Big Five Personality: Moderation Effect on People Management and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Shih-Yung Chou Department of Management Southern Illinois University Carbondale sychou@siu.edu

Big Five Personality: Moderation Effect on People Management and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
ABSTRACT Quality management research has focused much on its impact on organizational outcomes such as financial performance. Although studies have identified the outcomes of implementing quality management at the employees level, most of them have only addressed employee satisfaction and motivation. Despite existing contradictory findings, little attention has been paid to people management that is an important aspect of deriving quality improvement. Existing research has not fully addressed how quality management with respect to people management influences employees actual behavior. More specifically, the question of what is the possible employees actual behavior when they are satisfied or motivated by quality improvement through people management practices has not yet been answered? Thus, the present study intends to answer this particular question by applying organizational citizenship behavior that is one of the most discussed positive human behaviors. Since individual behavior is largely influenced by personality traits, the present study uses the most widely used personality traits, Big Five personality traits, to discuss how personality traits moderate the association between people management and organizational citizenship behavior. Keywords: People Management, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Big Five Personality INTRODUCTION Quality management (QM) is one of the most important manufacturing concepts in business. QM also represents one of the most significant research themes in the production operations management literature (Nair, 2006). Since the concept of QM has been developed, many firms have adopted QM practices in their normal operations (Sousa & Voss, 2002). QM, therefore, contributes not only to firms but also to the production operations management literature. The beginning of QM empirical research focused much on measuring QM practices and performance outcomes (Nair, 2006). A great amount of research in the literature has suggested that firms normally experience improvement in performance after the implementation of QM practices (e.g. Douglas & Judge, 2001; Ho et al., 2001; Kaynak, 2003). Findings related to the impact of QM on other organizational aspects have been identified as well. For example, Dow et al (1999) found that employee commitment, customer focus practices, and shared vision are positively related to QM practices. Other studies, however, have pointed out the negative impact of QM practices on organizational outcome. For instance, Fredrickson (1984) identified that there is a negative relationship between decision-making in QM and organizational performance in the highly unstable forest product industry. One of the most comprehensive explanations that explain negative QM outcomes is provided by Dean and Bowen (1994). They suggest that as QM moves from the buffered technical core of manufacturing toward use in research, marketing, and customer service activities, counterproductive conditions are more likely to occur. Although the attention of QM research has been largely paid to organizational performance aspects especially to financial, quality, and customer satisfaction outcome, research has identified the relationship between QM practices and employees behavior. For instance, QM produces greater employee commitment and motivation (Juran, 1988; Schmidt & Finnigan, 1992;

Spechler, 1991). Thus, one can argue that QM improves employees performance by changing their behavior, which in turn leads to better organizational performance. McGowan (1995) supports this notion by claiming that QM often requires people to change the way they work. QM research has suggested that one of the practices that leads to successful QM is employee participation and involvement in quality improvement practices (e.g. Loney 1993; Milakovich 1991; Swiss 1992). In other words, managing employees in the way that increases their participation and involvement in QM leads to successful QM outcomes. Thus, as Samson and Terziovski (1999) point out, the issue of how well the human resource practices tie into and are aligned with the organizations strategic direction becomes critical when implementing QM. So far, QM research with respect to people management has emphasized on how to provide adequate training, development, or promotion when implementing QM. Studies on employees reactions or perceptions toward the implementation of QM practices have been developed as well. Unfortunately, the impacts of reactions or perceptions toward one of the most important QM practices that is management of people on employees actual behavior still remain unclear. Thus, two primary questions motivate the present study. Firstly, if firms launch people management practices along with QM, would it promote organizational citizenship behavior? By organizational citizenship behavior I mean employees discretionary behavior that goes above and beyond the call of duty to help fellow workers achieve organizational goals (Organ, 1988) that is quality improvement. A number of studies have identified that individual behavior can be largely influenced by personality traits (e.g. Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hough et al., 1990; Ones et al., 1993; Tett, Jackson & Rothstein, 1991). In the similar vein, organizational citizenship behavior should be influenced by personality traits even under the condition of implementing people management practices. Among various personality trait measures available in the literature, there is an emerging consensus among personality researchers that personality measures can be described within the Big Five framework of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1993). Thus, the second question of the present study tries to answer is would Big Five personality traits facilitate or impede organizational citizenship behavior under the implementation of people management practices? Based upon the research questions, the present study examines the main effect between people management and organizational citizenship behavior as well as seeks to establish the moderating roles that Big Five personality traits play on the relationship between people management and organizational citizenship behavior. In the present study, people management is defined as the activities of communication, encouraging employee commitment and participation, empowerment, training and development, and team and teamwork that help firms continuously improve quality (Oakland & Oakland, 1998). The research model of the present study is shown in Figure 1. Note that the present study recognizes the potential interdependent relationship between people management and organizational citizenship behavior. However, due to the research interest of the present study, the impact of organizational citizenship behavior on people management will be ignored. The contribution of the present study is to provide the answer of whether people management promotes positive employee behavior that is organizational citizenship behavior. In addition, the present study seeks to establish the relationship between Big Five personality traits and organizational citizenship behavior under the conditions of people management practices. The present study is organized as follow. First, I review the research of the impact of QM on organizational performance with the emphasis on the impact of management of people on organizational performance in the production operations management literature. The purpose of the review is not to provide an exhaustive review. Instead, the goal is to provide an

understanding of QM research focuses and to promote further development of the present study. Next, I develop a theoretical framework by identifying the relationship between people management and organizational citizenship behavior and the moderating effects that moderated by Big Five personality traits. As part of the theory, hypotheses are stated by summarizing the theoretical arguments. Finally, the limitations and conclusions of the present study are provided. Figure 1

LITERATURE REVIEW A large number of QM concepts have been developed in the literature. Some of those concepts have been derived from other disciplines such as strategic management, organization theory and design, or cost accounting (Federderber, 1987; King, 1987; Plsek, 1987). Thus, to have a unified definition of QM seems not possible. However, York and Mirees (2004) definition of QM seems to be comprehensive. They claim that QM is a set of management tools focused on providing superior value to customers by identifying their needs, responding market change, and improving the efficiency of the processes that produce the product and service. Although their definition of QM suggests that a comprehensive research focus in identifying the impact of QM on organizations is needed, most researchers pay much attention to organizational performance aspect. The impact of QM on financial performance, for example, has been well documented in the literature (e.g. Adam, 1994; Anderson et al., 1995; Forker, 1997; Mann & Kehoe, 1995; Morhrman et al., 1995; Powell, 1995). Previous studies have also identified several other important aspects of QM outcomes. For instance, the relationship between QM and customer satisfaction (e.g. Anderson et al., 1995; Choi & Eboch, 1998; Das et al., 2000; Forza & Flippini, 1998; Rungtusanatham et al., 1998) has been developed from different perspectives such as product quality, delivery speed and reliability, cost, customer retention, and so on. Other findings such as the relationship between QM and quality performance (e.g. Ahire & Dreyfus, 2000; Dow et al., 1999; Flynn et al., 1995; Forza & Flippini, 1998; Ho et al., 2001; Kaynak, 2003; Prajogo & Sohal, 2003; Samson & Terziovski, 1999), the relationship between QM and employee outcomes (e.g. Samson & Terziovski, 1999; Sun, 2000), the relationship between QM and new product design and development (e.g. Prajogo & Sohal, 2003; Tan, 2001), the relationship between QM and overall business performance such as market share, return on assets, or cost (e.g. Choi & Eboch, 1998; Cua et al., 2001; Das et al.,

2000; Douglas & Judge, 2001; Dow et al., 1999; Kaynak, 2003; Martinez-Lorente et al., 2000; Sanchez-Rodriguez & Martinez-Lorente, 2004), and the relationship between QM and productivity (e.g. Curkovic et al., 2000; Kontoghiorghes & Gudgel, 2004; Lai, 2003; Sun 2000) have been well identified in the literature. So far, it is not difficult to observe that QM research in the literature has been conducted within five QM principles claimed by McGowan (1995). Those five QM principles are: (1) QM should be a part of an organizational strategy, (2) QM should be used to facilitate change management, (3) QM is a systematic improvement process that involves everyone in the organization, (4) QM should focuses on the customer, and (5) QM should involve human resources function. The present study focuses on the last principle suggested by McGowan (1995). The importance of human resources aspect in QM is that QM requires tailoring human resource policies and initiating programs to motivate employees. Follow-up, feedback, and constant reinforcement and renewal of QM values and processes are crucial to its success (McGowan, 1995). Samson and Terziovski (1999) also support this notion by stating that people are really everything and are critical resource to the organization to achieve high quality performance. Thus, managing people in the way that helps them to achieve the goal of QM becomes crucial. While most QM research attention has been paid to the relationship between QM and organizational performance such as financial performance, customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction, quality improvement, and so on. The present study focuses on employees actual behavior aspect. More specifically, because little attention has been paid to how employee will behave after the implementation of people management practices, the present study intends to clarify this missing piece. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES Reger et al. (1994) suggest that employees resist QM because their beliefs about the organization's identity constrain understanding and create opposition to radical change. However, by aligning human resources practices with QM, organizations are able to minimize the resistance of QM implementation and even create positive reaction and perception toward QM. According to Samson and Terziovski (1999), successful QM involves following key components: leadership, customer focus, use of information and analysis, process improvement, strategic and quality planning, and management of people. However, organizations are not able to improve first five QM components unless they manage people effectively. Oakland and Oakland (1998) argue that QM organizations must actually demonstrate that they value and trust their people by ensuring good communication, encouraging employee participation and commitment, providing appropriate training and development, and encouraging and facilitating teamwork. Collins and Porras (1994), Kotter and Heskett (1992), and Phillips (1997) also suggest that effective people management is the primary concern for organizations striving for business success. Thus, QM implementation involves management of people that provides adequate training, development, and communication may lead to less resistance and more positive reaction from employees. In other words, QM implementation along with effective people management practices that releases the full potential of people will lead to higher organizational and individual performance. Previous organizational citizenship behavior studies have provided evidence that organizational citizenship behavior is strongly related to motives such as organizational concern and pro-social values (Finkelstein & Penner, 2004; George, 1992; Rioux & Penner, 2001). Tan & Tan (2008) claim that pro-social values motives are those concerned with the desire to be helpful

toward peers and be socially accepted and organizational concern motives are related to a desire to help the organization that stems from pride and a sense of identification that the individual has toward the organization. While people management practices involve extensive communication, employee participation, and teamwork, it is expected those practices would facilitate individuals pro-social values motive. In addition, Nair (2006) suggests that QM is now most widely accepted organizational goal and is believed to be essential for effective management and competitive survival of organizations. This organizational-wide consensus with respect to QM as organizational goal and QM as a means of competitive survival may lead to the increasing in individuals desire to help the organization even when they need to do more than their job descriptions stated. In sum, if people management practices are heavily emphasized in QM implementation, it is expected to motivate both organizational concern and pro-social values motives of organizational citizenship behavior. Based upon the characteristics of people management, I hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between people management and organizational citizenship behavior Previous personality studies have established the specific traits of extraversion individuals. Roesch and Wee (2006) claim that extraversion individual are active and gregarious. Tosi et al (2000) suggest that extraversion individuals tend to be more sociable, like to be with others, and are energetic. These specific characteristics, therefore, provide good bases for organizational citizenship behavior since organizational citizenship behavior is less likely to occur if a person is less sociable, like to be alone,, and does not interact much with other. As mentioned previously, successful people management often involves everyone and uses teamwork effectively and intensively (McGowan, 1995). It is also argued that members in effective team must frequently communicate with other members (Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Stevens & Campion, 1994; Wellins et al., 1991). Thus, the use of team in people management practices creates opportunities for team members to interact and social with each other. Hogan et al (1994) found that extraversion individuals tend to communicate more with team members and are better able to build alliances with people who control necessary resources outside the team. Extraversion individuals, therefore, are more able to obtain adequate resources such as training and development needed during the process of quality improvement than are introversion individuals. In addition, because high arousal such as high energy is associated with extraversion, individuals high in extraversion will report higher level of self-efficacy (Thoms, Moore, & Scott, 1996). Therefore, it is expected that when employees perceived themselves having high level extraversion, they tend to demonstrate their abilities by helping others during the process of quality improvement, which in turn may lead to higher extent of organizational citizenship behavior. Thus, I hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 2a: Extraversion positively moderates the association of people management to organizational citizenship behavior Previous research has identified that individuals high in agreeableness are easy to get along with others. More specifically, agreeableness reflects individuals interpersonal tendencies (Roesch & Wee, 2006). These tendencies have been largely identified in the literature. For instance, individuals high in agreeableness are friendly, tolerant, helpful, altruistic, modest,

trusted, and straightforward (Costa & McCrae, 1992). They are also non-competitive (Graziano, Hair, & Finch, 1997), less aggressive, rude, and thoughtless (Tosi et al., 2000). Research has also identified the impact of individual high in agreeableness on organizations, groups, and task performance. For instance, Neuman and Wright (1999) claim that agreeableness facilitates interpersonal attraction. This interpersonal attraction then leads to cooperation (Barrick et al., 1998; Mohammed et al., 2002; Neuman & Wright, 1999; Taggar, 2002), group cohesion (Barrick et al., 1998; Greene, 1989), and compliance with team goals, and task cohesion (Van Vianen & De Dreu, 2001). While implementing people management practices often requires employees to work in teams, employees high in agreeableness are expected to enhance team effectiveness by utilizing their interpersonal strengths such as altruistic and trusting behaviors. Since, these behaviors have been identified as the important elements of organizational citizenship behavior, it is expected that agreeableness would strength the relationship between people management and organizational citizenshi. Thus, I hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 2b: Agreeableness positively moderates the association of people management to organizational citizenship behavior Conscientiousness has been used intensively to predict its impact on team outcome. For example, individuals high in conscientiousness are expected to put lots effort toward team goal completion (LePine, 2003; Molleman et al., 2004; Mohammed & Angell, 2003; Neuman & Wright, 1999; Taggar, 2002; Van Vianen & De Dreu, 2001), to commit to the task (Barry & Stewart, 1997; Taggar, 2002), and to cooperate (Molleman et al., 2004). While people management practices should enhance employees commitment of quality improvement as an organizational or team goal through intensive empowerment and encouragement, conscientious employees, therefore, are expected to be persisting and to be hard working in order to achieve the goal. It is also argued that lack of conscientiousness may lead to social loafing or free riding that is the opposite behavior of organizational citizenship behavior (Mohammed & Angell, 2003; Molleman et al., 2004; Neuman et al., 1999). Conscientiousness, therefore, can be considered a facilitator that facilitates the relationship between people management and organizational citizenship behavior. Thus, I hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 2c: Conscientiousness positively moderates the association of people management to organizational citizenship behavior Characteristics such as creative, broadminded, and willing to experiment or to try new things have been used to describe individuals who are high in openness (LePine, 2003; Molleman et al., 2004). It is argued that individuals with such characteristics are expected to adapt to new situations easily, to build upon each others ideas, and to look for alternative ways to solve problems they encounter (LePine, 2003). While people management practices are continuous processes and improvement, employees may encounter new problems or issues during quality improvement process. Employees who are high in openness, therefore, facilitate the creation of creative atmosphere that promotes better problem solving and decision-making in the team or organization. Neuman et al (1999) and LePine (2003) also found the same result that openness results in better decision-making performance and higher overall team performance. Since there are lots of changes and adjustments that employees may face when implementing people management practices, employees high in openness are expected to facilitate and smooth

these change processes by utilizing their creativity and adaptability. Thus, I hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 2d: Openness positively moderates the association of people management to organizational citizenship behavior Neuroticism is often used to describe a persons emotional stability. The literature has identified neurotic individuals characteristics. Molleman et al (2004) and Van Vianen and De Dreu (2001) found that individuals low in neuroticism are self-confident and secure about chosen goals and decision. These low neurotic characteristics, therefore, lead to cooperation and coordination teamwork behavior (Neuman et al., 1999) as well as task cohesion (Van Vianen & De Dreu, 2001). Thus, it is expected that the presence of neurotic individuals in the organization disrupts the cooperation, creative atmosphere, and team cohesion that are essential elements for people management practices. Thus, I hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 2e: Neuroticism negatively moderates the association of people management to organizational citizenship behavior LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Two major limitations occur in this study. First, the use of cross-sectional research design. Since the implementation of people management practices require some time span, behavioral changes in employees with respect to organizational citizenship behavior may not occur at the point of time when the present study is conducted. The second limitation of this study is the use of self-report on measuring organizational citizenship behavior. For example, a respondent may respond his or her willingness of helping fellow workers job on the survey without actual presenting organizational citizenship behavior. Thus, self-report bias may exaggerate the findings of the present study. QM has been adopted widely by most organizations. Previous research has suggested that successful quality management requires a series of people management practices such as training, development, and empowerment. Despite ample findings on the impact of QM on organizational and individual performance, less attention has been paid to employees actual behavior during the implementation of people management practices. The present study, therefore, contributes to the literature by going beyond the employees perception and reaction toward QM implementation and identifying employees potential behavior when implementing QM.

REFERENCES Adam, E.E. Jr. (1994). Alternative quality improvement practices and organization performance. Journal of Operations Management, 12: 27-44. Ahire, S. L. & Dreyfus, P. (2000). The impact of design management and process management on quality: An empirical examination. Journal of Operations Management, 18: 549-575. Anderson, J. C., Rungtusanatham, M., Schroeder, R. G., & Devaraj, S. (1995). A path analytic model of a theory of quality management underlying the Deming Management Method: Preliminary empirical findings. Decision Sciences, 26: 637-658. Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44: 1-26. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 43-51. Barry, B. & Stewart, G. L. (1997). Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 62-78. Choi, T. Y. & Eboch, K. (1998). The TQM paradox: Relations among TQM practices, plant performance, and customer satisfaction. Journal of Operations Management, 17: 59-75. Collins, J. & Porras, J. (1994). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. Harper Collins, New York Costa, P. T. Jr. & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory and new five-factor inventory: Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL. Cua, K. O., McKone, K. E., & Schroeder, R. G. (2001). Relationships between implementation of TQM, JIT, and TPM and manufacturing performance. Journal of Operations Management, 19: 675-694. Curkovic, S., Melnyk, S., Calantone, R., & Handfield, R. (2000). Validating the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award framework through structural equations modeling. International Journal of Production Research, 38: 765-791. Das, A., Handfield, R. B., Calantone, R. J. & Ghosh, S. (2000). A contingent view of quality management: The impact of international competition on quality. Decision Sciences, 31: 649-690. Dean, J. W. & Bowen, D. E. (1994). Management theory and total quality: Improving research and practice through theory development. Academy of Management Review, 19: 393-418. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41: 417-440. Douglas, T. J. & Judge, W. Q. Jr. (2001). Total quality management implementation and competitive advantage: The role of structural control and exploration. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 158-169. Dow, D., Samson, D., & Ford, S. (1999). Exploding the myth: Do all quality management practices contribute to superior quality performance? Production and Operations Management, 8: 1-27. Federderber, C. J. (1987). Measuring quality and productivity in a service environment. Industrial Engineering, 13: 38-48. Finkelstein, M. A., & Penner, L. A. (2004). Predicting organizational citizenship behavior: Integrating the functional and role identity approaches. Social Behavior and Personality, 32: 383-398.

Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. G., & Sakakibara, S. (1995). The impact of quality management practices on performance and competitive advantage. Decision Sciences, 26: 659-691. Forker, L. B. (1997). Factors affecting supplier quality performance. Journal of Operations Management, 15: 243-269. Forza, C. & Flippini, R. (1998).TQM impact on quality conformance and customer satisfaction: A causal model. International Journal of Production Economics, 55: 1-20. Fredrickson, J. W. (1984). The comprehensiveness of strategic decision processes: Extension, observation, future directions. Academy of Management Journal, 27: 445-466. George, J. M. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 191-202. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48: 26-34. Graziano, W. G., Hair, E. C., & Finch, J. F. (1997). Competitiveness mediates the link between personality and group performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73: 1394-1408. Greene, C. (1989). Cohesion and productivity in work groups. Small Group Behavior, 20: 70-86. Hair, J. F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Ho, D. C. K., Duffy, V. G., & Shih, H. M. (2001). Total quality management: An empirical test for mediation effect. International Journal of Production Research, 39: 529-548. Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49: 485-504. Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D. & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterionrelated validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 581-595. Howell, D. C. (2007). Statistical methods for psychology. Belmont, CA: Thomson. Juran, J. M. (1988). Juran on planning for quality. ASQC, Milwaukee, WI. Kaynak, H. (2003). The relationship between total quality management practices and their effects on firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21: 405-435. King, C. A. (1987). A framework for a service quality assurance system. Quality Progress, 20: 27-32. Kontoghiorghes, C. & Gudgel, R. (2004). Investigating the association between productivity and quality performance in two manufacturing settings. The Quality Management Journal, 11: 8-20. Kotter, J. P. & Hsekett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. The Free Press, New York. Lai, K. (2003). Market orientation in quality-oriented organizations and its impact on their performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 84: 17-34. Larson, C. E. & LaFasto, F. M. J. (1989). Team work: What must go right/ what can go wrong. Sage, Newbury Park, NJ. LePine, J. A. (2003). Team adaptation and post change performance: Effects of team composition in terms of members cognitive ability and personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 27-39. Loney, T. (1993). TQM and labor relations cooperation: A match made in heaven or devil take the hindmost?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Public Administration.

Mann, R. & Kehoe, D. (1995). Factors affecting the implementation and success of TQM. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 12: 11-23. Martinez-Lorente, A. R., Dewhurst, F. W., & Gallego-Rodriguez, A. (2000). Relating TQM, marketing and business performance: An exploratory study. International Journal of Production Research, 38: 32273246. McGowan, R. P. (1995). Total quality management: Lessons from business and government. Public Productivity & Management Review, 18: 321-331. Milakovich, M. (1991). Total quality management in the public sector. National Productivity Review, 19: 195-213. Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2003). Personality heterogeneity in teams: Which differences make a difference for team performance? Small Group Research, 34: 651-677. Mohammed, S., Mathieu, J. E., & Bartlett, L. B. (2002). Technical-administrative task performance, leadership task performance, and contextual performance: Considering the influence of team- and task-related composition variables. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 795-814. Mohrman, S. A., Tenkasi, R. V., Lawler III, E. E., & Ledford Jr., G. G. (1995). Total quality management: practice and outcomes in the largest US firms. Employee Relations, 17: 26-41. Molleman, E., Nauta, A., & Jehn, K. A. (2004). Person-job fit applied to teamwork: A multilevel approach. Small Group Research, 35: 515-539. Nair, A. (2006). Meta-analysis of the relationship between quality management practices and firm performance-implications for quality management theory development. Journal of Operations Management, 24: 948-975. Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H., & Christiansen, N. D. (1999). The relationship between workteam personality composition and the job performance of teams. Group & Organization Management, 24: 28-45. Neuman, G. A. & Wright, J. (1999). Team effectiveness: Beyond skills and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 376-389. Oakland, J. S. & Oakland, S. (1998). The links between people management, customer satisfaction and business results. Total Quality Management, 9: 185-190. Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 679-703. Organ, D. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Phillips, R. (1997). New measures for business. Measuring Business Excellence. Plsek, P. E. (1987). Defining quality at the marketing/development interface. Quality Progress ,20: 28-36. Powell, T. C. (1995). Total quality management as competitive advantage: A review and empirical study. Strategic Management Journal, 16: 15-37. Prajogo, D. I. & Sohal, A. S. (2003). The relationship between TQM practices, quality performance, and innovation performance: An empirical examination. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 20: 901-918. Reger, R., Gustafson, L., Demarie, S., & Mullane, J. (1994). Reframing the organization: Why implementing total quality is easier said than done. Academy of Management Review, 19: 565-586.

Rioux, S. M. & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1306-1314. Roesch, S. C. & Wee, C. (2006). Relations between the Big Five personality traits and dispositional coping in Korean Americans: Acculturation as a moderating factor. International Journal of Psychology, 41: 85-96. Rungtusanatham, M., Forza, C., Filippini, R., & Anderson, J. C. (1998). A replication study of a theory of quality management underlying the Deming method: Insights from an Italian context. Journal of Operations Management, 17: 77-95. Sanchez-Rodriguez, C. & Martinez-Lorente, A. R. (2004). Quality management practices in the purchasing function: An empirical study. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24: 666-687. Samson, D. & Terziovski, M. (1999). The relationship between total quality management practices and operational performance. Journal of Operations Management, 17: 393-409. Schmit, M. J. & Ryan, A. M. (1993). The Big Five in personnel selection: Factor structure in applicant and non-applicant populations. Journal of Applied Psychology,87: 966-974. Schmidt, W. & Finnigan, J. (1992). The Race without a Finish Line: America's Quest for Total Quality. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Sharma, S., Durand, R. M., & Gur-Arie, O. (1981). Identification and analysis of moderator variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 18: 291-300. Sousa, R. & Voss, C. A. (2002). Quality management re-visited: A reflective review and agenda for future research. Journal of Operations Management, 20: 91-109. Spechler, J. (1991). When America Does it Right. Industrial Engineering and Management Press, Norcross, GA. Stevens, M. J. & Campion, M. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management, 20: 503-530. Sun, H. (2000). A comparison of quality management practices in Shanghai and Norwegia manufacturing companies. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 17: 636-660. Swiss, J. (1992). Adapting total quality management to government. Public Administration Review, 52: 356-62. Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 315-330. Tan, H. H. & Tan, M. L. (2008). Organizational citizenship behavior and social loafing: The role of personality, motives, and contextual factors. Journal of Psychology, 142: 89-108. Tan, K. C. (2001). A structural equation model of new product design and development. Decision Sciences, 32: 195-226. Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44: 703-742. Thoms, P., Moore, K. S., & Scott, K. S. (1996). The relationship between self-efficacy for participating in self-managed work groups and the Big Five personality dimensions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17: 349-362. Tosi, L. H., Mero, P. N., & Rizzo, R. J. (2000). Managing Organizational Behavior. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publisher Inc. Tsui, A., Egan, T., & OReilly, C. (1992). Being different: relational demographic and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 549-579.

Van Vianen, A. E. M. & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2001). Personality in teams: Its relations to social cohesion, task cohesion, and team performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10: 97-120. Wellins, R. S., Byham, W. C. & Wilson, J. M. (1991). Empowered teams: Creating self-directed work groups that improve quality, productivity, and participation. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Williams, L. J. & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17: 601-617. York, K. M. & Miree, C. E. (2004). Causation or covariation: An empirical re-examination of the link between TQM and financial performance. Journal of Operations Management, 22: 291311. Zedeck, S. (1971). Problems with the use of moderator variables. Psychological Bulletin, 76: 295-310. Zenger, T. & Lawrence, B. (1989). Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure distribution on technical communication. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 353-376.