Goal orientation and organizational commitment - IngentaConnect

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1934-8835.htm

Goal orientation and organizational commitment

Individual difference predictors

Individual difference predictors of job performance

129

Olivia F. Lee Department of Marketing and Business Law, G. R. Herberger College of Business, St Cloud State University, St Cloud, Minnesota, USA

James A. Tan Department of Management, G.R. Herberger College of Business, St Cloud State University, St Cloud, Minnesota, USA, and

Rajeshekhar Javalgi Nance College of Business Administration, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to paper examine goal orientation and organizational commitment in relation to employees’ job attitudes and performance in a hospital. Specifically, it investigates the effects of mastery and performance goals on different facets of organizational commitment and how these effects impact individuals’ job outcomes. Design/methodology/approach – The paper utilized an online survey to collect data from 497 hospital employees. The conceptual model was tested using a three-step mediation procedure of structural equation modeling with maximum likelihood estimation. Findings – The results indicate that while mastery goal is related to the three components of organizational commitment, performance goal is only related to affective commitment. Although affective and normative commitment are both related to job satisfaction, only the former is linked to employees’ performance. Research limitations/implications – The survey is conducted in an East Asian hospital. To ensure greater generalizability of the results, future research should be conducted using a broader Asian sample, preferably, in a different organizational setting, and using longitudinal methods in addition to online surveys. Practical implications – When managing employees with Asian backgrounds, establishing mastery goal orientation can potentially cultivate higher organizational commitment. Managers may consider aligning affectively and normatively committed employees with more complex job assignments because these employees typically exhibit desirable job attitudes and innovative job performance. Originality/value – The contributions are two-fold: managerially and scholarly. Identifying employees’ mindset in relation to goal orientation and commitment allows firms to effectively manage employees’ performance. The paper also provides evidence for rethinking constructs’ relevancy outside of North America. Keywords Job satisfaction, Employee attitudes, Performance levels, Hospitals, Health services, Singapore Paper type Research paper

The authors gratefully thank Emily Goenner for copy-editing assistance.

International Journal of Organizational Analysis Vol. 18 No. 1, 2010 pp. 129-150 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1934-8835 DOI 10.1108/19348831011033249

IJOA 18,1

130

Introduction Achievement goals and organizational commitment are internal representations of desired states that guide individuals’ pursuits (Austin and Vancouver, 1996; Meyer and Allen, 1997). Achievement goal theory is based on individuals’ intrinsic disposition which relate to ambition and goal attainment. To examine goal relevant behaviors, it is essential to understand the underlying commitment mechanisms that motivate individuals to perform. While theories of motivation abound, the mediating role of organizational commitment is less studied. Understanding employees as emotional laborers that manage challenging goals in service delivery processes is crucial to organizational success (Korczynski, 2002). In a healthcare setting where expectations for service delivery and clinical outcomes are high, relating goal orientation to the nature of commitment is necessary to improve employees’ performance. As pointed out by Ramanujam and Rousseau (2006), health care providers are facing mainly organizational, not clinical, challenges. This is especially the case for hospital employees because their daily tasks are inherently complex and involve high levels of uncertainty. Organizational commitment is essential for reaching such challenging goals (Klein et al., 1999) as these goals require more effort and typically have lower chances of success than are easy goals (Latham, 2007). Previous goal and commitment studies were mainly conducted in North America or other Western countries, and mostly used students (Bell and Kozlowski, 2002; Meyer et al., 1993) and sales people samples (Riketta, 2002). These studies viewed goal commitment as a single construct (Klein et al., 1999; Li and Butler, 2004), and operationalized commitment unidimensionally. In order to probe the underlying forces that cause desired behaviors, it is necessary to simultaneously examine goals and commitment as two distinctive constructs, and assess individuals’ commitment components (Meyer et al., 2004). In addition, to expand knowledge in this area, it is also important to conduct research in a non-Western culture using emotional labor samples. To fill this research gap, this paper proposes a conceptual model that links goal orientation to organizational commitment as a proximal consequence, and examines the effects of these linkages to employees’ attitudinal response and job outcomes. We conducted the study in a hospital setting, and to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to incorporate both attitudinal and orientation variables to predict employees’ performance in such a setting. Adding to its potential contributions, this study included multiple facets of job outcomes for a more balanced viewed of performance assessment. This paper is divided into five sections. The first section will review the literature on goal orientation, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, in-role, and innovative performance. The second section will explain the proposed framework of individuals’ goal orientation that activates different commitment components, and its influence on job attitudes and performance outcomes. Research hypotheses will then be presented. The third section will discuss research methodology and present analytical work on model testing, followed by results findings in the fourth the section. The final section will discuss managerial implication and future research directions. Goal orientation A goal is the object of a specific action. Goals direct individuals’ attention toward goal relevant actions and create a framework for the interpretation of and reaction to related events and outcomes (Dweck and Leggett, 1988; Elliot and Dweck, 1988). Substantial empirical evidence suggests that difficult goals, goals that are not easily attainable, lead

to higher performance than easy or “do you best” goals (Latham, 2007). Easy goals often have no external reference can be defined arbitrarily, and thus lead to a wide range of performance. When a goal level is specified (for example, attend to three customers’ requests in 30 minutes), it reduces ambiguity because individuals can then relate goal attainment through two types of orientations: mastery and performance orientation (Latham, 2007). Mastery and performance goal orientations can be distinguished by individuals’ learning motives. While mastery-oriented individuals have a desire to increase competence by developing new skills and mastering new situations, performance-oriented individuals have a desire to demonstrate personal competence relative to others and receive positive evaluations from others (Button et al., 1996; Farr et al., 1993). The primary distinction between these two orientations is how the instructions given to employees are framed. A mastery goal is framed to encourage knowledge or skill acquisition, whereas a performance goal is framed so that employees will focus on completing specific tasks. According to the achievement goal theory, both mastery- and performance-oriented employees are strongly motivated to meet their respective performance goals (Elliot, 2005). These goal orientations reflect individuals’ interpretations of and reactions to events. Individuals with mastery goals tend to believe their abilities are malleable, and they approach challenging tasks with an interest to develop new skills. In contrast, individuals with performance orientations view challenging tasks as a threats that could reveal incompetence, and such individuals could withdraw from accomplishing the task (Elliot, 2005). Organizational commitment Organizational commitment has been conceptualized as a psychological state or mindset that binds individuals to a course of action relevant to one or more targets, and a willingness to persist in a course of action (Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran, 2005). Porter et al. (1974) defined commitment as a strong belief in and acceptance of the organizational goals, willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization and a desire to maintain organizational membership. As such, commitment is different from motivation in that commitment influences behavior independently of other motives and attitudes, and may lead to persistence to a course of action even if this conflicts with motives (Meyer et al., 2004; Meyer and Herscovitch, 2001). One aspect of commitment consideration is rooted in terms of exchange or reward-cost notions where the emphasis is on the bargaining between the individual and the organization: the more favorable the exchange, the greater the individuals’ commitment to the organization (Becker, 1960). Interest in organizational commitment has been stimulated largely by its demonstrated positive relationship to work behaviors such as job satisfaction, high productivity, and low turnover (Cohen, 2003), but the field has not conducted enough studies outside the Western countries (Lee et al., 2001; Meyer et al., 2002). In recent years, research has shown that employees’ commitment to an organization can take many forms. Meyer and his colleagues conceptualized organizational commitment in terms of three distinct psychological states, each of which influences whether or not a person will remain with the organization. These three psychological states are referred to as affective, normative, and continuance commitment. Affective commitment is characterized by emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization; normative commitment is characterized by perceived obligation to remain in the organization and continuance commitment by recognition of the costs associated with leaving

Individual difference predictors 131

IJOA 18,1

the organization. Meyer and Allen (1997) argued that the nature of the commitment leads to organizational outcomes that are quite different. Although all three commitment components increase the likelihood of employees maintaining membership in an organization, it is important to distinguish among these as they can have rather different implications for work behaviors.

132

Job satisfaction and performance Job satisfaction and performance are the two work outcomes included in the current study due to their substantive usefulness in creating a satisfying work place and increasing employees’ performance. Job satisfaction is the pleasurable emotional state resulting from individuals’ job experiences. In essence, job satisfaction is an overall state that is derived from experiencing a work situation. Studies suggest that if individuals are consistent in their job satisfaction, then the source of this consistency would likely predict job attitude and performance (Staw and Cohen-Charash, 2005). Two types of job performance are incorporated in this study. In-role performance is related to behavior directed toward prescribed tasks, duties, and responsibilities as formally documented in the job description (Campbell, 1990). Originally conceptualized by Kanter (1988), innovative job performance refers to employees’ creativeness and problem-solving skills in the work place. Similar to the extra-role performance, innovative work behavior such as generating, promoting, and realizing creative ideas in the work place is known to be important and beneficial to the organizational success (Janssen, 2000). Proposed framework Grounded in existing literature, our proposed framework posits goal orientation as an effective predictor of organizational commitment, and we suggest such a relationship has a direct influence on employees’ attitude (job satisfaction) and behaviors (job performance). As shown in Figure 1, organizational commitment is positioned as a proximal consequence of goal orientation, or a mediator between goal orientation and the job performance. Goal orientation leads to commitment The linkage between goal-oriented behavior and commitment derives from general psychological processes in which people choose to identify with different things in the workplace and social systems to identify a purpose in life. When individuals are aware of goal-oriented action and are committed to pursuing these actions, they are more likely to

Job satisfaction Goal orientation Mastery Learning

Figure 1. An alternative mediation model

Organization commitment Affective Normative Continuance Job performance In-role Innovative

carry out these behaviors. Goal-oriented behaviors stem from individuals’ willingness to pursue specific actions. Locke et al. (1981) and Locke and Latham (1990) recognize that if there is no commitment, goal by itself will have no motivational effect to carry out performance. Goal commitment has traditionally been examined as a unidimensional construct and thus the effects of goals on individuals’ commitment remain unknown (Hollenbeck and Klein, 1987). Previous research viewed goal commitment as a determination to achieve a goal in that commitment implies exerted efforts over time for goal attainment. A few studies that examined goal orientation and commitment separately indicated more work is needed to fully understand the dynamic relationships between these two constructs (Porter, 2005; Lin and Chang, 2005). Furthermore, Meyer et al. (2004) argued that these two constructs could be incorporated into a framework where commitment is one of many energizing forces for motivated behavior. In this paper, we assert that goals direct individuals’ commitment based on achievement goals towards developing competence (mastery goal), or achievement goals that are geared towards demonstrating ability and performance (performance goal) relative to others. Research has shown that individuals who hold a strong mastery goal mindset tend to buffer themselves from the negative effects of failure, thereby establishing higher self-efficacy; individuals with a strong performance goal mindset tend to validate their adequacy by using others as a reference point, seeking favorable judgments and avoiding negative evaluations. Both classes of goal orientations have been shown to influence work behaviors in spite of the different rationales behind goal directed behaviors (Elliot, 2005). In line with previous research, our framework posits that the awareness of goal-oriented actions would lead to individuals’ willingness to pursue specific actions, and action will more likely be carried out if commitment exists (Johnson et al., 2006; Klein et al., 1999; Locke et al., 1981; Locke and Latham, 1990). In this vein, the authors argue that goal orientation is related to commitment regardless of goal-oriented mindset. Since a mastery goal indicates a strong desire to perform challenging tasks, it directs attention and effort toward goal-relevant activities such as problem solving and developing alternative strategies when faced with difficult tasks (Locke and Latham, 2002). A performance goal indicates the desire to prove and outperform others, therefore it links to commitment by seeking approval, demonstrating ability and comparing one’s competency in relation to others (Locke and Latham, 1990). Owing to the inherent desire to master difficult tasks and demonstrate performance ability, individuals strive to develop a commitment for achievement, in line with the achievement motivation theory (Dweck and Leggett, 1988). Given that both mastery and performance orientations stem from the desire to perform, these orientations should be related to all three commitment components. For example, mastery-oriented individuals have a strong need to develop competencies. These individuals are more likely to develop liking for organizations that enable them to achieve this goal (affective commitment), and less likely to leave such organizations because it may be difficult to find another similar organization (continuance commitment) or because they feel obligated to the organization for providing such opportunities (normative commitment; Redman and Snape, 2005). In addition, performance-oriented individuals have a strong need for approval and validation from their peers or workgroups. They are therefore motivated to hold a stronger sense of membership in the organization to obtain these approval and validation. This sense of membership to the organization could be manifested in continuance (sunk costs), normative (felt obligation), and affective (liking) commitment.


IJOA 18,1

134

Organizational commitment leads to satisfaction and performance Previous research has documented the positive relationship between organizational commitment and work outcomes (Jaramillo et al., 2005). Researchers have also found that different conceptualizations of commitment impact employees’ work behaviors differently in terms of job satisfaction and performance (Meyer et al., 2002). Studies on the relationship between commitment components and job attitudes has shown that affective commitment is consistently related to overall job satisfaction. Continuance commitment also frequently correlates with job satisfaction, albeit at a lower magnitude (Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran, 2005; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). In a meta-analysis, the two affectively based commitment components, affective and normative commitment, are found to have a positive relationship with job satisfaction (Meyer et al., 2002) but the latter had a lower correlation with job satisfaction. Conversely, continuance commitment was negatively related to job satisfaction. Employees with high-continuance commitment are less likely to express satisfaction with their jobs. These individuals feel that they have to stay in the organization because they have vested interests in it and leaving would be costly (Becker, 1960). Even though the three components of commitment generally bind employees to their organization, empirical studies yield mixed findings. Studies found affective commitment had the strongest and most encouraging relationship with organization specific outcomes such as task performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Normative commitment was also positively associated with desirable outcomes, but not as strongly. Continuance commitment has either no relationship or negatively correlates with performance (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al., 2002). Past research also found weak correlations between attitudinal and continuance commitments and job performance (Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran, 2005). Both affective and normative commitment were predictors of extra-role performance such as innovative job behaviors, but continuance commitment was unrelated (MacKenzie et al., 1998). Based on various reported findings, the authors concur with the majority view that affective and normative commitment are positively associated with, and continuance commitment is negatively associated with job performance. Mediation relationship Goals have an energizing function that can directly and indirectly influence organizational outcomes such as training and development (Brett and VandeWalle, 1999), feedback-seeking (VandeWalle and Cummings, 1997), and in-role performance (Harris et al., 2005). Payne et al. (2007) argued that the relationship between goal orientation dimensions and organizational consequences, such as job performance and learning, is indirect and mediated by proximal consequences. They found that goal orientation is a much stronger predictor of proximal consequences (e.g. self-efficacy and feedback seeking) than of distal consequences (e.g. academic and job performance). Furthermore, Locke and Latham (2002) provided such support in their comprehensive review of goal construct. The authors propose that organizational commitment is a mediator that influences individuals’ goal orientations and work behaviors. When pursuing different goals, individuals exhibit different degrees of commitment, based on underlying commitment mechanisms, to carry out specific tasks. Such commitment mechanisms will predispose individuals to react in some predictable ways based on the dominancy of commitment

components, and consequently, influence the levels of job satisfaction and performance outcomes. There is some research that supports the mediating role organizational commitment has in both micro (Restubog et al., 2006) and macro (Gong et al., 2009) organizational research. For example, Restubog et al. (2006) found that affective commitment mediated the relation between psychological contract breach and self-reported and supervisor-rated civic virtue, both of which are extra-role behaviors, but not between psychological contract breach and in-role performance. Research hypotheses Since organizational commitment is posited to mediate the relation between goal orientation and both job satisfaction and job performance, the authors tested the mediation effects using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) recommended three-step procedure. First, we tested the effect of goal orientation on two outcome variables (job satisfaction and performance). A second analysis tests whether goal orientation influences the mediator, organizational commitment. A third analysis tests whether the mediator influenced job performance, controlling for goal orientation. The last analysis tests the drop in influence of goal orientation when the proposed mediator is included in the model. To expand knowledge of the studied constructs outside the North America, this study tests the proposed model by positing the aforementioned relationships exist in the current East Asian sample in the following research hypotheses: H1. Mastery orientation is positively related to affective, normative, and continuance commitment. H2. Performance orientation is positively related to affective, normative, and continuance commitment. H3. Both affective and normative commitments are positively related to job satisfaction. H4. Continuance commitment is negatively related to job satisfaction. H5. Affective commitment is positively associated with in-role and innovative job performance. H6. Normative commitment is positively associated with in-role and innovative job performance. H7. Continuance commitment is negatively associated with in-role and innovative job performance. Methods Research design The authors collected data using an online survey in a Singapore hospital. The hospital’s top management communicated the purpose of this research to all service units and assured anonymity and confidentiality. After several briefings and a pre-test in a few service unit, employees received instructions on how to complete the survey in their designated service units to ensure privacy. An independent agency designed the web-based survey on multiple screen views of seven-point balanced Likert scales and collected the data. Numerous steps ensured that the online questionnaire was easy to


IJOA 18,1

136

read, and the scale points were properly labeled. Survey questions were divided into several sections with common themes to eliminate confusion. All participants were computer-literate, as required in their jobs. To take the survey, employees are required to logon using their network ID as a security measure. They are prompted to read an introductory page, followed by the informed consent page and a box to check if they agree to participate. On this screen view, they are informed of their anonymity and how to contact the researchers if they have any concerns. Sample The contacted hospital employs 1,300 employees, approximately 70 percent of which are employees who have direct contact with patients and their families. All employees were invited to participate in this research. A total of 656 employees completed the survey. Of this total, 497 surveys were matched to supervisors’ evaluations, yielding an overall usable response rate of 55 percent. Quoting various source of information, Ilieva et al. (2002) found that the average online surveys response rate ranges from 15 to 29 percent. Thus, the response rate obtained in this study is well above the acceptable rate for an online survey (Grandolas et al., 2003; Tse, 1998). This high response rate reflects top management’s encouraging employees to participate. In addition, management told employees it had no influence on the design of the survey, which was part of a scholarly project, and would not have access to any identifying information. Table I shows the respondents’ profiles. Measures Goal orientations were assessed using Janssen and Van Yperen’s (2004) 19-item scale consisting of 11 items on mastery orientation and eight items on performance orientation. These scales had obtained good internal reliability of 0.90 for mastery orientation and 0.91 for performance in Van Yperen and Janssen’s (2002) study. The organizational commitment scale used was adapted from Meyer et al.’s (1993) 18-item scale with six items each for assessing affective, normative, and continuance commitment. The alpha reliabilities are affective a ¼ 0.87, normative a ¼ 0.73, and continuance a ¼ 0.79. Job satisfaction was assessed using a five-item scale adapted from Brown and Peterson (1994) that received reliability of 0.86. For job performance, Podsakoff and MacKenzie’s (1989) in-role performance scale was used (a ¼ 0.85), and Janssen and Van Yperen’s (2004) nine-item innovative job performance scale was adapted (a ¼ 0.98) (see the Appendix for list of items). All measures are on a seven-point Likert scale. Participants’ immediate supervisors indicated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the performance statements. The descriptive statistics and correlation matrix are presented in Table II. Results Measurement model A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess the factor structure. The full measurement model consists of eight latent variables; each item is specified to load on one specific latent variable only. The CFA results provide strong evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. Table III shows that all factor loadings are significant at p , 0.01. In Table III, also, the model fit indices suggest that the full measurement model fit the data well: x 2 ¼ 1,877, df ¼ 917, NNFI ¼ 0.939, CFI ¼ 0.943, SRMR ¼ 0.041, RMSEA ¼ 0.046 (90 percent CI: 0.043-0.049).

Attributes Gender Male Female Age ,25 25-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 .65 Employment status Full time Part time Contractor Education Secondary school Pre university Undergraduate degree Graduate degree Medical degree Technical/other certificate Others Employee shift work Day shift Evening shift Night shift Job tile Administrator Nurse Patient service Pharmacist/technician Clerical Others Years employed in hospital ,2 2-5 6-10 11-20 .20 Income ($) ,1,000 1,000-2,000 2,001-3,000 3,001-4,000 .4,000

% 11.7 88.3 21.1 41.2 18.1 15.5 3.6 0.5


89.7 2.0 8.3 28.6 7.0 8.5 23.9 2.8 8.2 21.0 87.6 8.2 4.2 10.1 56.3 11.1 5.0 7.4 10.1 45.1 31.6 6.0 7.8 9.5 11.7 53.7 20.9 9.7 4.0

To test discriminant validity, the procedure suggested by Bagozzi (1980) was employed by constraining the correlations between each pair of constructs and examining the resulting x 2-differences. The x 2-differences are significant ( p , 0.05), signifying discriminant validity among constructs. The composite reliabilities ranging

Table I. Demographic profile of respondents

Table II. Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix

Mastery orientation Performance orientation Affective commitment Normative commitment Continuance commitment Job satisfaction In-role performance Innovative job performance

Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; n ¼ 497

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

5.48 3.80 5.08 4.61 4.12 5.16 5.58 4.51

Mean 0.90 1.12 1.30 1.09 1.14 1.03 1.01 1.08

SD 0.02 0.29 * * 0.42 * * 0.21 * * 0.43 * * 20.01 0.01

1

2 0.15 * * 2 0.06 0.02 2 0.05 0.01 0.01

2

0.53 * * 0.16 * * 0.52 * * 0.06 0.06

3

0.43 * * 0.67 * * 2 0.02 2 0.06

4

0.25 * * 20.09 20.11 *

5

0.00 20.01

6

138

Variable

0.59 * *

7

8

IJOA 18,1

Mastery orientation MO1 MO2 MO3 MO4 MO5 MO6 MO7 MO8 Performance orientation PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 Affective commitment AC1 AC2 AC3 Normative commitment NC1 NC2 NC3 NC4 NC5 Continuance commitment CC1 CC2 CC3 Job satisfaction JS1 JS2 JS3 JS4 JS5 In-role performance IRP1 IRP2 IRP3 IRP4 Innovative job performance INOP1 INOP2 INOP3 INOP4 INOP5

Loading

t-value

0.75 0.81 0.73 0.82 0.72 0.77 0.80 0.79

– 18.59 16.44 18.92 16.35 17.49 18.35 18.02

0.69 0.73 0.74 0.81 0.79 0.86 0.77 0.82

– 15.14 15.36 16.81 16.33 17.72 15.98 16.91

0.85 0.89 0.87

– 24.55 23.74

0.71 0.75 0.76 0.70 0.70

– 15.44 15.52 14.46 14.35

0.76 0.70 0.57

– 11.47 10.25

0.70 0.80 0.77 0.83 0.78

– 16.36 15.89 17.01 16.1

0.85 0.91 0.96 0.76

– 27.92 30.57 20.61

0.88 0.87 0.92 0.85 0.91

– 28.44 32.12 26.66 31.51

Alpha

AVE

AVS (max)

0.92

0.60

0.09 (0.23)


0.92

0.60

0.00 (0.02)

0.90

0.75

0.13 (0.38)

0.85

0.52

0.22 (0.60)

0.72

0.47

0.08 (0.32)

0.88

0.61

0.18 (0.60)

0.93

0.76

0.05 (0.36)

0.97

0.76

0.05 (0.36)

(continued)

Table III. Results from CFA of study constructs

IJOA 18,1

140

Table III.

Loading INOP6 INOP7 INOP8 INOP9 x 2 (df) NNFI CFI SRMR RMSEA

0.67 0.92 0.91 0.91 1,877.29 (917) 0.939 0.943 0.041 0.046

t-value

Alpha

AVE

AVS (max)

17.77 32.27 31.61 31.23 p-value , 0.001

90 percent CI of RMSEA (0.043, 0.049)

Notes: t-values , 1.96 indicate significant effects at p ¼ 0.05 for a two-tailed test; “– ” refers the corresponding coefficient was fixed to set the metric of the latent construct; loading – standardized coefficient based on the ML estimation; alpha reliability and average variance extracted (AVE) are based on Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) formula; average of the variance shared (AVS) between this construct and all other constructs is computed as the mean of squared correlations

from 0.72 to 0.97, were adequate-to-excellent. Except for continuance commitment which is marginally lower than the recommended level, all constructs attained an average variance extracted (AVE) threshold of 0.50, as recommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981), signifying good discriminant validity of the constructs. Lastly, the variation in the latent distribution is captured equally well and the responses are generally excellent between observed and fitted values for the latent variables. Structural model The proposed framework in Figure 1 shows the three dimensions of commitment (affective, normative, and continuance) as the proximal consequences of two exogenous constructs: mastery and performance goal orientation. Together, these constructs are expected to influence job satisfaction and job performance (in-role and innovative job performance). Since measurement error can degrade the metric quality and curtail the relationships among variables making them difficult to detect, to mitigate this problem the authors employed an estimation method that explicitly identifies model measurement errors. Specifically, maximum-likelihood (ML) estimator via the EQS software is used, and latent factor scores corresponding to each construct from the preceding CFA analysis are extracted (Jo¨reskog, 2000). The results show that x 2-statistics are significant at p , 0.001, x 2 ¼ 2136, df ¼ 930. As shown in Figure 2, all path coefficients are standardized coefficients and the values in parentheses represent the respective t-ratios. Since the x 2-statistic is known to be overly sensitive to sample size, incremental (e.g. NFI and CFI) and absolute goodness-of-fit indices (e.g. SRMR and RMSEA) are used as these indicators provide greater accuracy in assessing model fit (MacCallum and Austin, 2000). The results show that NFI ¼ 0.982 and CFI ¼ 0.990, are both higher than the 0.90 suggested value for reasonable fit. Similarly, the SRMR ¼ 0.067 and RMSEA ¼ 0.051 (90 percent CI: 0.048-0.051), which indicates marginal discrepancies that are narrowly bounded. Lastly, the parsimony index is NNFI ¼ 0.989, signifying that the proposed framework is a parsimonious model, providing good fit to the data.

9.5

1) 31)

1.

7 (–

Normative commitment

0 –0.

5(

)

3)

)

Continuance commitment

Significant path

.15

2.7

8)

.77

2.0 1) In-role –0.04 (–1.05) ) performance 6 2 . (– .01 0 – –0 .10 (– 2.1 4) –0.06 (–1.67) Innovative performance

2(

5.4

(–0

7(

0.1

0.4

05

141

0.0

9(

–0.

0(

.31 (–3

–0

0.0

0.6

Performance orientation

(11

Job satisfaction

5)

.1

3 0.5

.21

Mastery orientation

0.17 (6.25)

)

6.

3(

0.5

Affective commitment

98)

Individual difference predictors

Non significant path

Hypotheses testing The mediation testing concludes that organizational commitment does not mediate the relationship between goal orientation and job performance. There is no significant relationship when job satisfaction and innovative performance are regressed on goal orientations. H1 and H2 hypothesize positive relationships between the two goal orientation constructs and the three components of organizational commitment. Three paths running from mastery orientation were found to be statistically significant at p , 0.05; these paths went to affective commitment (b ¼ 0.53), normative commitment (b ¼ 0.69), and continuance commitment (b ¼ 0.45). Thus, H1 is supported. Contrary to our hypothesis, performance orientation is negatively related to affective commitment, b ¼ 2 0.21 ( p , 0.05). The path coefficients between performance orientation and the other two commitment components are not significant. Hence, H2 is not supported. In the third part of the mediation testing, the effects of mediator on job satisfaction and performance are tested using structural equation technique to assess the overall structural relationship. H3 hypothesizes a positive relationship between affective-based commitment components and job satisfaction, and H4 hypothesizes a negative relationship between cost-based commitment and job satisfaction. At p , 0.05, the path coefficients from affective commitment and normative commitment to job satisfaction are 0.17 and 0.53, respectively, supporting H3. Continuance commitment was not related to job satisfaction. Hence, H4 is not supported. H5 and H6 hypothesize a positive, and H7 hypothesizes a negative, relationship between commitment components and the two facets of job performance. At p , 0.05, the path coefficients between affective commitment and in-role performance is b ¼ 0.07 and innovative job performance is b ¼ 0.12, signifying a positive, and significant relationship. Thus, H5 is supported. Contrary to our hypothesis, the path coefficients between normative commitment and the two facets of job performance are partially significant, but in the opposite direction.

Figure 2. The influence of goal orientation on attitudinal and behavioral responses

IJOA 18,1

142

Normative commitment has no relationship with in-role performance b ¼ 2 0.04 ( p . 0.05), and it has a negative but weak relationship with innovative job performance b ¼ 2 0.10 ( p , 0.05). Thus, H6 is not supported. Similarly, the path coefficients between continuance commitment and the two facets of performance were not significant. Hence, H7 is also not supported. Discussion This research constitutes an attempt to extend the extant literature on goal orientation and organizational commitment. Our results indicate that mastery-oriented individuals are strongly committed to their organizations regardless of how commitment is defined. Mastery-oriented individuals emphasize increasing their competence and skills in a supportive environment and develop a greater liking (affective commitment) for organizations that support sharpening skills. These individuals also develop a sense of obligation (normative commitment) to remain in the organization because the organization provides resources to help satisfy their inner desire to develop more skills. Finally, mastery-oriented individuals may perceive leaving the organization as losing chances to improve their competence and skills (continuance commitment); they may fear working in an organization that places less value on developing competence and skills. Consistent with previous research, this study found individuals with high affective and normative commitments generally report satisfaction with their jobs (Meyer and Herscovitch, 2001; Vandenberg and Lance, 1992). The findings on commitment may also reflect cultural values. Once a British colony, the majority of Singapore’s population (75 percent) is of Chinese decent, so most people embrace traditional Chinese philosophies in which social order, trust, and loyalty are important social norms. As Siu (2003) argued, in Asian cultures both affective and normative commitments may be affected by employees’ sense of obligation and loyalty because those are cultural values. The effect of these values may be evident in the path coefficients from normative commitment to job satisfaction; they are much higher than the path from affective commitment to job satisfaction. The authors also argue that individuals who are normatively committed may have a greater need to reduce tension caused by their commitment to the organization as described as a state of cognitive dissonance, and thus report higher satisfaction with their job (Bateman and Strasser, 1984; Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978). Although our hypotheses were generally supported, there were a few unexpected findings. First, we found that performance orientation is only moderately related to affective commitment. Performance-oriented employees may feel more job stress than their mastery-oriented co-workers and are, therefore, more likely to report lower levels of affective commitment (Podsakoff et al., 2007). Furthermore, performance-oriented employees’ expectations of the job and their understanding of job requirements may not have matched, particularly in a complex health care environment, which led to lower affective commitment (Wanous, 1973). These performance-oriented employees may also perceive less organizational support (Moideenkutty et al., 2001); thus, they may withdraw their sense of obligation to the organization. Second, this study found that continuance commitment was unrelated to job satisfaction, which is consistent with previous meta-analyses (Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran, 2005; Meyer et al., 2002). The continuance commitment construct mainly deals with the continuation of an action, typically remaining with an organization

because of the perceived costs of leaving (Meyer and Allen, 1991). The adapted measure of job satisfaction focused mainly on participants’ affective attitudes toward their jobs and may not have captured perceptions that lead to increased continuance commitment (i.e. satisfaction with pension, satisfaction with seniority). Other research in Asian contexts has shown similar results (Lee and Gao, 2005). Third, this study found a weak, negative, but significant relationship between normative commitment and innovative job behavior. As expected, individuals who feel obligated to remain with an organization are less likely to engage in non-mandatory, innovative job behaviors. Moreover, in our sample, about 70 percent of the participants were employed by the hospital for less than five years. As such, the organization may have had insufficient time to cultivate normative commitment in these relatively new employees (Meyer and Allen, 1997). Individuals who are affectively committed to the organization are most likely to engage in innovative job behaviors, as found in this study. Limitations This study contributes to the extant literature on goal orientation and organizational commitment in the following ways. First, Payne et al. (2007) found that proximal consequences of goal orientation mediated its relationship with distal consequences. In this study, organizational commitment is hypothesized as a proximal consequence of goal orientation, but our results are mixed. This study found support for the relationship between mastery orientation and affective and normative commitments in the hypothesized direction, but not for performance orientation. Future studies should investigate the effects of antecedents of goal orientation on their relationship to organizational commitment. For example, achievement and personality variables have been found to affect goal orientation (Fortunato and Goldblatt, 2006; Phillips and Gully, 1997). It would be prudent to test how these antecedents affect our model, as evidence shows they impact both job satisfaction and in-role and innovative job performance (Barrick and Mount, 1991; Ilies et al., 2006). Second, parallel to the concept of extra-role behavior, innovative performance is used to capture the employees’ creativity in generating, promoting, and realizing problem-solving ideas critical to service delivery. Future studies should incorporate organizational citizenship behaviors such as helping behavior and civic virtue as research has shown that organizational citizenship behaviors may serve as a critical link between aspects of the employee-organization relationship and customers’ perceptions of service quality (Bell and Menguc, 2002). Third, the constructs used in our study were primarily developed and tested using North American samples. The generalizability of the three-component model of organizational commitment outside of North America is subject for further research (Allen and Meyer, 1996; Lee et al., 2001). Our research supports the generalizability of the three-component model of organizational commitment in an East Asian context, similar to the work of Lee et al. (2001). In addition, our data supports the use of measures of goal orientation (Janssen and Van Yperen, 2004) and job satisfaction in Asian cultures. Future research investigating these constructs should consider the effects of more distal variables, such as cultural norms, in goal and commitment research outside of North America. Finally, while our cross-sectional data showed general support for a link between affective and normative commitment and job satisfaction, previous research investigating the causal linkages of latent variables has called for the use of longitudinal designs or the collection of multiple waves of data (Currivan, 1999; Vandenberg and Lance, 1992). To


IJOA 18,1

validate our results, we encourage future studies include a longitudinal component and be conducted using different sample types. Future research should also investigate other distal and meditational variables in the relationship among goal orientation, job satisfaction, and job performance.

144

Implications for managerial practice The current study found that mastery-oriented individuals are also committed to the organization regardless of how their psychological state of commitment is defined. Employees adjust their performance in response to their interaction with managers and to the signals they receive through their daily routines. To cultivate mastery orientation, managers must communicate such that the organization values knowledge or skill acquisition, in addition to goal completion as an ultimate outcome. In addition, recruitment materials should emphasize the importance of competence development over competition in the organization. Since mastery-oriented individuals tend to value organizational support, organizations should make available training and developmental programs that enhance skill sets to increase the satisfaction of mastery-oriented individuals (Papaioannou and Christodoulidis, 2007). The next managerial implication is related to effective service delivery. Managers can apply our framework to identify the underlying mechanisms that motivate employees and assess which commitment facet generates the highest performance, and how it relates to basic job roles or innovation behaviors. When managers are able to identify affectively committed employees, managers can then motivate them using more personalized communication to boost productivity and efficiency. Past research has shown that organizational commitment mediates the relationship between stressors and turnover intentions and withdrawal behavior (Podsakoff et al., 2007). As such, organizational commitment serves an important role while working in stressful situations (as is in our sample) because it helps reduce employee quitting cognitions and withdrawal behaviors. In summary, the above findings suggest that creating a mastery goal-oriented culture can enhance committed behaviors that likely to lead to positive performance. In today’s knowledge-based organization, generating job enhancement with mastery goal in mind promotes knowledge development and risk taking. It also allows double-loop learning that emphasizes questioning of fundamental assumptions, archaic strategies, and obsolete routines. Understanding employees’ learning behaviors help managers to define and solve problems effectively (Argyris and Scho¨n, 1978). References Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1996), “Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: an examination of construct validity”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 252-76. Argyris, C. and Scho¨n, D. (1978), Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Austin, J.T. and Vancouver, J.B. (1996), “Goal constructs in psychology: structure, process, and content”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 120 No. 3, pp. 338-75. Bagozzi, R.P. (1980), “Performance and satisfaction in an industrial sales force: an examination of their antecedents and simultaneity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44, pp. 65-77.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82. Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1991), “The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 1-26. Bateman, T.S. and Strasser, S. (1984), “A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of organizational commitment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 95-112. Becker, H.S. (1960), “Notes on the concept of commitment”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 32-40. Bell, B.S. and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (2002), “Goal orientation and ability: interactive effects on self-efficacy, performance, and knowledge”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 497-505. Bell, S.J. and Menguc, B. (2002), “The employee-organization relationship, organizational citizenship behaviors, and superior service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 131-46. Brett, J.F. and VandeWalle, D. (1999), “Goal orientation and goal content as predictors of performance in a training program”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 6, pp. 863-73. Brown, S.P. and Peterson, R.A. (1994), “The effect of effort on sales performance and job satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 70-80. Button, S.B., Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1996), “Goal orientation in organizational research: a conceptual and empirical foundation”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 26-48. Campbell, J.P. (1990), “Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology”, in Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed., Vol. 1, Consulting Psychology Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 687-732. Cohen, A. (2003), Multiple Commitments in the Workplace: An Integrative Approach, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Cooper-Hakim, A. and Viswesvaran, C. (2005), “The construct of work commitment: testing an integrative framework”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 131 No. 2, pp. 241-59. Currivan, D.B. (1999), “The causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in models of employee turnover”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 495-524. Dweck, C.S. and Leggett, E.L. (1988), “A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality”, Psychological Review, Vol. 95 No. 2, pp. 256-73. Elliot, A.J. (2005), “A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct”, in Elliot, A.J. and Dweck, C.S. (Eds), Handbook of Competence and Motivation, Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 52-72. Elliot, E.S. and Dweck, C.S. (1988), “Goals: an approach to motivation and achievement”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 5-12. Farr, J.L., Hofmann, D.A. and Rigenbach, K.L. (1993), “Goal orientation and action control theory: implications for industrial and organizational psychology”, International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8, pp. 193-232. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.


IJOA 18,1

146

Fortunato, V.J. and Goldblatt, A.M. (2006), “An examination of goal orientation profiles using cluster analysis and their relationships with dispositional characteristics and motivational response patterns”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 9, pp. 2150-83. Gong, Y., Law, K.S., Chang, S. and Xin, K.R. (2009), “Human resources management and firm performance: the differential role of managerial affective and continuance commitment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 263-75. Grandcolas, U., Rettie, R. and Marusenko, K. (2003), “Web survey bias: sample or mode effect?”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 19 Nos 5/6, pp. 541-61. Harris, E.G., Mowen, J.C. and Brown, T.J. (2005), “Re-examining salesperson goal orientations: personality influencers, customer orientation, and work satisfaction”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 19-35. Hollenbeck, J.R. and Klein, H.J. (1987), “Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: problems, prospects, and proposals for future research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 212-20. Ilies, R., Scott, B.A. and Judge, T.A. (2006), “The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced states on intra-individual patterns of citizenship behavior”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 561-75. Ilieva, J., Baron, S. and Healey, N.M. (2002), “Online survey in marketing research: pros and cons”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 361-76. Janssen, O. (2000), “Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behavior”, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 287-302. Janssen, O. and Van Yperen, N.W. (2004), “Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 368-84. Jaramillo, F., Mulki, J.P. and Marshall, G.W. (2005), “A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational commitment and salesperson job performance: 25 years of research”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 6, pp. 705-14. Johnson, R.E., Chang, C.-H. and Lord, R.G. (2006), “Moving from cognition to behavior: what the research says”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 132 No. 3, pp. 381-415. Jo¨reskog, K. (2000), “Latent variable scores and their uses”, available at: www.ssicentral.com/ lisrel/techdocs/lvscores.pdf Kanter, R. (1988), “When a thousand flowers bloom: structural, collective, and social conditions for innovation in organizations”, in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 169-211. Klein, H., Wesson, M., Hollenbeck, J. and Alge, B. (1999), “Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: conceptual clarification and empirical synthesis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84, pp. 885-96. Korczynski, M. (2002), “Human resource management in service work”, Human Resource Management in Service Work, Palgrave, Houndmills, Basingstoke. Latham, G.P. (2007), Work Motivation: History, Theory, Research, and Practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Lee, K., Allen, N.J., Meyer, J.P. and Rhee, K.-Y. (2001), “The three-component model of organizational commitment: an application to South Korea”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 596-614. Lee, K.S. and Gao, T. (2005), “Studying organizational commitment with the OCQ in the Korean retail context: its dimensionality and relationships with satisfaction and work outcomes”,

International Review of Retail, Distribution, and Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 375-9. Li, A. and Butler, A.B. (2004), “The effects of participation on goal setting and goal rationales on goal commitment: an exploration of justice mediators”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 37-51. Lin, S.-C. and Chang, J.-N. (2005), “Goal orientation and organizational commitment as explanatory factors of employees’ mobility”, Personnel Review, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 331-53. Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (1990), A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (2002), “Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation”, American Psychologist, Vol. 57 No. 9, pp. 705-17. Locke, E.A., Shaw, K.N., Saari, L.M. and Latham, G.P. (1981), “Goal setting and task performance: 1969-1980”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 90 No. 1, pp. 125-52. MacCallum, R.C. and Austin, J.T. (2000), “Applications of structural equations modeling in psychological research”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 201-26. MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Ahearne, M. (1998), “Some possible antecedents and consequences of in-role and innovative job salesperson performance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 87-98. Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1990), “A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 171-94. Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), “A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 61-89. Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Meyer, J.P. and Herscovitch, L. (2001), “Commitment in the workplace: toward a general model”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 299-326. Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J. and Smith, C.A. (1993), “Commitment to organizations and occupations: extension and test of a three-component conceptualization”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 538-51. Meyer, J.P., Becker, T.E. and Vandenberghe, C. (2004), “Employee commitment and motivation: a conceptual analysis and integrative model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 6, pp. 991-1007. Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002), “Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 20-52. Moideenkutty, U., Blau, G., Kumar, R. and Nalakath, A. (2001), “Perceived organizational support as a mediator of the relationship of perceived situational factors to affective organizational commitment”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 615-34. Papaioannou, A. and Christodoulidis, T. (2007), “A measure of teachers’ achievement goals”, Educational Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 349-61. Payne, S.C., Youngcourt, S.S. and Beaubien, J.M. (2007), “An meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 128-50. Phillips, J.M. and Gully, S.M. (1997), “Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal-setting process”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 5, pp. 792-802.


IJOA 18,1

148

Podsakoff, N.P., LePine, J.A. and LePine, M.A. (2007), “Differential challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 438-54. Podsakoff, P.M. and Mackenzie, S.B. (1989), “A second generation measure of organizational citizenship behavior”, working paper, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Porter, C.O.L.H. (2005), “Goal orientation: effects on backing up behavior, performance, efficacy and commitment in teams”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 4, pp. 811-18. Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. and Boulian, P.V. (1974), “Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 603-9. Ramanujam, R. and Rousseau, D.M. (2006), “The challenges are organizational not just clinical”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 811-27. Redman, T. and Snape, E. (2005), “Unpacking commitment: multiple loyalties and employee behavior”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 301-28. Restubog, S.L.D., Bordia, P. and Tang, R.L. (2006), “Effects of psychological contract breach on performance of IT employees: the mediating role of affective commitment”, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 299-306. Riketta, M. (2002), “Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 257-66. Salancik, G.R. and Pfeffer, J.A. (1978), “A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 224-35. Siu, O.L. (2003), “Job stress and job performance among employees in Hong Kong: the role of Chinese work values and organizational commitment”, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 337-47. Staw, B.M. and Cohen-Charash, Y. (2005), “The dispositional approach to job satisfaction: more than a mirage, but not yet an oasis”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 59-78. Tse, A.C.B. (1998), “Comparing the response rate, response speed and response quality of two methods of sending questionnaires: e-mail vs mail”, Market Research Society Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 353-62. Vandenberg, R.J. and Lance, C.E. (1992), “Examining the causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment”, Journal of Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 153-67. VandeWalle, D. and Cummings, L.L. (1997), “A test of the influence of goal orientation on the feedback-seeking process”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 3, pp. 390-400. Van Yperen, N.W. and Janssen, O. (2002), “Feeling fatigued and dissatisfied or feeling fatigued but satisfied? Employees’ goal orientations and their responses to high job demands”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 1161-71. Wanous, J.P. (1973), “Effects of a realistic job preview on job acceptance, job attitudes, and job survival”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 327-32.

Appendix

Mastery orientation a (I feel successful in my job when . . .) MO1 I perform to my potential MO2 I feel I am improving MO3 I learn something that makes me want to practice more MO4 I learn something new that is fun to do MO5 I get the maximum out of myself MO6 I improve on particular aspects MO7 I master new knowledge or a new skill MO8 I learn something that motivates me to continue Performance orientation a (I feel successful in my job when . . .) PO1 I perform better than my colleagues PO2 Others cannot do as well as me PO3 Others mess up and I do not PO4 I can clearly demonstrate that I am the best qualified person PO5 I accomplish something where others failed PO6 I am clearly the most productive employee PO7 I am the only one who knows about particular things or who has the particular skill PO8 I am the only one who knows about particular things or who has the particular skill Affective commitment b AC1 I do not feel a strong sense of “belonging” to this hospital (R) AC2 I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this hospital (R) AC3 I do not feel like “part of the family” at his hospital (R) Normative commitment b NC1 I would feel guilty if I left this hospital now NC2 Even if it was to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave this hospital now NC3 This hospital deserves my loyalty NC4 I would not leave this hospital right now because I have a sense of obligation to the people in it NC5 I owe a great deal to this hospital Continuance commitment b CC1 It would be very hard for me to leave this hospital right now, even if I wanted to CC2 There would be too many disruptions in my life if I decided I wanted to leave this hospital now CC3 I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this hospital c Job satisfaction JS1 I have generally found the kind of work I do here exciting JS2 It is worthwhile to invest my time delivering service at this hospital JS3 I would advise my friends to patronize this hospital JS4 I would recommend this hospital as a place to work JS5 Overall, I feel I am satisfied with my job In-role performance d IRP1 This employee always completes the duties specified in his/her job description IPR2 This employee meets all the formal performance requirements of the job (continued)


Table AI. Operational items utilized to measure study constructs

IJOA 18,1

150

IPR3 IRP4 Innovative job performance a INOP1 INOP2 INOP3 INOP4 INOP5 INOP6 INOP7 INOP8 INOP9

Table AI.

This employee fulfills all responsibilities required by his/her job This employee never neglects aspects of the job that he/she is obligated to perform This employee often creates new ideas for improvements This employee often mobilizes support for innovative ideas This employee searches out new working methods, techniques, or instruments This employee seeks approval for innovative ideas This employee transforms innovative ideas into useful applications This employee generates original solutions to problems This employee introduces innovative ideas in a systematic way This employee makes important organizational members enthusiastic for innovative ideas This employee often thoroughly evaluates the application of innovative ideas

Notes: Job performance are evaluated by supervisors; all other items are rated by employees; (R) this item was reverse scored Sources: Adapted from: aJanssen and Van Yperen (2004); bAllen and Meyer (1990); cBrown and Peterson (1994) and dPodsakoff; Mackenzie (1989)

Corresponding author Olivia F. Lee can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints