預應性格與領導部屬交換關係對工作滿意與績效表現的關係研究：一個泰國汽車維修廠的個案研究

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學管理學院管理研究所碩士論文 Graduate Institute of Management College of Management National Taiwan Normal University Master Thesis. 預應性格與領導部屬交換關係對工作滿意與績效表現的關係研究：一個泰國汽車維修廠的個案研究 The impact of proactive personality and leader member exchange on job satisfaction and Performance: A case study of labors of automobile service center in Thailand. 吳雨燕 Vinitda. Sae Ngow. 指導教授：邱皓政博士 Advisor：HawJeng Chiou, Ph.D.. 中華民國 104 年 6 月 June, 2015.

(2) Abstract The exchange relationship between leaders and employees play a critical role for enhancing the employee’s work outcomes. At the same time, the personality of employees in terms of proactively also has significant impact on their work outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this thesis is to determine whether the impact of proactive personality and leader member exchange on job satisfaction and performance. A survey along with interview will be executed on an automobile service center at Thailand as a case for collecting the empirical data about the relationship among the variables and, furthermore to understand the managerial practices in the field about the mechanism of LMX and work outcomes from the viewpoint of leaders. The Methodologies for study, in the survey section, a total of 200 questionnaires were employees of YL Dynamo automobile service centers, which each worker has a different age, education, salary and experience, cause of various attitudes, decision, and satisfaction to their leader which is major factor relate to their relationship.. According to the literature of proactive personality and leader member exchange (LMX), proactive personality can encourage worker effort to develop a better work and personal relationship. Literature review helped to summarize factors job satisfaction and performances.. Based on the literature and theoretical background, six hypotheses are established for examining the relationship among variables collected from the questionnaire. In the interview part, a series of questions about attitude, relationship, expect of leader to worker, including framework and job performances of workers.. The results of survey analysis indicate that proactive personality is not significant and negative impact on job satisfaction and performance. Leader-member exchange (LMX) significantly has a positive impact on job satisfaction and performance, and the job satisfaction has a significantly positive impact on job performance and there is a mediation effect between leader member exchange (LMX) and job performance by job satisfaction.. 1.

(3) The findings of this study may not only have academic contribution but also have benefit for the managerial practices, especially for the multicultural nature of service industrial management.. Keywords: Proactive Personality, Leader member exchange, Job Satisfaction and Performance.. 2.

(4) 摘要領導部屬交換關係對提升部屬工作表現扮演重要角色。在此同時，員工性格也會影響員工工作表現。因此，本研究的目的是為了判斷預應性格與領導部屬交換關係對工作滿意與績效表現的關係。根據文獻與理論背景，建立六個假說以檢視變數間關係。本研究以某泰國汽車服務中心為對象，採用問卷與訪談收集員工的意見等實徵資料進行量化與質性分析，希望能夠了解領導部屬交換關係的影響機制。在問卷調查部分共收集 200 份問卷，員工來自不同年齡層、教育背景、薪資、經驗，並詢問他們的工作滿意度，員工的績效表現則由主管評定。訪談部分是三位主管的面對面會談，蒐集他們對於員工表現的資料。問卷分析結果指出預應性格與工作滿意度和績效表現的相關不顯著。但領導部屬交換關係與工作滿意度和績效表現的相關為顯著正相關，其中工作滿意度正向影響績效表現，此外，工作滿意度於領導部屬交換與工作表現有中介效果。本研究除了討論學術意義與實務意義，尤其是對於多文化的服務產業管理進行說明。. 關鍵字:. 預應性格、領導部屬交換關係、工作滿意、績效表現. 3.

(5) Table of Contents Abstract Table of Contents List of Table List of Figure Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Thailand - Cultural Etiquette 1.1.1 Corporate Culture 1.2 Employee of automobile service center in Thailand 1.3. Research Purpose Chapter 2 Literature Review 2.1 Leadership 2.1.1 Characteristic of leader 2.1.2 Leadership behavioral 2.1.2.1Likert's Michigan studies 2.1.2.2 Kurt Lewin's studies 2.2 Proactive personality 2.3 Leader member exchange (LMX) 2.3.1 The development of the theory of leader member exchange 2.3.2 Character of the leader member exchange 2.3.3 Dimension of the leader member exchange 2.4 Job Satisfaction 2.4.1 Proactive personality and job satisfaction 2.4.2 Leader member exchange and job satisfaction 2.5 Job Performance 2.5.1 Proactive personality and job performance 2.5.2 Leader member exchange and job performance on job satisfaction and Performance 2.6 Job satisfaction and performance relationship 2.7Hypothesis Chapter 3 Method 3.1 Research method 3.2 Sample and Data collection procedure 3.3 Question design 3.4 Measure 3.4.1 Proactive personality 3.4.2 Leader member exchange (LMX) 3.4.3 Job satisfaction 3.4.4 Job performance 3.4.5 Leader’s Interview 3.5 Analytic strategy. 4. 1 4 6 7 8 9 9 10 11 12 12 13 13 13 14 15 16 16 19 19 20 21 22 23 23 24 25 27 28 28 28 29 29 29 30 31 33 33 34.

(6) Chapter 4 Result 4.1 Results of survey study 4.1.1 The relationship between background variable and research variable 4.1.2 Correlation coefficient among the research variables 4.1.3 Regression of proactive personality, leader member exchange (LMX) and job satisfaction effect to Performance 4.2 Results of Interview 4.2.1 Employees making decisions and open opportunities to comment 4.2.2 The goal and specify work or contribution for employees 4.2.3 The feeling that leader character has a role and important to labor (Respect and trust in capacity) though attitudes and relationships between labors. 4.2.4 The links of proactive personality of employee and job performance. Chapter 5 Discussion 5.1 Summery and result 5.2 General finding 5.3 Conclusions 5.4 Limitation and Future Research References Appendix. 5. 35 35 35 43 44 46 46 47 47. 48 50 50 53 54 55 57 62.

(7) List of Tables. Table 1The standard wage rate per day. 10. Table 2 Exchange procedure based on the theory of leader member exchange. 17. Table 3.1 Proactive Personality. 30. Table 3.2 Leader member exchange Items. 31. Table 3.3 Job satisfactions. 32. Table 3.4 Writing with leader. 33. Table 3.5 Interview with leader. 33. Table 4 Descriptive statistics and Result of F test for Age group. 36. Table 5 Descriptive statistics and Result of F test for Education group. 38. Table 6 Descriptive statistics and Result of F test for Salary group. 40. Table 7 Descriptive statistics and Result of F test for Experience group. 42. Table 8 Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficient among the research variables. 43. Table 9 Regression of proactive personality, leader member exchange (LMX). 45. effect to performance Table 10 Hypotheses testing summary. 52. 6.

(8) List of figures Figure 1 Model of Proactive Personality. 15. Figure 2 Theoretical frameworks of the research variables. 27. 7.

(9) Chapter 1 Introduction. The majority of this research has been conducted within the framework of the impact of Proactive personality and Leader member exchange (LMX) on Job satisfaction and performance. The significance of leader–member relationships in the workplace has been well established in the literature (Dulebohn,Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). LMX theory assuming that leaders develop relationships of equal quality with individual members, the LMX theory also suggests that leaders may form differentiated relationships with their employees. LMX is related to certain work attitudes and behaviors such as job satisfaction and performance (Dulebohn et al., 2012; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ilies, Nahrgang, &Morgeson, 2007). House and Aditya (1997) said that LMX theory reflects the U.S. cultural preference for a separation between business and personal relationships; therefore, it focuses implicitly on working relationships. However, research has demonstrated that leaders can develop both working and personal relationships with their members (Berman, West, & Richter, 2002; Boyd & Taylor, 1998; Burris, Rodgers, Mannix, Hendron & Oldroyd, 2009; Law, Wong, Wang, & Wang, 2000; Zorn, 1995).. Leaders and subordinates relating at either high or low levels of proactive personality because proactive employees seek out ways to improve their work life, when a proactive subordinate teams up with a proactive leader, their common understanding of work goals (making improvements) may encourage them effort to develop a better work and personal relationship. In contrast, when subordinates and leader are relating at low levels of proactive personality, although they have a common goal (maintaining the status quo) which may still resulting a fairly good that feature two relationships—this goal entails passively adapting to the environment. When both parties aim to maintain the status quo, the employee is likely to receive positive support for withholding his or her efforts for improvement. Because of this lack of effort, leaders and subordinates with low levels of proactive personality are less likely to develop relationships that have quality as high as do between highly proactive leaders and subordinate.. 8.

(10) In addition this study also studies on the job satisfaction cause job performance. Satisfaction will affect an employee’s effort, arguing that increased satisfaction from performance possibility helps to increase expectations of performance leading to rewards, the type of reward system under which workers perform strongly influence the satisfaction performance relationship. And performance leads to more effort because of high perceived expectancy.. 1.1 Thailand - Cultural Etiquette Thais are tolerant of individualism, but find comfort and security in being part of a group. Mai Pen Rai (never mind) is the Thai expression which characterizes the general focus of life - "it is to enjoy." Thais are productive and hard working while at the same time happy with what they are and what they have materially. They like to smile, are pleasant, humble and patient people, who laugh easily, speak softly, are difficult to anger, and never try to embarrass anyone. Thais are very proud of their cultural heritage and enjoy talking about it with visitors. Thais are proud that they have never been ruled by a Western power (Mary Murray Bosrock and Craig MacIntosh, 1997). 1.1.1 Corporate Culture . Thailand has a pro-business attitude. Business decisions are slow. Decisions pass. through many levels before being decided upon. Planning is short-term. Top management is often family. Who a person knows is important. Powerful connections are respected. . Thais tend to hold on to their old ways, with little thought of making changes.. . First meetings generally produce good humor, many smiles, polite conversation but few. results. The second meeting should include a meal invitation. Meetings begin with small talk. Discussing business before becoming acquainted is impolite. Degrees, especially from prestigious universities, bring status. Thais may list these on their business card. Thais respect foreigners with powerful connections. . Negotiations may be lengthy. Process takes precedence over content. Slow information. flow may delay discussions and decisions. . Thais prefer to work later in the evening rather than early in the morning. Family comes. first before business. . Being frank and direct is not appreciated. Be subtle in responding with a negative reply.. 9.

(11) . Thais respect hierarchy and honor elders. Sometimes younger people might think. ability should be more important but can find difficulty in directing social superiors, as more traditionalists may find this disrespectful. (Mary Murray Bosrock and Craig Macintosh, 1997).. 1.2 Labor of automobile service industry in Thailand In Thailand, workers are regarded as laborers, using labor, and talent expertise to attain compensation. Compensation may be not high as a supervisor or manager. Salary starts 9,000 - 25,000 up depend on experience. Labor of the automobile service centers in Thailand can be classified into three categories: First, Skilled Labor refers to the people who have theoretical knowledge and practical experience in the profession to make decisions and resolve problems by themselves. Second, Semi-skilled Labor refers to people where theoretical knowledge and practical skills are only part of the job. Third, Unskilled Labor is a person who using physical force only, and may not require expertise. They may be asked to offer some suggestions. A labor cannot work over 48 hours per week.. Table 1 the standard wage rate per day Labor Level. Before 2001. Increase. %. Now. Level 1Unskilled Labor. 275. 85. 30.9. 360. Level 2Semi-skilled. 360. 85. 23.6. 445. Level 3Skilled Labor. 445. 85. 19.1. 530. Note: the exchange rate of Thai baht and the New Taiwan dollar 1.10:1.00 at 2015. Source: Thailand Ministry of Labor (18 on March 1, 2013). In the part of welfare is similar to other industries and welfare mostly based on the contracts of the company. It will focus on the safety devices in the workplace, working conditions and the good health of labors. For example, pressure from work and health problems. Due to 10.

(12) pressure and long working hours, a cause of poor nutrition is that a quickly prepared meal may overlook the quality standards that food should be. And the working environment is a contributing factor to health problems due to a place where there are chemicals and toxic fumes that may be released from the engine, when it enters the body, they can cause bodily harm, or labors’ may misuse a dangerous tool which may harm a part of the body such as an ear or an eye. Most labor not only is under pressure from work and health problems but also pressures in meeting work quality, deadlines and behavior of leadership. Therefore making a good relationship and having a high proactive personality with said leadership and to attain the benefits of achieving the goals smoothly, efficiently and contribute satisfaction for a labor in an automobile service center in work and leadership. As a result, researchers are interested in studying the impact of proactive personalities and leader member exchanges on Job satisfaction of workers to provide empirical data to guide and strengthen relationships. And maintenance personnel are to be satisfied in work as well as information for administrators to modify their behavior to improve the management to meet the duties and responsibilities to increase happiness and decrease pressure in the workplace together resulting in the success of the organization. It is the reason for this study. It is the intention of the author to examine the impact of proactive personality and LMX on the satisfaction, especially within Thailand’s firms. 1.3 Research Purpose According to the discussion in the previous section, this paper is trying to examine the relationship follow: 1. Examine the impact of proactive personality on work outcomes that focus on Job satisfaction and performance of labors. 2. Examine the impact of Leader member exchange (LMX) on Job satisfaction and performance of labors. The study performs in Thai’s automobile service center because of the consideration of personal interest, and understands the application of western management concept in an eastern country. 11.

(13) Chapter 2 Literature Review. This study is focus on the impact of proactive personality and leader member exchange on Job satisfaction and performances. Concept and theory are related as follow: 1.. Leadership. 2.. Proactive Personality. 3.. Leader member exchange. 4.. Job Satisfaction. 5.. Job Performance. 2.1Leadership The definition of leadership has a different meaning to different people. It’s depends on their situation and organization. The definition of "leadership" as people who have been assigned which may be by election or appoints, and accepted of the influence and roll over the group that be able to induce and incentives for direct the way to members in perform missions. This definition conform to similar to the definition of Stogdill (1974) define that leadership as the process of influencing to the activities of the group to set and achieve goals. So these definitions came from the concept of attributes (traits), behavior, influences and interaction patterns (Bryman, 1997). In examine case study of employee in automobile service center conclude definition that leadership as a focus of group processes, personality and its effects, an act or behavior, instrument of goal achievement, the act of inducing compliance and a power relationship(Bass, 1990).. 12.

(14) 2.1.1 Characteristic of leadership House and Mitchell (1974) describe four characteristic of leadership: (1) Supportive leadership considering the needs of the subordinates, showing concern for their welfare and creating a friendly working environment, includes increasing the subordinate’s self-esteem and making the job more interesting. (2) Directive leadership telling subordinates what have to be done and giving appropriate guidance along the way, includes giving them schedules of specific work to be done at specific times. Rewards may also be increased as needed and role ambiguity decreased (by telling them what they should be doing). (3) Participative leadership consulting with subordinate and taking their ideas, when making decisions and taking particular actions, because subordinates may be have good idea, skill or expert in those work. (4) Achievement-oriented leadership setting challenging goals, both in work and in selfimprovement (and often together). High standards are demonstrated and expected. This approach is best when work is complex. In this study found that Directive leadership and Participative leadership were Thai’s leader style. Leaders would set goal and order employee to do work and sometime maybe ask about employee’s idea or making decision.. 2.1.2 Leadership Behavioral Leadership Behavioral developed in the year 1940 – 1960s. The major idea of the theory is look at what leadership practices and indicates that both leaders and subordinates have influence together.. 2.1.2.1Likert's Michigan Studies Rensis Likert and Social Research Institute of the University of Michigan research leadership by using Likert and concepts of leadership, motivation, communication, interact, influence, decision, set goal, quality control and performance goals can divided into four types. (1) Explorative – Authoritative High authoritarian leader and little trust subordinates. Command a threat than a compliment. Communication is one-way from top to bottom.. 13.

(15) (2) Benevolent – Authoritative Paternalism and trust subordinates. Incentives by rewarding but sometimes threatened. Receive feedback from subordinates and sometimes give subordinate make the decision, but must be under close control of the commander. (3) Consultative –Democratic Leader trusted and gives subordinate make decisions, but not all. They always take the ideas and opinions of subordinates and give a reward for motivate subordinate. They manage two way communications from the bottom up and from the top down. Policies and decisions come from the top while also allowing some decisions at lower levels. (4) Participative – Democratic Leader trusted subordinates and always accepts idea of subordinate place. There are rewards the economic stability of the group. The management and set purpose together. There are two way communications with both the upper and lower levels. The same level or among co-workers can make decisions about the management of both the leader and subordinates. Likert found that the management of the Participative – Democratic to make it a success and as a result effective leader. It also found that the yield increase. The success depends on the participation of a subordinate.. 2.1.2.2Kurt Lewin's Studies divided into three types: (1) Autocratic Leaders decide for themselves and no goal or purpose depends on the leader. They think only work, and sometimes make they have enemy. This character of leader will be effective only during a crisis. The effect of the leader will lead to a subordinate don’t initiative, creativity and confidence in themselves. (2) Democratic Leaders decision of the group or subordinates to have a part in the decision; listen to idea on the collective work as a team with a 2-way communication, able to increased productivity and satisfaction at work. Sometimes the reference group will take a long time to decide. (3) Laissez- Faire Leaders will give full freedom to subordinates in decision problems. They don’t set goals, rules and regulations, so make subordinates frustrate or resentment and got lower productivities. The type of the work is distributed to the group. If the group has high. 14.

(16) responsibility and high motivation to work, it can control group at effective and creative.. In summer of this study, each characteristics of leader will enhance work is different. Therefore, select character of leader depends on the appropriateness of the situation.. 2.2 Proactive Personality Proactive personality refers to the enduring behavioral tendency of people to take action to influence their environment (Bateman & Crant, 1993). People high in proactive personality seek to improve current circumstances and “identify opportunities and act on them, show initiative, take action, and persevere until meaningful changes occur” (Crant, 2000: 439). In contrast, people lows in proactive personality do not challenge the status quo, fail to identify opportunities, show little initiative, and only passively adapt to their work conditions. Employee proactive personality predicts various individual and organizational outcomes, including career success (e.g., Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999; Van Dyne &Le Pine, 1998; Van Scotter, Motowidlo, & Cross, 2000; also see a met analysis by Fuller and Marler (2009)), job performance (Crant, 1995; Thompson, 2005), innovation and creativity (Parker et al., 2006), entrepreneurship (Becherer& Maurer, 1999).. Figure1 Model of Proactive Personality. Stimulate. Freedom to choose. Reponses. Conscious Self-awareness Imagination Independent will. Proactive personality has personal factors that affecting active behavior: First, Age has negatively relation with proactive behavior. Second, races because it makes them feel that they are part of a group. Third, sense and ability (Fay & Frese, 2001), the behavior of the 15.

(17) person making the dedication and courage to do what they have the skills, knowledge and expertise. Fourth, proactive personality and five big personality dimensions (consciousness) try to find information for work and asked for feedback on their work. It is directly related to the confidence in their self-efficacy and responsible for the changes (Bindl and Parker, 2009).. 2.3 Leader Member Exchange LMX as “a working relationship that is characterized by the physical or mental effort, material resources, information, and/or emotional support exchanged between the leader and the member.” Liden, Sparrowe, and Wayne (1997, p. 48). In a well-cited review article, Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) stressed that leader–member exchange relationships are “based on the characteristics of a working relationship as opposed to a personal or friendship relationship”.. The leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership has developed into a significant area of scientific inquiry and has received considerable empirical research attention in the Organizational sciences. When it was first introduced, this theory was path breaking for two main reasons. First, LMX focused on the separate dyadic relationships between leaders and each of their subordinate. Second, LMX stipulated that leaders do not develop the same type of relationship with each employee. Specifically, LMX theory states that leaders vary their interactions across subordinate and, in doing so, determine their relationships with subordinate.. This research study, leader member exchange (LMX) was concept that develops from the vertical dyad linkage modal, which said that, one to one relationship between the leader and subordinates were different. The leaders tend to develop good relationships with some subordinates. The others subordinate often do not be attended. Character of the leader member exchange studies of quality of the exchange relationship that it is high or low (Dansereau, Greaen and Haga, 1975; Graen, Novak and Sommerkamp, 1982; Graen and. Uhl-Bien, 1995). 2.3.1 The development of the theory of Leader Member Exchange The development of the theory of leader member exchange (LMX) from the study of leadership theory, which theory focus on the interaction between leaders and subordinates (Northouse, 2007), refer pay attention to the interactions within a society or within the same 16.

(18) group, which on the basis of mutual trust, when one side to help to the other side. The side who help will believe that receive side will compensate, which is based on the criterion of mutual benefit (Norm of reciprocity) is when any benefit from another person will give appreciate compensate (Gouldner, 1960), as a leader to help support the work, give information and increasing the resolving power of the members. Subordinates would have to change the society by leave a comment and to cooperate in the performance or activities to the goal of the organization as well. Theory developed from the theory of Vertical Dyad linkage theory, role Theory and social exchange theory. By Process develop follow: Step 1. Role-taking: The person began be members of the organization. Leaders will. have to talk to new members and assess capabilities, including the ability of other members. To determine whether the member is required to perform it. In this role, the member is assigned and has a one-way communication from the leader to the members. Step 2. Role-making: This process each member began to create their own role to the. development of leaders and members interact with each other. Relationships beginning to development of trust, honesty and mutual respect. Step 3. Role-reutilization: Members who work in the organization. There will be more. familiar with the organization, the work is a way of showing "the role of regular” the rather than outsider of the group. Due to they have familiarity and more close with leader. The exchange relations in this process change from baseline in their own interest are attention between. In order to achieve and objectives. Same Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) has outlined the process of the Development of leadership with Table 2. Table 2 Exchange procedure based on the theory of leader member exchange The. Phase1. Phase 2. Phase 3. Strangers. Familiar. Partner. Stipulated in the contract of. Trial / test. The collective. Leadership. Role. employment. bargaining. 17.

(19) Influences. Formal power. Mixed multi. Interdependence. Exchange. Low quality. Moderate quality. High quality. Benefits. For self. For self and others. Groups/organizations. From Table 2 it can be seen that the exchange between Leader Members Exchange is comprised of 3 phases. Phase 1: The stranger phase is the relationship between leaders and members privately, which follow in rules of organization or follow the conditions specified in the contract of employment between the leader and member will be based on clearly defined organizational roles. This relationship face to face quality of exchange is low. Group members feel like an outsider and have behavior to leader formally. It is considered a leader in the command line with the power control employment, as well as gives you punished to them, then for their benefit, member are assigned a specific role behavior only. Phase 2: Acquaintance phase is to adapt to it and learned to work together. This phase will develop relationships in the higher levels may be from either before such as member come in discuss working with the leaders or leaders may provide feedback to the member function, suggested and demand for resource operations, make both sides began to trust each other. Members began to work for organization more than first phase such as the development of helping others, and work done on schedule. Phase3: Mature partnership phase is interacted with the development of relations between the levels of high quality. Both sides are intimacy, trust, guideline or consultation together. When the Chief was a good exemplary practitioner, work with members, and show of a person with the knowledge and ability to solve problems or helping members when they have problem. Members will respect and admiration for the professionalism of the leaders.. However, in working for achieve the goal. Leadership requires the performance of all members in a team to make a contribution to the organization. The use of official power or authority in position only, member could not make it work with heart and dedication to work at full capacity, so the create power and influence in various ways can be applied for all. 18.

(20) members feel are important partners to achieve goals. Work will achieve if everyone dedication to team and organization.. 2.3.2 Characteristic of the Leader Member Exchange Characters of the leader member exchange are divided into two groups (Dansereau, Graen and Haga, 1975): First, Out-group is exchange relationships outside the group. Leader and subordinates have quality of the relationship are low level (low LMX) and leaders manage subordinate is incompetent groups that untrustworthy and lack of motivation to work. Relationship based on a contract of employment. The leader use of official powers and knows each other the duty and responsibility only, not relationship between each other. Assigned tasks and responsibilities can be low. Leaders and subordinates lack of trust, respect and mutual trust in the workplace. Second, In-group is exchange relationships in this group. Leadership and subordinate have the quality of relationships at a high level (high LMX), and leaders manage subordinate is genius groups that reliable and motivation to work. Leaders use unofficial powers and assignment that require the ability and responsibility. The leader and subordinate have a personal relationship, trust, respect and mutual trust in the workplace.. Thus in summer of this study, Leader offer high-LMX (in-group) to subordinates such as a higher degree of trust, respect, mutual obligation and interaction, participation, support, and rewards, which are not offered to low-LMX (out-group) employees. Employees who experienced high LMX reciprocate with a greater expenditure of time and effort, higher commitment, and higher levels of performance (Carson, 2002).. 2.3.3 Dimension of the Leader Member Exchange Many researchers study about dimension of the leader member exchange. Dienesh and Liden (1986) proposed that the leader member exchange in 3 dimensions: (1) Affect the intimate between leaders and subordinates, which arising from the relationship between the individual, rather than a relationship of respect, or the ability to work. 19.

(21) (2)Loyalty Support and protects each other, both personal goals and conditions. (3) Contribution Perceive the quantity, quality, activities and work related leaders and subordinates together for achievement.. Later Liden and Maslyn (1998) have studied more of the dimensions of the leader member exchange by exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factory analysis. And not only 3Dimension that Liden and Maslyn (1998) proposed, Professional respect also is another dimension of the leader member exchange is important. Because professional respect as a result of the skills and talents of leaders and subordinates, each according to their expectations. Allows they have received expert power, which led to the development of good relations between the leader and subordinates.. In summary, the factors for establishing the good LMX with employee include (1)Affect is a positive relationship between leaders and subordinates, resulting from a personal relationship than the relationship of work. (2) Loyalty is support and protects each other for the goal for the work and personal conditions. By Loyalty is associated with love, mutual trust in each situation. (3) Contribution is perceived level of participation in work or work related activities, leaders and subordinates work together towards a common goal that they set up. (4) Professional respect is perceived level of skill and the ability to work between a lead and a subordinate.. 2.4 Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction has been defined as a “pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (Locke, 1976, p. 1304). Building on this definition, recent theorizing (Fisher, 2000; Weiss, 2000) describes job satisfaction as an attitude (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) with both an affective component (mood, emotions) and a cognitive component (belief, judgment, comparison).. 20.

(22) Job satisfaction is related to the leader and the employees have to be emotional satisfaction. Comfortableness of employee arising from the experience of the individual. The satisfaction and comfortableness are the result of work that has made the needs of the body and psychological. The difference between work that the leader assign with employee’s expectations leads to satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Job Satisfaction (Beers, 1994) is the feeling of a person to work on the job that they are doing, include duty responsibilities, trust, good relations both with leader and subordinates, colleagues, work environment, expectations and progress in work (Beers, 1994). That relate the concept of Cooper (1958) describe that "satisfied in Performance is work that interest, good equipment in operation, paid a fair salary, the opportunity to progress in their career, including the hours of operation, appropriate workplace, accommodation and working with leader and colleagues are satisfied." Hackman and Oldman (1976) suggested that there are five works characteristic make job more satisfying for worker. First, Autonomy is the degree to which the jobholder is free to schedule the pace of his or her work and determine the procedures to be used. Second, Skill Variety describes the degree to which a job requires the exercise of a number of different skills, abilities, or talents. Such activities must not merely be different, but they must be distinct enough to require different skills. Third, Task Identity defines the extent to which a job requires completion of a whole and identifiable piece of work. Forth, Task Significance refers to the importance of the job; the degree to which the job has an impact on the lives of other people, the immediate organization or the external environment. And the last one, Feedback from the job involves the degree to which the individual doing a job obtains information about the effectiveness of his/her performance. Feedback does not only refer to supervisory feedback, but also the ability to observe the results of the work. Those work characteristic were expected to increase positive behavioral (job performance) and attitudinal (job satisfaction) outcome and decrease negative behavioral outcome. Fried and Ferris (1987) found that these five characteristic were strongly relate to job satisfaction, growth satisfaction and internal work motivation, with weaker relationships to job performance and absenteeism.. 2.4.1 Proactive personality and job satisfaction The dispositional approach proposes that job satisfaction may be partly determined by one or more enduring characteristics of people, in part on the basis of evidence that job satisfaction 21.

(23) is relatively stable overtime and across situations (e.g., Ilies& Judge, 2003; Staw et al., 1986; Staw& Cohen-Charash, 2005). Consistent with this perspective, meta-analytic results have indicated that proactive is strongly related to subjective career satisfaction (job and career satisfaction) (Ng, E by, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005). Proactive is associated with job satisfaction because proactive people tend to create conditions more conducive to personal success at work. In summary of this study, Proactive personality is important for innovation and implementing organizational change so it is important to sustain a proactive workforce and we have found that job satisfaction is important, not just as an instigator of proactive, but as a force for maintaining momentum (Karoline Strauss). It might seem obvious that happy employees work harder and are better promoters of change, but research does reveal some variance in this. Job satisfaction leads to a more compliant workforce, and did find that highly satisfied employees who had not tried to promote change at work were unlikely to do so in the future. But also found that those with high levels of job satisfaction who were proactive personality maintained. Low levels of job satisfaction may motivate high levels of proactive behavior in the short term as workers looked to change things to become more satisfied, but this is not sustained over the long term. These workers will either succeed in changing their environment at work or so no longer see the need to seek change, or fail, become frustrated and not persevere with their proactive behavior.. 2.4.2 Leader member exchange and Job satisfaction There were several studies found a direct relationship between LMX and job satisfaction (Wech, 2002, p.356; Fix and Sias, 2006, p.41; Mardanov et al., 2008, p.170; Jordan and Troth, 2011, p.269; Volmer et al., 2011, p.534; Cheung and Wu, 2012, p.72). In their meta-analytic study, determined that higher quality LMX leads to greater job satisfaction (Lapierre and Hackett, 2007) and only the affect facet of LMX has a significant effect on job satisfaction (Bang, 2011), included four facets of job satisfaction (satisfaction with the leader; with withholder; with job conditions and with the task) and they found a relationship between LMX and satisfaction with only the leader. LMX and job satisfaction have a negative impact on unethical behaviors. Thus, organizations can reduce unethical behavior by increasing positive employee-leader relationships and job satisfaction.. 22.

(24) 2.5 Job performance Job performance can be defined as “all the behaviors employees engage in while at work” (Jex, 2002).More commonly, job performance refers to how well someone performs at his or her work. Definitions range from general to specific aspects and from quantitative to qualitative dimensions. Initially, researchers were optimistic about the possibility to define and measure job performance. However, soon enough they started to realize that determining the dimensions of a job and its performance requirements was not a straightforward process. Nowadays it is generally agreed that job performance consists of complicated series of interacting variables pertaining to aspects of the job, the employee and the environment(Milkovich et al 1999).Historically, there have been three approaches to define the dimensions of job performance(Milkovich et al 1991 p. 48) as a function of outcome behavior and personal traits. 2.5.1 Proactive personality and job performance I summarized individual, team, and organizational level outcomes of proactive personality on job performance. Individual-level outcomes Proactive personality has both conceptually, as well as empirically, been linked to leader performance. Particularly in uncertain contexts, taking charge of the situation rather than passively waiting to be instructed, should have performance benefits (Griffin et al., 2007). Some illustrative findings include: •. Grant, Parker and Collins (2009) found that proactive individuals were rated more. positively in their overall job performance by leader, especially if the employees were low in negative affect and high in prosaically motivation. •. Employees who engaged in network building and personal initiative were evaluated. more favorably by their leader (Thompson, 2005). •. Employees who engaged in voice were rated higher in individual performance by their. leader six months later (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). •. Morrison (1993a, 1993b) found a positive influence of proactive information seeking. on individual performance. By being proactive, individuals seem to be able to craft better jobs for themselves to achieve jobs that represent advances in their career and/or jobs that are satisfying. For example: •. Higher levels of career initiative and individual innovation predicted substantial. increases in career satisfaction and in actual promotions at work (Seibert et al., 2001). 23.

(25) •. Career-oriented proactive behaviors such as several types of information proactively. sought (Morrison, 1993b), feedback seeking, relationship building and positive framing (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000) have all been linked to higher levels of job satisfaction.. Team-level Outcomes of Proactive Most proactivity research has been conducted at the individual-level of analysis, although there are some studies which have focused on the team-level of analysis. These studies suggest that proactivity is a relevant team-level concept. For example: •. Kirkman and Rosen (1999) found that leader-rated team proactive behavior was. positively related to leaders' assessments of team customer service and team productivity, as well as to team members’ job satisfaction and commitment. •. Hyatt and Ruddy (1997) showed a positive association between team-level proactivity. and team performance in the field of customer service. •. Druskat and Kayes (2000) showed that team-level proactivity positively related to team. learning and team performance. Organizational-level Outcomes of Proactive Even fewer studies have examined organizational-level outcomes. Studies have shown that small enterprise owners’ proactivity is positively related with firm success (cited in Frese& Fay, 2001). In a further study of small scale firm owners, Frese, Van Gelderen and Ombach (2000) reported that reactive business strategies (non-proactive) related negatively with profit.. 2.5.2 Leader member exchange and job performance LMX is associated with better role adjustment in terms of performance, as research has consistently found that LMX and performance are related across a wide-range of jobs (Gerstner & Day, 1997). For example, in a cross-sectional study Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, and Taylor (2000) found that, in their sample of university employees with an average tenure of seven years, performance was related to LMX. Similarly, Wayne, Shore, and Liden (1997) studied employees with at least five years of work experience and found a positive relationship between LMX and performance. Settoon, Bennett, and Liden (1996) discovered that LMX and performance were related in their sample of hospital employees with approximately six years of tenure. For their sample of expatriates, Kraimer et al. (2001) found a similar relationship. In one of the few studies of new employees that included performance 24.

(26) as an outcome, Bauer and Green (1996) studied new college graduates and found that LMX and performance were related at two months on the job as well as nine months on the job.. LMX researchers have posited several mechanisms relating LMX to performance. For example, new employees need information to do their jobs and to gain clarity for role expectations (Bauer et al., 1998). Indeed, the literature shows a strong relationship between LMX and role clarity, perhaps because individuals in high LMX relationships interact more frequently with their leaders (Kramer, 1995). Further, high LMX members often enjoy more challenging assignments, sponsorship, and greater access to information relevant to the job (Graen & Scandura, 1987).. 2.6 Job Satisfaction and Performance Relationship. The relationship between job satisfaction and performance has been critically assessed in a variety of organizational settings. Results of these studies have been mixed. Cummings (1970) identified three major points of view concerning this relationship. Satisfaction causes performance, performance causes satisfaction and rewards cause both performance and satisfaction. All of these three views are supported by various researches. Mirvis and Lawer (1977) produced conclusive findings about the relationship between job satisfaction and performance. In attempting to measure the performance of bank tellers in terms of cash shortages, their proposed arguments are satisfied tellers were less likely to show shortages and less likely to leave their jobs. Kornhanuser and Sharp (1976) have conducted more than thirty studies to identify the relationship between satisfaction and performance in industrial sector. Many of the studies have found that a positive relationship existed between job satisfaction and performance. Katzell, Barret and Porker (1952) demonstrated that job satisfaction was associated neither with turnover nor with quality of production. Smith and Cranny (1968) reviewed the literature and concluded that satisfaction is associated with performance as well as effort, commitment and intention. In the western electric studies (1966) the evidence from the Relay Assembly test room showed a dramatic tendency for increased employee productivity to be associate of with an increase in job satisfaction. Porter and Lowler (1969) suggested that satisfaction will affect a worker’s effort, arguing that increased satisfaction from performance possibility helps to increase expectations of 25.

(27) performance leading to rewards, Carroll, Keflas and Watson (1964) found that satisfaction and productivity are crucial relationship in which each affects the other. They suggest that performance leads to more effort because of high perceived expectancy. The effort leads to effective performance, which again leads to satisfaction in crucial relationship. David, Joseph and William (1970) suggest that the type of reward system under which workers perform strongly influence the satisfaction performance relationship.. 26.

(28) 2.7 Hypothesis Based on the literature review, six hypotheses were recommended follow:. Proactive Personality. Job Satisfaction. Leader member exchange (LMX). Job Performance. Figure 2Theoretical frameworks of the research variables. H1: Proactive personality is positively related to the job satisfaction. H2: Leader member exchange (LMX) is positively related to job satisfaction. H3: Proactive personality is positively related to job performance. H4: Leader member exchange (LMX) is positively related to job performance. H5: The job satisfaction is positively related to job performance. H6 (a): The effect of proactive personality on job performance will be mediated by job satisfaction. H6 (b): The effect of leader member exchange on job performance will be mediated by job satisfaction.. 27.

(29) Chapter 3 Method This chapter provides information on the research method of this thesis. The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of proactive personalities and leader Member Exchange on the job satisfaction and performance. A survey would be adapted to collect the empirical data about an employee’s response following being interviewed by the leader and survey of employees.. 3.1. Research design These studies contain two parts: In the survey part, using a questionnaire of the worker’s response and managers will be explained, also the methods used for the interviews are justified about attitude, relationship, including framework that the leader assigns to subordinates of manager.. 3.2. Sampling and Data collection procedures Data used in this study would be collected using questionnaire given to the labors at a automobile service center at Thailand. YL Dynamo automobile service centers, located at the South area of Thailand is a private sector organization which sells spare parts for cars and service repair, check systems and the battery of the car. YL Company has always been run as if it were a small organization even though it was founded about 25 years ago and it has grown from twenty staff at the outset to employ 282 people at head office alone and because of this organization has rather small overhead, it can compete with other automobile centers in other local areas so it has never had an human resources department; therefore there are very few policies and procedures governing the organization. Decisions regarding employees (for example, hiring and firing) are usually taken on an ad hoc basis by the relevant manager(s). YL Company has 15 managers, each of manager respond 10-20 labors. The Methodologies for study, in the survey section, a total of 200 questionnaires were given to labors which each worker has a different age, education, salary and experience, cause of 28.

(30) various attitudes, decision, and satisfaction to their leader which is major factor relate to their relationship. In the interview section, there were face to face interviews with the 3 managers. The interview serves as qualitative research, designed to provide information on the thoughts and feeling. In this study the main question that interview was how was the attitude of the leader and labors, maintaining the relationship and satisfying employees in their job that result in job performance for the organization?. 3.3. Questionnaire Design We design Questionnaires for leaders and labors in automobile service centers that about study on the impact of proactive personality and leader member exchange on Job satisfaction and performance. The questionnaire consists of four parts: part one is about the respondent’s basic information, including their work experience. Part two and three are to measure how proactive they are and leader-member exchanges by using 5 point scales indicates frequency, amount and size of idea. Part four is to measure job satisfaction by using 5-point scales with responses of 1= strongly disagree and 5= strongly agree. Part five is the measure job performance by using the evaluation scale has five possible ratings: 5= Excellent, 4=Good, 3=satisfactory, 2=sometime unsatisfactory and 1=unsatisfactory. The last part is leader’s interview.. 3.4. Measures 3.4.1 Proactive personality focus on labors was measured at Crant and Kraimer (1999) tenitem proactive personality Scale (PPS). Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed on a 5-point Likert-type faces scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Proactive personality was measured using Crant and Kraimer(1999) 10 item measure. These items are summed to arrive at a proactive personality score. Table 3.1 Proactive Personality Measure Item 1. I am constantly on the lookout for new ways to improve my life. 2. Wherever I have been, I have been a powerful force for constructive change. 3. Nothing is more exciting than seeing my ideas turn into reality.. 29.

(31) 4. If I see something I don't like, I fix it. 5. No matter what the odds, if I believe in something I will make it happen. 6. I love being a champion for my ideas, even against others' opposition. 7. I excel at identifying opportunities. 8. I am always looking for better ways to do things. 9. If I believe in an idea, no obstacle will prevent me from making it happen. 10. I can spot a good opportunity long before others can. Source: Crant and Kraimer 1999. 3.4.2 Leader–Member Exchange measures were adapted from previous studies, which included Liden and Maslyn (1998). Meta-analytical evidence indicates that the LMX 7 provides the soundest psychometric properties and the highest correlations with outcomes, compared to all other available instruments (Gerstner & Day, 1997). And explain the relationship with either leader or one of subordinates. For each of the items, indicate the degree to which think the item is true for response. We measured leader member exchange by using questionnaire contains items that ask to describe relationship with leader or subordinates. This is example result of Daniel Michael’s studied that presents about the descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients, and the correlations among the study variables. These results provide preliminary support for the research hypotheses. Specifically, LMX was positively related to SSC (r = .87, p < .001), employee interpersonal facilitation (r = .40, p < .001) and job dedication (r = .31, p <.001). Employee job dedication was positively related to employee task performance (r = .80, p <.001). SSC was positively related to job satisfaction (r = .57, p < .001), interpersonal facilitation (r = .46, p < .001), job dedication (r = .35, p < .001), and employee task performance (r = .28, p< .001), and inversely related to turnover intentions (r = -.61, p < .001).. 30.

(32) Table 3.2 leader member exchange Items. Measure Item 1. Do you know where you stand with your leader and do you usually know how satisfied your leader is with what you do? 2. How well does your leader understand your job problems and needs? 3. How well does your leader recognize your potential? 4. Regardless of how much formal authority your leader has built into his or her position, what are the chances that your leader would use his or her power to help you solve problems in your work? 5. Again, regardless of the amount of formal authority your leader has, what are the chances that he or she would “bail you out” at his or her expense? 6. I have enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and justify his or her decision if he or she were not present to do so. 7. How would you characterize your working relationship with your leader? Source: G. B. Graen and M. Uhl-Bien, 1995. 3.4.3 Job Satisfaction - measuring of job satisfaction was taken from Hackman and Oldman (1976) and Baillod and Semmer (1994). Following Kunin (1955), participants were instructed to indicate how satisfied they were. We measured Job satisfaction and motivate by using the six-factor measure developed and validated by Hackman and Oldman (1976), Lawler & Porter (1967) and Fried and Ferris (1987). The six-factors include Work Characteristics, Work in progress, Relationship between leader, Environment in workplace, Compensation-Reward and Equilibrium between work life and personal life. Table 3.3 Job satisfactions Measure Item Work Characteristics 1. The job allow me to make decision, decide and create about my work for develop thing that done. 2. Quantity of work suited for time that I have to work. 3. The job require me a variety of skill for complete the work 31.

(33) 4. I am successful in your work during the time you worked in the past. Work in progress 5. My position or duty to perform the work in progress later. 6. I am satisfied with my comment, colleagues and leader will listen to my comments and to make their decisions. 7. I am satisfied with my organization that supports me to be successful in their profession without change the job. 8. Get a promotion in my organization has to follow rules and justice. 9. I am satisfied with the job, because advancement opportunities than others. Relationship between leaders 10. Leader are intimate, friendly, accept my comments and suggestions. 11. Leader willing to help when I have problems in both work and personal. 12. I satisfied relationship between leader and me now. Environment in workplace 13. Prepare for emergencies and disasters in the workplace. 14. The lighting / ventilation enough in the workplace. 15. Don’t foul smell / dust in the workplace 16. Superior materials new technology and facilities in operation. Compensation and Reward 17. I satisfied with the salary you received with my skill and knowledge. 18. I satisfied in all aspects of executive compensation in the form of salaries, incentives, other benefits. 19. I satisfied in the year, I have the opportunity to exercise a right to be compensated for financial and other (illness or disability as a result of the operation). Equilibrium between work life and personal life 20. I often have to work on assignments overtime. 21. The work is not a barrier to family life and relaxation. 32.

(34) 3.4.4 Job Performance Table 3.4 Writing with leader Writing Item Job Performance 1. Discipline (punctuality) 2. Quality Performance 3. Work completed on schedule to be placed 4. Judgment and Problem solving 5. Interpersonal and Creativity. Interview - using real information that interview to examine, which would be measure opinion, attitude, relationship leader to subordinates, including framework and job performances of employee. This writing would be measure job performances of worker by give managers give score for worker under their control.. 3.4.5 Leader’s Interview Table 3.5 Interview with leader Interview Item 1. Employees making decisions and open opportunities to comment. 2. The goal and specify work or contribution for employees. 3. The feeling that leader character has a role and important to labor (Respect and trust in capacity) though attitudes and relationships between labors. 4. The links of proactive personality of employee and job performance.. Control Variables -Prior research suggests that LMX quality may be related to similarity in leader and labor demographic characteristics such as age, education, and salary and job. 33.

(35) experience. Age; the rating scale was 1 = 20-25, 2 = 26-30, 3 = 31-40 4 = 41-50, and 5 = over 51 years old. Education was measured by asking for a report of the highest degree obtained. The rating scale was 2 = Certified, 1 = Bachelor’s degree. Salary was measured with one item asking for a report of the amount of money. Job experience was measured with one item asking for a report of the number of years in the company. The rating scale was 1 = less than 2 year, 2 = 2–5 years, 3 = 6–10 years, and 4 = more than 10 years. In addition, we controlled for the dyadic tenure of each leader and labor to partial out the potential familiarity effect (Green, Anderson, & Shivers, 1996).. 3.5. Analytic strategy Data analysis employed SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Science for Windows) method, which SPSS is suitable for this study because it is a powerful piece of software to analyze statistics and managing information accurately, especially analysis of attitudes and satisfaction with things as SPSS can also be used as a tool to aid in the management decisions that relates with this study. By adapting the SPSS, ANOVA, MANOVA, Correlation and Multiple Regressions will be used to examine the impact of Proactive personality and Leader member exchange (LMX) on job outcomes (satisfaction and performance). Hypotheses one to four we will be used correlation to examine. Hypothesis five will use the correlation and multiple regression to examine. The mediation effect (hypothesis six (a) and (b)) will be used in multiple regressions to examine in terms of Barron and Kenny’s (1986) procedure. If the direct effects from LMX and proactive personality to job outcomes disappear while the job satisfaction included in the regression model, then full mediation will be supported. If the direct effects of LMX, proactive personality and satisfaction are significant, then it will indicate a partial mediation effect among the variables.. 34.

(36) Chapter 4 Results. This chapter presents the data gathering of the study, interpretation of the results from the conducted survey and the software product analysis.. 4.1 Results of survey study 4.1.1 The relationship between background variable and research variable In this section the study results are presented the relationship between background variable; age, education, salary, experience among the research variables. 4.1.1.1 Result of F test for Age group Because job satisfactions have six dimensions, therefore we use a MANOVA to test the significance of combine effect of satisfaction affected by Age level. Results indicated that the Wilk’s Lambda is .571 which is significant at .001 level (F (24,664)= 4.822, p<.001). Each dimension of satisfaction is significant at .001 level according to the follow-up unvaried test. We use a MANOVA to test the significance of combine effect of performance affected by Age level. Results indicated that the Wilk’s Lambda is .780 which is significant at .001 level (F(20,624)= 2.464, p<.001). Table 4 present that the difference of age group were significantly on proactive personality, F (4,195) = 2.836, p< .05, leader member exchange (LMX), F (4,195) = 19.119, p< .05 and Job satisfaction of Work Characteristics, F (4,195) = 12.399, p< .05, Work in progress, F (4,195) = 13.986, p< .05, Relationship between leader, F (4,195) = 11.962, p< .05 Environment in workplace, F (4,195) = 14.783, p< .05 Salary, Compensation and Reward, F (4,195) = 15.058, p< .05, and Equilibrium (work life and personal life) F (4,195) = 16.721, p< .05.And Job performance of Quality performance, F (4,195) = .3.266, p< .05, Judgment and problem solving abilities, F (4,195) = 7.975, p< .05. But there is no significant difference Job performance of Discipline (punctuality), F (4,195) = .413, p< .05, Work completed on schedule, F (4,195) = .751, p< .05 and Interpersonal and creative, F (4,195) = 192, p< .05. 35.

(37) Table 4 Descriptive statistics and Result of F test for Age group. 20-25 years N=27. Proactive Personality Leader member exchange Job satisfaction Work Characteristics Work in progress Relationship between leader Environment in workplace Salary, Compensation and Reward Equilibrium (work life and personal life). Job performance Discipline (punctuality) Quality performance Work complete on schedule Judgment and problem solve Interpersonal and creative. 26-30 years N=26. 31-40 years N=79. 41-50 years N=31. 51 up years N=12. Total N=200. Mean 3.76 3.62. Std. Deviation Mean .04 3.78 .29 3.69. Std. Deviation Mean .01 3.77 .32 3.99. Std. Deviation Mean .02 3.77 .21 3.96. Std. Deviation Mean .02 3.77 .18 3.96. Std. Deviation Mean .01 3.77 .24 3.86. 3.96 3.95 3.92 3.92 3.91. .07 .08 .08 .07 .06. 3.94 3.93 3.91 3.90 3.90. .04 .05 .04 .04 .04. 3.99 3.98 3.95 3.95 3.95. .06 .06 .06 .06 .05. 4.01 4.01 3.98 3.98 3.97. .05 .05 .05 .04 .04. 3.99 3.98 3.95 3.95 3.95. .04 .04 .04 .04 .04. 3.98 3.97 3.94 3.94 3.94. .06 .06 .06 .06 .06. 3.90. .06. 3.88. .04. 3.93. .05. 3.96. .04. 3.93. .04. 3.92. .06 16.721 .000. 4.87 3.53 3.87 3.13 3.40. .35 .82 .63 .90 .93. 4.87 3.85 3.78 3.35 3.26. .34 .67 .47 .71 1.06. 4.97 4.02 3.91 3.69 3.27. .18 .60 .66 .69 .82. 4.92 3.92 3.79 3.98 3.33. .35 .61 .58 .73 .66. 4.92 3.58 3.75 3.25 3.92. .29 .79 .45 .97 1.00. 4.92 3.86 3.84 3.57 3.34. .30 .68 .58 .81 .88. 36. Std. Deviation F P .02 2.836 .026 .29 19.119 .000 12.399 13.986 11.962 14.783 15.058. .992 3.266 .480 7.975 1.540. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000. .413 .013 .751 .000 .192.

(38) 4.1.1.2 Result of F test for Education group Because Job satisfactions have six dimensions, therefore we use a MANOVA to test the significance of combine effect of satisfaction affected by Education. The results indicated that the Wilk’s Lambda is .534 which is significant at .001 level (F (6,193) = 27.959, p<.001. We use a MANOVA to test the significance of combine effect of performance affected by education. The results indicated that the Wilk’s Lambda is .930 which is significant at .05 level (F(5,194)= 2.930, p<.05). Table 5 present that the difference of Bachelor’s degree and Certificate were significant on leader member exchange (LMX), F (1,198) = 17.419, p< .001 and Job satisfaction of Work Characteristics, F (1,198) = 93.277, p< .001, Work in progress, F (1,198) = 100.096, p< .001, Relationship between leader, F (1,198) = 80.940, p< .001, Environment in workplace, F (1,198) = 101.799, p< .001, Salary, Compensation and Reward, F (1,198) = 108.548, p< .001, and Equilibrium (work life and personal life) F (1,198) = 117.786, p< .001. But is not significant on Proactive Personality, F (1,198) = 2.407, p< .001. That is, the employee with the high education tends to not satisfy with their job. But not difference on proactive personality. As the follow-up test, table 5 present result of ANOVA for each dimensions of performance.. However only the difference of Bachelor’s degree and Certificate was. significant on job performance of Judgment and problem solving abilities, F (1,198) = 10.785, p<.001. But is not significant performance of Discipline (punctuality), F (4,195) = 0.230, Quality performance, F (4,195) = 0.023, p< .001, Work completed on schedule, F (4,195) = 2.561, p< .001 and Interpersonal and creative, F (4,195) = 1.322, p< .001. That is, the employee with the high education tends to not performance with their job. But not difference on proactive personality.. 37.

(39) Table 5 Descriptive statistics and Result of F test for Education group Bachelor degree N=71 Std. Mean Deviation Proactive Personality Leader member exchange (LMX) Job satisfaction Work Characteristics Work in progress Relationship between leader Environment in workplace Salary, Compensation and Reward Equilibrium (work life and personal life) Job performance Discipline (punctuality) Quality performance Work complete on schedule Judgment and problem solve Interpersonal and creative. Certificated N=129 Std. Mean Deviation. Total N=200 Std. Mean Deviation. F. P. 3.77 3.74. .03 .34. 3.77 3.92. .02 .24. 3.77 3.86. .02 .29. 2.407 17.419. .122 .000. 3.93 3.92 3.90 3.90 3.89 3.88. .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05. 4.01 4.00 3.97 3.97 3.96 3.95. .05 .05 .05 .05 .04 .04. 3.98 3.97 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.92. .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06. 93.277 100.096 80.940 101.799 108.548 117.786. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000. 4.90 3.85 3.75 3.32 3.44. .34 .69 .63 .63 .98. 4.92 3.86 3.88 3.71 3.29. .27 .68 .55 .86 .82. 4.92 3.86 3.84 3.57 3.34. .30 .68 .58 .81 .88. .230 .023 2.561 10.785 1.322. .632 .879 .111 .001 .252. 38.

(40) 4.1.1.3 Result of F test for Salary group Because Job satisfactions have six dimensions, therefore we use a MANOVA to test the significance of combine effect of satisfaction affected by Salary level. The results indicated that the Wilk’s Lambda is .573 which is significant at .001 level (F (18,540) =6.537, p<.001). Each dimension of satisfaction is significant at .001 level according to the follow-up unvaried test. We use a MANOVA to test the significance of combine effect of performance affected by Salary level. Results indicated that the Wilk’s Lambda is .790 which is significant at .001 level (F (15,530) = 6.537, p<.001). Table 6 present that there is no significant difference for four salary level on proactive personality F (3,196) = 1.506, p<.001. However, the six dimension of job Satisfaction all significantly differ among the salary level, Job satisfaction of Work Characteristics, F (3,196) = 19.506, p< .001, Work in progress, F (3,196) = 21.030,p< .001, Relationship between leader F (3,196) = 17.743,p< .001, Environment in workplace, F (3,196) = 21.557, p< .001, Salary, Compensation and Reward, F (3,196) = 21.613, p< .001, and Equilibrium (work life and personal life) F (3,196) = 23.767, p< .001. And also Leader member exchange (LMX) is significant differ among salary group F (3,196) = 41.163, p< .001. There is no significant difference for four salary level on Proactive personality F (3,196) = 1.506, p=.05 and Job performance of Quality performance, F (3,196) = 2.598, p< .05, Work completed on schedule, F (3,196) = 0.779, p< .05 and Interpersonal and creative, F (3,196) = 0.656, p< .05. But Leader member exchange (LMX) is significant differ among salary group F (3,196) = 41.163, p< .05 and Job performance of Discipline (punctuality), F (3,196) = 0.038, p< .05 and Judgment and problem solving abilities, F (3,196) = 11.240, p<.05.. 39.

(41) Table 6 Descriptive statistics and Result of F test for Salary group Bachelor degree N=71 Std. Mean Deviation Proactive Personality Leader member exchange (LMX) Job satisfaction Work Characteristics Work in progress Relationship between leader Environment in workplace Salary, Compensation and Reward Equilibrium (work life and personal life) Job performance Discipline (punctuality) Quality performance Work complete on schedule Judgment and problem solve Interpersonal and creative. Certificated N=129 Std. Mean Deviation. Total N=200 Std. Mean Deviation. F. P. 3.77 3.74. .03 .34. 3.77 3.92. .02 .24. 3.77 3.86. .02 .29. 2.407 17.419. .122 .000. 3.93 3.92 3.90 3.90 3.89 3.88. .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05. 4.01 4.00 3.97 3.97 3.96 3.95. .05 .05 .05 .05 .04 .04. 3.98 3.97 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.92. .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06. 93.277 100.096 80.940 101.799 108.548 117.786. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000. 4.90 3.85 3.75 3.32 3.44. .34 .69 .63 .63 .98. 4.92 3.86 3.88 3.71 3.29. .27 .68 .55 .86 .82. 4.92 3.86 3.84 3.57 3.34. .30 .68 .58 .81 .88. .230 .023 2.561 10.785 1.322. .632 .879 .111 .001 .252. 40.

(42) 4.1.1.4 Result of F test for Experience group Because Job satisfactions have six dimensions, therefore we use a MANOVA to test the significance of combine effect of satisfaction affected by Salary level. The results indicated that the Wilk’s Lambda is .580 which is significant at .001 level (F (18,540) = 6.384, p<.001). Each dimension of satisfaction is significant at .001 level according to the follow-up unvaried test. We use a MANOVA to test the significance of combine effect of performance affected by Experience. The results indicated that the Wilk’s Lambda is .816 which is significant at .001 level (F (15,530) = 2.700, p<.001). Table 7 present that the difference of Experience years were significant on Leader member exchange (LMX) F (3,196) = 54.902, p< .001 and Job satisfaction of Work Characteristics, F (3,196) = 21.598, p< .001, Work in progress, F (3,196) = 18.044,p< .001, Relationship between leader F (3,196) = 21.892,p< .001, Environment in workplace, F (3,196) = 22.122, p< .001, Salary, Compensation and Reward, F (3,196) = 24.131, p< .001, and Equilibrium (work life and personal life) F (3,196) = 21.598, p< .001. But there is no significant on proactive personality, F (3,196) = 1.719, p< .001. The difference of Experience were significant on Leader member exchange (LMX) F (3,196) = 54.902, p< .001 and Job performance of Quality performance, F (3,196) = 3.017, p< .05, and Judgment and problem solving abilities, F (3,196) = 9.361, p<.05. But there is no significant on Proactive Personality, F (3,196) = 1.719, p< .05 and Job performance of Discipline (punctuality), F (3,196) = 2.488, Work completed on schedule, F (3,196) = 0.612, p< .05 and Interpersonal and creative, F (3,196) = 0.333, p< .05.. 41.

(43) Table 7 Descriptive statistics and Result of F test for Experience group Less 2 years N= 28. Proactive Personality Leader member exchange (LMX) Job satisfaction Work Characteristics Work in progress Relationship between leader Environment in workplace Salary, Compensation and Reward Equilibrium (work life and personal life) Job performance Discipline (punctuality) Quality performance Work complete on schedule Judgment and problem solve Interpersonal and creative. Mean 3.77 3.40. Std. Deviation .04 .28. 3.93 3.92 3.90 3.90 3.89 3.88 4.79 3.68 3.86 3.14 3.43. 2-5 years N=60. 6-10 years N=79. Mean 3.77 3.83. Std. Deviation .01 .19. .07 .06 .07 .06 .05 .05. 3.96 3.95 3.92 3.92 3.91 3.90. .42 .90 .52 .89 .92. 4.92 3.73 3.75 3.32 3.27. 42. over 10 years N=33. Mean 3.77 3.97. Std. Deviation .02 .21. Mean 3.78 4.00. Std. Deviation .02 .20. .05 .06 .05 .05 .05 .05. 4.01 4.01 3.97 3.97 3.97 3.95. .05 .05 .05 .05 .04 .04. 3.98 3.97 3.95 3.95 3.94 3.93. .28 .63 .63 .68 1.01. 4.96 4.03 3.87 3.86 3.33. .19 .60 .61 .71 .78. 4.91 3.82 3.88 3.70 3.42. Total N=200 Mean 3.77 3.86. Std. Deviation .02 .29. F 1.719 54.902. P .164 .001. .06 .06 .05 .05 .05 .05. 3.98 3.97 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.92. .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06. 21.598 18.044 21.892 22.122 24.131 21.598. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000. .38 .68 .48 .88 .87. 4.92 3.86 3.84 3.57 3.34. .30 .68 .58 .81 .88. 2.488 3.017 .612 9.361 0.333. .062 .031 .608 .000 .801.

(44) 4.1.2 Correlation coefficient among the research variables In this section the study results are presented. Hypotheses were tested by used the variables´ correlation for exploring relationships between proactive personality, leader member exchange (LMX), job satisfaction and performance among the research variables Table 8 present that there are significant correlation between leader member exchange (LMX) and satisfactions. The correlation coefficient between Leader member exchange (LMX) and job satisfaction are ranged .404 (p<.01). That is, the higher the Leader member exchange (LMX), the higher the employees satisfy with their job. And there are significant correlation between leader member exchange (LMX) and performance of judgment and problem ranged .218 (p<.01). The correlation coefficient between job satisfaction and job performance of Judgment and problem solve ranged .228 (p<.01). Quality performance ranged .319 (p<.01). .and Interpersonal and creative ranged -.225 (p<.01). That is, the higher the job satisfaction the higher the employees performance. with their job. Table 8 Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficient among the research variables. 1. Proactive Personality 2. Leader member exchange 3. Job satisfaction Job performance 4. Discipline (punctuality) 5. Quality performance 6. Work complete on schedule 7. Judgment and problem solve 8. Interpersonal and creative. M. SD 1. 3.77 3.86 3.81. .02 1 .29 .09 1 .18 .06 .404** 1. 4.92 3.86 3.84 3.57 3.34. .30 .68 .58 .81 .88. -.13 .09 -.07 .07 -.01. 2. 3. .11 .05 .13 .228** .10 .14 .218** .319** -.10 -.225**. *P<.05 **P<.01. 43. 4. 1 .06 .01 .01 -.04. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1 -.13. 1. 1 1 .316** .084 -.04 -.02.

(45) 4.1.3 Regression of proactive personality, leader member exchange (LMX) and job satisfaction effect to performance In this section the study results of regression analyses are presented. Hypotheses were tested by using proactive personality, leader member exchange (LMX) and job satisfaction to predict the four dimensions of job performance respectively. Table 9 presents the results of regression analyses, using both proactive personalities, leader member exchange and job satisfaction to predict the five dimensions of job performance respectively. For each dimension of performance, the explained variance of regression analysis (R2) exceeds the .05 significant level. For the performance of Quality performance, R2=.058, F (2,197) = 4.083, p< .05, Judgment and problem solving abilities, R2=.105, F (2,197) =8.380, p< .001, and Interpersonal and creative, R2=.092, F (2,197) =6.622, p< .001. In each regression model, the beta coefficient of Leader member exchange (LMX) is significant and positive to predict one dimension. For example, beta = .222 for Interpersonal and creative. And the beta coefficient of job satisfaction is significant and positive to predict the three dimensions. For example, beta =.210 for Quality performance, beta = .275 for Judgment and problem solving abilities and beta = .310 for Interpersonal and creative. However, the effect of proactive personality on performance is not consistent. For Discipline (punctuality),R2=.01, F (2,197) =.103, p< .001, Quality performance, R2=.053, F (2,197) =4.083, p< .001, Work completed on schedule, R2=.022, F (2,197) =1.950, p< .001, Judgment and problem solving abilitiesR2=.111, F (2,197) =8.380, p< .001and Interpersonal and creative, R2=.092, F (2,197) = 6.622, p< .001. Discipline (punctuality),Quality performance, Work completed on schedule, Judgment and problem solving abilities and Interpersonal and creative, the effect of proactive personality are not significant, the beta=-.141,-.074, -.086, -.047and -.055.. 44.

預應性格與領導部屬交換關係對工作滿意與績效表現的關係研究： 一個泰國汽車維修廠的個案研究

預應性格與領導部屬交換關係對工作滿意與績效表現的關係研究：一個泰國汽車維修廠的個案研究