Printer Friendly

THE ROLE OF CONFUCIANISM IN THE FORMATION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACTS: EVIDENCE FROM CHINA.

Confucianism is a culturally specific factor in East Asian countries where people have been strongly influenced by Confucianism for thousands of years (Qian, 1976). In addition, the core values of Confucianism are considered the foundation of human resource management in business organizations in East Asia (Hofstede & Bond, 1988; Romar, 2002). Previous researchers have demonstrated that employees who value Confucian virtues are likely to perceive a stable, long-term relationship with their employer (Kickul, Lester, & Belgio, 2004).

In our examination of how individuals form psychological contracts, we posited that as psychological contracts are highly personal and idiosyncratic (Rousseau, 1989), dispositional factors such as personality would play a crucial role in psychological contract formation (Adams, Quagrainie, & Klobodu, 2014; De Vos, Buyens, & Schalk, 2003; Raja, Johns, & Ntalianis, 2004). Further, Sparrow (1998) stated that individuals' behavior is also influenced by the culture in which they are embedded, and contended that national values influence how employees process information about the content of their psychological contracts. This suggests that individuals' psychological contracts will be formed depending on how they are influenced by cultural factors. Thus, we explored whether or not there is an Asian-specific process in the formation of psychological contracts.

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

Psychological Contract Formation

Rousseau (1995) defined psychological contracts as "individual beliefs, shaped by the organization, regarding terms of an exchange agreement between individuals and their organization" (p. 9). There are two types of psychological contracts: transactional and relational (MacNeil, 1985). Transactional psychological contracts are short-term, and purely materialistic, with a focus on economic exchange. Thus, these contracts entail limited involvement between employers and employees. In contrast, relational psychological contracts are long-term and not strongly restricted to economic exchange. They are an information exchange between employers and employees, geared toward individual growth, such as career development in the company (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993).

As psychological contracts are based on the relationship between employers and employees (Robinson, Kraatz, & Rousseau, 1994; Shore & Tetrick, 1994), researchers have understood that organizational characteristics constitute psychological contracts (Conway & Briner, 2009; McDermott, Conway, Rousseau, & Flood, 2013; Metz, Kulik, Cregan, & Brown, 2017). In identifying how psychological contracts can be managed effectively in a company, researchers have paid increasing attention to how the contract is actually formed. Rousseau (1995) claimed that individuals interpret their work environment (or psychological contract) depending on how their personality is congruent with the contract-related circumstances. Individual characteristics have been identified as dispositional traits, such as age, gender, and personality (Adams et al., 2014; Raja et al., 2004), and cognitive factors (Sherman & Morley, 2015).

The Big Five Personality Factors as Antecedents of Psychological Contract Formation

As personality is critical in governing individual behavior in organizations (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002), individuals' personalities will lead to different perceptions of psychological contracts. According to Raja et al. (2004), of the Big Five personality factors, neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness, in particular, can affect the formation of psychological contracts. Therefore, we considered these three personality factors as antecedents of the formation of psychological contracts.

Neuroticism and psychological contract. Neuroticism involves emotional instability, and individuals with neuroticism exhibit worry, fear, guilt, sadness, anger, embarrassment, and disgust (Barlow, Sauer-Zavala, Carl, Bullis, & Ellard, 2014; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Schoen & Schumann, 2007). In contrast, individuals low in neuroticism tend to exhibit calmness and, thus, can handle stressful situations without getting upset (Ayub, AlQurashi, Al-Yafi, & Jehn, 2017; Goldberg, 1990). This suggests that neuroticism is characterized by a lack of trust and tolerance (Freitag & Bauer, 2016). As such, it is difficult for individuals high in neuroticism to form a stable, long-term employment relationship with their employer. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1: In China, individuals who are high in neuroticism will be reluctant to form relational psychological contracts.

Extraversion and psychological contract. Individuals with an extrovert personality exhibit strong sociability, good conversational ability, vitality, enthusiasm, perseverance, determination, and optimism (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Thus, extroverts tend to progress in their career and are likely to be committed to their work and to be willing to work with others. To take opportunities for career growth and to pursue long-term goals, these individuals tend to concentrate on their relationship with their employer (Tallman & Bruning, 2008). This suggests that individuals high in extraversion are likely to form long-term psychological contracts (Raja et al., 2004). Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 2: In China, individuals who are high in extraversion will be willing to form relational psychological contracts.

Conscientiousness and psychological contract. Conscientiousness indicates being dependable, careful, responsible, organized, hardworking, persevering, and achievement-oriented (Barrick & Mount, 1991). In the workplace, individuals who are high in conscientiousness are methodical, dependable, and averse to risk (Goldberg, 1990), as well as being satisfied with their job (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge et al., 2002). Conscientious employees are more concerned with task accomplishment than with economic rewards (Stewart, 1996). This suggests that conscientious people tend to form long-term emotional employment relationships (Raja et al., 2004). Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 3: In China, individuals who are high in conscientiousness will be willing to form relational psychological contracts.

Moderating Role of Confucianism in the Relationship between Personality and Psychological Contract Formation

Confucianism is a set of principles represented by virtues: ren (humanity-benevolence), yi (righteousness), li (propriety), zhi (wisdom), and xin (trustworthiness). These principles shape individuals' behavioral patterns, and act as a guide for those living in a Chinese culture (Hofstede & Bond, 1988; Hwang, 2015). As such, Confucian values exert a significant influence on the work-related behavior and attitudes of Chinese managers through work groups (Lee, Tinsley, & Chen, 2000; Ralston, Egri, Stewart, Terpstra, & Yu, 1999).

As Confucianism is characterized by humanism, there is an emphasis on harmonious relations, interpersonal trust, and avoidance of conflict (Redding, 1990). That is, Confucianism is based on the principle that human beings are fundamentally relation-oriented (Hwang, 2015). Thus, a culture based on Confucianism facilitates individuals' tendency to pursue social interaction, long-term goals, and a collectivistic orientation (Hofstede & Bond, 1988; King & Bond, 1985).

Extraversion and conscientiousness personality factors are related to the pursuit of long-term goals (Raja et al., 2004). This indicates that for individuals aligned to Confucianism, being either extraverted or conscientious could reinforce their tendency to pursue long-term relationships with their employer (Greenhalgh, 1994; Kickul et al., 2004; Whitley, 1991; Wong, 1993). Therefore, we proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4: Confucianism will positively moderate the relationship between individuals prone to long-term orientation and relational psychological contracts.

Hypothesis 4a: Confucianism will alleviate the negative relationship between neuroticism and relational psychological contracts.

Hypothesis 4b: Confucianism will reinforce the positive relationship between extraversion and relational psychological contracts.

Hypothesis 4c: Confucianism will reinforce the positive relationship between conscientiousness and relational psychological contracts.

Method

Participants

In early 2017 we randomly selected the participants who were employees in16 areas of China. We asked for their consent to do the survey. Of the 378 people to whom we then sent the survey form, 217 valid responses were collected (response rate 58%). Most participants were from Shandong (68.2%) and Beijing (15.2%), with the remainder from Jiangsu, Guangdong, and Jilin. Participants comprised 44.2% men and 55.8% women. Their average age was 28.4 years (SD = 6.72). Participants consisted of employees who worked in both private- and public-sector organizations. Their occupations were in the fields of service (18.4%), retail (7.8%), finance (8.3%), telecommunications (2.3%), medical institutions (2.8%), manufacturing (13.4%), real estate (2.3%), education (12.9%), government (5.5%), and others (26.3%).

Measures

Dependent variables. Psychological contracts were measured with 20 items compatible with Chinese culture from the 31-item Psychological Contract Scale, developed by Millward and Hopkins (1998). We specified relational psychological contracts. Participants responded to items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging ^om 1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree. Sample items are "I expect to grow in this organization," "I feel part of a team in this organization," and "I have a reasonable chance of promotion if I work hard." Cronbach's [alpha] was .89.

Independent variables. We measured personality with 36 items compatible with Chinese culture from the 60-item NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992), which is a shortened version of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992). We measured the factors of neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness with 12 items each. Participants responded to items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree. Sample items are "I often feel tense and jittery" (neuroticism), "I am a cheerful, high-spirited person" (extraversion), and "I try to perform all the tasks assigned to me conscientiously" (conscientiousness). Cronbach's [alpha] was .88 (neuroticism), .86 (extraversion), and .88 (conscientiousness).

Moderating variable. Confucianism was measured with nine items, adapted from The Chinese Culture Connection (1987), which were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Sample items are "I think it's important to keep a harmonious relationship with others," "I think I am a man who has a strong sense of righteousness," and "I think we should have a heart of benevolence, and should not do unto others what we do not want others to do unto us." Cronbach's [alpha] was .83 in this study.

Control variables. To control for unobserved effects on the formation of psychological contracts, we included the following control variables in our model: gender, age, tenure, turnover experience (number of turnovers), educational level, the organization with which the participant was affiliated, and the position the participant held within the organization.

Data Analysis

To validate the measures, we performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The CFA (1) results for the indices of goodness-of-fit (GFI), comparative fit (CFI), Tucker-Lewis (TLI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) showed that our measurements were valid, [chi square] = 974.689, df = 599, [chi square]/df = 1.63, p < .001, GFI = .81, CFI = .91, IFI =.91, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .05. We also tested for discriminant validity (i.e., average variance extracted > .50) as well as the reliability of our measures (i.e., composite reliability > .70).

Results

Main Effects of Personality on the Formation of Psychological Contracts

The results of the forward selection regression on psychological contracts for neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness, are shown in Table 1. As seen in Model 5 in Table 1, neuroticism had a negative effect, and conscientiousness had a positive effect, on relational psychological contracts. Extraversion had a positive but nonsignificant effect on relational psychological contracts.

Moderating Role of Confucianism in the Relationship between Personality and Psychological Contract Formation

In Table 1, Models 6 through 9 show the moderating effect of Confucianism on the relationship between personality and relational psychological contracts. As seen in Model 6 in Table 1, Confucianism itself has a positive effect on relational psychological contracts, which is consistent with previous results (Dunning & Kim, 2007). Accordingly, we found the interaction terms between Confucianism and personality (i.e., extraversion and conscientiousness) had a positive impact on relational psychological contracts. However, there was no moderating effect of Confucianism for neuroticism. It is shown in Figures 1 and 2 how Confucianism moderated the relationship between personality and relational psychological contracts.

It is shown in the graph in Figure 1 that although there is no significant effect of extraversion on relational psychological contracts under Confucianism, higher extraversion is more positively related to relational psychological contracts than are conscientiousness or neuroticism. This indicates that for individuals high in extraversion, Confucianism can strengthen their tendency to seek long-term goals. Likewise, as seen in Figure 2, the positive relationship between conscientiousness and relational psychological contracts is strengthened by the higher level of Confucianism.

In addition to this, we performed a Harman's single-factor test (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003) to check for common method bias. The results showed that one major factor accounted for 30.96% of the covariance, implying that common method bias was not an issue (Podsakoff et al., 2003). We also checked to ensure that our findings were not sensitive to individuals' propensity to score high on multiple personal traits. To control for such within-subject responses, we created a dummy variable to indicate if a participant showed low neuroticism, high extraversion, and high conscientiousness. We added this dummy variable to our main models and found consistent results.

Discussion

In this study, we explored how psychological contracts are formed in an Asian context. We found that Chinese employees who are extraverted or conscientious are likely to form relational psychological contracts if they value the virtues of Confucianism.

Our findings can be further understood by an investigation into the formation of transactional psychological contracts. As they are short-term and purely economic (Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993), we can deduce that the impact of the neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness personality traits on relational psychological contracts will have the opposite effect on transactional psychological contracts. That is, neuroticism will be positively related, and extraversion and conscientiousness will be negatively related, to the formation of transactional psychological contracts.

In regard to the moderating role of Confucianism in the relationship between personality and psychological contracts, we tested the formation of transactional psychological contracts, which we contrasted with the formation of relational psychological contracts. As Confucianism encompasses relational aspects and emphasizes long-term interests (Dunning & Kim, 2007; Tu, 1998a, b), employees who are aligned to Confucianism tend to manage their personal expectations either to pursue what will benefit their companies or to avoid internal conflict in the company (Kirkbride & Tang, 1992). Transactional psychological contracts can make employees feel dissatisfied with their employer and sensitive to what their company lacks in meeting their expectations (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Therefore, employees who accept the Confucian virtues are demotivated to form transactional psychological contracts: Our regression results showed that transactional, short-term relationships between these employees and their employer are more likely to be formed by employees with neuroticism and less likely by those with extraversion or conscientiousness.

Our findings imply that psychological contracts can be influenced by cultural factors. That is, by specifying cultural factors, we can elaborate on the idiosyncratic aspects of psychological contracts. In this study, we demonstrated an Asian-specific formation of psychological contracts, which is a critical contribution to the literature. Also, there are practical implications in this empirical study, namely that, given that personality is dispositional, Confucianism can be considered as a tool for individualizing the employment relationship. Managers who seek to perform according to Confucian principles will perform better, because they can manage internal conflict more effectively (Hwang, 2015). Hence, if managers consider the effect of working in a Confucian-based work environment on their subordinates, they will realize that it is advantageous to form effective relational psychological contracts to maintain a harmonious and effective employment relationship. This will help employees increase their job satisfaction, improve their job performance, and have a sense of belonging in their company. As such, the company will potentially benefit.

Although there are valuable implications for Chinese businesses in this study, there are also limitations. First, we considered only Confucianism as a cultural factor in the Asian context. Other cultural factors that can be considered are guanxi and collectivism. Second, relational psychological contracts are characterized by mutual engagement, on which we can elaborate in the future. Future researchers can consider how psychological contracts are influenced by supervisory support or by other organizational interventions related to the contract. Third, the sample size in our study was relatively small in the context of the population of China. Although we did not find sample selection bias, future researchers can supplement our findings by specifying different geographical and ethnic characteristics of Chinese people. Also, future researchers of Asian-specific psychological contracts can explore various Asian-specific contexts, such as different types of social networks, and a comparison of the history of Asian countries, for example, Korea and Japan.

References

Adams, S., Quagrainie, F. A., & Klobodu, E. K. M. (2014). Psychological contract formation: The influence of demographic factors. International Area Studies Review, 17, 279-294. https://doi.org/cf8g

Ayub, N., AlQurashi, S. M., Al-Yafi, W. A., & Jehn, K. (2017). Personality traits and conflict management styles in predicting job performance and conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 28, 671-694. https://doi.org/cf8j

Barlow, D. H., Sauer-Zavala, S., Carl, J. R., Bullis, J. R., & Ellard, K. K. (2014). The nature, diagnosis, and treatment of neuroticism: Back to the future. Clinical Psychological Science, 2, 344-365. https://doi.org/cf8k

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26. https://doi.org/hjv

Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2009). Fifty years of psychological contract research: What do we know and what are the main challenges? In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 71-130). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and the Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

De Vos, A., Buyens, D., & Schalk, R. (2003). Psychological contract development during organizational socialization: Adaptation to reality and the role of reciprocity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 537-559. https://doi.org/cpzgtr

Dunning, J. H., & Kim, C. (2007). The cultural roots of guanxi: An exploratory study. The World Economy, 30, 329-341. https://doi.org/dxq5cw

Freitag, M., & Bauer, P. C. (2016). Personality traits and the propensity to trust friends and strangers. The Social Science Journal, 53, 467-476. https://doi.org/f9ct2n

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229. https://doi.org/chsjgm

Greenhalgh, S. (1994). De-Orientalizing the Chinese family firm. American Ethnologist, 21, 746-775. https://doi.org/dtcj2g

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16, 5-21. https://doi.org/df96mz

Hwang, K.-K. (2015). Culture-inclusive theories of self and social interaction: The approach of multiple philosophical paradigms. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 45, 40-63. https://doi.org/f66tzz

Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530-541. https://doi.org/dpzz84

Kickul, J., Lester, S. W., & Belgio, E. (2004). Attitudinal and behavioral outcomes of psychological contract breach: A cross cultural comparison of the United States and Hong Kong Chinese. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 4, 229-252. https://doi.org/cgvm4z

King, A. Y. C., & Bond, M. H. (1985). The Confucian paradigm of man: A sociological view. In W.-S. Tseng & D. Y. H. Wu (Eds.), Chinese culture and mental health: An overview (pp. 29-45). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Kirkbride, P. S., & Tang, S. F. Y. (1992). Management development in the Nanyang Chinese societies of South-east Asia. Journal of Management Development, 11, 54-66. https://doi.org/fpj75z

Lee, C., Tinsley, C. H., & Chen, G. Z. X. (2000). Psychological and normative contracts of work group members in the United States and Hong Kong. In D. M. Rousseau & R. Schalk (Eds.), Psychological contracts in employment: Cross-national perspectives (pp. 87-103). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

MacNeil, I. R. (1985). Relational contract: What we do and do not know. Wisconsin Law Review, 483-525.

McDermott, A. M., Conway, E., Rousseau, D. M., & Flood, P. C. (2013). Promoting effective psychological contracts through leadership: The missing link between HR strategy and performance. Human Resource Management, 52, 289-310. https://doi.org/cf8m

Metz, I., Kulik, C. T., Cregan, C., & Brown, M. (2017). The manager as employer agent: The role of manager personality and organizational context in psychological contracts. Personnel Review, 46, 136-153. https://doi.org/cf8n

Millward, L. J., & Hopkins, L. J. (1998). Psychological contracts, organizational and job commitment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1530-1556. https://doi.org/bqmzjr

Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. 1997. When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22, 226-256. https://doi.org/c5b6qt

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. https://doi.org/czw

Qian, M. (1976). The spirit of Chinese history [In Chinese]. Taipei, Taiwan: Don Da Publication. Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalianis, F. (2004). The impact of personality on psychological contracts. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 350-367. https://doi.org/d7cb4h

Ralston, D. A., Egri, C. P., Stewart, S., Terpstra, R. H., & Yu, K. (1999). Doing business in the 21st century with the new generation of Chinese managers: A study of generational shifts in work values in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 30, 415-427. https://doi.org/c83zk8

Redding, S. G. (1990). The spirit of Chinese capitalism. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.

Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Changing obligations and the psychological contract: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 137-152.https://doi.org/bgdbmw

Romar, E. J. (2002). Virtue is good business, Confucianism as a practical business ethic. Journal of Business Ethics, 38, 119-131. https://doi.org/d78vcg

Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121-139. https://doi.org/fqw2vv

Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rousseau, D. M., & McLean Parks, J. (1993). The contracts of individuals and organizations. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 15, pp. 1-47). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Schoen, H., & Schumann, S. (2007). Personality traits, partisan attitudes, and voting behavior: Evidence from Germany. Political Psychology, 28, 471-498. https://doi.org/bcsxz2

Sherman, U. P., & Morley, M. J. (2015). On the formation of the psychological contract: A schema theory perspective. Group & Organization Management, 40, 160-192. https://doi.org/cf8p

Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory framework in the employment relationship. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 91-109). New York, NY: Wiley.

Sparrow, P. (1998). Reappraising psychological contracting: Lessons for the field of human-resource development from cross-cultural and occupational psychology research. International Studies of Management & Organization, 28, 30-63. https://doi.org/cf8q

Stewart, G. L. (1996). Reward structure as a moderator of the relationship between extraversion and sales performance. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 81, 619-627. https://doi.org/c4p95r

Tallman, R. R., & Bruning, N. S. (2008). Relating employees' psychological contracts to their personality. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 688-712. https://doi.org/dkfvsf

The Chinese Culture Connection. (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 143-164. https://doi.org/fdmg4n

Tu, W. (1998a). Confucius and Confucianism. In W. H. Slote & G. A. DeVos (Eds.), Confucianism and the family (pp. 3-36). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Tu, W. (1998b). Joining East and West: A Confucian perspective on human rights. Harvard International Review, 20, 44-49.

Whitley, R. D. (1991). The social construction of business systems in East Asia. Organization Studies, 12, 1-28. https://doi.org/b5rsvb

Wong, S.-I. (1993). The Chinese family firm: A model. Family Business Review, 6, 327-340. https://doi.org/cwqwg4

INSU KWON

Sejong University

JUIL LEE

Yonsei University

RANRAN WANG

Sejong University

SANG-JOON KIM

Ewha Womans University

Insu Kwon, College of Business Administration, Sejong University; Juil Lee, Yonsei Business Research Institute, Yonsei University; Ranran Wang, College of Business Administration, Sejong University; Sang-Joon Kim, Ewha School of Business, Ewha Womans University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sang-Joon Kim, Assistant Professor, Ewha School of Business, Ewha Womans University, 52 Ewhayeodae-gil, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03760, Republic of Korea. Email: s.kim@ewha.ac.kr

(1) Detailed results are available upon request.

https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7070
Table 1. Main Effects of Personality on Psy[PHI]ological Contract
Formation

Variables                Model 1        Model 2         Model 3

Constant                 4.73 (***)     5.85 (***)      3.42 (**)
                        (1.04)         (0.94)          (1.07)
                        [2.68, 6.77]   [4.01,7.70]     [1.30,5.54]
Gender                   -.07           -.06            -.05
                        (0.09)         (0.09)          (0.09)
                       [-0.25,0.12]   [-0.24, 0.12]   [-0.23, 0.12]
Ln (age)                 -.12           -.27            -.09
                        (0.31)         (0.29)          (0.31)
                       [-0.74, 0.50]  [-0.84, 0.29]   [-0.71, 0.52]
Ln (tenure)              -.02           -.03            -.01
                        (0.07)         (0.07)          (0.07)
                       [-0.17,0.12]   [-0.16, 0.10]   [-0.14, 0.12]
Number of                 .03            .06             .04
tumovers
                        (0.05)         (0.05)          (0.05)
                       [-0.06,0.12]   [-0.03, 0.15]   [-0.05, 0.13]
Education                -.12           -.19            -.16
(college)
                        (0.15)         (0.14)          (0.15)
                       [-0.41,0.16]   [-0.48, 0.09]   [-0.45, 0.12]
Education                -.16           -.17            -.06
(Bachelor's
degree)
                        (0.14)         (0.14)          (0.14)
                       [-0.43,0.12]   [-0.44, 0.11]   [-0.33, 0.21]
Education                -.12           -.10             .01
(Master's degree)
                        (0.17)         (0.16)          (0.17)
                       [-0.46, 0.22]  [-0.43, 0.22]   [-0.33, 0.36]
Education                 .15            -.09           -.10
(Doctorate)
                        (0.28)         (0.28)          (0.30)
                       [-0.71,0.41]   [-0.64, 0.46]   [-0.70, 0.50]
Organization type        -.28           -.24            -.20
(State-owned
enterprise)
                        (0.22)         (0.20)          (0.20)
                       [-0.72,0.16]   [-0.64, 0.16]   [-0.60, 0.19]
Organization type        -.04           -.12            -.05
(Private enterprise)
                        (0.15)         (0.14)          (0.14)
                       [-0.34, 0.25]  [-0.40, 0.16]   [-0.32, 0.22]
Organization type         .21            .14             .19
(other)
                        (0.17)         (0.16)          (0.15)
                       [-0.12,0.54]   [-0.17, 0.45]   [-0.11,0.49]
Job position              .03            .00            -.00
(Basic level
manager)
                        (0.13)         (0.13)          (0.11)
                       [-0.22, 0.28]  [-0.25, 0.25]   [-0.22, 0.22]
Job position              .10            .12             .10
(Middle manager)
                        (0.15)         (0.14)          (0.14)
                       [-0.19,0.40]   [-0.15, 0.39]   [-0.17, 0.38]
Job position              .22            .09             .12
(Senior manager)
                        (0.23)         (0.25)          (0.23)
                       [-0.24, 0.69]  [-0.40, 0.58]   [-0.34, 0.58]
Job position             -.00           -.04            -.01
(Executive)
                        (0.19)         (0.18)          (0.18)
                       [-0.38, 0.38]  [-0.39, 0.32]   [-0.36, 0.34]
Neuroticism (a)                       -24 (***).
                                       (0.05)
                                      [-0.34, -0.15]
Extraversion (a)                                       30 (***)
                                                       (0.06)
                                                       [0.19,0.41]
Conscientiousness (a)
Confucianism (a)
Neu X Con
Ext X Con
Consc X Con
Observations           217            217             217
                          .06            .16             .19
                                         .10 (***)       .13 (***)

Variables                Model 4         Model 5          Model 6

Constant                 2.72 (**)       3.21 (**)        1.63
                        (1.04)          (1.07)           (1.18)
                        [0.67, 4.77]    [1.11,5.32]     [-0.69, 3.95]
Gender                   -.07            -.06             -.08
                        (0.08)          (0.08)           (0.08)
                       [-0.23, 0.09]   [-0.22, 0.10]    [-0.23,0.08]
Ln (age)                 -.13            -.19             -.01
                        (0.28)          (0.28)           (0.28)
                       [-0.67, 0.42]   [-0.73, 0.36]    [-0.57, 0.54]
Ln (tenure)              -.07            -.06             -.07
                        (0.06)          (0.06)           (0.06)
                       [-0.19, 0.05]   [-0.18, 0.06]    [-0.18,0.05]
Number of                 .01             .03              .01
tumovers
                        (0.04)          (0.04)           (0.04)
                       [-0.07, 0.08]   [-0.06,0.11]     [-0.07, 0.09]
Education                -.16            -.20             -.16
(college)
                        (0.14)          (0.14)           (0.14)
                       [-0.43,0.11]    [-0.47, 0.07]    [-0.43,0.12]
Education                -.15            -.13             -.10
(Bachelor's
degree)
                        (0.13)          (0.13)           (0.13)
                       [-0.40,0.11]    [-0.38, 0.13]    [-0.35,0.15]
Education                -.14            -.09             -.00
(Master's degree)
                        (0.15)          (0.15)           (0.15)
                       [-0.44, 0.16]   [-0.39, 0.21]    [-0.30, 0.29]
Education                 .02             .03             -.16
(Doctorate)
                        (0.22)          (0.23)           (0.24)
                       [-0.42, 0.46]   [-0.43, 0.49]    [-0.64, 0.32]
Organization type        -.16            -.14             -.08
(State-owned
enterprise)
                        (0.18)          (0.17)           (0.17)
                       [-0.51, 0.19]   [-0.48, 0.19]    [-0.42, 0.26]
Organization type        -.06            -.10              .02
(Private enterprise)
                        (0.12)          (0.11)           (0.11)
                       [-0.30, 0.18]   [-0.32, 0.13]    [-0.20, 0.24]
Organization type         .17             .14              .22
(other)
                        (0.14)          (0.13)           (0.13)
                       [-0.10, 0.45]   [-0.12, 0.41]    [-0.03,0.48]
Job position             -.05            -.06             -.04
(Basic level
manager)
                        (0.11)         (-0.11)           (0.09)
                       [-0.27, 0.17]   [-0.27, 0.15]    [-0.22,0.15]
Job position              .07             .09              .16
(Middle manager)
                        (0.12)          (0.12)           (0.11)
                       [-0.16, 0.30]   [-0.14, 0.31]    [-0.07, 0.38]
Job position             -.04            -.08             -.04
(Senior manager)
                        (0.22)          (0.23)           (0.18)
                       [-0.48, 0.40]   [-0.54, 0.37]    [-0.39,0.31]
Job position              .04             .01              .03
(Executive)
                        (0.15)          (0.15)           (0.13)
                       [-0.26, 0.33]   [-0.28, 0.31]    [-0.23,0.30]
Neuroticism (a)                          -.11 (*)         -.10 (*)
                                        (0.05)           (0.05)
                                       [-0.21, -0.01]   [-0.20, -0.01]
Extraversion (a)                          .09              .05
                                        (0.06)           (0.06)
                                       [-0.03, 0.20]    [-0.06,0.16]
Conscientiousness (a)     .53 (***)       .43 (***)        .24 (**)
                        (0.08)          (0.08)           (0.08)
                        [0.67, 4.77]    [0.28, 0.59]     [0.09, 0.40]
Confucianism (a)                                           .41 (***)
                                                         (0.09)
                                                         [0.23, 0.60]
Neu X Con
Ext X Con
Consc X Con
Observations           217             217              217
                          .30             .34              .42
                          .24 (***)       .28 (***)

Variables               Model 7          Model 8          Model 9

Constant                 3.21 (**)        3.56 (***)       4.54 (***)
                        (1.06)           (1.04)           (0.94)
                       [1.12, 5.29]      [1.52, 5.60]     [2.69, 6.39]
Gender                   -.07             -.07             -.06
                        (0.08)           (0.08)           (0.08)
                       [-0.23,0.08]     [-0.22, 0.08]    [-0.21,0.10]
Ln (age)                  .02              .01             -.06
                        (0.28)           (0.27)           (0.26)
                       [-0.57, 0.53]    [-0.52, 0.54]    [-0.58, 0.45]
Ln (tenure)              -.07             -.07             -.06
                        (0.06)           (0.06)           (0.06)
                       [-0.18,0.05]     [-0.18,0.04]     [-0.18,0.05]
Number of                 .01              .01              .01
tumovers
                        (0.04)           (0.04)           (0.04)
                       [-0.07, 0.09]    [-0.07, 0.09]    [-0.07, 0.08]
Education                -.15             -.15             -.12
(college)
                        (0.14)           (0.13)           (0.13)
                       [-0.43,0.12]     [-0.41,0.12]     [-0.38,0.14]
Education                -.10             -.09             -.06
(Bachelor's
degree)
                        (0.13)           (0.12)           (0.12)
                       [-0.34 0.15]     [-0.33,0.15]     [-0.29,0.17]
Education                -.00              .05              .07
(Master's degree)
                        (0.15)           (0.15)           (0.14)
                       [-0.29, 0.29]    [-0.24, 0.34]    [-0.20, 0.35]
Education                -.16             -.17             -.05
(Doctorate)
                        (0.24)           (0.26)           (0.23)
                       [-0.63,0.32]     [-0.67, 0.34]    [-0.50, 0.40]
Organization type        -.08             -.10             -.11
(State-owned
enterprise)
                        (0.17)           (0.17)           (0.17)
                       [-0.43,0.26]     [-0.45, 0.24]    [-0.44, 0.22]
Organization type         .02              .01              .02
(Private enterprise)
                        (0.11)           (0.11)           (0.11)
                       [-0.20, 0.24]    [-0.20, 0.23]    [-0.19,0.24]
Organization type         .22              .23              .26 (*)
(other)
                        (0.13)           (0.13)           (0.13)
                       [-0.03,0.48]     [-0.02, 0.48]     [0.00, 0.51]
Job position             -.04             -.06             -.05
(Basic level
manager)
                        (0.09)           (0.10)           (0.09)
                       [-0.22,0.15]     [-0.25,0.13]     [-0.23,0.14]
Job position              .15              .13              .11
(Middle manager)
                        (0.11)           (0.11)           (0.11)
                       [-0.07, 0.37]    [-0.08, 0.35]    [-0.12,0.33]
Job position             -.03             -.05             -.06
(Senior manager)
                        (0.17)           (0.16)           (0.15)
                       [-0.37,0.31]     [-0.36, 0.25]    [-0.34, 0.23]
Job position              .04              .08              .03
(Executive)
                        (0.13)           (0.13)           (0.13)
                       [-0.22,0.15]     [-0.17,0.32]     [-0.22, 0.29]
Neuroticism (a)          -.09 (*)         -.11 (*)         -.11 (*)
                        (0.05)           (0.05)           (0.05)
                       [-0.18, -0.00]   [-0.21, -0.02]   [-0.20, -0.02]
Extraversion (a)          .05              .03              .05
                        (0.06)           (0.05)           (0.06)
                       [-0.06,0.16]     [-0.07,0.12]     [-0.06,0.15]
Conscientiousness (a)     .24 (**)         .24 (**)         .16 (***)
                        (0.08)           (0.08)           (0.05)
                        [0.09, 0.40]     [0.09, 0.39]     [0.07, 0.26]
Confucianism (a)          .24 (***)        .29 (***)        .30 (***)
                        (0.05)           (0.05)           (0.05)
                        [0.13, 0.34]     [0.18, 0.39]     [0.21, 0.40]
Neu X Con                -.01
                        (0.06)
                       [-0.12,0.10]
Ext X Con                                  .10 (*)
                                         (0.05)
                                         [0.01, 0.19]
Consc X Con                                                 .12 (***)
                                                          (0.03)
                                                          [0.06, 0.18]
Observations           217              217              217
                          .42              .44              .46
                          .00              .02 (*)          .04 (***)

Note. Neu = neuroticism, Ext = Extraversion, Consc = conscientiousness.
Con = Confucianism, Ln = logarithm. (a) indicates standardized
variables; standard errors are in parentheses; 95% confidence intervals
are in square brackets.
(*) p < .1, (**) p< .05, (***) p < .01.
COPYRIGHT 2018 Scientific Journal Publishers, Ltd.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Kwon, Insu; Lee, Juil; Wang, Ranran; Kim, Sang-Joon
Publication:Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:9CHIN
Date:Sep 1, 2018
Words:5405
Previous Article:SOLVING INTERPERSONAL PROBLEMS WHEN FATIGUED: THE BENEFICIAL EFFECT OF POSITIVE MOOD.
Next Article:CHANGE IN NEWCOMERS' JOB SATISFACTION: MET-EXPECTATIONS EFFECT AS A MODERATOR.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters