The Impacts of Organizational Learning Culture

Intrinsic Motivation 1

Running head: Intrinsic Motivation

THE IMPACTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING CULTURE AND PROACTIVE

PERSONALITY ON ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AND INTRINSIC

MOTIVATION: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF PERCEIVED JOB COMPLEXITY

BAEK-KYOO (BRIAN) JOO

Winona State University

P.O. Box 5838

Winona, MN 55987

Tel: (507) 457-5191

Email: [email protected]

TAEJO LIM

Samsung HRD Center

Yongin, Gyunggi-do, Korea

Email: [email protected]

Author Note: This paper is submitted for a conference proceeding of 2008 Midwest Academy of

Management Conference. The correspondence should be directed to the first author. This

manuscript has not been presented or published elsewhere at the time it is submitted.


THE IMPACTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING CULTURE AND PROACTIVE

PERSONALITY ON ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AND INTRINSIC

MOTIVATION: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF PERCEIVED JOB COMPLEXITY

This paper investigates the impact of personal characteristics (proactive personality)

and contextual characteristics (organizational learning culture and job complexity) on

employees intrinsic motivation and organizational commitment. The results suggest that employees exhibited the highest organizational commitment, when the

organization had a higher learning culture. Employees were more intrinsically

motivated, when they showed higher proactive personality. The perception of their

job complexity partially mediated the relationships between the antecedents (i.e.,

organizational learning culture and proactive personality) and the consequences (i.e.,

organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation).

Key words: Organizational Commitment, Organizational Learning, Leader-Member Exchange

The impact of organizational commitment on individual performance and organizational

effectiveness has prompted much interest among researchers (Allen & Meyer, 1996; Beck &

Wilson, 2000; Mowday, 1998). Organizational commitment refers to an individuals feelings about the organization as a whole. It is the psychological bond that an employee has with an

organization and has been found to be related to goal and value congruence, behavioral

investments in the organization, and likelihood to stay with the organization (Mowday, Steers, &

Porter, 1982). It has become more important than ever in understanding employee work-related

behavior because it is identified as more stable and less subject to daily fluctuations than job

satisfaction (Angle & Perry, 1983; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1982). While the antecedents of

organizational commitment include organizational characteristics, personal characteristics,

group/leader relations, and job characteristics, the consequences of organizational commitment

are the job performance variables including intention to leave, turnover, and output measure

(Mathieu & Zajac, 1990).

People are more productive and creative, when they are motivated primarily by the passion,

interest, enjoyment, satisfaction, and challenge of the work itselfnot by external pressures or rewards (Amabile, 1996; Amabile & Kramer, 2007). A necessary component of intrinsic

motivation is the individuals orientation or level of enthusiasm for the activity (Amabile, 1988). While motivational orientation may be partially shaped by the environment (i.e., organizational,

social, job characteristics) (Amabile, 1983), there is also evidence suggesting a stable, trait-like

nature (e.g., Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994). Thus, intrinsic motivation encompasses

both contextual and personal characteristics. Because intrinsic motivation affects an employees decision to initiate and sustain creative effort over time (Amabile, 1988), intrinsic motivation has

been cited as one of the most prominent personal qualities for the enhancement of creativity

(Amabile, 1983, 1988, 1996).

Organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation are important constructs in human

resources (HR) and organization behavior (OB) field. Both constructs share the personal

characteristics and contextual characteristics for their antecedents. Moreover, they are two of the

most frequently used variables for satisfaction, performance, change, and innovation and

creativity. Although the consequences of organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation are


not in the scope of this study, they ultimately influence on employee creativity, innovation, and

organizational performance and employee job/career satisfaction and turnover. While the extent

of research on intrinsic motivation and organizational commitment has increased during the past

two decades, little research has been conducted, focusing on the two topics simultaneously.

The purpose of this research is to investigate the impact of personal characteristics (i.e.,

proactive personality) and contextual characteristics (i.e., organizational learning culture and job

complexity) on intrinsic motivation and organizational commitment of employees. The

theoretical contributions of this study lie in its integrative approach encompassing both personal

and contextual factors. Another contribution is that it links organizational commitment research

with motivation research. This article is divided into four parts. The first part provides a

theoretical framework and hypotheses. Then, research methods including data collection and

measures are described. The next part summarizes the research findings, based on a confirmatory

factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation model (SEM) analysis. Finally, the implications,

limitations, and future research areas will be discussed.

Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses

As a result of a comprehensive literature review, a set of constructs was selected: proactive

personality for personal characteristics and organizational learning culture and job complexity

for contextual characteristics. These constructs are considered necessary for influencing intrinsic

motivation and organizational commitment. The hypothesized model for this study is illustrated

in Figure 1.

---------------------------------------------

Insert Figure 1 about here

---------------------------------------------

Organizational Learning Culture

At the organizational level, organizational learning culture is one of the key contextual

components to enhance organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation. By definition, it

refers to an organization skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights (Garvin, 1993: 80). Watkins and Marsicks (1997) framework for the learning organization served as another theoretical base for this study. They identified seven action imperatives for a learning organization: (1) create

continuous learning opportunities; (2) promote inquiry and dialogue; (3) encourage collaboration

and team learning; (4) establish systems to capture and share learning; (5) empower people to

have a collective vision; (6) connect the organization to the environment, and (7) use leaders who

model and support learning at the individual, team, and organization levels. Thus, learning

organization involves an environment in which organizational learning is structured so that

teamwork, collaboration, creativity, and knowledge processes have a collective meaning and

value (Confessore & Kops, 1998).


Proactive Personality

People are not always passive recipients of environmental constraints on their behavior;

rather, they can intentionally and directly change their current circumstances (Crant, 2000).

Bateman and Crant (1993) introduced proactive disposition as a construct that identifies

differences among people to the extent that they take action to influence their environments.

Proactive people are likely to be those who define their role more flexibly, with ownership of

longer term goals beyond their job (Parker et al., 2006). Proactive personality is defined as a

belief in ones ability to overcome constraints by situational forces and the ability to affect changes in the environment (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Thus, proactive personality is a complex,

multiple-caused construct that has important personal and organizational consequences (Crant,

2000).

More specifically, Crant (2000: 436) described proactive behavior as taking initiative in improving current circumstances or creating new one; it involves challenging the status quo

rather than passively adapting to present conditions. By definition, employees with a proactive personality are predisposed to enact their environments. Proactive individuals look for

opportunities and act on them, show initiative, take action, and are persistent in successfully

implementing change (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Crant, 2000). Therefore, proactive behavior is

more crucial than ever because of the changing nature of work (Parker, 1998).

Perceived Job Complexity

Job design has long been considered to be an important contributor to employees individual motivation, attitudes, and creative performance at work (Amabile, 1988; Hackman &

Oldham, 1980; Kanter, 1988; Shalley et al., 2004; West & Farr, 1989). The job characteristics

model consists of five factors: variety, identity, significance, autonomy, and feedback (Hackman

& Oldham, 1980; Oldham & Cummings, 1996). As Drucker (1988) put it, organizations are

shifting to the information-based organization, or self-governing units of knowledge specialists.

Complex jobs demand creative outcomes by encouraging employees to focus simultaneously on

multiple dimensions of their work, whereas highly simple or routine jobs may inhibit such a

focus (Oldham & Cummings, 1996). When jobs are complex and challenging, individuals are

likely to be excited about their work activities and interested in completing these activities in the

absence of external controls or constraints (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Oldham & Cummings,

1996; Shalley & Gibson, 2004).

Organizational learning culture Perceived job complexity. Job design will vary depending on organizational environment, business domain or industry, and job function. In this

increasingly competitive environment in which frequent changes in technologies, markets, government regulations and customers give rise to turbulence and unpredictability (Unsworth & Parker, 2003, p. 175), organizational learning culture can significantly influence core job

characteristics in many ways. As Drucker (1988) put it, organizations are shifting to information-

based organizations, or self-governing units of knowledge specialists. Jobs not only in service

and knowledge work, but also in manufacturing are becoming more knowledge-oriented,

highlighting the importance of cognitive characteristics of work (Parker, Wall, & Cordery,

2001). By definition, knowledge work is unpredictable, multidisciplinary, and non-repetitive tasks with evolving, long-term goals which, due to their inherent ambiguity and complexity,


require collaborative effort in order to take advantage of multiple viewpoints (Janz, Colquitt, & Noe, 1997, pp. 882-883).

Enriched forms of job design are most appropriate where uncertainty is high (Parker et al.,

2001), because autonomy has been identified to be salient for knowledge workers. It is likely that

an increasingly uncertain environment requires an organizational learning culture and that

knowledge workers prefer complex jobs (i.e., broadly defined jobs) to simple and routine work

(i.e., narrowly defined jobs) (Parker et al., 2001). In jobs that require high levels of knowledge

and creativity, job occupants work attitudes (i.e., the perception of job complexity) may vary directly with the level of organizational learning culture. That is, attitudes should be more

favorable when environmental characteristics such as organizational learning culture

complement the knowledge and creativity requirements of the work (Marsick & Watkins, 2003;

Shalley, Gibson, & Blum, 2000).

Hypothesis 1: Organizational learning culture will be positively related to perceived job

complexity.

Proactive personality Perceived job complexity. Research has shown that positively disposed individuals rate characteristics of the task or the job as more enriched than do less

positively disposed individuals (Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000). Researchers have also argued that

narrow role orientations can impair performance (Karasek & Theorell, 1990; Parker et al., 1997).

For example, Klein (1976) found that Tayloristic job design can result in people having narrower

role orientations in which they are not interested in only their immediate job, which ultimately

stifles innovation (Parker et al., 2006). When employees are higher in proactive personality, they

were likely to perceive higher job complexity. That is, proactive people tend to rate job

characteristics as more enriched than do less positively disposed individuals (Brief, Butcher, &

Roberson, 1995; James & Jones, 1980; Judge et al., 1998; Judge et al., 2000; Kraiger, Billings, &

Isen, 1989; Necowitz & Roznowski, 1994; Parker et al., 2006).

Hypothesis 2: Proactive personality will be positively related to perceived job

characteristics.

Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment refers to an individuals feelings about the organization as a whole. It is the psychological bond that an employee has with an organization and has been

found to be related to goal and value congruence, behavioral investments in the organization, and

likelihood to stay with the organization (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1982). Organizational

commitment is conceptualized as an affective response that results from an evaluation of the

work situation that links the individual to the organization. As Mowday et al. (1982) stated,

organizational commitment is the strength of an individuals identification with and involvement in an organization (p. 27). It is the process by which the goals of the organization and those of the individual become increasingly integrated or congruent (Hall, Schneider, &

Nygren, 1970).

Meyer and Allen (1966) have termed the three components as affective commitment,

continuance commitment, and normative commitment. Mowday et al. (1982) also identified

three characteristics of organizational commitment: (a) a strong belief in and acceptance of the

organizations goals and values; (b) a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization; and (c) a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization. Therefore,


organizational commitment not only indicates an affective bond between the individual and the

organization but also willingness to stay with the organization. This study focuses on affective

organizational commitment. To be more specific for this study, the affective component of

organizational commitment is defined as the employees emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization. Employees with a strong affective commitment

continue employment with the organization because they want to do so (Meyer & Allen, 1991, p. 67).

Organizational learning culture Organizational commitment. While the possible close link between organizational learning culture and organizational commitment has been much said,

little identified study has yet investigated the relationship between the two constructs.

Organizational characteristics can enhance organizational commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990).

Lim (2003) also reported that there were moderate but significant correlations between affective

organizational commitment and sub-constructs of organizational learning, ranging from .31

to .51. Thus, it is likely that the more employees perceive that an organization provides

continuous learning, dialogue and inquiry, team learning, established system, empowerment,

system connection, and strategic leadership, the higher they are psychologically attached to their

organization.

Hypothesis 3: Organizational learning culture will be positively related to organizational

commitment.

Perceived job complexity Organizational commitment. A meta-analysis by Mathieu and Zajac (1990) found that job characteristics and job satisfaction can enhance organizational

commitment, which, in turn, affects the job performance variables (e.g., intention to leave,

turnover, and output measure). In general, productivity, commitment, and collegiality also

increased, when people held positive perceptions about their work context. People were more

productive, committed, and collegial when they were more motivated especially by the satisfactions of the work itself (Amabile & Kramer, 2007). In particular, task autonomy has been

identified to impact employees organizational commitment (Dunham et al., 1994). Hypothesis 4: Perceived job complexity will be positively related to organizational

commitment.

Intrinsic Motivation

Intrinsic motivation is defined as any motivation that arises from the individuals positive reaction to qualities of the task itself; this reaction can be experienced as interest, involvement,

curiosity, satisfaction, or positive challenge (Amabile, 1996, p.115). A necessary component of intrinsic motivation is the individuals orientation or level of enthusiasm for the activity (Amabile, 1988). A number of studies on individual creativity have focused on the importance of

intrinsic motivation (i.e., feelings of competence and self-determination on a given task) for

creativity (Amabile, 1988, 1996; Shalley, 1991; Shalley & Oldham, 1997). Regarding how

peoples perceptions of their work context affected creativity, people were more creative when people saw their organizations as collaborative, cooperative, open to new ideas, able to evaluated

and develop new ideas fairly, clearly focused on an innovative vision, and willing to reward

creative work (Amabile & Kramer, 2007, p. 80). Perceived job complexity Intrinsic motivation. It has been suggested that the way jobs

are structured contributes to employees intrinsic motivation and creative performance at work


(e.g., Amabile, 1988). In particular, jobs that are designed to be complex and demanding (high

on autonomy and complexity) are expected to foster higher levels of intrinsic motivation than

will relatively simple, routine jobs (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Complex jobs are those that

provide job incumbents with independence, opportunity to use a variety of skills, information

about their performance, and chance to complete an entire and significant piece of work (Baer,

Oldham, & Cummings, 2003). Task-based intrinsic motivation, which is performing a task for its

own sake because of enjoyment and interest in the task (i.e., flow), leads to being highly engaged

in the task, which helps to spur creative behaviors rather than relying on habitual responses

(Amabile, 1996; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Parker et al., 2001). Thus, when individuals are

intrinsically involved in their work, all of their attention and effort is focused on their jobs,

making them more persistent and more likely to consider different alternatives, which should

lead to higher levels of creativity (Shalley et al., 2000).

Hypothesis 5: Perceived job complexity will be positively related to intrinsic motivation.

Proactive personality Intrinsic motivation. While motivational orientation may be partially shaped by the environment (i.e., organizational, social, job characteristics) (Amabile,

1983), there is also evidence suggesting a stable, trait-like nature (e.g., Amabile, Hill,

Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994). While there is an increasing research on proactivity and intrinsic

motivation, no study that examined the relationship between proactive personality and intrinsic

motivation has been found. As the two constructs have much commonality, a strong positive

relationship is expected. This study would be a starting point for the research between them in

the future.

Hypothesis 6: Proactive personality will be positively related to intrinsic motivation.

In summary, the conceptual model represents only an attempt to portray the relationships

among the factors related to organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation. It is far from

exhaustive. One contribution of this model is its integration of useful theory and research from

related literatures, such as organizational learning, personality, job design, organizational

commitment, and motivation.

Methods

Sample and data collection procedure will be described. Then, the information about four

measures will be elaborated below. Finally, the analytical strategy will be briefly discussed.

Sample and Data Collection Procedure

Four Fortune Global 500 companies participated in this study, representing diverse

industries: manufacturing, finance, construction, and trading. A convenience sampling approach

was used to insure representation within each of the demographic characteristics of importance

to this study (i.e., hierarchical level, job type, and length of LMX). A self-administered Internet-

based online survey was used to obtain individual perceptions. Of the approximately 500

employees contacted by face-to-face, responses were received from 283 employees (Response

rate: 57%).

The demographic variables included: (a) gender, (b) age, (c) education level, (d)

hierarchical level, (e) the type of job, and (f) the length of a leader-follower relationship. Most

respondents were male (88%) in their 30s (95%) in manager or assistant manager position


(98%). In terms of educational level, 44% of the respondents graduated from 4 year college, and

35% from graduate school. The length of the relationships with current supervisor was evenly

distributed across the categories: less than one year (21%), between one year to two years (23%),

between two to three years (16%), between three to five years (20%), and over five years (20%).

Classification by job types were as follows: 8% in marketing and sales, 13% in production, 9%

in engineering, 36% in research and development, 18% in information technology, 6% in

supporting function such as finance, HR, and legal, and 10% in others. In summary, most

respondents were highly educated male managers or assistant managers in their 30s.

Measures

All constructs used multi-item scales that have been developed and used in the Unites

States. The instruments were prepared for use in Korea using appropriate translation-back-

translation procedures. We used the survey questionnaire with a 5-point Likert-type scale

ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Organizational learning culture. To measure the organizational learning culture, as

suggested by Yang (2003) and Marsick and Watkins (2003), this study used seven items (i.e.,

OLC-15, 16, 10, 11, 15, 13, and 14) from Yang, Watkins, and Marsicks (2004) shortened version of the dimensions of learning organization questionnaire (DLOQ), originally developed

by Watkins and Marsick (1997). The seven items represent each sub-construct (i.e., continuous

learning, dialogue and inquiry, team learning, empowerment, embedded system, system

connection, and strategic leadership). In effect, this treats organizational learning culture as a

single (uni-dimensional) construct. Coefficient alphas for the seven dimensions ranged from .68

to .83 (Yang et al., 2004). The reliability of seven items was .83 in this study. A sample item

included: In my organization, whenever people state their view, they also ask what others think.

Proactive personality. The self-report measure of proactivity was a 10-item scale of the

proactivity personality survey (PPS) (Siebert et al., 1999), a shortened version of the instrument

originally developed by Bateman and Crant (1993). The correlation between the original full 17-

item scale and the shortened 10-item scale was .96. The reliability coefficient of the 10-item

scale was .86, which was similar to that of the full version (.88) (Siebert et al., 1993). The

internal consistency reliability was .85 in this study. A sample item was: I excel at identifying opportunities.

Perceived job complexity. Six items from the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) (Hackman &

Oldham, 1980) were used to assess the challenges and complexity of employees jobs. Originally, this instrument is composed of 15 items: three items for each of the five job characteristics (skill

variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback). The median alpha of the job

characteristics measures in Oldham and Cummings (1996) study was .68. Researchers in previous studies argued that the sub-constructs of job characteristics are not independent of one

another (Dunham, 1976; Kulik, Oldham & Langner, 1988; Pierce & Dunham, 1978). In this

study, therefore, we used only six items: task significance (3 items) and autonomy (3 items).

Task significance and autonomy are considered to be more appropriate for measuring job

complexity. The internal consistency reliability was .80 in this study. A sample item included,

the job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do the work.


Organizational commitment. Of the three characteristics of organizational commitment

(i.e., affective, continuance, and normative commitment), in this study, we used affective

organizational commitment, which was measured with the 8-item affective commitment scale

(Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993). Allen and Meyer (1996) reported that the median reliability of

many research was .85. In this study, the internal consistency reliability was .90. A sample item

was, I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization. Intrinsic motivation. Tierney, Farmer, & Graen (1999) developed a 5-item measure for

employee intrinsic motivation, based on the work of Amabile (e.g., 1985). Items targeted

enjoyment for activities related to generating new ideas and activities. Whereas Tierney et al.,

reported that the internal consistency reliability was .74, it was .84 in this study. A sample item

was I enjoy coming up with new ideas for products.

Results

The results of the study are reported in four parts. First, the construct validity of each

measurement model is examined by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Second, the descriptive

statistics, correlations, and reliabilities of the reduced measurement model for the structural

model analyses are reported. Third, the hypothesized structural model is tested in comparison

with several alternative structural models. The best model is selected, based on both theoretical

considerations and a comparison of statistical indices. Finally, the results of the hypothesis

testing are addressed. All model tests (i.e., CFA and SEM) were based on the covariance matrix

and used maximum likelihood estimation as implemented in LISREL 8 (Joreskog & Sorbom,

1993).

Measurement Model Assessment

The purpose of assessing a models overall fit is to determine the degree to which the model as a whole is consistent with the empirical data (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2000). CFA

was used to estimate convergent and discriminate validity of indicators of the five constructs:

organizational learning culture, proactive personality, perceived job complexity, organizational

commitment, and intrinsic motivation.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to estimate the quality of the factor

structure and designated factor loadings by statistically testing the fit between a proposed

measurement model and the data (Yang, 2005). The purpose of assessing a models overall fit is to determine the degree to which the model as a whole is consistent with the empirical data

(Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2000). As a result of CFA, the overall measurement model

indicated an acceptable fit to the data (2

[584] = 2222.87; p = .00; RMSEA = .093; NNFI = .89;

CFI = .90; SRMR = .070). Table 1 shows the factor loadings of an overall CFA. All of the factor

loadings were over .50.

---------------------------------------------

Insert Table 1 about here

---------------------------------------------


Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities

Table 2 presents the correlations among the five constructs and the reliabilities. All the

correlations indicated significant relationships (p < .01) among the constructs. Overall, most

correlations showed moderate and positive relationships among the five constructs. The

relationship between proactive personality and internal motivation was the highest (r = .70),

whereas the relationship between organizational learning culture and internal motivation was

comparatively weak (r = .27). All measures demonstrated adequate levels of reliability (.80 -

.90).

---------------------------------------------

Insert Table 2 about here

---------------------------------------------

Structural Model Assessment

The purpose of the structural model analysis is to determine whether the theoretical

relationships specified at the conceptualization stage are supported by the data (Diamantopoulos

& Siguaw, 2000). The adequacy of the structural model was estimated by comparing the

goodness-of-fit to the hypothesized model and the two additional nested models. The hypotheses

are examined through investigating the path coefficients and the total effect sizes of the

constructs in the final model.

Figure 1 illustrates the strengths of the relationships among the constructs, showing path

coefficients and overall model fit of the hypothesized structural model. The hypothesized model

indicated a good fit in all indices (2

[587] = 2226.09; p = .00; RMSEA = .093; NNFI = .89; CFI

= .90; SRMR = .075). All the paths among constructs were significant (t > 1.96). Overall, 44% of

the variance in organizational commitment was explained by organizational learning culture,

proactive personality, and perceived job complexity. About 54% of the variance in intrinsic

motivation was accounted for by organizational learning culture, proactive personality, and

perceived job complexity.

In addition, an alternative model was tested, excluding two direct paths: one from

organizational learning culture to organizational commitment and the other from proactive

personality to turnover intention (see Figure 2). While this alternative model exhibited a

marginally acceptable fit to the data (2

[589] = 2081.13; p = .00; RMSEA = .095; NNFI = .89;

CFI = .89; SRMR = .10), the percentages of the variances in the two variables were smaller than

those of hypothesized model (organizational commitment: 34%, intrinsic motivation: 32%).

---------------------------------------------

Insert Figure 2 about here

---------------------------------------------


In summary, the hypothesized model and the alternative model provided equivalent fits to

the data. Although the alternative model was better in terms of parsimony, the hypothesized

model was accepted as the final model, based on the consideration of the three criteria: (a)

goodness-of-fit, (b) estimated parameters with theoretical relationships, and (c) the law of

parsimony.

Hypotheses Testing

All the research hypotheses were supported, showing statistically significant path

coefficients (t < 1.96, p > .05). Organizational learning culture was found to be significantly

associated with perceived job complexity (H1: path coefficient = .21, t = 3.13) and

organizational commitment (H3: path coefficient = .38, t = 6.04). Proactive personality turned

out to be significantly related to job complexity (H2: path coefficient = .38, t = 5.44) and

intrinsic motivation (H5: path coefficient = .59, t = 8.72). Perceived job complexity was

significantly associated with organizational commitment (H4: path coefficient = .43, t = 6.34)

and intrinsic motivation (H6: path coefficient = .25, t = 3.99). Total indirect effects of

organizational learning culture and proactive personality on organizational commitment and

intrinsic motivation mediated by perceived job complexity were .25 and .15 respectively.

Discussion

The findings of this study are discussed on the basis of the hypothesized model, comparing with

previous research. Then, we will discuss the implications of this study for research and practice

in the field of HR/OB. In addition, the limitations of this study and recommendations for future

research are discussed. Finally, some conclusions are followed.

Findings of this Study

This study found that organizational learning culture, proactive personality, and perceived

job complexity contribute to organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation. More

specifically, employees exhibited the highest organizational commitment, when the organization

had a higher learning culture. Employees were more intrinsically motivated, when they showed

higher proactive personality. The perception of their job complexity partially mediated the

relationships between the antecedents (i.e., organizational learning culture and proactive

personality) and the consequences (i.e., organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation).

Overall, 44% of the variance in organizational commitment was explained by organizational

learning culture, proactive personality, and perceived job complexity. About 54% of the variance

in intrinsic motivation was accounted for by organizational learning culture, proactive

personality, and perceived job complexity.

Organizational learning culture. The more employees perceive that an organization

provides continuous learning, dialogue and inquiry, team learning, established system,

empowerment, system connection, and strategic leadership, the higher they are psychologically

attached to their organization. Moreover, when employees perceive that an organization provides

better organizational learning culture, they are more likely to realize job complexity, which, in

turn, affects organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation. An increasingly uncertain


environment requires an organizational learning culture and knowledge workers prefer complex

jobs to simple and routine work (Parker et al., 2001). Organizational learning culture can

significantly influence job complexity in many ways. For instance, enriched forms of job design

are most appropriate where uncertainty is high (Parker et al., 2001), and autonomy has been

identified to be particularly salient for knowledge workers (Janz et al., 1997).

Proactive personality. This study replicated the results of the previous studies that when

employees have higher in proactive personality, they tended to be highly motivated intrinsically.

Employees with higher in proactive personality were likely to perceive higher job complexity.

That is, proactive people tend to rate job characteristics as more enriched than do less positively

disposed individuals (Brief, Butcher, & Roberson, 1995; James & Jones, 1980; Judge et al.,

1998; Judge et al., 2000; Kraiger, Billings, & Isen, 1989; Necowitz & Roznowski, 1994; Parker

et al., 2006). One of the new findings of this study is the strong and positive relationship between

proactive personality and intrinsic motivation. While there were a lot of similarities between the

two constructs, as a result of CFA, they found to be distinctive.

Perceived job complexity. In this study, perceived job complexity was significantly related

to organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation, playing a role as a mediator. When

employees perceived higher job complexity, more specifically, higher task significance and

autonomy, employees are more likely to conduct their work in active and creative ways. Results

of previous studies tend to be generally consistent with the above results (e.g., Amabile &

Gryskiewicz, 1989; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Hatcher et al., 1989; Farmer, Tierney, & Kung-

McIntyre, 2003; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Shalley et al., 2004; Parker et al., 2001). Complex

and demanding jobs are expected to foster higher levels of intrinsic motivation than will

relatively simple, routine jobs (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Shalley & Gibson, 2004). Thus, this

study confirmed the findings of the previous research.

Implications

Replicating previous research and examining new findings, this study takes the multilevel

efforts: organizational level (organizational learning culture) as well as job (job complexity) and

individual level (proactive personality). With regard to the theoretical contributions, this study

linked organizational learning, personality, job design, organizational commitment, and

motivation research. To be more specific, whereas the links between job design, organizational

commitment and motivation have been widely investigated, little research has explored the

antecedents such as organizational learning culture and proactive personality. The practical

implications for HR/OD professionals who develop relevant practices for the purpose of

enhancing organizational commitment and employee motivation are suggested below.

As long as the knowledge-based economy and the war for talent continue, more and more

firms will try to become employers of choice (Gubman, 2004). And firms that fail to secure a

loyal base of workers constantly place an inexperience group of non-cohesive units on the front

lines of their organization, much to their own detriment (Guthrie, 2001). In order effectively to

attract, motivate, and retain talented employees, many firms try to become employers of choice

defined as firms that are always the first choice of first-class candidates due to their status and

reputation in terms of corporate culture and HR practices (Sutherland, Torricelli, & Karg, 2002).

In other words, employers of choice are those organizations that outperform their competition in

attracting, developing, and retaining people with business-required talent. They achieve this


reputation through innovative and compelling HR practices that benefit both employees and their

organizations. Thus, it is critically important to monitor employees job satisfaction, motivation, and organizational commitment level. In this vein, periodical survey-feedback approach is highly

recommended. If fact, research has established a direct link between employee retention rates

and sales growth and companies that are cited as one of the 100 Best Companies to Work For

routinely outperform their competition on many other financial indicators of performance

(Fulmer, Gerhart, & Scott, 2003).

Managers and HR/OD professionals can support employees organizational commitment in the organizational level as well as in job and individual level by developing, improving, and

delivering the relevant practices. HR/OD practitioners can support managers by providing

relevant HR practices and services: changing organizational culture, enhancing organizational

learning, developing transformative and supportive leadership, designing more challenging,

complex, autonomous jobs, and hiring and retaining proactive employees. However, changing

one factor alone (e.g., hiring proactive employees) will not help organizational commitment and

intrinsic motivation, if other factors are not in place (e.g., organizational learning culture).

Therefore, HR practices should not be implemented alone. Rather, each practice should be

delivered and applied in a concerted way and in a holistic perspective. In other words, enhancing

organizational commitment of employees will require an integrated strategy, incorporating

elements of culture management, organizational structure, job redesign, and leadership

development. This is by no means an easy feat, which is why organizations that are successful in

building this type of organization are likely to have a sustainable competitive advantage.

Limitations and Future Research

In terms of methodology, this study has several potential limitations. First, because this

study, like most creativity studies, relied on self-reported and or reflective recollection of the

indicators of the constructs in this study by employees who volunteered their participation.

Second, this empirical study confines itself to cross-sectional survey method, which leaves room

for speculation with regard to causality among the variables. In addition, the sample of this study,

consisting most of highly educated male managers, is likely restricted to a certain group with

similar demographic characteristics (e.g., male of relatively high cognitive ability).

To solve the limitations above, methodologically, future research needs to be based on

objective indicators and multiple sources. In addition, to increase generalizability of the present

study, more studies in various industries representing diverse demographic cohorts are needed.

More specifically, this study focused on knowledge workers with higher educational level. The

results might vary by the cohorts in different educational levels. More research in different

educational background is recommended.

Conclusion

A good workplace is believed to produce higher quality products, support more innovation,

have the ability to attract more talented people, and experience less resistance to change and

lower turnover costs, all of which translate directly into a better bottom line (Joo & McLean,

2006; Levering, 1996). Conversely, dissatisfied workers may be able to solve their problems by

leaving the job. Thus, it is imperative to improve organizational commitment and intrinsic


motivation through positive organizational learning culture and job design. HR/OD professionals

can help their employees win the race of sustained competitive advantages.


RERERENCES

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. 1996. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the

organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49(3),

252-276.

Amablie, T. M. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 10: 123-168.

Amabile, T. M. 1995. Discovering the unknowable, managing the unmanageable. In C. M. Ford

& D. A. Gioia (Eds.), Creative action in organizations: Ivory tower visions and real world

voices (pp. 77-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Amablie, T. M. 1996. Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity.

Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Amabile, T. M., & Conti, R. 1999. Changes in the work environment for creativity during

downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 630-640.

Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N D. 1989. The creative environment scales: Work environment

inventory. Creativity Research Journal, 2: 231-252.

Amabile, T. M., & Kramer, S. J. 2007. Inner work life: Understanding the subtext of business

performance. Harvard Business Review, 85(5), 72-83.

Andrew, F M., & Farris, G. F. 1967. Supervisory practices and innovation in scientific teams.

Personnel Psychology, 20: 497-575. Angle, H., & Perry, J. (1983). Organizational commitment: Individual and organizational influences.

Work and Occupations, 10(2), 123-146.

Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. 1985. Proactive feedback seeking: The instrumental use of

the information environment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58: 67-79.

Baer, M., Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. 2003. Rewarding creativity: When does it really

matter? The Leadership Quarterly, 14: 569-586.

Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. 1993. The proactive component of organizational behavior: A

measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2): 103-118. Beck, K., & Wilson, C. 2000. Development of affective organizational commitment: A cross-

sequential examination of change with tenure. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56(1), 114-136.

Bedeian, A., Kemery, E., & Pizzolatto, A. 1991. Career commitment and expected utility of present

job as predictors of turnover intentions and turnover behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

39(3), 331-343.

Beyerlein, M. M., Johnson, D. A., & Beyerlein, S. T. 1999. Advances in interdisciplinary

studies of work teams. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bluedorn, A. D. (1982). A unified model of turnover from organizations. Human Relations, 35(2),

135-153.

Confessore, S. J., & Kops, W. J. 1998. Self-directed learning and the learning organization:

Examining the connection between the individual and the learning environment. Human

Resource Development Quarterly, 9(4): 365-375.

Crant, J. M. 2000. Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3): 435-62.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1996. Creativity: Flow and psychology of discovery and invention. New

York: Harper Perennial.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Getzel, J. W. 1988. Creativity and problem finding. In F. H. Farley &

R. W. Neperud (Eds.), The foundations of aesthetics, art, and art education (pp. 91-106).

New York: Praeger.


Damanpour, F. 1995. Is your creative organization innovative? In C. M. Ford & D. A. Gioia

(Eds.), Creative action in organizations: Ivory tower visions and real world voices (pp.

125-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dansereau, F., Cashman, J., & Graen, G. 1973. Instrumentality theory and equity theory as

complementary approaches in predicting the relationship of leadership and turnover among

managers. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10(2): 184-200.

Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. 1975. A vertical dyad approach to leadership within

formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13: 46-78.

Deluga, R. J. 1998. Leader-member exchange quality and effectiveness ratings: The role of

subordinate-supervisor conscientiousness similarity. Group and Organization

Management, 23: 189-216.

Drucker, P. 1988. The coming of the new organizations. Harvard Business Review, January-

February, 45-53.

Dunegan, K. J., Duchon, D., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1992. Examining the link between leader-member

exchange and subordinate performance: The role of task analyzability and variety as

moderators. Journal of Management, 18(1): 59-76.

Farmer, Tierney, & Kung-McIntyre. 2003. Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role

identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5): 618-630.

Ford, C. M. 1995. Creativity is a mystery: Clues from the investigators notebooks. In C. M. Ford & D. A. Gioia (Eds.), Creative action in organizations: Ivory tower visions and real

world voices (pp. 12-49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fried, Y., & Ferris, G.R. 1987. The validity of the Job Characteristics Model: A review and meta

analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40: 287-322.

Fulmer, I. S., Gerhart, B., & Scott, K. S. 2003. Are the 100 best better? An empirical

investigation of the relationship between being a great place to work and firm performance.

Personnel Psychology, 56(4), 965-993.

Gardner, H. 1993. Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences, New York: Basic

Books.

Garvin, D. A. 1993. Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 71(4): 78-91.

George, J. M., & Zhou, J. 2001. When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related

to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3):

513-524.

Gubman, E. 2004. From engagement to passion for work: The search for the missing person.

Human Resource Planning, 27(3), 42-46.

Guthrie, J. P. 2001. High-involvement work practices, turnover, and productivity: Evidence from

New Zealand. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 180-190.

Joo, B., & McLean, G. N. 2006. Best employer studies: A conceptual model from a literature

review and a case study. Human Resource Development Review, 5(2): 228-257.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. 2000. Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating

role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2): 237-249. Koch, J., & Steers, R. 1978. Job attachment satisfaction, and turnover among public employees.

Journal of Vocational behavior, 12(2), 119-128.

Lee, C. H., & Bruvold, N. T. 2003. Creating value for employees: investment in employee

development. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(6), 981-1000.


Levering, R. 1996. Employability and trust. Conference Board meeting, Chicago, 12

September, 1996. Retrieved August 3, 2007, from

http://resources.greatplacetowork.com/article/pdf/building-trust.pdf

Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. 2002. Theres no place like home? The contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to employees creative performance. Academy of Management, 45(4): 757-767.

Marsick, V. L., & Watkins. K. E. 2003. Demonstrating the value of an organizations learning culture: The dimensions of the learning of the learning organization questionnaire.

Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2): 132-151. Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. 1990. A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and

consequences of organizational commitment. Psychology Bulletin, 108(2), 171-194.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. 1991. A three component conceptualization of organization commitment.

Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-89.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. 1997. Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Morgeson, F. P. 2005. The external leadership of self-managing teams: Intervening in the

context of novel and disruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3): 497-508.

Morrison, E. W. 1993. Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources, and

outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 557-589. Mowday, R. 1998. Reflections on the study and relevance of organizational commitment. Human

Resource Management Review, 8(4), 387-401.

Mowday, R., Porter, L., & Dubin, R. 1974. Unit performance, situational factors and employee

attitudes in spatially separated work unites. Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, 12(2), 231-248.

Mowday, R., Steers, R., & Porter, L. 1982. Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of

commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.

Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Uhlman, C. E., Costanza, D. P., & Threlfall, K. V. 1993.

Personality variables and skill acquisition: Performance while practicing a complex task.

Human Performance, 6(4): 345-481.

Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. 2002. Leading creative people:

Orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13(6): 705-750.

Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. 1996. Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at

work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3): 607-634.

Organ, D. W. 1990. The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw

& L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 12: 43-72.

Parker, S. K. 1998. Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other

organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6): 835-852.

Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Cordery, J. L. 2001. Future work design research and practice:

Towards an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 74(4): 413-440.

Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. 1997. Thats not my job: Developing flexible employee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 899-929.

Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. 2006. Modeling the antecedents of proactive

behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3): 636-652.

Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. 1996. Proactive socialization and behavioral self-management.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48(3): 301-323.


Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. 1994. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of

individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3): 580-

607.

Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. 1999. Proactive personality and career success.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3): 416-427.

Senge, P. M. 1990. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New

York: Doubleday.

Shalley, C. E. 1991. Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on

individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2): 179-185.

Shalley, C. E., & Gibson, L. L. 2004. What leaders need to know: A review of social and

contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1):

3353. Shalley, C. E., Gibson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. 2000. Matching creativity requirements and the

work environment: Effects on satisfaction and intentions to leave. Academy of

Management Journal, 43(2): 215-223.

Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. 2004. The effects of personal and contextual

characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management,

30(6): 933-958.

Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. 1997. Process and structure in leader-member exchange.

Academy of Management Review, 22(2): 522-552. Steers, R. 1977. Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 22(1), 46-56.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. 1999. The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R.

J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-15). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Sutherland, M. M., Torricelli, D. G., & Karg, R. F. 2002. Employer-of-choice branding for

knowledge workers. South African Journal of Business Management, 33(4), 13-20.

Thompson, J. A. 2005. Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5): 1011-1017.

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. 2002. Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and

relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6): 1137-

1148.

Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. 1999. An examination of leadership and employee

creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52(3): 591-620.

Unsworth, K. L., & Parker, S. K. 2003. Proactivity and innovation: Promoting a new workforce

for the new workplace. In D. Holman, T. D. Wall, C. W. Clegg, P. Sparrow, & A. Howard

(Eds.). The new workplace: A guide to the human impact of modern working practices

(pp. 175-196). Chicester, England: Wiley.

Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, L. & Hezlett, S. 2003. Mentoring: A review and directions for future

research. In J. Martocchio & J. Ferris (Eds.) Research in Personnel and Human

Resources Management, 22: 39-124. Oxford: Elsevier Science LTD.

Wehner, L., Csikzentmihalyi, M., & Magyari-Beck, I. 1991. Current approaches used in studying

creativity: An exploratory investigation. Creativity Research Journal, 4: 261-271.


West, M., & Farr, J. 1990. Innovation at work. In M. West & J. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and

creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 3-13). New York:

Wiley.

Williams, W. M., & Yang, L. T. 1999. Organizational creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),

Handbook of creativity (pp. 373-391). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E., & Griffin, R.W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational

creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2): 293-321.

Zhou, J. 2003. When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of

supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of

Applied Psychology. 88(3): 413-422.

Zhou, J., & George, J. M. 2003. Awakening employee creativity: The role of leader emotional

intelligence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4-5): 545-568.

Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. 2003. Research on employee creativity: A critical review and

directions for future research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources

Management, 12: 165-217.


TABLE 1

Factor Loadings

Organizational

Learning Culture

Proactive

Personality

Perceived Job

Complexity

Organizational

Commitment

Intrinsic

Motivation

OLC-1

OLC-2

OLC-3

OLC-4

OLC-5

OLC-6

OLC-7

.63

.66

.61

.77

.63

.70

.76

PP-1

PP-2

PP-3

PP-4

PP-5

PP-6

PP-7

PP-8

PP-9

PP-10

.66

.77

.56

.59

.72

.69

.66

.69

.68

.68

PJC-1

PJC-2

PJC-3

PJC-4

PJC-5

PJC-6

.72

.65

.71

.71

.72

.64

AOC-1

AOC-2

AOC-3

AOC-4

AOC-5

AOC-6

AOC-7

AOC-8

.69

.71

.63

.59

.87

.88

.77

.91

IM-1

IM-2

IM-3

IM-4

IM-5

.79

.77

.71

.78

.82

Note, n = 283


TABLE 2

Descriptive Statistics and Reliabilities

N Mean S.D 1 2 3 4 5

1. Organizational

Learning Culture

283 3.29 .63 (.83)

2. Proactive Personality 283 3.65 .49 .32**

(.85)

3. Perceived Job

Complexity

283 3.75 .53 .34**

.45**

(.80)

4. Organizational

Commitment

283 3.28 .76 .53**

.32**

.56**

(.90)

5. Intrinsic Motivation 283 3.74 .64 .27**

.70**

.52**

.33**

(.84)

Note, the phi matrix from CFA; * p < .05;

** p < .01;


FIGURE 1

A Conceptual (Hypothesized) Model

significant path; * p < .05 (t > 1.96); Non-significant path

H1

.38

H4

Organizational

Commitment

H3

Intrinsic

Motivation

Perceived Job

Complexity

.25

.59

Proactive

Personality

Organizational

Learning

Culture .38

.21 .43

H2

H5

H6


FIGURE 2

Alternative (Full Mediation) Model

significant path; * p < .05 (t > 1.96); Non-significant path

.43

Organizational

Commitment

Intrinsic

Motivation

Perceived Job

Complexity

.56 Proactive

Personality

Organizational

Learning

Culture .25 .58

Documents

The Impacts of Organizational Learning Culture