正向心理學與組織公民行為之探討以團隊為調節變相

全文

(1)The Relationship between Psychological Capital and Organization Citizenship Behavior: Does Teamwork Matter?. by. Wen-Chun, Huang. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of. MASTER OF BUSINESS. Major: International Human Resource Development. Advisor: C. Rosa Yeh, Ph.D. National Taiwan Normal University Taipei, Taiwan July, 2016.

(2) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thanks for everyone who have helped me on the journey of the research. Without all of you, I could not finish my thesis. First of all, I would like to thank for my family. My parents always are my strongest support, with their support I could feel brave and pursue my master degree. When I had difficulties to collected data, they tried to help me to search the potential sample. When I felt tired and frustrated to work on my thesis they tried to encourage me and asked me to keep insisting. Also, I would like to thank for my brother and sister, with your company I knew I was not alone, I had someone listen to me wherever I was. They made me understand home is where the heart is. The friends and classmates I made in the past two years also encourage me a lot. Because all of you, my past two years was really wonderful. We studied, worked hard, wrote a thesis and played together. With all of you writing thesis became not so panic and anxious anymore, instead, it was the really memorable time that we fought with each other and shared our time together. Last but not least, to my advisor Dr. Rosa Yeh. In the past two years, I never feeling regret choosing you as my advisor. Thank you for guiding me to finish my thesis and making my ideas become reality. I was really happy to discussing with you about my ideas and making my thesis finished gradually with your support and encourage. Although my thesis is done and I will graduate from NTNU, I believe our friendship just start and I will always thankful for the time I shared with you..

(3) ABSTRACT In this study the researcher explored teamwork, specifically team cohesion and team identification, as moderators in the relationship between Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB) and Psychological Capital (PsyCap). This research examined how teamwork can strengthen the influence of PsyCap on OCB, so that organizations understand the effect of team identification and cohesion to create a friendly and positive work environment that is conducive to producing more organizational citizenship behaviors from employees with higher psychological capital. A total of 175 valid respondents from 50 real estate teams participated in this study. Hierarchical Linear Models and Hierarchical regression was adopted to test hypotheses. As the research result shows, PsyCap has a positive relationship with OCB. Team Identification and Team Cohesion does not moderate the effect of Psychology Capital on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors both in team level and individual level. However, team identification and team cohesion has a significant relation to organization citizenship behaviors in real estate agencies.. Keywords: Organizational citizenship behaviors, Psychological capital, Team identification, Team cohesion. I.

(4) TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT................................................................................................ I TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................... II LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................... IV LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................. VI CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION……………………………………….1 Background of Study…………………………………………………………….. 1 Objective of Study……..………………………………………………………… 3 Research Questions……………………………………………………………..... 4 Scope of Study………………………………………………………………….... 4 Definition of Terms…………………………………………………………….....5. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………… 6 Organizational Citizenship Behaviors……………………………….…………... 6 Psychological Capital…………………………………………………………....11 Team Identification……………………………………………………………... 18 Team Cohesion…………………………………………………………………. 22. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY…………………………………... 27 Research Framework…………………………………………………………….27 Research Hypotheses…………………………………………………………… 27 Research Procedure……………………………………………………………...28 Research Design…………………………………………………………………29 Instrument………………………………………………………………………. 33 Meseaurement………………………………………………………………….. 33 Reliability and Validity…………………………………………………………. 38. Chapter IV DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS……………..……..64 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis…………………………………64 II.

(5) Hierarchical Linear Model Analysis…………………………………………..... 67 Hierarchical Regression Analysis………………………………………………. 71 Four Dimensions as Dependent Variable in HLM………………………………75 Modified Framework…………………………………………………………… 77. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTION...…………….79 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………...… 79 Research and Theoretical Contributions………………………………………... 82 Practical Implications…..………………………………………………………. 82 Limitations……………………………………………………………………… 84 Suggestions for Future Research…………………………………………...…... 85. REFERENCES………………………………………………………….86 APPENDIX: RESEARCH QUESIONNAIRE………………………….94. III.

(6) LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1.. Dimensions of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors................. 7. Table 3.1. Descriptive Statistics of the Sample.......................................... 30 Table 3.2. Measurement Scale Items ......................................................... 37 Table 3.3.. Pilot Test EFA Result: Rotated Component Matrix for Organizational Citizenship Behaviors………...…………..…..39. Table 3.4. Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Variable Items .............. 40 Table 3.5. Pilot Test EFA Result: Rotated Component Matrix for Psychological Capital………..…………………………….….41 Table 3.6. Psychological Capital Variable Items ....................................... 43 Table 3.7. Pilot Test EFA Result: Rotation Component Matrix for Team Identification…………...……………………………………...46 Table 3.8. Pilot Test EFA Result: Rotation Component Matrix for Team Cohesion………...…………………………………………….47 Table 3.9. Team Cohesion Variable Items ................................................. 48 Table 3.10.. Summary of Goodness-of-Fit Criteria .................................... 49. Table 3.11.. Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Model Fit Summary ... 50. Table 3.12.. Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Factor Loading List .... 53. Table 3.13.. Psychological Capital Model Fit Summary ............................ 54. Table 3.14.. Psychological Capital Factor Loading List ............................. 56. Table 3.15.. Team Identification Model Fit Summary................................ 57. Table 3.16.. Team Identification Factor Loading List ................................ 59. Table 3.17.. Team Cohesion Model Fit Summary ...................................... 60. Table 3.18.. Team Cohesion Factor Loading List ....................................... 63. IV.

(7) Table 4. 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities and Correction among Study Variables ........................................................... 66 Table 4. 2.. Regression Analysis: Team Identification as Moderator ......... 72. Table 4. 3.. Regression Analysis: Team Cohesion as Moderator ............... 74. Table 4. 4.. Team Identification as Moderator in HLM .............................. 76. Table 4. 5.. Team Cohesion as Moderator in HLM .................................... 77. V.

(8) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1.. Research framwork................................................................................. 27. Figure 3.2.. Research procedure ................................................................................ 28. Figure 3.3.. Organizational citizenship behavior model 1 ......................................... 51. Figure 3.4.. Organizational citizenship behavior model 2 ......................................... 52. Figure 3.5.. Psycological capital model 1 .................................................................. 54. Figure 3.6.. Psycological capital model 2 .................................................................. 55. Figure 3.7.. Team identification model 1................................................................... 58. Figure 3.8.. Team identification model 2 ................................................................... 59. Figure 3.9.. Team cohesion model 1 .......................................................................... 61. Figure 3.10. Team cohesion model 2 ........................................................................ 62 Figure 4.1.. Team identification and cohesion as dependent variable ....................... 78. Figure 4.2.. Optimism as dependent variable ............................................................ 78. VI.

(9) CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. Background of Study The economist predicted there is one-third of real estate agencies will lose their job or need to change to other industries in 2016. Compare to 2006 each real estate agency could sell 21.26 houses per year, in 2015 each estate agency only could sell 6.02 houses, which means many agents may not get the appropriate financial reward in almost 6 months. The financial award comes from the 5% of the total estate price. Real estate agents who have bad performance or others who need to find new jobs are worried about their future. In this difficult time, if employees are able to stand by their team members and think positively, it will be easier for both team and team members to get through this economic downturn. Psychologists suggest that the employees who have more positive emotions have more ability to endure the difficulties and have more ability to bounce back when facing frustrations than the employees who have more negative emotions. (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007b) Therefore, in this research the researcher uses the concept of positive psychology in the work team to examine how to create the positive and supportive environment in the real estate industry. Through discussing positive psychology, the researcher intends to familiarize organizations and employee’s ways to make the workplace a more positive one and to make employees stay hopeful during the difficult period. Psychological Capital (PsCap) helps individuals sustain their effort and perseverance within the context of the workplace. Many research results already showed that individuals with a high level of PsyCap tends to have more desirable behaviors such as organizational citizenship behavior. (Luthans, 2002; Lyubomirsky & King, 2005). 1.

(10) Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has been defined as those behaviors that “are not part of the employee’s formal requirements, but nevertheless, promote the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1998, p, 4). The value of OCB is that it is extra-behaviors that cannot be expected and required by organizations’ formal regulation and job description, but it affects organizations’ performance (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine & Bachrach, 2000; Smith, Organ & Near, 1983). Organizational citizenship behavior is especially important to the real estate industry for team members to share their information and support their teammates when they have poor performance and to defend the team against competitors and difficulties. Teamwork is a very common and important work style in real estate industry. In the real estate working process, team members share their new client information to the teammates and try to sell the house to a client together. The advantages of teamwork in real estate agencies are that they have a bigger market and that they can develop the new clients together. Members of the same team also help and encourage other team members when they have poor performance and encourage other team members don’t give up in this tough period. In this study, the researcher explored team identification and team cohesion to examine how to create the positive workplace and examine the factors that contribute to supporting in the work environment. Team identification and team cohesion have been identified as important antecedents to stimulate desirable behaviors because teamwork creates strong emotional connections and loyalty to the team that can influence members to feel we-ness and willing to stay in the team to help each other to finish the same goal and go through the challenges (Kidwell & Mossholder, 1997). Therefore, in this study the researcher explores teamwork, specifically team cohesion and team identification, as moderators. This research examines how teamwork 2.

(11) can strengthen the influence of PsyCap on organizational citizenship behaviors both in individual level and team level so that organizations understand the effect of team identification and cohesion to create a strong connection between team members that is conducive to producing more organizational citizenship behaviors from employees with higher psychological capital.. Objective of Study As the research about organizational citizenship behaviors is blooming, many concepts have been found to predict OCB. Psychological capital has also been investigated as an important variable which relates to organizational citizenship behaviors. However, although organizational citizenship behaviors have been studied widely in organizations, very limited studies so far have considered teamwork as a moderator between psychological capital and organizational citizenship behaviors. People are creatures of the society. Good interaction in the group may enhance positive emotion and altruistic behaviors in team members.. Therefore, this study helps in. having a better insight of influential moderators including team identification and team cohesion between psychological capital and organizational citizenship behaviors which have not yet been explored in extant research, according to the researcher’s knowledge from a review of the literature.. 3.

(12) Research Questions Drawing from the objectives stated for this study, the following questions are put forward for further investigation: 1.. Will Psychological Capital have an effect on Organizational Citizenship Behavior?. 2.. Does a moderator effect of Team Identification exist on the relationship between Psychological Capital and Organizational Citizenship Behavior?. 3.. Does a moderator effect of Team Cohesion exist on the relationship between Psychological Capital and Organizational Citizenship Behavior?. Scope of Study A limitation of this study is that the researcher only focuses on psychological capital related to OCB, and team identification and cohesion as moderators. Some other important variables not mentioned in this research may also influence OCB. The purpose of the study is to study organizational citizenship behavior at real estate agencies in the Taiwan context; the sample is constituted of real estate agents who have or had teamwork experience in organizations in Taiwan. This study only focused on OCB of the participants as the outcome variable, not the other behaviors in organizations. Due to the size of the sample, the research result may not represent the whole country or the entire industry.. 4.

(13) Definition of Terms Organizational Citizenship Behavior Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB) is individual behavior that is not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system and supports the social and psychological environment in which task performance take place (Organ 1997; 1998).. Psychological Capital Psychological Capital (PsyCap) is an individual’s positive psychological state of circumstances and probability for success based on motivated effort and perseverance. It consists of the four positive psychological recourses of hope, efficacy, optimism and resilience (Luthans, Avolio, Avey & Norman, 2007a).. Team Identification Team identification can be defined as the process by which team members perceive themselves in terms of the values, goals, interests, norms and sense of emotion they share with other team members (Janssen & Huang, 2008).. Team Cohesion Team cohesion can be defined as group members depersonalize their feelings, perceptions, and behaviors towards the group. Therefore, high degrees of loyalty group members are willing to stay in the group (Lin & Peng, 2010).. 5.

(14) CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW. Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Definition of Organizational Citizenship Behavior Organ and his colleagues first created the term “Organizational Citizenship Behavior” (Smith et al., 1983). Organ (1988) defined Organization citizenship behaviors as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization. By discretionary, we mean that the behavior is not an enforceable requirement of the role or the job description.” (p.4) Smith and his colleagues (1983) indicated that citizenship behavior could not be expected or required by organization’s job description or formally rewarded; it is helpful to others in the organization or team but not absolutely required.. Dimension of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors As rapid growing in citizenship behaviors theory and research, there are many different definitions about citizenship behaviors types. Podsakoff and his colleagues (2000) captured past researches which were related to organization citizenship into seven themes or dimensions: (1) helping behaviors: Helping behavior means voluntarily helping others or preventing work related problems. (2) organizational loyalty: This behavior means it protects organizations from external threats and commits to the rules even under the opposite situation. (3) organizational compliance: Acceptance of the workplace rules and regulations even when no other people are watching. (4) individual initiative: Individual initiative has an “voluntary flavor” (Podsakoff et al., 2000); it includes voluntary behaviors to improve one’s creativity or 6.

(15) the performance in organization. However, Organ (1988) indicated that this behavior is the most difficult to differentiate from in-role behaviors; therefore, some studies have not included this behavior into their studies. (5) self- development: Self-development develops someone to have better competency, including attending training courses or learning new skills in order to have better contributions to organizations. (6) civic virtue: Civic Virtue has been defined by Organ (1988); it means employees accept the responsibilities and are willing to participate in activities in organizations or monitor environment for changes. (7) sportsmanship: Employees are willing to tolerate the extra work without complaining and have positive attitude even when things go wrong; moreover, they are willing to sacrifice their interests for group performance. (Organ, 1990b; Podsakoff et al., 2000) According to Posakoff and his colleagues (2000), the dimensions of OCB are shown in Table 2.1. Table 2.1. Dimensions of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Dimensions. Definitions. HELPING. Altruism― behavior that is directly and intentionally and intentionally. BEHAVIOR. aimed at helping a specific person in face-to-face situations. (Smith, Organ & Near ,1983, p. 657) ‧. Courtesy—subsumes all of those foresightful gestures that help someone else prevent a problem (Organ, 1990b, p.96). Peacemaking—actions that help to prevent, resolve or mitigate unconstructive interpersonal conflict (Organ, 1990b, p.96). Cheerleading—the words and gestures of encouragement and reinforcement of coworkers’ accomplishments and professional development (Organ, 1990a, p.96). OCB-I—behaviors that immediately benefit specific individuals and indirectly through this means contribute to the organization. (Williams & Anderson, 1991, p.602).. (continued). 7.

(16) Table 2.1. (continued) Dimensions. Definitions Interpersonal Facilitation—interpersonal facilitation encompasses a range of interpersonal acts that help maintain the interpersonal and social context needed to support effective task performance in an organizational setting.. (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996, p.526).. ORGANIZATION. Generalized Compliance―The behavior seems to represent something. COMPLIANCE. akin to compliance with internalized norms defining what a “good employee ought to do” (Smith, Organ & Near ,1983, p.657). Organizational Obedience— Obedience may be demonstrated by a respect for rules and instructions, punctuality in attendance and task completion, and stewardship of organizational resources (Graham, 1991, p.255). OCB-O—behaviors that benefit the organization in general (e.g., gives advance notice when unable to come to work, adheres to informal rules devised to maintain order). (Williams & Anderson, 1991, p.601-602) Following Organizational Rules and Procedures— [Including] following orders and regulations and respect for authority . . .complying with organizational values and policies . . .( Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, p.82).. INDIVIDUAL. Making Constructive Suggestions—includes all voluntary acts of. INITIATIVE. creativity and innovation in organizations. . . actively try to find ways to improve individual, group, or organizational functioning (George & Jones, 1997, p.155). Job Dedication—Job dedication is the motivational foundation for job performance that drives people to act with the deliberate intention of promoting the organization’s best interest (Van Scotter &Motowidlo, 1996, p.526). Conscientiousness—is a pattern of going well beyond minimally required levels…and related matters of internal maintenance (Organ, 1990b, p96). Individual Initiative—communications to others in the workplace to improve individual and group performance (Moorman & Blakely, 1995, p. 130).. (continued). 8.

(17) Table 2.1. (continued) Dimensions. Definitions. CIVIC. Protecting. VIRTUE. organizational members engage in to protect or save life and property. the. Organization—includes. those. voluntary. acts. (George & Jones, 1997, p.155). Civic Virtue—is responsible, constructive involvement in the political process of the organization (Organ, 1990b, p.96). Individual Initiative— communications to others in the workplace to improve individual and group performance. (Moorman & Blakely, 1995, p.130) ORGANIZATIONAL. Loyalty Boosterism— the promotion of the organizational image to. LOYALITY. outsiders. (Moorman & Blakely, 1995, p.130) Organizational. Loyalty—identification. with. and. allegiance. to. organizational leaders and the organization as a whole, transcending the parochial interests of individuals, work groups, and departments. (Graham, 1991, p.255) Spreading Goodwill—is the means by which organizational members voluntarily contribute to organizational effectiveness through efforts to represent their organizations to wider communities…contribute to organizational effectiveness by insuring that organizations obtain needed resources from various stakeholder groups. (George & Jones, 1997, p. 155). Endorsing, Supporting, and Defending Organizational Objectives— [Including] organizational loyalty . . .concern for unit objectives. . . staying with the organization during hard times and representing the organization favorably to outsiders (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, p.82). SPORTMANSHIP. Sportsmanship—a citizen-like posture of tolerating the inevitable inconveniences and impositions of work without whining and grievances (Organ, 1990b, p.96). Helping and Cooperating With Others—[Including] organizational courtesy and not complaining. . . ( Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, p.82).. SELF―. Developing Oneself—workers take to voluntarily improve their. DEVELOPMENT. knowledge, skills, and abilities so as to be better able to contribute to their organizations. (George & Jones, 1997, p.155).. Note. Adapted from “Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and Suggestions for the Future Research,” by Posakoff, Mackenzie, Paine and Bachrach. 2000, Journal go Management, 26(3), 513-563. Copyright 2000 by Elsevier Science Inc. 9.

(18) Antecedents and Consequences of Citizenship Behaviors Podsakoff and his colleagues (2000) report the relationships between OCBs and their antecedents such as individual characteristics, task characteristics, organizational characteristics and leadership behaviors. Through the meta-analytic Podsakoff and his colleagues (2000) focused on four categories of antecedents, including: (1) individual characteristics: employee attitudes, satisfaction, perception of fairness, organization commitment and perceptions of leader supportiveness. (2) task characteristics: task feedback, intrinsically satisfying tasks, task reutilization, (3) organizational characteristics: organizational formalization, organizational inflexibility, advisory/staff support. (4) leadership behaviors: transformational leadership, transactional leader ship, Path-Goal theory of leadership, Leader-Member Exchange theory of leadership. Podsakoff and his colleagues (2000) found that, individual characteristics, task characteristics and leadership behaviors are more strongly related to OCB than other antecedents.. In summary, individual characteristics especially perception of fairness,. organization commitment and job satisfaction were positively related to OCB; Task characteristics are important determinants of OCB, however, lack of the attention in the OCB literature researchers suggested it deserve more attention in future research; Leaders, especially, leader’s support behaviors play an important role in influencing OCB. Podsakoff and his colleagues (2000) also summarized the consequences of OCB. The consequences of OCB have two key issues: (1) the effects of OCB on managerial evaluation of performance. (2) the effects of OCB on organizational performance and effectiveness. OCB influences managerial evaluations of performance, for example, managers evaluate OCB into employee’s performance, rewards and other related decisions. Therefore, employees usually view OCBs as an expected part of their job 10.

(19) (Marrison, 1994; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Another key issue is OCB effects on organizational performance and effectiveness. Including OCB may (1) enhance team member productivity by serving as an effective coordination between team members and other work groups; (2) enhance the ability to attract and retain best employees by making more attractive environment in organization and (3) enhance organization’s ability to adapt to environmental change. (4) enhance the stable environment for organization’s performances.. Importance of Organizational Citizenship Behavior Although OCB is extra behavior in organization, it affects team and organizational performance and success. For example, In the Du and Choi’s (2012) research, OCB facilitates the resolution or prevention to organization of team members of work-related problems. Moreover, OCB generate the new ideas, procedures, or products, which improve the performance related to a task, teamwork and organization. Furthermore, in the past meta-analysis, researches also indicated that organization citizenship behaviors are statistically and significantly related to leader support, fairness, organization commitment, conscientiousness, satisfaction, positive affectivity (Dennis & Ryan, 1995). Smith and his colleagues (1983) and Berkowitz (1972) had shown that employees with the positive mood state have more citizenship behaviors.. Psychological Capital Definition of Psychological Capital The concept of Psychological Capital or PsyCap was identified by Luthans and his colleagues (2007b) as consisting of the four psychological strengths of hope, resilience, optimism, efficacy. In the past, psychology field researchers had too much focus on 11.

(20) negative side. However, positive psychology is the branch of psychology that uses effective interventions and scientific ways to achieve a satisfactory life, rather than merely treating mental illness. (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 1998) PsyCap offers a dynamic resource potential that can grow and be sustainable over time” (Luthans et al., 2007b, p.23). Following the same thought, positive psychology developed rapidly in recent years. Drawing from positive psychology empirical research, Luthans and his colleagues (2007b) concluded that positive psychological state of development is characterized by: (1) preserving toward goals and redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to achieve the goal, (2) when facing problems and adversity, bouncing back and sustaining and even beyond (resilience) to achieve success, (3) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future, (4) having confidence (efficacy) to put necessary effort at challenging task and attain success. Hope, Efficacy, Resilience, Optimism best meet the positive organizational behavior (POB) criteria. Luthans and Youssef (2007c) propose that PsyCap creates a higher level conceptual model for understanding human capital in today’s workplace.. Dimensions of Psychological Capital Positive psychology researchers such as Luthans and his colleagues (2007b), determined the criteria of positive psychology dimensions to be those factors recognized as “state-like”, dimensions that show malleability and are able to be trained by courses and have opportunity to development in one’s life. These criteria help to nurture character strength, develop job-related talents and develop positive virtue. Through the theoretical studies and empirical testing, the researchers determined that those meet the Psychological Capital criteria are hope, self-efficacy, optimism and. 12.

(21) resilience. (Luthans, 2002; Luthans, Avolio, Norman & Combs, 2006; Jensen & Luthans, 2002; Peterson & Luthans, 2003).. Hope. Hope is defined as “a positive motivational state that is based on an interactively derived sense of successful (1) agency (goal-directed energy) and (2) pathways (planning to meet goals)” (Snyder, Irving, & Anderson, 1991, p.287). The agency component of hope can be regarded as being the will to achieve a specific goal or task. Snyder and his colleagues (1991) research defined hope as a cognitive or thinking in which individual set challenging goals and then achieving this goal through self-directed, energy and perception of internalized control. Luthans and his colleagues (2007a) defined Hope as having three steps: First, they have clear goals. Second, they decide to achieve their goals to show their willpower and a clear perception of their control over own destiny. Third, even when the obstacles may destroy their goals, they are able to be creative and find alternative pathways around their problems to continue their goals. In the recent research in the workplace, hope has been found to be related to employee retention and satisfaction (Peterson & Luthans, 2003), positive relationship between employee hope and organizational profitability (Adams, et al., 2002), positively related to employee happiness, commitment, satisfaction and performance (Luthans & Youssef, 2007c) and positively related between entrepreneurs' hope levels and expressed satisfaction with business ownership (Jensen & Luthans, 2002).. Resilience. Resilience is defined as the “positive psychological capacity to bounce back from uncertainty, failure, conflict or even positive events, progress and increased 13.

(22) responsibility” (Luthans, 2002, p.702). Masten and Reed (2002, p.75) first define resilience as “a class of phenomena characterized by patterns of positive adaptation in the context of significant adversity or risk.” In PsyCap research, Luthans (2002) broadened the definition as not only can bounce back from the challenges or risk but also create positive situation and go beyond the average point. There are three factors from PsyCap to develop resiliency (Luthans et al., 2007b) (1) assets: Masten and Reed (2002, p.76) define a resiliency asset as “a measurable characteristic in a group of individuals or their situation that predicts a positive outcome in the future on a specific outcome criterion.” (2) risk factors: Risk factors may differentially expose individuals to frequent and intense undesirable situations and thus increase the probability of negative outcomes (Masten, 2001). Therefore, Resiliency risk factors are an ability to increase probability of an undesirable outcome. (3) Values: Values help people in elevating themselves to overcome the difficulties and linking them to a more joyful future in which they can look forward. (Luthans & Youssef, 2007c) In the past research, Avey, Luthans, and Youssef (2010) found that employees who are positive and have the better ability to adapt to changes are more willing to take challenges, and develop high level of resilience. Resiliency has been found to be related to employee’s satisfaction, commitment, happiness in work place (Luthans & Youssef, 2007). Luthans and his colleagues (2007b) also found resiliency to be positively related to work performance outcome.. Optimism. Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi (1998) defined optimism as an internal, relatively stable attribution style interpreting negative events as external, situation 14.

(23) specific and temporary, and positive events have opposite causes, such as personal, pervasive and permanent. People who are optimistic think the desirable events occur are within their control and they internalize the good aspect of their live not only in the past, present but also in the future. Follow the same thought, when optimists face the negative situation they tend to think that this is temporary, external and only in the certain situation. Therefore, they tend not to be fought down by the undesirable situation and keep positive and confident about their live. In the workplace, optimistic and pessimistic employees interpret the situation very differently (Luthans et al., 2007a). Employees who are optimists tend to accept the challenges, have higher motivation (Peterson, 2000) and seek the opportunity for future. As the advantage of optimism discussed above, Schneider (2001) presented three perspectives to developing optimism in the work place: (1) gratitude for the past, (2) thankfulness for the present, and (3) seeking opportunity for the future. Following these perspectives Luthans and his colleages (2007a) believed that optimism meet the criteria of PsyCap dimensions of being malleable and be able to be trained. In the past research, Optimism has been found to be related to employees’ performance, happiness and satisfaction (Luthans & Youssef, 2007c).. Efficacy. Founded on Bandura's (1986, 1997) extensive theory and research, PsyCap efficacy (or confidence) was defined as “the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the course of action required to produce given attainments” Bandura (1997, p.2). Luthans and his colleagues (2007a) distinguished self-efficacy by five important characteristic: (1) People set high goal to themselves and select difficult task. (2) They welcome challenges. (3) They are highly self-motivated. (4) They invest 15.

(24) the necessary effort to achieve their goal. (5) They don’t give up easily when they face obstacles. These five characteristics enable high-efficacy people with the ability to develop independently and perform effectively. Costa (2013) found that employees who tend to learn and take challenges are able to develop self-efficacy. Self-efficacy predicts performance; it reflects the consequence of prior experience with the specific behavior (Parschau et al., 2013). Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) have shown the meta-analysis result that self-efficacy and job performance has significant relationship. Of the four dimensions of PsyCap, Luthans and his colleagues (2007a) indicated that self-efficacy in the workplace has the most complete theoretical foundation and empirical research base.. Psychological Capital in Organization Employees’ positive thinking can influence their behavior and commitment to their team and organization. These optimistic employees expect positive things to happen to them, and they tend to have different ways to approach problems (Avey et al., 2010). Studies have shown that psychological capital is positively related to organizational commitment (Luthans & Youssef, 2007), job satisfaction and job performance (Luthans et al., 2007a). Avey, Reichard, Luthans and Mhature (2011) also presented meta-analysis evidence that psychological capital is positively related to (1) desirable employee attitudes (psychological well-being, job satisfaction, and organizational and team’s commitment), (2) desirable employee behaviors (performance, organizational and team’s citizenship behaviors ) and (3) negatively related to undesirable attitudes (employee cynicism, turnover intention, employee anxiety and stress) and employee absenteeism (Avey et al., 2011). However, Avey et 16.

(25) al., (2011) indicated that there were not enough studies that tested moderators to examine when psychological capital is more or less useful or important in the workplace, for example, the impact of PsyCap on a specific outcome in a specific team or organization.. Relationship between Psychological Capital and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors In the past research, researchers tried to answer “Are happy workers relatively better organizational ‘citizens’?” (Lyubomirsky & King, 2005, p.823). The result has shown that positive affect on the job does positively predict organizational citizenship behaviors. Borman, Penner and Motowildo (2001) found that positive affect predicts OCB, and negative affect negatively correlates with OCB, even when peer rating of citizenship is used. In additional, Smith, et al. (1983) indicated that an individual who has a positive mood is more likely to behave altruistically. Contrarily, an individual who has a negative mood (e.g., disappointment, frustration) is less likely to show citizenship behaviors. In the past research result, it also showed that positive affectivity is positively related to altruism. The positive disposition predicts OCB’s dimensions, such as conscientiousness, agreeableness. One of the reasons that happy workers are more likely to be high performers on the job is that they are less likely to show “job withdrawal”—namely, absenteeism, turnover and so on (Donovan, 2000). For example, Lyubomirsky & King (2005) found that positive affect at work is directly associated with reduced absenteeism. Many research results have already shown that employees with high psychological capital tend to have more organizational citizenship behaviors, which may include (1) attending organizational activates that are not required or 17.

(26) volunteer service related to individual initiative dimension in OCB, (2) sharing creative ideas and making suggestions for improvement in organizations related to organizational compliance dimension in OCB, (3) helping colleagues related to helping behaviors dimension in OCB, (4) self-initiated development and continuous learning related to self-development dimension in OCB. (Luthans et al., 2007a; Lyubomirsky & King, 2005) Thus, Psychological Capital seems to be an important factor that predicts. organizational citizenship. The following study hypotheses are derived: Hypothesis1. Psychological capital is positively related to employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors.. Team Identification Definition of Team Identification Team identification is team members’ perception of their identity of self from the work teams or organizations to which they belong. (Hong & Terry, 2000) The concept of team identification came from social categorization theory. Tajfel (1972) first introduced “social identity theory” (SIT) to describe the phenomenon when a person thinks he/she belongs to certain social groups together with some value and emotional connections to him of this group membership. Ashforth and Mael (1989) indicated that researchers use social identification and team identification interchangeably.. It has. shown that social identity plays an important role for team member’s attitude and behavior during teamwork because belonging to a team helps individual to define and answer the question of “who am I?” (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). In Ashforth and Mael’s (1989) research they defined four principles for social/ team identifications. First, identification is a cognitive construct that is not necessary related to any certain 18.

(27) behaviors or affective states. Second, social identity would be stronger in situations facing great failure or frustration. Third, a team member can have great identity to a team he/she works for, but he/she is allowed to disagree with the team’s value or goals at the same time. Finally, individual attempts to be liked or imitate the other person. Social identity also helps people to have a sense of oneness with the team and motivates to behave teams’ typical norms as a part of team members rather than as individuals. (Haslam, Powell, & Turner, 2000; Rubin & Hewstone, 1998).. Therefore, social. identity theory (Tajfel &Tuner, 1986) has been applied broadly to work team context in these years.. Team Identification in Organization “Time identification is a sense that membership in one’s team is an emotionally significant aspect of one’s identity” (Van Der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005, p.535). The social group’s status influence mental health when team members define their identity based on team membership (Haslam et al., 2009). Team members perceive themselves sharing the values, attitudes, goals, and behaviors with other team members. (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). In the past, research had already indicated that team and organization identification has positive relation to employees’ attitude and behaviors. Riketta (2005), for example, has shown the meta-analytical evidence that employees’ identification is related to (1) work related attitudes: occupational work group attachment, job and organizational satisfaction, job involvement, and (2) workrelated intention and behaviors: intention to leave, in-role, extra-role behaviors. Team identification has also been found to be positively associated with team member’s citizenship behaviors. (Janssen & Huang, 2008) 19.

(28) Antecedents and Consequences of Team Identification Ashforth and Mael (1989) suggested some important antecedents that may increase social identification in the groups or organization. (1) Distinctiveness: Distinctiveness means the team members perceive themselves different from other groups and think their team has unique goals, values. (2) Prestige of the group: Individuals try to maintain positive social identity; therefore, people can boost their self-esteem. (3) Salience of the out-group: In-group will have higher awareness when the out-group shows up. For example, during the competition, people in group have higher percentage to share the same goals or values than without competition. (4) Group formation: Group formation including interpersonal interaction, common history, similarity, shared value or threat may influence individuals’ social identification in the group or organizations. Furthermore, after literature review, Ashforth and Mael (1989) suggested three consequences that may influence organization or team. (1) Team members who have social identification may have higher support and commitment to organization and group. (2) Social identification affects group formation, including altruism, loyalty and positive evaluations of the team. Team members may depersonalize and conform to their own team. (3) Social identification may enhance its antecedents, including distinctiveness, group prestige, out-group salience and group formation factors.. 20.

(29) The Moderating Effect of Team Identification on the Relationship between Psychological Capital and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors In Ashforth and Mael’s (1989) research, the person who has higher social identification may strongly impact on his or her affect and behavior. Past research also had evidence that show that social identification moderates between psychological capital and organizational citizenship behaviors. Social identification reduces team members’ negative affect and maintains team members’ psychological well-being. People who have higher social identification will have better mental health such as stability, optimism and meaning; they are more willing to help other team members (Inoue, 2015). On the contrary, team members who have lower identification have higher psychological distance and are unwilling to help other team members in the bad situations (Du & Choi, 2012). Mael and Ashforth (2001) have already shown that social identification helps team member to increase their self-efficacy and self-esteem; this positive psychology state makes people feel accepted and increase their aspiration. Moreover, increasing the positive psychology affect motivates people to want to do more citizenship behaviors. For example, Janssen and Huang (2008) indicated that team identification encourage team members to help or cooperate with other team members. Ashforth and Mael (1989) argued that social identification may affect OCB including altruism, conformity and loyalty to the team. Knippenberg (2000) also suggested that social identification play an important role in enhancing positive state and organizational citizenship behaviors. These past research presented some evidence that team identification may moderate between psychological capital and organizational citizenship behavior. 21.

(30) Therefore, the researcher proposes that when individuals have higher team identification the relationship between psychological capital and organizational citizenship behaviors will be stronger. Hypothesis2. Team identification moderates the relationship between psychological capital and employee citizenship behavior, such that the relationship is stronger as team identification increases.. Team Cohesion Definition of Team Cohesion Cartwright (1960) first developed the concept of group cohesion as “a dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of affective needs” (Carron & Hausenblas,1998, p.213). That is, the cohesion of group developed from the group’s members depersonalizes their perceptions, feelings, behaviors towards the group. (Lin & Peng, 2010) In Carron and Brawley (2000) research, cohesion is not a trait; it can be changed over time both in group’s form and extent throughout the process of group development. Over the years, some social scientists have suggested that group member’s cohesiveness develops from attraction, group pride and task commitment. For example, Beal and Cohen (2003, p.995) indicated that there are three-component categories to measure cohesion: (1) interpersonal attraction: An attachment or shared liking to the group members, (2) task commitment: Group members willing to attain important goals or share commitment to existing tasks together, (3) group pride: Group members exhibit the sense of “we-ness”, which links group members to one another.. 22.

(31) Therefore, these three categories about cohesion directly influence the group maintenance. In the previous studies, some social scientists have considered group cohesion to be the most important variable in the small group (Carron & Brawley, 2000). For example, Mullen and Copper (1994) indicated that group cohesiveness is the most visible and active variable to predict group performance; in Orwell’s (1946) research it seems group cohesion can predict successful task performance. Other research results also have shown that group cohesion is related to group commitment (Mullen & Cooper, 1994), group member satisfaction (Owen, 1985) and emotional adjustment (Hogg, 1992; Hoyle, 1994).. A Conceptual Model of Team Cohesion In the team cohesion studies, some researchers divided team cohesion into taskoriented and social-oriented. For example, Mikalachki (1969) suggested task cohesion and social cohesion should be considered separately. Task cohesion exists when team members cohere around the task and are in agreement on what and how to organize and achieve team performance. Social cohesion exists when team members cohere around social functions, such as team members get along personally, consider other members as friends. Carron, Widmeyer and Brawley (1985) developed the cohesion conceptual model. The model is divided into two categories: (2) group integration: group cohesion can be defined as the closeness, similarity and bonding within the groups as a whole. (2) individual attractions to the group: individual attractions to the groups can be defined as individual member’s perception about the group, the involvement to their personal role in the group in order to remain in the group. Also, both of these two 23.

(32) categories can be focused on task or social aspects. Therefore, four constructs can be identified― group integration-social, group integration-task, individual attractions to the group― social, individual attractions to the group― task.. Antecedents and Consequences of Team Cohesion Lott and Lott (1965) reported the relationships between team cohesion and their antecedents after literature review. Through the review, they classified eight categories of antecedents, including: (1) Interaction-propinquity: team members interact to others can produce attraction and have opportunities to communicate or observe other team members. (2) Special characteristics of the group situation or atmosphere: person likes other people they usually work together than for mutually exclusive or independent people. Also, team members like each other’s more in the democratic groups than in autocratic group. (3) Acceptance by others: If A member perceived B members like him/her, also tended to like his/her team member more. (4) Frustration-Threat: Team members will increase cooperative behavior and decrease conflicts, if they face frustration or external threats. (5) Status: Lott and Lott (1965) talked about three kinds of status may be team cohesion’s antecedents: a. status similarity: team members have the same high status or positions will tend to like one another. b. status dissimilarity: individuals like those have higher status or who have influenced them. c. status congruence: members in the same status of different dimensions. (6) Behavior or personality characteristics: the person with extroversion, adjustment and conservatism personality or good adjustment, equalitarianism, helpfulness, and warmth behaviors are more favorably accepted by other team members. (7) Similarity: team members who have similar background, values, personality, for example, race, ethnicity, occupation, 24.

(33) age, tend to prefer each other. (8) Success-reward: successful group have more positive attitude to their group than members of groups that are experiencing failure. Lott and Lott (1965) also reported several consequences which relate to team cohesion, including: (1) Expression of aggression: high-cohesion teams tend to express interpersonal aggression than low-cohesive teams. (2) Self- evaluation: team member tends to change his/her self-evaluation to become similar to how they describe their teammates. For example, if an individual thinks his team is good, then he is more likely to evaluate himself in positive side. (3) Communication: There is pressure to express different opinions in high-cohesion team than in low- cohesion team; therefore, individuals may change their opinions to be consistent with other team members. (4) Uniformity-Conformity: There is pressure to uniformity and conformity in highcohesion group than in low-cohesion group, including opinions, attitudes or other behaviors. (5) Task Performance: literature review shows quality performance and productivity have better result in high than in low cohesion teams.. The Moderating Effect of Team Cohesion on the Relationship between Psychological Capital and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors George and Bettenhausen (1990) found that team cohesiveness correlated with a group measure of organizational citizenship behavior. Additionally, George and Bettenhausen (1990) found that group cohesion may impact citizenship behaviors through group affective states. According to the literature, group cohesiveness has been defined as a crucial antecedent to organizational citizenship behaviors (Van Dyne et al., 1995). It was found that team cohesiveness is significantly and positively related to OCB dimensions including altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and 25.

(34) civic virtue (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Team cohesiveness creates a strong social identity that can make team members want to help other team members and also have positive emotional attachment and positive mood toward the team (Kidwell & Mossholder, 1997). Lawler, Thye and Yoon (2000) suggest that, with high team cohesion and interaction, work team members may have higher self-efficacy, psychological security, and positive feedback to self and group. Gross (1954) also noted that team members who work in cohesive groups may experience more positive mood than the noncohesive groups. The literature has revealed that psychological capitals are traits that have malleability and can be developed (Luthans et al., 2007a). Therefore, team cohesion may be able to influence and help develop team member’s psychological capital. Once individuals increase their PsyCap, they may have higher tendency to exhibit organization citizenship behaviors. According to the above research, if a work team has cohesiveness, team members may have higher organizational citizenship behaviors and psychological capital. Therefore, in this study, the researcher argues that team cohesion will moderate between psychological capital and organizational citizenship behaviors. Hypothesis3. Team cohesion moderates the relationship between psychological capital and employee citizenship behavior, such that the relationship is stronger as team cohesion increases.. 26.

(35) CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY. Research Framework Figure 3.1. illustrates the research framework which demonstrates the effect of psychological capital on organizational citizenship behaviors and OCB’s three dimensions, including in-role behavior, OCB-Individual, OCB-Organizational. It also shows the moderating effect of team identification and team cohesion on the relationship between psychological capital and organizational behaviors. There is one independent variable which is psychological capital (PsyCap). The moderators are team identification and team cohesion. The dependent variable is organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB).. Figure 3.1. Research framework. Research Hypotheses The hypotheses were proposed as follows:. Hypothesis1. Psychological capital is positively related to employee citizenship behavior. Hypothesis2. Team identification moderates the relationship between psychological capital and employee citizenship behavior, such that the relationship is stronger as team identification increases.. 27.

(36) Hypothesis3. Team cohesion moderates the relationship between psychological capital and employee citizenship behavior, such that the relationship is stronger as team cohesion increases.. Research Procedure Research procedure explains the steps taken in order to develop this research. The first step is exploring the research topic to develop the research questions. In second step in order to answer the research questions the researcher reviewed literature to develop the basis for the research. The research questions and hypotheses were developed from literature review. Once the variables have been identified, a research framework was developed in order to represent the relationships between variables. From the literature, the researcher chose the measurement to collect data to answer the research questions and to test the hypotheses. After collecting data, a series of analysis was performed in order to answer research questions. Finally, the researcher will discuss the research results, answer research questions, suggest future research and conclude the study. The procedure is as shown in Figure 3.2.. Figure 3.2. Research procedure 28.

(37) Research Design Sampling and Data Collection The sample for this research consisted of 175 individuals from 50 work groups. All of the work team can be classified as in the real estate industry. The researcher opted for a quantitative method through distribution of survey questionnaires to measure the impact of psychological capital on organizational citizenship behaviors in Taiwan. The population is the real estate agents who work in an organization in Taiwan and have teamwork experience. Survey questionnaires were distributed by the researcher to the targeted employees who have at least three months’ work experience in the same team. The reason why the researcher chose three months as one of the criteria is because, in Labor Standards Act, Article 16-1, it regulates: “Where a worker has worked continuously for more than three months but less than one year, the notice shall be given ten days in advance.” The researcher believes that an employee who has worked in the company more than three months will have sufficient time to familiarize themselves with the job, colleagues and organization culture. Initial contact was made with the researcher visiting real estate agencies with an explanation of the purpose of the study in order for the researcher to gain access to the potential respondents. At the end, 175 respondents from 50 real estate teams participated in this study. From the 175 respondents, there were 61 females, 114 males, with their age ranging from 23 to 54 years old, and the majority of the sample (161, or 92%) had a bachelor degree. The 175 respondents had been working in organizations for more than 3 months up to 168 months and the majority of the sample (152, or 86.9%) did not hold a managerial position in the organization. The respondents had been working in a work team for more than 3 months up to 240 months and the majority of the sample (152, or 86.9%) were team members in the team. The majority of the sample 29.

(38) (80, or 45.7%) had a salary range of 40,001 NTD~ 60,000 NTD. There were 11 teams belonging to problem-solving team, 29 teams belonging to self-managed, 10 teams belonging to cross-functional team and no team belonging to virtual team. There were 5 teams had 3~5 team members, 27 teams had 6~8 team members, 11 teams had 9~11 team members, 7 teams had more than 11 team members in the team. Table 3.1. shows the descriptive statistics of the sample. For this study.. Table 3.1. Descriptive Statistics of the Sample Variable. Item. Gender. Age. Frequency. Percentage (%). Female. 61. 34.9. Male. 114. 65.1. 33333. 3year(s). Mean: 34.71 Median: 34.00. month(s). SD: 6.72 Minimum:23.0 Maximum:54.0. Education. High school. 11. 6.3. Bachelor degree. 161. 92.0. Master degree. 3. 1.7. PhD Degree. 0. 0 (continued). 30.

(39) Table3.1. (continued) Variable. Item. (continued). Frequency month(s). Percentage (%). Mean: 45.57 Median: 42.00 SD: 32.18 Minimum:3.00 Maximum:168.00. Organization position Employee. 152. 86.9. Junior manager. 18. 10.3. Senior manager. 5. 2.9. Work team tenure. Mean: 43.29 month(s). Median: 40 SD: 32.96 Manimum:3.00 Maximum:240.00. Work team position. Team member. 157. 89.7. Team leader. 18. 10.3 (continued). 31.

(40) Table3.1. (continued) Variable. Item. Frequency. Percentage (%). Salary. Under 20,000 NTD. 20. 11.4. 48. 27.4. 80. 45.7. 20. 11.4. 5. 2.9. 2. 1.1. 11. 22. 29. 58. 10. 20. 0. 0. (Unit: 1~2. 0. 0. 3~5. 5. 10. 6~8. 27. 54. 9~11. 11. 22. More than 11. 7. 14. 20,001~40,000 NTD 40.001~60,000 NTD 60,001~80,000 NTD 80,001〜100,000 NTD Above 100,000 NTD. Team type Team). (Unit: Problem-solving team Self-managed team Cross-functional team Virtual team. Team size Team). Note. N=175/ Team=50. 32.

(41) Instrument This survey design targeted employees who work in organizations and have teamwork experience in Taiwan. The original questionnaire had been translated into Chinese which is an official language of the country, then a backward translation into English will be performed in order for the researcher to be sure that there would be no loss of the meaning for the questionnaire items. The questionnaire had been divided into six parts: The first part measures organizational citizenship behaviors (dependent variable) with nine items. The second part measures psychological capital with sixteen items. The third part is team identification with nine items and the forth part is team cohesion with ten items; the fifth part measures social desirability with ten items for helping the researcher to identify if respondents answer honestly. (Stahan & Gerbasi, 1972) In the sixth part, eleven demographic questions be asked including some control variables. In addition, there is one screening question for making sure if the respondent has teamwork experience. Totally the questionnaire has 66 items.. Measurement Organizational Citizenship Behaviors This research modified William and Anderson’s (1991) 9-item questionnaires using a 5-point Likert-type scale, with response categories from 1 representing not frequent at all to 5 representing very frequent. This questionnaire has 2 dimensions including: (1) Individual level-OCB (OCBI), which is questions from 1 to 7. OCBI means employee has altruistic behaviors, for example “Take time to listen to coworkers’ problems and worries.” (2) Organization level-OCB (OCBO), which is questions from 8 and 9. OCBO means compliance to the organization’s formal or informal rules, for 33.

(42) example “Conserves and protects organizational property.” In this study the Cronbach’s α is 0.82 the result indicated that the internal consistency reliability is acceptable.. Psychological Capital Psychological Capital questionnaire is based on Luthans, et al. (2007b) who. developed the 24-item PsyCap Questionnaire (PCQ) using a 6-point Likert-type scale, with response categories from 1 representing strongly disagree to 6 representing strongly agree. PCQ are divided into four dimensions: (1) Self-efficiency a sample question is “I feel confident helping to set targets/goals in my work area.” (2) Hope a sample question is “I can think of many ways to reach my current work goals.” (3) Resilience a sample question is “I usually manage difficulties one way or another at work.” (4) Optimism an example is “I'm optimistic about what will happen to me in the future as it pertains to work. In this study the Cronbach’s α is 0.87; the result indicated that the internal consistency reliability is good.. Work Team Identification For the measure of work team identification, the researcher used Huang’s (2013) questionnaire. Huang (2013) provided this questionnaire to measure the relationships among organizational identification and work-group identification. For the purpose of this study team identification items will be adopted. The version of this measure for team identification adopted for this study contains 4 items to be responded using a 5point Likert-type scale. Response categories are from 1 representing strongly disagree to 7 representing strongly agree. The sample items include: “I don’t like to hear others criticize my work-group.” and “My work-group is like a family to me.” In this study 34.

(43) the Cronbach’s α is 0.81, the result indicated that the internal consistency reliability is acceptable.. Work Team Cohesion For the measure of work team cohesion, the researcher adopted Carless and Paola’s (2000) measurement. Respondents rate if a work team member sees other team members and the group as a whole. This measure of work team cohesion contains 10 items using a 9-point Likert-type scale, with response categories from 1 representing strongly disagree to 9 representing strongly agree. The sample item includes “Our team would like to spend time together outside of work hours”. In this study the Cronbach’s α is 0.93 the result indicated that the internal consistency reliability is acceptable.. Control Variables Past research had demonstrated that gender, age, educational level and tenure impact employee’s organizational citizenship behaviors (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Likewise, some other demographic variables may be suspected to also influence the dependent variable in this study. Therefore, this study included the following demographics as control variables: gender, age, educational level, organization tenure, position tenure, team type, team size, monthly salary. Gender is coded as: (0) female, (1) male. In age the researcher asked participants to fill out the year he/she was born. In organization tenure the researcher asked the participant to fill out the year(s) and month(s) he/she has been working for this organization. In position tenure the researcher asked the participant to fill out the year(s) and month(s) he/she has been working for this team. Team type is coded as: (1) problem-solving team, (2) self35.

(44) managed team, (3) cross-functional team, (4) virtual team. Team size is coded as: (1) 1~2, (2)3~5, (3)6~8, (4)9~11, (5) above 11 people. Monthly salary is coded as: (1) Under 20,000 NTD, (2) 20,001~40,000 NTD, (3) 40.001~60,000 NTD, (4) 60,001~80,000 NTD, (5) 80,001〜100,000 NTD,(6) Above 100,000 NTD. Team type was considered as a control variable. As rapid growing in work team in organizations, there are many different definitions of team types. Robbins and Judge (2000) captured the most common team types which are related to work environment into four types of teams, including problem-solving team, self-managed work team, cross-functional team and virtual teams.. (1) Problem-solving team:. The problem-solving team usually formed of 5 to 12 teammates which created for achieving or solving some specific project or problems in organizations. This kind of team is formed by different level or background, skills people in order to solve the problem. Problem-solving team usually make suggestions to the organizations, it doesn’t have the authority, therefore, once the problem is solved the problem-solve team will disband. (2) Self-managed work team: Self-managed also ‘self-directed teams’ and ‘semi-autonomous work team’, this kind of team usually composed of 10 to 15 members. It is the most empower and autonomy work team type. This kind of team takes the most of the responsibilities of supervisors. The team members in self-managed work team usually planning the schedule, completing tasks, delivering services, even evaluating each other’s performance by themselves. (3) Cross-functional Team: Crossfunctional team means team members come from the same level but diverse work areas, they gather together in order to achieve the same goal or finish the complex projects. The purpose of the cross-functional team is for exchanging information, delivering services and solving problems more efficiently. (4) Virtual team: The virtual team is developed by the computer technology’s improvement. This type of teams uses the 36.

(45) network, email, videoconferencing and smart phone to achieve the goal；therefore, the virtual team has ability to overcome the time and space differently. Social Desirability also was considered as a control variable. The researcher used Stahan and Gerbasi (1972) social desirability as measurement. It was adapted from Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, and totally has ten true or false items. Social desirability is an instrument that helps researchers to identify if respondents answer honestly. The sample items include “I am always willing to admit when I make a mistake” and “At times I have really insisted in having things my own way.” A summary of the items used in the questionnaire and their sources are provided in Table 3.2. Table 3.2. Measurement Scale Items Variable. Items. References. Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. William and Anderson 9 items (1991). Psychological Capital. 16 items. Luthans et al., (2007a). Work Team identification. 9 items. Huang (2013). Work Team cohesion. 10 items. Carless and Paola (2000). Social Desirability. 10 items. Stahan and Gerbasi (1972). 37.

(46) Reliability and Validity To ensure the validity of the measures, the researcher conducted literature review and expert review to ensure content validity.. The researcher first conducted the pilot. test and exploratory factor analysis in order to understand how the original measurement scales work in the current study. According to the EFA result, the researcher deleted some items or classified items into new dimensions. In the main study, the data was collected using modified measurement from the pilot test, therefore, the researcher used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to confirm construct validity. The reliability of the scales was tested and the Cronbach’s alpha of each of the measures was calculated to check the reliability. Cronbach’s alpha should be greater than .70.. Exploratory Factor Analysis SPSS was performed to test the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and check for. errors, outliers, and the distribution of the data. In the pilot test there were 104 respondents, the intended population was the employees who work in an organization and have teamwork experience in Taiwan. As there is no sampling frame of this population, convenience sampling was adopted. The researcher set the criteria to delete an item if the item’s factor loading is below 0.5 in the EFA result. EFA for Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Organizational Citizenship Behavior questionnaire was measured with 14-item questionnaires. The questions from 1 to 7 measure Individual level-OCB (OCBI). Questions from 8 to 14 measure Organization level-OCB (OCBO). According to the pilot test result OCB’s Cronbach's alpha was 0.76. The Table 3.3. shows EFA result of OCB in the pilot test.. 38.

(47) Table 3.3. Pilot Test EFA Result: Rotated Component Matrix for Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (N=104) Component 1 OCBI4_Take time to listen to coworkers’ problems and worries.. .749. OCBI5_Goes out of way to help new employees.. .694. OCBI6_Takes a personal interest in other employees.. .678. OCBI1_Helps others who have been absent.. .666. OCBI3_Assists supervisor with his/her work (when not asked).. .633. OCBI7_Passes along information to co-workers.. .599. OCBI2_Helps others who have heavy workloads.. .584. OCBO11_Great deal of time spent with personal phone conversations.. <.4. 2. OCBO8_Attendance at work is above the norm.. .673. OCBO9_Gives advance notice when unable to come to work.. .651. OCBO10_Take undeserved work breaks. (R). .496. OCBO12_Complains about insignificant things at work. (R). .489. OCBO13_Conserves and protects organizational property.. .413. OCBO14_Adheres to informal rules devised to maintain order.. <.4. Note. N=104. Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax 39.