Shih_Yung Chou_41

5/11/2018 Shih_Yung Chou_41 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/shihyung-chou41 1/13

Big Five Personality: Moderation Effect on People

Management and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Shih-Yung Chou

Department of ManagementSouthern Illinois University Carbondale

[email protected]



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 employee’s level, most of them have only addressedemployee 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 employee’s actual behavior. More specifically, the question of what is

the possible employee’s actual behavior when they are satisfied or motivated by qualityimprovement 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 personalitytraits, Big Five personality traits, to discuss how personality traits moderate the associationbetween 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 inbusiness. 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 suggestedthat 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 arepositively 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 negativerelationship between decision-making in QM and organizational performance in the highly

unstable forest product industry. One of the most comprehensive explanations that explainnegative 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, andcustomer 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, researchhas 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 employee’s 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 increasestheir 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 organization’s 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

employee’s reactions or perceptions toward the implementation of QM practices have beendeveloped as well. Unfortunately, the impacts of reactions or perceptions toward one of the most

important QM practices that is management of people on employee’s actual behavior still remainunclear. 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 employee’s discretionary behavior that goes aboveand 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 belargely 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 theliterature, 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 iswould Big Five personality traits facilitate or impede organizational citizenship behavior under

the implementation of people management practices? Based upon the research questions, thepresent study examines the main effect between people management and organizational

citizenship behavior as well as seeks to establish the moderating roles that Big Five personalitytraits 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 andorganizational 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 peoplemanagement promotes positive employee behavior that is organizational citizenship behavior. Inaddition, 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 onorganizational 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 peoplemanagement 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 thoseconcepts 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 Miree’s (2004)

definition of QM seems to be comprehensive. They claim that QM is a set of management toolsfocused 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 theimpact 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 suchas 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 andproductivity (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) QMshould 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 humanresources 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 resourcepolicies 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 employee’s actualbehavior 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 theorganization's identity constrain understanding and create opposition to radical change. However,

by aligning human resources practices with QM, organizations are able to minimize theresistance 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 andPorras (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. Inother 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 concernand 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 hastoward the organization. While people management practices involve extensive communication,

employee participation, and teamwork, it is expected those practices would facilitate individual’spro-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 competitivesurvival 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

individual’s desire to help the organization even when they need to do more than their jobdescriptions 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 peoplemanagement, 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. Asmentioned 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 etal (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 managementto organizational citizenship behavior

Previous research has identified that individuals high in agreeableness are easy to get

along with others. More specifically, agreeableness reflects individual’s 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 alsoidentified 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 byutilizing 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 managementand 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 goalcompletion (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 employee’s commitment of quality improvement as anorganizational 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 thatis the opposite behavior of organizational citizenship behavior (Mohammed & Angell, 2003;

Molleman et al., 2004; Neuman et al., 1999). Conscientiousness, therefore, can be considered afacilitator 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 other’s ideas, and to look for alternative ways

to solve problems they encounter (LePine, 2003). While people management practices arecontinuous processes and improvement, employees may encounter new problems or issuesduring 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 person’s emotional stability. The literature hasidentified neurotic individual’s characteristics. Molleman et al (2004) and Van Vianen and De

Dreu (2001) found that individuals low in neuroticism are self-confident and secure about chosengoals 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 organizationdisrupts 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 useof self-report on measuring organizational citizenship behavior. For example, a respondent may

respond his or her willingness of helping fellow worker’s job on the survey without actual

presenting organizational citizenship behavior. Thus, self-report bias may exaggerate thefindings of the present study.

QM has been adopted widely by most organizations. Previous research has suggested thatsuccessful 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 employee’s actual behavior duringthe implementation of people management practices. The present study, therefore, contributes to

the literature by going beyond the employee’s perception and reaction toward QMimplementation and identifying employee’s 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 analyticmodel 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 jobperformance: 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 qualitymanagement: 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


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 DataAnalysis. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Ho, D. C. K., Duffy, V. G., & Shih, H. M. (2001). Total quality management: An empirical testfor 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). Criterion-related 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 theireffects 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 takethe 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: 3227 – 3246.

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 work-team personality composition and the job performance of teams. Group & Organization


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, customersatisfaction 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, qualityperformance, 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 atheory 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 thepurchasing function: An empirical study. International Journal of Operations & Production


Samson, D. & Terziovski, M. (1999). The relationship between total quality managementpractices 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 forparticipating 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., & O’Reilly, C. (1992). Being different: relational demographic andorganizational 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: 291-

311.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.

Documents

Shih_Yung Chou_41