A Study of the Relationship among Employee Personality Characteristics, Organizational Culture, Leadership Style, Organizational Commitment, and Task

performanceWith the High-Tech Industry in Taiwan as an Example

Li-Yu Tseng Ph.D. Program in Business Administration, Fu Jen Catholic University. 8F., No.278, Wenlin N. Rd., Beitou Dist., Taipei City 112, Taiwan R.O.C. juliatseng8@yahoo.com.tw Tian-Shyug Lee Graduate Institute of Management Fu Jen Catholic University. No.510, Jhongiheng Rd., Sinjhuang City, Taipei County 24205, Taiwan, ROC badm1004@mail.fju.edu.tw

ABSTRACT Past studies about task performance of high-tech industry mainly focused on the relationship among working stress, working characteristics, employee motivation, and compensation system. Based on the above reasoning, this study tries to detect whether employee personality, different organizational culture, and different leadership style will have impact on organizational commitment and hence raising the task performance of employee. In order to verify the above hypothesis, 304 employees from high-tech public companies in Taiwan were selected as illustrative example using the popular LISREL software as the analytic tool. The research findings can be summarized as follows. First, it indicates that high-tech companies whose employees exhibiting appropriate personality characteristics have positive effect on organizational commitment. Second, high-tech companies exhibiting innovative culture and supportive culture also have significant impact on organizational commitment. Third, it will help raise task performance when employees have more value commitment and effort commitment. In addition, organizational commitment acted as an intermediary role between employee personality characteristics, organizational culture, and task performance; that is, employee personality characteristics and organizational culture would indirectly influence task performance through organizational commitment. KEYWORDS: Employee Personality Characteristics, Organizational Culture, Leadership Style, Organizational Commitment, Task Performance INTRODUCTION Facing the rise of BRIS and Next Eleven(N-11), during the governments consideration of the economic policies, market demand and international competitiveness, apart from facilitating enthusiastically the upgrade of the traditional industries, it is also a key development to promote the ten most newly developed high-technology industries, i.e. consumer electronics, communications, information, semiconductor, precision machinery and automation, aviation, advanced materials, specialty chemicals and pharmaceutical, health care and pollution prevention and control industries, etc. It enables the proportion of Taiwans high-technology
1

industries rising from (http://doit.moea.gov.tw).

27.4%

to

42.3%

of

the

manufacturing

output

With the rapidly changing global economic environment and facing the impact of globalization and the waves of the financial tsunami, corporations cannot earn high profits simply by using physical assets and relying sales of products. Therefore, the focus is gradually shifted from the use of strategy to the importance of people (Cohen, 2005). Employees personality characteristics reflect unique personal characteristics and will result dynamical characteristics in response to different environments. Employees of high-technology industries work under high stress every day. Its more necessary to find out employees personality characteristics so that they can be assigned to the appropriate work and have task satisfaction. Therefore, personality has a considerably explanatory and predictive power to individual behaviors. In addition, if personality matches the job nature, it enables employees to work proficiently. Their task performance can be enhanced and thereby creates the corporate performance. Facing the increasingly stringent international competitive conditions, economy of speed becomes the commercial symbol of this century (Sprenger, 2004); teamwork has become the important element for the corporate success; and trust is the catalyst of teamwork. Regardless of the interactions of supervisors and subordinates or among colleagues, trust can create a great synergy. In particular, the behaviour leadership of obtaining others trust, respect, faith and cooperation needs to encourage every individual to pursue the vision enthusiastically and proactively through goal settings, promotion of employee participation and communication as well as motivation. If the corporate wants to enhance employees work quality and performance, employees and the management must have mutual trust; and effective leadership is used to encourage employees to complete their work enthusiastically prompting the organization to achieve the expected goals. Corporate members share among themselves the humanity creation, ideas, values, assumptions, and even the perception within the organization. They have common characteristics describing the differences among organizations. They integrate themselves, group and the system variables of the organization to form the organizational culture which differentiate from other organizations (Dyer, 1985; Robbins, 1989). Organizational culture is a system of economic power distribution (Dobson, 1990). It is a power facilitating the unity, cohesion and mutual assistance and cooperation among the corporate members; and also a strong force for the members to fight for the corporation goals jointly (Gordon & Ditomaso, 1992). Organization culture can certainly take advantage of heroes and models of good image, or use its powerful environment and selectively consolidated system to reward the qualified employees (Dessler, 2001), in order to exercise an internal power and make employees be initiatively dedicative to the company (Gardner, 1985). Organizational commitment is that employees identify themselves with an organization and its goals; and hope to maintain as a member of the organization. (Mayer & Schoorman, 1998). It refers also that the members of the organization are willing to pay efforts, respect, and be faithful to the organization or in pursuit of their goals, in return for a condition for satisfaction (Hodge et al., 1996). To start the trust mechanism is the best way for employees to agree with the organization and its goals
2

(Sprenger, 2004). Leaders should enthusiastically start to work from themselves. If the trust component in an organization is greater, employees will feel that the control measures can help to provide information and support; and also are encouraged to trust each others. It will lead to a series of trust building and feedback (Sprenger, 2004); and encourage employees to have a strong desire to maintain the identity as a member of an organization; trust and accept the organizational goals and values and be willing to pay a high degree of efforts to the organization (Porter et al., 1974). Thus, employees will be self-motivated at work. Task performance refers to the value of an employees contribution to the work; the quality or quantity of work, i.e. employee productivity. High productivity of employees means overall high operating performance. Schermerhorn (1989) believes that a good task performance is generally based that the organization's human resources have the ability to complete its work, be willing to pay necessary efforts, and have the appropriate support. Ability is the most important among them. However, Campbell (1990) thinks that task performance is the behaviour of en individual member of an organization, to complete the organizations expectation and perform the regulated and formal role as required. In other words, employees have the ability to complete the work within a specified period of time; and subordinates or a group achieve the objective of a project contributing to the organizational goals. In this rapidly competitive era, corporations pursue their own interests by focusing on achieving its strategic goals and assessing its business performance in terms of considering strategies, resources allocation, coordination and control, etc. in order to enhance business performance, however, completion of work efficiently by employees, the source of task performance, is neglected. Furthermore, the previous studies of high-technology industries were focused on stress at work, organizational performance, and location and selection strategies for research centres. In this study, it is to investigate the reasons for affecting the task performance of employees in the high-technology industries by employees personality characteristics, organizational culture, leadership styles, organizational commitment, etc. Meanwhile, it is based on the linear structural relationship model by the combination of factor analysis and path analysis to simultaneously deal with the causal relationship between multiple sets of independent variables and dependent variables. In this study, LISREL is used to verify the variables of the hypotheses of the employees personality characteristics, organizational culture, leadership styles, organizational commitment and task performance. It is expected to provide the proposal for strategic management to the business sectors by the objective empirical results. LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES The measure of organizational commitment Organizational commitment refers to the individual behaviour to an organization in terms of concern and loyalty. When the employees are more loyal to the organization, he or she has a higher organizational commitment (Angle & Perry, 1981). Porter et al. (1974) believes that organizational commitment is consisted of value commitment which an individual trusts and accepts and commits to the organizational goals and values; effort commitment which an individual has a high degree of effort commitment to an organization; and retention commitment which an individual is willing to maintain the membership in the organization. Stevens, Beyer & Trice (1978) thinks that employees are willing to remain in an organization and pay more efforts
3

belong to normative commitment. It is because they believe that it is in line with the organizational norms. Furthermore, organizational members measure the difference between their contribution to an organization and the rewards from the organization that refers to exchange commitment. The Allen & Meyer (l991) has proposed that employees organizational commitment is consisted of affective commitment which means organizational members are willing and have an idea of hoping and remaining to provide service in an organization; and continuance commitment which means the awareness of the employment opportunity outside an organization and costs of leaving an organization; and normative commitment which is remaining loyalty to an organization. In this study, all previous research studies are reviewed and the diverse characteristics of the high-technology employees are considered; and the different views from Porter et al. (1974), Stevens, Beyer & Trice (1978), Allen & Meyer (l991), etc. are summarized. Therefore, organizational commitment will be divided into dimensions of normative commitment and exchange commitment, etc. The measure of leadership styles Facing the competitive changing market, corporate development and survival depends entirely the leader of an organization. A leaders order and behaviour is associated closely to a companys future development. A leader needs to motivate employees to enhance their hierarchy of needs and inspire their self-conscious behaviours. Burns (1978), Bass (1985), Bass & Avolio (1997) and other scholars have suggested that transactional leadership which means a leader should use tangible and intangible conditions to exchange with subordinates; transformational leadership which means a leader with personal charisma inspires subordinates with personal care and intellectuals to improve their hierarchy of needs in order to achieve a high-level goals. It will be more helpful to manage subordinates to achieve the objectives (Gustafson, 2001). Therefore, leadership will include styles of transactional and transformational leadership, etc. in this study. Personality characteristics and organizational commitment Personality is the unique interpersonal characteristics. It can be predicted the future behaviour from the past behaviour (McCrae & Costa, 1986). Individual response to situations causes structural and dynamic nature of performance (Pervin & John, 1997). It determines the permanent nature and tendency for the similarity and diversity between an individual and others (David, 1989). Rotter (1954), according to the social learning theory, has proposed the locus of control concept. Personality includes internal control which means that employees, with individuals abilities and attributes, are able to control their own destiny; and external control means that all things in life are controlled by external forces. Friedman & Rosenman (1974) have proposed the Type A and Type B personality theory. An individual with Type A personality traits has a strong incentive to overcome obstacles, likes competition, enjoys the power and recognition, and likes the energetic and efficient way of doing things. On the contrary, an individual with Type B personality traits is more relaxed and patient; work hard occasionally, but less impetuous than Type A individuals. As there is intensive competition in the high-technology industries, employees should have characteristics internally, e.g. the ability of overcoming difficulties, energetic and face continuously challenges, etc. Thus, the independent variables of this study will be according to the Type A and Type B personality theory of Friedman & Rosenman (1974) and the locus of control concept of the internal and external control of Rotter (1954).

Personality characteristics affect the tendency of an individual to identify oneself with an organization, such as individuals motivation of achievement, values and ideas, gender roles, explicit requirements, etc. Different personality characteristics differentiate significantly organizational commitment (Luthans, Baack & Taylor, 1987). Employees with Type A personality or internal control have the higher organizational commitment. Therefore, this study is based on the above academic studies which have shown that personality characteristics are significantly related to organizational commitment, and further investigate if employees with different personality characteristics will significantly differentiate organizational commitment. It is summarized as hypothesis below: H1: Employees with different personality will significantly differentiate organizational commitment. H1-1 Employees with Locus of Control personality will significantly higher organizational commitment H1-2 Employees with Type A personality will significantly higher organizational commitment Organizational culture and organizational commitment Organizational culture is that organizational members share a common system of values which differentiates an organization from another organization (Robbins, 1998). It is a set of values, beliefs and patterns of behaviours for establishing the core system of an organization (Dension, 1990). Wallach (1983) believes that an organization is flexible, internal and external oriented and has proposed that organizational cultures can be divided into bureaucratic culture, innovative culture and supportive culture. Until 1985, Cameron thinks that effective culture should also be considered. As the high-technology industries have the characteristics such as technology, capital, technological labour-intensive, high risk, and short product life cycle, etc, the innovative culture and supportive culture of Wallach (1983) will be used as the dimensions of organizational culture in this study. Reimann & Wiener (1988) suggest that the core values of an organizations members exist strongly in the organizational culture when the cultural beliefs are widely shared by themselves. Thus, a logical measurement is one of the ways to strengthen organizational culture and the degree of members commitment to their organization (Banner & Gagne, 1995). Moreover, organizational commitment regulates the pressure generated by the internalization of the integrity that enables staff to behave in line with an organizations goals and interests (Wiener, 1982), therefore, the higher the consistency of the organizational culture and the stronger the intensity, the higher the employees can commit. Situations such as turnover, absence as well as work inefficiently, etc. will not be easily occurred. Thus, the dimensions of organizational culture, innovative culture and supportive culture proposed by Wallach (1983), will be used in this study. The hypothesis is summarized below: H2: Different corporate culture differentiates employees organizational commitment. H2-1 Corporate with innovative culture, employees organizational commitment will be higher H2-2 Corporate with supportive culture, employees organizational commitment will be higher
5

Leadership styles and organizational commitment Ever since the organizational behaviour began among mankind, leader is the most influential factor for the organizational operation in the integration process between individuals and organizations; and has both identities no matter between the leader and followers or between the manager and subordinates. Hewlett-Packard has developed from a garage business, with 6,700 employees worldwide currently, showing a clear path for forming a great company is the key of leadership (Malone, 2007). Therefore, the problem arising from the leadership is related to the success or failure of an organization and the employees benefits and also enhances the organizational effectiveness. A Transactional leader uses a rewards system for organizational goals setting and awards employees with good performance. In recognition of employees achievements makes them get a sense of accomplishment in the organization, and be willing to pay efforts, ability and loyal to the organizational goals (Hodge et al., 1996). Furthermore, a transformational leader provides vision and mission, is good at communicating with employees, gives individual concern; enhances employees a sense of belonging and loyalty, so that employees have the desire to maintain memberships in the organization; are willing to invest a high level of efforts for the organization to assist it to reach its goals. Below is the hypothesis in this study: H3: Different leadership styles differentiate employees willingness to commit to the organization H3-1Leadership style with transformational leader will higher employees willingness to commit to the organization H3-2 Leadership style with transactional leader will higher employees willingness to commit to the organization The measure of task performance and its influencing factors The so-called "performance" refers to a measure of the achievement of the goals for an organization. It is used as indicators and measurement methods to present the level of achievement in the mission, goals and objectives (Duquette & Stowe, 1993). Task performance is the quality and volume of achieved task or work performed by an individual or a group (Schermerhorm, 1999). Task performance refers to an employees total value of inconsecutive behavioural events at a standard time, in terms of behaviour, tasks, evaluation and multi-dimensions. It is used as the default variable number of future-driven development and effective motivation (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997). Browning (2006), Elizabeth (1990), Mcgrath (1993) and Donna (1996) believe that the measurements of performance indicators are nothing more than the Efficiency, Effectiveness and Quality. However, Borman & Motowidlo (1993) believe that the indicators, Efficiency and Effectiveness in task performance should be classified as task performance; Quality is classified as contextual performance. Robbins (1998) believes that the measurement for task performance can be divided into two categories: employees work outcome and employees work behaviours (including some employees characteristics). Employees in the high-technology industries face the rapid changing external environment, in addition to evaluate the work efficiency, work effectiveness and work quality, it needs also to consider work behaviours such as self-motivated at work, attention and alertness, obey the norms at work, etc.; and work outcomes such as unspoken consensus among colleagues, goals
6

achievements, recognition of work performance and willing to undertake additional work, etc. Therefore, the arguments from Borman & Motowidlo (1993), Robbins (1998) are summarized as two major dimensions: work outcome and work behaviour. Organizational commitment and task performance Organizational commitment is that individuals identify themselves with an organization and its goal; and the extent of hoping to maintain as a member of the organization (Mayer & Schoorman, 1998); facilitate employees to have a sense of identity; be proud of being a member of an organization and practice it on the task performance. In order words, employees identify themselves with the values of an organization and make every effort to help the organization to achieve its goals and expectation; and perform behaviours as regulated or formal required roles (Campbell, 1990). The higher the employees loyalty, sense of identity and participation in organizational activities, the higher organizational commitment the employees will have (Robbins, 2001). Employees will then converse this organizational commitment to work hard and expect to create task performance for an organization. Thus, highly committed employees show good task performance such as proactive efforts and work behaviour in coping with the organizational goals and achieving the work outcome (Steers, 1977). H4: The higher an employee's organizational commitment to the company, the better an employee's task performance. H4-1 Employee's with normative organizational commitment, will get higher task performance. H4-2 Employee's with exchange organizational commitment, will get higher task performance. Personality characteristics, organizational commitment and task performance Every employee has different personality characteristics which affects the deeplyrooted patterns of behaviour of employees and predicts the performance of individual behaviour (Wiggins, 1996). If a company understands the locus of control of employees who are self control of everything (with traits of internal control) or believe everything is controlled by external situations (with traits of external control); would like to achieve the greatest in the shortest time (Type A personality) or often set a deadline for themselves or work relatively slower (Type B personality); employees can be assigned to appropriate work position according to their diverse personality traits, thereby, it enables them to achieve the job objectives efficiently and complete the tasks of the organization (Brouther, 2002); appropriate personnel can be selected and qualified employees can be retained (Furnham & Miller, 1997). H5: Different employees personality characteristics differentiates their willingness to task performance Allport (1961) believes that personality characteristics determine an individuals adaptation of the external environment, and the unique patterns of ideas and behaviours, so employees behaviour will reflect their unique personality characteristics. If an individual has a positive evaluation of an organization and psychologically involvement, and focus on work roles after joining an organization (Buchanan, 1974), it can develop to an affection of loyalty to an organization. If a company can make use of organizational commitment, encourage employees to trust
7

and accept the goals and values of an organization and make them be willing to work towards to the organizational goals and values. Then, there will be employees with high organizational commitment. It can help to enhance task performance in an organization such as completing tasks within limited time, a high rate of accomplished goals and reducing the rate of customer complaints, etc. H6: Employees with different personality characteristics and organizational commitment affect them to have better task performance. Organizational culture, organizational commitment and task performance Organizational culture is a pattern of shared values and beliefs for developing the code of conducts and norms in a company (Osland, Kolb & Rubi, 2004). It is also the right way of how organizational members think and deal with the internal integration and external problems. It helps the organizational members to understand the idea and experience of how to handle things in an organization (Griffin, 2005). Therefore, the conversion of organizational culture to the guidelines of employees behaviours will help to improve the work efficiency of employees. H7: Different organizational culture differentiates employees willingness towards their task performance. When a corporate makes use of organizational culture to unite strongly all the employees within the organization, the employees will develop organizational commitment and agree with the organization and its goals. When employees hope to become a permanent member of an organization (Mitchell, 1992, Robbins, 2001), they will demonstrate their own work ability to be recognized by the management and accepted by an organization and will be more willing to pay more efforts for an organization (Angle & Perry, 1981). This can make employees to achieve all the tasks and objectives at work, and thus enhance employees work efficiency. H8: Different organizational culture and the impact of organizational commitment affect employees to have better task performance. Leadership styles, organizational commitment and task performance Leadership is the art of achieving the work objectives by others (Mhut, 2002), and to make the organizational members more confident to achieve the organizational goals (Dubrin, 2004), so that leadership can be said as the ability to influence a group to achieve its objectives (Robbins, 2001). Yammarino & Bass (1990) believe that transformational leadership understands how to encourage the followers and inspire the employees to make the greatest efforts to reach a high level of performance standards; however, Bass (1985) believes that transactional leaders focus on the process that a leader is committed to exchange rewards with subordinate. Employees can then understand how to get rewarded and are willing to work hard for achieving the organizational goals. H9: Different leadership styles differentiate employees willingness to task performance. A leader with transactional leadership can make use of tangible and intangible conditions to exchange with subordinates; or a leader, with transformational
8

leadership, with personal charisma inspires subordinates with personal care and intellectuals to improve employees hierarchy of needs. If the organization can create the organizational commitment by recognition of an organization and its goals; and enhance the degree of employees wish of membership in an organization, it can reduce the employees intention of turnover (Micales & Spector, 1982) and make employees focus on putting efforts to reach organizational goals. H10: Different leadership styles are adopted and the impacts of organizational commitment affect employees to have a better task performance. Establishment of the research framework Task performance is the basic element for employees to create the corporate values. The objective of task performance does not only measure the degree of job accomplished by employees and the performance of current work situation, but also enables employees to understand their created work values, quality and productivity for an organization (Byars & Rue, 2001). As the task performance of employees are related to their personality characteristics, it will help a company to enhance organizational competitiveness if there are positive, hardworking, self-motivated employees; the leader makes use of enlightened leadership; and together with organizational culture which unites employees. However, the previous articles of task performance have not been focused on the dimensions of personality characteristics, organizational culture, leadership styles and organizational commitment, etc. to investigate the causality. In this study, as shown in Figure 1, the research framework will be a combination of personality characteristics, organizational culture, leadership styles as independent variables, organizational commitment as the intervening variable, and task performance as the dependent variable. Employee Personality Characteristics Organizational Culture Leadership Style
H1 H2 H8 H10 H3 H6 H5

Organizational Commitment

H4

Task Performance
H9

H7

Note: H1H2H3H4H5H7H9are Direct EffectsH6H8H10 are Indirect Effects Figure 1 Conceptual Framework METHODS AND RESEARCH DESIGN Measurement of variables and operational definition LISREL has the hypotheses-testing capabilities and can also eliminate obvious multicollinearity of the independent variables; a variable becomes another variables dependent variable. It can also be a variable for a variable number of contingency, to analyze the characteristics of a complex casual relationship better than path analysis (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993), In addition, LISREL is not only used for the chi-square test, to verify the theoretical model and distribution of data type, but also for testing the significance of a special path by the t value or sequential chi - squire difference test. A part of LISREL is to describe the relationship of the structural equation model between the latent variable, which cannot be observed directly; another part is to describe the measurement model of the relationship between the directly observed
9

manifest variables (Hair et al., 1998). With the framework of this study, the initial definition of the latent exogenous variables are personality characteristics (1), organizational culture (2) and leadership styles (3); and the latent endogenous variables are organizational commitment (1) and task performance (2). The measurement for the exogenous manifest variable (X) and the endogenous manifest variable (Y) will be combined to the theories and the interview experience and develop a 5-point Likert-scale questionnaire for investigation. The details are described as follows: Personality characteristics Personality characteristics refers to an individuals psychological and physiological phenomena. It shows the unique psychological characteristics in response to different time and situations, thus, to determine the patterns of behaviour and ways of thinking for adaptation of environment. It can be divided as follows: (1) Internal / external locus of control: one believes that the creation of job opportunities depends on oneself (Rotter, 1954); Regardless of job contents, one can achieve it; Take action if one is not satisfied with the decision made by the boss enthusiastically; can achieve the assigned work by the organization; can achieve the goals (Brissett & Nowick, 1976); strive to become an excellent employee (Spector & O'Connell, 1994); job promotion is for employees with good task performance (Rotter, 1954); work seriously should be awarded with given deserved reward; ones behaviour determines ones own life (Spector & O'Connell, 1994). (2) Type A /B: have the concept of punctuality and never be late for work or attending conference; show a positive and competitive attitude (Friedman & Rosenman, 1974); be willing to bear the stress; in pursuit of efficiency (Friedman & Rosenman, 1974 ; Caplan & Jones, 1975; Carrer & Glass, 1987;); do not easily reveal the feeling of any matter; work overtime voluntarily or carry the job to work at home; have a feeling of guilty if one has too much leisure time; set the progress of work and deadlines; pay attention to personal achievements; not easily lose ones temper; think about the unfinished work (Jenkins, 1976; Chesney & Rosenmna, 1980). Organizational culture Organizational culture is a common system of values followed by organization members from the top management to all subordinates. It is also the internal guidelines for behaviours in a company that differentiate from another company. It can be divided into: (1) Innovative culture: adventurous and enterprising spirit; encourage employees to accept new ideas or to be innovative; operate independently; autonomy is given; encourage to express views / ideas; collect customer-related information enthusiastically (Wallach, 1983). (2) Supportive culture: cooperation; mutual trust; equal treatment; emphasis on interpersonal relationships; give often encouragement and rewards; a harmonious working atmosphere; give others a sense of security (Wallach, 1983). Leadership styles Leadership styles from the leaders can be divided as follows: (1) Transformational leadership: a model for employees to respect and learn from; enable employees to feel happy and proud of; trust the managers who have ability to
10

overcome work difficulty and power of judgement; use methods to encourage employees; enable employees be enthusiastic about the assigned tasks; set a high standard for employees task performance (Burns, 1978); able to point out the current direction of thinking for employees; able to give concerns at the appropriate time; able to understand the need of employees; express gratitude at the appropriate time; is willing to spend time to instruct employees; encourage employees; use a new way of thinking to think about the old problems; emphasize that employees use wisdom to solve their problems. (2) Transactional leadership: will get the desired returns as long as one works hard; can negotiate with the direct supervisor about the task performance; extent of involvement is closely related to return of investments; exchange what employees need with support; the direct supervisor is satisfied with a good task done by the same method (Bass, 1985; Avolio & Bass, 1989); talk with employees only about the scope of matters which they need to know; accept employees new practice of work but do not actively encourage it (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994). Organizational commitment Organizational commitment is that organizational members identify themselves with the organization and are willing to pay additional efforts to achieve the organizational goals. It can be divided as follows: have a high organizational commitment; be proud of being a member of an organization; be concerned about a companys future development and visions; fully develop ones abilities; a company is significantly important for employees personal work achievement and career development; personal values and corporate values are very closely to each others; the company is an ideal work place; employees are satisfied with working hard in a company; have a affective emotion to the company; be willing to pay additional efforts; have the responsibility to work hard (Porter et al., 1974); try the best to overcome difficulties at work; take the initiative to help colleagues to solve the problems at work; teach the new colleagues with ones own work experience; take initiative to collect and learn the required and work-related information and skills (Stevens, Beyer, & Trice, 1978); feel to have a bright future if remaining to work in the company; hope to continue to work at the company; have paid a lot of efforts for the company; employees do not consider to change the job; be still willing to remain in the company (Allen & Meyer, l991). Task performance Personal knowledge, ability and role, cognitive expectation on an individual at an organization influence the extent of individual efforts to an organization and the job performance. It can be divided as follows: follow the standard of operating procedures; overcome the problem by oneself; have mutual support and assistance if colleagues encounter problems at work; follow the instructions to complete the work; pay highly attention and increase alertness; with dedicated spirit of responsibility; be attentive and obey the safety and health-related matters (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993); high morale and efficiency /good attendance; complete the work within the time scheduled; co-operate to achieve the organization goals; recognize the performance of colleagues; the quality of work is recognized by the direct supervisor; be willing to undertake additional work; contribute a lot to the work unit (Robbins, 1998). Target of sample and the operational model
11

In view of the high-technology industries have been the leading industry for economic development in Taiwan recently, and the operation for high-technology industries must have a specialized knowledge and technology, abundant high-technology talents as well as accumulation of such cutting-edge technology are important successful factors, therefore, selection of personnel is very import. They must have personality characteristics such as being able to work under a stressful environment, has a sense of satisfaction and full of ambition; so that it can enable the organization full of vitality, competition and determination internally and externally. Moreover, leaders for the high-technology industries are different from traditional manufacturing or service industries. Facing the highly competitive environment, and threatened by global competitors, speed is the most essential no matter in aspects of production, sales and marketing or research and development. Under such high working pressure, termination or turnover rate is high, job-hopping spree is even popular, in addition to the specialization of division of labour, diverse workforce, recruitment and training and development need to be highly emphasized. Thus, how a leader could make use of his/her leadership style to integrate the high technological labour under such industry with special characteristic environment , to enhance employees to commit to the organization, identification, cohesion, consensus and lead them work towards the mission and establish friendship among colleagues, aiming to enable the formation of a closely community between employees and the organization, in order that employees are retained and capacity of the organization is maintained under the high labour mobility rate. However, the previous studies of high-technology industries often neglected the assessment of personality characteristics, employees willingness to commit to the organization and achieve its goals, thus increasing the significant importance of their own task performance. The high technological industries are particularly selected as the target of samples in this study. As the purpose of this study is emphasized to investigate the influence of the employee personality characteristics, leadership styles, organizational culture to organizational commitment for the high-technology industries in Taiwan, the employees in the these industries from the listed companies and the OTC companies of the Ministry of Finance R.O.C., strictly confidential, are selected as the target for the sample and respondents to fill in the questionnaires and enables a consistency of recovery to the population. A total of 512 questionnaires have been distributed and 372 copies are received. After deducting 68 incomplete questionnaires, 304 questionnaires are valid and the effective return rate is 59.4% which supports the framework for the operational model. It is shown in Figure 2:
1 2 3 4 5 6
Locus of Control X1 AB Style X2 Innovative Culture X3 Supportive Culture X4 Transformatio nal Leadership X5 Transactional Leadership X6

X11

Employee Personality Characteristics

1 11
Work Outcomes Y3

X21

Organizational Commitment 1

X31 Organizational

X41
X51

Culture 2

12 2 13

21

Task Performance

2 y21

y32 y42

y11 3
Normative Commitment Y1

Work Behavior Y4

X61

Leadership Style 3

Exchange Commitment Y2

Figure 2 Structure Equation Model of Research

12

DATA ANALYSIS AND EMPIRICAL RESULTS Validity and reliability analysis Validity can accurately measure the extent of what researchers measure (Chen, 2000), while reliability is the consistency of measuring results by the same measuring tools and target of research in various environments. The design of the questionnaire in this study is reviewed by the relevant literature and the actual situation of high-technology industries. To ensure the integrity and representativeness of the contents of questionnaire, experts and practitioners are repeatedly requested to make amendments, thus, it should meet the standard of validity. At the same time, in order to verify the questionnaires construct validity, not only the individual items and the correlation coefficient of the total score are used (Kerlinger, 1986); and eliminate the items of insignificant relationship between the operational definitions such as action (0.310), reveal easily (0.245), independent operations (0.383), standards setting (0.270), etc.; but also factor analysis, according to Kaiser criteria, by retaining the factors with characteristic value which is larger than 1; and then tested by extracting the common factor coefficient (extension of validity). Then, Cronbach's coefficient is used to test the reliability of this study. If the reliability coefficient is above 0.80, it reaches the high reliability standards. If it is larger then 0.70, it is regarded as the acceptable reliability (Wortzel, 1979). From Table 1, the Cronbach's coefficients of this study are between 0.711 ~ 0.896 and show the internal consistency of all variables. Table 1 Reliability Analysis
Latent Variable Manifest Variables Cronbachs Internal / external Employee Personality locus of control X1 Characteristics AB Style X2 1 Innovative culture Organizational X3 Culture Supportive culture 2 X4 Transformational Leadership leadership X5 Style Transactional 3 leadership X6 0.728 0.788 0.840 0.778 0.845 0.711 Manifest Variables Normative Organizational Commitment Y1 Commitment Exchange 1 Commitment Y2 Work Outcomes Task Y3 Performance Work Behaviour 2 Y4 Latent Variable Cronbachs 0.856 0.849 0.896 0.867

Basic information of the respondents In the 304 valid questionnaires, the proportion of the basic information among the respondents can be accounted for: gender: male (56.2%) and female (43.8%); Level of education: university (42.1%) and research institute or above (38.5%) share the majority; years of service: 1-3 years (28.9%) is the majority and is followed by 5-10 years (21.4%) and 10 years (18.4%); years of establishment of the parent company in the country: the majority is more than 20 years (about 46.1%); the majority of respondents who belong to telecommunication (28.6%) and information industries (27.3%); the amount of capital is more than 50 hundred million (43.1%); the amount of sales is more than 100 hundred million (41.1%); the number of employees in the parent company in the country is more than 1,001 people is majority (about 29.3%), the next is between 100 and 250 people (about 28.9%). The high-technology industries have a huge amount of capital, according to the capital amount from the parent companies, and the time establishment is up to 20 years and employees of 1,001 people are the majority.

13

To confirm whether the variables of this study are in line with the normal assumption, structural equation model is used for analysis. It is in line with the normal tests, skewness, in which the absolute value of S coefficient is less than 3; and the kurtosis, in which the absolute value of K coefficient is less than 10 (Kline, 1998). The results of the absolute values of S coefficient of all latent variables are between -0.351 ~ 0.602; the absolute values of K coefficient are between -0.008 ~ 2.199. All meet the normal requirements. The details of results are shown on Table 3. Next, to assess the means of all measuring variables in the samples, for personality characteristics, the mean of Type A/B is the highest (3.6441, standard deviation: 0.5342), showing that the personality characteristics of high technological labour tend to prefer competition, recognition, working hard, work in an efficient way of full of ambition and energy (Friedman & Rosenman, 1974; Chesny & Rosenman, 1980); Moreover, the latent variable of the organizational culture shows innovative culture (3.4485, standard deviation: 0.7752) is higher than supportive culture (3.4485, standard deviation: 0.6991), showing that the high-technology organizations value the employees creativities and challenges more than providing them a warm family feeling environment. Furthermore, for the leadership styles, transformational leadership (3.4024, standard deviation: 0.7466) is higher than transactional leadership (3.2146, standard deviation: 0.6514); for organizational commitment, effort commitment is the highest (3.6102, standard deviation: 0.7026); for job performance, work outcome is higher than work behaviour. Table 2 Results of Overall Model Fitness
Coefficient Coefficient Min of Skewed of Kurtosis Locus of Control X1 0.570 0.304 1.50 AB Style X2 0.111 0.197 2.00 Innovative culture X3 -0.351 -0.008 1.00 Supportive culture X4 0.445 1.207 1.00 Transformational leadership X5 0.602 0.752 1.00 Transactional leadership X6 0.388 0.828 1.00 Normative Commitment Y1 0.450 0.991 1.00 Exchange Commitment Y2 0.548 0.567 1.00 Work Outcomes Y3 0.574 2.199 1.22 Work Behaviour Y4 0.377 1.817 1.00 Manifest Variables Max 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Mean 3.5822 3.6441 3.5197 3.4485 3.4024 3.2146 3.4353 3.6102 3.7387 3.5954 Std. 0.6573 0.5342 0.7752 0.6991 0.7466 0.6514 0.6799 0.7026 0.5036 0.5577 Var. 0.432 0.286 0.601 0.489 0.557 0.424 0.462 0.494 0.254 0.311

Testing of overall model fitness For the LISREL analyses, the samples of the overall model fit achieve the results with details in Table 4: (1) the overall rate of the sample 2 is 1.915 which is correspond to the standard of less than 3. The goodness of fit index GFI is very close to 1 and is in line with the test standard of more than 0.9. (3) The adjusted goodness of fit index AGFI is larger than 0.8, representing model fit is good. (4) The root mean square residual RMR, which reflects the fitted residuals variance /mean covariance, is 0.011 which is less than 0.05. (5) The incremental fit index IFI is larger than 0.9, indicating the model fitness is excellent (Bentler & Bonett, 1980). Table 3 Fit Indices for Measurement Model for the Research Model Fitting Index 2 Ratio<3 RMSEA<0.08 GFI>0.9 AGFI >0.8 RMR <0.05 and Standard Fitting Index 1.915<3 0.055<0.08 0.97>0.9 0.92>0.8 0.011<0.05

IFI >0.9 0.99>0.9

14

Testing of the intrinsic quality of a model In this study, the samples are all in line with the LISREL model of the internal quality control. The results of the square multiple correlation (SMC) of the individual manifest variables are equivalent to R2 value of manifest variables and latent variables, larger than 0.5 (See details in Table 5), and the component reliability of the latent variables is also larger than 0.6, representing the Cronbach's coefficient of each latent variable has a very high reliability . Table 4 Fitness of Internal Structure of Model
Item SMC Lambda Loading CR AVE Employee Personality Organizational Characteristics(1) Culture(2) X1 X2 X3 X4 0.43 0.68 0.621 0.7275 0.94 0.97 0.59 0.77 0.78 0.88 Leadership Style(3) X5 X6 0.89 0.94 0.98 0.99 Organizational Task Commitment(1) Performance(2) Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 0.62 0.79 0.771 0.8135 0.52 0.75 0.78 0.89 0.885 0.8985 0.81 0.90

0.804 0.8370

0.660 0.7245

As the measurement of construct validity by LISREL model covers whether different manifest variables can effectively measure the convergent validity of the same latent variable, and also focuses on one latent variable and design manifest variables if they are different from discriminant validity of other latent variables. Convergent validity is usually observed from the average variance extracted of the latent variables. The higher the average variance extracted, the higher the reliability and convergent validity the latent variables have. Fornell & Larcker (1981) have suggested that the standard value is larger than 0.5 representing each manifest variable have explanatory power of the average variation of the latent variables. In this study, the average variance extracted of the samples is between 0.7245 and 0.8985 (See details in Table 5), representing each manifest variable can test a considerable extent of the latent variables (Sharma, 1996). Next is the discriminant validity (See details in Table 6). Espinoza (1999) finds that an average variance extracted of latent variables must larger than any one of the non-diagonal pair potential variables, the square of the correlation coefficient can be regarded as discriminant validity. Each latent variable in this study has sufficient discriminant validity among the variables. Table 5 Discriminant Validity
Item Employee Personality Characteristic Organizational Culture Leadership Style Organizational Commitment Task Performance Employee Personality Characteristic Organizational Culture Leadership Style Organizational Task Commitment Performance

0.7275 0.409 0.390 0.398 0.511 0.8370 0.625 0.682 0.652

15

0.7245 0.532 0.500 0.8135 0.705 0.8985

Testing of path relationships Testing of employees personality characteristics, organizational culture and leadership styles to organizational commitment respectively High-technology industries select employees with personality characteristics which suit the corporation in terms of values, willingness to work hard and job satisfaction and so on will have a better performance. Then, employees have a high commitment to the organization (11=0.46)(See details in Table 7), hypothesis H1 is verified to be in line with the arguments of Hellriegel & Richards (1998) and Chen & Lin(2001) who emphasize that personality characteristics affect employees identifications to an organization. Furthermore, the core values of members in an organization exist strongly in a corporate culture. It is sufficient to measure employees identifications and support to an organization (21=0.75), hypothesis H2 is verified to be in line with Banner & Gagne (1995), Wiener (1982) who has proposed and discussed that organizational culture and organizational commitment are closely related. In this study, it is found that leadership styles is an important factor affecting the operation of an organization in the past, but employees has a majority of seventh grade in the current job market flaunting self-centred; focus more on interaction between peers, in contrast of the leadership style of making use of rewarding system or personal charisma which are unable to attract the seventh grade, thus, using of transactional or transformational leadership style has no significant impact on organizational commitment (31 = -0.10), hypothesis H3 cannot be verified. Testing of organizational commitment to the task performance The high-technology industries are one of the competitive industries. If the company wants to have a good competitive advantage, the fundamental element is that employees are involved at work and have a positive participation. A company needs to enable its members to have organizational commitment, i.e. a sense of identity and be willing to reach the organizational goals. The higher the organizational commitment employees have, the higher the identification and loyalty they have. Employees will then expect individual performance be recognized by the organization and be proud of being a member of it. So that they will enthusiastically collect and learn the required skills at workplace, be willing to work together with colleagues to accomplish the organizational goals; to perform the best at work and recognized and awarded by supervisors (21=0.75) (See details in Table 8). Hypothesis H4 is verified. It is in line with Steers (1977), Mayer & Schoorman (1998), Campbell (1990), Robbins (2001) who has proposed and discussed that employees will converse the organizational commitment to the hard work and expectations to create good job performance for the organization. Testing of employees personality characteristics, organizational culture and leadership styles to the task performance When the high-technology companies have found the employees whose personality characteristics are appropriate to the organization, they can develop their own capability and enhance their task performance in the workplace. (See details in Table 7). Moreover, a common way of thinking and ground rules for the organizational culture will guide the employees to complete the work properly and efficiently (See details in Table 7). Hypotheses H5, H7 and H9 are verified. Testing of employee personality characteristics, organizational culture and leadership styles to task performance through organizational commitment
16

Personality characteristics, organizational culture, with the impact of organizational commitment as an intervening variable, show the significantly indirect influence to task performance except leadership styles. This can be explained that, in the hightechnology companies, enhancing the task performance directly does not only depend on different personality characteristics of employees, but also depends on trust of the companies, acceptance of organizational goals and values, and the organizational commitment to willingly work towards the organizational goals and values. The hypothesis H6 is verified. Moreover, the high-technology companies can develop an organizational culture with common values and beliefs. This enhances directly task performance. If employees identify themselves with the organization and its goals that integrated into the organizational commitment, it helps also to enhance employees task performance. The hypothesis H8 is verified. Table 6 Path Coefficient of Direct and Indirect Effect
H1 (11) H2 (21) Employee Latent Organizational personality Variable culture characteristics Dependent Organizational Organizational Variable commitment commitment Direct 0.46** 0.75*** Effect t = 4.15 t = 7.72 Hypothesis H5 (21) H7 (22) Employee Organizational Latent personality culture Variable characteristics Dependent Task Task Variable performance performance Direct 0.38** 0.43** Effect t = 3.93 t = 3.72 Hypothesis H6 H8 Employee Latent Organizational personality Variable culture characteristics Dependent Task Task Variable performance performance Indirect 0.34** 0.56*** Effect t = 4.15 t = 7.74 Annotation* P<0.1, ** P<0.05, *** P<0.01 Hypothesis H3 (31) Leadership style Organizational commitment -0.10 t = -1.61 H9 (23) Leadership style Task performance -0.03 t = -0.73 H10 Leadership style Task performance -0.07 t = -1.61 H4 (21) Organizational commitment Task performance 0.75*** t = 14.26

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Research Conclusions and recommendations To meet the advanced and ever-changing science and technology development and create source of wealth for the shareholders of the high-technology industries, apart from mastering the core technological skills, selection of motivated, ambitious employees is import for an organization to strengthen its competitiveness. Moreover, an organization must create an organizational culture which is based on trust, prompting employees to work for the organization selflessly. In addition to an appropriate type of leadership, it can help to establish a mutual trust, cooperation, consensus among colleagues, to build a feeling of honour of becoming a member of the organization, and willing to pay efforts for creating a sustainable competitive advantage for the organization.

17

Employees are one of the important resources for a high-technology corporation. Selection of employees with appropriate personality characteristics does not only help employees to enhance organizational commitment, sense of belonging and loyalty and responsibility to the organization, which are in respond to Luthans, Baack & Taylor (1987), Pierce & Dunham ( 1987) who have proposed and discussed that personality characteristics are significantly related to organizational commitment; but also create the organizational commitment of the beliefs and acceptance of the organization's goals and values, willing to be highly involved in the organization and maintain a membership in the organization, and thus employees task performance will be enhanced. Moreover, organizational culture is the rules of behaviour for employees internally and provides the guidelines for employees to adapt to the environment externally. It will enable employees to enhance a sense of responsibility and organizational commitment (Chien, 2004); and to contribute to employees loyalty, identification and involvement; and also enhance their task performance. The high-technology industries compete vigorously with similar others and have shorter product life cycle than other industries. They need to rely on new technologies, continuous innovation and research and development in order to get a foothold in the market. Thus, it is recommended the high-technology industries should select employees with personality characteristics of high resistance to stress and creativity. They can, at any time, provide new and constructive ideas; and overcome the external obstacles combining with know-how positively and proactively (Brissett & Nowick, 1976). They can find out the solutions promptly and enable a competitive advantage for the company in the market place even though the bottleneck of development is encountered. Organizational culture is the important factor for uniting employees by the centripetal force; it is recommended that the high-technology industries should not only develop a culture of learning and encouragement in order to enhance continuously the learning abilities of organizational members; but also should build a culture and values beliefs of knowledge sharing. On the one hand, to strengthen the infrastructure of digital technology; and to make use of the media of the standardized processing system, databases, electronic documents / e-mail, Internet, video / communication conferences, online learning, etc. to accelerate the diversification of circulation of knowledges; on the other hand, it should be the management who actively provides an interactive organizational learning environment for sharing of organizational culture and common guidelines; to make good use of formal and informal channels allowing employees to communicate interactively, to build the mutual trust and cohesion, consensus inspiring the mutual trust and mutual benefits for employees that can improve the circulation and sharing of knowledges and enhance task performance. REFERENCES Allen, N. J. & Meyer, J. P. 1991. A Three-Component Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 6198. Allport, G. W. 1961. Pattern and Growth in Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Angle, H. L. & Perry, J. M. 1981. An Empirican Assessment Organizational Commitment and Organizational Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 1-14.
18

Banner, D. K. & Gagne, T. E. 1995. Designing Effective Organizations: Traditional & Transformational View, California: Sage Publications. Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press. Bentler, P. M. & Bonett, D. G. 1980. Significance Tests and Goodness Of Fit On The Analysis of Covariance Structures. Psychological Bulletin, 588-606. Borman, W. C. & Motowidlo, S. J. 1993. Expanding the Criterion Domain to Include Elements of Contextual Performance. N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, & Associates, Personnel Selection in Organization, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 71-98. Brissett, M. & Nowicki, S. 1976. Internal vs. External of Reinforcement and Reaction to Frustraction. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 25, 35-39. Brouther, K. D. 2002. Institutional, Cultural and Transaction Cost Influences on Entry Mode Choice and Performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(2), 203-221. Browning, V. 2006. The relationship between HRM practices and service behaviour in South African service organizations. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(7), 1321-1338. Browning, E. K. 1997. A neglected welfare cost of monopoly and most other product market distortions. Journal of Public Economics, 66, 127-144. Buchanan, B. 1974. Building Organization Commitment: The Socialization of Managers in Work Organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533546. Burns, J. M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Byars, L. L. & Rue, L. W. 2001. Human resource management (4th ed.). Burr Ridge: IRWIN. Campbell, J. P. 1990. Modeling the Performance Prediction Problem in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, 1, pp.687-732. Caplan, R. D. & Jones, K. W. 1975. Effects of load, role ambiguity and type a personality on anxiety, depression and heart rete. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(6), 713-719. Chesny, M. A. & Rosenman, R. H. 1980. Type A behavior in the working setting. In C. L., Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Current concerns in occupational stress. London: John Wiley & Sons, 168-172. Chien, M. H. 2004. An investigation of the relationship of organizational structure, employee's personality and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of American Academy of Business, 5, 428-431. Cohen, D. A. J. 2005. Human resource education: a career-long commitment, in Losey, M. Meisinger, S. Ulrich, D. The Future of Human Resource Management, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Englewood Cliffs, 63-70. David, V. D. 1989. Personality and Job Performance: Evidence of Incremental Validity. Personnel Psychology, 42 , 25-36. Dension, D. R. 1990. Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Dessler, G. 2001. Human Behavior Improving Performance at Work. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs. Dobson, J. 1990. The Role of ethics in Global Corporate Culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(6), 481-488.

19

Donna, M. S. 1996. Increasing employee productivity, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Hospital and Health Services Administration, 41(1), 160-172. Dubrin, A. J. 2004. Leadership Research Findings, Practice, and Skills(4thEd.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Duquette, D. J. & Stowe, A. M. 1993. A performance measurement model for the office of inspector general. Government Accountants, 42(2), 27-50. Dyer, G. W. 1985. The Cycle of Culture Evolution in Organization. In Ralph Kilmann et. al., Gaining Control of Corporate Culture, San Francison: Jossey-Bass. Elizabeth, W. M. 1990. Organizational citizenship behavior as a critical link between HRM practices and service quality. Human Resource Management, 35( 4), 493-512. Espinoza, M. M. 1999. Assessing the Cross-Cultural Applicability of a Service Quality Measure: A Comparative Study Between Quebec and Peru. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 10(5), 449-468. Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement errors. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(2), 3950. Friedman, M. & Roseman, R. H. 1974. Type A Behavior and Your Hear, New York: Knopt. Furnham, A. & Miller, T. 1997. Personality, absenteeism and productivity. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 705-707. Gardner, M. P. 1985. Creating a Corporate Culture for the Eightier. Business Horizons, 28, 59-63. Gordon, G. G. & Ditomaso, N. 1992. Predicting corporate performance from organizational culture. Journal of Management Studies, 29(6), 783-798 Gustafson, B. M. 2001. Setting the Highest Ethical Leadership Standards Ensures a Higher Standard of Results. Healthcare Financial Management, 55(1), 76-77. Hair, J. F. Jr. Anderson, R.E. Tatham, R. L. & Black, W.C. 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis, Fifth-Edition, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Hodge, B. J. Anthon, W. P. y & Gales L. M. 1996. Organization Theory: A Strategic Approach, fifth end., New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Jenkins, C. D. 1976. Recent evidence supporting psychological and social risk factors for coronary disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 294, 987-994, 10331038 Joreskog, K. G. & Sorbom, D. 1993. New Features in LISREL 8. Chicago: Scientific Software International, Inc. Kerlinger, F. N. 1986. Foundation of behavioral research.,(3rd ed.), New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Comprehensive coverage of the scientific concepts and logical reasoning. Kline, R. B. 1998. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford Press. Konovsky, M. A. & Pugh, S. D. 1994. Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 656-670. Luthans, F. Baack, D. & Taylor, L. 1987. Organizational commitment: Analysis of Antecedents, Human Relations, 40, 219-235. Mayer, R. C. Schoorman, F. D. 1998. Differentiating Antecedents of Organizational Commitment: A Test of March and Simons Model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15-28.

20

Osland, J. S. Kolb, D. A. & Rubin, I. M. 2004. Organizational Behavior: An Experiential Approach,7Ed, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.. Pervin, L. A. & John, O. P.1997. Personality: Theory and research (7thed). New York: John Wiley. Pierce, J. L. & Dunham, R. B. 1987. Organizational Commitment: Pre-employment Propensity and Initial Work Experiences. Journal of Management, 13, 163178. Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M. Mowday, R. T. & Boulian, P.V. 1974. Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction and Turnover among Psychiatric Technicians. Jornal of Applied Psychology, 59(5), 603-609. Reimann, B. C. & Wiener, Y. 1988. Corporate Culture Avoiding the Elitist Trap. Business Horizons, 31(2), 36-44. Robbins, S. P. 1998. Organizational Behavior, 8th ed., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall International. Robbins, S. P. 2001. Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies, and Applications, 8th ed., New York: Prentice Hall Inc. Rotter, J. 1954. Social Learning and Clinical Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Rotter, J.B. 1966. Generalized Expectancies for Internal versus External Control of Reinforcement. Psychological Monograph, 18, 1-27. Schermerhorm. J. R. 1999. Management for Productivity, 3rd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Schermerhorn J. R. 1989. Experiences in Management and Organizational Behavior. The Academy of Management Review, 1, 138-142. Sharma, S. 1996. Applied multivariate technique. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Spector, P. E. & OConnell, B. J. 1994. The contribution of personality traits, negative affective, locus of control and type A to the subsequent reports of job stressors and job strains. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 1-11. Sprenger, R. K. & Linker, G. 2004. Trust: The Best Way to Manage, Cyan Communications. Stevens, J. M. Beyer, J. M & Trice, H. M. 1978. Assessing Personal, Role and Organizational Predictors of Managerial Commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 382. Wallach, E. J. 1983. Individuals and Organizations: The Culture match. Training and Development Journal, 29-36. Wiener, Y. 1982. Commitment in Organization: A Normative View. Academy of Management Review, 25(7), 421-429. Wiggins, J. S. 1996. The Five-Factor Model of Personality: Theoretical Perspectives. New York: Guilford Press. Wortzel, R. 1979. New Life Style Determinants of Women's Food Shopping Behavior. Journal of Marketing, 43, 28-29. Yammarino, F. J. & Bass, B. M. 1990. Long-Term Forecasting of Transformational Leadership and Its Effectives Among Naval Officers: Some Preliminary Findings. In Measures of Leadership, ed. K. E. Clark and M. B. Clark. Greensboro, N.C.: Center for Creative Leadership, 151-69.

21