• 沒有找到結果。

知覺工作特性與知覺正義對組織承諾感與組織公民行為之影響-以民用航空器維修公司發動機部門為例

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "知覺工作特性與知覺正義對組織承諾感與組織公民行為之影響-以民用航空器維修公司發動機部門為例"

Copied!
109
0
0

加載中.... (立即查看全文)

全文

(1)國立交通大學 運輸科技與管理學系碩士班 碩 士 論 文. 知覺工作特性與知覺正義對組織承諾感與組織公民行為之影響 -以民用航空器維修公司發動機部門為例. Effects of Perceived Job Characteristics and Perceived Justice on Organizational Commitment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Case of Aircraft Engine Maintenance Department in Civil Aircraft Maintenance Company. 研 究 生: 陳則言 指導教授:任維廉 副教授 中. 華. 民. 國. 九. 十. 三. 年. 六. 月.

(2) 知覺工作特性與知覺正義對組織承諾感與組織公民行為之影響 -以民用航空器維修公司發動機部門為例 Effects of Perceived Job Characteristics and Perceived Justice on Organizational Commitment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Case of Aircraft Engine Maintenance Department in Civil Aircraft Maintenance Company.. 研 究 生:陳則言. Student: Tse-Yen Chen. 指導教授:任維廉. Advisor: Dr. William Jen. 國立交通大學 運輸科技與管理學系 碩士論文 A Thesis Submitted to Department of Transportation Technology and Management College of Management National Chiao Tung University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master in Transportation Technology and Management June 2003 Hsinchu, Taiwan, Republic of China 中. 華. 民. 國. 九. 十. I. 三. 年. 六. 月. 2.

(3)

(4) 9132516. 1.. (. http://sticnet.stic.gov.tw/sticweb/html/theses/authorize.html. http://www.stic.gov.tw. ). 2.. (106) 106. 1702. 02-27377606. ( :02-27377689). :.

(5)

(6) 1.. 2.. 1. 2. 3.. I. I.

(7) ABSTRACT In-role behavior of employees could be managed by the regular behavioral norm, but the Organizational Citizenship Behaviors OCB are spontaneous behaviors beyond formal organizational legitimate system, and , in the aggregate, promote effective functioning of the organization. These informal organizational behaviors are not usually captured by traditional job descriptions and thus are more likely to be influenced by employees’ psychological state. In general, the employee who has higher attachment and the Organizational Commitment OC to organization will show more OCB. There were also lots of researches indicate that OC has significance influence on OCB. To understand the antecedents of OC, we could pay attention on the purpose of employee to join the organization and their perceived Job Characteristics. According to the Equity Theory, the purpose of employee to be in the organization is to exchange the benefit he doesn’t have, and, furthermore, they will compare with the others to determine the norm of his pay. Perception of unfairness will negatively influence the OC, and also indirectly influence the OCB. By contrast, researcher also had suggested that enrichment of job characteristics could motivate employee and influence OC positively. Hence, this research suggested that to consider the potential motivating of rich Job Characteristics and the perception of Organizational Justice could help predict OCB. In the past, the researches had suggested the relationships of OC and its antecedents (e.g., Job Characteristics and Perception of Organizational Justice) or OC and OCB, but they usually did not test overall measurements entirely and adopt path analysis of the whole construct. So, their research results often only indicated the partial relationships of the constructs. It is important to integrate the related research results, and adopt the path analysis to clarify the causal relationships among the constructs stated above. For this reason, this research accorded to the concepts discussed previously and the past researches being reviewed to set up hypothesis and the framework of the research. Then, this research adopted the two-step procedural analysis of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to test the research framework and try to understand the integrated results of path analysis with Job Characteristics, Perception of Organizational Justice, OC, and OCB. Because of the path model is built first time, this research aimed the small samples of aircraft engine maintenance department which has several kinds of employee (e.g., the on-the-spot worker, engineer, employee who is responsible for accounting or general affairs) to avoid too many unconstrained variables. Besides, there are foreign employees whose native language is not the Chinese in the I. II.

(8) department, so the questionnaire is listed both in Chinese and English. The test of the integrated path model suggested below: 1.OCB toward Organization and OCB toward Individual are indeed affected by the affective OC. 2.The Potential Motivating of Job Characteristics and the perception of Distributive Justice are all significant antecedents of OC, and the effect of perception of Distributive Justice is stronger than Potential Motivating. 3.Perception of Distributive Justice will be affected by the perception of Procedural Justice. Finally, by the analytical results and conclusions, this study suggested severeal managerial implications for the case department and some discussions for future research. Key Words:Organizational Commitment, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Job Charateristics, Perception of Organizational Justice, Structural Equation Modeling.. I. III.

(9) 6. ,. ,. ,. I. IV.

(10) ................................................................................................................... I .................................................................................................................. II ........................................................................................................................ IV ..........................................................................................................................V ................................................................................................................... VII .................................................................................................................. VIII. ............................................................................................................1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------1. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 ........................................................................................6. 2.1. ---------------------------------------------------------6 2.1.1. .................................................................6. 2.1.2. .....................................................................8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. 2.2.1. ...........................................................................10. 2.2.2. ...................................................................11. 2.2. 2.3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16 2.3.1 2.3.2. 2.5. .......................................................................16 ...............................................................19 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 27 ...................................................................27 ...........................................................27 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29. 3.1. ...............................................................................30 ------------------------------------------ 30. 3.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 33. 3.3. ------------------------------------------------------------- 35. 3.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 37. 3.5. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41. 3.6. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 41. 4.1. ..................................................................................................44 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 44. 2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2. I. V.

(11) 4.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 47. 4.3. ------------------------------------------------------------- 48 4.3.1. ........................................................48. 4.3.2. .........................57. 4.4. ------------------------------------------------------- 60. 4.5. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 66. 4.6. ------------------------------------------------------------- 71 4.6.1. .......................................................................72. 4.6.2. .......................................................................73 ..............................................................................................74. 5.1. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 74. 5.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 78 5.2.1. ........................................................78. 5.2.2. .......................................................................81. .................................................................................................................83 ..................................................................................................90 ..........................................................................................95. I. VI.

(12) 2.1. .........................................................................21. 2.2 2.3. .................................................................22 .........................................................................24. 2.4 2.5. ..............................................25 ..............................................26. 3.1 3.2. .........................................................................35 .............................................................................38. 3.3. ....................................................................................39. 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5. ........................................................................................44 ........................................................................................44 ........................................................................................45 ........................................................................................45 .................................................................................45. 4.6 4.7. .................................................................................46 .................................................................................46. 4.8 4.9 4.10. .................................................................................46 ....................................................................................47 .................................................................49. 4.11 4.12. ..............................................................50 ..........................................................52. 4.13 4.14 4.15. ..........................................................54 ..........................................................56 ..................................................58. 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22. ................................................................................................59 .........................................................................59 ..................................60 ..................................61 ..................................62 ...........................63 ...............64. 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26. ...............65 .............................................................................67 ....................................................................................70 ......................................71. I. VII.

(13) 1.1. ..................................................................................................5. 2.1 2.2. .........................9 .........................................................................17. 3.1 4.1. ................................................................................................32 ( ) .......................................................48. 4.2 4.3. LISREL. ( ) .....66 .............................................................................68. I. VIII.

(14) 1.1. Schlesinger and Hesskett 1991. Cycle of Failure Service Profit Chain. Heskett et al., 1994. Organizational Commitment Porter, etc., 1974 Turnover. Mathieu & Zajac 1990 Absenteeism Turnover Intension. Performance Organizational. Citizenship Behavior. Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Potential Motivating Hackman et al., 1975 1.

(15) Perceived Justice Greenberg, 1990. Homans 1961. Social Exchange Theory. Mathieu & Zajac, 1990 Moorman, 1991 Dunham, et al., 1994 Shappe, 1998. 1.2. 1.. 2.. Structural Equation Modeling, SEM. 3.. 2.

(16) 1.3. 3.

(17) 1.4 ( ). ( ). ( ). ( ). ( ). ( ) (confirmatory factor analysis, CFA). ( ). 1.1. 4.

(18) 1.1. 5.

(19) 2.1 2.1.1. Hackman and Oldman. Steers,1977. Seashore and Tabor 1975 Factors Attributes. Sims, Keller, & Szilagyi 1976. 47 Turner & Lawrance, 1965. 1 2 3 4 5 6. variety autonomy required interaction optional Interaction knowledge and skill required responsibility 6.

(20) 1.. 2.. 3.. 1971. 4.. Hackman and Lawler Turner and Lawrance. 1. variety. 2. autonomy. 3. task identity. 4. feedback. 5. dealing with others. 6. friendship opportunities. 1975. Hackman. Oldham. 1971. Hackman. Job characteristics model. 1. skill variety. 2. task identity. 3. task significance. 4. autonomy. 5. feedback. 7. Lawler.

(21) Hackman. Oldham. 2.1 2.1.2 Hackman. Oldham. 1975. Motivating. Potential Score, MPS. Motivating Potential Score(MPS ) =. Skill Variety + Task Identity + Task Significance × ( Autonomy ) × (Feedback ) 3. Hackman and Oldham 1976 Still 1983. James Tetrick 1986. Mathieu & Zajac 1990. meta-analysis. 8.

(22) CORE JOB DIMENSIONS. Skill Variety Task Identity. Task Significance. CRITICAL PSYCHOLOGICAL STATES. PERSONAL AND WORK OUTCOMES. Experienced Meaningfulness of the work. High Internal Work Motivation. Experienced Responsibility for Outcomes of the Work. Autonomy. High Quality Work Performance. High Satisfaction With the Work. Knowledge of the Actual Results of the Work Activities. Feedback. EMPLOYEE GROWTH NEED STRENTH. 2.1 Hackman. Oldham, 1975 9. Low Absenteeism And Turnover.

(23) 2.2 2.2.1. Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997. Mikula (1980). Greenberg 1990 1. Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson,. 2. Porter, & Ng, 2001. Sheppard, Lewicki , and Minton. 1992 instrumental approach cooper-action. sense of community human being. 10.

(24) Greenberg, 1990 Shappe 1996. procedural. knowledge. Organ. 1990 Lowe and. Vodanovich. 1995 Masterson et al., 2000. Greenberg 1987 Moorman. 1991. justice justice. distributive justice. procedural. Bies & Moag 1986. interactional. 2.2.2 Scholl et al. ,1987 Greenberg, 1990 distributive justice procedural justice. outcomes means content. process. social exchange process Beugre,1996. Homans(1961). Homans 11. 1961.

(25) Blau. 1964. Homans. Adams 1965 social comparisons. input. outcome. Greenberg and McCarty,1990 1949 Stouffer Martin, 1981 Crosby, 1984. 1981. Martin 1984. Crosby. Thibaut. stage. process stage process control. Thibaut Walker 12. Walker 1975 decision decision control.

(26) Leventhal 1980 Thibaut Walker 1980 Leventhal, Karuza, & Fry, 1980. Leventhal,. Leventhal. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Leventhal. Folger 1986 referent outcome. referent instrument-alities. Folger resentment justification. Folger. exepected-value Thibaut and Walke. 13.

(27) Lind & Tyler 1988 self-interest model. Greenberg & Folger 1983 Greenberg 1990. group -value model. Thibaut & Walker 1975. Moorman. Bies and Moag 1986. procedure. 1991. interactional justice. interaction. outcome. Bies and Moag Thibaut and Walker 1976. Leventhal. 1980. Baron,1993 Bies and Moag,1986 Cropanzano and Randall,1993 Bies 1985 truthfulness respect propriety of guestions justification context. 14.

(28) Clemmer 1993 politeness. friendliness. interest. sensitivity. bias. honesty. social context Greenberg, 1990 Sheppard and Lewicki,1997 aspect. Greenberg. Bies and Moag. Bies and Shapiro,1987. Clemmer,1993 Greenberg,. 1990 2000. Lowe and Vodanovich, 1995. Organ, 1990. Shappe, 1996 Masterson et al., Moorman 1991. Distributive Justice. Procedural Justice Formal. Procedures Netemeyer et al.,(1997) 29 48 Schappe. 1998 Deckop et al., 1999. Konovsky and Pugh 1994 Moorman et al.,. 15. 1998.

(29) 2.3 2.3.1 Morrow, 1983 Personal. 2.. Reichers, 1985. Career. 3.. 1.. Job. 4.. Value or Union. Morrow & McElroy 1986. March & Simon, 1958 Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972 Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian , 1974 Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979 Allen & Meyer, 1990. Porter Porter, et al., 1974 Mowday, Porter,& Steers 1982. Randall, 1987 Weiner 1982. Sommer, Bae, & Luthans. 1996. 16. 27.

(30) Qiangtu 2001. 2.1. 2.2 Qiantu, et al., 2001. Mathieu & Dennis, 1990 Dunham, Grube & Castaneda,1994. withdrawal Katz & Kahn, 1978 Shore. 17. 1993.

(31) Homans. 1961. Absenteeism Performance behavior. Turnover. Organizational citizenship. Mowday, 1982 withdrawal. 18.

(32) 2.3.2. 25. Morrow, 1983 Steers 1977 belief. 1. willingness. 2.. 3.. desire Winner 1988 1 2. 3 attitudinal calculated organizational. organizational commitment commitment Mathieu & Zajac, 1990. Mathieu & Zajac, 1990 Porter. Porter Steers, & Porter, 1979 Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974. Becker 1960 Structural Phenomenon side-bets. Mowday,. Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972 ex:. Hrebiniak and Alutto. 1972. Alutto, J. A., 1972 Meyer and Allen 1990 Allen and Meyer 19. Hrebiniak, L. G. &.

(33) Allen. Meyer Affective organizational commitment Allen and Meyer. Continuance organizational commitment. Normative organizational commitment. Wiener, 1982. Allen. Meyer. Mathieu & Zajac, 1990 ex ex. Normative commitment to theorganization Hall, Schneider, & Nygren 1970. Allen and Meyer. 20.

(34) 2.1 2.1. Etzioni, 1961 1.. Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972. 2.. 3.. Structural Phenomenon side-bets. Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian , 1974. Staw and Salancik, 1977. 1.. ,. 2.. Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982. 1974. Wiener, 1982. Mathieu & Zajac, 1990. Mathieu & Zajac. Allen and Meyer, 1990 1. 2. 3.. 21. Porter.

(35) Allen. Meyer Mathieu and Zajac. Mathieu and Zajac. Allen. Meyer. 2.5. Allen Meyer 1990. 500 256. 7. 51 15. Mowday. OCQ. 2.2 2.2 Scale. ACS. CCS. ACS. 4.63. 1.33. CCS. 4.51. 1.16. 0.06. NCS. 3.77. 1.13. 0.51*. 0.14. OCQ. 5.32. 1.07. 0.83*. -0.02. Allen and Meyer, 1990 Note ACS * P<0.001. CCS. NCS. 0.51* NCS. 22. OCQ.

(36) Allen and Meyer job challenge clarity receptiveness. role clarity. goal difficulty peer cohesion. dependability importance. goal management organizational. equity feedback. personal participation. 11. skills and education self-investment. relocate pension. community alternatives. Allen Meyer. Dunham, et al., 1994 Dunham. 1994. Allen. Meyer OCQ. Organizational Commitment Questionnaire. 2.3. 23.

(37) 2.3. task autonomy task significance task identity skill variety supervisory feedback organizational dependability perceived participatory management age organizational tenure. coworker commitment organizational dependability participatory management task significance. age tenure career satisfaction intent to leave Dunham, et al., 1994. Schappe. 1998 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Mowday OCQ interpersonal dimension of procedural justice. Commitment Behavior et al., 1990. Randall, Mowday. Allen. Meyer 1996 2.4. 24.

(38) 2.4. OCQ. ACS 0.83* 0.80* 0.77-0.87*. CCS -0.02 0.06 0.01-0.23. NCS 0.51* 0.48* 0.37*. 0.72* 0.71* 0.80* 0.89*. -0.11* -0.11 -0.06 0.28*. 0.34* 0.44* 0.54* 0.53*. 0.51* 0.64* 0.50* 0.59* 0.51* 0.55* 0.64* 0.53* 0.56* 0.33* 0.51* 0.52* 0.47* 0.32* 0.31* -0.18* -0.17*. -0.11* -0.10. 0.21* 0.37*. -0.05 -0.15* -0.11 0.12*. 0.29* -0.02 0.32*. -0.12*. 0.07. 0.36*. -0.10 -0.16 -0.11 0.08 0.08. 0.26. 0.10*. -0.06. Allen & Meyer (1990) Cohen (1993) Dunham et al. (1994) Hackett et al. (1994) Sample1 Sample2 Lee (1992) Randall et al. (1990) Hackett et al. (1994) Sample1 Sample2 Jenkins (1993) Konovsky & Cropanzano (1991) Lee (1992) Lynn (1992) Moorman et al. (1993) Morrison (1994) Withey (1988) Blau et al. (1993) Cohen (1993) Carson & Bedeian (1994) Cohen (1993) Cropanzano et al. (1993) Reilly & Orsak (1991) Cropanzano et al. (1993) Reilly & Orsak (1991). Allen and Meyer, 1996 * p<0.05. Allen Randall 1994. Meyer OCQ. ACS CCS NCS 1993. Moorman. ACS CCS. Allen Meyer 1996 2.5 25.

(39) 2.5. *. ACS. CCS. NCS. 0.36* 0.56*. -0.18*. 0.21*. Allen & Meyer (1990). -0.17*. 0.25*. Allen & Meyer (1990). 0.63*. -0.14*. 0.29*. 0.47*. -0.13*. 0.29*. Allen & Meyer (1990) Lee (1992). 0.38*. -0.03. 0.29*. Lee (1992). 0.59*. 0.16. 0.19*. Meyer, Irving, & Allen (1993). 0.51*. -0.10. Gellatly (1995) Kelloway & Barling (1992). (lay-off) (lay-off). 0.08 0.20*. (drug-testing). 0.44*. -0.09. (pay) (pay). 0.39* 0.52*. -0.07. 0.00. Lynn (1992). -0.14*. 0.25*. Lynn (1994). 0.50*. 0.09*. Kelloway & Barling (1992) Konovsky & Cropanzano (1991). Moorman et al. (1993). Allen and Meyer, 1996 p<0.05. 2.5 ACS NCS Allen. CCS Meyer. ACS. NCS Allen Meyer CCS CCS. Allen. Meyer. 26.

(40) 2.4 2.4.1 Katz. 1964. Katz. 1. 2. 3.. extra-role behavior. Robbins, 1998 1983. Organ. 1988. Bateman. Organ. 2.4.2 Organ. Bateman 1983 Smith Organ altruism. generalized. compliance mood. 27.

(41) Organ. 1988. courtesy. sportsmanship. civil virtue conscientiousness. Lam et al., 1999 Williams and Anderson(1991). Turnley. 2003. Williams and Anderson. 28. 2003.

(42) 2.5. Organ Bateman. 1983. Mathieu & Zajac, 1990. Hackman. Oldham. Homans. 1961. Schappe, 1998 Baron, 1993 Bies and Moag, 1986. Moorman 1993 Leventhal, 1980. 29.

(43) 3.1. James Tetrick. 1986 Mathieu and Zajac. 1990. meta-analysis Allen Meyer(1996). H1 Lowe and Vodanovich 1995. Masterson, Lewis, & Goldman, 2000 1980 Leventhal. 30.

(44) H2 H3 Scholl. 1981 Scholl Weiner 1982 1993. Shore OCQ. H4 H5 3.1. 31.

(45) 3.1 32.

(46) 3.2. 1.. 1 MPL 2 Borescope Inspection. 3. 4 QEC Quick Engine Change FAN High Pressure Turbine HPT Accessory Gearbox AGB. High Pressure Compressor HPC Low Pressure Turbine LPT. 5 Piece Parts CF6-80C2 FAN Fan Rotor Forward Fan Case Fan Frame and Case Fan Mid Shaft Fan Stator EMU HPC HPC Rotor HPC Stator Compressor Rear Frame Combustion Liner Stage1 HPT Nozzle EMU HPT Stage2 HPT Nozzle HPT Rotor EMU LPT LPT Stator LPT Rotor Turbine Rear Frame EMU AGB Inlet Gearbox Radial Drive Shaft Transfer Gearbox Horizontal Drive Shaft Accessory Gearbox EMU EMU EMU 6. 33.

(47) 7 Penetrant Inspection, PT RT. Magnetic Particle Inspection, MT. Eddy Current Inspection, ET XUltrasonic Testing, UT. X-Ray Inspection,. 8. 9. 10 EMU. EMU. 11 FAN QEC 12. 13. 34. HPC. HPT. LPT AGB.

(48) 2.. Overhaul Performance. Minimum. 3.3 Construct Variable Latent Vareiable. Manifest Variable. 3.1 3.1. 1. work complexity. Stone & Gueutal, 1985 Hackman Oldham 1975. Job Diagnostic Survey 3 3. 4. 3. 2 15. 2. Moorman. 1991. 5 35.

(49) 7. 12. 3. Allen and Meyer 1990. 8. 4. Turnley. 2003. 6. 36.

(50) 3.4 92 SEM Hatcher,1998. 12. 20 20~30. Bentler Chou. 1987. 20 92 22. 93. 12. 12. 30. 47 9 38. 15 24. 3.2. 37. 3.3.

(51) 3.2. V1. 1. Skill Variety My job provides me the opportunity to do different kinds of things at work. 2. I need various skills and techniques to accomplish my tasks. 3.. There is high variety in my job.. 4.. Task Identity At work, I could accomplish my tasks by myself. 5. I often get the chance to finish completely any task I start.. 6. If there were something wrong with my tasks, company will Task incur great loss. Significance 7. Falling behind with my task progress will delay others’ tasks. 8.. My tasks let me feel heavy responsibility for the work.. 9. Autonomy There is no opportunity to make use of creativity and judgment at my work. 10.. I am given enough freedom to decide the way and the progress of my work. 11.. My work always lets me think and action independently.. 12. I often make many decisions at my work.. Feedback. 13. I could understand my performance directly by the results of my tasks. 14. I have many opportunities to know opinions towards my work from the supervisor.. 15. I have many opportunities to know opinions towards my work from the coworkers.. 38.

(52) 3.3. V2. PDJ. Fairly rewarded considering the responsibilities.. V3. Fairly rewarded in view of the amount of work experience I have. V4 Fairly rewarded for the amount of effort I put forth.. V5 Fairly rewarded for the work I have done well.. V6 Fairly rewarded for the stresses and strains of my job.. V7. Company provides opportunities to appeal or challenge the decision.. PPJ V8. Company has all sides affected by the decision represented.. V9. Company generates standards so that decisions could be made with consistency. V10 Company hears the concerns of all those affected by the decision.. V11. Company allows for requests for clarification or additional information about the decision. V12 I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this company.. AOC V13. I think it is difficult that becomes as attached to another company as I am to this one. V14 I do not feel emotional attached to this company.. V15 This company has a great deal of personal meaning for me.. 39.

(53) 3.3. V16. OCB to Organization. I adheres to informal companyal rules devised to maintain order. V17 I always give advance notice when I am unable to come to work.. V18 My attendance at work is above the norm.. V19 There are no insignificant or minor things I wanna complain at work.. V20 I generally help others who have been absent.. OCB to Individual. V21 I generally help others who have heavy workloads.. V22 I go out of the way to help new employees.. V23 I generally take time to listen to coworkers’ problem and worries.. V24 I pass along work-related information to coworkers.. 40.

(54) 3.5. 93. 1. 2. 166. 3.6. (path analysis) ( 81) ( 1.. 88). (path diagram). 2. 3. ( 85) 1. 2.. (manifest variables) variable). 3.. (non-recursive). (construct) SEM (Structural Equation Modeling, SEM). 41. (latent.

(55) SEM (Hair, et al., 1992) structure analysis). SEM. (covariance (latent variable analysis). (confirmatory factor analysis). LISREL. (LISREL analysis). (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996) SEM (. ). 1. 2. 3. 4.. (. ). SEM. latent variables manifest variables. SEM. measurement model. y. X Y. X. x. Y. y. Y. x. X X. structural equation model. B B. 42. Y.

(56) SEM. SEM. SEM SAS Anderson. 1.. 2.. CALIS Gerbing 1988. Two-step Procedure. Confirmatory Factor Analysis CFA. Path Analysis. SEM (goodness of fit indices). 43.

(57) 4.1 166. 161. 153. 92.17. 153. 7. 95.4 20~29. 30~39. 30.1. 96.7 79.1. 64.1. 4.1. (%). 146. 95.4. 7. 4.6. 153. 100.0. 4.2. (%). 20~29. 46. 30.1. 30~39. 71. 46.3. 40~49. 20. 13.1. 50. 14. 9.2. 2. 1.3. 153. 100.0. 44. 46.3.

(58) 4.3. (%). 148. 96.7. 5. 3.3. 153. 100.0. 4.4. (%). 25. 16.3. 121. 79.1. 6. 3.9. 1. 0.7. 153. 100.0. 4.5. (%). 54. 35.2. 98. 64.1. 1. 0.7. 153. 100.0. 1~4 5~9. 44.4 47.1. 5~9 1~4 64.1. 32.7. 45. 38.6 36.6.

(59) 4.6. (%). 6. 3.9. 1~4. 68. 44.4. 5~9. 59. 38.6. 10. 19. 12.4. 1. 0.7. 153. 100.0. 1. 4.7. (%). 1. 0.7. 1~4. 56. 36.6. 5~9. 72. 47.1. 10. 21. 13.6. 3. 2.0. 153. 100.0. 1. 4.8. (%). 98. 64.1. 50. 32.7. 5. 3.2. 153. 100.0. 46.

(60) 4.2. consistency stability accuracy. precision. Cronbach. Cronbach 0.7427 0.6191. 4.9 0.5607. 0.8198. 0.9095. 0.7700. 0.7550 0.9460 0.5653. 0.8857. 0.6. 4.9 Cronbach. Perceived Skill Variety. 0.7427. Perceived Task Identity. 0.5907. Perceived Task Significance. 0.7550. Perceived Autonomy. 0.6191. Perceived Feedback. 0.8198. Perceived Distributed Justice. 0.9460. Perceived Procedural Justice. 0.9095. Affective Organizational Commitment. 0.7700. OCB toward Organization. 0.5653. OCB toward Individual. 0.8857. 47.

(61) 4.3 3.5. SAS 8.0. CALIS PRC. (. ). Anderson and Gerbing (1988) CFA. 4.3.1 4.1 V2. 6. V V7. V15 V20. 11 V16. V1 V12 V19. V23. CFA. 4.10. AOC. 4.1. (. 48. ).

(62) 4.10 X2. X2/df. df. CFI NNFI GFI AGFI NFI. 389.7096 238 1.6374 0.9328 0.9221 0.8253 0.7798 0.8462. 27 338.7939 216 1.5685 0.9446 0.9351 0.8381 0.7931 0.8628. 3 282.1207 195 1.4468 0.9556 0.9474 0.8558 0.8129 0.8714. 31 228.1929 175 1.3040 0.9705 0.9646 0.8803 0.8420 0.8868 153 CFI=Bentler’s fit index; NNFI=non-normed-fit index; GFI=goodness of fit index; AGFI=GFI adjusted for degrees of freedom; NFI=normed-fit index. 1. 1. X2 4.11 x (238, N = 153) = 389.7096 p< 0.0001 chi-square (James, 1982; Joreskog and Sorbom , 1993). chi-square. X2/df 2. 2. X2/df chi-square. 5 X2. 2 SAS. CALIS procedure. GFI goodness of fit index AGFI GFI adjusted for degrees of freedom NFI normed-fit index NNFI non-normed-fit index CFI Bentler’s fit index 0 1 Hacther (1998) 2 X CFI. NNFI. 0.9 CFI 0.9 AGFI. SAS. NNFI. 0.8. CALIS procedure. Lagrange multiplier test. 49.

(63) Lagrange multiplier test. V19 V19. (complex variable). Hacther (1998) V19 4.11. The CALIS Procedure Covariance Structure Analysis: Maximum Likelihood Estimation Fit Function 2.5639 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) 0.8253 GFI Adjusted for Degrees of Freedom (AGFI) 0.7798 Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 0.2920 Parsimonious GFI (Mulaik, 1989) 0.7117 Chi-Square 389.7096 Chi-Square DF 238 Pr > Chi-Square <.0001 Independence Model Chi-Square 2534.6 Independence Model Chi-Square DF 276 RMSEA Estimate 0.0648 RMSEA 90% Lower Confidence Limit 0.0530 RMSEA 90% Upper Confidence Limit 0.0762 ECVI Estimate 3.5403 ECVI 90% Lower Confidence Limit 3.1994 ECVI 90% Upper Confidence Limit 3.9446 Probability of Close Fit 0.0211 Bentler' s Comparative Fit Index 0.9328 Normal Theory Reweighted LS Chi-Square 386.1528 Akaike' s Information Criterion -86.2904 Bozdogan' s (1987) CAIC -1045.5346 Schwarz' s Bayesian Criterion -807.5346 McDonald' s (1989) Centrality 0.6091 Bentler & Bonett' s (1980) Non-normed Index 0.9221 Bentler & Bonett' s (1980) NFI 0.8462 James, Mulaik, & Brett (1982) Parsimonious NFI 0.7297 Z-Test of Wilson & Hilferty (1931) 5.8774 Bollen (1986) Normed Index Rho1 0.8217 Bollen (1988) Non-normed Index Delta2 0.9339 Hoelter' s (1983) Critical N 109 50.

(64) 2.. V19 V19 CFA 1. X2 4.12 chi-square X2/df. x (216, N = 153) = 338.7939 p< 0.0001 chi-square 2. 2 2. X. X2. 22. 48.268. p-value=0.001 2. X2. X. 48.268 chi-square. 50.9157. V19. 2 CFI GFI. 0.8. NNFI. 0.9 AGFI. SAS CALIS procedure Lagrange multiplier test V3 V3. 51. 0.8.

(65) 4.12 The CALIS Procedure Covariance Structure Analysis: Maximum Likelihood Estimation. Fit Function. 2.2289. Goodness of Fit Index (GFI). 0.8381. GFI Adjusted for Degrees of Freedom (AGFI). 0.7931. Root Mean Square Residual (RMR). 0.2141. Parsimonious GFI (Mulaik, 1989). 0.7155. Chi-Square. 338.7939. Chi-Square DF. 216. Pr > Chi-Square. <.0001. Independence Model Chi-Square. 2469.3. Independence Model Chi-Square DF. 253. RMSEA Estimate. 0.0612. RMSEA 90% Lower Confidence Limit. 0.0483. RMSEA 90% Upper Confidence Limit. 0.0734. ECVI Estimate. 3.1664. ECVI 90% Lower Confidence Limit. 2.8555. ECVI 90% Upper Confidence Limit. 3.5406. Probability of Close Fit. 0.0741. Bentler' s Comparative Fit Index. 0.9446. Normal Theory Reweighted LS Chi-Square. 337.6352. Akaike' s Information Criterion. -93.2061. Bozdogan' s (1987) CAIC. -963.7807. Schwarz' s Bayesian Criterion. -747.7807. McDonald' s (1989) Centrality. 0.6695. Bentler & Bonett' s (1980) Non-normed Index. 0.9351. Bentler & Bonett' s (1980) NFI. 0.8628. James, Mulaik, & Brett (1982) Parsimonious NFI. 0.7366. Z-Test of Wilson & Hilferty (1931). 5.0789. Bollen (1986) Normed Index Rho1. 0.8393. Bollen (1988) Non-normed Index Delta2. 0.9455. Hoelter' s (1983) Critical N. 114. 52.

(66) 3.. V19. V3. V19. V3 CFA. 1. X2 4.13 chi-square. x (195, N = 153) = 282.1207 p< 0.0001 2. X2/df. chi-square. 2 X. 2. 21 2. X. 46.797 2. X2. X 56.6732. 46.797. V3. 2 CFI GFI. NFI. 0.85. 0.8129 SAS CALIS procedure Lagrange multiplier test V23 V23. 53. NNFI AGFI. 0.95.

(67) 4.13 The CALIS Procedure Covariance Structure Analysis: Maximum Likelihood Estimation. Fit Function. 1.8561. Goodness of Fit Index (GFI). 0.8558. GFI Adjusted for Degrees of Freedom (AGFI). 0.8129. Root Mean Square Residual (RMR). 0.2316. Parsimonious GFI (Mulaik, 1989). 0.7224. Chi-Square. 282.1207. Chi-Square DF. 195. Pr > Chi-Square. <.0001. Independence Model Chi-Square. 2194.6. Independence Model Chi-Square DF. 231. RMSEA Estimate. 0.0542. RMSEA 90% Lower Confidence Limit. 0.0396. RMSEA 90% Upper Confidence Limit. 0.0677. ECVI Estimate. 2.7553. ECVI 90% Lower Confidence Limit. 2.4829. ECVI 90% Upper Confidence Limit. 3.0911. Probability of Close Fit. 0.3014. Bentler' s Comparative Fit Index. 0.9556. Normal Theory Reweighted LS Chi-Square. 281.8064. Akaike' s Information Criterion. -107.8793. Bozdogan' s (1987) CAIC. -893.8147. Schwarz' s Bayesian Criterion. -698.8147. McDonald' s (1989) Centrality. 0.7522. Bentler & Bonett' s (1980) Non-normed Index. 0.9474. Bentler & Bonett' s (1980) NFI. 0.8714. James, Mulaik, & Brett (1982) Parsimonious NFI. 0.7356. Z-Test of Wilson & Hilferty (1931). 3.9146. Bollen (1986) Normed Index Rho1. 0.8477. Bollen (1988) Non-normed Index Delta2. 0.9564. Hoelter' s (1983) Critical N. 125. 54.

(68) 4.. V19. V3. V23. V19. V3 V23 CFA. 1. X2 4.14 x (175, N = 153) = 228.1929 p= 0.0042 chi-square 2. chi-square X2/df X2. 2 X2. 20. 45.315 2. X 53.9278. 2. X. 45.315. V24 2 GFI. CFI 0.85 GFI chi-square. NFI. NNFI 0.85. p=0.0042 2. X /df 2. X. 55. 0.9. 1.5.

(69) 4.14 The CALIS Procedure Covariance Structure Analysis: Maximum Likelihood Estimation. Fit Function. 1.5013. Goodness of Fit Index (GFI). 0.8803. GFI Adjusted for Degrees of Freedom (AGFI). 0.8420. Root Mean Square Residual (RMR). 0.2354. Parsimonious GFI (Mulaik, 1989). 0.7336. Chi-Square. 228.1929. Chi-Square DF. 175. Pr > Chi-Square. 0.0042. Independence Model Chi-Square. 2015.3. Independence Model Chi-Square DF. 210. RMSEA Estimate. 0.0447. RMSEA 90% Lower Confidence Limit. 0.0261. RMSEA 90% Upper Confidence Limit. 0.0602. ECVI Estimate. 2.3628. ECVI 90% Lower Confidence Limit. .. ECVI 90% Upper Confidence Limit. 2.6577. Probability of Close Fit. 0.6960. Bentler' s Comparative Fit Index. 0.9705. Normal Theory Reweighted LS Chi-Square. 216.9471. Akaike' s Information Criterion. -121.8071. Bozdogan' s (1987) CAIC. -827.1337. Schwarz' s Bayesian Criterion. -652.1337. McDonald' s (1989) Centrality. 0.8404. Bentler & Bonett' s (1980) Non-normed Index. 0.9646. Bentler & Bonett' s (1980) NFI. 0.8868. James, Mulaik, & Brett (1982) Parsimonious NFI. 0.7390. Z-Test of Wilson & Hilferty (1931). 2.6314. Bollen (1986) Normed Index Rho1. 0.8641. Bollen (1988) Non-normed Index Delta2. 0.9711. Hoelter' s (1983) Critical N. 139. 56.

(70) 4.3.2 CFA. (validity) 4.15. t-value 0 (convergent validity) (Anderson and Gerbing,. 1988). 0.6. V24 V26. 0.6 4.15 reliability). (composite (Fornell. alpha. and Larcker, 1981) 0.6062. (. 0.7). (variance extracted estimate) Fornell. Larcker. 0.5 0.5. 0.4568 0.3402 Hacter (1998). 0.5. 0.5 Hatcher, 1994 4.16 CFA 1. 1. p < 0.001. 10.828. 4.16 Hatcher, 1994 p<0.001. 1 − (1 − 0 . 001 ). 10. 10 0.9955. 57. = 0 . 009955.

(71) 4.15 t-value. 0.9321a. PDJ. v2. 0.8707. 13.4185*. 0.7581b. v4. 0.8938. 14.0123*. 0.7989. v5. 0.9434. 15.3843*. 0.8900. v6. 0.8077. 11.9274*. 0.6524. PPJ. 0.9102. v7. 0.7855. 11.3197*. 0.6170. v8. 0.8132. 11.9222*. 0.6613. v9. 0.8444. 12.6370*. 0.7130. v10. 0.8256. 12.2018*. 0.6816. v11. 0.8224. 12.1288*. 0.6763. AOC. 0.7704. v12. 0.7332. 9.6631*. 0.5376. v13. 0.6614. 8.4604*. 0.4374. v14. 0.6595. 8.4297*. 0.4349. v15. 0.6461. 8.2151*. 0.4174 0.6062. OCB to Organization. v16. 0.5818. 6.6207*. 0.3385. v17. 0.6301. 7.2024*. 0.3970. v18. 0.5338. 6.0314*. 0.2849. OCB to Individual. * a. t. 0.8604. v20. 0.8029. 11.3804*. 0.6446. v21. 0.8797. 13.0107*. 0.7739. v22. 0.7076. 9.5563*. 0.5007. v24. 0.7171. 9.7285*. 0.5142. p<0.001 (composite reliability). b. 58. 0.7748. 0.6698. 0.4568. 0.3402. 0.6083.

(72) 4.16 * 175. F2F3 F2F4 F2F6 F2F7 F3F4 F3F6 F3F7 F4F6 F4F7 F6F7 *. 1. 228.1923. 0. 0. 176 176. 427.8502. 199.6579. 10.828. 293.3534. 65.1611. 10.828. 176. 263.7687. 35.5764. 10.828. 176. 506.4648. 278.2725. 10.828. 176. 283.3420. 55.1497. 10.828. 176. 270.5133. 42.321. 10.828. 176. 506.7701. 278.5778. 10.828. 176. 251.3998. 23.2075. 10.828. 176. 350.8661. 122.6738. 10.828. 176. 246.0731. 17.8808. 10.828. p < 0.001. 4.17 4.17. 153. 59. Mean. S.D.. 3.81. 0.71. 3.99. 0.77. 4.14. 0.73. 3.04. 0.57. 3.35. 0.79. 41.99. 17.60. 3.08. 0.92. 3.08. 0.82. 3.16. 0.42. 4.09. 0.54. 4.05. 0.49.

(73) 4.4. 4.4.1 4.18. 42.2897 35.7348 39.8645 39.9446 42.7451 57.5628 41.3196 61.8278 49.4396 39.6154 56.9244 37.6985 44.2346 37.5772 40.9154 40.6791 50.6962 40.0731 41.8685 48.9191 42.1341 42.2631. 20-29 30-39 40-49 50. **. **. **. *. 1 1-4 5-9 10 4 5-9 10. ( *. P value. ). 17.7377 13.8826 13.8429 18.1941 14.7711 23.4446 16.9645 26.0953 15.9130 16.7980 26.7833 14.6778 18.7289 19.1785 14.9293 19.1517 19.9302 15.3400 18.5790 18.5302 19.1182 14.2615. 1 0.05. **. P value. F test 0.926. P value 0.337. 4.447. 0.005. LSD. 50 (0.001) (0.001)(0.014). 6.821. 0.010. 5.832. 0.004 (0.010) (0.017). 4.914. 0.028. 1.895. 0.133. 2.002. 0.139. 0.002. 0.967. 10 1-4 (0.033) 5-9 (0.031) 10 4 (0.048). 4 0.01. 4.18 50. 60.

(74) 4.4.2 4.19. 3.0836 3.2286 3.0174 2.9268 3.3300 3.8286 3.0730 3.6000 3.3440 3.0182 3.4667 3.0333 3.1204 2.7000 3.1265 2.8780 3.7368 3.1263 2.9417 3.5619 3.0327 3.2120. 20-29 30-39 40-49 50. **. 1 1-4 5-9 10 4 5-9 10. **. *. ( *. P value. ). 0.9181 0.9552 0.8608 0.9467 0.8392 0.6462 0.9211 0.6633 0.9390 0.9077 0.9688 0.8925 0.9380 1.1507 0.8603 0.9180 0.7861 0.8877 0.7526 0.9083 0.9506 0.8255. 1 0.05. **. P value. F test 0.166. P value 0.684. 4.658. 0.004. 1.604. 0.207. 1.844. 0.162. 0.310. 0.578. 4.926. 0.003. LSD. 50 20-29 (0.003) 30-39 (0.001). 10 (0.014) (0.009) (0.000). 3.986. 0.021. 10 5-9 (0.006). 1.284. 0.259. 4 0.01. 4.19 10 5-9. 50 10 61.

(75) 10 5-9. 10 4.4.3 4.20. 3.0795 3.0286 3.0913 2.9211 3.0600 3.7857 3.0541 3.7600 3.2000 3.0298 3.4000 3.0074 3.1082 2.8333 3.0706 2.9390 3.5684 3.0351 3.0417 3.3333 3.0980 3.0400. 20-29 30-39 40-49 50. **. 1 1-4 5-9 10 4 5-9 10. **. ( *. ). P value. 0.8270 0.5823 0.7668 0.8298 0.8133 0.5789 0.8134 0.6229 0.8124 0.8106 0.9716 0.7493 0.8530 1.1413 0.7529 0.8608 0.6299 0.7965 0.8276 0.6995 0.8270 0.7698. 1 0.05. **. P value. F test 0.026. P value 0.873. 4.691. 0.004. LSD. 50 (0.005 ) (0.000 )(0.009). 3.684. 0.057. 1.844. 0.162. 0.528. 0.468. 3.164. 0.026. 1.227. 0.296. 0.170. 0.480. 10 1-4 (0.018 ) 5-9 (0.003). 4 0.01. 4.20 50 10 1-4. 5-9. 62.

(76) 4.4.4 50 50. 1. 4. 10 10 4.21. 3.1592 3.0714 3.0924 3.1092 3.2125 3.4821 3.1486 3.3500 3.3100 3.1136 3.2917 3.0602 3.2041 2.8750 3.1507 3.1441 3.2763 3.0789 3.1667 3.3214 3.1658 3.1450. 20-29 30-39 40-49 50. **. **. 1 1-4 5-9 10 4 5-9 10. ( *. P value. ). 0.4274 0.3740 0.3389 0.4624 0.3996 0.3856 0.4274 0.2850 0.3838 0.4294 0.3680 0.3397 0.4588 0.3446 0.3513 0.5111 0.3717 0.3695 0.4766 0.3176 0.4721 0.3158. 1 0.05. **. P value. F test 0.285. P value 0.594. 3.695. 0.013. 1.089. 0.298. 2.600. 0.078. 4.075. 0.045. 1.411. 0.242. 63. 50 20-29 (0.002) 30-39 (0.002). (0.035). 1 10 (0.045). 2.625. 0.076. 4 10 (0.025). 0.079 4. 0.01. LSD. 0.779.

(77) 4.4.5 50 10. 4.22. 4.1073 3.7143 4.0000 4.0469 4.1167 4.5000 4.0833 4.2667 4.2000 4.0689 4.1667 4.0370 4.1259 4.0000 4.1225 3.9435 4.4912 4.0760 4.0648 4.3175 4.1020 1.1267. 20-29 30-39 40-49 50. *. 1 1-4 5-9 10 4 5-9 10. ***. ( *. P value. ). 0.5324 0.5245 0.5352 0.5558 0.4363 0.4287 4.2667 0.4944 0.4410 0.5560 0.4595 0.5520 0.5254 0.6667 0.4711 0.5644 0.4212 0.4757 0.5777 0.4652 0.5255 0.5294. 1 0.05. **. F test 3.645. P value 0.058. 3.466. 0.018. 0.563. 0.454. 0.677. 0.510. 0.960. 0.329. 5.655. 0.001. 30-39. 2.008. 0.138. 0.071. 0.790. 0.01. 50. 50. 30-39. 64. 10 (0.042) (0.006)(0.000). 4.4.6 30-39. 50 (0.002) (0.004)(0.038). 4. P value. LSD.

(78) 4.23. 4.1113 3.8929 4.1413 3.9859 4.1625 4.4107 4.1132 3.7500 4.0700 4.1074 4.1250 4.0648 4.1224 4.3750 4.1140 4.0212 4.2237 4.0526 4.0868 4.3452 4.1173 4.1150. 20-29 30-39 40-49 50. 1 1-4 5-9 10 4 5-9 10. ( *. P value. ). 0.6145 0.3181 0.4906 0.6929 0.5083 0.4864 0.6098 0.3062 0.5752 0.6232 0.4677 0.5562 0.6353 0.3791 0.5315 0.7196 0.5197 0.5361 0.6716 0.4967 0.6582 0.4876. 1 0.05. **. P value. F test 0.869. P value 0.353. 2.271. 0.083. 1.750. 0.188. 0.043. 0.958. 0.312. 0.577. 1.016. 0.387. 2.008. 0.138. 0.000. 0.982. 4 0.01. 65. LSD. 30-39 50 (0.016).

(79) 4.5. ( (. H1~H5). ) SEM 4.2 MPS. 4.15. 4.2. SEM. (. ) SEM (structural. equation model) OCB to Individual = β OCB toIndividual , AOC AOC + ξ1 OCB to Organization = β OCB toOrganization , AOC AOC + ξ 2 AOC = β AOC , PDJ PDJ + β AOC , MPS MPS + ξ 3 PDJ = β PDJ , PPJ PPJ + ξ 4 SAS. CALIS PRC 4.3 1.5826(283.2768/179) 2 0.9422 NNFI = 0.9322 GFI = 0.8554 0.8. 4.16 chi-square. /. AGFI = 0.8134. 66. NFI = 0.8594. CFI = 0.9.

(80) 4.24 Chi-square. df. CFI. NNFI. GFI. AGFI. NFI. 283.2768. 179. 0.9422. 0.9322. 0.8554. 0.8134. 0.8594. =153 CFI = Bentler' s comparative fit index; NNFI = Bentler & Bonett' s (1980) Non-normed Index; GFI = goodness of fit index; AGFI = GFI adjusted for degrees of freedom; NFI = Bentler & Bonett' s (1980) NFI. The CALIS Procedure Covariance Structure Analysis: Maximum Likelihood Estimation Fit Function 1.8637 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) 0.8554 GFI Adjusted for Degrees of Freedom (AGFI) 0.8134 Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 0.3118 Parsimonious GFI (Mulaik, 1989) 0.7291 Chi-Square 289.2768 Chi-Square DF 179 Pr > Chi-Square <.0001 Independence Model Chi-Square 2015.3 Independence Model Chi-Square DF 210 RMSEA Estimate 0.0619 RMSEA 90% Lower Confidence Limit 0.0479 RMSEA 90% Upper Confidence Limit 0.0753 ECVI Estimate 2.6637 ECVI 90% Lower Confidence Limit 2.3816 ECVI 90% Upper Confidence Limit 3.0078 Probability of Close Fit 0.0787 Bentler' s Comparative Fit Index 0.9422 Normal Theory Reweighted LS Chi-Square 269.7844 Akaike' s Information Criterion -74.7232 Bozdogan' s (1987) CAIC -796.1716 Schwarz' s Bayesian Criterion -617.1716 McDonald' s (1989) Centrality 0.7112 Bentler & Bonett' s (1980) Non-normed Index 0.9322 Bentler & Bonett' s (1980) NFI 0.8594 James, Mulaik, & Brett (1982) Parsimonious NFI 0.7326 Z-Test of Wilson & Hilferty (1931) 4.7278 Bollen (1986) Normed Index Rho1 0.8351 Bollen (1988) Non-normed Index Delta2 0.9432 Hoelter' s (1983) Critical N 115. 67.

(81) 0.2065 (2.4802) 0.6088 (6.5070) 0.5684 (7.3423). AOC 0.3690 (4.2129). 0.7366 (6.8097). 4.3 (. t-value. p<0.05). 68.

(82) ( ) (H1~ H5). 4.17. 0.6088 0.3690. 0.5684 0.2065. R-square R-square. 0.3706. 0.1362 37.06. 13.62. R-square. 50% R-square. 0.4710 47.10. R-square. 0.5098 50.98 50. 30. OCB to Individual = 0.3690 AOC + 0.9414 D1 OCB to Organization = 0.6088 AOC + 0.8200 D2 AOC = 0.5684 PDJ + 0.2065MPS + 0.7242 D3 PDJ = 0.7366 PPJ + 0.6788 D4. 69.

(83) 4.25 /. t-value. R-square. 0.1362. OCB to Organization. (H5) Affective Organizational Commitment. 0.3690. 4.2129**. 0.3706. OCB to Organization. (H4) Affective Organizational Commitment. 0.6088. 6.5070**. 0.4710. Affective Organizational Commitment. (H2) Perceived Distributed Justice. 0.5684. 7.3423**. 0.2065. 2.4802*. (H1) Motivating Potential Score. 0.5098. Perceived Distributed Justice. (H3) 0.7366. Perceived Distributed Justice. **. p<0.01 *. 70. 6.8097**. p<0.05.

(84) 4.6. 4.27 4.26. OCB toward Organization. OCB toward Organization. Affective Organizational Commitment. AOC. 0.3690. 0.6088. --. --. std. (0.0650). (0.0678). t-value. 4.2129**. 6.5070**. PDJ. 0.2097. 0.3460. 0.5684. --. std. (0.0633). t-value. 7.3423**. MPS. 0.1257. 0.0762. 0.2065. std. (0.00346). t-value. 2.4802*. PPJ. 0.4187. 0.2549. 0.1545. Perceived Distributed Justice. --. 0.7366. std. (0.1222). t-value. 6.8097** (). **. t. p<0.01 *. p<0.05. 71.

(85) 4.6.1 (. ). 0.6088. 0.5. R-square. (. ). p<0.01. (. R-square. 0.3690 0.1362. ) 0.5684 p<0.01 0.2065. R-square. p<0.05. 0.4710. 72.

(86) (. ) 0.7366 p<0.01 R-square. 0.5425. 4.6.2 4.26 0.4187 ( 0.7366. 0.5684. ) (0.2065). 0.3460. 0.2549 0.1257. 0.2097 0.2. 73.

(87) 5.1. Organ, 1988 Williams. Anderson. Allen Mathieu. Meyer. Zajac. Mathieu 74. Zajac.

(88) Hackman. Oldham. 15 20. 3. 2 3. 4. 3 4 5. 4 3. 4 V19 V3. V23. 75.

(89) 1 10. 1-4. 10. 5-9. 4. 2. 10 10. 5-9. 3. 10 1-4. 5-9. 4 10 5 6 30-39 50. 1.. H1 0.2065. 2. (1). H2. 0.5684. R-square. 76. 0.4710.

(90) (2). H3 0.7366. R-square. 3. (1). H4 0.6088 (2). H5 0.3690. 77. 0.5098.

(91) 5.2 5.2.1. 1 5 Motivating Potential Score(MPS ) =. Skill Variety + Task Identity + Task Significance × ( Autonomy ) × (Feedback ) 3. 1. 1× 1× 1 = 1. 5 × 5 × 5 = 125 3 × 3 × 3 = 27. 4 × 4 × 4 = 64. 125 78.

(92) 64 39 40. 3.04. 3.35. 4. Mentor. Cohen. 79. 1993.

(93) 1.. 2.. 3.. 80.

(94) 5.2.2. Shappe, 1998 1. Longitudinal survey. 2.. 5~9. 1~4. 81.

(95) Turnley et. al., 2003 Smith et al., 1983. Moday OCQ. 82.

(96) 1.. SPSS 1996. 2.. ( )( ). 3.. 1992. SPSS FOR WINDOWS ). ( 88. 4. Adams, J. S., (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz,. Ed.. ,. Advances in social psychology. New York: Academic Press. 5. Allen, N. J., and Meyer, J. P. (1990), ' The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitments to the organization' . Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol.63, 1-8. 6. Alpander, Guvenc G.. (1990), Health Care Management Review. Frederick: Fall 1990. Vol. 15, Iss. 4; 51-63. 7. Anderson, J. C., and Gerbing, D. W.,(1988) Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-step Approach., Psychological Bulletin, Vol.103, pp.411-423. 8. Baron, R. A. (1993). Critcism (informal negative feedback) as a source of perceived unfairness in organizations: effects, mechanisms, and countermeasures. In R. S. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice, in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 155-170). Hillsdale, NJ:. Erlbaum. 9. Bateman, T.S., & Organ, D.W., (1983), Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “Citizenship ”, Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 587-595. 10. Becker, H. S., (1960), Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, Vol.66, 32-42. 11. Bentler, P. M., Chou, C. (1987), Practice issue in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, Vol.16 pp.78-117. 12. Beugre, C. D. (1996). Analyzing the effects of perceived fairness on organizational commitment and workplace aggression. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Tory, New York. 13. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S., (1986), Interactional Justice :Communication Criteria for Fairness. In B. Sheppard ED. , Research on Negotiation in Organitions, Vol.1, pp.43-55, Greenwich, CT:JAI. 14. Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The 83.

(97) influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research, 1, 199-218.. 15. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. 16. Clemmer, E. C. (1993). An investigation into reationship of fairness and customer satisfaction with services. In R. S. Cropanzano (Ed.) , Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 193-207). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 17. Cohen, Aaron (1993), Work Commitment in Relation to Withdrawal Intentions and Union Effectiveness, Journal of Business Research, Vol.26, pp75-90. 18. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y., (2001), Justice at the millennium A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational research. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.86 No.3 425-445. 19. Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J., (1997), Progress in organizational justice Tunneling through the maze. In C. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology, 317-372. 20. Cropanzano, R. S., Randall, M. L. 1993 . Injustice and work behavior: A historical review. In R. S. Cropanzano Ed. , Justice in the workplace: Appro aching fairness in human resource management pp.3-20 . Hillsdale, NJ:. Erlbaum. 21. Crosby, (1984) ,Relative Deprivation in Organizational Setting. In Research in Organizational Behavior, Eds B. M. Staw and L.L. Cummings,6: 53-93.Greenwith,CT: JAI Press. 22. Deckop, John R., Mangel, Robert, and Cirka Carol C.,(1999), Getting More than You Pay for: Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Pay-for-Performance Plans. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.42, No.4, 420-428. 23. Dunham, Grube & Castañeda, (1994), Organizational commitment, the Utility of an integrative definition. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.79 No.3 pp.370-380 24. Etzioni, A., (1961), Ed., Complex Organizations, N.Y. Holt, Rinehart, & Winton.. 25. Folger, R. (1986). Rethinking Equity Theory: A Referent Cognitions Model. In H. W.Bierhoff, R.L. Cohen & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in Social Relations (pp.145-162). New York: Plenum. 26. Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F.,(1981) Evaluating structural equation modele with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.18, pp.39-50. 27. Gary W. Loveman, (1998), Employee Satisfaction, Customer Loyalty, and Financial Performance An Empirical Examination of the Service Profit Chain in Retail Banking, Journal of Service Research, Vol.1(1), pg.18-31. 84.

(98) 28. Greenberg, J. & Folger, R. 1983 , Procedural Justice, Participation, and the Fair Process Effect in Groups and Organizations. In P. B. Paulus Ed. , Basic Group Processes. New York: Springer-Verlag. 29. Greenberg, J., (1987), A Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories.” Academy of Management Review, Vol.12, 9-22. 30. Greenberg, J., (1990), Organizational Justice Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, Vol.6, 399-432. 31. Hackman, J. R and E. E. Lawler (1971), Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics, Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(3), 259-286. 32. Hackman, J. R. and G. R. Oldham (1975),Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey, Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), pp159-170. 33. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976), Motivation through the design of work Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279. 34. Hatcher, L. (1998) A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS System for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd. SAS Institute Inc. 35. Hall, D. T., Schneider, B., & Nygren, H. T., (1970), Personal factors in organizational identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.15, 176-189. 36. Heskett, J. L., Jones, T. O., Loveman, G. W., Sasser Jr, W. E., & Schlesinger, L. A., (1994), Putting the service profit chain to work, Harvard Business Review, Vol.72(March-April), pg. 164-174. 37. Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Hartcourt, brace & World. 38. Hrebiniak, L. G. & Alutto, J. A., (1972), Personal and role-related factors in the development of organizational commitment, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.17, 555-573. 39. James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A. & Brett, J. M. (1982) Causal Analysis, Beverly Hills: Sage. 40. James, L. R., & Tetrick, L. E., (1986), Confirmatory analytic tests of three causal models relating job perceptions to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.71, 77-82. 41. Jenkins, Nadler, Lawler, & Cammann, (1975), Standardized Observations An Approach to Measuring the Nature of Jobs, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.60, No.2, 171-181. 42. Joreskog , K. G. & Sorbom , D. (1993) LISREL8: User's reference guide, Chicago,. IL: Scientific Software International. 43. Kanter, R. M. (1983), The Change Masters, Innovation for Productivity in the 85.

(99) American Corporation. N.Y.. Simon and Schuster.. 44. Katz, D. (1964). The Motivational Basis of Organizational Behavior, Behavioral Science, Vol.9, pp.131-146. 45. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The Social psychology of organizations(2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. 46. Konovsky, Mary A., and Pugh, S. Douglas, (1994), Citizenship Behavior and Social Exchange, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.37, No.3, 656-669. 47. Kumar, Nirmalya, J. D. Hibbard, & Louis W. Stern, (1994), The nature and consequences of marketing channel Intermediary Commitment. Report No. 94-115. Cambridge, MA Market Science Institute. 48. Lam, S. S. K., Hui, C. & Law, K. S. (1999). Organizational Citizenship Behavior Comparing Perspectives of Supervisors Subordinates Across Four International Samples, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.84, pp.594-601. 49. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange:Advances in. theory and research (pp.27-55). New York: Plenum. 50. Leventhal, G. A., Karuza, J., Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp.167-218). New York: Springer-Verlag. 51. Lowe, R. H., & Vodanovich, S. J., (1995), A field study of distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol.10, 99-114. 52. Lind E. A., & Tyler, T. R. 1988 , The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice.. New York: Plenum Press. 53. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. Organizations. New York Academy Press, 1958. 54. Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S., (2000), Intergrating justice and social exchange The different effects of fair procedure and treatment on work relationships, Academy of Management Journal. Vol.43, 738-748. 55. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D., (1995), An intergrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, Vol.20, 709-734. 56. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991), A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, Vol.1, 61-89. 57. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984), Testing the “side-bet theory” of organizational commitment some methodological considerations. Journal of. Applied Psychology, Vol.69, 372-378. 58. Mikula, G. (1980), Introduction Main issue in the Psychology research on 86.

(100) justice. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction Experimental and theoretical contribution from Psychology research pp.13-23 New-York Springer-Verlag.. 59. Morrow, P. C., & McElroy, J. C. (1986), On accessing measures of work commitment. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, Vol.7, 139-145. 60. Morgan, Robert M. & Shelby D. Hunt, (1994), The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, Vol.58(July), pg. 20-38. 61. Moorman, R. H., (1991), Relationship between organizational citizenship behaviors Do fairness perception influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.76, pp845-855. 62. Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. (1993), Treating employees fairly and organizational citizenship behavior: sorting the effect of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol.37, 1543-1567. 63. Moorman, Chiristine, Gerald Zaltman, & Rohit Deshpande, (1992), Relationships between providers and users of marketing research the dynamic of trust within and between organizations, Journal of Marketing Research,. Vol.29(August), pg. 314-329. 64. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M., (1982), Employee-organizational linkages. New York Academic Press. 65. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W., (1979), The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behaviour. Vol.14, 224-247. 66. Morrow, P. C., (1983), Concept Redundancy in organizational research The case of work commitment. Journal of Occupational Behaviour. Vol.7, 139-145. 67. Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M (1990) ' A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment' . Psychological Bulletin, Vol.108 (2), 171-194. 68. Netemeyer, Richard G., Boles, James S., Mckee, Daryl O., and Mcmurrian, Robert, (1997), An Investgation Into the Antecedents of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors in a Personal Selling Context. Jourmal of Marketing, Vol.61, 85-98. 69. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior The GoodSolider Syndrome. Lexington, MA Lexington Books.. 70. Organ, D. W., (1990), The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staws (Eds), Research on organizational behavior(Vol.12, 43-72), Greenwich, CT JAI Press. 71. Porter, L. W., Steers, E., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V., (1974), Units performance, situation factors, and employee attitudes in spatially separated 87.

(101) work units. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol.15, pg. 87-98.. 72. Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W., (1986), Handbook of organizational measurement. Marshifield, MA Pittman. 73. Randall, D. M. (1987), Commitment and the Organization The Organization Man Revisited, Academy of Management Review, Vol.12, 462.. 74. Randall, D. M., Fedor, D. B., & Longenecker, C. O., (1990), The behavioral expression of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol.36, 210-224. 75. Reichers, A. E. (1985), A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Review, Vol.10 465-476. 76. Robbins, S.P. Foundations of Behavior Management, (1996), 5th ED., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 77. Robbins, S. P. (1998). Organizational Behavior Concepts, Controversies, Applications, 8th ed. New Jersey Prentice-Hall. 78. Schappe, S. P., (1998), The influence of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and fairness perceptions on organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of Psychology, Vol.132, 277-290.. 79. Scholl, R. W., (1981), Differentiating organizational commitment from expectancy as a motivating force. Academy of Management Review, Vol.6 589-599. 80. Scholl, R. W., Cooper, R. A., & McKenna, J. F.(1987), Referent Selection in Determining Equity Perceptions Differential Effects on Behavioral and Attitudinal Outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 40, 113-124. 81. Seashore, S. E. & Taber, T. D. (1975), Job Satisfaction Indicators and Their Correlates, American Behavioral Scientists, 18, 333-368. 82. Schlesinger, L. A. & Heskett, J. L.,(1991), Breaking the cycle of failure in services. Sloan Management Review, Spring, 17, pg 17-28. 83. Sheppard, B. H., Lewicki, R. J., & Minton, J. W., (1992), Organizational justice The search for fairness in the workplace. New York Lexington Books.. 84. Shore, Lynn M., and Sandy J. Wayne(1993), Commitment and Emplyee Behavior. Comparison of Affective Commitment and Continuance Commitment with Perceived Organizational Support. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.78(5), pp774-780. 85. Sims,J.R., Keller,H.P.,& Szilagyi,A.D.(1976). Job characteristics relationship: Industrial and structural moderators. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 19.pp. 159-212. 86. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature and Antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol.68, 88.

(102) pp653-663. 87. Sommer, S. M., Bae, Seung-Hyun, & Luthans, Fred (1996), Organizational commitment across cultures the impact of antecedents on Korean employees. Human Relations, Vol.49, No.7, 977-993. 88. Staw, B. M., & Salancik, G. R., (1977), Commitment is too easy, Organizational dynamics. Summer, 207-222. 89. Steers, R. M. (1977), Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.22, 46-56. 90. Stone, E. F., & Gueutal, H. G., (1985), An empirical derivation of the dimensions along which characteristics of jobs are perceived. Academy of Management Journal, Vol28, 376-396. 91. Still, L. W. (1983), Part-time versus full-time salespeople Individual attributes, organizational commitment, and work attitudes, Journal of retailing, Vol.59, 55-79. 92. Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (1996), Using multivariate statistics, New. York, NY: HarperCollins. 93. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975), Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum . 94. Turner, A. N. and P. R. Lawrence (1965), Industrial Jobs and the Worker, Boston: Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration. 95. Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., and Bloodgood, J. M. (2003), The impact of psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, Vol.29, 187-206. 96. Weiner, Y. (1982), Commitment in organization A normative view. Academy. of Management Review, Vol.7, 418-428. 97. Williams, L.J., & Anderson, S.E.(1991), Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors, Journal of Management, Vol17, 601-617.. 89.

(103) 附件一、問卷內容. 90.

(104) Department of Transportation Technology & Management National Chiao Tung University. 填答說明. What we would like you to do. 此份「不記名的」問卷,是為了衡量您感受到的工作特性,全都是單選題,因為只需 要圈記,不需寫字,約略只會佔用您 10~15 分鐘。您的參與將直接影響此項調查的成功與 否,請依照您真實感覺回答下列全部問題,問卷結果皆直接交給交通大學人員彙整,由學 術單位客觀進行總和的統計分析,個別的問卷內容將不會被知曉,各位可以放心填答。問 題的答案沒有對或錯,通常您的第一直覺就是最好的答案。 This “anonymous” questionnaire is designed to measure both the job’s characteristics you feel and each question has only one answer. Writings are unnecessary, and you just need to mark the answers. So, it will only take you about ten to fifteen minutes at most. The success of survey depends on your contribution, so it is important that you answer all of these questions and as honestly as you can. Results will be relayed to National Chiao Tung University directly and be represented by statistical analysis aggregately. Individual questionnaire will not be exposed, and you could just feel relieved of answering these questions. There are no right or wrong answers, generally speaking, the first answer that comes to mind is the best.. (1) 受訪者基本資料 Background Information 1. 性別 Gender F (1) 男 Male 2. 年齡. 5. 婚姻狀況. F (1)未婚 Single. F (2) 女 Female. Age. F (2)已婚 Married. 6. 在職位工作年數 How long you have been in your job F (1) under 1 year F (2) 1~4 years F (3) 5~9 years F (4) 10 years above 7. 在公司工作年數 How long you have been in your company F (1) under 1 year F (2) 1~4 years F (3) 5~9 years F (4) 10 years above 8. 工作性質 Job specifics F (1)直接現場作業. F (1) 20-29 F (2) 30-39 F (3) 40-49 F (4) 50 and above 3. 國籍. Marriage. Nationality. F (1) 中華民國 ROC F (2) 其他 Others 4. 學歷 Education F (1) 國(初)中(含)以下 Junior high school and beyond F (2) 高中(職)High School F (3) 大專 College F (4) 研究所(含)以上 Graduate and above. Working on-the-spot F (2)行政技術支援 Technical support and General affairs 91.

(105) (2) 知覺的工作環境 Perceived of your Job 以下是您工作環境的特性,請依據您最近三個月實際發生的狀況,圈選對於各項目的感覺程度。 Follows are characteristics of job. Consider the statement with reference to what you have actually met over the last three months. And mark your answers to rate them in terms of the degree of you perceive each may place on you.. 同 意. 通. 意. 非 常 不 同 意. 不. 普. 同. 5 4 3 2 1. 非 常 同 意. 非常同意 Strongly Agree 同意 Moderately Agree 普通普普普 Neither Disagree Nor Agree 不同意 Moderately Disagree 非常不同意 Strongly Disagree. 例題: 我非常樂意配合填答此份問卷 Example: I am willing to cooperate filling this questionnaire. 1. 我的工作提供我許多機會執行或體驗不同的任務. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 2.. My job provides me the opportunity to do different kinds of things at work. 我的任務需要許多的技巧或技術. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 3.. I need various skills and techniques to accomplish my tasks. 我的工作內容變化程度高. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 4.. There is high variety in my job. 我可以獨力完成我的任務. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 5.. At work, I could accomplish my tasks by myself. 任務若是由我開始執行,通常也由我完成. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 6.. I often get the chance to finish completely any task I start. 如果我的任務出錯,會使公司產生重大損失. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 7.. If there were something wrong with my tasks, company will incur great loss. 若是我的任務進度落後,會使其他人工作無法進行. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 8.. Falling behind with my task progress will delay others’ tasks. 我的任務讓我感覺身負重任. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 9.. My tasks let me feel heavy responsibility for the work. 我的工作沒有運用創造力或是判斷力的機會. There is no opportunity to make use of creativity and judgment at my work. 10. 對於工作進度的決定、方法的選擇,我具備自由決定的權力. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. I am given enough freedom to decide the way and the progress of my work. 11. 工作常常可以讓我獨立思考與獨立行動. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. My work always lets me think and action independently. 12. 我常在我的工作下許多決定. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. I often make many decisions at my work. 13. 任務成果可以讓我直接知道自己的表現好壞. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. I could understand my performance directly by the results of my tasks. 92.

(106) 同 意. 通. 意. 非 常 不 同 意. 不. 普. 同. 5 4 3 2 1. 非 常 同 意. 非常同意 Strongly Agree 同意 Moderately Agree 普通普普普 Neither Disagree Nor Agree 不同意 Moderately Disagree 非常不同意 Strongly Disagree 14. 我有許多機會知道主管對我工作的看法. I have many opportunities to know opinions towards my work from the supervisor.. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. Fairly rewarded considering the responsibilities. 17. 薪資與獎賞公平地對應我的工作經驗. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. Fairly rewarded in view of the amount of work experience I have. 18. 薪資與獎賞公平地對應我對工作的投入程度. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. Fairly rewarded for the amount of effort I put forth. 19. 薪資與獎賞公平地對應我工作中的成果. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. Fairly rewarded for the work I have done well. 20. 薪資與獎賞公平地對應我在工作上所遭遇的緊張與壓力. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. Fairly rewarded for the stresses and strains of my job. 21. 公司的決定能夠允許有不同的意見. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. Company provides opportunities to appeal or challenge the decision. 22. 公司進行決定前,會考慮所有可能的影響. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. Company has all sides affected by the decision represented. 23. 公司決定有固定標準,不會有難以接受的意外決定. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. Company generates standards so that decisions could be made with consistency. 24. 公司下決定前會儘量考慮被影響人的意見. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. Company hears the concerns of all those affected by the decision. 25. 公司允許員工,對公司的決定要求解釋以及提供額外資訊. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. I do not feel emotional attached to this company. 29. 我的公司對我而言充滿了許多有意義的人事物. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. This company has a great deal of personal meaning for me. 30. 我會遵守公司中維持制度的不成文規定. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. I adheres to informal companyal rules devised to maintain order.. 31. 如果我無法上班,我總是預先告訴公司. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. I always give advance notice when I am unable to come to work.. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 15. 我有許多機會知道同事對我工作的看法 I have many opportunities to know opinions towards my work from the coworkers.. 16. 薪資與獎賞公平地對應我所擔負的責任. Company allows for requests for clarification or additional information about the decision.. 26. 我的職業生涯若能夠幾乎都待在這個公司之中,我會感到很高興 I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this company. 27. 對別的公司我難以有像在這裡的歸屬感 I think it is difficult that becomes as attached to another company as I am to this one.. 28. 我感覺不到我屬於這個公司. 93.

(107) 同 意. 通. 意. 非 常 不 同 意. 不. 普. 同. 5 4 3 2 1. 非 常 同 意. 非常同意 Strongly Agree 同意 Moderately Agree 普通普普普 Neither Disagree Nor Agree 不同意 Moderately Disagree 非常不同意 Strongly Disagree 32. 我的出席率比一般水準高 My attendance at work is above the norm. 33. 我在工作上完全沒有任何小事想抱怨. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. There are no insignificant or minor things I wanna complain at work. 34. 我通常會幫助因故缺席的人,代替他們完成工作. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. I generally help others who have been absent. 35. 我很樂意幫忙其他工作負擔較重的同事,. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. I generally help others who have heavy workloads. 36. 我很樂意幫助新同事. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. I go out of the way to help new employees. 37. 我很願意傾聽同事的心事或焦慮. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. I generally take time to listen to coworkers’ problem and worries. 38. 我會與同事分享工作相關資訊. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. I pass along work-related information to coworkers. 懇請您再次檢查是否填答完全,感謝您的參與。 謹祝工作平安!. Please make sure that you have filled all the questions. Thank you for your participation. Have a nice day.. 94.

(108) 95.

(109) 96.

(110)

參考文獻

相關文件

1 工作組織與管理 Work organization and management 13 2 照顧材料與工具 Care of materials and tools 10 3 商業與溝通 Business and communications 8.. 4

(1996), “Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employees satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship

The Effect of Work Motivation on Job Satisfaction, Individual Performance and Organizational Citizenship Behavior:The Moderate Effect of Organizational Culture 頁數:60

•虐兒行為是人們(單獨或集體地) 利用本身與兒 童之間權力差異的特殊地位 (如年齡、身分、知

Keywords: Financial and Insurance Industry, Work Motivation, Work Pressure, Job Satisfaction, Organizational

The present study explores the relationship between organizational reward system, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and organizational performance to

隨著 TAM 陸續的修正,知覺有用性和知覺易用性還是影響資訊科技採用的兩項 重要因素,但過去研究顯示知覺有用性及知覺易用性兩項因素會直接影響使用者的行 為意向(Venkatesh &

performance of college students, Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM) 期刊. Which is a better predictor of job performance: Job satisfaction or