人格特質與工作狂傾向：個人與組織驅動力扮演的干擾角色

Personality Traits and Workaholism:Personal and Organizational Inducements as the Moderators

梁英文(Ying-Wen Liang)

指導教授 ： 諸承明

中原大學/商學院/管理研究所/博士(2009年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu200900508

摘要

摘要
人格特質已被證明是工作場所行為的有效預測因子，然而卻少有研究驗證人格特質與工作狂傾向之間的因果關係。此外，工作狂傾向的各個前因之間互動效果也甚少被探討。本文以Ng, Sorensen, & Feldman (2007) 的定義當作工作狂傾向的構念，建構一個多面向且有效度的工作狂傾向量表，命之為TaiWork。隨後，本研究驗證工作狂傾向與其三個主要前因：人格特質、個人驅動力與組織驅動力之間的因果關係，再者，本研究也驗證工作狂傾向三個主要前因之間互動效果。
首先，本文研究者發展並驗證一個測量工作狂傾向程度的量表(TaiWork)。本文執行兩項研究來建立並確認量表的信度及效度，第一項研究是透過探索性因素分析來達到純化題項並檢驗TaiWork的構面向，此研究結果得到一個29題項的量表。隨後，本文研究者執行第二項研究透過驗證性因素分析來檢驗假設的因素架構，此研究結果刪除6個題項後，資料與模型得到較佳的配適，最後得到一個23題項的TaiWork量表。透過此一嚴謹量表發展程序，最後確信TaiWork的五個構面為：工作時愉快、不工作時焦慮及罪惡感、腦中被工作所纏繞、超時地工作及私人生活被工作混雜。
其次，本研究使用結構方程模型來檢驗本文的假說。本研究使用混合模型來檢驗工作狂傾向與其三個主要前因之間的直接因果關係，所得結果證明此三個主要前因均能顯著性地預測工作狂傾向。緊接著，本研究使用路徑模型來檢驗工作狂傾向與其三個主要前因的組成構面之間的直接因果關係，所得結果證明此三個主要前因的組成構面，除了「家中模仿學習」外，均能顯著性地預測工作狂傾向。隨後，本研究再使用路徑模型來檢驗工作狂傾向的組成構面與其三個主要前因的組成構面之間的直接因果關係，所得結果顯示此三個主要前因的大多數組成構面，能顯著性地預測工作狂傾向的組成構面。最後，本研究使用分群路徑模型來檢驗個人驅動力/組織驅動力與它們的組成構面的干擾效果，所得結果顯示個人驅動力、組織驅動力與它們的組成構面（除「家中模仿學習」外），均對人格特質與工作狂傾向的因果關係有顯著性地干擾作用。本研究發現「家中模仿學習」既非工作狂傾向的預測因子亦非人格特質與工作狂傾向的干擾因子。然而由於路徑模型分析的結果與原先預期方向相同且在顯著邊緣 (γ=0.45, p＝0.06)，這顯示「家中模仿學習」與工作狂傾向的因果關係仍不明確，而此不明確的情況，也凸顯出更多進一步探討「家中模仿學習」與工作狂傾向關係研究的必要性。
本研究限制如下，首先，由於本研究採用來自台灣四個產業的樣本，本研究結果是否能概化至其他產業或其他文化背景的地區，仍有待釐清。其次，雖然本文研究者在資料收集過程中盡量避免選樣偏差，而仍有可能回應誤差的可能性存在，例如：社會欲求性。此外，雖然TaiWork已經經由數種樣本驗證且達到良好的信度與效度，然然一個新發展量表的穩定度仍有待考驗。未來的研究方向，可朝數個方向進行，首先，雖然本研究探討的是因果關係，然而真正的因果關係僅在收集不同時間點的樣本才能被驗證，因此未來可調查縱向資料來驗證本研究的因果關係。其次，「家中模仿學習」與工作狂傾向的因果關係仍有待釐清。最後，更嚴謹的TaiWork有待發展，以確保量表的長久穩定度，並適用於各種產業與文化。

關鍵字

TaiWork ； 組織驅動力 ； 個人驅動力 ； 工作狂傾向 ； 人格特質

並列摘要

Abstract
Personality has been shown to be a valid predictor of behaviour in work settings, but few studies have tested the causality of relationships between personality and workaholism. Furthermore, the interactions among antecedents of workaholism have seldom been reported. Using Ng, Sorensen, & Feldman’s (2007) definition as the construct of workaholism, this article considers it as multidimensional to construct a validated measure scale named TaiWork. Subsequently, this study investigated causal relationships between workaholism and its three key antecedents: personality traits, personal inducements, and organizational inducements. Moreover, this study also tested the interaction effects among these antecedents of workaholism.
Firstly, the researcher developed and validated an instrument (TaiWork) for assessing the level of workaholism. Two studies were conducted to establish and confirm scale reliability and validity. The first study was conducted with the purpose of item purification and examined the dimensionality of the TaiWork through exploratory factor analysis confirmatory factor analysis. The results of the first study derived a 29-item scale. After that, the researcher conducted a second study to confirm the hypothesized factor structure using confirmatory factor analysis. Six items were removed to ensure a better fit between the data and the model. The number of the TaiWork items was reduced to 23. Through a rigorous instrument development process, five factors were finally identified: joy in working, guilty and anxiety when not working, obsession with working, excessive work hours, and mixing work and personal life.
Secondly, this study used a structural equation modeling approach to test hypotheses. A hybrid model was used to test direct causal relationships between workaholism and its three key antecedents. The result shows that all the three antecedents have significantly predictive power toward workaholism. After that, a path model was used to test direct causal relationships between workaholism and dimensions of its three key antecedents. The result shows that all dimensions of the three antecedents, except vicarious learning in family, have significantly predictive power toward workaholism. Afterwards, a path model was used again to test direct causal relationships between dimensions of workaholism and dimensions of its three key antecedents. The result shows that most dimensions of the three antecedents have significantly predictive power toward dimensions of workaholism. Finally, a subgroup analysis was conducted to test the moderating effects of personal inducements/organizational inducements and their dimensions. The result shows that personal inducements/organizational inducements and all dimensions of them, except vicarious learning in family, have moderating effects between personality traits and workaholism.
The present study finds that vicarious learning at family is neither a predictor of workaholism nor a moderator between personality traits and workaholism. However, the results showed that path moves in the expected direction and is marginally significant (γ=0.45, p＝0.06). It indicates that the significance of relationship between vicarious learning at family and workaholism still remains mixed. And, this mixed situation also highlights the need for more research that explores and clarifies the relationship between vicarious learning at family and workaholism.
This study is subject to some limitations. First, the study was limited to the context of working using the samples from four industries in Taiwan. To what extent the findings are generalizable to other industries or other cultural areas is unclear. Second, although the researcher was careful to avoid selection bias in the data collection process, there remains the possibility of response biases including social desirability. Further, although TaiWork has been tested on multiple samples and achieved good reliability and validity, for a newly developed scale, its stability still needs to be tested.
This study offers several avenues for future research. First, although the researcher explored the question of causality, this causality can only be fully tested with data collected at different points in time. Therefore, researchers could consider using longitudinal investigations to demonstrate the causal relationships reported here. Second, the relationship between vicarious learning at family and workaholism and the moderating effects of vicarious learning at family need to be clarify. Finally, a more rigorous scale of TaiWork should be developed to ensure the scales’ stability over times and across industries and culture.

並列關鍵字

TaiWork ； organizational inducements ； personal inducements ； personality traits ； workaholism

參考文獻

Slaney, R. B., & Johnson, D. P. (1992). The almost perfect scale. Unpublished manuscript, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

Ali, A. J., & Al-Kazemi, A. (2005). The Kuwaiti manager: Work values and orientations. Journal of Business Ethics, 60, 63-73.

America Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorder (4th ed.) (DSM-IV). Washington, DC: America Psychiatric Association.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.

Bagozzi, R. P. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: A comment, Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 375-381.