Shih-Yung Chou Department of Management Southern Illinois University Carbondale firstname.lastname@example.org
Big Five Personality: Moderation Effect on People Management and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
ABSTRACT Quality management research has focused much on its impact on organizational outcomessuch as financial performance. Although studies have identified the outcomes of implementing quality management at the employee’s level, most of them have only addressed employee satisfaction and motivation. Despite existing contradictory findings, little attention has been paid to people management that is an important aspect of deriving quality improvement. Existing research has not fullyaddressed how quality management with respect to people management influences employee’s actual behavior. More specifically, the question of what is the possible employee’s actual behavior when they are satisfied or motivated by quality improvement through people management practices has not yet been answered? Thus, the present study intends to answer this particular question by applying organizationalcitizenship behavior that is one of the most discussed positive human behaviors. Since individual behavior is largely influenced by personality traits, the present study uses the most widely used personality traits, Big Five personality traits, to discuss how personality traits moderate the association between people management and organizational citizenship behavior. Keywords: People Management,Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Big Five Personality INTRODUCTION Quality management (QM) is one of the most important manufacturing concepts in business. QM also represents one of the most significant research themes in the production operations management literature (Nair, 2006). Since the concept of QM has been developed, many firms have adopted QM practices in their normal operations(Sousa & Voss, 2002). QM, therefore, contributes not only to firms but also to the production operations management literature. The beginning of QM empirical research focused much on measuring QM practices and performance outcomes (Nair, 2006). A great amount of research in the literature has suggested that firms normally experience improvement in performance after the implementation of QM practices(e.g. Douglas & Judge, 2001; Ho et al., 2001; Kaynak, 2003). Findings related to the impact of QM on other organizational aspects have been identified as well. For example, Dow et al (1999) found that employee commitment, customer focus practices, and shared vision are positively related to QM practices. Other studies, however, have pointed out the negative impact of QM practices on organizationaloutcome. For instance, Fredrickson (1984) identified that there is a negative relationship between decision-making in QM and organizational performance in the highly unstable forest product industry. One of the most comprehensive explanations that explain negative QM outcomes is provided by Dean and Bowen (1994). They suggest that as QM moves from the buffered technical core of manufacturing towarduse in research, marketing, and customer service activities, counterproductive conditions are more likely to occur. Although the attention of QM research has been largely paid to organizational performance aspects especially to financial, quality, and customer satisfaction outcome, research has identified the relationship between QM practices and employees behavior. For instance, QM producesgreater employee commitment and motivation (Juran, 1988; Schmidt & Finnigan, 1992;
Spechler, 1991). Thus, one can argue that QM improves employee’s performance by changing their behavior, which in turn leads to better organizational performance. McGowan (1995) supports this notion by claiming that QM often requires people to change the way they work. QM research has suggested that one of the...