only depend

on different personality characteristics of employees, but also depends on trust of the

companies, acceptance of organizational goals and values, and the organizationalcommitment to willingly work towards the organizational goals and values. The

hypothesis H6 is verified. Moreover, the high-technology companies can develop an

organizational culture with common values and beliefs. This enhances directly task

performance. If employees identify themselves with the organization and its goals that

integrated into the organizational commitment, it helps also to enhance employees

task performance. The hypothesis H8 is verified.

Table 6 Path Coefficient of Direct and Indirect EffectHypothesis H1 (11) H2 (21) H3 (31) H4 (21)

Latent

Variable

Employee

personalitycharacteristics

Organizational

culture

Leadership

style

Organizational

commitment

DependentVariable

Organizationalcommitment



Taskperformance

Direct

Effect

0.46**

t = 4.15

0.75***

t = 7.72

-0.10

t = -1.61

0.75***

t = 14.26

Hypothesis H5 (21) H7 (22) H9 (23)

LatentVariable

Employee

personalitycharacteristics

Organizationalculture

Leadershipstyle

Dependent

Variable

Task

performance

Task

performance

Task

performance

Direct

Effect

0.38**

t = 3.93

0.43**

t = 3.72

-0.03

t = -0.73Hypothesis H6 H8 H10

LatentVariable

Employeepersonality

characteristics

Organizationalculture

Leadershipstyle

DependentVariable

Taskperformance

Taskperformance

Taskperformance

Indirect

Effect

0.34**

t = 4.15

0.56***

t = 7.74

-0.07

t = -1.61

Annotation* P


18/21

18

Employees are one of the important resources for a high-technology corporation.

Selection of employees with appropriate personality characteristics does not only help

employees to enhance organizational commitment, sense of belonging and loyalty and

responsibility to the organization, which are in respond to Luthans, Baack & Taylor

(1987), Pierce & Dunham ( 1987) who have proposed and discussed that personality

characteristics are significantly related to organizational commitment; but also createthe organizational commitment of the beliefs and acceptance of the organization's

goals and values, willing to be highly involved in the organization and maintain a

membership in the organization, and thus employees task performance will be

enhanced. Moreover, organizational culture is the rules of behaviour for employees

internally and provides the guidelines for employees to adapt to the environment

externally. It will enable employees to enhance a sense of responsibility and

organizational commitment (Chien, 2004); and to contribute to employees loyalty,

identification and involvement; and also enhance their task performance.

The high-technology industries compete vigorously with similar others and have

shorter product life cycle than other industries. They need to rely on new technologies,continuous innovation and research and development in order to get a foothold in the

market. Thus, it is recommended the high-technology industries should select

employees with personality characteristics of high resistance to stress and creativity.

They can, at any time, provide new and constructive ideas; and overcome the external

obstacles combining with know-how positively and proactively (Brissett & Nowick,

1976). They can find out the solutions promptly and enable a competitive advantage

for the company in the market place even though the bottleneck of development is

encountered.

Organizational culture is the important factor for uniting employees by the centripetal

force; it is recommended that the high-technology industries should not only develop

a culture of learning and encouragement in order to enhance continuously the learning

abilities of organizational members; but also should build a culture and values beliefs

of knowledge sharing. On the one hand, to strengthen the infrastructure of digital

technology; and to make use of the media of the standardized processing system,

databases, electronic documents / e-mail, Internet, video / communication conferences,

online learning, etc. to accelerate the diversification of circulation of knowledges; on

the other hand, it should be the management who actively provides an interactive

organizational learning environment for sharing of organizational culture and

common guidelines; to make good use of formal and informal channels allowing

employees to communicate interactively, to build the mutual trust and cohesion,consensus inspiring the mutual trust and mutual benefits for employees that can

improve the circulation and sharing of knowledges and enhance task performance.

REFERENCES

Allen, N. J. & Meyer, J. P. 1991. A Three-Component Conceptualization of

Organizational Commitment.Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-

98.

Allport, G. W. 1961. Pattern and Growth in Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart &

Winston.

Angle, H. L. & Perry, J. M. 1981. An Empirican Assessment Organizational

Commitment and Organizational Effectiveness. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 26, 1-14.


19/21

19

Banner, D. K. & Gagne, T. E. 1995. Designing Effective Organizations: Traditional &

Transformational View, California: Sage Publications.

Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. New York: Free

Press.

Bentler, P. M. & Bonett, D. G. 1980. Significance Tests and Goodness Of Fit On The

Analysis of Covariance Structures. Psychological Bulletin, 588-606.Borman, W. C. & Motowidlo, S. J. 1993. Expanding the Criterion Domain to Include

Elements of Contextual Performance. N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, &

Associates, Personnel Selection in Organization, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,

71-98.

Brissett, M. & Nowicki, S. 1976. Internal vs. External of Reinforcement and Reaction

to Frustraction. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 25, 35-39.

Brouther, K. D. 2002. Institutional, Cultural and Transaction Cost Influences on Entry

Mode Choice and Performance. Journal of International Business Studies,

33(2), 203-221.

Browning, V. 2006. The relationship between HRM practices and service behaviour

in South African service organizations. International Journal of HumanResource Management, 17(7), 1321-1338.

Browning, E. K. 1997. A neglected welfare cost of monopoly and most other

product market distortions. Journal of Public Economics, 66, 127-144.

Buchanan, B. 1974. Building Organization Commitment: The Socialization of

Managers in Work Organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-

546.

Burns, J. M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Byars, L. L. & Rue, L. W. 2001. Human resource management (4th ed.). Burr Ridge:

IRWIN.

Campbell, J. P. 1990. Modeling the Performance Prediction Problem in Industrial and

Organizational Psychology. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational

Psychology, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, 1, pp.687-732.

Caplan, R. D. & Jones, K. W. 1975. Effects of load, role ambiguity and type a

personality on anxiety, depression and heart rete. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 60(6), 713-719.

Chesny, M. A. & Rosenman, R. H. 1980. Type A behavior in the working setting. In

C. L., Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Current concerns in occupational stress.

London: John Wiley & Sons, 168-172.

Chien, M. H. 2004. An investigation of the relationship of organizational structure,

employee's personality and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of

American Academy of Business, 5, 428-431.Cohen, D. A. J. 2005. Human resource education: a career-long commitment, in

Losey, M. Meisinger, S. Ulrich, D. The Future of Human Resource

Management, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Englewood Cliffs, 63-70.

David, V. D. 1989. Personality and Job Performance: Evidence of Incremental

Validity. Personnel Psychology, 42 , 25-36.

Dension, D. R. 1990. Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness. New York:

John Wiley & Sons.

Dessler, G. 2001. Human Behavior Improving Performance at Work. New Jersey:

Englewood Cliffs.

Dobson, J. 1990. The Role of ethics in Global Corporate Culture.Journal of Business

Ethics, 9(6), 481-488.


20/21

20

Donna, M. S. 1996. Increasing employee productivity, job satisfaction, and

organizational commitment. Hospital and Health Services Administration,

41(1), 160-172.

Dubrin, A. J. 2004. Leadership Research Findings, Practice, and Skills(4thEd.).

Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Duquette, D. J. & Stowe, A. M. 1993. A performance measurement model for theoffice of inspector general. Government Accountants, 42(2), 27-50.

Dyer, G. W. 1985. The Cycle of Culture Evolution in Organization. In Ralph Kilmann

et. al., Gaining Control of Corporate Culture, San Francison: Jossey-Bass.

Elizabeth, W. M. 1990. Organizational citizenship behavior as a critical link between

HRM practices and service quality. Human Resource Management, 35( 4),

493-512.

Espinoza, M. M. 1999. Assessing the Cross-Cultural Applicability of a Service

Quality Measure: A Comparative Study Between Quebec and Peru.

International Journal of Service Industry Management, 10(5), 449-468.

Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable

variables and measurement errors.Journal of Marketing Research, 18(2), 39-50.

Friedman, M. & Roseman, R. H. 1974. Type A Behavior and Your Hear, New York:

Knopt.

Furnham, A. & Miller, T. 1997. Personality, absenteeism and productivity.Journal of

Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 705-707.

Gardner, M. P. 1985. Creating a Corporate Culture for the Eightier. Business

Horizons, 28, 59-63.

Gordon, G. G. & Ditomaso, N. 1992. Predicting corporate performance from

organizational culture.Journal of Management Studies, 29(6), 783-798

Gustafson, B. M. 2001. Setting the Highest Ethical Leadership Standards Ensures a

Higher Standard of Results.Healthcare Financial Management, 55(1), 76-77.

Hair, J. F. Jr. Anderson, R.E. Tatham, R. L. & Black, W.C. 1998. Multivariate Data

Analysis, Fifth-Edition, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,

Hodge, B. J. Anthon, W. P. y & Gales L. M. 1996. Organization Theory: A Strategic

Approach, fifth end., New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Jenkins, C. D. 1976. Recent evidence supporting psychological and social risk factors

for coronary disease.New England Journal of Medicine, 294, 987-994, 1033-

1038

Joreskog, K. G. & Sorbom, D. 1993. New Features in LISREL 8. Chicago: Scientific

Software International, Inc.

Kerlinger, F. N. 1986. Foundation of behavioral research.,(3rd ed.), New York: Holt,Rinehart & Winston. Comprehensive coverage of the scientific concepts and

logical reasoning.

Kline, R. B. 1998. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New

York: Guilford Press.

Konovsky, M. A. & Pugh, S. D. 1994. Citizenship behavior and social exchange.

Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 656-670.

Luthans, F. Baack, D. & Taylor, L. 1987. Organizational commitment: Analysis of

Antecedents,Human Relations, 40, 219-235.

Mayer, R. C. Schoorman, F. D. 1998. Differentiating Antecedents of

Organizational Commitment: A Test of March and Simons Model.Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 15-28.


21/21

21

Osland, J. S. Kolb, D. A. & Rubin, I. M. 2004. Organizational Behavior: An

Experiential Approach,7Ed, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J..

Pervin, L. A. & John, O. P.1997. Personality: Theory and research (7thed). New York:

John Wiley.

Pierce, J. L. & Dunham, R. B. 1987. Organizational Commitment: Pre-employment

Propensity and Initial Work Experiences. Journal of Management, 13, 163-178.

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M. Mowday, R. T. & Boulian, P.V. 1974. Organizational

Commitment, Job Satisfaction and Turnover among Psychiatric Technicians.

Jornal of Applied Psychology, 59(5), 603-609.

Reimann, B. C. & Wiener, Y. 1988. Corporate Culture Avoiding the Elitist Trap.

Business Horizons, 31(2), 36-44.

Robbins, S. P. 1998. Organizational Behavior, 8th ed., Upper Saddle River, New

Jersey: Prentice Hall International.

Robbins, S. P. 2001. Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies, and

Applications, 8th ed., New York: Prentice Hall Inc.

Rotter, J. 1954. Social Learning and Clinical Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NewJersey: Prentice-Hall.

Rotter, J.B. 1966. Generalized Expectancies for Internal versus External Control of

Reinforcement. Psychological Monograph, 18, 1-27.

Schermerhorm. J. R. 1999. Management for Productivity, 3rd Edition. New York:

John Wiley & Sons.

Schermerhorn J. R. 1989. Experiences in Management and Organizational Behavior.

The Academy of Management Review, 1, 138-142.

Sharma, S. 1996. Applied multivariate technique. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley

& Sons.

Spector, P. E. & OConnell, B. J. 1994. The contribution of personality traits,

negative affective, locus of control and type A to the subsequent reports of job

stressors and job strains. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 67, 1-11.

Sprenger, R. K. & Linker, G. 2004. Trust: The Best Way to Manage, Cyan

Communications.

Stevens, J. M. Beyer, J. M & Trice, H. M. 1978. Assessing Personal, Role and

Organizational Predictors of Managerial Commitment. Academy of

Management Journal, 21, 382.

Wallach, E. J. 1983. Individuals and Organizations: The Culture match. Training and

Development Journal, 29-36.

Wiener, Y. 1982. Commitment in Organization: A Normative View. Academy ofManagement Review, 25(7), 421-429.

Wiggins, J. S. 1996. The Five-Factor Model of Personality: Theoretical Perspectives.

New York: Guilford Press.

Wortzel, R. 1979. New Life Style Determinants of Women's Food Shopping Behavior.

Journal of Marketing, 43, 28-29.

Yammarino, F. J. & Bass, B. M. 1990. Long-Term Forecasting of Transformational

Leadership and Its Effectives Among Naval Officers: Some Preliminary

Findings. In Measures of Leadership, ed. K. E. Clark and M. B. Clark.

Greensboro, N.C.: Center for Creative Leadership, 151-69.

Journal About Organizational Behaviour

Documents

Transcript of Journal About Organizational Behaviour