Jun 24, 2017 - that project has certain starting and finishing points (PMI 2013, p. 3). ...... contains six sub-aspects: 1) General Motivation; 2) Extrinsic Regulation ...... anagement/De_Dreu_Weingart_Task-conflict_Meta-analysis.pdf ..... ay o r career p ro m o tio n. , it is reg ard ed d isresp ectfu l to ask su p ...... res are free fro.
Project Management Motivation in Thailand and How It Is Affected by Power Distance
A Thesis/ Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Project Management (MPM) In Project Management Program By
Anakkawee Keattiweerasak 460067492
Supervisor: Dr. Ehssan Sakhaee
Project Management Program School of Civil Engineering The University of Sydney Australia
June 2017
Page of 152
Abstract This thesis is aimed to investigate the indirect influence of power distance towards work motivation in Thailand’s project management environment. The research was basically conducted on the assumptions that power distance generates the three negative situations: 1. office politics; 2. conflict; and 3. injustice, and the three negative situations lower work motivation of project management staff. It was found that power distance does not entirely encourage office politics, conflict, and injustice. However, power distance has some partial correlations with these three negative situations. Additionally, it was found that office politics and conflict significantly affect work motivation. Meanwhile, injustice only has partial impact on work motivation. Additional findings also have been drawn out from the same series of research survey. It was found that power distance, on the other hand, increases silence behaviour and lowers voice in a project team. Also, it was found that task and interpersonal conflict positively correlate with each other. An effective management of task conflict can also lower interpersonal conflict at the same time. Finally, it was also found that office politics encourages interpersonal deviant behaviour among project management staff.
Page i of 152
Disclaimers Student Disclaimer This MPM Thesis is my own work and contains nothing of work done in collaboration with others, except as specified in the text. The research approval was granted by Human Research Ethics Committee of The University of Sydney (Project No. 2017/081). The length of the thesis is 11,055 words and it contains 27 Figures and 46 Tables.
Anakkawee Keattiweerasak:
June 2017
Project Management Disclaimer This thesis was prepared for the Master of Project Management (MPM) at The University of Sydney, Australia, and describes the investigation on power distance’s influence on project motivation in Thailand. The opinions, conclusions and recommendations presented herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The University of Sydney or any of the sponsoring parties to this project.
Page ii of 152
Acknowledgement First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Ehssan Sakhaee for being a wonderful supervisor and inspiring teacher. With his mentoring and coaching, I could smoothly work on all processes of thesis completion. I also would like to express my appreciation to the two co-supervisors: Dr. Anya Johnson and Dr. Helena Nguyen, from Sydney Business School. Without their helpful guidance, I would not have seen the clear directions in this research. Additionally, I would like to extend my appreciation to Dr. Soontornpathai Chantara for her kind help in providing an idea of questionnaire regarding SDT and motivation. I also would like to thank Mr. Purinut Phumitharanon for his kind suggestions about relevant literature, as well as for kind help in cross-checking and certifying the Thai translation of research questionnaire. Additionally, thanks to Mr. Wasin Praditsilp and Mr. Supawat Meeprom for their absolutely useful guidance in using SPSS programme for research data analysis. I sincerely appreciate patience and the best effort of all research participants. They play a crucial role in providing valuable data for the research and relevant investigations. More importantly, I would like to express my appreciation to the Office of the Administrative Courts not only for their sponsorship and relevant arrangements, but also for encouraging me to step out of my comfort zone and experience another completely different world like Project Management discipline. Also, I would like to extend my appreciation to my friends, colleagues, and everyone around me for morale support, as well as to all my previous educators for their devotion in equipping me with the knowledge of English and other fundamental subjects Thanks to XueHua Li, my friend who took PM Thesis unit at the same time, for all her kind help, mental support, and good times we shared. Last but not least, I would like to convey my sincere gratitude to my family, especially to my mother and grandparents. Thanks to them for never giving up on me. Their faith in me is a powerful force motivating me to go through hard time and achieve my goals successfully.
Page iii of 152
Table of Contents Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... i Disclaimers................................................................................................................................ii Acknowledgement .................................................................................................................. iii List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ..........................................................................................................................vii List of APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. ix 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 2. Literature Review ................................................................................................................ 3 2.1 Project Management and Human Resources .............................................................. 3 2.2 Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and Motivation ..................................................... 3 2.2 Power Distance ............................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Office Politics .................................................................................................................. 6 2.4 Conflict ............................................................................................................................ 7 2.5 Injustice........................................................................................................................... 8 2.6 Literature Review for Additional Findings ................................................................. 9 2.6.1 Employee Silence and Voice .................................................................................... 9 2.6.2 Task Conflict .......................................................................................................... 11 2.6.3 Interpersonal Deviance .......................................................................................... 12 3. Research Methodology ...................................................................................................... 13 3.1 Population and Sample ................................................................................................ 13 3.1.1 Gender .................................................................................................................... 13 3.1.2 Age .......................................................................................................................... 15 3.1.3 Education ............................................................................................................... 16 3.1.4 Nationality .............................................................................................................. 17 3.1.5 Language ................................................................................................................ 18 3.1.6 Job Sectors.............................................................................................................. 19 3.1.7 Job Title/Position ................................................................................................... 20 3.1.8 Employment Status ................................................................................................ 21 3.1.9 Primary Profession ................................................................................................ 22 3.1.10 Experience in Primary Profession ...................................................................... 25 3.1.11 Experience in Organisation/Company ................................................................ 26 3.1.12 Experience in the Current Project Team/ Department / Bureau ....................... 28 3.2 Research Hypotheses ................................................................................................... 29 3.3 Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation ................................................................ 32
Page iv of 152
4. Results and Discussion ....................................................................................................... 34 4.1 The Results of Main Hypotheses ................................................................................ 34 4.2 Additional Findings ..................................................................................................... 46 4.2.1 Power Distance, Voice, and Employee Silence ..................................................... 46 4.2.2 Task and Interpersonal Conflict ........................................................................... 49 4.2.3 Office Politics and Interpersonal Deviance .......................................................... 50 4.3 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Work .............................................. 52 4.3.1 Limitations.............................................................................................................. 52 4.3.2 Recommendations for Future Work...................................................................... 53 5. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 55 6. Recommendations for Project Managers and Project Management Organisations ... 57 References ............................................................................................................................... 59 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 68 APPENDIX A: Questionnaire Sample (English) ............................................................ 68 APPENDIX B: Questionnaire Sample (Thai) ................................................................. 80 APPENDIX C: Pearson Correlations (Main Research Model) ..................................... 93 APPENDIX D: Pearson Correlations (Additional Findings) ...................................... 132
Page v of 152
List of Figures Figure 3.1: Gender Chart
14
Figure 3.2: Age Chart
16
Figure 3.3: Education Chart
17
Figure 3.4: Nationality Chart
18
Figure 3.5: Language Chart
19
Figure 3.6: Job Sector Chart
20
Figure 3.7: Job Title/Position Chart
21
Figure 3.8: Employment Status Chart
22
Figure 3.9: Primary Profession Chart
24
Figure 3.10: Experience in Primary Profession (Chart)
26
Figure 3.11: Experience in Organisation/Company (Chart)
27
Figure 3.12: Experience in the Current Project Team/ Department / Bureau (Chart)
29
Figure 3.13: Main Research Model (H7)
30
Figure 3.14: Sub-Models of H1, H3, and H5
31
Figure 3.15: Sub-Models for H2, H,4, and H6
31
Page vi of 152
List of Tables Table 3.1: Gender Descriptive Statistics
14
Table 3.2: Age Descriptive Statistics
15
Table 3.3: Education Descriptive Statistics
16
Table 3.4: Nationality Descriptive Statistics
17
Table 3.5: Language Descriptive Statistics
18
Table 3.6: Job Sector Descriptive Statistics
19
Table 3.7: Job Title/Position Descriptive Statistics
20
Table 3.8: Employment Status Descriptive Statistics
21
Table 3.9: Primary Profession Descriptive Statistics
23
Table 3.10: Experience in Primary Profession (Descriptive Statistics)
25
Table 3.11: Experience in Organisation/Company (Descriptive Statistics)
27
Table 3.12: Experience in the Current Project Team/ Department / Bureau (Descriptive Statistics)
28
Table 3.13 : Reliability Statistics
32
Table 3.14: Descriptive Statistics (Major Variables)
33
Table 4.1: ANOVA (Power Distance vs Office Politics)
34
Table 4.2: Coefficients (Power Distance vs Office Politics)
35
Table 4.3: ANOVA (Office Politics vs Work Motivation)
36
Table 4.4: Coefficients (Office Politics vs Work Motivation)
37
Table 4.5: ANOVA (Power Distance vs Interpersonal Conflict)
38
Table 4.6: Coefficients (Power Distance vs Interpersonal Conflict)
38
Table 4.7: ANOVA (Interpersonal Conflict vs Work Motivation)
39
Table 4.8: Coefficients (Interpersonal Conflict vs Work Motivation)
40
Table 4.9: ANOVA (Power Distance vs Justice)
41
Page vii of 152
Table 4.10: Coefficients (Power Distance vs Justice)
41
Table 4.11: ANOVA (Justice vs Motivation)
42
Table 4.12: Coefficients (Justice vs Motivation)
42
Table 4.13: ANOVA (Power Distance vs Work Motivation)
44
Table 4.14: Coefficients (Power Distance vs Work Motivation)
44
Table 4.15 : Employee Silence and Voice Reliabilities
46
Table 4.16: ANOVA (Power Distance vs Voice)
47
Table 4.17: ANOVA (Power Distance vs Employee Silence)
47
Table 4.18: Task Conflict Reliability
49
Table 4.19: ANOVA (Task and Interpersonal Conflict)
50
Table 4.20 Interpersonal Deviance Reliability
51
Table 4.21: ANOVA (Office Politics vs Interpersonal Deviance)
51
Page viii of 152
List of APPENDICES Table C-1: Power Distance and Office Politics (Correlations)
93
Table C-2: Office Politics and Work Motivation (Correlations)
103
Table C-3: Power Distance and Interpersonal Conflict (Correlations)
112
Table C-4: Interpersonal Conflict and Work Motivation (Correlations)
114
Table C-5: Power Distance and Justice (Correlations)
116
Table C-6: Justice and Work Motivation (Correlations)
121
Table C-7: Power Distance and Work Motivation (Correlations)
127
Table D-1 : Power Distance and Employee Silence (Correlations)
132
Table D-2: Power Distance and Voice (Correlations)
135
Table D-3: Task and Interpersonal Conflict (Correlations)
138
TableD-4: Office Politics and Interpersonal Deviance (Correlations)
140
Page ix of 152
1. Introduction Motivation has been proven as a crucial factor contributing to both individual and communal accomplishments. Likewise, motivation plays an important role in project management success. It enhances positive perspectives about tasks and relationship within a project team as well as increases productivity among team members. Therefore, scholars and experts are increasingly interested to investigate various aspects concerning motivation in order to provide useful suggestions for creating motivation among individuals in organisations. In addition to motivating environment and practices, factors reducing motivation have become the subjects for several studies and researches. The reduction of negative factors against motivation are also emphasised in parallel with the focus on motivation enhancement. Culture can produce impact on motivation. It may either bring about or suppress individual motivation and active participation in one society. As a part of organisation, a project team may absorb or imprint some forms of culture, and it is possible that some cultural dimension(s) may affect motivation of people in the project team. Geert Hofstede, a Dutch social psychologist and one of the famous cross-cultural researchers, divided the culture into six dimensions: 1. Power Distance Index (PDI); 2. Individualism vs. Collectivism (IDV); 3. Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI); 4. Masculinity vs. Femininity (MAS); 5. Long-term Orientation vs. Short-term Orientation (LTO); and 6. Indulgence vs. Restraint (IND). In this regard, the study will focus only on the impact of power distance towards project management motivation in Thailand. Power distance is the acceptance of unequal distribution of power and different status in one society. Although its PDI is lower than other countries in Asia, Thailand still possesses quite high score in power distance (64). Basically, the study is based on a main assumption that power distance may negatively affects project management motivation in Thailand. However, the study of power distance’s
Page 1 of 152
impact should begin with what potentially negative situations produced by power distance, and then how these situations affect motivation. In detail, it may be assumed that power distance may create the following three situations: 1. Office Politics; 2. Conflict; and 3. Injustice in Organisation. Plus, these situations (or side effects of power distance) may negatively impact motivation. Thesis Objectives: 1) To identify the influence of power distance and prove whether it is the root cause of injustice, office politics, and conflict; 2) To identify the impact of injustice, office politics, and conflict on motivation among project management staff in Thailand; 3) To identify other potential dimensions or factors influencing on motivation (if any); 4) To propose useful suggestions and encourage the adaptability of findings deriving from the study; and 5) To provide a source of information (findings) for further relevant investigations or related assumptions proving.
Page 2 of 152
2. Literature Review 2.1 Project Management and Human Resources “Project” is a temporary process of works carried out to achieve one or more specific deliverables i.e. product, service, or result. What makes project different from routine work is that project has certain starting and finishing points (PMI 2013, p. 3). Although not existing forever, projects create long lasting outcome and potentially yield social, economic, and environmental impacts during their lifespan and even in the long run (PMI 2013, p. 3). “Project management” refers to the use of relevant knowledge and skills, resources, and techniques to carry out a project effectively and produce one or more specific deliverables as required (PMI 2013, p. 5). Time, cost, and quality are the classic triple constraints (elsewhere: project management triangle) in proceeding projects (Haughey 2011). However, being a good project manager requires not only the satisfactory management of the project management triple constraints, but also the effective management of people in the team (Linton 2014, p. 260). According to PMI (as cited in Linton 2014, p. 261), additional skills in people and team management consist of: 1. Leadership; 2. Team Building; 3. Motivation; 4. Communication; 5. Influencing; 6. Decision Making; 7. Political and Cultural Awareness; 8. Negotiating; 9. Trust Building; 10. Conflict Management; and 11. Coaching. With regards to more specific details about motivation, Linton (2014, p. 261) explained that project team’s commitment plays an important role in the overall success, and a key contributor to the project team’s commitment is “motivation”. 2.2 Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and Motivation Motivation is an invisible force that drives people to act or achieve something (Sakhaee 2016). Self-Determination Theory or SDT refers to the field of study emphasising the enhancement of individual motivation across disciplines.
According to SDT (Self-
Page 3 of 152
Determination Theory, n.d.), it is believed that conditions favourable to individual senses of autonomy, competence, and relatedness generate the most effective and high quality motivation, including willing participation in activities, better performance, persistent determination, and creativity. Self-Determination reflects a sense of choice at the beginning and then encourage individual regulation actions align with certain goals (Deci et al. 1989, p. 580). SDT introduces two main types of motivation: Autonomous and Controlled motivation (Gagne et al. 2015, p. 178). Autonomous motivation emerges when an individual perceives his/her choice (Schmid and Adams 2008, p. 61). In comparison with controlled motivation, autonomous motivation is more effective in terms of increasing desirable functioning (Gagne et al. 2015, p. 178). Controlled motivation rather focuses on an action influenced by external factors i.e. supervisor’s demand, deadlines, but autonomous motivation is from inside on the basis of willingness and personal fulfilment (Gagne and Deci 2005 as cited in Schmid and Adams 2008, p. 61). Therefore, many motivation studies rather aim at the investigation of factors fostering autonomous motivation. It is important to study about the factors having connection with motivation of individuals in any professions. Dobre (2013, p. 58) introduced an example of empowerment – another key contributor to motivation – where employees take active parts in decision making and experience a freedom of making choice at work. A workforce with empowerment and high motivation significantly contributes to the increase of company’s productivity and customer satisfaction. Also, Lindner (1998) stated that ‘Motivated employees help organizations survive’ and added that ‘Motivated employees are more productive’. Peterson (2007, p.60) also indicated that motivation encourages and stimulates people and project team to achieve significant accomplishments, and Linton (2014, p. 261) suggested that project objectives that are align with team member’s values will yield higher job satisfaction – which increases the level of team member’s motivation. According to Yang (2009, p.17), it is suggested to create Page 4 of 152
a proper environment for a project team in order to motivate the team members to perform at a high level. 2.2 Power Distance “Power distance” demonstrates different levels of power distributed to members of organisations and institutions (Hofstede 2011, p. 9). In other words, it demonstrates how people in one society accept different status among themselves and unequal possession of power. Hofstede (2011, p. 9) highlighted the common characteristics of high power distance as follows:
Power is a basic fact regardless of its legitimacy or good-and-evil standard;
Children are taught to be obedient to their parents;
The minors must have utmost respect and fear of the elders;
Educators are the supreme in class;
Inequality is justified with the definition of “Hierarchy”;
Subordinates must follow superiors’ commands;
Autocratic government derives from appointment or the seizure of power, not from election;
Power is frequently used for personal exploitation and conceal corruption;
Inequality in income distribution across society; and
Religions are high rank institutions, and priests possess different ranks.
High power distance in workplace is reflected through the relationship between superiors and subordinates. The superiors are most powerful while the subordinates are less powerful and have responsibilities limited to operational works (Sriput 2014). An organisation with high power distance tends to emphasise the importance of multilayers of command, and
Page 5 of 152
the employees are supposed to observe the directives and orders without any question raised against them (Hofstede 2010 as cited in Sriput 2014). There is no evidence directly indicating that power distance has connection with motivation in project management. However, there was a research paper on the investigation of power distance impact in a similar way – where Sriput (2014) investigated the power distance impact on work engagement. The research found that a large power distance suppresses work engagement in an organisation; the organisation, therefore, is suggested to increase the work environment with smaller power distance (Sriput 2014). Motivation and work engagement shares some common characteristics. For example, motivation and work engagement involves persistence, especially when one faces work difficulties, or like a sense of achievement in motivation, work engagement also refers to a sense of belonging to an organisation as a result of individual significance realisation, enthusiasm, inspiration, and challenges. 2.3 Office Politics Office politics (elsewhere: organisational politics or workplace politics) is the way to manipulate power and exploit people for specific purposes. Put differently, it is “how to hurt people” in order to achieve certain things (Daud et al 2013). In order to accomplish some certain goals, one may struggle to obtain power or authority, as well as establish specific relationships with people in the organisation. As a result, the acquisition of power and interpersonal connection may form politics climate or intensify the existing politics in the office. Power distance provides unlimited power for superiors to direct subordinates, and the subordinates are supposed to be passive and unable to raise any questions (Khatri 2003). In other words, it is possible for the superiors to manipulate their power and exploit their subordinates by virtue of power distance. Therefore, it is assumed that power distance may
Page 6 of 152
have connection with office politics in some aspects because it enables the superiors to exercise their full power to govern and control subordinates to do things under their commands. Drory (1993 as cited in Daud et al 2013) revealed that the perception of political atmosphere encourages employee’s negative attitudes. Also, when people experience politics in there office, they tend to lower their power and inevitably follow top management’s commands (Daud et al 2013). This situation will decrease creativity and innovative thinking among organisational staff (Dhar 2009 as cited in Daud et al 2013). Motivation is a positive factor advantageous in working like creativity and innovative thinking. It originates from personal insights and specific senses. Thus, while increasing negative attitudes, political perception may automatically suppress a positive factor like motivation. For instance, in case of Thailand, office politics happens everywhere and is seen as a game that people have to deal with (Rees 2015). Therefore, it is possible that motivation may be overlooked or lower when people focus only on “how to survive or get through office politics”. Additionally, job satisfaction is another contributor to higher motivation. However, the study of Ferris and Kacmar (1992, pp. 105 – 106) found that while office politics increase, job satisfaction decreases. 2.4 Conflict Conflict reflects a contentious situation when there are disagreements or a clash of personality among social entities (Barbuto Jr. and Xu 2006, p. 4). The literature on conflict suggests the negative correlation between conflict and team satisfaction. De Dreu and Weingart (2003, pp. 744 – 745) confirmed this correlation in their study, showing that both task and relationship conflicts negatively affect team satisfaction. In Thai culture, conflict is strongly perceived as a negative situation that must be avoided. One of the explicit examples introduced by Pimpa (2012, p. 40), where the avoidance of conflict and uncertainty is one of distinctive characteristics in Thai public sector system. Additionally, Pimpa (2012, p. 40) pointed out the Page 7 of 152
avoidance of feelings and opinions in the public space because of power distance lying within Thai governmental system. When conflict with the superiors occurs, power distance significantly influences on how people perceive and have a particular attitude towards such conflict. More importantly, such conflict affects the relationship between the superiors and subordinates. Liu et al (2013) stated that problematic relationships between the superiors and subordinates are likely to negatively impact the well-being of staff and organisations, and according to Parker et al. (2014, pp. 4461 – 4464), occupational well-being helps to lower workplace burnout and boost work engagement, as well as job satisfaction. 2.5 Injustice Basically, injustice (elsewhere: inequity or unfairness) refers to unequal treatment or discrimination towards particular person or a group of people. Injustice may also appear in forms of harassment, abuse, or work bullying (Okechukwu et al. 2014). Fujishiro (2005, p. 149) indicated that perceptions of justice from superiors positively correlate with employee wellbeing. Furthermore, Pinder (2014, p. 122) stated that superiors’ temper and concealing their emotions towards subordinates enhance the perceptions and experience of injustice. Injustice comes along with power distance. In high power distance culture, people become accustomed institutionalised injustice and accept hierarchical order and inequalities of power as desirable norm (Khatri 2003). According to the study done by Gudykunst and TingToomey (1988 as cited in Johnson 2008), unlike those in low power distance environment, people in high power distance environment seemed to be less frustrated and stressed as they accepted injustice and did not perceive injustice as a threat. Nevertheless, the studies by Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988) and Johnson (2008) were conducted in many years ago. Some current circumstances e.g. higher levels of education, different generations, or increasing globalisation may influent the different views on injustice in spite of high power distance environment, and the impact of injustice on project motivation. Page 8 of 152
2.6 Literature Review for Additional Findings 2.6.1 Employee Silence and Voice Employee silence refers to the state that employees choose to keep their opinions on critical issues at work on their mind and not to report them to their supervisors (Tangirala and Ramanujam 2008, p. 37). Employees are valuable resources playing important roles of active learners, creators, innovators, and organisational success achievers (Beheshtifar et al. 2012, p. 275). Additionally, they can contribute to sharing valuable information, opinions, and concerns, to their supervisors in the following aspects: 1) work performance tactic; 2) things to be avoided in workplace; 3) the implementation of particular decisions; and 4) the determination and execution of organisational policies (Rego 2013 as cited in Costa Pacheco et al. 2015, p. 293). Nevertheless, a number of employees remain silent at work and avoid express their opinions and concerns regarding issues in the organisation (Beheshtifar et. al. 2012, p. 275). One of the reasons behind employee silence is psychological safety – where employees are afraid of taking risks on their own after voicing their opinions in organisations (Edmondson 2014 as cited in Costa Pacheco et al. 2015, p. 293). Many researches show that employee silence poses negative effects on desirable organisational achievements (Aylsworth 2008 as cited in Beheshtifar et. al. 2012, p. 277), and the situation of silence may generate different consequences varying according to different motives behind it (Pinder and Harlos 2001 as cited in Beheshtifar et. al. 2012, p. 277). Once employees collectively remain silent about critical issues, employee silence transforms itself to a greater extent – organisational silence (Morrison and Milliken 2000 as cited in Beheshtifar et. al. 2012, p. 276). High power distance generally bestows privileges and utmost authorisation to people in higher positions (Bialas 2009 as cited in Umar and Hassan 2014, p. 671), and this situation
Page 9 of 152
embraces the atmosphere of silence to some extent (Umar and Hassan 2014, p. 671). Beheshtifar et al. (2012, p. 281) indicated that frequently, it is believed that employees lack enough required experience to see what are critical issues as well as are not supposed to handle things due to a lack of authority. In their study, Huang et al. (2005, p. 471) confirmed that power distance encourages employees to remain silent and not express their opinions. Also, Rhee et al. (2014, p.715) revealed that according to their research participants, power distance encourages employees not to voice their opinions on problem solutions at work. Voice refers to the state of being able to openly and informally communicate about opinions, concerns, recommendations, and information about issues at workplace to authorised people able to take relevant actions (Detert & Burris 2007; Morrison 2011; Tangirala & Ramanujam 2008; Van Dyne & LePine 1998 as cited in Morrison 2014, p. 174). Proposing recommendations on innovative changes, suggestions for improvement at workplace, and comments on standard procedure amendments are the explicit examples of voice in organisation (Lynch 2010). The target audience of voice can vary according to situations where it could be supervisors, co-workers, or the others outside the organisation (Morrison 2014, p. 174). Brockner et al. (2001, p. 301) indicated that various studies indicated that cultural norms, among other things, lower people’s responses to voice. Additionally, they confirmed the influence of power distance on the atmosphere of voice – where people in high distance power environment voice their opinions less than those in low power distance. Also, Umar and Hassan (2013 as cited in Umar and Hassan 2014, p. 670) emphasised that employees’ ability to raise their voice and make useful recommendations relies on how supervisors support them to do so in organisations. The supervisors’ authoritativeness and distant relationship between the supervisors and employees create difficulties in raising voice and intensify the atmosphere of silence (Umar and Hassan 2014, p. 678).
Page 10 of 152
2.6.2 Task Conflict When teamwork approach has been more adopted by various organisations, team conflict also has become one of considerable issues challenging effectiveness in the team (De Dreu and Weingart 2003, p. 741). In more specific definition, task conflict refers to the situation where two (or more) people cannot proceed with task due to disagreement in needs, behaviours, and attitudes (Grimsley n.d.). Task conflict involves two or more mutual and beneficial effects, and quality of group decision is the first priority (Simons and Peterson 2000, p. 102). In the past, a lot of literature emphasised the negative aspects of task conflict (Brown, 1983; Hackman & Morris, 1975; Pondy, 1967; Wall & Callister, 1995 as cited in De Dreu and Weingart 2003, p. 741). However, De Dreu and Weingart (2003, p. 151) argued that such oldschool view is limited to only one side, and with effective management strategies, task conflict could be also useful for teamwork. Also, Simons and Peterson (2000, p. 102) added that task conflict rather has connection with desirable outcomes in group decisions, and in comparison with those not having task conflict, the groups going through task conflict are likely to do better in decision-making since task conflict enables team members to realise and cognitively understand about issues they face. The conflict mentioned earlier in 2.4 is rather in the category of “interpersonal conflict” – where personal animosities and individual dissatisfaction are involved, not group fulfilment and achievements. Task conflict and interpersonal conflict exist on the two opposite sides. Simons and Peterson (2000, p. 102) pointed out the difference where task conflict leads to effectiveness in decision-making, and interpersonal conflict leads to inefficiency and poor decision-making. Nevertheless, these two types of conflict frequently synchronise. Overell (2009) stated that the two types of conflict usually occur at the same time; in other words, when a group encounters task conflict, interpersonal conflict will come along with. Therefore, the effective management of task conflict can concurrently handle with interpersonal conflict. Page 11 of 152
2.6.3 Interpersonal Deviance Interpersonal deviance is one of the elements under workplace deviance; it refers to perverting behaviour that poses a threat or damage to individuals within one organisation (Bennett and Robinson 2000, p. 349). Interpersonal deviance and other forms of workplace deviance are intentional actions that jeopardise organisational norms and endanger the wellbeing of organisational members (Bennett and Robinson 2000, p. 349). Negatively deviant behaviour causes serious problems to many aspects in the organisation. For example, it causes damage to operations, productivity decrease, the breaking of relationship in workplace, or harms to organisational staff and customers (Muafi 2011, p. 126). Researches indicated that there are a variety of reasons behind interpersonal deviance among employees such as dissatisfaction, perceived injustice, behavioural imitation, or even excitement seeking (Bennett and Robinson 2000, p. 349). Muafi (2011, p. 125) revealed that dissatisfaction strongly encourages employees to leave the organisation, and company disrespect towards employees negatively affect individual performance among operational staff, as well as leads to deviant behaviour in the organisation. Additionally, Nasurdin et al. (2014, pp. 246-247) pointed out that office politics actively motivates employees to engage in deviant behaviour. They explained that office politics intensify rivalry and the exploitation of power and policy, and consequently, the level of stress at work goes up and triggers deviant behaviour among employees.
Page 12 of 152
3. Research Methodology This chapter generally describes population and sample, research hypotheses and models, as well as data collection, analysis, and evaluation to conclude findings. 3.1 Population and Sample Research participants (referred as “respondents” from now on) were project managers or project management personnel i.e. project team members, programme manager, etc. in the private and public sectors of Thailand. Initially, there were 77 participants answering the survey. However, it was found that there were missing data in the survey, and there were only 69 respondents completing all items in the survey questionnaire. The following demographic data were collected from ‘General Information’ which was the first part of survey questionnaire: 1) Gender; 2) Age; 3) Education; 4) Nationality; 5) Language; 6) Job Sectors; 7) Job Title/Position; 8) Employment Status; 9) Primary Profession; 10) Experience in Primary Profession; 11) Experience in Organisation/Company; and 12) Experience in the Current Project Team/ Department / Bureau. To enable readers easily perceive demographic values and ratios, the author has generated and provided graphic visualisation along with the descriptive statistics and frequencies to be discussed further. 3.1.1 Gender With respect to potential LGBTQ respondents, the author provided three choices for gender identification: 1) Male; 2) Female; and 3) Other. Nevertheless, there were only male and female respondents participating in the survey. The ratio between male and female respondents was 34:35, which was not significantly different. The following table and figure demonstrate the quantity and proportion of respondents on the basis of gender categorisation.
Page 13 of 152
Please specify your gender.
Frequency Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Male
34
49.3
49.3
49.3
Female
35
50.7
50.7
100.0
Total
69
100.0
100.0
Table 3.1: Gender Descriptive Statistics
Figure 3.1: Gender Chart
Page 14 of 152
3.1.2 Age The age responses were divided into four major groups: 21-30 years; 31-40 years; 4150 years; and 51-60 years. According to Table 3.2, the numbers of respondents divided on the basis of age differences appear as follows: - Eleven respondents aging between 21-30 years; - Twenty-one respondents aging between 31-40 years; - Twenty-five respondents aging between 41-50 years; and - Twelve respondents aging between 51-60 years. Please specify your age.
Frequency Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
21 – 30
11
15.9
15.9
15.9
31 – 40
21
30.4
30.4
46.4
41 – 50
25
36.2
36.2
82.6
51 – 60
12
17.4
17.4
100.0
Total
69
100.0
100.0
Table 3.2: Age Descriptive Statistics
Page 15 of 152
Figure 3.2: Age Chart 3.1.3 Education For education background data, the choices were provided according to the levels of education. There were 21 respondents earning Bachelor’s degree, 25 respondents earning Master’s degree, and 3 respondents earning Doctoral degree. Please select the highest degree you have earned.
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Bachelor’s degree or equivalent degree
21
30.4
30.4
30.4
Master’s degree or equivalent degree
45
65.2
65.2
95.7
Doctoral degree or equivalent degree
3
4.3
4.3
100.0
69
100.0
100.0
Total
Table 3.3: Education Descriptive Statistics
Page 16 of 152
Figure 3.3: Education Chart
3.1.4 Nationality In this part, the author requested the respondents to fill the answer in a form of descriptive word, and the responses were divided into ‘Thai’ and ‘other’. However, there were only all Thai respondents as seen in the below descriptive statistics and chart.
Please specify your nationality.
Frequency Valid
Thai
69
Percent 100.0
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
100.0
100.0
Table 3.4: Nationality Descriptive Statistics
Page 17 of 152
Figure 3.4: Nationality Chart
3.1.5 Language The respondents were asked to write down languages they regularly use. In addition to a mother tongue of all respondents like Thai, some of respondents also identified their fluency in English. Please specify your language.
Frequency Valid
Thai Thai/English Total
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
67
97.1
97.1
97.1
2
2.9
2.9
100.0
69
100.0
100.0
Table 3.5: Language Descriptive Statistics
Page 18 of 152
Figure 3.5: Language Chart 3.1.6 Job Sectors The job sectors were divided into the public sector and the private sector. A vast majority of respondents (69) works in the public sector. Only seven respondents are from the private sector. Do you work in the public or private sector?
Frequency Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Public
62
89.9
89.9
89.9
Private
7
10.1
10.1
100.0
69
100.0
100.0
Total
Table 3.6: Job Sector Descriptive Statistics
Page 19 of 152
Figure 3.6: Job Sector Chart 3.1.7 Job Title/Position Each respondent was requested to write down the descriptive response about his/her job title/position (e.g. Administrative Court official, project manager, vice president, etc.). After obtaining all data, the author divided the responses into two functional categories: 1) operational staff; and 2) managerial/supervisory staff. Thirty-eight respondents are operational staff, and the other thirty-one respondents are managerial/supervisory staff. What is your job title/position?
Valid
Valid
Cumulative Percent
Frequency
Percent
Percent
Operational Staff
38
55.1
55.1
55.1
Managerial/Supervisory Staff
31
44.9
44.9
100.0
Total
69
100.0
100.0
Table 3.7: Job Title/Position Descriptive Statistics
Page 20 of 152
Figure 3.7: Job Title/Position Chart
3.1.8 Employment Status The employment status was divided into two categories: Permanent and ContractBased. Sixty-two respondents are permanent staff, and five respondents are contract-based staff. There are two respondents not specifying their employment status. Are you a permanent or contract-based staff?
Frequency Valid
Permanent
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
62
89.9
89.9
89.9
Contract-based
5
7.2
7.2
97.1
N/A
2
2.9
2.9
100.0
Total
69
100.0
100.0
Table 3.8: Employment Status Descriptive Statistics
Page 21 of 152
Figure 3.8: Employment Status Chart
3.1.9 Primary Profession The respondents are from different 27 professions. However, some respondents provided non-specific answers about their profession. For example, two respondents mentioned only “civil services” but did not mention their specific functions. Meanwhile, thirteen respondents identified themselves as engineers but did not mention their specialisation (e.g. civil engineering, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, etc.).
Page 22 of 152
Please specify your primary profession.
Frequency Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Foreign Affairs, Foreign Relations, 10
14.5
14.5
14.5
3
4.3
4.3
18.8
Civil Engineering
1
1.4
1.4
20.3
Mechanical Engineering
1
1.4
1.4
21.7
Electrical Engineering
3
4.3
4.3
26.1
13
18.8
18.8
44.9
Management (Executive)
1
1.4
1.4
46.4
Academic Researcher
1
1.4
1.4
47.8
Business Administration
1
1.4
1.4
49.3
Policy and Planning
3
4.3
4.3
53.6
Fellowship Administration
1
1.4
1.4
55.1
English Language/Literacy
2
2.9
2.9
58.0
IT/Computer Science
9
13.0
13.0
71.0
Communication Arts
1
1.4
1.4
72.5
Sociology
1
1.4
1.4
73.9
2
2.9
2.9
76.8
2
2.9
2.9
79.7
and International Cooperation Human Resource Management and Personnel Training
Engineering (unidentified specialisation)
Finance, Treasury, Budgeting, and Accounting Project Management
Page 23 of 152
Economics
3
4.3
4.3
84.1
Development and Sustainability
1
1.4
1.4
85.5
Law
1
1.4
1.4
87.0
Political Science
1
1.4
1.4
88.4
General Administration
1
1.4
1.4
89.9
Public Relations
2
2.9
2.9
92.8
Strategic Analysis
2
2.9
2.9
95.7
Marketing
1
1.4
1.4
97.1
2
2.9
2.9
100.0
69
100.0
100.0
Public services (unidentified specialisation) Total
Table 3.9: Primary Profession Descriptive Statistics
Figure 3.9: Primary Profession Chart
Page 24 of 152
3.1.10 Experience in Primary Profession The following description clarifies the numbers of respondents divided on the basis of their experience in primary profession: - One respondent has been in the profession less than one year; - Twenty-nine respondents have been in the profession for one year up to 10 years; - Twenty-two respondents been in the profession for 11 years up to 20 years; - Seven respondents have been in the profession for 21 years up to 30 years; - Six respondents have been in the profession for 30 years or more; and - Four respondents did not specify their experience in the profession. How long have you been in your primary profession?
Frequency Valid
Below 1 Year
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
1
1.4
1.4
1.4
1-10 Years
29
42.0
42.0
43.5
11-20 Years
22
31.9
31.9
75.4
21-30 Years
7
10.1
10.1
85.5
31 Years or more
6
8.7
8.7
94.2
N/A
4
5.8
5.8
100.0
Total
69
100.0
100.0
Table 3.10: Experience in Primary Profession (Descriptive Statistics)
Page 25 of 152
Figure 3.10: Experience in Primary Profession (Chart)
3.1.11 Experience in Organisation/Company The following description clarifies the numbers of respondents divided on the basis of their experience in organisations or companies: - Three respondents have been in their organisations/companies less than one year; - Thirty-two respondents have been in their organisations/companies for one year up to 10 years; - Twenty-two respondents have been in their organisations/companies for 11 years up to 20 years; - Nine respondents have been in their organisations/companies for 20 years up to 30 years; and - Three respondents have been in their organisations/companies for 30 years or more.
Page 26 of 152
How long have you been in your organisation / company?
Frequency Valid
Below 1 Year
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
3
4.3
4.3
4.3
1-10 Years
32
46.4
46.4
50.7
11-20 Years
22
31.9
31.9
82.6
21-30 Years
9
13.0
13.0
95.7
3
4.3
4.3
100.0
69
100.0
100.0
31 Years or more Total
Table 3.11: Experience in Organisation/Company (Descriptive Statistics)
Figure 3.11: Experience in Organisation/Company (Chart)
Page 27 of 152
3.1.12 Experience in the Current Project Team/ Department / Bureau The following description clarifies the numbers of respondents divided on the basis of their experience in the current project team, department, or bureau: - Four respondents have been in their current project team or department/bureau less than one year - Fifty-one respondents have been in their current project team or department/bureau for one year up to 10 years; and - Fourteen respondents have been in their current project team or department/bureau for 11 years up to 20 years.
How long have you worked with your current project team or department/bureau?
Frequency Valid
Below 1 Year
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
4
5.8
5.8
5.8
1-10 Years
51
73.9
73.9
79.7
11-20 Years
14
20.3
20.3
100.0
Total
69
100.0
100.0
Table 3.12: Experience in the Current Project Team/ Department / Bureau (Descriptive Statistics)
Page 28 of 152
Figure 3.12: Experience in the Current Project Team/ Department / Bureau (Chart)
3.2 Research Hypotheses The research was aimed to find the negative influence of power distance on motivation at PM work circumstances. However, such influence was not assumed as the direct impact. On the other hand, it was assumed to encourage three negative situations playing the role as mediators in this context. There were seven hypotheses to be tested in this research, and all of them were set forth according to the connections among power distance, office politics, conflict, injustice, and work motivation. The main hypothesis of this research was put in the last order because the conclusion under this hypothesis depended on the identification of correlations between power distance and the three negative situations, as well as correlations between the three negative situations and work motivation.
Page 29 of 152
H1: Power distance encourages office politics. H2: Office politics lowers work motivation. H3: Power distance encourages conflict. H4: Conflict lowers work motivation. H5: Power distance encourages injustice. H6: Injustice lowers work motivation. H7: Power distance negatively affects work motivation because it encourages three negative situations: office politics, conflict, and injustice. The following figures depict an overview of research model and sub-models applied in the research. Also, they help to clarify more about the connections among major variables aforementioned.
Figure 3.13: Main Research Model (H7)
Page 30 of 152
Figure 3.14: Sub-Models of H1, H3, and H5
Figure 3.15: Sub-Models for H2, H,4, and H6
Page 31 of 152
3.3 Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation Online survey was used as a tool in data collection. The questionnaire for this research was originally prepared in English and then was translated into Thai. The Thai version was proofread and certified by a person having good knowledge in Thai and English. After both versions of the questionnaire were approved, the author uploaded them to Qualtrics and sent a survey link to organisations employing project managers or other project management staff. The questionnaire included the main five aspects in the research, and all questions were adapted from reliable sources and previous studies. (For references of the questionnaire, please see Appendix A and the list of references.) The reliability values of questionnaire items are shown in form of Cronbach’s Alpha generated in IBM® SPSS Statistics 22. The standard reliability must be equal or more than 0.7. Five-Likert scale was employed as a measurement meter. Items Power Distance Perceptions of Office Politics Interpersonal Conflict Justice Perception Work Motivation
Cronbach's Alpha .720 .842 .855 .922 .745
N of Items 8 38 7 20 19
Table 3.13 : Reliability Statistics After obtaining and screening complete data, the author applied two methods of analyses: Linear Regression Analysis and Pearson Correlation Analysis. Linear Regression Analysis is effective in terms of providing an overview of complete correlation between variables in the research (aspects to be tested in the research). Meanwhile, Pearson Correlation Analysis assists in identifying notable correlations even though the hypothesis is statistically rejected due to insignificant value concluded in Linear Regression Analysis. Both methods share the same standard of significant values where:
Page 32 of 152
P < 0.001 (99.9% level of confidence);
P < 0.01 (99% level of confidence); and
P < 0.05 (95% level of confidence).
All analyses and statistical evaluation were conducted through IBM® SPSS Statistics 22. The following table represents standard statistics of major variables in the research.
Table 3.14: Descriptive Statistics (Major Variables)
Page 33 of 152
4. Results and Discussion 4.1 The Results of Main Hypotheses It is necessary to confirm power distance index – the most fundamental variable in this study – prior to the discussion of hypothesis test results. The average score in power distance is 2.66 out of 5 (51%); therefore, the power distance index for this research is regarded high and consistent with the theory concerning high power distance in Thailand. H1: Power distance encourages office politics. The questionnaire contains five sub-aspects under office politics aspect: 1) General Political Behaviour; 2) Go Along and Get Ahead; 3) Co-Workers; 4) Supervisors; and 5) Pay and Promotion. Meanwhile, there is no sub-aspect division under power distance aspect. Linear Regression Analysis shows that the significant value equates .350. (P > 0.05) between office politics and power distance. Therefore, the cause-effect relationship between office politics and power distance is not found, and the hypothesis 1 is statistically rejected. ANOVAa Sum of Model 1
Squares Regression
df
Mean Square
.413
1
.413
Residual
31.245
67
.466
Total
31.658
68
F .885
Sig. .350b
a. Dependent Variable: Office Politics b. Predictors: (Constant), Power Distance Table 4.1: ANOVA (Power Distance vs Office Politics)
Page 34 of 152
Coefficientsa
Model 1
Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
B (Constant)
Std. Error
2.450
.463
.161
.171
Beta
t
Sig.
5.294
.000
.941
.350
Power .114
Distance a. Dependent Variable: Office Politics Table 4.2: Coefficients (Power Distance vs Office Politics) However, when Pearson Correlation Analysis was applied, it was found that power distance and office politics has some interesting correlations in detail, and this highlighted some specific characteristics of power distance environment. For example, there is a positive correlation (r = .303, P < 0.05) between the statement “It is frequently necessary for superiors to exercise power or authority in dealing with subordinates,” under power distance aspect and the statement “In my workplace, people define their own standards if not specified,” under office politics aspect. From this correlation, it can be concluded that superiors play a major role in eliminating standard disunity, and power distance authorise them to do so. Another example is a negative correlation (r = - .267, P < 0.05) between the statement “Superiors should make most decisions without consulting subordinates,” under power distance aspect and the statement “In my workplace, ‘Squeaky wheels get the grease’,” under office politics. From this correlation, it can be concluded that subordinates may not call for any attention to specific issues because they perceive that finally, superiors’ decisions are absolute despite a lack of subordinates’ participation. In contrast, if having more freedom in expressing their opinions, subordinates may participate more in decision-making process. Page 35 of 152
H2: Office politics lowers work motivation. For PM motivation, the measurement questions are adapted from “work motivation scales”, and “work motivation”, in this regard, represents PM motivation. Work motivation contains six sub-aspects: 1) General Motivation; 2) Extrinsic Regulation – Social; 3) Extrinsic Regulation – Material; 4) Introjected Regulation; 5) Identified Regulation; and 6) Intrinsic Motivation. In tables 4.3 and 4.4, Linear Regression Analysis shows that the significant value is equal to .000 (p < 0.001). Therefore, office politics has a significant correlation with work motivation, and the hypothesis 2 is statistically accepted.
ANOVAa Sum of Model 1
Squares Regression
df
Mean Square
3.454
1
3.454
Residual
15.618
67
.233
Total
19.072
68
F 14.817
Sig. .000b
a. Dependent Variable: Work Motivation b. Predictors: (Constant), Office Politics Table 4.3: ANOVA (Office Politics vs Work Motivation)
Page 36 of 152
Coefficientsa
Model 1
Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
B (Constant) Office Politics
Std. Error 1.933
.254
.330
.086
Beta
t
.426
Sig.
7.619
.000
3.849
.000
a. Dependent Variable: Work Motivation Table 4.4: Coefficients (Office Politics vs Work Motivation) Pearson Correlation Analysis also confirms this negative influence of office politics on work motivation. For example, there is a positive correlation (r = .394, P < 0.01) between the statement, “In my workplace, one group always get their way,” under office politics and the statement “I don’t feel motivated because I don’t belong to this workplace,” under work motivation. As a result, it is concluded that when people perceive “influential group” in workplace, they tend to have lower motivation because they feel excluded from that place. Another example is a correlation between the statement “In my workplace, pay and promotions decisions are consistent with policies,” under office politics and “To me, it is important to put effort in this job,” under work motivation (r = -.320, P < 0.01). It is obvious that if consistency in pay and promotion is high, the realisation of best effort in task performance increases. H3: Power distance encourages conflict. Conflict, in this regard, refers to “interpersonal conflict” where the evaluation focuses on this type of conflict at project team level. Like power distance, interpersonal conflict does not have sub-aspects within the questionnaire.
Page 37 of 152
ANOVAa Sum of Model 1
Squares Regression
df
Mean Square
1.037
1
1.037
Residual
28.752
67
.429
Total
29.789
68
F
Sig.
2.416
.125b
a. Dependent Variable: Interpersonal Conflict b. Predictors: (Constant), Power Distance Table 4.5: ANOVA (Power Distance vs Interpersonal Conflict)
Coefficientsa
Model 1
Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
B (Constant)
Std. Error
1.799
.444
.255
.164
Beta
t
Sig.
4.053
.000
1.554
.125
Power .187
Distance a. Dependent Variable: Interpersonal Conflict Table 4.6: Coefficients (Power Distance vs Interpersonal Conflict) In tables 4.5 and 4.6, linear Regression Analysis indicates the significant value at .125 (P > 0.05). Therefore, power distance has no significant correlation with interpersonal conflict, and the hypothesis 3 is statistically rejected.
Page 38 of 152
However, Pearson Correlation Analysis still identifies some interesting correlations among items under power distance and interpersonal conflict. For example, the power distance statement “Subordinates should better not question the decisions made by superiors or those in authority,” positively correlates with the interpersonal conflict statement “There are personality clashes evident in our team,” (r = .354, p < 0.01). Thus, it implies that when subordinates are prevented from questioning the reasons behind superiors’ decisions, the contentious atmosphere in the team may increase due to suspicion of the other’s behaviour. Another example is a positive correlation between the power distance statement “Superiors should not assign important tasks to subordinates,” and the interpersonal conflict “There is tension among the members of our team,” (r = .291, P < 0.05). This also implies that the tension derives from a lack of trust in team members’ abilities. H4: Conflict lowers work motivation. Interpersonal conflict significantly correlates with work motivation. Linear Regression Analysis demonstrates the significant value at .007 (P < 0.01). Therefore, the hypothesis 4 is statistically accepted. ANOVAa Sum of Model 1
Squares Regression
df
Mean Square
2.006
1
2.006
Residual
17.066
67
.255
Total
19.072
68
F 7.877
Sig. .007b
a. Dependent Variable: Work Motivation b. Predictors: (Constant), Interpersonal Conflict
Table 4.7: ANOVA (Interpersonal Conflict vs Work Motivation)
Page 39 of 152
Coefficientsa
Model 1
Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
B (Constant) Interpersonal
Std. Error
2.241
.237
.260
.092
Beta
t
.324
Sig.
9.452
.000
2.807
.007
Conflict a. Dependent Variable: Work Motivation Table 4.8: Coefficients (Interpersonal Conflict vs Work Motivation) Pearson Correlation Analysis also demonstrates the negative influence of interpersonal conflict on work motivation. For example, the statement “There is jealousy or rivalry among the members of our team,” positively correlates with the statement “I don’t feel motivated because I’m wasting my time at work,” (r = .347, p < 0.01). Another example is a significant correlation between “There is tension among the members of our team,” and “I don’t feel motivated because I don’t belong to this workplace,” (r = .459, P < 0.01). The result shows that if the tension in the team is high, people become less motivated and does not feel more sense of belonging. H5: Power distance encourages injustice. For injustice, the questions are adapted from “Justice Perception” and divided into four sub-aspects: 1) Procedural Justice; 2) Distributive Justice; 3) Interpersonal Justice; and 4) Informational Justice. Linear Regression Analysis shows that the significant value is .643 (P > 0.05). Therefore, the hypothesis 5 is statistically rejected since a correlation between power distance and justice perceptions is not found.
Page 40 of 152
ANOVAa Sum of Model 1
Squares Regression
df
Mean Square
.113
1
.113
Residual
34.723
67
.518
Total
34.836
68
F
Sig. .643b
.217
a. Dependent Variable: Justice b. Predictors: (Constant), Power Distance Table 4.9: ANOVA (Power Distance vs Justice) Coefficientsa
Model 1
Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
(Constant)
3.860
.488
Power Distance
-.084
.181
Beta
-.057
t
Sig.
7.912
.000
-.466
.643
a. Dependent Variable: Justice Table 4.10: Coefficients (Power Distance vs Justice)
Despite obviously insignificant value in the whole picture, Pearson Correlation Analysis still identifies some noticeable correlations among items in detail. Some examples of correlations indicated that power distance can yield negative influence on justice to some extent. For example, the power distance statement “Subordinates should better not question the decisions made by superiors or those in authority,” positively correlates with the justice statement “My superior (s) tend to exploit or tailor communications to individual specific Page 41 of 152
needs,” (r = .321, P < 0.01). This implies that the inequality of status and power distribution can lead to the abuse of power and a lack of transparency in process. Another interesting example is a negative correlation between “Superiors should not assign important tasks to subordinates,” and “I used to influence the conclusion or result (s) of the procedures,” (r = -.348, P < 0.01). The analysis indicates that superiors tend to avoid the assignment of important tasks to subordinates potentially influencing procedure outcome. H6: Injustice lowers work motivation. Linear Regression Analysis indicates that justice has no correlation with work motivation. The significant value in tables 22 and 23 equates .086 (P > 0.05). Therefore, the hypothesis 6 is statistically rejected. ANOVAa Model 1
Sum of Squares Regression
df
Mean Square
.828
1
.828
Residual
18.244
67
.272
Total
19.072
68
F
Sig.
3.042
.086b
a. Dependent Variable: Work Motivation b. Predictors: (Constant), Justice
Table 4.11: ANOVA (Justice vs Motivation) Coefficientsa Standardized Unstandardized Coefficients Model 1
B
Std. Error
(Constant)
3.445
.328
Justice
-.154
.088
Coefficients Beta
t
-.208
Sig.
10.517
.000
-1.744
.086
a. Dependent Variable: Work Motivation
Table 4.12: Coefficients (Justice vs Motivation)
Page 42 of 152
Likewise, Pearson Correlation Analysis still identifies the influence of justice perceptions on motivation. For example, there is a negative correlation between the justice statement “I can express my opinions and raise my concerns during any organisational procedures (i.e. the determination of policies, performance assessment and promotion, the review of executives’ actions)” and the work motivation statement “I don’t feel motivated because I’m wasting my time at work,” (r = -.306, P < 0.05). The analysis demonstrates the contrast direction where the less voice and opinions in procedure, the lower motivation at work. Additionally, the analysis draws another example of positive correlation between the justice statement “I’m entitled to appeal the result (s) of procedures,” and the work motivation statement “I enjoy my work,” (r = .357, P < 0.01). This demonstrates how people are motivated at work when they have the rights to appeal in procedures. H7: Power distance negatively affects work motivation because it encourages three negative situations: office politics, conflict, and injustice. In statistical aspect, it is unable to completely conclude that power distance indirectly affects PM motivation (in other words, work motivation). The overall picture of linear Regression Analysis indicates that power distance cannot obviously yield negative office politics, conflict within the team, and justice abuse. However, the in-depth analysis of Pearson correlations still points out some significant correlations and the aforementioned three negative situations. Nevertheless, the influence of office politics and interpersonal conflict towards work motivation is statically and logically obvious. Moreover, the insignificant value between justice and work motivation is not quite large, and these two things still correlates with each other to some extent.
Page 43 of 152
The author also tried to make another assumption on whether power distance can yield any impact on work motivation itself. However, the assumption is likewise rejected – with the significant value .394 (P > 0.05). ANOVAa Sum of Model 1
Squares Regression
df
Mean Square
.208
1
.208
Residual
18.865
67
.282
Total
19.072
68
F
Sig.
.737
.394b
a. Dependent Variable: Work Motivation b. Predictors: (Constant), Power Distance Table 4.13: ANOVA (Power Distance vs Work Motivation) Coefficientsa
Model 1
Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
B (Constant)
Std. Error
2.580
.360
.114
.133
Beta
t
Sig.
7.175
.000
.859
.394
Power .104
Distance a. Dependent Variable: Work Motivation Table 4.14: Coefficients (Power Distance vs Work Motivation) Pearson Correlation Analysis highlighted the correlations between some of power distance items to the “general motivation” – where the questions dealing with a state of not being motivated at work. The statement of “Superiors should seldom ask for subordinates’ Page 44 of 152
opinions,” under power distance positively related to “I don’t feel motivated because I’m wasting my time at work.” The correlation value is .342 (P < 0.01) and shows that when subordinates are less involved in idea-sharing process, their work motivation tends to decrease. A lack of engagement, perhaps, causes subordinates to feel that they are not competent enough to assist their superiors. Another consistent agreement is the correlation between “Superiors should not assign important tasks to subordinates.” and “I feel little motivated because my work is not worth my effort,” where the correlation value amounts to .406 (P < 0.01). This correlation reflects how subordinates’ sense of competency is suppressed by distrust. The positive correlation (r = .237, P < 0.05) between “Superiors should make most decisions without consulting subordinates” and “If I put my best effort at work, others will offer me greater job security (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.)” also identifies an interesting point of fear and obedience in high power distance. This implies that in high power distance society, employees strongly perceive their occupational dependence on supervisors. However, the motivation under this item is rather “controlled motivation”, and it is not as persistent as autonomous motivation. Additionally, the negative correlation (r = -.367, P < 0.01) between “Superiors should not assign important tasks to subordinates”; and “Putting effort in this job aligns with my personal values,” confirms the incompatibility between a lack of trust in subordinates and self-determination. When being not given a chance to achieve certain work performance, the subordinates tend to give up their personal values and finally drop their creativity.
Page 45 of 152
4.2 Additional Findings The author was advised to measure the other psychological aspects such as employee silence, interpersonal deviance, voice, task conflict perceptions, etc. Additionally, the author found that in relevant literature, there were some interesting points that might have some significant connections with major variables in the main research model. Therefore, the author had developed additional hypotheses and tested the correlation between the major variables and other aforementioned variables via the same procedure. Nevertheless, the discussion in this part includes only some test results which are truly significant and potentially contribute to future studies. 4.2.1 Power Distance, Voice, and Employee Silence Umar and Hassan (2014, p. 676) found and confirmed the decrease of employees’ recommendations on issues impacting work in high power distance environment. According to their study of power distance towards employee silence and voice in Nigeria, only employees with skills and experience have confidence to propose suggestions to their supervisors. Additionally, it was found that employees perceive the risk of unemployment or the suppression of career promotion; therefore, they rather keep recommendations on their mind than reporting them to supervisors (Umar and Hassan 2014, p. 676). Being inspired by this study, the author developed further hypothesis on whether power distance can really affect employee silence and voice or not. The reliabilities of measurement for employee silence and voice are .856 and .811 respectively Items Employee Silence Voice
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.856
6
.811
5
Table 4.15 : Employee Silence and Voice Reliabilities
Page 46 of 152
Linear Regression Analysis shows that power distance has a significant correlation with employee silence at the value of .014 (P < 0.05), as well as a significant correlation with voice at the value of .015 (P < 0.05). ANOVAa Model
Sum of Squares
1
Regression
df
Mean Square
2.736
1
2.736
Residual
29.299
67
.437
Total
32.035
68
F 6.256
Sig. .015b
a. Dependent Variable: Voice b. Predictors: (Constant), Power Distance Table 4.16: ANOVA (Power Distance vs Voice)
ANOVAa Model 1
Sum of Squares Regression
df
Mean Square
2.568
1
2.568
Residual
26.947
67
.402
Total
29.515
68
F 6.385
Sig. .014b
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Silence b. Predictors: (Constant), Power Distance Table 4.17: ANOVA (Power Distance vs Employee Silence)
The two significant values confirm the effect of power distance on employee silence and voice. Furthermore, Pearson Correlation Analysis also supports the relationships between various items as follows: Power Distance vs Employee Silence
When supervisors are absolute decision makers, employees start to be more silent rather than asking for information they want at work. (r = .255, P < 0.05);
Page 47 of 152
When supervisors avoid asking for their opinions, employees do not mention potential issues at work. (r = .247, P < 0.05);
When supervisors avoid asking for their opinions, employees start to be more silent rather than asking for information they want at work. (r = .269, P < 0.05);
When supervisors avoid asking for their opinions, employees also avoid suggesting improvement at work. (r = .266, P < 0.05);
When not being allowed to question supervisors’ decisions, employees do not mention potential issues at work. (r = .310, P < 0.01);
When not being allowed to question supervisors’ decisions, employees do not share information on the prevention of issues at work. (r = .244, P < 0.05);
When not being allowed to question supervisors’ decisions, employees start to be more silent rather than asking for information they want at work. (r = .311, P < 0.01);
When supervisors avoid assigning important tasks to them, employees do not mention about ideas on solving the issues at work. (r = .259, P < 0.05);
When supervisors avoid assigning important tasks to them, employees do not mention potential issues at work. (r = .275, P < 0.05);
When supervisors avoid assigning important tasks to them, employees do not share information on the prevention of issues at work. (r = .301, P < 0.05);
When supervisors avoid assigning important tasks to them, employees also avoid suggesting improvement at work. (r = .257, P < 0.05);
When asking about pay and promotion is taboo, employees do not share information on the prevention of issues at work. (r = .274, P < 0.05); and
When asking about pay and promotion is taboo, employees start to be more silent rather than asking for information they want at work. (r = .282, P < 0.05).
Page 48 of 152
Power Distance vs Voice Like ‘Power Distance vs Employee Silence’, the author has drawn out the significant values and correlations and emphasised them as follows:
When supervisors are absolute decision makers, employees voice their opinions about issues at work to a lesser extent. (r = -.310, P < 0.01);
When supervisors are absolute decision makers, employees challenge mistakes and failure to follow protocol to a lesser extent. (r = -.240, P < 0.05);
When supervisors are absolute decision makers, employees avoid speaking out firmly on behalf of their team despite improving situation. (r = -.304, P < 0.05); and
When supervisors are absolute decision makers, employee avoid voicing their concerns if perceiving potential issues at work. (r = -.368, P < 0.01).
It is also obvious that a vast majority of correlations between power distance and voice is negative, and these negative correlations affirm the unfavourable influence of power distance upon voice. 4.2.2 Task and Interpersonal Conflict The hypothesis in this part is aimed at correlation between task and personal conflict. Simons and Peterson (2000, p. 102) stated that task conflict arises from effective decision-making, but interpersonal conflict arises from ineffective one. Additionally, they added that these two types of conflict generally correlate with each other and take place in teams. Reliability Statistics Item Task Conflict
Cronbach's Alpha .918
N of Items 8
Table 4.18: Task Conflict Reliability Page 49 of 152
ANOVAa Model 1
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
1
6.742
Residual
25.046 67
.374
Total
31.788 68
Regression
6.742
F
Sig. .000b
18.035
a. Dependent Variable: Task Conflict b. Predictors: (Constant), Interpersonal Conflict
Table 4.19: ANOVA (Task and Interpersonal Conflict) The reliability of tool for task conflict measurement is .918. Linear Regression Analysis confirms the correlation between task and interpersonal conflict whereby its significant value at .000 (P < 0.001). Task conflict plays an important role in decreasing interpersonal conflict in the team. Pearson Correlation Analysis also provides supporting evidence through the demonstration of correlations at the item level. For example, watching out for each other reduces personality clashes in the team (r = -.278, P < 0.05). Meanwhile, balance in work shift reduces tension and jealousy in the team (r = -.330, P < 0.01; and r = -.311, P < 0.01). 4.2.3 Office Politics and Interpersonal Deviance “Interpersonal Deviance” lies within a broad frame of workplace deviance, where Bennet and Robinson (2000, p. 349) defined it as an intended behaviour against organisational norms and posing the threat to the well-being of organisational members. Nasurdin et al. (2014, p. 245) confirmed in their study that office politics correlates with interpersonal deviance; however, office politics does not directly affect deviant behaviour, but job stress resulting from office politics does. In this regard, the hypothesis of correlation between office politics and interpersonal deviance is slightly different from which was in the study done by Nasurdin et al. (2014). The author assumed that office politics may directly cause interpersonal deviance.
Page 50 of 152
Therefore, the author tested the correlation of the two variables with the tool for interpersonal deviance measurement obtaining reliability score at .875. Reliability Statistics Items
Cronbach's Alpha .875
Interpersonal Deviance
N of Items 7
Table 4.20 Interpersonal Deviance Reliability
ANOVAa Model 1
Sum of Squares Regression
2.730
Residual 30.885 Total 33.615 a. Dependent Variable: Interpersonal Deviance
Mean Square
df 1
2.730
67 68
.461
F
Sig.
5.923
.018b
b. Predictors: (Constant), Office Politics Table 4.21: ANOVA (Office Politics vs Interpersonal Deviance) Linear Regression Analysis shows that office politics has significant correlation with interpersonal deviance, with significant value at .018 (P < 0.05). Pearson Correlation Analysis also supports the significant value of the two variables. It was obvious that various factors under office politics foster interpersonal deviant behaviour as follows:
Where there is an influential group that everyone is fear of, verbal abuse and certain bully i.e. making fun of someone at work, or saying something hurtful, increase. (r = .301, P < 0.05; and r = .270, P < 0.05) This implies that when people perceive their high power, they tend to inflict pain to the weaker;
People tend to ignore the others’ feelings when they define their own standard. For example, the statement “In my workplace, people define their own standards if not specified,” positively correlates with “I cursed someone at
Page 51 of 152
work”, whereby the significant value is .010 (P < 0.01) and correlation amounts to .309;
Fairness in pay, promotion, and reward can also determine certain deviant behaviour. For example, the statement “In my workplace, supervisors carry out pay and promotions unfairly,” positively correlates with “I played mean prank to someone at work,” and “I acted rudely to someone at work,” (r = .270, P < 0.05; and r = .239, P < 0.05). This implies that when people perceive unfairness, they tend to act improperly to release their anger. In contrast, the statements implying reasonable rewards, pay and promotion negatively correlates with “I played mean prank to someone at work,” and “I acted rudely to someone at work,” (r = -.276, P < 0.05; and r = -.248, P < 0.05);
Nonetheless, like the study done by Nasurdin et al. (2014), some correlations may need other mediators or involve other alternative reasons to explain more. For example, “In my work place, people who voice opinion do better,” positively correlates with “I make fun of someone at work,” or “I acted rudely to someone at work,” (r = .251; P < 0.05, R = .249, P < 0.05). It is quite hard to identify how these correlations happen even though voice and opinion is actually favourable to work. Perhaps, it would be a result of “ego” which is increasing in parallel with self-confidence gained after speaking up. 4.3 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Work 4.3.1 Limitations The major weakness of this research is the volume of data and samples. Previously, the author expected to obtain data from at least 100 respondents. Additionally, as the author has discussed in Chapter 3, there were 77 respondents at the first time, but finally, only 69 respondents completed all items in the questionnaire. As the author was outside Thailand, there was not much in-person contact with the respondents. Another noticeable limitation is that the Page 52 of 152
different proportion of respondents. For example, there are 62 respondents from the public sector, but only 7 respondents are from the private sector. This affects the importance of interpretation about specific mindset and group thinking. For instance, in this research, a comparison of power distance perceptions among the respondents from both sectors does not show any significant differences. However, if there are respondents from the private sector in the equal number, it would be possible to draw out some interesting points of view and develop further new observations. Moreover, a long line of questions has become an issue causing withdrawal from the survey. The questionnaire contains 12 major topics and 203 questions, and the respondents dropped the survey due to a load of questionnaire items to be responded. Survey system sensitivity was another cause of missing data. It was found that some of the very first items were not responded because the system skipped survey pages by itself. Fortunately, the problem was noticed early, and the author fixed it by using “Force Response” function. The incomplete data significantly affect the exact conclusions of main factors. A noticeable example is the conclusion of power distance impact on office politics, conflict, and injustice – where it was rejected in terms of statistical meanings, but some aspect correlations were still prominent. 4.3.2 Recommendations for Future Work For the future research, the author recommends further studies developed from main findings and additional findings as follows:
A study of factors that buffer the influence of office politics and conflict on work motivation in project management environment;
An investigation into the effect of employee silence and voice on project management success; and
Page 53 of 152
A study more about mediators or fundamental root causes of interpersonal deviance and the effect of interpersonal deviance in project management atmosphere.
With regards to data collection procedure, the author recommends the following solutions:
For the use of Qualtrics or any other online survey platform, it is better to set the function “Force Response” to all major questions to prevent accidentally skipping pages;
To filtrate complete data obtained and prevent a mix of missing data, the researchers are also recommended to choose setting of “Collect all complete responses only”;
In addition to a contact person coordinating on behalf of the researchers overseas, it would be better if they can also find other contact persons in the participant organisations.
The researchers should be careful about the long line of questions in the survey. This may cause a significant number of respondents to drop the survey and quit completing the question in the middle way. If it is necessary to use a lot of questions to investigate certain topics, the researchers may consider dividing the questionnaire into smaller parts and distribute them in different times. This may help in lowering bias in response, unrealistic answers, and withdrawal from the survey.
Page 54 of 152
5. Conclusion The research was intended to prove whether power distance has negative influence on project management motivation in Thailand. According to Hofstede (n.d.), Thailand scores 64 on power distance index – quite lower than the average score of other countries in Asia. However, the acceptance of inequality, different status, and the structure of command is still prominent across Thai society. In this research, the average score of power distance is 2.66 out of 5 (51% approximately) and still regarded high. The major findings are divided into three main aspects: 1) the influence of power distance to office politics, conflict, and injustice; 2) the influence of office politics, conflict, and injustice on work motivation in PM; and 3) the influence of power distance on work motivation in PM. The Influence of Power Distance on Office Politics, Conflict and Injustice: It was found that power distance is not a complete contributor to office politics, conflict, and injustice. However, power distance still has some partial correlations with them. For example, in the aspect of office politics, an influential group in workplace means nothing because the power to make absolute decisions is shifted to project managers and top-management. Meanwhile, the personality clashes in the team increases when project team members are not allowed to question project managers’ or top-management’s decisions. Another example is the negative correlation between trust in work assessment and avoidance to ask for team members’ opinions. Project team members start increasingly disbelieve in work assessment fairness when project managers or top management less interact with them. The Influence of Office Politics, Conflict, and Injustice on Work Motivation in PM: It was found that office politics yields negative influence on work motivation. The prominent example is the positive correlation between general political behaviour and a lack of general motivation (autonomy, competency, and relatedness). Likewise, conflict negatively affects work motivation. The obvious example is the positive correlation between personal Page 55 of 152
clashes, tension, and jealousy in team with a lack of general motivation. The perceptions of justice are not significantly influential on work motivation but have some partial correlations. For instance, if project team members can express their opinions in the procedure, happiness in work obviously increases. Meanwhile, if project team members are prevented from raise their voice in the procedure, they become less motivated and start thinking that they are wasting time at work. The Influence of Power Distance on Work Motivation in PM: With reference to previous hypotheses, power distance has no complete influence on work motivation in PM because it does not fully contribute to office politics, conflict, and injustice. Additionally, the author also tried the test of direct correlation between power distance an work motivation. It was found that likewise, power distance has no significant correlation with work motivation but partially affected work motivation. For instance, when project managers or top-management avoid assigning importance tasks, project team members become less motivated because they feel not belonging to the workplace. Another interesting example is positive correlation between “controlled motivation” and “superiors’ decision”. It was found that project team members tend to work harder and observe management’s orders because they expect an offer of job security from the superiors. Finally, in addition to main research findings, additional results deriving from the same series of questionnaire are also highlighted herein. It was found that major variables in the main research model also have correlations with other four variables influencing on project management success and climate: 1) Employee Silence; 2) Voice; 3) Task Conflict; and 4) Interpersonal Deviance. It was found that power distance suppresses voice of project management staff and increases employee silence. Also, it was found that the adaptability of task conflict management is also applicable for interpersonal conflict. For example, the balance in work shift can reduce tension and jealousy in team. Last but not least, it was found that office Page 56 of 152
politics has both direct and indirect influence on interpersonal deviance. In other words, office politics can encourage interpersonal deviance directly in some aspects, or encourage other mediators, e.g. job stress, ego, etc. that stimulate interpersonal deviance. 6. Recommendations for Project Managers and Project Management Organisations Researches show that motivation plays a crucial role in the encouragement of desirable project management performance and organisational success. There are various alternatives to develop and increase levels of motivation that project managers and project management organisations can adopt, and one of them is the adjustment of specific environment in workplace. According to this research, power distance does not significantly affect motivation. Nevertheless, it still partially yields some noticeable impact on motivation directly and indirectly. The suggested solution is to facilitate a more positive and egalitarian environment. To achieve this, project managers and project management organisations can consider exhibiting more care, supporting voice among team members/employees, and increasing proactive engagement. This helps to reduce the power distance between executives, project managers, and project team members, as well as improve the relationships between individuals at workplace. This research also shows that conflict and office politics also negatively affect motivation. To enhance the effectiveness of conflict management, this research suggests project managers and project management organisations apply effective task conflict management in the team and across the workplace because task conflict management can also solve interpersonal conflict simultaneously. Last but not least, although office politics may be unavoidable and may be difficult to eliminate completely, project managers and project management organisations, therefore, can consider the adoption of some alternative buffers to
Page 57 of 152
it. For example, lower the intensity of office politics by strengthening procedural justice and ensuring transparency of decisions and processes within the project and organisation as a whole.
Page 58 of 152
References Barbuto JR, John E., and Xu Ye 2006, ‘Sources of motivation, interpersonal conflict management styles, and leadership effectiveness: A structural model’ Psychological Reports, Vol. 98, pp. 3-20, viewed 24 June 2017, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7106846 Beheshtifar, Malikeh, Borhani, Hossein, Moghadam, Mahmood Nekoie. 2012, ‘Destructive Role of Employee Silence in Organizational’, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, November, Vol. 2, No. 11, viewed 29 June 2017, http://www.hrmars.com/admin/pics/1314.pdf Bennett, Rebecca J., and Robinson, Sandra L. 2000, ‘Development of a Measure of Workplace Deviance’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, No. 3, pp. 349-360, viewed 16 July 2016, http://www.psychwiki.com/dms/other/labgroup/Measufsdfsdbger345resWeek1/Marliyn/Bennet_200 0.pdf Brockner, Joel., Ackerman, Grant., Greenberg, Jerald., Gelfand, Michele J., Francesco, Anne Marie., Zhen, Xiong Chen., Lueng, Kwok., Bierbrauer, Gunter., Gomez, Carolina., Kirkman, Bradley L., and Shapiro, Debra. 2001, ‘Culture and Procedural Justice: The Influence of Power Distance on Reactions to Voice’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.37, pp. 300–315, view 26 November 2016, http://www.gelfand.umd.edu/pages/papers/1-s2.0S0022103100914513-main.pdf Colquitt, Jason A. 2001, ‘On the Dimensionality of Organizational Justice: A Construct Validation of a Measure’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, No. 3, pp. 386-400, viewed 26 November, https://media.terry.uga.edu/socrates/publications/2013/06/Colquitt2001.pdf Costa Pacheco, Daniel, Damião de Serpa Arruda Moniz, Ana Isabel, and Nunes Caldeira, Suzana 2015, ‘Silence in Organizations and Psychological Safety: A Literature
Page 59 of 152
Review’, European Scientific Journal, August, pp. 293-308, viewed 29 June 2017, http://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/download/6156/5941 Daud, Zulikiflee., Isa, Mohd Faizal Mohd., Nor, Wan Shakizah Wan Mohd., Zainol, Zairani. (2013), ‘Office Politics: The Reduction of Employees’ Need for Power’, International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 4 No. 11, viewed 4 October 2016, https://ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_11_September_2013/4.pdf Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 2000. ‘The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior’. Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 11, pp. 227-268. Deci, Edward L., Connell, James E., and Ryan, Richard M. 1989. ‘Self-Determination in a Work Organization’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74, No. 4, pp. 580-590, viewed 23 June 2017, http://selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/1989_DeciConnellRyan.pdf De Dreu, Carsten K. W. and Weingart, Laurie R. 2003, ‘Task versus Relationship Conflict, Team Performance, and Team Member Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis’, Journal of Applied
Psychology,
Vol.
88,
No.
4,
pp.
741–749,
viewed
24
June
2017,
http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Negotiation_and_Conflict_M anagement/De_Dreu_Weingart_Task-conflict_Meta-analysis.pdf De Dreu, C. K. W. and Weingart, L. R. 2003, ‘A Contingency Theory of Task Conflict and Performance in Groups and Organizational Teams’, in International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork and Cooperative Working (eds M. A. West, D. Tjosvold and K. G. Smith), John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, UK. doi: 10.1002/9780470696712.ch8 Dobre, Ovidiu-Iliuta. (2013), ‘Employee motivation and organizational performance’, Review of Applied Socio- Economic Research, vol. 5, pp. 59, viewed 30 July 2016, ftp://ftp.repec.org/opt/ReDIF/RePEc/rse/wpaper/R5_5_DobreOvidiuIliuta_p53_60.pdf Dorfman, P.W. and Howell, J.P. 1988, ‘Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited’, in R.N. Farmer and E.G. McGoun (eds.), Advances in
Page 60 of 152
international comparative management. JAI Press, London, pp.127-150. Viewed 22 June 2017, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233894930 Ferris, G.R. & Kacmar, K.M. 1992, ‘Perceptions of Organizational Politics’, Journal of
Management,
vol.
18,
no.
1,
pp.
93-116,
viewed
26
November
2016,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247569609 Fujishiro, Kaori 2005, ‘Fairness at Work: Its Impact on Employee Well-Being’, PhD dissertation, The Ohio State University, viewed 24 June 2017, https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1117142039&disposition=inline Gagné, Marylène, Forest, Jacques, Vansteenkiste, Maarten, Crevier-Braud, Laurence Broeck, Anja van den, Aspeli, Ann Kristin, Bellerose, Benabou, Jenny Charles, Chemolli, Emanuela, Güntert, Stefan Tomas, Halvari, Hallgeir, Indiyastuti, Devani Laksmi, Johnson, Peter A., Molstad, Marianne Hauan, Naudin, Mathias, Ndao, Assane, Olafsen, Anja Hagen, Roussel, Patrice, Wang, Zheni, & Westbye, Cathrine 2015, ‘The Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale: Validation evidence in seven languages and nine countries’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24:2, 178-196, viewed 26 November 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2013.877892 Grimsley, Shawn n.d., ‘What Is Task Conflict? – Definition and Explanation’, web log post, viewed 28 June 2017, http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-task-conflict-definitionlesson-quiz.html Haughey, Duncan 2011, ‘Understanding the Project Management Triple Constraint’, Project
Smart,
web
log
post,
19
December,
viewed
24
June
2017,
https://www.projectsmart.co.uk/understanding-the-project-management-triple-constraint.php Huang, Xu, Van de Vliert, Evert, and Van der Vegt, Gerben, ‘Breaking the Silence Culture: Stimulation of Participation and Employee Opinion Withholding Cross-nationally’,
Page 61 of 152
Management and Organization Review, Vol. 1:3, pp. 459–482, viewed 28 June 2017, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46526844 Hofstede, G. 2011, ‘Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context’, Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), viewed 26 November 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014 Johnson, Rachel M. (2008), ‘Moderators of the Relationship between Organisation Injustice and Employee Stress’, PhD Dissertation, Colorado State University, viewed 12 October 2016, http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy1.library.usyd.edu.au/docview/304624876?pqorigsite=summon Kacmar, K.M. & Ferris, G.R. 1991, "Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale (POPS): Development and Construct Validation", Educational and Psychological Measurement,
vol.
51,
no.
1,
pp.
193-205,
viewed
26
November
2016,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247727663 Khatri, Naresh. (2003), ‘Consequences of Power Distance Orientation in Organizations’, viewed 4 October 2016, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40498683 Kumar, Mohd. Muzamil., and Shah, Shawkat Ahmad. 2015, ‘Psychometric Properties of Podsakoff’s Organizational Citizenship Behaviour Scale in the Asian Context’, The International Journal of Indian Psychology, Volume 3, Issue 1, No.9, viewed 26 November 2016, http://oaji.net/articles/2015/1170-1449590099.pdf Lam, S.S.K., Hui, C. & Law, K.S. 1999, ‘Organizational citizenship behavior: Comparing perspectives of supervisors and subordinates across four international samples’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 84, no. 4, pp. 594-601, viewed 24 November 2016, http://psy482.cankaya.edu.tr/uploads/files/OCB%20Comparing%20Perspectives.pdf Lindner, James R. 1998, ‘Understanding Employee Motivation’, Journal of Extension, vol.36 no.3, viewed 31 July 2016, http://www.joe.org/joe/1998june/rb3.php Page 62 of 152
Linton, T. 2014, Project management essentials, Cengage Learning Australia, South Melbourne, Vic. Liu, Cong., Yang, Liu-Qin., Nauta, Margaret M. (2013) ‘Examining the Mediating Effect of Supervisor Conflict on Procedural Injustice–Job Strain Relations: The Function of Power Distance’, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 18, No. 1, 64–74, viewed 11 October 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030889 Lynch 2010, ‘Employee Voice: A Critical Element of Organizational Success’, Business
Alignment
Strategies,
Inc.
,
web
log
post,
viewed
28
June
2017,
http://www.businessalignmentstrategies.com/research/employee-voice.php Maufi 2011, ‘Causes and Consequence Deviant Workplace Behavior’, International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 123-126, viewed 29 June 2017, http://www.ijimt.org/papers/117-M504.pdf Morrison, Elizabeth W. 2014, ‘Employee Voice and Silence’, The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1, pp. 173-197, viewed 29 June 2017, http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328 Nasurdin, Aizzet Mhd., Ahamad, Noor Hazlina, Razalli, Amin Arwani 2014, ‘Politics, Justice, Stress, and Deviant Behaviour in Organizations: An Emperical Analysis’, International Journal of Business and Society, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 235 – 254, viewed 22 June 2017, http://www.ijbs.unimas.my/repository/pdf/Vol15-no2-paper3.pdf Nye, L.G. & Witt, L.A. 1993, "Dimensionality and Construct Validity of the Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale (Pops)", Educational and Psychological Measurement,
vol.
53,
no.
3,
pp.
821-829,
viewed
26
November
2016
https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/1990s/media/A M92-10.pdf
Page 63 of 152
Okechukwu, C. A., Souza, K., Davis, K. D., & de Castro, A. B. (2014). ‘Discrimination, Harassment, Abuse and Bullying in the Workplace: Contribution of Workplace Injustice to Occupational Health Disparities’, American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 57(5), pp.573-586, viewed 11 October 2016, http://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22221 Overell, Anne 2009, ‘Task Conflict vs Relationship Conflict’, QUT Wiki, web log post, 17 April, viewed 22 June 2017, https://wiki.qut.edu.au/display/CPNS/Task+conflict+vs+relationship+conflict Parker, Philip D., Martin, Andrew J., and Dikie, Theresa 2014, Occupational Wellbeing and ‘Motivation of Those in the Helping Professions’, in Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC, Canada, viewed 24 June 2017,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281156255
Peterson, Tonya M. (2007), ‘Motivation: How to Increase Project Team Performance.’, Project Management Journal, Vol. 38, No. 4, viewed 17 August 2016, http://pure.au.dk/portalasbstudent/files/10869/29413504_1_.pdf Pimpa, Nattavud. (2012), ‘Amazing Thailand: Organizational Culture in the Thai Public Sector’, International Business Research; Vol. 5, No. 11; 2012, viewed 11 October 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v5n11p35 Pinder, CC 2014, Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior, Second Edition, Taylor and Francis, London. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [24 June 2017]. Project Management Institute Inc. (PMI) & Project Management Institute 2013, A guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK guide), 5th edition, Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, Pa. Randall, M., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C. and Birjulin, A. (August, 1994). `The relationship of Organizational politics and organizational support to employee attitudes and behavior'. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Dallas, TX, viewed 26 November 2016, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3100247 Page 64 of 152
Rhee, Jaehoon, Dedahanov, Alisher, and Lee Dohyoung 2014, ‘Relationships among Power Distance, Collectivism, Punishment, and Acquiescent, Defensive, or Prosocial Silence’, Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 42(5), pp. 705-720, viewed 28 June 2017, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263429900 Rees, Matt Owens. (2015), ‘Office Politics’, Thailand and the Thais, A Commentary on Thai Lifestyle and Culture, web log post, 16 October, view 10 October 2016, http://mattowensrees.com/dir/?tag=office-politics Sakhaee, Ehssan 2016, ‘Motivation: Why People Do What They Do’, lecture notes, viewed 11 August 2016, https://elearning.sydney.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-3708703-dt-content-rid17393956_1/courses/2016_S2C_PMGT5872_ND/2016_S1C_PMGT5872_ND_ImportedContent_20 160129083407/Motivation%20-%20Why%20People%20Do%20What%20They%20Do.pdf Schaufeli, and Bakker 2003, ‘Work & Well-being Survey (UWES)’, viewed 26 November 2016, http://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/after-agreeing Schmid, Bernhard and Adams, Jonathan 2008, ‘Motivation in Project Management: The Project Manager’s Perspective’, Project Management Journal, Vol. 60, viewed 24 June 2017, https://wiki.rit.edu/download/attachments/67469449/project+managment+motivation.pdf Self-Determination Theory [STD] n.d., ‘Theory: Overview’, viewed 26 November 2016, http://selfdeterminationtheory.org/theory/ Self-Determination Theory [STD] n.d., ‘Basic Psychological Needs Scale (BPNS)’, viewed 26 November 2016, http://selfdeterminationtheory.org/basic-psychological-needs-scale/ Simons, Tony L. and Peterson, Randall S. 2000, ‘Task Conflict and Relationship Conflict in Top-Management Teams: The Pivotal Role of Intragroup Trust’, Journal of Applied
Psychology,
Vol.
85,
No.
1,
pp.
102-111,
viewed
26
June
17,
http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/rtfiles/management/seminars/Peterson_Harnessing.pdf Page 65 of 152
Sriput, Vairaporn. (2014), ‘Power Distance and Work Engagement: A Case Study of Organizations in Thailand’, viewed 6 October 2016, http://www.agrh.fr/assets/actes/2014Sriput.pdf Tangirala, S. and Ramanujam, R. 2008, ‘Employee Silence on Critical Work Issues: The Cross Level Effects of Procedural Justice Climate’, Personnel Psychology, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 37-68, viewed 20 November 2016, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.17446570.2008.00105.x/abstract Triandis, Harry C., and Gelfand, Michele J. 1998, ‘Converging Measurement of Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol.
74,
No.
1,
pp.
118-128,
viewed
26
November
2016,
http://www.gelfand.umd.edu/Triandis&Gelfand1998.pdf.
Page 66 of 152
Umar, Malami and Hassan Zaiton 2014, ‘Influence of Power Distance on Voice and Silence Behaviours of Employees in Nigerian Tertiary Educational Institutions’, National Research and Innovations Conference for Graduate Students in Social Sciences (GS-NRIC 2014), viewed 25 June 2017, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269987300 Yang, FangMin 2009, ‘Employee Motivation in Project Management’, University of Wisconsin-Platteville, viewed 17 August 2016, https://minds.wisconsin.edu/handle/1793/34684
Page 67 of 152
APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Questionnaire Sample (English) This is a sample of questionnaire where there are the separation of sub-aspects and references.
Page 68 of 152
Page 69 of 152
Page 70 of 152
Page 71 of 152
Page 72 of 152
Page 73 of 152
Page 74 of 152
Page 75 of 152
Page 76 of 152
Page 77 of 152
Page 78 of 152
Page 79 of 152
APPENDIX B: Questionnaire Sample (Thai)
Page 80 of 152
Page 81 of 152
Page 82 of 152
Page 83 of 152
Page 84 of 152
Page 85 of 152
Page 86 of 152
Page 87 of 152
Page 88 of 152
Page 89 of 152
Page 90 of 152
Page 91 of 152
Page 92 of 152
1. In my workplace, one group always get their way.
2. In my workplace, you can get what you want if you ask the right person.
8. Communications with superiors should be done in a formal way or according to certain procedures.
N
7. Although subordinates view that they deserve higher pay or career promotion, it is regarded disrespectful to ask superiors about that.
Sig. (1-tailed)
6. There should be an established structure and defined ranks, and everyone must occupy and have certain roles and responsibilities.
N Pearson Correlation
5. Superiors should not assign important tasks to subordinates.
Sig. (1-tailed)
4. Subordinates should better not question the decisions made by superiors or those in authority.
Pearson Correlation
3. Superiors should seldom ask for subordinates’ opinions.
Office Politics
2. It is frequently necessary for superiors to exercise power or authority in dealing with subordinates.
Power Distance
1. Superiors should make most decisions without consulting subordinates.
APPENDIX C: Pearson Correlations (Main Research Model) Table C-1: Power Distance and Office Politics
-.093 .162 .046 .091 .218* -.317** .088 .187
.224 .092 .354 .228 .036 .004 .236 .062
69 -.132 69 .102 69 .082 69 .047 69 .191 69 -.143 69 .225* 69 .107
.139 .203 .251 .352 .058 .120 .032 .191
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Page 93 of 152
1. Superiors should make most decisions without consulting subordinates.
2. It is frequently necessary for superiors to exercise power or authority in dealing with subordinates.
3. Superiors should seldom ask for subordinates’ opinions.
4. Subordinates should better not question the decisions made by superiors or those in authority.
5. Superiors should not assign important tasks to subordinates.
6. There should be an established structure and defined ranks, and everyone must occupy and have certain roles and responsibilities.
7. Although subordinates view that they deserve higher pay or career promotion, it is regarded disrespectful to ask superiors about that.
8. Communications with superiors should be done in a formal way or according to certain procedures.
Pearson Correlation
-.236*
.131
.179
.016
.116
-.093
.021
.031
Sig. (1-tailed) N Pearson Correlation
.025 69
.142 69
.070 69
.449 69
.172 69
.224 69
.432 69
.400 69
-.263*
.013
.191
.050
.055
-.098
.086
.205*
Sig. (1-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N
.014 69 -.093 .223 69
.458 69 .014 .454 69
.058 69 .147 .114 69
.341 69 -.063 .305 69
.328 69 -.251* .019 69
.210 69 .233* .027 69
.241 69 -.033 .395 69
.046 69 .032 .397 69
6. In my workplace, “In-groups” hinder effectiveness.
Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N
-.093 .223 69
.047 .351 69
.184 .065 69
.163 .091 69
.038 .380 69
-.102 .202 69
.034 .390 69
.101 .205 69
7. In my workplace, superiors use the selection system to further their careers.
Pearson Correlation
-.150
.000
.183
.108
.015
-.044
.052
.053
.109 69
.499 69
.066 69
.188 69
.451 69
.361 69
.336 69
.333 69
Power Distance
Office Politics
3. In my workplace, there is an influential group no one crosses.
4. In my workplace, it takes a while to learn on who not to cross.
5. In my workplace, people know things before they happen.
Sig. (1-tailed) N
Page 94 of 152
N 11. In my workplace, people build themselves up by tearing others down.
Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N
8. Communications with superiors should be done in a formal way or according to certain procedures.
Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed)
7. Although subordinates view that they deserve higher pay or career promotion, it is regarded disrespectful to ask superiors about that.
10. In my workplace, policy changes help only a few.
6. There should be an established structure and defined ranks, and everyone must occupy and have certain roles and responsibilities.
N
5. Superiors should not assign important tasks to subordinates.
Sig. (1-tailed)
4. Subordinates should better not question the decisions made by superiors or those in authority.
9. People left because hard work was not enough to get ahead in my workplace.
Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N Pearson Correlation
3. Superiors should seldom ask for subordinates’ opinions.
8. In my workplace, “Squeaky wheels get the grease”.
2. It is frequently necessary for superiors to exercise power or authority in dealing with subordinates.
Office Politics
1. Superiors should make most decisions without consulting subordinates.
Power Distance
-.267* .013 69
.020 .437 69
.251* .019 69
-.018 .440 69
.032 .397 69
-.001 .496 69
-.054 .330 69
.008 .475 69
-.117
-.011
.207*
.034
-.022
.072
.113
.201*
.170
.464
.044
.390
.427
.279
.177
.049
69 -.196 .053
69 .044 .359
69 .119 .165
69 -.068 .289
69 .084 .246
69 -.057 .320
69 -.037 .381
69 .113 .177
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
-.035
.125
.142
-.042
.030
-.090
.019
.081
.387
.154
.122
.366
.402
.232
.439
.254
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Page 95 of 152
14. In my workplace, people don’t speak up for fear of retaliation.
Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N
15. Get along by being a good guy in my workplace.
Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N
8. Communications with superiors should be done in a formal way or according to certain procedures.
N
7. Although subordinates view that they deserve higher pay or career promotion, it is regarded disrespectful to ask superiors about that.
Sig. (1-tailed)
6. There should be an established structure and defined ranks, and everyone must occupy and have certain roles and responsibilities.
N Pearson Correlation
5. Superiors should not assign important tasks to subordinates.
Sig. (1-tailed)
4. Subordinates should better not question the decisions made by superiors or those in authority.
13. Favouritism not merit gets people ahead in my workplace.
Pearson Correlation
3. Superiors should seldom ask for subordinates’ opinions.
12. In my workplace, activities determined by those not in a position to do so.
2. It is frequently necessary for superiors to exercise power or authority in dealing with subordinates.
Office Politics
1. Superiors should make most decisions without consulting subordinates.
Power Distance
.010
.188
.070
-.031
.153
-.077
.046
-.009
.469
.061
.282
.401
.104
.266
.355
.472
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
.007
.158
.077
-.063
.128
-.076
-.036
.031
.477
.097
.266
.303
.148
.267
.384
.401
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
-.134
-.040
.018
-.103
.017
.024
-.013
.020
.136
.372
.442
.200
.446
.423
.457
.434
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
*
.010
.018
.113
-.084
-.121
.132
.136
.220
.246
.161
.140
.133
.035
.468
.443
.178
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Page 96 of 152
1. Superiors should make most decisions without consulting subordinates.
2. It is frequently necessary for superiors to exercise power or authority in dealing with subordinates.
3. Superiors should seldom ask for subordinates’ opinions.
4. Subordinates should better not question the decisions made by superiors or those in authority.
5. Superiors should not assign important tasks to subordinates.
6. There should be an established structure and defined ranks, and everyone must occupy and have certain roles and responsibilities.
7. Although subordinates view that they deserve higher pay or career promotion, it is regarded disrespectful to ask superiors about that.
8. Communications with superiors should be done in a formal way or according to certain procedures.
-.040
.303**
.281**
.039
.006
.181
-.020
.192
.371
.006
.010
.375
.480
.068
.436
.057
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
-.072
.103
.135
-.132
.047
-.153
-.023
.097
.278
.200
.134
.140
.351
.104
.427
.213
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
-.023
-.107
.166
.008
-.027
-.013
-.145
-.010
.426
.191
.087
.473
.414
.457
.118
.467
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.130
.092
.098
.171
.167
.114
.322**
.103
Sig. (1-tailed)
.143
.226
.212
.081
.085
.175
.003
.200
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Power Distance
Office Politics
16. In my workplace, people define their own standards if not specified.
Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N
17. In my workplace, people distort or selectively report information.
Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N
18. In my workplace, supervisors carry out pay and promotions unfairly. 19. In my workplace, people who come through in crisis get ahead.
Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N
N
Page 97 of 152
23. In my workplace, pay and promotions are communicated.
8. Communications with superiors should be done in a formal way or according to certain procedures.
N
7. Although subordinates view that they deserve higher pay or career promotion, it is regarded disrespectful to ask superiors about that.
22. In my workplace, pay and promotions rules are well defined.
6. There should be an established structure and defined ranks, and everyone must occupy and have certain roles and responsibilities.
N
5. Superiors should not assign important tasks to subordinates.
21. In my workplace, rewards come to hard workers.
4. Subordinates should better not question the decisions made by superiors or those in authority.
N
3. Superiors should seldom ask for subordinates’ opinions.
20. In my workplace, promotions go to top performers.
2. It is frequently necessary for superiors to exercise power or authority in dealing with subordinates.
Office Politics
1. Superiors should make most decisions without consulting subordinates.
Power Distance
Pearson Correlation .151 .019 -.057 .085 -.050 .275* .126 -.017
Sig. (1-tailed) .108 .440 .322 .244 .341 .011 .151 .443
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Pearson Correlation .142 -.046 -.105 .154 -.110 .182 .037 -.077
Sig. (1-tailed) .122 .355 .194 .104 .185 .067 .380 .264
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Pearson Correlation -.110 -.033 -.268*
Sig. (1-tailed) .010 .171 -.047 .178 -.138
.184 .393 .013 .468 .080 .349 .072 .130
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Pearson Correlation .010 .008 -.122 .062 .213* -.042 .163 -.048
Sig. (1-tailed) .469 .473 .159 .307 .039 .367 .090 .349
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Page 98 of 152
6. There should be an established structure and defined ranks, and everyone must occupy and have certain roles and responsibilities.
7. Although subordinates view that they deserve higher pay or career promotion, it is regarded disrespectful to ask superiors about that.
8. Communications with superiors should be done in a formal way or according to certain procedures.
Sig. (1-tailed)
Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N
27. In my workplace, interdepartmental connections help when calling in a favour.
5. Superiors should not assign important tasks to subordinates.
Pearson Correlation N
26. No place for “yes-men” in my workplace.
-.151
-.145
-.021
.079
.245*
-.028
.083
.165
.108
.118
.433
.259
.021
.411
.250
.088
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
*
.052
.014
-.151
.124
.114
.086
.040
.026
.337
.455
.107
.155
.176
.241
.372
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
-.289**
-.127
.175
-.064
-.134
-.024
-.110
.036
.008
.149
.076
.299
.136
.421
.184
.385
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
-.090
.028
-.108
-.174
-.218*
-.098
-.134
.156
.230
.408
.189
.076
.036
.212
.136
.100
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Sig. (1-tailed) N
25. In my workplace, people are encouraged to speak out.
4. Subordinates should better not question the decisions made by superiors or those in authority.
Pearson Correlation
3. Superiors should seldom ask for subordinates’ opinions.
24. In my workplace, people who voice opinion do better.
2. It is frequently necessary for superiors to exercise power or authority in dealing with subordinates.
Office Politics
1. Superiors should make most decisions without consulting subordinates.
Power Distance
Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N
-.235
Page 99 of 152
31. My co-worker (s) would help, so I didn’t have to stay late.
8. Communications with superiors should be done in a formal way or according to certain procedures.
N
7. Although subordinates view that they deserve higher pay or career promotion, it is regarded disrespectful to ask superiors about that.
30. My co-workers lend a hand if they get something out of it.
6. There should be an established structure and defined ranks, and everyone must occupy and have certain roles and responsibilities.
N
5. Superiors should not assign important tasks to subordinates.
29. My co-workers help themselves not others.
4. Subordinates should better not question the decisions made by superiors or those in authority.
N
3. Superiors should seldom ask for subordinates’ opinions.
28. My co-workers are there when I need them.
2. It is frequently necessary for superiors to exercise power or authority in dealing with subordinates.
Office Politics
1. Superiors should make most decisions without consulting subordinates.
Power Distance
Pearson Correlation -.159 .046 -.138 -.217*
Sig. (1-tailed) -.057 -.063 .040 -.067
.096 .355 .129 .037 .321 .303 .373 .292
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Pearson Correlation -.113 -.016 .220* .207* .087 -.125 .040 -.068
Sig. (1-tailed) .178 .449 .035 .044 .237 .153 .372 .291
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Pearson Correlation -.025 -.059 .224* .143 .234*
Sig. (1-tailed) -.112 .013 .049
.419 .314 .032 .121 .027 .179 .458 .346
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Pearson Correlation .132 -.010 .106 -.016 .098 .197 .073 .097
Sig. (1-tailed) .140 .467 .192 .448 .212 .053 .276 .214
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Page 100 of 152
1. Superiors should make most decisions without consulting subordinates.
2. It is frequently necessary for superiors to exercise power or authority in dealing with subordinates.
3. Superiors should seldom ask for subordinates’ opinions.
4. Subordinates should better not question the decisions made by superiors or those in authority.
5. Superiors should not assign important tasks to subordinates.
6. There should be an established structure and defined ranks, and everyone must occupy and have certain roles and responsibilities.
7. Although subordinates view that they deserve higher pay or career promotion, it is regarded disrespectful to ask superiors about that.
8. Communications with superiors should be done in a formal way or according to certain procedures.
Pearson Correlation
.165
-.097
.176
.208*
.282**
-.127
.245*
.112
Sig. (1-tailed)
.087
.214
.074
.043
.010
.149
.021
.180
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
-.061
-.100
.232*
.075
.181
.004
.038
.142
.309
.208
.028
.270
.068
.487
.378
.121
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.084
.093
.053
.110
.146
-.125
.125
.241*
Sig. (1-tailed)
.245
.224
.333
.183
.116
.154
.152
.023
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.109
.009
.077
.195
.196
-.084
.136
.120
Sig. (1-tailed)
.187
.470
.265
.054
.053
.247
.133
.163
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Power Distance
Office Politics
32. Even if asked by my supervisor, my co-worker (s) would not help.
N 33. My supervisor only looks like he/she helps others.
Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N
34. My supervisor communicates to make himself/herself looks good.
N 35. Performance appraisals reflect my superior’s “own agenda”.
N
Page 101 of 152
.147
Sig. (1-tailed) .344 .229 .384 .114 .032 .230 .072 .260
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
38. Never witness a justified pay increase or promotion in my workplace. Pearson Correlation .157 .106 .193 .135 .034 .085 .187 .201*
Sig. (1-tailed) .099 .192 .056 .134 .391 .244 .062 .049
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
8. Communications with superiors should be done in a formal way or according to certain procedures.
.036
7. Although subordinates view that they deserve higher pay or career promotion, it is regarded disrespectful to ask superiors about that.
-.091
6. There should be an established structure and defined ranks, and everyone must occupy and have certain roles and responsibilities.
.049
5. Superiors should not assign important tasks to subordinates.
Pearson Correlation
4. Subordinates should better not question the decisions made by superiors or those in authority.
37. In my workplace, pay and promotions decisions are consistent with policies.
3. Superiors should seldom ask for subordinates’ opinions.
36. In my workplace, pay and promotions policies are not politically applied.
2. It is frequently necessary for superiors to exercise power or authority in dealing with subordinates.
Office Politics
1. Superiors should make most decisions without consulting subordinates.
Power Distance
Pearson Correlation .089 .016 .009 .073 .241* -.140 .088 -.175
Sig. (1-tailed) .235 .448 .470 .275 .023 .126 .235 .076
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
*
-.090 .178 -.079
N
N .225
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
Page 102 of 152
2. I feel little motivated because my work is not worth my effort.
3. I don’t feel motivated because I don’t belong to this workplace.
5. I want to gain more respect and trust from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
6. I don’t want to be criticised by others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
7. If I put my best effort at work, I will be rewarded financially by others (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.).
8. If I put my best effort at work, others will offer me greater job security (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.). 9. If I don’t put my best effort at work, I will lose my job.
10. I have to prove to myself that I can.
11. I want to be proud of myself.
12. I don’t want to feel ashamed of myself.
13. I don’t want to feel bad about myself.
14. To me, it is important to put effort in this job.
15. Putting effort in this job aligns with my personal values.
16. Putting effort in this job means to me personally.
17. I enjoy my work.
18. My work involves exciting things I can do.
19. My work is interesting.
Pearson Correlation
.346**
.388**
.394**
.064
.130
-.055
-.015
-.102
.044
-.047
.034
.046
.036
-.013
.028
-.079
-.152
-.105
-.071
Sig. (2-tailed)
.004
.001
.001
.599
.287
.653
.905
.404
.719
.700
.784
.709
.767
.917
.818
.518
.213
.389
.561
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
-.032
-.192
.083
.099
.060
.194
.217
.094
.108
.005
-.232
-.179
-.180
Work Motivation
Office Politics
1. In my workplace, one group always get their way. 2. In my workplace, you can get what you want if you ask the right person. 3. In my workplace, there is an influential group no one crosses. 4. In my workplace, it takes a while to learn on who not to cross. 5. In my workplace, people know things before they happen.
4. I want to obtain approval and support from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
1. I don’t feel motivated because I’m wasting my time at work.
Table C-2: Offie Politics and Work Motivation (Correlations)
Pearson Correlation
.268
*
.235
.093
-.089
-.175
-.263
Sig. (2-tailed)
.026
.052
.445
.467
.150
.029
.794
.114
.496
.419
.626
.110
.074
.442
.375
.967
.055
.141
.138
*
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.433**
.398**
.461**
-.028
.038
-.041
-.044
-.193
.076
.051
-.024
.042
.088
-.079
-.029
-.022
-.376**
-.369**
-.378**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.001
.000
.820
.758
.738
.720
.112
.537
.677
.846
.734
.474
.520
.813
.855
.001
.002
.001
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.409
**
.340
**
.455
**
.019
.089
-.002
.018
-.139
.235
.190
.068
.003
.071
.013
.017
.067
-.279
69 *
-.255
69 *
-.238*
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.004
.000
.875
.465
.988
.882
.256
.052
.118
.579
.982
.560
.915
.888
.583
.020
.035
.049
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.355**
.284*
.275*
.146
.022
-.096
.031
-.027
.013
.013
.003
.039
.144
.070
.122
.160
-.183
-.105
-.148
Sig. (2-tailed)
.003
.018
.022
.231
.859
.431
.798
.825
.913
.919
.983
.749
.237
.568
.317
.188
.133
.392
.225
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Page 103 of 152
5. I want to gain more respect and trust from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
6. I don’t want to be criticised by others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
10. I have to prove to myself that I can.
11. I want to be proud of myself.
12. I don’t want to feel ashamed of myself.
13. I don’t want to feel bad about myself.
14. To me, it is important to put effort in this job.
15. Putting effort in this job aligns with my personal values.
16. Putting effort in this job means to me personally.
17. I enjoy my work.
18. My work involves exciting things I can do.
19. My work is interesting.
.353**
.397**
.091
.100
.012
.191
.001
.071
.050
.140
.029
.147
-.011
-.021
-.011
-.195
-.140
-.109
Sig. (2-tailed)
.001
.003
.001
.456
.413
.925
.116
.996
.563
.682
.252
.816
.228
.929
.865
.930
.108
.252
.373
7. In my workplace, superiors use the selection system to further their careers. 8. In my workplace, “Squeaky wheels get the grease”. 9. People left because hard work was not enough to get ahead in my workplace. 10. In my workplace, policy changes help only a few.
8. If I put my best effort at work, others will offer me greater job security (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.). 9. If I don’t put my best effort at work, I will lose my job.
3. I don’t feel motivated because I don’t belong to this workplace.
6. In my workplace, “In-groups” hinder effectiveness.
7. If I put my best effort at work, I will be rewarded financially by others (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.).
2. I feel little motivated because my work is not worth my effort.
.395**
Office Politics
4. I want to obtain approval and support from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
1. I don’t feel motivated because I’m wasting my time at work.
Pearson Correlation
Work Motivation
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.303*
.327**
.372**
.161
.184
.006
.100
-.067
-.077
-.171
-.090
-.064
-.024
-.131
-.087
-.109
-.196
-.125
-.164
Sig. (2-tailed)
.011
.006
.002
.188
.130
.959
.413
.586
.528
.161
.464
.604
.843
.284
.476
.373
.107
.307
.179
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.462
**
.467
**
.369
**
*
-.037
-.064
-.030
-.088
-.269
-.051
.006
-.002
.105
.148
.053
.101
.010
-.349
**
-.370
**
-.383**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.002
.761
.599
.805
.473
.025
.674
.964
.990
.392
.225
.666
.410
.938
.003
.002
.001
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.442**
.367**
.386**
.225
.171
.119
.068
-.085
.140
.108
.054
-.021
.097
.165
.149
.236
-.225
-.030
-.069
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.002
.001
.063
.159
.330
.580
.487
.250
.377
.659
.861
.428
.175
.221
.051
.063
.804
.576
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
-.225
-.253*
Pearson Correlation
.468
**
.504
**
.568
**
.121
.134
.041
-.073
-.196
.050
.018
.072
.203
.289
*
.002
.050
.009
-.277
*
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.322
.271
.736
.553
.107
.682
.883
.555
.094
.016
.989
.682
.941
.021
.063
.036
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Page 104 of 152
2. I feel little motivated because my work is not worth my effort.
3. I don’t feel motivated because I don’t belong to this workplace.
5. I want to gain more respect and trust from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
6. I don’t want to be criticised by others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
7. If I put my best effort at work, I will be rewarded financially by others (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.).
8. If I put my best effort at work, others will offer me greater job security (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.). 9. If I don’t put my best effort at work, I will lose my job.
10. I have to prove to myself that I can.
11. I want to be proud of myself.
12. I don’t want to feel ashamed of myself.
13. I don’t want to feel bad about myself.
14. To me, it is important to put effort in this job.
15. Putting effort in this job aligns with my personal values.
16. Putting effort in this job means to me personally.
17. I enjoy my work.
18. My work involves exciting things I can do.
19. My work is interesting.
.495**
.463**
.445**
.151
.146
-.079
-.067
-.159
-.071
-.070
.008
.139
.127
.048
.165
.175
-.189
-.082
-.088
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.214
.230
.518
.583
.192
.565
.567
.948
.254
.298
.696
.174
.150
.120
.501
.471
Office Politics
11. In my workplace, people build themselves up by tearing others down. 12. In my workplace, activities determined by those not in a position to do so. 13. Favouritism not merit gets people ahead in my workplace. 14. In my workplace, people don’t speak up for fear of retaliation.
15. Get along by being a good guy in my workplace.
4. I want to obtain approval and support from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
1. I don’t feel motivated because I’m wasting my time at work.
Pearson Correlation
Work Motivation
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.458**
.492**
.430**
.151
.148
.136
-.049
-.172
.050
.097
.156
.148
.176
-.010
-.033
-.111
-.354**
-.233
-.245*
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.216
.225
.264
.688
.157
.685
.426
.201
.224
.147
.932
.787
.365
.003
.053
.043
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
-.188
-.236
Pearson Correlation
.332
**
.429
**
.366
**
-.044
.039
-.051
-.055
-.179
-.113
.102
.137
-.072
-.017
-.019
-.057
-.121
-.317
**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.005
.000
.002
.717
.749
.680
.651
.140
.356
.405
.262
.559
.890
.875
.644
.320
.008
.123
.051
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.439**
.422**
.349**
.082
-.031
.026
-.029
-.179
.057
-.025
-.002
.107
.160
.089
.171
.013
-.382**
-.139
-.192
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.003
.503
.799
.830
.816
.140
.641
.839
.984
.381
.189
.469
.159
.916
.001
.254
.114
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.152
Sig. (2-tailed) N
.108
.272
*
.129
.080
.131
.167
.214
.375
.024
.292
.516
.285
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
.163
.240
*
-.098
-.067
-.037
-.056
-.070
-.052
.530
.182
.047
.423
.584
.761
.645
.566
.669
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
.079
.278
*
.106
.077
.170
.516
.021
.385
69
69
69
69
Page 105 of 152
5. I want to gain more respect and trust from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
6. I don’t want to be criticised by others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
10. I have to prove to myself that I can.
11. I want to be proud of myself.
12. I don’t want to feel ashamed of myself.
13. I don’t want to feel bad about myself.
14. To me, it is important to put effort in this job.
15. Putting effort in this job aligns with my personal values.
16. Putting effort in this job means to me personally.
17. I enjoy my work.
18. My work involves exciting things I can do.
19. My work is interesting.
.133
.108
.067
-.066
.019
.129
.127
-.024
.111
.057
.073
.138
.025
-.049
.011
-.050
-.124
-.137
Sig. (2-tailed)
.164
.275
.378
.583
.588
.876
.292
.298
.846
.364
.639
.549
.258
.836
.692
.927
.685
.311
.263
17. In my workplace, people distort or selectively report information. 18. In my workplace, supervisors carry out pay and promotions unfairly. 19. In my workplace, people who come through in crisis get ahead. 20. In my workplace, promotions go to top performers.
8. If I put my best effort at work, others will offer me greater job security (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.). 9. If I don’t put my best effort at work, I will lose my job.
3. I don’t feel motivated because I don’t belong to this workplace.
16. In my workplace, people define their own standards if not specified.
7. If I put my best effort at work, I will be rewarded financially by others (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.).
2. I feel little motivated because my work is not worth my effort.
.170
Office Politics
4. I want to obtain approval and support from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
1. I don’t feel motivated because I’m wasting my time at work.
Pearson Correlation
Work Motivation
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.471**
.460**
.425**
.017
.026
-.012
-.090
-.212
.024
-.035
.145
.217
.255*
.007
.117
-.004
-.360**
-.278*
-.238*
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.890
.831
.921
.463
.081
.842
.774
.236
.074
.034
.956
.337
.976
.002
.021
.049
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
.057
.163
-.108
-.041
-.223
-.041
-.057
-.006
-.044
.005
.057
.149
.120
-.183
.009
-.036
Pearson Correlation
.355
**
.339
**
.328
**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.003
.004
.006
.640
.182
.378
.739
.066
.738
.643
.964
.722
.966
.640
.222
.327
.132
.939
.766
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.266*
.262*
.074
-.020
-.054
.087
.261*
.242*
.035
.099
.188
.070
.130
-.039
.028
.087
-.099
-.211
-.103
Sig. (2-tailed)
.027
.030
.544
.873
.662
.479
.030
.045
.772
.416
.122
.567
.287
.749
.818
.477
.416
.082
.399
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
.441
.149
.029
.133
.170
.127
-.122
-.092
.033
.109
.012
.077
Pearson Correlation
-.068
-.072
-.193
.119
-.017
.203
.301
Sig. (2-tailed)
.580
.555
.111
.331
.887
.095
.012
.000
.223
.816
.274
.162
.300
.318
.451
.788
.371
.921
.532
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
*
**
Page 106 of 152
2. I feel little motivated because my work is not worth my effort.
3. I don’t feel motivated because I don’t belong to this workplace.
5. I want to gain more respect and trust from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
6. I don’t want to be criticised by others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
7. If I put my best effort at work, I will be rewarded financially by others (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.).
8. If I put my best effort at work, others will offer me greater job security (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.). 9. If I don’t put my best effort at work, I will lose my job.
10. I have to prove to myself that I can.
11. I want to be proud of myself.
12. I don’t want to feel ashamed of myself.
13. I don’t want to feel bad about myself.
14. To me, it is important to put effort in this job.
15. Putting effort in this job aligns with my personal values.
16. Putting effort in this job means to me personally.
17. I enjoy my work.
18. My work involves exciting things I can do.
19. My work is interesting.
-.189
-.250*
-.310**
.012
-.004
.078
.418**
.433**
.130
-.033
.111
.094
.019
-.090
-.054
.061
.253*
.129
.157
Sig. (2-tailed)
.121
.038
.010
.919
.974
.525
.000
.000
.287
.790
.364
.444
.877
.464
.657
.616
.036
.293
.199
Office Politics
21. In my workplace, rewards come to hard workers. 22. In my workplace, pay and promotions rules are well defined. 23. In my workplace, pay and promotions are communicated. 24. In my workplace, people who voice opinion do better. 25. In my workplace, people are encouraged to speak out.
4. I want to obtain approval and support from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
1. I don’t feel motivated because I’m wasting my time at work.
Pearson Correlation
Work Motivation
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
-.245*
-.213
-.234
-.071
-.146
.126
-.007
.188
.098
.028
.013
.077
.047
-.112
-.181
-.166
.070
-.088
-.010
Sig. (2-tailed)
.042
.079
.053
.563
.230
.302
.951
.123
.421
.819
.919
.527
.700
.362
.137
.172
.567
.471
.933
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
-.287
Sig. (2-tailed)
*
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
*
.177
.131
.026
.030
.089
-.036
-.087
-.021
.092
.044
.080
-.181
-.185
-.034
-.105
.182
.078
.289
.017
.136
.129
.779
.393
.135
.522
.016
.146
.285
.835
.810
.469
.772
.476
.867
.454
.719
.515
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
-.054
-.037
-.015
-.022
-.204
.142
.146
.031
.123
-.066
-.133
-.100
.040
-.044
-.035
-.085
-.082
-.020
-.025
Sig. (2-tailed)
.657
.762
.903
.857
.093
.245
.232
.801
.315
.590
.275
.415
.745
.718
.774
.488
.501
.870
.836
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
-.160
-.095
-.083
.210
-.037
.045
.089
.054
.006
-.120
-.022
.101
-.029
.108
.081
-.062
-.017
69
Pearson Correlation
-.288
Sig. (2-tailed)
.016
.012
.189
.438
.497
.083
.761
.715
.465
.658
.958
.325
.860
.407
.814
.377
.506
.611
.891
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
*
-.301
*
Page 107 of 152
2. I feel little motivated because my work is not worth my effort.
3. I don’t feel motivated because I don’t belong to this workplace.
5. I want to gain more respect and trust from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
6. I don’t want to be criticised by others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
7. If I put my best effort at work, I will be rewarded financially by others (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.).
8. If I put my best effort at work, others will offer me greater job security (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.). 9. If I don’t put my best effort at work, I will lose my job.
10. I have to prove to myself that I can.
11. I want to be proud of myself.
12. I don’t want to feel ashamed of myself.
13. I don’t want to feel bad about myself.
14. To me, it is important to put effort in this job.
15. Putting effort in this job aligns with my personal values.
16. Putting effort in this job means to me personally.
17. I enjoy my work.
18. My work involves exciting things I can do.
19. My work is interesting.
.037
-.111
-.035
.048
.003
-.027
-.055
-.152
-.212
.045
-.170
-.115
-.064
.196
.044
.168
.164
.105
.092
Sig. (2-tailed)
.760
.365
.776
.695
.983
.825
.655
.214
.080
.711
.162
.348
.603
.106
.722
.167
.178
.392
.450
Office Politics
26. No place for “yes-men” in my workplace. 27. In my workplace, interdepartmental connections help when calling in a favour. 28. My co-workers are there when I need them.
29. My co-workers help themselves not others. 30. My co-workers lend a hand if they get something out of it.
4. I want to obtain approval and support from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
1. I don’t feel motivated because I’m wasting my time at work.
Pearson Correlation
Work Motivation
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.078
.006
.016
.008
-.049
.064
.025
.067
.108
.070
-.036
-.153
-.146
.044
-.049
-.022
-.240*
-.044
-.117
Sig. (2-tailed)
.525
.960
.895
.951
.688
.602
.840
.586
.378
.569
.770
.208
.231
.720
.689
.860
.047
.720
.338
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
-.143
-.150
-.120
-.156
-.198
.085
.046
-.068
.043
-.123
-.068
.014
.132
.007
-.024
-.063
.065
-.090
-.040
Sig. (2-tailed)
.241
.220
.327
.199
.104
.486
.707
.576
.728
.313
.580
.910
.280
.953
.848
.606
.598
.461
.741
N
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.481
**
.473
**
.405
**
.318
**
.299
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
*
.039
.190
-.018
-.056
.063
.181
.180
.108
-.004
.084
-.006
-.127
-.004
-.045
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.001
.008
.013
.752
.119
.885
.645
.605
.136
.139
.376
.974
.492
.959
.300
.973
.715
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.341**
.369**
.284*
.107
.030
-.237*
.038
-.128
-.219
-.048
.060
.133
.098
-.080
-.039
-.195
-.076
.019
.047
Sig. (2-tailed)
.004
.002
.018
.381
.807
.050
.757
.296
.071
.698
.626
.275
.424
.513
.753
.108
.534
.878
.701
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Page 108 of 152
11. I want to be proud of myself.
12. I don’t want to feel ashamed of myself.
13. I don’t want to feel bad about myself.
14. To me, it is important to put effort in this job.
15. Putting effort in this job aligns with my personal values.
16. Putting effort in this job means to me personally.
17. I enjoy my work.
18. My work involves exciting things I can do.
19. My work is interesting.
Pearson Correlation .280* .167 .148 .130 -.032 -.171 .060 .088 .128 -.094 .013 .309** .280* .057 .126 .112 .044 -.016 .048
Sig. (2-tailed) .020 .171 .224 .288 .795 .161 .624 .472 .295 .443 .916 .010 .020 .642 .304 .361 .721 .895 .694
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Pearson Correlation .408** .389** .352** .295* .200 -.102 .099 -.057 -.122 -.009 .101 .112 .163 .023 .121 .098 -.009 .074 .084
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .003 .014 .099 .402 .421 .643 .316 .940 .411 .361 .180 .854 .321 .424 .941 .544 .495
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Pearson Correlation .488** .480** .436** .031 .050 -.224 -.058 -.116 .084 .106 .122 .279* .247* -.095 .104 .106 -.013 -.103 -.009
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .799 .684 .064 .638 .342 .490 .385 .317 .020 .041 .438 .396 .386 .918 .400 .944
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Pearson Correlation .497** .533** .434** .241* .320** .018 .040 -.017 .130 .087 .088 .187 .137 .001 .116 .107 -.021 -.030 .014
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .046 .007 .887 .745 .888 .286 .480 .474 .124 .262 .995 .343 .380 .864 .808 .910
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
8. If I put my best effort at work, others will offer me greater job security (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.). 9. If I don’t put my best effort at work, I will lose my job.
7. If I put my best effort at work, I will be rewarded financially by others (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.).
4. I want to obtain approval and support from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
10. I have to prove to myself that I can.
34. My supervisor communicates to make himself/herself looks good.
6. I don’t want to be criticised by others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
33. My supervisor only looks like he/she helps others.
5. I want to gain more respect and trust from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
32. Even if asked by my supervisor, my co-worker (s) would not help.
3. I don’t feel motivated because I don’t belong to this workplace.
31. My co-worker (s) would help, so I didn’t have to stay late.
2. I feel little motivated because my work is not worth my effort.
Office Politics
1. I don’t feel motivated because I’m wasting my time at work.
Work Motivation
Page 109 of 152
5. I want to gain more respect and trust from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
6. I don’t want to be criticised by others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
10. I have to prove to myself that I can.
11. I want to be proud of myself.
12. I don’t want to feel ashamed of myself.
13. I don’t want to feel bad about myself.
14. To me, it is important to put effort in this job.
15. Putting effort in this job aligns with my personal values.
16. Putting effort in this job means to me personally.
17. I enjoy my work.
18. My work involves exciting things I can do.
19. My work is interesting.
.332**
.182
.280*
35. Performance appraisals reflect my superior’s “own agenda”.
.061
.097
-.015
-.145
-.164
-.098
-.044
-.077
-.043
.077
.046
.065
.105
.134
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.005
.134
.020
.621
.426
.902
.236
.179
.422
.721
.528
.725
.531
.705
.594
.390
.271
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
36. In my workplace, pay and promotions policies are not politically applied.
Pearson Correlation
-.041
.039
-.090
-.018
-.082
-.066
.246*
.135
.191
.037
-.029
.225
.141
-.195
-.101
-.181
-.042
-.011
-.038
Sig. (2-tailed)
.736
.748
.460
.881
.502
.589
.041
.269
.116
.764
.811
.063
.248
.108
.408
.136
.731
.931
.760
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
37. In my workplace, pay and promotions decisions are consistent with policies.
Pearson Correlation
-.245*
-.227
-.207
-.113
-.151
-.060
.263*
.275*
.148
-.059
-.148
.164
.109
-.320**
-.183
-.190
.215
.063
.129
Sig. (2-tailed)
.042
.061
.088
.357
.215
.625
.029
.022
.223
.628
.224
.177
.372
.007
.131
.118
.077
.605
.292
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
38. Never witness a justified pay increase or promotion in my workplace.
Pearson Correlation
.015
.017
-.003
.108
.146
.078
.093
.155
.122
.157
-.099
-.040
-.130
-.116
-.132
-.017
.052
-.040
.021
Sig. (2-tailed)
.905
.890
.980
.378
.232
.523
.446
.203
.317
.197
.421
.746
.286
.342
.279
.890
.674
.747
.864
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
8. If I put my best effort at work, others will offer me greater job security (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.). 9. If I don’t put my best effort at work, I will lose my job.
3. I don’t feel motivated because I don’t belong to this workplace.
.470**
7. If I put my best effort at work, I will be rewarded financially by others (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.).
2. I feel little motivated because my work is not worth my effort.
.413**
Office Politics
4. I want to obtain approval and support from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
1. I don’t feel motivated because I’m wasting my time at work.
Pearson Correlation
Work Motivation
Page 110 of 152
Office Politics
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Page 111 of 152
19. My work is interesting.
18. My work involves exciting things I can do.
17. I enjoy my work.
16. Putting effort in this job means to me personally.
15. Putting effort in this job aligns with my personal values.
14. To me, it is important to put effort in this job.
13. I don’t want to feel bad about myself.
12. I don’t want to feel ashamed of myself.
11. I want to be proud of myself.
10. I have to prove to myself that I can.
8. If I put my best effort at work, others will offer me greater job security (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.). 9. If I don’t put my best effort at work, I will lose my job.
7. If I put my best effort at work, I will be rewarded financially by others (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.).
6. I don’t want to be criticised by others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
5. I want to gain more respect and trust from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
4. I want to obtain approval and support from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
3. I don’t feel motivated because I don’t belong to this workplace.
2. I feel little motivated because my work is not worth my effort.
1. I don’t feel motivated because I’m wasting my time at work.
Work Motivation
6. There is tension among the members of our team.
1. Superiors should make most decisions without consulting subordinates.
-.088 .472 69 .024
.024 .843 69 .069
-.084 .492 69 .033
.187 .123 69 .219
.056 .648 69 .114
.018 .885 69 .056
2. It is frequently necessary for superiors to exercise power or authority in dealing with subordinates.
Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation
.251 69 .150
.847 69 .203
.572 69 .193
.790 69 .053
.070 69 .235
.353 69 .215
.649 69 .268*
3. Superiors should seldom ask for subordinates’ opinions.
Sig. (2-tailed)
.217
.094
.111
.663
.052
.076
.026
4. Subordinates should better not question the decisions made by superiors or those in authority.
N Pearson Correlation
69 -.046
69 .149
69 .186
69 -.005
69 .354**
69 .210
69 .106
Sig. (2-tailed)
.708
.223
.125
.967
.003
.084
.386
5. Superiors should not assign important tasks to subordinates.
N Pearson Correlation
69 -.047
69 .116
69 .215
69 .150
69 .234
69 .291*
69 .118
Sig. (2-tailed)
.704
.341
.077
.218
.053
.015
.335
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
7. There is jealousy or rivalry among the members of our team.
5. There are personality clashes evident in our team.
-.077 .529 69 .140
Power Distance
4. The arguments in our team are task-related.
3. Members of my team disagree about which procedure should be used to do our work.
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation
Interpersonal Conflict
1. There are differences of opinion in my team.
2. Members of my team disagree about how things should be done.
Table C-3: Power Distance and Interpersonal Conflict (Correlations)
Page 112 of 152
7. There is jealousy or rivalry among the members of our team.
6. There is tension among the members of our team.
-.011
.089
-.156
-.053
.118
Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation
.021 69 -.165
.413 69 -.050
.926 69 .085
.465 69 -.168
.200 69 .112
.663 69 .157
.332 69 .063
Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation
.177 69 -.290*
.681 69 -.026
.487 69 .112
.167 69 -.174
.361 69 .055
.198 69 .074
.608 69 .009
Sig. (2-tailed) .016 .830 .362 N 69 69 69 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
.152 69
.652 69
.548 69
.940 69
7. Although subordinates view that they deserve higher pay or career promotion, it is regarded disrespectful to ask superiors about that.
5. There are personality clashes evident in our team.
3. Members of my team disagree about which procedure should be used to do our work.
-.100
6. There should be an established structure and defined ranks, and everyone must occupy and have certain roles and responsibilities.
8. Communications with superiors should be done in a formal way or according to certain procedures.
4. The arguments in our team are task-related.
2. Members of my team disagree about how things should be done.
.276*
Power Distance
1. There are differences of opinion in my team.
Pearson Correlation
Interpersonal Conflict
Page 113 of 152
3. I don’t feel motivated because I don’t belong to this workplace.
4. I want to obtain approval and support from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
5. I want to gain more respect and trust from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
6. I don’t want to be criticised by others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
7. If I put my best effort at work, I will be rewarded financially by others (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.).
9. If I don’t put my best effort at work, I will lose my job.
10. I have to prove to myself that I can.
11. I want to be proud of myself.
14. To me, it is important to put effort in this job.
15. Putting effort in this job aligns with my personal values.
16. Putting effort in this job means to me personally.
17. I enjoy my work.
18. My work involves exciting things I can do.
19. My work is interesting.
.315**
.249*
.137
.174
-.111
-.172
-.159
-.177
-.126
-.035
.121
.064
-.013
.115
.106
-.155
-.210
-.220
Sig. (2tailed) N
.004
.008
.039
.260
.152
.363
.158
.193
.145
.300
.772
.324
.602
.919
.346
.387
.204
.083
.069
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.369**
.289*
.400**
2. Members of my team disagree about how things should be done.
.100
.202
-.235
-.149
-.208
-.055
-.064
-.078
.131
.073
-.030
.150
.215
-.087
-.083
-.099
Sig. (2tailed) N
.002
.016
.001
.412
.096
.052
.223
.086
.653
.603
.525
.282
.551
.809
.219
.077
.478
.497
.419
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.410**
.343**
.458**
.249*
.288*
-.131
-.261*
-.172
.035
.085
.063
.175
.175
-.031
.007
.132
-.247*
3. Members of my team disagree about which procedure should be used to do our work. 4. The arguments in our team are task-related.
-.130
-.145
Sig. (2tailed) N
.000
.004
.000
.039
.016
.282
.030
.158
.778
.487
.607
.151
.150
.798
.953
.279
.041
.286
.233
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.034
.046
.043
-.028
-.002
-.246*
-.087
-.067
-.148
-.212
-.179
.113
-.042
-.055
-.011
-.147
.030
-.047
-.067
Sig. (2tailed) N
.783
.709
.727
.822
.985
.042
.475
.582
.225
.080
.141
.354
.730
.652
.928
.227
.805
.703
.587
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
13. I don’t want to feel bad about myself.
2. I feel little motivated because my work is not worth my effort.
.343**
Interpersonal Conflict
12. I don’t want to feel ashamed of myself.
1. I don’t feel motivated because I’m wasting my time at work.
Pearson Correlation
Work Motivation
1. There are differences of opinion in my team.
8. If I put my best effort at work, others will offer me greater job security (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.).
Table C-4: Interpersonal Conflict and Work Motivation (Correlations)
Page 114 of 152
6. I don’t want to be criticised by others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.) 7. If I put my best effort at work, I will be rewarded financially by others (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.).
10. I have to prove to myself that I can.
11. I want to be proud of myself.
14. To me, it is important to put effort in this job.
15. Putting effort in this job aligns with my personal values. 16. Putting effort in this job means to me personally. 17. I enjoy my work.
18. My work involves exciting things I can do.
19. My work is interesting.
Pearson Correlation .336** .259* .344** .201 .277* .018 .018 .071 .112 .019 .105 .222 .157 -.073 -.010 .110 -.091 -.085 -.127
Sig. (2tailed) N .005 .032 .004 .098 .021 .881 .886 .564 .358 .876 .389 .067 .197 .550 .932 .367 .458 .485 .299
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Pearson Correlation .498** .415** .459** .278* .353** .016 -.090 -.064 .067 .009 .064 .153 .164 .008 .102 .213 -.211 -.194 -.204
Sig. (2tailed) N .000 .000 .000 .021 .003 .896 .465 .600 .586 .941 .604 .210 .179 .948 .405 .079 .082 .110 .093
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Pearson Correlation .347** .338** .407** .309** .452** -.013 -.048 -.016 -.059 -.024 .041 .066 .045 -.029 .081 .235 -.100 -.072 -.167
Sig. (2tailed) N .003 .004 .001 .010 .000 .914 .693 .896 .632 .844 .737 .592 .714 .816 .507 .052 .415 .556 .171
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
13. I don’t want to feel bad about myself.
12. I don’t want to feel ashamed of myself.
9. If I don’t put my best effort at work, I will lose my job.
8. If I put my best effort at work, others will offer me greater job security (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.).
5. I want to gain more respect and trust from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
7. There is jealousy or rivalry among the members of our team. 4. I want to obtain approval and support from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
6. There is tension among the members of our team. 3. I don’t feel motivated because I don’t belong to this workplace.
5. There are personality clashes evident in our team. 2. I feel little motivated because my work is not worth my effort.
Interpersonal Conflict 1. I don’t feel motivated because I’m wasting my time at work.
Work Motivation
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Page 115 of 152
4. The procedures are free from bias.
5. The procedures are based on facts, and accurate information is sufficiently obtained. 6. I’m entitled to appeal the result (s) of procedures.
7. The procedures uphold moral and ethical standards.
8. My performance is assessed upon my effort put into work, not bias or favouritism.
9. The assessment results agree with the quantity and quality of work I have done.
10. The assessment results agree with my contribution to the organisation.
11. I can access and know all my performance assessment results freely.
12. I’m treated by my superior (s) in a polite manner.
13. I’m treated by my superior (s) with dignity.
14. I’m treated by my superior (s) with respect.
15. My superior (s) avoids verbal abuse and improper comments.
16. My superior (s) communicates with me in a frank and polite manner.
17. My superior (s) explains the procedures thoroughly.
18. My superior (s) can provide reasonable explanation about the procedures.
19. My superior (s) informs me of all necessary information and details in a timely manner.
20. My superior (s) tend to exploit or tailor communications to individual specific needs.
1. Superiors should make most decisions without consulting subordinates.
3. The procedures are systematic and applied consistently.
Power Distance
2. I used to influence the conclusion or result (s) of the procedures.
Justice
1. I can express my opinions and raise my concerns during any organisational procedures (i.e. the determination of policies, performance assessment and promotion, the review of executives’ actions).
Table C-5: Power Distance and Justice (Correlations)
Pearson Correlation .033 -.193 .205 .071 .156 -.020 .147 .000 .066 .123 .191 .059 -.004 -.017 -.085 .087 .123 .024 .144 .289*
Sig. (2-tailed) .785 .111 .092 .561 .201 .873 .227 .997 .591 .313 .117 .632 .974 .891 .490 .478 .312 .847 .238 .016
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Page 116 of 152
4. The procedures are free from bias.
5. The procedures are based on facts, and accurate information is sufficiently obtained. 6. I’m entitled to appeal the result (s) of procedures.
7. The procedures uphold moral and ethical standards.
8. My performance is assessed upon my effort put into work, not bias or favouritism.
9. The assessment results agree with the quantity and quality of work I have done.
10. The assessment results agree with my contribution to the organisation.
11. I can access and know all my performance assessment results freely.
12. I’m treated by my superior (s) in a polite manner.
13. I’m treated by my superior (s) with dignity.
14. I’m treated by my superior (s) with respect.
15. My superior (s) avoids verbal abuse and improper comments.
16. My superior (s) communicates with me in a frank and polite manner.
17. My superior (s) explains the procedures thoroughly.
18. My superior (s) can provide reasonable explanation about the procedures.
19. My superior (s) informs me of all necessary information and details in a timely manner.
20. My superior (s) tend to exploit or tailor communications to individual specific needs.
3. Superiors should seldom ask for subordinates’ opinions.
3. The procedures are systematic and applied consistently.
2. It is frequently necessary for superiors to exercise power or authority in dealing with subordinates.
2. I used to influence the conclusion or result (s) of the procedures.
Power Distance
1. I can express my opinions and raise my concerns during any organisational procedures (i.e. the determination of policies, performance assessment and promotion, the review of executives’ actions).
Justice
Pearson Correlation -.012 -.008 .032 -.041 .037 -.051 .050 .078 .103 .032 .118 .194 .117 .127 .067 .101 .328** .159 .197 .258*
Sig. (2-tailed) .920 .951 .793 .741 .765 .678 .683 .527 .399 .793 .333 .111 .338 .300 .585 .407 .006 .193 .104 .032
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Pearson Correlation -.196 -.204 -.187 -.041 -.142 -.051 -.199 -.060 -.240* -.305* -.064 -.095 .058 .047 .043 -.056 .055 .088 .037 .197
Sig. (2-tailed) .107 .093 .124 .735 .246 .679 .101 .624 .047 .011 .601 .437 .634 .700 .729 .646 .656 .473 .762 .104
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Page 117 of 152
4. The procedures are free from bias.
5. The procedures are based on facts, and accurate information is sufficiently obtained. 6. I’m entitled to appeal the result (s) of procedures.
7. The procedures uphold moral and ethical standards.
8. My performance is assessed upon my effort put into work, not bias or favouritism.
9. The assessment results agree with the quantity and quality of work I have done.
10. The assessment results agree with my contribution to the organisation.
11. I can access and know all my performance assessment results freely.
12. I’m treated by my superior (s) in a polite manner.
13. I’m treated by my superior (s) with dignity.
14. I’m treated by my superior (s) with respect.
15. My superior (s) avoids verbal abuse and improper comments.
16. My superior (s) communicates with me in a frank and polite manner.
17. My superior (s) explains the procedures thoroughly.
18. My superior (s) can provide reasonable explanation about the procedures.
19. My superior (s) informs me of all necessary information and details in a timely manner.
20. My superior (s) tend to exploit or tailor communications to individual specific needs.
5. Superiors should not assign important tasks to subordinates.
3. The procedures are systematic and applied consistently.
4. Subordinates should better not question the decisions made by superiors or those in authority.
2. I used to influence the conclusion or result (s) of the procedures.
Power Distance
1. I can express my opinions and raise my concerns during any organisational procedures (i.e. the determination of policies, performance assessment and promotion, the review of executives’ actions).
Justice
Pearson Correlation -.096 -.103 .090 .180 .033 -.037 .111 -.052 -.113 -.051 .102 -.229 -.153 -.148 -.076 -.073 .075 .054 .116 .321**
Sig. (2-tailed) .434 .401 .460 .139 .787 .763 .362 .670 .355 .677 .406 .059 .208 .224 .535 .553 .539 .658 .342 .007
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Pearson Correlation -.225 -.348** -.124 .016 -.191 -.158 -.056 .026 .158 .216 .106 -.098 -.120 -.183 -.159 -.079 -.025 -.056 .072 .423**
Sig. (2-tailed) .063 .003 .310 .898 .117 .195 .646 .833 .196 .075 .384 .421 .326 .132 .193 .521 .841 .650 .557 .000
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Page 118 of 152
4. The procedures are free from bias.
5. The procedures are based on facts, and accurate information is sufficiently obtained. 6. I’m entitled to appeal the result (s) of procedures.
7. The procedures uphold moral and ethical standards.
8. My performance is assessed upon my effort put into work, not bias or favouritism.
9. The assessment results agree with the quantity and quality of work I have done.
10. The assessment results agree with my contribution to the organisation.
11. I can access and know all my performance assessment results freely.
12. I’m treated by my superior (s) in a polite manner.
13. I’m treated by my superior (s) with dignity.
14. I’m treated by my superior (s) with respect.
15. My superior (s) avoids verbal abuse and improper comments.
16. My superior (s) communicates with me in a frank and polite manner.
17. My superior (s) explains the procedures thoroughly.
18. My superior (s) can provide reasonable explanation about the procedures.
19. My superior (s) informs me of all necessary information and details in a timely manner.
20. My superior (s) tend to exploit or tailor communications to individual specific needs.
7. Although subordinates view that they deserve higher pay or career promotion, it is regarded disrespectful to ask superiors about that.
3. The procedures are systematic and applied consistently.
6. There should be an established structure and defined ranks, and everyone must occupy and have certain roles and responsibilities.
2. I used to influence the conclusion or result (s) of the procedures.
Power Distance
1. I can express my opinions and raise my concerns during any organisational procedures (i.e. the determination of policies, performance assessment and promotion, the review of executives’ actions).
Justice
Pearson Correlation -.030 .116 .131 .138 .162 .026 -.013 .008 -.111 -.110 -.091 .075 .107 .058 -.122 -.049 -.027 .083 -.019 -.084
Sig. (2-tailed) .807 .344 .282 .259 .185 .835 .918 .946 .363 .370 .456 .542 .383 .633 .318 .688 .825 .499 .875 .492
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Pearson Correlation -.057 -.139 -.102 -.011 .002 -.031 -.075 -.062 .065 .114 .041 -.076 -.100 -.142 -.219 -.075 .075 -.121 -.007 .063
Sig. (2-tailed) .640 .253 .405 .930 .988 .800 .539 .614 .594 .352 .740 .537 .416 .245 .070 .543 .540 .324 .955 .608
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Page 119 of 152
3. The procedures are systematic and applied consistently.
4. The procedures are free from bias.
5. The procedures are based on facts, and accurate information is sufficiently obtained. 6. I’m entitled to appeal the result (s) of procedures.
7. The procedures uphold moral and ethical standards.
8. My performance is assessed upon my effort put into work, not bias or favouritism.
9. The assessment results agree with the quantity and quality of work I have done.
10. The assessment results agree with my contribution to the organisation.
11. I can access and know all my performance assessment results freely.
12. I’m treated by my superior (s) in a polite manner.
13. I’m treated by my superior (s) with dignity.
14. I’m treated by my superior (s) with respect.
15. My superior (s) avoids verbal abuse and improper comments.
16. My superior (s) communicates with me in a frank and polite manner.
17. My superior (s) explains the procedures thoroughly.
18. My superior (s) can provide reasonable explanation about the procedures.
19. My superior (s) informs me of all necessary information and details in a timely manner.
20. My superior (s) tend to exploit or tailor communications to individual specific needs.
8. Communications with superiors should be done in a formal way or according to certain procedures.
2. I used to influence the conclusion or result (s) of the procedures.
Power Distance
1. I can express my opinions and raise my concerns during any organisational procedures (i.e. the determination of policies, performance assessment and promotion, the review of executives’ actions).
Justice
Pearson Correlation -.167 -.089 .033 -.066 -.114 -.100 -.115 -.038 .003 -.041 -.069 -.068 -.062 -.066 -.282* -.133 .291* .011 .145 .244*
Sig. (2-tailed) .170 .467 .785 .589 .349 .412 .346 .759 .980 .737 .574 .577 .612 .589 .019 .275 .015 .931 .234 .043
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Page 120 of 152
4. I want to obtain approval and support from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.) 5. I want to gain more respect and trust from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.) 6. I don’t want to be criticised by others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.) 7. If I put my best effort at work, I will be rewarded financially by others (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.). 8. If I put my best effort at work, others will offer me greater job security (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.). 9. If I don’t put my best effort at work, I will lose my job. 10. I have to prove to myself that I can.
11. I want to be proud of myself.
12. I don’t want to feel ashamed of myself.
13. I don’t want to feel bad about myself.
14. To me, it is important to put effort in this job.
15. Putting effort in this job aligns with my personal values.
16. Putting effort in this job means to me personally.
17. I enjoy my work.
18. My work involves exciting things I can do.
19. My work is interesting.
3. The procedures are systematic and applied consistently.
3. I don’t feel motivated because I don’t belong to this workplace.
Justice
2. I feel little motivated because my work is not worth my effort.
Work Motivation
1. I don’t feel motivated because I’m wasting my time at work.
Table C-6: Justice and Work Motivation (Correlations)
1. I can express my opinions and raise my concerns during any organisational procedures (i.e. the determination of policies, performance assessment and promotion, the review of executives’ actions). Pearson Correlation -.306* -.348** -.386** -.181 -.253* -.066 .262* .273* .061 .077 .121 .074 -.017 -.050 .049 -.049 .525** .389** .406**
Sig. (2tailed) .011 .003 .001 .136 .036 .591 .030 .023 .616 .531 .323 .547 .889 .682 .689 .687 .000 .001 .001
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
2. I used to influence the conclusion or result (s) of the procedures. Pearson Correlation -.199 -.206 -.238* -.067 -.172 -.172 .300* .291* .044 .116 .154 .101 .054 .033 .125 .044 .474** .352** .318**
Sig. (2tailed) .101 .090 .049 .587 .157 .159 .012 .015 .717 .341 .206 .409 .657 .788 .307 .717 .000 .003 .008
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Pearson Correlation -.389** -.514** -.380** .026 .025 .072 .228 .299* .229 .023 -.065 -.011 -.080 -.001 -.097 -.029 .529** .458** .503**
Sig. (2tailed) .001 .000 .001 .830 .841 .554 .059 .013 .058 .848 .596 .926 .513 .995 .427 .812 .000 .000 .000
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Page 121 of 152
5. The procedures are based on facts, and accurate information is sufficiently obtained.
6. I’m entitled to appeal the result (s) of procedures.
7. The procedures uphold moral and ethical standards.
4. I want to obtain approval and support from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.) 5. I want to gain more respect and trust from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.) 6. I don’t want to be criticised by others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.) 7. If I put my best effort at work, I will be rewarded financially by others (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.).
9. If I don’t put my best effort at work, I will lose my job. 10. I have to prove to myself that I can.
11. I want to be proud of myself.
12. I don’t want to feel ashamed of myself.
13. I don’t want to feel bad about myself.
14. To me, it is important to put effort in this job.
15. Putting effort in this job aligns with my personal values.
16. Putting effort in this job means to me personally.
17. I enjoy my work.
18. My work involves exciting things I can do.
19. My work is interesting.
Pearson Correlation -.338** -.476** -.388** -.106 -.158 .037 .044 .145 .161 .010 -.137 -.024 -.092 -.051 -.209 -.116 .374** .209 .295*
Sig. (2tailed) .004 .000 .001 .385 .195 .760 .717 .233 .186 .937 .260 .845 .450 .675 .084 .340 .002 .085 .014
8. If I put my best effort at work, others will offer me greater job security (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.).
3. I don’t feel motivated because I don’t belong to this workplace.
4. The procedures are free from bias.
2. I feel little motivated because my work is not worth my effort.
Justice
1. I don’t feel motivated because I’m wasting my time at work.
Work Motivation
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Pearson Correlation -.445** -.551** -.438** -.011 -.059 .109 .146 .265* .231 .042 -.043 -.031 -.025 .005 -.156 -.042 .467** .347** .395**
Sig. (2tailed) .000 .000 .000 .928 .631 .373 .231 .028 .056 .734 .724 .802 .839 .966 .199 .733 .000 .003 .001
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Pearson Correlation -.275* -.314** -.352** -.224 -.214 .032 .270* .218 .228 .125 .034 .092 .041 -.121 .017 -.011 .357** .292* .279*
Sig. (2tailed) .022 .009 .003 .064 .077 .791 .025 .072 .060 .308 .780 .453 .741 .322 .887 .927 .003 .015 .020
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Pearson Correlation -.411** -.462** -.481** -.127 -.111 .043 .045 .142 .239* .003 .009 .101 .014 .006 -.108 -.102 .453** .360** .422**
Sig. (2tailed) .000 .000 .000 .298 .364 .723 .713 .244 .048 .978 .938 .407 .910 .960 .376 .405 .000 .002 .000
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Page 122 of 152
2. I feel little motivated because my work is not worth my effort.
3. I don’t feel motivated because I don’t belong to this workplace.
4. I want to obtain approval and support from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
5. I want to gain more respect and trust from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
6. I don’t want to be criticised by others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
7. If I put my best effort at work, I will be rewarded financially by others (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.).
9. If I don’t put my best effort at work, I will lose my job.
10. I have to prove to myself that I can.
11. I want to be proud of myself.
12. I don’t want to feel ashamed of myself.
13. I don’t want to feel bad about myself.
14. To me, it is important to put effort in this job.
15. Putting effort in this job aligns with my personal values.
16. Putting effort in this job means to me personally.
17. I enjoy my work.
18. My work involves exciting things I can do.
19. My work is interesting.
-.082
-.119
-.136
.056
-.049
-.135
.052
.113
.070
.208
.121
.181
.114
.082
-.033
.020
.211
.125
.179
Sig. (2tailed)
.503
.331
.266
.649
.691
.270
.669
.356
.570
.087
.324
.136
.351
.502
.789
.869
.081
.306
.141
Justice
8. My performance is assessed upon my effort put into work, not bias or favouritism. 9. The assessment results agree with the quantity and quality of work I have done.
10. The assessment results agree with my contribution to the organisation.
11. I can access and know all my performance assessment results freely.
8. If I put my best effort at work, others will offer me greater job security (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.).
1. I don’t feel motivated because I’m wasting my time at work.
Pearson Correlation
Work Motivation
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
-.162
-.184
-.207
.077
-.052
-.029
.118
.204
.152
.145
.073
.143
.085
.038
-.070
-.032
.276*
.159
.239*
Sig. (2tailed)
.183
.131
.087
.528
.671
.810
.335
.093
.212
.234
.551
.240
.487
.756
.570
.795
.022
.192
.048
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
-.155
-.108
-.193
.024
-.126
.051
.107
.178
.176
.116
.109
.131
.097
-.011
-.129
-.142
.173
.116
.187
Sig. (2tailed)
.202
.376
.111
.845
.301
.678
.381
.144
.148
.344
.372
.283
.430
.927
.290
.246
.155
.344
.125
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
-.220
-.190
-.156
-.018
-.088
.100
.128
.183
.213
.148
.121
.116
.140
-.098
-.204
-.202
.174
.124
.140
Sig. (2tailed)
.070
.118
.200
.886
.470
.415
.296
.133
.079
.226
.322
.344
.251
.425
.093
.097
.152
.310
.253
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Page 123 of 152
7. If I put my best effort at work, I will be rewarded financially by others (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.).
9. If I don’t put my best effort at work, I will lose my job. 10. I have to prove to myself that I can.
11. I want to be proud of myself.
12. I don’t want to feel ashamed of myself.
13. I don’t want to feel bad about myself.
14. To me, it is important to put effort in this job.
15. Putting effort in this job aligns with my personal values.
16. Putting effort in this job means to me personally.
17. I enjoy my work.
18. My work involves exciting things I can do.
19. My work is interesting.
Pearson Correlation -.286* -.336** -.451** -.190 -.321** .016 .027 .129 -.028 .089 .220 .121 .137 .097 -.010 -.074 .187 .033 .124
Sig. (2tailed) .017 .005 .000 .118 .007 .899 .825 .291 .821 .466 .070 .320 .261 .427 .935 .544 .124 .787 .311
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Pearson Correlation -.320** -.423** -.463** -.237 -.303* -.021 .009 .161 -.137 .050 .139 .097 .124 .057 -.055 -.035 .280* .068 .168
Sig. (2tailed) .007 .000 .000 .050 .011 .861 .945 .185 .260 .682 .254 .429 .311 .643 .655 .774 .020 .579 .168
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Pearson Correlation -.393** -.500** -.515** -.212 -.284* -.032 .029 .182 -.120 .055 .068 .003 .014 .011 -.101 -.018 .345** .161 .242*
Sig. (2tailed) .001 .000 .000 .081 .018 .796 .815 .134 .327 .656 .576 .978 .909 .926 .411 .886 .004 .186 .045
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Pearson Correlation -.362** -.452** -.423** -.257* -.289* -.085 .059 .121 -.265* -.154 -.148 -.031 -.039 -.087 -.142 -.114 .337** .131 .175
Sig. (2tailed) .002 .000 .000 .033 .016 .488 .630 .321 .028 .208 .226 .802 .749 .477 .244 .351 .005 .283 .151
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
8. If I put my best effort at work, others will offer me greater job security (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.).
6. I don’t want to be criticised by others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
15. My superior (s) avoids verbal abuse and improper comments.
5. I want to gain more respect and trust from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
14. I’m treated by my superior (s) with respect.
4. I want to obtain approval and support from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
13. I’m treated by my superior (s) with dignity.
3. I don’t feel motivated because I don’t belong to this workplace.
12. I’m treated by my superior (s) in a polite manner.
2. I feel little motivated because my work is not worth my effort.
Justice
1. I don’t feel motivated because I’m wasting my time at work.
Work Motivation
Page 124 of 152
1. I don’t feel motivated because I’m wasting my time at work.
2. I feel little motivated because my work is not worth my effort.
3. I don’t feel motivated because I don’t belong to this workplace.
4. I want to obtain approval and support from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
5. I want to gain more respect and trust from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
6. I don’t want to be criticised by others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
7. If I put my best effort at work, I will be rewarded financially by others (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.).
8. If I put my best effort at work, others will offer me greater job security (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.).
9. If I don’t put my best effort at work, I will lose my job.
10. I have to prove to myself that I can.
11. I want to be proud of myself.
12. I don’t want to feel ashamed of myself.
13. I don’t want to feel bad about myself.
14. To me, it is important to put effort in this job.
15. Putting effort in this job aligns with my personal values.
16. Putting effort in this job means to me personally.
17. I enjoy my work.
18. My work involves exciting things I can do.
19. My work is interesting.
Pearson Correlation
-.523**
-.526**
-.480**
-.272*
-.356**
.036
.162
.300*
-.150
-.070
-.096
-.114
-.099
-.122
-.245*
-.155
.305*
.097
.145
Sig. (2tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.024
.003
.766
.183
.012
.218
.565
.432
.350
.418
.316
.042
.204
.011
.429
.236
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
-.197
-.231
-.166
.012
-.023
.173
.196
.302*
-.012
.100
.094
-.092
-.044
-.038
-.148
-.003
.202
.129
.140
Sig. (2tailed)
.105
.056
.172
.924
.852
.155
.106
.012
.922
.413
.445
.454
.722
.757
.224
.980
.096
.289
.252
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
18. My superior (s) can provide reasonable explanation about the procedures.
Pearson Correlation
-.354**
-.402**
-.315**
-.030
-.128
.227
.105
.266*
.083
.122
-.009
-.084
-.062
.000
-.126
-.054
.205
.251*
.200
Sig. (2tailed)
.003
.001
.008
.810
.295
.061
.392
.027
.497
.316
.938
.492
.610
.997
.302
.661
.091
.038
.099
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
19. My superior (s) informs me of all necessary information and details in a timely manner.
Pearson Correlation
-.251*
-.262*
-.137
-.060
-.039
.216
.155
.289*
.061
.099
.007
-.114
-.007
-.149
-.268*
-.110
.207
.160
.157
Sig. (2tailed)
.037
.029
.260
.627
.753
.075
.203
.016
.619
.420
.952
.350
.955
.222
.026
.368
.087
.190
.197
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Work Motivation
Justice
16. My superior (s) communicates with me in a frank and polite manner.
17. My superior (s) explains the procedures thoroughly.
Page 125 of 152
3. I don’t feel motivated because I don’t belong to this workplace. 4. I want to obtain approval and support from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.) 5. I want to gain more respect and trust from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.) 6. I don’t want to be criticised by others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.) 7. If I put my best effort at work, I will be rewarded financially by others (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.). 8. If I put my best effort at work, others will offer me greater job security (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.). 9. If I don’t put my best effort at work, I will lose my job. 10. I have to prove to myself that I can.
11. I want to be proud of myself.
12. I don’t want to feel ashamed of myself.
13. I don’t want to feel bad about myself.
14. To me, it is important to put effort in this job.
15. Putting effort in this job aligns with my personal values.
16. Putting effort in this job means to me personally.
17. I enjoy my work.
18. My work involves exciting things I can do.
19. My work is interesting.
20. My superior (s) tend to exploit or tailor communications to individual specific needs.
2. I feel little motivated because my work is not worth my effort.
Justice
1. I don’t feel motivated because I’m wasting my time at work.
Work Motivation
Pearson Correlation .220 .159 .172 .139 .312** .055 -.020 -.063 .115 .125 .187 .057 -.007 -.209 -.227 -.150 .129 .087 .188
Sig. (2tailed) .069 .191 .158 .255 .009 .653 .871 .605 .346 .307 .124 .642 .955 .085 .061 .218 .292 .478 .122
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Page 126 of 152
2. It is frequently necessary for superiors to exercise power or authority in dealing with subordinates.
3. Superiors should seldom ask for subordinates’ opinions.
4. Subordinates should better not question the decisions made by superiors or those in authority.
5. Superiors should not assign important tasks to subordinates.
6. There should be an established structure and defined ranks, and everyone must occupy and have certain roles and responsibilities.
.006
.103
.342**
.281*
.268*
.008
.180
.106
Sig. (2-tailed)
.963
.397
.004
.020
.026
.949
.140
.388
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.016
.147
.233
.174
.406**
-.021
.168
.116
Sig. (2-tailed)
.898
.227
.054
.154
.001
.861
.168
.343
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
-.104
.085
.250*
.075
.323**
-.016
.096
.284*
.395
.490
.038
.543
.007
.897
.434
.018
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.002
.066
-.048
.083
.003
.145
.212
.114
Sig. (2-tailed)
.986
.589
.697
.499
.984
.234
.081
.352
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Work Motivation
N 2. I feel little motivated because my work is not worth my effort.
N 3. I don’t feel motivated because I don’t belong to this workplace.
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
4. I want to obtain approval and support from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
N
7. Although subordinates view that they deserve higher pay or career promotion, it is regarded disrespectful to ask superiors about that.
1. Superiors should make most decisions without consulting subordinates.
Pearson Correlation
Power Distance
1. I don’t feel motivated because I’m wasting my time at work.
8. Communications with superiors should be done in a formal way or according to certain procedures.
Table C-7: Power Distance and Work Motivation (Correlations)
Page 127 of 152
3. Superiors should seldom ask for subordinates’ opinions.
4. Subordinates should better not question the decisions made by superiors or those in authority.
5. Superiors should not assign important tasks to subordinates.
6. There should be an established structure and defined ranks, and everyone must occupy and have certain roles and responsibilities.
5. I want to gain more respect and trust from others (e.g. superior, co-workers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
.163
.020
.127
.101
.028
.098
.058
.453
.180
.871
.299
.408
.816
.422
.637
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.162
.088
.021
.217
.092
.100
.113
.130
Sig. (2-tailed)
.185
.470
.864
.073
.454
.413
.357
.286
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.096
.049
-.076
.175
-.020
.003
.014
.110
Sig. (2-tailed)
.432
.692
.533
.150
.869
.982
.908
.369
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
.237*
.180
-.093
.131
-.130
.179
.065
.243*
.050
.138
.448
.283
.288
.141
.596
.045
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
N 6. I don’t want to be criticised by others (e.g. superior, coworkers, family, friends, customers, etc.)
N 7. If I put my best effort at work, I will be rewarded financially by others (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.).
N 8. If I put my best effort at work, others will offer me greater job security (e.g. employer, superior, customers, etc.).
8. Communications with superiors should be done in a formal way or according to certain procedures.
2. It is frequently necessary for superiors to exercise power or authority in dealing with subordinates.
.092
Sig. (2-tailed)
Work Motivation
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
7. Although subordinates view that they deserve higher pay or career promotion, it is regarded disrespectful to ask superiors about that.
1. Superiors should make most decisions without consulting subordinates.
Pearson Correlation
Power Distance
Page 128 of 152
N
11. I want to be proud of myself. Sig. (2-tailed)
N
12. I don’t want to feel ashamed of myself. Pearson Correlation .112 .074 -.039 .155 .058 .012 .017 .195
Sig. (2-tailed) .360 .545 .751 .204 .635 .922 .891 .109
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Pearson Correlation -.019 .226 .201 -.113 -.013 .107 .064 .267*
.876 .062 .098 .354 .917 .382 .600 .027
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Pearson Correlation -.019 .169 .162 -.094 -.037 .136 .053 .094
.878 .164 .184 .441 .765 .264 .663 .442
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
-.066 .032 *
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .051 .011 .009 .010 -.121
N .590 .794 .018 .676 .925 .941 .934 .322
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
.284
Page 129 of 152
8. Communications with superiors should be done in a formal way or according to certain procedures.
7. Although subordinates view that they deserve higher pay or career promotion, it is regarded disrespectful to ask superiors about that.
6. There should be an established structure and defined ranks, and everyone must occupy and have certain roles and responsibilities.
Sig. (2-tailed)
5. Superiors should not assign important tasks to subordinates.
10. I have to prove to myself that I can.
4. Subordinates should better not question the decisions made by superiors or those in authority.
N
3. Superiors should seldom ask for subordinates’ opinions.
9. If I don’t put my best effort at work, I will lose my job.
2. It is frequently necessary for superiors to exercise power or authority in dealing with subordinates.
Work Motivation
1. Superiors should make most decisions without consulting subordinates.
Power Distance
13. I don’t want to feel bad about myself.
14. To me, it is important to put effort in this job.
15. Putting effort in this job aligns with my personal values.
16. Putting effort in this job means to me personally. Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
-.083 .056 .282* -.034 .007 .046 .119 .034
.498 .649 .019 .782 .957 .708 .329 .785
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
-.236 -.036 -.124 -.237 -.315** -.012 -.136 -.026
.051 .770 .310 .050 .008 .923 .267 .831
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
-.349** -.118 -.018 -.217 -.367** -.032 -.203 -.163
.003 .333 .884 .074 .002 .795 .094 .180
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
-.189 -.071 .065 -.179 -.333** .076 -.104 .032
.120 .564 .598 .141 .005 .533 .393 .794
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Page 130 of 152
8. Communications with superiors should be done in a formal way or according to certain procedures.
7. Although subordinates view that they deserve higher pay or career promotion, it is regarded disrespectful to ask superiors about that.
6. There should be an established structure and defined ranks, and everyone must occupy and have certain roles and responsibilities.
Pearson Correlation
5. Superiors should not assign important tasks to subordinates.
N
4. Subordinates should better not question the decisions made by superiors or those in authority.
Sig. (2-tailed)
3. Superiors should seldom ask for subordinates’ opinions.
Pearson Correlation
2. It is frequently necessary for superiors to exercise power or authority in dealing with subordinates.
Work Motivation
1. Superiors should make most decisions without consulting subordinates.
Power Distance
19. My work is interesting.
6. There should be an established structure and defined ranks, and everyone must occupy and have certain roles and responsibilities. 7. Although subordinates view that they deserve higher pay or career promotion, it is regarded disrespectful to ask superiors about that.
8. Communications with superiors should be done in a formal way or according to certain procedures.
Sig. (2-tailed)
5. Superiors should not assign important tasks to subordinates.
18. My work involves exciting things I can do.
4. Subordinates should better not question the decisions made by superiors or those in authority.
N
3. Superiors should seldom ask for subordinates’ opinions.
17. I enjoy my work.
2. It is frequently necessary for superiors to exercise power or authority in dealing with subordinates.
Work Motivation
1. Superiors should make most decisions without consulting subordinates.
Power Distance
Pearson Correlation .055 .030 -.202 -.052 -.237* -.114 -.148 -.020
Sig. (2-tailed) .653 .809 .096 .669 .049 .352 .224 .868
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
-.037 -.114 *
-.086 *
Pearson Correlation -.090 -.210 -.062
.765 .352 .013 .481 .014 .462 .083 .614
N
N
-.297 -.293
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Pearson Correlation .022 -.118 -.229 -.048 -.221 -.148 -.184 -.039
Sig. (2-tailed) .855 .336 .059 .698 .068 .225 .131 .750
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Page 131 of 152
APPENDIX D: Pearson Correlations (Additional Findings)
1. Superiors should make most decisions without consulting subordinates.
2. It is frequently necessary for superiors to exercise power or authority in dealing with subordinates. 3. Superiors should seldom ask for subordinates’ opinions.
6. I still keep silent even if I have opinions on improvements at work.
5. I prefer keeping silent rather than asking questions when I want to get more information at work.
4. I keep silent when I have information that may help prevent any issues at work.
3. I don’t mention any potential issues at work to my superior (s).
Power Distance
2. I don’t speak up to my superior (s) even if I have ideas on how to solve the issues at work.
Employee Silence
1. I keep silent when I have opinions about issues at work.
Table D-1: Power Distance and Employee Silence (Correlations)
Pearson Correlation
.211
.073
.154
.128
.255*
.134
Sig. (2-tailed)
.082
.550
.208
.293
.035
.271
N Pearson Correlation
69 .134
69 -.046
69 -.073
69 .007
69 .025
69 .083
Sig. (2-tailed)
.274
.708
.550
.953
.840
.499
N Pearson Correlation
69 .174
69 .062
69 .247*
69 .236
69 .269*
69 .266*
Sig. (2-tailed)
.154
.613
.041
.051
.025
.027
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
Page 132 of 152
4. Subordinates should better not question the decisions made by superiors or those in authority. 5. Superiors should not assign important tasks to subordinates. 6. There should be an established structure and defined ranks, and everyone must occupy and have certain roles and responsibilities. 7. Although subordinates view that they deserve higher pay or career promotion, it is regarded disrespectful to ask superiors about that.
6. I still keep silent even if I have opinions on improvements at work.
5. I prefer keeping silent rather than asking questions when I want to get more information at work.
4. I keep silent when I have information that may help prevent any issues at work.
3. I don’t mention any potential issues at work to my superior (s).
2. I don’t speak up to my superior (s) even if I have ideas on how to solve the issues at work.
Power Distance
1. I keep silent when I have opinions about issues at work.
Employee Silence
Pearson Correlation
.094
.233
.310**
.244*
.311**
.231
Sig. (2-tailed)
.440
.054
.010
.043
.009
.057
N Pearson Correlation
69 .062
69 .259*
69 .275*
69 .301*
69 .169
69 .257*
Sig. (2-tailed)
.613
.032
.022
.012
.164
.033
N Pearson Correlation
69 .151
69 -.067
69 .034
69 -.131
69 .019
69 -.116
Sig. (2-tailed)
.215
.586
.783
.285
.880
.341
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.114
.076
.041
.274*
.282*
.168
Sig. (2-tailed)
.349
.537
.739
.023
.019
.168
N
69
69
69
69
69
69
Page 133 of 152
Power Distance
8. Communications with superiors should be done in a formal way or according to certain procedures. Pearson Correlation -.100 -.048 -.046 .008 .051 .076
Sig. (2-tailed) .412 .698 .710 .951 .677 .535
69 69 69
N 69 69 69 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
6. I still keep silent even if I have opinions on improvements at work.
5. I prefer keeping silent rather than asking questions when I want to get more information at work.
4. I keep silent when I have information that may help prevent any issues at work.
3. I don’t mention any potential issues at work to my superior (s).
2. I don’t speak up to my superior (s) even if I have ideas on how to solve the issues at work.
1. I keep silent when I have opinions about issues at work.
Employee Silence
Page 134 of 152
5. Voice your concerns when you perceive a problem with work process?
1. Superiors should make most decisions without consulting subordinates.
-.217
-.240*
-.304*
-.368**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.009
.073
.047
.011
.002
N Pearson Correlation
69 -.225
69 -.152
69 -.175
69 -.148
69 -.106
2. It is frequently necessary for superiors to exercise power or authority in dealing with subordinates.
Sig. (2-tailed)
.064
.214
.150
.225
.384
N Pearson Correlation
69 -.044
69 -.059
69 .116
69 .044
69 .005
3. Superiors should seldom ask for subordinates’ opinions.
Sig. (2-tailed)
.721
.630
.344
.722
.966
N
69
69
69
69
69
3. Challenge other professionals if they make errors or don’t follow protocol?
-.310**
Power Distance
2. Speak up about issues that affect you?
Pearson Correlation
Voice
1. Communicate your views about work issues to others in the workplace, even if others disagree with you?
4. Speak out firmly on behalf of the team when it would help the situation?
Table D-2: Power Distance and Voice (Correlations)
Page 135 of 152
5. Voice your concerns when you perceive a problem with work process?
-.130
-.043
-.068
-.182
Sig. (2-tailed)
.206
.288
.728
.576
.135
N Pearson Correlation
69 -.110
69 -.168
69 -.143
69 -.169
69 -.182
5. Superiors should not assign important tasks to subordinates.
Sig. (2-tailed)
.367
.169
.240
.165
.135
N Pearson Correlation
69 -.126
69 -.094
69 .078
69 .117
69 -.085
6. There should be an established structure and defined ranks, and everyone must occupy and have certain roles and responsibilities.
Sig. (2-tailed)
.302
.443
.526
.337
.488
N
69
69
69
69
69
3. Challenge other professionals if they make errors or don’t follow protocol?
4. Speak out firmly on behalf of the team when it would help the situation?
4. Subordinates should better not question the decisions made by superiors or those in authority.
2. Speak up about issues that affect you?
-.154
Power Distance
1. Communicate your views about work issues to others in the workplace, even if others disagree with you?
Pearson Correlation
Voice
Page 136 of 152
5. Voice your concerns when you perceive a problem with work process?
-.152
-.226
-.090
-.074
Sig. (2-tailed)
.231
.212
.062
.464
.546
N Pearson Correlation
69 -.183
69 -.125
69 .035
69 -.109
69 .043
8. Communications with superiors should be done in a formal way or according to certain procedures.
Sig. (2-tailed)
.133
.304
.775
.371
.727
69
69
69
N 69 69 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
3. Challenge other professionals if they make errors or don’t follow protocol?
4. Speak out firmly on behalf of the team when it would help the situation?
7. Although subordinates view that they deserve higher pay or career promotion, it is regarded disrespectful to ask superiors about that.
2. Speak up about issues that affect you?
-.146
Power Distance
1. Communicate your views about work issues to others in the workplace, even if others disagree with you?
Pearson Correlation
Voice
Page 137 of 152
Pearson Correlation 1. There are differences of opinion in my team.
Sig. (2-tailed) N
8. Keep disagreements from escalating?
7. Constructively handle differences of opinion?
6. Communicate well with each other?
5. Keep ‘in sync’ with each other?
4. Closely coordinate your activities with each other? -.227
-.281*
-.243*
-.132
-.124
.394
.315
.007
.061
.019
.044
.281
.308
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
-.378**
-.431**
-.389**
-.293*
-.208
.070
.178
.087
.001
.001
.000
.001
.015
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
-.096
-.147
-.199
-.386**
-.307*
-.297*
-.334**
-.286*
.432
.227
.101
.001
.010
.013
.005
.017
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.152
.167
-.009
.029
.167
.028
-.006
.180
Sig. (2-tailed)
.214
.169
.940
.814
.170
.819
.962
.138
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
-.278*
-.330**
-.294*
-.536**
-.457**
-.524**
-.593**
-.607**
.021
.006
.014
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Sig. (2-tailed)
Sig. (2-tailed) N
N Pearson Correlation 5. There are personality clashes evident in our team.
-.320**
-.164
Pearson Correlation
4. The arguments in our team are task-related.
-.123
-.219
N 3. Members of my team disagree about which procedure should be used to do our work.
-.104
-.389**
Pearson Correlation 2. Members of my team disagree about how things should be done.
3. Shift work around to balance the workload among members?
Interpersonal Conflict
2. Offer each other help when it might be needed?
Task Conflict
1. Watch out for one and another?
Table D-3: Task and Interpersonal Conflict (Correlations)
Sig. (2-tailed) N
Page 138 of 152
-.209
-.320**
-.477**
-.428**
-.394**
-.521**
-.473**
.055
.084
.007
.000
.000
.001
.000
.000
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
-.186
-.150
-.311**
-.412**
-.514**
-.451**
-.515**
-.479**
.125
.220
.009
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
4. Closely coordinate your activities with each other?
6. Communicate well with each other?
-.233
5. Keep ‘in sync’ with each other?
8. Keep disagreements from escalating?
3. Shift work around to balance the workload among members?
7. Constructively handle differences of opinion?
Pearson Correlation
2. Offer each other help when it might be needed?
Interpersonal Conflict
1. Watch out for one and another?
Task Conflict
6. There is tension among the members of our team. Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation 7. There is jealousy or rivalry among the members of our team. Sig. (2-tailed) N **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Page 139 of 152
1. I made fun of someone at work.
2. I said something hurtful to someone at work.
3. I made an ethic, religious, or racial remark at work.
4. I cursed someone at work.
5. I played a mean prank on someone at work.
6. I acted rudely toward someone at work.
7. I publicly embarrassed someone at work.
Table D-4: Office Politics and Interpersonal Deviance (Correlations)
Pearson Correlation
.231
.091
.165
.230
.152
.133
.177
Sig. (2-tailed)
.056
.457
.177
.057
.213
.276
.146
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
.270*
.260*
.052
.230
.182
.180
.093
.025
.031
.670
.057
.135
.139
.449
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
.301*
.270*
-.002
.259*
.089
.083
.163
.012
.025
.989
.032
.466
.500
.181
Interpersonal Deviance
Office Politics 1. In my workplace, one group always get their way.
N 2. In my workplace, you can get what you want if you ask the right person.
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
3. In my workplace, there is an influential group no one crosses.
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
4. In my workplace, it takes a while to learn on who not to cross.
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.217
.225
-.015
.155
.064
.056
.128
Sig. (2-tailed)
.074
.063
.904
.202
.599
.646
.295
N 5. In my workplace, people know things before they happen.
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
.460**
.339**
.075
.293*
.210
.136
.177
.000
.004
.538
.014
.083
.267
.146
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
.262*
.092
-.098
.124
.112
.081
.118
.029
.454
.423
.309
.358
.507
.335
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
.250*
.058
-.001
.152
-.008
-.093
.055
.039
.636
.995
.213
.950
.447
.656
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
.403**
.331**
.260*
.303*
.109
.135
.279*
.001
.005
.031
.011
.374
.270
.020
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
.453**
.272*
.168
.370**
.277*
.246*
.206
.000
.024
.168
.002
.021
.042
.089
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
*
*
.019
*
.103
.079
.165
.022
.018
.877
.030
.402
.520
.176
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.161
.105
.122
.173
.094
.133
.131
Sig. (2-tailed)
.188
.390
.318
.155
.441
.276
.282
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
6. In my workplace, “In-groups” hinder effectiveness.
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
7. In my workplace, superiors use the selection system to further their careers.
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
8. In my workplace, “Squeaky wheels get the grease”.
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
9. People left because hard work was not enough to get ahead in my workplace.
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
10. In my workplace, policy changes help only a few.
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
11. In my workplace, people build themselves up by tearing others down.
N 12. In my workplace, activities determined by those not in a position to do so.
.276
.285
.262
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.163
.101
-.001
.188
.111
.090
.012
Sig. (2-tailed)
.180
.407
.994
.122
.362
.461
.921
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
N
Page 140 of 152
1. I made fun of someone at work.
2. I said something hurtful to someone at work.
3. I made an ethic, religious, or racial remark at work.
4. I cursed someone at work.
5. I played a mean prank on someone at work.
6. I acted rudely toward someone at work.
7. I publicly embarrassed someone at work.
Pearson Correlation
.097
.054
.169
.215
-.020
.015
-.011
Sig. (2-tailed)
.428
.661
.166
.077
.873
.903
.928
Interpersonal Deviance
Office Politics 13. Favouritism not merit gets people ahead in my workplace.
N 14. In my workplace, people don’t speak up for fear of retaliation.
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.153
.153
.133
.237
.027
.080
.047
Sig. (2-tailed)
.209
.208
.274
.050
.823
.515
.704
N 15. Get along by being a good guy in my workplace.
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
16. In my workplace, people define their own standards if not specified.
.199
.540
.453
.536
.303
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
-.123
-.053
-.044
.971
.010
.314
.666
.718
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
.015
.052
.044
Pearson Correlation
.119
.183
-.037
.262*
Sig. (2-tailed)
.331
.132
.764
.029
.904
.672
.722
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
.271*
.037
.101
.152
.270*
.239*
.224
.024
.763
.409
.212
.025
.048
.064
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed)
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.051
.116
.171
.165
.232
.212
.188
Sig. (2-tailed)
.680
.343
.161
.175
.055
.080
.122
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
-.080
.030
.013
-.035
.048
.051
.018
.513
.807
.917
.775
.696
.676
.883
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
-.162
-.195
-.185
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed)
-.250*
-.225
-.078
-.276*
.038
.063
.523
.022
.184
.108
.128
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
-.163
-.204
-.130
.181
.093
.289
-.141
-.007
-.044
-.248*
.246
.954
.719
.040
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.038
.210
.108
.092
.146
.127
.082
Sig. (2-tailed)
.759
.083
.377
.454
.231
.297
.505
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
.245*
.263*
.249*
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
25. In my workplace, people are encouraged to speak out.
.597
.842
N 24. In my workplace, people who voice opinion do better.
.995
.527
N 23. In my workplace, pay and promotions are communicated.
69 .126
-.004
N 22. In my workplace, pay and promotions rules are well defined.
69 .076
.024
N 21. In my workplace, rewards come to hard workers.
69 .092
.077
N 20. In my workplace, promotions go to top performers.
69 .075
Sig. (2-tailed)
N 19. In my workplace, people who come through in crisis get ahead.
69 -.157
.309**
N 18. In my workplace, supervisors carry out pay and promotions unfairly.
69 -.065
Pearson Correlation
N 17. In my workplace, people distort or selectively report information.
69 -.001
.251*
.159
.011
.268*
.038
.193
.931
.026
.042
.029
.039
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.144
.218
.073
.199
.113
.134
.099
Sig. (2-tailed)
.236
.073
.549
.100
.354
.271
.418
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
N
Page 141 of 152
1. I made fun of someone at work.
2. I said something hurtful to someone at work.
3. I made an ethic, religious, or racial remark at work.
4. I cursed someone at work.
5. I played a mean prank on someone at work.
6. I acted rudely toward someone at work.
7. I publicly embarrassed someone at work.
Pearson Correlation
.236
.037
.089
-.033
-.141
-.170
-.020
Sig. (2-tailed)
.051
.760
.465
.785
.248
.162
.872
Interpersonal Deviance
Office Politics 26. No place for “yes-men” in my workplace.
N 27. In my workplace, interdepartmental connections help when calling in a favour.
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.034
.084
-.104
.223
-.135
-.099
-.278*
Sig. (2-tailed)
.779
.490
.394
.065
.267
.419
.021
N 28. My co-workers are there when I need them.
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.013
.174
.008
.040
.020
.003
.061
Sig. (2-tailed)
.914
.153
.945
.742
.868
.982
.617
N 29. My co-workers help themselves not others.
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.209
.004
-.041
.009
.047
.016
.074
Sig. (2-tailed)
.086
.975
.741
.940
.702
.896
.548
N 30. My co-workers lend a hand if they get something out of it.
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.165
-.080
-.018
.111
.134
.100
.157
Sig. (2-tailed)
.175
.513
.881
.362
.271
.415
.197
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.040
-.037
-.076
.070
.105
.102
.162
Sig. (2-tailed)
.744
.760
.533
.566
.389
.404
.183
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
.342**
.360**
N 31. My co-worker (s) would help, so I didn’t have to stay late.
N 32. Even if asked by my supervisor, my co-worker (s) would not help.
Pearson Correlation
.207
.071
.083
.232
.263*
Sig. (2-tailed)
.089
.560
.500
.056
.029
.004
.002
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
-.008
.112
-.096
-.022
.159
.156
.202
.947
.359
.430
.861
.193
.201
.097
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Pearson Correlation
.054
.022
.120
.123
.182
.139
.160
Sig. (2-tailed)
.659
.859
.325
.313
.134
.256
.189
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
.233
.272*
.054
.024
N 33. My supervisor only looks like he/she helps others.
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
34. My supervisor communicates to make himself/herself looks good.
N 35. Performance appraisals reflect my superior’s “own agenda”.
Pearson Correlation
.173
-.018
.224
.121
.285*
Sig. (2-tailed)
.154
.885
.064
.323
.018
N 36. In my workplace, pay and promotions policies are not politically applied.
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
37. In my workplace, pay and promotions decisions are consistent with policies.
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
38. Never witness a justified pay increase or promotion in my workplace.
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
-.084
.055
-.130
-.068
.083
.041
.082
.494
.654
.288
.580
.496
.736
.502
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
-.146
-.028
-.066
-.129
.072
.039
.139
.230
.821
.588
.291
.556
.748
.256
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
-.005
.121
.183
.053
.179
.228
.143
.970
.323
.131
.667
.141
.059
.241
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Page 142 of 152
Office Politics
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Page 143 of 152
7. I publicly embarrassed someone at work.
6. I acted rudely toward someone at work.
5. I played a mean prank on someone at work.
4. I cursed someone at work.
3. I made an ethic, religious, or racial remark at work.
2. I said something hurtful to someone at work.
1. I made fun of someone at work.
Interpersonal Deviance
