The correlation between individual level factors and

2.2.3.1 Cognition vs. interpersonal relationship

When individuals possess similar interests and cognition, this is able to assist the development of interpersonal relationship. Moreover, once employees possess similar job responsibilities, the similar cognition are produced, then the friendship in the workplace are formed.

The friendship in the workplace was considered as interpersonal relationship at times. The reason was that the friendship in the workplace was able to eliminate the stress in the workplace, increase work opportunities, help employees and managers to carry out the tasks, and assist to implement organizational changing (Berman, West, &

Richter, 2002; Lin, 2010).

In the study of Handley (1982), the researcher used Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to measure the correlation between the different cognition of supervisors and trainees and interpersonal relationship, and the correlations existed among them. Therefore, the correlation existed between cognition and interpersonal relationship.

H8. Interpersonal relationship positively moderates the effect of NFC on learning behavior.

2.2.3.2 Openness vs. interpersonal relationship

Few studies have so far been made at the direct relationship between Big-Five personality traits and interpersonal relationship.

However, Taylor, Kluemper, and Mossholder (2010) examined the

relationship between Big-Five personality traits and interpersonal citizenship behavior, and they considered that Big-Five personality traits were related to helping-related behavior in interaction. Therefore, the study by Taylor et al.’s (2010), three traits were significantly positive correlation to interpersonal citizenship behavior, and openness is one of the traits. Thus, the researcher considered the correlation existed between openness and interpersonal relationship.

H9. Interpersonal relationship positively moderates the effect of openness on learning behavior.

2.2.3.3 Emotion vs. interpersonal relationship

Different forms of interpersonal contact produces different types of emotion, and encourage people to create various emotional creativity (Parkinson, 2008). In an organization, interpersonal relationship was the source of stress. When the interpersonal relationship in an organization was poor, and the stress increased. Once the collaboration across departments was implemented, the employees disseminated the attitudes about emotion and impatience, and the communication is failure. On the contrary, if the relationship and communication were well with peers, subordinates, and supervisors; it could facilitate the individual and organizational goals to achieve, and which was an important element for organizational life. As reported above, the interpersonal relationship ought to avoid influence on emotion; it should carry out according to the system of rule. In this way, the stress from formal and informal relationships can be prevented (Gunbayi, 2009). Based on the above literature, the researcher inferred the correlation between emotion and interpersonal relationship.

H10. Interpersonal relationship positively moderates the effect of emotion on learning behavior.

2.2.3.4 Cognition vs. social relationship

Cognition is not limited by the direct social influence, and it comes from individual social relationship network, the members of a team, and personal identity (Smith, 2008). To realize the viewpoints of social influence, the principles of individual cognition, and social behaviors, the framework model of social relationship needed to be predicted. Panzarasa and Jennings (2002) integrated social and individual cognitive process, and indicated which could reflect the social structure and social interactions. Therefore, the researcher considered that the correlation existed between cognition and social relationship.

H11. Social relationship positively moderates the effect of NFC and on learning behavior.

2.2.3.5 Openness vs. social relationship

Sturaro, Denisse, van Aken, and Asendorpf (2008) divided social relationship into two types to discuss, and the two types can be classified into the support and conflict of father, mother and friend.

Sturaro et al. (2008) took advantage of cross-lagged path coefficient to analyze the correlations existing among support and conflict of father, mother, and friend, and to openness. Nevertheless, the results presented that all the correlation coefficients of the above relationships were not significant. In another research, the researchers explored the correlation between Big Five and social relationship, and the result demonstrated that the correlation did not exist between them (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998). However, the participants of both studies were below 23 years.

The samples in this study did not limit the age; what’s more, Asendorpf and Wilpers (1998) cited one study and described that openness to experience was associated with the openness of peers in one’s network.

On the basis of the above statements, this study suggested that the correlation existed between openness and social relationship.

H12. Social relationship positively moderates the effect of openness on learning behavior.

2.2.3.6 Emotion vs. social relationship

Emotion can be viewed as the relation alignment, but emotion does not only explain the response for events, but also can be used to evaluate social and real world. Emotion referred to a particular feeling and attitude for social, matter, or abstract objects (Parkinson, 2008).

Moreover, social relationship was the most important element to incite emotion; namely, social relationship generated emotion. Furthermore, power and status were considered as the dimensions of social relationship, and discussed the relationship between the two dimensions and emotion. In addition, a lot of human emotions were the results of the reality, anticipation, imagination, or recall of social relationship (Kemper, 1991). As reported above, this study inferred that the correlation existed between emotion and social relationship.

H13. Social relationship positively moderates the effect of emotion on learning behavior.

2.2.3.7 Cognition vs. organizational collaborative culture

Collaboration and meaning analysis process(C-MAP) involved with three facets, which were the conscious externalization of knowledge to support knowledge transfer, the development of novel knowledge, and the development of cognitive congruence in problem solving teams. What’s more, the cognitive process contained in C-MAP may be viewed as macrocognitive processes (Rentsch, Mello, & Delise, 2010). Macrocognition referred to the cognitive process and occurred within collaborative groups (Handley & Heacox, 2010). As stated earlier, this study suggested that the correlation existed between cognition and organizational collaborative culture.

H14. Collaborative culture positively moderates the effect of NFC on

learning behavior.

2.2.3.8 Openness vs. organizational collaborative culture

Salas, Sims, and Burke (2005) described thought they proposed that the teamwork was explained by “Big Five,” and supporting and coordinating mechanism were needed to combine with the value of each of the five factors. Additionally, one study examined the correlation between openness to experience and team-oriented proactivity, and the result showed the correlation was significant, and openness to experience positive influenced team-oriented proactivity.

Furthermore, team-oriented proactivity focused on ‘make things better’

within a team, and stressed to help other people in a better approach (Hirschfeld, Jordan, Thomas, & Feild, 2008). This viewpoint implied the concept of collaboration within a team. On the basis of the above studies, the researcher inferred that the correlation existed between openness to experience and organizational collaborative culture.

H15. Collaborative culture positively moderates the effect of openness on learning behavior.

2.2.3.9 Emotion vs. organizational collaborative culture

Eteläpelto and Lahti (2008) discussed the obstacle which affected creative collaboration, and they considered that the most serious barrier influenced creative collaboration was the relationship between emotional atmosphere and power in a team. While the emotion in a team appeared to the negative mood, the employees did not coordinate each other. Additionally, once the employees of a team could collaborate, and their emotions felt safe. If the team could collaborate over a long period of time, and the trust made the confidence for people, they helped each other; moreover, the partners established emotions.

Effective manage emotion was a very critical factor with respect to research environment of collaboration. But, emotion not only

influenced knowledge application in the collaborative environment, but also affected cognitive procedure about acquiring new information (Beesley, 2005). Thus, the correlation existed between emotion and organizational collaborative culture.

H16. Collaborative culture positively moderates the effect of emotion on learning behavior.

2.2.3.10 Cognition vs. organizational climate

Organizational climate could attempt to realize the sharing cognition between the workplace and organizational results. For example, the climate and culture had been proven to influence accidental events, absence, and customer service (Stetzer, Morgeson, &

Anderson, 1997). In the study by Tsai and Cheng (2010) tested that the effect about organizational climate to the cognitive model of knowledge sharing. However, the result presented that the effect was not significant about organizational climate to cognition of individual knowledge sharing behavior. Therefore, the above results were inconsistent. Hence, the researcher considered that the correlation between cognition and organizational climate was needed to be re-studied.

H17. Organizational climate positively moderates the effect of NFC on learning behavior.

2.2.3.11 Openness vs. organizational climate

O’Neill and Xiao (2010) divided organizational climate into three kinds: effort, organization focuses on quality, and the pressure to achieve goals and targets. O’Neill and Xiao (2010) proposed that the correlation between the three types of organizational climates and the openness of Big Five; however, the correlations were not significant between the three kinds of organizational climate and openness. But, Teng (2008) considered Big Five as the predictor of organizational

climate. The result showed that the correlation was not significant between Big Five and organizational climate. The studies by O’Neill and Xiao (2010) and Teng (2008) investigated hotel department managers and hospitality students, respectively. Nevertheless, the participants of this study were staff of technology industry. This study suggested that the workers in different industries have different personality traits. Hence, this study suggested the correlation exists between openness and organizational climate.

H18. Organizational climate positively moderates the effect of openness on learning behavior.

2.2.3.12 Emotion vs. organizational climate

Håkonsson, Obel, and Burton (2008) stated that in the short run, organizational climate could be considered as the effective emotional inertia to maintain the fit of a system, but this concept was needed the support by the leadership style. What’s more, Akgün, Keskin, and Byrne (2009) considered that organizational climate was a broad class of an organization, and it was the concept of the organizational context for individuals’ actions. In addition, they explained organizational climate was the combination of individual emotions, and emotions focused on a work context for individuals. Against this background, the researcher considered that the correlation existed in the relationship between emotion and organizational climate.

H19. Organizational climate positively moderates the effect of emotion on learning behavior.