This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Goal orientation and organizational commitment
Individual difference predictors of job performance
Olivia F. Lee
Department of Marketing and Business Law, G. R. Herberger College of Business, St Cloud State University, St Cloud, Minnesota, USA
Individual difference predictors 129
James A. Tan
Department of Management, G.R. Herberger College of Business, St Cloud State University, St Cloud, Minnesota, USA, and
Nance College of Business Administration, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to paper examine goal orientation and organizational commitment in relation to employees’ job attitudes and performance in a hospital. Speciﬁcally, it investigates the effects of mastery and performance goals on different facets of organizational commitment and how these effects impact individuals’ job outcomes. Design/methodology/approach – The paper utilized an online survey to collect data from 497 hospital employees. The conceptual model was tested using a three-step mediation procedure of structural equation modeling with maximum likelihood estimation. Findings – The results indicate that while mastery goal is related to the three components of organizational commitment, performance goal is only related to affective commitment. Although affective and normative commitment are both related to job satisfaction, only the former is linked to employees’ performance. Research limitations/implications – The survey is conducted in an East Asian hospital. To ensure greater generalizability of the results, future research should be conducted using a broader Asian sample, preferably, in a different organizational setting, and using longitudinal methods in addition to online surveys. Practical implications – When managing employees with Asian backgrounds, establishing mastery goal orientation can potentially cultivate higher organizational commitment. Managers may consider aligning affectively and normatively committed employees with more complex job assignments because these employees typically exhibit desirable job attitudes and innovative job performance. Originality/value – The contributions are two-fold: managerially and scholarly. Identifying employees’ mindset in relation to goal orientation and commitment allows ﬁrms to effectively manage employees’ performance. The paper also provides evidence for rethinking constructs’ relevancy outside of North America. Keywords Job satisfaction, Employee attitudes, Performance levels, Hospitals, Health services, Singapore Paper type Research paper
International Journal of Organizational Analysis Vol. 18 No. 1, 2010 pp. 129-150 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1934-8835 DOI 10.1108/19348831011033249
The authors gratefully thank Emily Goenner for copy-editing assistance.
Introduction Achievement goals and organizational commitment are internal representations of desired states that guide individuals’ pursuits (Austin and Vancouver, 1996; Meyer and Allen, 1997). Achievement goal theory is based on individuals’ intrinsic disposition which relate to ambition and goal attainment. To examine goal relevant behaviors, it is essential to understand the underlying commitment mechanisms that motivate individuals to perform. While theories of motivation abound, the mediating role of organizational commitment is less studied. Understanding employees as emotional laborers that manage challenging goals in service delivery processes is crucial to organizational success (Korczynski, 2002). In a healthcare setting where expectations for service delivery and clinical outcomes are high, relating goal orientation to the nature of commitment is necessary to improve employees’ performance. As pointed out by Ramanujam and Rousseau (2006), health care providers are facing mainly organizational, not clinical, challenges. This is especially the case for hospital employees because their daily tasks are inherently complex and involve high levels of uncertainty. Organizational commitment is essential for reaching such challenging goals (Klein et al., 1999) as these goals require more effort and typically have lower chances of success than are easy goals (Latham, 2007). Previous goal and commitment studies were mainly conducted in North America or other Western countries, and mostly used students (Bell and Kozlowski, 2002; Meyer et al., 1993) and sales people samples (Riketta, 2002). These studies viewed goal commitment as a single construct (Klein et al., 1999; Li and Butler, 2004), and operationalized commitment unidimensionally. In order to probe the underlying forces that cause desired behaviors, it is necessary to simultaneously examine goals and commitment as two distinctive constructs, and assess individuals’ commitment components (Meyer et al., 2004). In addition, to expand knowledge in this area, it is also important to conduct research in a non-Western culture using emotional labor samples. To ﬁll this research gap, this paper proposes a conceptual model that links goal orientation to organizational commitment as a proximal consequence, and examines the effects of these linkages to employees’ attitudinal response and job outcomes. We conducted the study in a hospital setting, and to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the ﬁrst to incorporate both attitudinal and orientation variables to predict employees’ performance in such a setting. Adding to its potential contributions, this study included multiple facets of job outcomes for a more balanced viewed of performance assessment. This paper is divided into ﬁve sections. The ﬁrst section will review the literature on goal orientation, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, in-role, and innovative performance. The second section will explain the proposed framework of individuals’ goal orientation that activates different commitment components, and its inﬂuence on job attitudes and performance outcomes. Research hypotheses will then be presented. The third section will discuss research methodology and present analytical work on model testing, followed by results ﬁndings in the fourth the section. The ﬁnal section will discuss managerial implication and future research directions. Goal orientation A goal is the object of a speciﬁc action. Goals direct individuals’ attention toward goal relevant actions and create a framework for the interpretation of and reaction to related events and outcomes (Dweck and Leggett, 1988; Elliot and Dweck, 1988). Substantial empirical evidence suggests that difﬁcult goals, goals that are not easily attainable, lead
normative. individuals with performance orientations view challenging tasks as a threats that could reveal incompetence. 1996. whereas a performance goal is framed so that employees will focus on completing speciﬁc tasks. 2005). 2002). Interest in organizational commitment has been stimulated largely by its demonstrated positive relationship to work behaviors such as job satisfaction. attend to three customers’ requests in 30 minutes). it reduces ambiguity because individuals can then relate goal attainment through two types of orientations: mastery and performance orientation (Latham. (1974) deﬁned commitment as a strong belief in and acceptance of the organizational goals. Meyer and his colleagues conceptualized organizational commitment in terms of three distinct psychological states. The primary distinction between these two orientations is how the instructions given to employees are framed. and low turnover (Cohen. and may lead to persistence to a course of action even if this conﬂicts with motives (Meyer et al... Meyer and Herscovitch. 2003). but the ﬁeld has not conducted enough studies outside the Western countries (Lee et al. and a willingness to persist in a course of action (Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran. willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization and a desire to maintain organizational membership. Meyer et al.. These three psychological states are referred to as affective. 2004. and thus lead to a wide range of performance. each of which inﬂuences whether or not a person will remain with the organization. Porter et al. Affective commitment is characterized by emotional attachment to.. 2005). and involvement in the organization. commitment is different from motivation in that commitment inﬂuences behavior independently of other motives and attitudes. Organizational commitment Organizational commitment has been conceptualized as a psychological state or mindset that binds individuals to a course of action relevant to one or more targets. While mastery-oriented individuals have a desire to increase competence by developing new skills and mastering new situations. both mastery. 1960). 2005). In contrast. These goal orientations reﬂect individuals’ interpretations of and reactions to events.and performance-oriented employees are strongly motivated to meet their respective performance goals (Elliot. According to the achievement goal theory. and such individuals could withdraw from accomplishing the task (Elliot. identiﬁcation with. normative commitment is characterized by perceived obligation to remain in the organization and continuance commitment by recognition of the costs associated with leaving Individual difference predictors 131 . 1993). One aspect of commitment consideration is rooted in terms of exchange or reward-cost notions where the emphasis is on the bargaining between the individual and the organization: the more favorable the exchange. research has shown that employees’ commitment to an organization can take many forms. 2007). 2001. 2007). A mastery goal is framed to encourage knowledge or skill acquisition.. Easy goals often have no external reference can be deﬁned arbitrarily. As such. In recent years. 2001). the greater the individuals’ commitment to the organization (Becker.to higher performance than easy or “do you best” goals (Latham. performance-oriented individuals have a desire to demonstrate personal competence relative to others and receive positive evaluations from others (Button et al. Mastery and performance goal orientations can be distinguished by individuals’ learning motives. and continuance commitment. and they approach challenging tasks with an interest to develop new skills. Farr et al. Individuals with mastery goals tend to believe their abilities are malleable. When a goal level is speciﬁed (for example. high productivity.
Goal orientation leads to commitment The linkage between goal-oriented behavior and commitment derives from general psychological processes in which people choose to identify with different things in the workplace and social systems to identify a purpose in life. innovative job performance refers to employees’ creativeness and problem-solving skills in the work place. innovative work behavior such as generating. Although all three commitment components increase the likelihood of employees maintaining membership in an organization. and responsibilities as formally documented in the job description (Campbell. 2005). Meyer and Allen (1997) argued that the nature of the commitment leads to organizational outcomes that are quite different. As shown in Figure 1. Two types of job performance are incorporated in this study.1 the organization. 2000). In essence. it is important to distinguish among these as they can have rather different implications for work behaviors. they are more likely to 132 Job satisfaction Goal orientation Mastery Learning Organization commitment Affective Normative Continuance Job performance In-role Innovative Figure 1. duties. our proposed framework posits goal orientation as an effective predictor of organizational commitment. Job satisfaction is the pleasurable emotional state resulting from individuals’ job experiences. When individuals are aware of goal-oriented action and are committed to pursuing these actions. and realizing creative ideas in the work place is known to be important and beneﬁcial to the organizational success (Janssen. promoting. Originally conceptualized by Kanter (1988). and we suggest such a relationship has a direct inﬂuence on employees’ attitude (job satisfaction) and behaviors (job performance). or a mediator between goal orientation and the job performance. Studies suggest that if individuals are consistent in their job satisfaction.IJOA 18. Job satisfaction and performance Job satisfaction and performance are the two work outcomes included in the current study due to their substantive usefulness in creating a satisfying work place and increasing employees’ performance. job satisfaction is an overall state that is derived from experiencing a work situation. organizational commitment is positioned as a proximal consequence of goal orientation. Similar to the extra-role performance. In-role performance is related to behavior directed toward prescribed tasks. Proposed framework Grounded in existing literature. An alternative mediation model . 1990). then the source of this consistency would likely predict job attitude and performance (Staw and Cohen-Charash.
In addition. 2005). In line with previous research. (2004) argued that these two constructs could be incorporated into a framework where commitment is one of many energizing forces for motivated behavior. Furthermore. Given that both mastery and performance orientations stem from the desire to perform. and less likely to leave such organizations because it may be difﬁcult to ﬁnd another similar organization (continuance commitment) or because they feel obligated to the organization for providing such opportunities (normative commitment. 2002). Both classes of goal orientations have been shown to inﬂuence work behaviors in spite of the different rationales behind goal directed behaviors (Elliot. our framework posits that the awareness of goal-oriented actions would lead to individuals’ willingness to pursue speciﬁc actions. we assert that goals direct individuals’ commitment based on achievement goals towards developing competence (mastery goal). In this paper. In this vein. Redman and Snape. 2006. 1999. the authors argue that goal orientation is related to commitment regardless of goal-oriented mindset. Goal-oriented behaviors stem from individuals’ willingness to pursue speciﬁc actions. thereby establishing higher self-efﬁcacy. These individuals are more likely to develop liking for organizations that enable them to achieve this goal (affective commitment). individuals with a strong performance goal mindset tend to validate their adequacy by using others as a reference point. in line with the achievement motivation theory (Dweck and Leggett. Lin and Chang. A performance goal indicates the desire to prove and outperform others. and affective (liking) commitment.. mastery-oriented individuals have a strong need to develop competencies.. This sense of membership to the organization could be manifested in continuance (sunk costs). They are therefore motivated to hold a stronger sense of membership in the organization to obtain these approval and validation. Research has shown that individuals who hold a strong mastery goal mindset tend to buffer themselves from the negative effects of failure. Owing to the inherent desire to master difﬁcult tasks and demonstrate performance ability. and action will more likely be carried out if commitment exists (Johnson et al. (1981) and Locke and Latham (1990) recognize that if there is no commitment. demonstrating ability and comparing one’s competency in relation to others (Locke and Latham. For example. 1990). Individual difference predictors 133 . it directs attention and effort toward goal-relevant activities such as problem solving and developing alternative strategies when faced with difﬁcult tasks (Locke and Latham. 1988).carry out these behaviors. 2005. Locke and Latham. seeking favorable judgments and avoiding negative evaluations. Locke et al. Since a mastery goal indicates a strong desire to perform challenging tasks. Previous research viewed goal commitment as a determination to achieve a goal in that commitment implies exerted efforts over time for goal attainment. 1981. Goal commitment has traditionally been examined as a unidimensional construct and thus the effects of goals on individuals’ commitment remain unknown (Hollenbeck and Klein. 2005). or achievement goals that are geared towards demonstrating ability and performance (performance goal) relative to others. 2005). performance-oriented individuals have a strong need for approval and validation from their peers or workgroups. Meyer et al. individuals strive to develop a commitment for achievement. therefore it links to commitment by seeking approval. 1987). these orientations should be related to all three commitment components.. A few studies that examined goal orientation and commitment separately indicated more work is needed to fully understand the dynamic relationships between these two constructs (Porter. 1990). Klein et al. goal by itself will have no motivational effect to carry out performance. normative (felt obligation). Locke et al.
empirical studies yield mixed ﬁndings. 1990). 2002) but the latter had a lower correlation with job satisfaction. Conversely. albeit at a lower magnitude (Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran. 1998). are found to have a positive relationship with job satisfaction (Meyer et al. Based on various reported ﬁndings. Even though the three components of commitment generally bind employees to their organization. 2005). Both affective and normative commitment were predictors of extra-role performance such as innovative job behaviors. Furthermore. Payne et al. Such commitment mechanisms will predispose individuals to react in some predictable ways based on the dominancy of commitment . The authors propose that organizational commitment is a mediator that inﬂuences individuals’ goal orientations and work behaviors.. 1997). and in-role performance (Harris et al. self-efﬁcacy and feedback seeking) than of distal consequences (e. feedback-seeking (VandeWalle and Cummings. to carry out speciﬁc tasks. individuals exhibit different degrees of commitment. 2005. These individuals feel that they have to stay in the organization because they have vested interests in it and leaving would be costly (Becker. 2002). Studies on the relationship between commitment components and job attitudes has shown that affective commitment is consistently related to overall job satisfaction. 2005).1 134 Organizational commitment leads to satisfaction and performance Previous research has documented the positive relationship between organizational commitment and work outcomes (Jaramillo et al. (2007) argued that the relationship between goal orientation dimensions and organizational consequences. Past research also found weak correlations between attitudinal and continuance commitments and job performance (Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran. 2005). Studies found affective commitment had the strongest and most encouraging relationship with organization speciﬁc outcomes such as task performance and organizational citizenship behavior.IJOA 18. Mathieu and Zajac. Normative commitment was also positively associated with desirable outcomes. academic and job performance).g... Locke and Latham (2002) provided such support in their comprehensive review of goal construct. the two affectively based commitment components. the authors concur with the majority view that affective and normative commitment are positively associated with. 1960).. 2002). Employees with high-continuance commitment are less likely to express satisfaction with their jobs. and continuance commitment is negatively associated with job performance. 1990. 1999). Mediation relationship Goals have an energizing function that can directly and indirectly inﬂuence organizational outcomes such as training and development (Brett and VandeWalle. When pursuing different goals. but not as strongly. Meyer et al. Continuance commitment also frequently correlates with job satisfaction. Researchers have also found that different conceptualizations of commitment impact employees’ work behaviors differently in terms of job satisfaction and performance (Meyer et al. continuance commitment was negatively related to job satisfaction.. but continuance commitment was unrelated (MacKenzie et al. Continuance commitment has either no relationship or negatively correlates with performance (Mathieu and Zajac. is indirect and mediated by proximal consequences. such as job performance and learning. They found that goal orientation is a much stronger predictor of proximal consequences (e. In a meta-analysis. affective and normative commitment.. based on underlying commitment mechanisms.g.
but not between psychological contract breach and in-role performance.components. both of which are extra-role behaviors. Continuance commitment is negatively related to job satisfaction. A second analysis tests whether goal orientation inﬂuences the mediator. The last analysis tests the drop in inﬂuence of goal orientation when the proposed mediator is included in the model. 2009) organizational research. There is some research that supports the mediating role organizational commitment has in both micro (Restubog et al. and continuance commitment. normative. 2006) and macro (Gong et al. Restubog et al. H3. Affective commitment is positively associated with in-role and innovative job performance. Normative commitment is positively associated with in-role and innovative job performance. organizational commitment. H2. To expand knowledge of the studied constructs outside the North America. H6. Research hypotheses Since organizational commitment is posited to mediate the relation between goal orientation and both job satisfaction and job performance. inﬂuence the levels of job satisfaction and performance outcomes. H7. and continuance commitment. Methods Research design The authors collected data using an online survey in a Singapore hospital. normative. we tested the effect of goal orientation on two outcome variables (job satisfaction and performance). this study tests the proposed model by positing the aforementioned relationships exist in the current East Asian sample in the following research hypotheses: H1.. (2006) found that affective commitment mediated the relation between psychological contract breach and self-reported and supervisor-rated civic virtue. Numerous steps ensured that the online questionnaire was easy to Individual difference predictors 135 . H5. Continuance commitment is negatively associated with in-role and innovative job performance. The hospital’s top management communicated the purpose of this research to all service units and assured anonymity and conﬁdentiality. An independent agency designed the web-based survey on multiple screen views of seven-point balanced Likert scales and collected the data. For example. H4. A third analysis tests whether the mediator inﬂuenced job performance.. Mastery orientation is positively related to affective. Both affective and normative commitments are positively related to job satisfaction. First. controlling for goal orientation. Performance orientation is positively related to affective. the authors tested the mediation effects using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) recommended three-step procedure. and consequently. After several brieﬁngs and a pre-test in a few service unit. employees received instructions on how to complete the survey in their designated service units to ensure privacy.
73. employees are required to logon using their network ID as a security measure.01. They are prompted to read an introductory page. These scales had obtained good internal reliability of 0. On this screen view. All measures are on a seven-point Likert scale. The organizational commitment scale used was adapted from Meyer et al. which was part of a scholarly project. and continuance a ¼ 0. the model ﬁt indices suggest that the full measurement model ﬁt the data well: x 2 ¼ 1. In Table III. 497 surveys were matched to supervisors’ evaluations. Participants’ immediate supervisors indicated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the performance statements. normative a ¼ 0. Quoting various source of information.877. The descriptive statistics and correlation matrix are presented in Table II.90 for mastery orientation and 0. Table III shows that all factor loadings are signiﬁcant at p . followed by the informed consent page and a box to check if they agree to participate. Survey questions were divided into several sections with common themes to eliminate confusion.IJOA 18. and continuance commitment.041. the response rate obtained in this study is well above the acceptable rate for an online survey (Grandolas et al. The alpha reliabilities are affective a ¼ 0. In addition. Table I shows the respondents’ proﬁles.98) (see the Appendix for list of items). approximately 70 percent of which are employees who have direct contact with patients and their families. management told employees it had no inﬂuence on the design of the survey.’s (1993) 18-item scale with six items each for assessing affective. and the scale points were properly labeled. 1998). each item is speciﬁed to load on one speciﬁc latent variable only. A total of 656 employees completed the survey. also.300 employees. 0. Podsakoff and MacKenzie’s (1989) in-role performance scale was used (a ¼ 0. normative. Results Measurement model A conﬁrmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess the factor structure. .. The full measurement model consists of eight latent variables. Ilieva et al.85). (2002) found that the average online surveys response rate ranges from 15 to 29 percent. as required in their jobs. NNFI ¼ 0. yielding an overall usable response rate of 55 percent. SRMR ¼ 0. Sample The contacted hospital employs 1. df ¼ 917. 2003. All employees were invited to participate in this research. To take the survey. Thus. Job satisfaction was assessed using a ﬁve-item scale adapted from Brown and Peterson (1994) that received reliability of 0. For job performance. Measures Goal orientations were assessed using Janssen and Van Yperen’s (2004) 19-item scale consisting of 11 items on mastery orientation and eight items on performance orientation. they are informed of their anonymity and how to contact the researchers if they have any concerns. This high response rate reﬂects top management’s encouraging employees to participate. Of this total.79. Tse.046 (90 percent CI: 0.939. CFI ¼ 0.043-0.049).943.86.1 136 read. The CFA results provide strong evidence of convergent and discriminant validity.87. All participants were computer-literate. and Janssen and Van Yperen’s (2004) nine-item innovative job performance scale was adapted (a ¼ 0.91 for performance in Van Yperen and Janssen’s (2002) study. and would not have access to any identifying information. RMSEA ¼ 0.
7 2. The x 2-differences are signiﬁcant ( p .Attributes Gender Male Female Age .0 Individual difference predictors 137 Table I. signifying discriminant validity among constructs. 0.5 89.6 8.7 88.9 2.000-2.000 1.000 % 11.1 31.7 53.25 25-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 .1 45.3 21.8 8.6 6.6 7.8 9.0 8.1 15.2 18.5 3.1.5 11.1 41.3 11.7 4.001-4. Demographic proﬁle of respondents To test discriminant validity.2 2-5 6-10 11-20 .000 2.3 28.2 21.0 87.20 Income ($) .0 7.000 3.4.0 8.65 Employment status Full time Part time Contractor Education Secondary school Pre university Undergraduate degree Graduate degree Medical degree Technical/other certiﬁcate Others Employee shift work Day shift Evening shift Night shift Job tile Administrator Nurse Patient service Pharmacist/technician Clerical Others Years employed in hospital .1 56.5 23. The composite reliabilities ranging .2 10.2 4.05). the procedure suggested by Bagozzi (1980) was employed by constraining the correlations between each pair of constructs and examining the resulting x 2-differences.4 10.7 20.6 0.0 7.001-3.9 9.1 5.000 .
43 * * 20.25 * * 20.30 1.06 0.03 1.14 1.138 IJOA 18.02 0.61 4.01 0.12 1. * *p . Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix Mean 5.11 * 0.53 * * 0.01 1.67 * * 2 0.08 4.80 5.21 * * 0.05. 0.09 20.90 1.15 * * 2 0. 0.42 * * 0.59 * * Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mastery orientation Performance orientation Affective commitment Normative commitment Continuance commitment Job satisfaction In-role performance Innovative job performance Notes: *p .01.1 Table II.06 0.01 2 0.06 0.51 0.01 0.02 2 0.02 2 0.00 20.01 0.48 3.58 4. n ¼ 497 .05 0.52 * * 0.16 * * 0.16 5.12 5.08 SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.43 * * 0.29 * * 0.06 0.09 1.01 0.
85 – 15.1 0.81 16.87 0.60) 0.02 Alpha 0.79 0.85 0.59 16.74 0.83 0.72 – 11. Results from CFA of study constructs .76 0.79 0.35 17.35 18.47 10.61 0.80 0.46 14.33 17.72 0.77 0.51 0.08 (0.35 0.09 (0.25 0.44 32.01 16.97 – 28.75 0.52 14.60 AVS (max) 0.90 – 24.89 0.22 (0.70 0.82 0.36) 0.91 t-value – 18.81 0.86 0.80 0.76 0.52 0.70 0.76 0.23) Individual difference predictors 139 0.73 0.32) 0.88 – 16.85 0.92 16.74 0.92 30.76 0.69 0.36 16.73 0.76 0.89 17.71 0.36) (continued) Table III.66 31.36 15.91 0.00 (0.49 18.78 0.Loading Mastery orientation MO1 MO2 MO3 MO4 MO5 MO6 MO7 MO8 Performance orientation PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 Affective commitment AC1 AC2 AC3 Normative commitment NC1 NC2 NC3 NC4 NC5 Continuance commitment CC1 CC2 CC3 Job satisfaction JS1 JS2 JS3 JS4 JS5 In-role performance IRP1 IRP2 IRP3 IRP4 Innovative job performance INOP1 INOP2 INOP3 INOP4 INOP5 0.92 AVE 0.44 18.75 0.14 15.02) 0.81 0.75 0.61 0.38) 0.87 0.88 0.57 20.98 16.13 (0.18 (0.44 15.93 – 27.47 0.91 0.77 0.92 – 15.77 0.60) 0.96 0.92 0.05 (0.70 0.85 0.82 0.55 23.60 0.72 15.70 0.05 (0.12 26.57 0.
were adequate-to-excellent. Speciﬁcally. As shown in Figure 2. Lastly.001 90 percent CI of RMSEA (0.90 suggested value for reasonable ﬁt.1 INOP6 INOP7 INOP8 INOP9 x 2 (df) NNFI CFI SRMR RMSEA Loading 0.61 31. df ¼ 930. maximum-likelihood (ML) estimator via the EQS software is used. Except for continuance commitment which is marginally lower than the recommended level.049) Table III.982 and CFI ¼ 0. alpha reliability and average variance extracted (AVE) are based on Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) formula. and continuance) as the proximal consequences of two exogenous constructs: mastery and performance goal orientation. 0. . x 2 ¼ 2136. 2000).91 0.989. the SRMR ¼ 0. all path coefﬁcients are standardized coefﬁcients and the values in parentheses represent the respective t-ratios.67 0.05 for a two-tailed test. Together.939 0.067 and RMSEA ¼ 0. 0.29 (917) 0. to mitigate this problem the authors employed an estimation method that explicitly identiﬁes model measurement errors. Since the x 2-statistic is known to be overly sensitive to sample size. all constructs attained an average variance extracted (AVE) threshold of 0.27 31.96 indicate signiﬁcant effects at p ¼ 0. 1.051 (90 percent CI: 0. SRMR and RMSEA) are used as these indicators provide greater accuracy in assessing model ﬁt (MacCallum and Austin.77 32.72 to 0. and latent factor scores corresponding to each construct from the preceding CFA analysis are ¨ extracted (Joreskog.877. which indicates marginal discrepancies that are narrowly bounded.041 0.043.g. as recommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981).051). Similarly. average of the variance shared (AVS) between this construct and all other constructs is computed as the mean of squared correlations from 0. The results show that NFI ¼ 0.IJOA 18. loading – standardized coefﬁcient based on the ML estimation. normative. “– ” refers the corresponding coefﬁcient was ﬁxed to set the metric of the latent construct. The results show that x 2-statistics are signiﬁcant at p .943 0.048-0.23 Alpha AVE AVS (max) 140 p-value . 2000). signifying that the proposed framework is a parsimonious model. these constructs are expected to inﬂuence job satisfaction and job performance (in-role and innovative job performance). Notes: t-values . Lastly.990.046 t-value 17.001. providing good ﬁt to the data. Since measurement error can degrade the metric quality and curtail the relationships among variables making them difﬁcult to detect.97.g. 0. incremental (e.50. are both higher than the 0. the parsimony index is NNFI ¼ 0. signifying good discriminant validity of the constructs. Structural model The proposed framework in Figure 1 shows the three dimensions of commitment (affective.92 0.91 1. the variation in the latent distribution is captured equally well and the responses are generally excellent between observed and ﬁtted values for the latent variables. NFI and CFI) and absolute goodness-of-ﬁt indices (e.
relationship between commitment components and the two facets of job performance.53).05). .05. the effects of mediator on job satisfaction and performance are tested using structural equation technique to assess the overall structural relationship. The path coefﬁcients between performance orientation and the other two commitment components are not signiﬁcant.5 . Hence. normative commitment (b ¼ 0. but in the opposite direction. and H4 hypothesizes a negative relationship between cost-based commitment and job satisfaction. H5 and H6 hypothesize a positive.0 9( 9. 05 7 (– 1. H1 and H2 hypothesize positive relationships between the two goal orientation constructs and the three components of organizational commitment.12. Performance orientation –0.77 ) Continuance commitment 2. signifying a positive.25) (11 . 0. 1) 31) Normative commitment (–0 . H5 is supported.5 0 –0.17 (6.0 1) In-role –0. Three paths running from mastery orientation were found to be statistically signiﬁcant at p . Contrary to our hypothesis. There is no signiﬁcant relationship when job satisfaction and innovative performance are regressed on goal orientations. Thus.67) Innovative performance 7( 0. the path coefﬁcients from affective commitment and normative commitment to job satisfaction are 0. H1 is supported.05) ) performance 26 –. At p . 0.0 Mastery orientation (–3 0( . performance orientation is negatively related to affective commitment. Continuance commitment was not related to job satisfaction. At p . The inﬂuence of goal orientation on attitudinal and behavioral responses Hypotheses testing The mediation testing concludes that organizational commitment does not mediate the relationship between goal orientation and job performance.10 (– 2.1 5) Job satisfaction Individual difference predictors 141 0. and signiﬁcant relationship.15 0.45). H4 is not supported.04 (–1.53. 0. Contrary to our hypothesis. In the third part of the mediation testing. the path coefﬁcients between normative commitment and the two facets of job performance are partially signiﬁcant. and continuance commitment (b ¼ 0. 98) ) Affective commitment 0. respectively.05. the path coefﬁcients between affective commitment and in-role performance is b ¼ 0.5 ) 3( 6.21 ( p .17 and 0.21 –0 0. supporting H3.4 8) 0.6 0. and H7 hypothesizes a negative. Hence.05.07 and innovative job performance is b ¼ 0. these paths went to affective commitment (b ¼ 0. H2 is not supported.69).4 5( 5.31 3 0. 0.1 2( 2.0 – –0 .06 (–1. H3 hypothesizes a positive relationship between affective-based commitment components and job satisfaction. Thus.1 4) –0. b ¼ 2 0.. 1( 0.7 3) Significant path Non significant path Figure 2.
Furthermore. mastery-oriented individuals may perceive leaving the organization as losing chances to improve their competence and skills (continuance commitment). Our results indicate that mastery-oriented individuals are strongly committed to their organizations regardless of how commitment is deﬁned. Similarly. 2005. Performance-oriented employees may feel more job stress than their mastery-oriented co-workers and are.05). Discussion This research constitutes an attempt to extend the extant literature on goal orientation and organizational commitment. H7 is also not supported. which led to lower affective commitment (Wanous. there were a few unexpected ﬁndings.. The authors also argue that individuals who are normatively committed may have a greater need to reduce tension caused by their commitment to the organization as described as a state of cognitive dissonance. 0. Salancik and Pfeffer. 1973). 0. 1978). the path coefﬁcients between continuance commitment and the two facets of performance were not signiﬁcant. and it has a negative but weak relationship with innovative job performance b ¼ 2 0. this study found individuals with high affective and normative commitments generally report satisfaction with their jobs (Meyer and Herscovitch. Second. Consistent with previous research. and loyalty are important social norms. Meyer et al. the majority of Singapore’s population (75 percent) is of Chinese decent. performance-oriented employees’ expectations of the job and their understanding of job requirements may not have matched. which is consistent with previous meta-analyses (Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran. 1984. Although our hypotheses were generally supported. 1992). thus. These individuals also develop a sense of obligation (normative commitment) to remain in the organization because the organization provides resources to help satisfy their inner desire to develop more skills. 2001). typically remaining with an organization 142 . they are much higher than the path from affective commitment to job satisfaction.1 Normative commitment has no relationship with in-role performance b ¼ 2 0. therefore. and thus report higher satisfaction with their job (Bateman and Strasser.10 ( p . The ﬁndings on commitment may also reﬂect cultural values. These performance-oriented employees may also perceive less organizational support (Moideenkutty et al. Finally. H6 is not supported. Thus. they may fear working in an organization that places less value on developing competence and skills.IJOA 18. in Asian cultures both affective and normative commitments may be affected by employees’ sense of obligation and loyalty because those are cultural values. this study found that continuance commitment was unrelated to job satisfaction. Once a British colony.04 ( p . The continuance commitment construct mainly deals with the continuation of an action. Mastery-oriented individuals emphasize increasing their competence and skills in a supportive environment and develop a greater liking (affective commitment) for organizations that support sharpening skills. Hence. 2007). Vandenberg and Lance.. we found that performance orientation is only moderately related to affective commitment. more likely to report lower levels of affective commitment (Podsakoff et al.05). As Siu (2003) argued. First. 2002). so most people embrace traditional Chinese philosophies in which social order. they may withdraw their sense of obligation to the organization. particularly in a complex health care environment.. trust. The effect of these values may be evident in the path coefﬁcients from normative commitment to job satisfaction. 2001.
parallel to the concept of extra-role behavior. Future research investigating these constructs should consider the effects of more distal variables. previous research investigating the causal linkages of latent variables has called for the use of longitudinal designs or the collection of multiple waves of data (Currivan. as evidence shows they impact both job satisfaction and in-role and innovative job performance (Barrick and Mount. 2006). As such. 2002). satisfaction with seniority). Lee et al.. 1992). First. organizational commitment is hypothesized as a proximal consequence of goal orientation. 2001). the constructs used in our study were primarily developed and tested using North American samples. 2005). but our results are mixed. our data supports the use of measures of goal orientation (Janssen and Van Yperen. Vandenberg and Lance. (2007) found that proximal consequences of goal orientation mediated its relationship with distal consequences. 1997). The generalizability of the three-component model of organizational commitment outside of North America is subject for further research (Allen and Meyer.because of the perceived costs of leaving (Meyer and Allen. innovative job behaviors. 1997).. Third. Individuals who are affectively committed to the organization are most likely to engage in innovative job behaviors. 2004) and job satisfaction in Asian cultures. It would be prudent to test how these antecedents affect our model. such as cultural norms. similar to the work of Lee et al. Moreover. To Individual difference predictors 143 . 1996. Limitations This study contributes to the extant literature on goal orientation and organizational commitment in the following ways. innovative performance is used to capture the employees’ creativity in generating. Future studies should investigate the effects of antecedents of goal orientation on their relationship to organizational commitment. For example. Other research in Asian contexts has shown similar results (Lee and Gao. but not for performance orientation. in goal and commitment research outside of North America. Future studies should incorporate organizational citizenship behaviors such as helping behavior and civic virtue as research has shown that organizational citizenship behaviors may serve as a critical link between aspects of the employee-organization relationship and customers’ perceptions of service quality (Bell and Menguc. 2006. the organization may have had insufﬁcient time to cultivate normative commitment in these relatively new employees (Meyer and Allen. promoting. 1991). 1999. satisfaction with pension. As expected. Third. in our sample. achievement and personality variables have been found to affect goal orientation (Fortunato and Goldblatt. this study found a weak. Phillips and Gully. individuals who feel obligated to remain with an organization are less likely to engage in non-mandatory.e. about 70 percent of the participants were employed by the hospital for less than ﬁve years. This study found support for the relationship between mastery orientation and affective and normative commitments in the hypothesized direction. In addition. The adapted measure of job satisfaction focused mainly on participants’ affective attitudes toward their jobs and may not have captured perceptions that lead to increased continuance commitment (i. Ilies et al. but signiﬁcant relationship between normative commitment and innovative job behavior. while our cross-sectional data showed general support for a link between affective and normative commitment and job satisfaction. as found in this study. In this study. (2001). negative. and realizing problem-solving ideas critical to service delivery. Second. Payne et al. 1991. Finally. Our research supports the generalizability of the three-component model of organizational commitment in an East Asian context.
organizational commitment serves an important role while working in stressful situations (as is in our sample) because it helps reduce employee quitting cognitions and withdrawal behaviors. ¨ Argyris. and Meyer. and obsolete routines. and how it relates to basic job roles or innovation behaviors.1 validate our results. Vol. Since mastery-oriented individuals tend to value organizational support. 120 No. D.B. In addition. In today’s knowledge-based organization. recruitment materials should emphasize the importance of competence development over competition in the organization. 338-75. we encourage future studies include a longitudinal component and be conducted using different sample types.. References Allen. and Vancouver. and normative commitment to the organization: an examination of construct validity”. and Schon. MA. “Performance and satisfaction in an industrial sales force: an examination of their antecedents and simultaneity”. 65-77. Journal of Vocational Behavior. J.J. N. 252-76. managers must communicate such that the organization values knowledge or skill acquisition. managers can then motivate them using more personalized communication to boost productivity and efﬁciency. job satisfaction. Understanding employees’ learning behaviors help managers to deﬁne and solve ¨ problems effectively (Argyris and Schon. Psychological Bulletin. J. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. (1996). 3.P. Employees adjust their performance in response to their interaction with managers and to the signals they receive through their daily routines. in addition to goal completion as an ultimate outcome. When managers are able to identify affectively committed employees.IJOA 18. (1978). Past research has shown that organizational commitment mediates the relationship between stressors and turnover intentions and withdrawal behavior (Podsakoff et al. To cultivate mastery orientation. C. 49 No. “Affective. (1996). Addison-Wesley. Journal of Marketing. pp. and content”. generating job enhancement with mastery goal in mind promotes knowledge development and risk taking. process. and job performance. As such. J. Managers can apply our framework to identify the underlying mechanisms that motivate employees and assess which commitment facet generates the highest performance. “Goal constructs in psychology: structure. 2007). 2007).P. 3. pp. 1978). Vol. the above ﬁndings suggest that creating a mastery goal-oriented culture can enhance committed behaviors that likely to lead to positive performance. archaic strategies. Vol. organizations should make available training and developmental programs that enhance skill sets to increase the satisfaction of mastery-oriented individuals (Papaioannou and Christodoulidis. R. pp. Bagozzi. In summary. 144 . The next managerial implication is related to effective service delivery. It also allows double-loop learning that emphasizes questioning of fundamental assumptions. continuance. (1980). Austin. Implications for managerial practice The current study found that mastery-oriented individuals are also committed to the organization regardless of how their psychological state of commitment is deﬁned. Future research should also investigate other distal and meditational variables in the relationship among goal orientation. 44. Reading.T.
(2005). 9 No. “The construct of work commitment: testing an integrative framework”. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.F. Journal of Applied Psychology. 51 No. “The employee-organization relationship. and Dweck. 241-59. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. “Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology”. pp. pp. “Goal orientation and ability: interactive effects on self-efﬁcacy. New York. pp. Vol. and Zajac.L.W. B. 18 No. pp. Vol. (1986). pp. 52-72. A. Brett. 87 No. E. Vol.S. S. 95-112. 495-524. and Larcker. (2005).L.M.. Bell. Bell. (2002). (2002).S. (1988). and Strasser. in Dunnette. “Goal orientation and action control theory: implications for industrial and organizational psychology”. E.S. in Elliot. (1984). S. Elliot. “Notes on the concept of commitment”. pp. 58 No. and superior service quality”. Farr. CA. Handbook of Competence and Motivation. Brown. (2003).A.. S. R. Vol. Vol. and Kenny.S. and Rigenbach. and Viswesvaran. 1. 6. (Eds). Vol. J. pp. 84 No.L. (1988). 1. Cohen.J. Personnel Psychology. H. pp. Vol. and Dweck. “The causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in models of employee turnover”. R. pp. “Goal orientation and goal content as predictors of performance in a training program”. C. D. (1996). Journal of Marketing Research. pp. 687-732. and knowledge”. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Vol. 44 No. (1999). 497-505. Dweck. Multiple Commitments in the Workplace: An Integrative Approach. 66 No. strategic. Journal of Marketing.F. “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error”. (1991).A. 70-80. 1. “The big ﬁve personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis”. D. M.S. C. C. and Menguc.A. Elliot. pp. Campbell. Vol. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2. B. Vol. Journal of Applied Psychology. J. Becker. D. Palo Alto. C. 256-73.R. and statistical considerations”. Vol. 2nd ed. pp.K. Guilford Press. 2. and Mount. pp. 27 No. “Goals: an approach to motivation and achievement”. D. A. “Goal orientation in organizational research: a conceptual and empirical foundation”. 4. A. 131 No. S. Mathieu. Hofmann. C. M. Mahwah. and Leggett. Bateman. (1993).J. 54 No. Human Resource Management Review. 32-40. 6. American Journal of Sociology.P. 863-73. Vol.M. Individual difference predictors 145 . 26-48. Consulting Psychology Press. Psychological Review. (1994). K. Vol.B. “A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct”. J. pp. “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual. and VandeWalle. Vol. D. D. 1. 193-232. 131-46. 78 No. 1173-82. pp. (1999). Currivan.S. (1981). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.P. S. Barrick. 67 No. Academy of Management Journal. 1-26. and Kozlowski. 2. 39-50..Baron. 95 No. 3. NY. 5-12. 2. A. L. Fornell. and Hough. 1. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (1960). Psychological Bulletin.J. NJ.D. pp. pp. and Peterson. 1. (1990). 1. Button. “A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality”. “The effect of effort on sales performance and job satisfaction”.J. M. 8.E. Cooper-Hakim. T. Journal of Retailing.S. organizational citizenship behaviors.M.B. J. performance. Vol. (Eds). “A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of organizational commitment”.
132 No. “Employees’ goal orientations. Allen. T. “A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational commitment and salesperson job performance: 25 years of research”. Korczynski. Academy of Management Journal. and Marusenko. (1987).W. C. pp. Work Motivation: History. Janssen. in Staw. Theory. T. and Marshall. “An examination of goal orientation proﬁles using cluster analysis and their relationships with dispositional characteristics and motivational response patterns”. and proposals for future research”. Journal of Applied Psychology. and Healey. (2005). Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology. the quality of leader-member exchange.P. pp. Psychological Bulletin. pp. Vol. Vol. and Cummings. (2002). J. J. 2150-83. pp. Vol. “The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced states on intra-individual patterns of citizenship behavior”. Journal of Marketing Management. Applied Psychology: An International Review. L. G. K. B. Research in Organizational Behavior. 596-614. 361-76.. CA. pp.IJOA 18.M. 72 No. 47 No. and Rhee... Wesson. Mowen. A. M. E.pdf Kanter. and social conditions for innovation in organizations”. and Lord. Houndmills.. 44 No. 19 Nos 5/6. Vol. 33 No. 169-211. 2.G. R. (2001). Y. Journal of Applied Psychology. pp. Basingstoke.J. and Klein. Lee. Journal of Business Research. B. and Brown. (Eds). J. and Van Yperen. “Online survey in marketing research: pros and cons”.-Y. 3.. B. Janssen. (2006).. “Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: conceptual clariﬁcation and empirical synthesis”. Vol. 3. pp. “Re-examining salesperson goal orientations: personality inﬂuencers. (2005). Vol. 3.. “Latent variable scores and their uses”. 705-14. H. 885-96. T. 541-61. Jaramillo. . O. (1988). 50 No. Lee. Sage. “Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: problems.M. Palgrave. pp. 19-35.A. Law. Vol. R. R. Latham. 3. ¨ Joreskog.P. Academy of Management Journal. “Job demands. pp. 287-302. Meyer. “Human resource management in service work”.J. and Judge. Research. 3. and Xin.R. R.S. Hollenbeck. (2009). 36 No. K.com/ lisrel/techdocs/lvscores. 84. customer orientation. “Human resources management and ﬁrm performance: the differential role of managerial affective and continuance commitment”. Ilieva. K. G. prospects. Ilies. 381-415. 9. Vol. and work satisfaction”. (2000).. pp. 94 No.J. K. Gong. Baron. (2007). “Studying organizational commitment with the OCQ in the Korean retail context: its dimensionality and relationships with satisfaction and work outcomes”. N.S.W.M. pp. pp. 263-75. (2000). J. R.1 146 Fortunato. Vol. (2005). O. Harris. Greenwich. Vol. Mulki. Scott. and Gao. International Journal of Market Research.E.. Chang. pp. U. CT. “Web survey bias: sample or mode effect?”. 73 No. “When a thousand ﬂowers bloom: structural. pp. and Goldblatt. Vol.C. J. S.R. (2002). Hollenbeck. K. N. Rettie. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction”. 1.. (2004). 212-20. 561-75. (1999). F. S. available at: www. M. Journal of Applied Psychology. J. 1. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. (2006). H. perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behavior”. Johnson. Thousand Oaks. 6. V.J. Vol. “The three-component model of organizational commitment: an application to South Korea”.G.L. 49 No. K.P. Grandcolas. Klein. Chang. K. JAI Press.ssicentral. (2003). and Alge.. “Moving from cognition to behavior: what the research says”. (2006). Human Resource Management in Service Work. and Practice. collective. 4. 368-84. Vol. N. 58 No.A..-H.
Li.A. S. and Herscovitch. (1981). 90 No. and Christodoulidis.A. S. “Perceived organizational support as a mediator of the relationship of perceived situational factors to affective organizational commitment”. 4. A. 20-52. Payne. (2007). pp. 705-17. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 1. Kumar. A. “A measure of teachers’ achievement goals”. 1. and Latham. and Latham. 299-326. and Butler.P. “Applications of structural equations modeling in psychological research”. 6. pp. continuance. 50 No. Journal of Business and Psychology. Vol. and Nalakath. Mathieu. L. Lin. J. J.B. Locke. 1. “Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation”. 2. need for achievement... 92 No. Meyer. pp. D. Moideenkutty.P. Youngcourt. MacKenzie.A. pp. Vol. 37-51. Journal of Applied Psychology. (1990).P. 349-61. pp. A.P. Research. Journal of Applied Psychology.-N. “Commitment to organizations and occupations: extension and test of a three-component conceptualization”.J. S. and consequences of organizational commitment”.T. Saari.M. pp.M. 538-51. Meyer. and Vandenberghe.. (1997). pp. Educational Psychology. R. Blau. “Goal orientation and organizational commitment as explanatory factors of employees’ mobility”. “Commitment in the workplace: toward a general model”. “Employee commitment and motivation: a conceptual analysis and integrative model”. Vol. “An meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net”. “The effects of participation on goal setting and goal rationales on goal commitment: an exploration of justice mediators”. L.P.. J. Prentice-Hall. 1. and Allen. (2007). pp.B.P. 331-53. pp. MacCallum.J. G. (1990). Sage. correlates. Vol. pp. Herscovitch. Meyer. and Smith. 51. Phillips.M. Psychological Bulletin. Distribution. Meyer. Locke. 5. P.. 128-50. G. Commitment in the Workplace: Theory. Vol. J.S. A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Meyer. Applied Psychology: An International Review. Vol.C. Vol. and Chang. (2001). Allen. 792-802. (1991). 19 No.N.P.. Englewood Cliffs. (2002). 61 No. Becker. Thousand Oaks. and Gully. K. 82 No. (1993). and Application. and Zajac. 9. Annual Review of Psychology. pp. Human Resource Management Review. C. E. T. J. 1 No. and Consumer Research. (2000). Vol. and Ahearne. S. N. Vol.J. 3. A. 1. Vol.A. Shaw. CA. (2002). and Beaubien. pp. 201-26.E. J.M. Stanley. Psychological Bulletin. 61-89. Podsakoff. Journal of Vocational Behavior. NJ. 78 No. E. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. M. (2001). (2005). “Affective. (2004). and Topolnytsky. pp. pp. 27 No. and locus of control in the self-efﬁcacy and goal-setting process”. G. (1997). 4. 1. Papaioannou. L. 125-52. Vol. “Some possible antecedents and consequences of in-role and innovative job salesperson performance”. U. (2004).International Review of Retail. 15 No. and Austin.. R. J. 615-34. N. 108 No. 11 No. “Goal setting and task performance: 1969-1980”. C. J. Vol. 34 No. G. Vol. E. 375-9.P.. and normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents. Meyer. correlates.. 57 No. Personnel Review. pp.M. J. 3. 3. T. 87-98. Vol. 991-1007.C. J. and Allen. D. Individual difference predictors 147 . Vol. and Latham.-C. L. J. Human Resource Management Review. 171-94. 89 No.. pp. 4. American Psychologist. Journal of Marketing.P. and consequences”.J. S. “A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents.E. “Role of goal orientation.M. “A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment”. ability. Locke. pp. N. 62 No. (1998).
N. Ramanujam.. Podsakoff. “A test of the inﬂuence of goal orientation on the feedback-seeking process”. A. Salancik.L. response speed and response quality of two methods of sending questionnaires: e-mail vs mail”. 811-27. and Boulian. Vol. Indiana University. 2. 811-18. J. “Examining the causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment”. (1973). “Effects of psychological contract breach on performance of IT employees: the mediating role of affective commitment”. and Pfeffer. “Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: a meta-analysis”. (1998). T. Restubog. pp. L. Journal of Organizational Behavior.1 148 Podsakoff.. S. “Feeling fatigued and dissatisﬁed or feeling fatigued but satisﬁed? Employees’ goal orientations and their responses to high job demands”. (2005). “A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design”. Porter. 1. 59-78. and job survival”. pp. C. LePine.T. pp. Vol.D. 2. 3. Porter. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology. M. R. Vol.J. working paper. Steers..R. “Unpacking commitment: multiple loyalties and employee behavior”. job attitudes. D. Y. “The dispositional approach to job satisfaction: more than a mirage. J. Vol. Journal of Applied Psychology.IJOA 18. Vandenberg. S. Bordia. M. Academy of Management Journal. Staw.P. Market Research Society Journal of the Market Research Society.L. Vol. VandeWalle. Siu.E.O. IN. B. Vol. 90 No.H. 79 No. pp. 92 No.C. job satisfaction. 438-54. (1997). pp. Vol. 4. and Lance. 27 No. Wanous. (2002). Van Yperen. R. “Effects of a realistic job preview on job acceptance.A. (2007). “The challenges are organizational not just clinical”. O. (2005). Vol. Riketta. pp. P. 353-62. (2005). “Differential challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes. Vol. 18 No. Administrative Science Quarterly. 42 No.V. and turnover among psychiatric technicians”. 603-9. . 23 No. pp. and Cohen-Charash. 5. Vol. and Mackenzie. (1978). pp. 40 No.A. pp. “A second generation measure of organizational citizenship behavior”.L. 59 No. 6. efﬁcacy and commitment in teams”. 224-35. R. 3. (1992). Tse. Vol. (1974). (2006). G. E. 299-306. and withdrawal behavior: a meta-analysis”.A. Journal of Organizational Behavior. J. 327-32. 1161-71. 23 No. “Organizational commitment. (2002). Redman. P. and LePine. (1989). N.W. Journal of Management Studies.M. Mowday. Journal of Applied Psychology. and Snape. D. International Journal of Psychology. 153-67. pp. performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. turnover. 82 No.W. 257-66. and Rousseau. Journal of Applied Psychology. “Job stress and job performance among employees in Hong Kong: the role of Chinese work values and organizational commitment”.L. pp. Journal of Management. R. 2. Vol. Vol. 4. and Cummings. O. 337-47. 45 No. pp. R. Bloomington. 2. but not yet an oasis”. and Janssen. P.M. 26 No. 6. “Comparing the response rate. pp.M. (2003). Journal of Applied Psychology. 390-400. 7. Journal of Organizational Behavior. C. “Goal orientation: effects on backing up behavior. Vol.B. 3. Vol.L. 1..B.P. turnover intentions. 58 No.M. pp. (2006). pp. L. and Tang. 301-28. 38 No.
even if I wanted to CC2 There would be too many disruptions in my life if I decided I wanted to leave this hospital now CC3 I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this hospital c Job satisfaction JS1 I have generally found the kind of work I do here exciting JS2 It is worthwhile to invest my time delivering service at this hospital JS3 I would advise my friends to patronize this hospital JS4 I would recommend this hospital as a place to work JS5 Overall.) PO1 I perform better than my colleagues PO2 Others cannot do as well as me PO3 Others mess up and I do not PO4 I can clearly demonstrate that I am the best qualiﬁed person PO5 I accomplish something where others failed PO6 I am clearly the most productive employee PO7 I am the only one who knows about particular things or who has the particular skill PO8 I am the only one who knows about particular things or who has the particular skill Affective commitment b AC1 I do not feel a strong sense of “belonging” to this hospital (R) AC2 I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this hospital (R) AC3 I do not feel like “part of the family” at his hospital (R) Normative commitment b NC1 I would feel guilty if I left this hospital now NC2 Even if it was to my advantage.Appendix Individual difference predictors 149 Mastery orientation a (I feel successful in my job when . Operational items utilized to measure study constructs . . .) MO1 I perform to my potential MO2 I feel I am improving MO3 I learn something that makes me want to practice more MO4 I learn something new that is fun to do MO5 I get the maximum out of myself MO6 I improve on particular aspects MO7 I master new knowledge or a new skill MO8 I learn something that motivates me to continue Performance orientation a (I feel successful in my job when . . I feel I am satisﬁed with my job In-role performance d IRP1 This employee always completes the duties speciﬁed in his/her job description IPR2 This employee meets all the formal performance requirements of the job (continued) Table AI. . I do not feel it would be right to leave this hospital now NC3 This hospital deserves my loyalty NC4 I would not leave this hospital right now because I have a sense of obligation to the people in it NC5 I owe a great deal to this hospital Continuance commitment b CC1 It would be very hard for me to leave this hospital right now.
Notes: Job performance are evaluated by supervisors. techniques. (R) this item was reverse scored Sources: Adapted from: aJanssen and Van Yperen (2004).IJOA 18. Mackenzie (1989) Corresponding author Olivia F.com Or visit our web site for further details: www. or instruments This employee seeks approval for innovative ideas This employee transforms innovative ideas into useful applications This employee generates original solutions to problems This employee introduces innovative ideas in a systematic way This employee makes important organizational members enthusiastic for innovative ideas This employee often thoroughly evaluates the application of innovative ideas 150 Table AI.com/reprints . cBrown and Peterson (1994) and dPodsakoff. bAllen and Meyer (1990).1 IPR3 IRP4 Innovative job performance a INOP1 INOP2 INOP3 INOP4 INOP5 INOP6 INOP7 INOP8 INOP9 This employee fulﬁlls all responsibilities required by his/her job This employee never neglects aspects of the job that he/she is obligated to perform This employee often creates new ideas for improvements This employee often mobilizes support for innovative ideas This employee searches out new working methods.emeraldinsight.edu To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight. all other items are rated by employees. Lee can be contacted at: olee@stcloudstate.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.