Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Variations in employee duty orientation: impact of personality, leadership styles and corporate culture

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
Eurasian Business Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aims to assess the extent and variations of employee duty orientation in a transition economy context, i.e., in Kazakhstan. Adopting ideas from the attitudinal theory, normative theory and exchange theory perspectives, the study further investigates relationships between personality traits and duty orientation as well as moderating role of leadership styles and corporate culture on personality-duty orientation relationship. Data were collected from employees of 284 organizations in three main big cities of Kazakhstan. The findings revealed higher level of employee duty orientation as well as variations in employees’ duty orientation between local and multinational corporations. It also identified the influence of individual personality traits, leadership styles and organizational culture on employees’ level of duty orientation. Among different personality traits, conscientiousness appeared to have the highest significant positive influence, and emotionality has highest significant negative influence on duty orientation. Among different leadership styles, autocratic leadership seems to have the most significant influence on duty orientation. Among types of organizational culture, adhocracy culture appears to have most significant positive influence on duty orientation. While individual-level factors are mostly blamed for employees’ duty orientation, the findings show influence of contextual factors such as leadership styles and corporate culture on employee duty orientation. It depicts a holistic view of employee duty orientation and opens new avenues to consider duty orientation from multi-level perspectives. Based on empirical evidence, the study provides recommendations for managers to nurture employee duty orientation for improved organizational performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavoir. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process,50(2), 179–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldieri, L., & Vinci, C. (2018). Innovation effects on employment in high-tech and low-tech industries: Evidence from large international firms within the triad. Eurasian Business Review,8(2), 229–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antonakis, J., Aio, B., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly,14(3), 261–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, M., & Lee, K. (2008). The prediction of Honesty-Humility-related criteria by the HEXACO and Five-Factor Models of personality. Journal of Research in Personality,42(5), 1216–1228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, M., Lee, K., De Vries, R., Perugini, M., Gnisci, A., & Sergi, I. (2006). The HEXACO model of personality structure and indigenous lexical personality dimensions in Italian, Dutch, and English. Journal of Research in Personality,40(6), 851–875.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,92(3), 595–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentea, C., & Anghelache, V. (2012). Comparative aspects concerning the effects of extraversion on performance in a cognitive task in competitive and cooperative conditions. Procedia Social and behavioral Sciences,33, 558–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, B., Baur, J., Sanford, C., & Postlethwaite, B. (2013). Team players and collective performance: How agreeableness affects team performance over time. Small Group Research,44(6), 680–711.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brislin, R. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,1(3), 185–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brummel, B., & Parker, K. (2015). Obligation and entitlement in society and the workplace. Applied Psychology,64(1), 127–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, C., Floyd, L., Atkins, R., & Holzgrefe, R. (2012). Ethical duties of organizational citizens: Obligation owed by highly committed employees. Journal of Business Ethics,110(3), 285–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. (2006). Diagsing and changing organizational culture. San Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chou, S., & Stauffer, J. (2016). A theoretical classification of helping behavior and helping motives. Personnel Review,45(5), 871–888.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R., Re, R., & Kallgren, C. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,58(6), 1015–1026.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrads, J., Irlenbusch, B., Rilke, R., & Walkowitz, G. (2013). Lying and team incentives. Journal of Economic Psychology,34(1), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cropanza, R., & Mitchell, M. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management,31(6), 874–900.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C., & Nauta, A. (2009). Self-interest and other orientations in organizational behavior: Implications for job performance, pro-social behavior and personal initiatives. Journal of Applied Psychology,94(4), 913–926.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Hoogh, A., Greer, L., & Den Hartog, D. (2015). Diabolical dictators or capable commanders? An investigation of the differential effects of autocratic leadership on team performance. The Leadership Quarterly,26(5), 687–701.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vries, R. (2013). The 24-item Brief HEXACO Inventory (BHI). Journal of Research in Personality,47(6), 871–880.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinger, F., Dickhäuser, O., Hilbig, B., Müller, E., Steinmayr, R., & Wirthwein, L. (2015). From basic personality to motivation: Relating the HEXACO factors to achievement goals. Learning and Individual Differences,40(1), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estiri, M., Amiri, N., Khajehejan, D., & Rayej, H. (2018). Leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior in hospitality industry: A study on effect of gender. Eurasian Business Review,8(3), 267–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flint, D., Haley, L., & McNally, J. (2013). Individual and organizational determinants of turnover intent. Personnel Review,42(5), 552–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., Ganegoda, D., Rice, D., Taylor, R., & Wo, H. (2013). Bounded automy and behavioral ethics: Deonance and reactance as competing motives. Human Relations,66(7), 905–924.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior,23, 133–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gatsonis, C., & Sampson, A. (1989). Multiple correlation: Exact power and sample size calculations. Psychologoical Bulletin,106(3), 516–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Mule, E., DeGeest, D., Kiersch, G., & Mount, M. (2013). Gender diffferences in personality predictors of countreproductive behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychologoy,28(4), 333–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2015). The value of corporate culture”. Journal of Financial Economics,117(1), 60–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gumusluoglu, L., Aygun, Z., & Scandura, T. (2017). A multilevel examination of beneent leadership and invation behavior in R&D contexts: A social identity apparoach. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,24(4), 479–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gürerk, Ö., Irlenbusch, B., & Rockenbach, B. (2009). Motivating teammates: The leader’s choice between positive and negative incentives. Journal of Economic Psychology,30(4), 591–607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J., Jr., Hult, G., Christian, M., & Marko, M. (2014a). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). USA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J., Jr., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuelwieser, V. (2014b). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). European Business Review.,26(2), 106–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannah, S., Jennings, P., Bluhm, D., Peng, A., & Schaubroeck, J. (2014). Duty orientation: Theoretical development and preliminary construct testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,123(2), 220–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilbig, B., & Zettler, I. (2015). When the cat’s away, some mice will play: A basic trait account of dishonest behavior. Journal of Research in Personality,57(1), 72–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilbig, B., Zettler, I., Leist, F., & Heydasch, T. (2013). It takes two: Honesty-humility and agreeableness differently predict active versus reactive cooperation. Personality and Individual Differences,54(5), 598–603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ismail, K., & Ford, D. (2010). Organizational leadership in central Asia and the Caucasus: Research considerations and directions. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,27(2), 321–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Israel, G. (2003). Determining sample size. Gainesville: Program Evaluation and Organizational Development Unit, IFAS: University of Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, P., Mitchell, M., & Hannah, S. (2014). The moral self: A review and integration of the literature. Journal of Organizational Behavior,36(1), 104–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kae, R., & Van der Flier, H. (2010). Using multiple and specific criteria to assess the predictive validity of the Big Five personality factors on academic performance. Journal of Research in Personality,44(1), 142–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, A., Bhave, D., & Johnson, T. (2014). Personality and group performance: The importance of personality compositions and work tasks. Personality and Individual Differences,58(1), 132–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., & Ashton, M. (2014). The Dark Triad, the Big Five, and the HEXACO model. Personality and Individual Differences,67(1), 2–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, G., & Bates, T. (2014). How genes influence personality: Evidence from multi-facet twin analysis of the HEXACO dimensions. Journal of Research in Personality,51(1), 9–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lourenço, P., Dimas, I., & Rebelo, T. (2014). Effective workgroups: The role of diversity and culture. Journal of Work and organizational Psychology,30(3), 123–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Low, P. (2007). Father Leadership and small business management: The Kazakhstan perspective. Journal of Management Development,26(8), 723–736.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macht, G., Nembhard, D., Kim, J., & Rothrock, L. (2014). Structural models of extraversion, communication, and team performance. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,44(1), 82–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahmood, M., & Baimukhamedova, A. (2013). Training and Development in Kazakhstan. International Journal of Training and Development,17(3), 156–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minbaeva, D., & Touron, M. (2013). Clannism: Definition and implications for human resource management. Management International Review,53(1), 109–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss, S., Song, M., Hannah, S., Wang, Z., & Sumanth, J. (2019). The duty to improve oneself: How duty orientation mediates the relationship between ethical leadership and followers’ feedback-seeking and feedback-avoiding behavior. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4095-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, C., Lane, H., & Brehm, M. (1999). Taking self-managed teams to Mexico. Academy of Management Executive,13(3), 15–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piva, M., & Vivarelli, M. (2018). Technological change and employment: Is Europe ready for the challenge? Eurasian Business Review,8, 13–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., & Podsakoff, N. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology,63, 539–569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, H. (1993). A theory of deontic work motivation. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,19(2), 204–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamir, B. (1990). Calculations, values, and identities: The source of collectivistic work behavior. Human Relations,43(3), 313–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamir, B. (1991). Meaning, self and motivation in organizations. Organization Studies,12(3), 405–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shieh, G. (2007). A unified approach to power calculation and sample size determination for random regression model. Psychometrika,72(3), 347–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silvia, P., Nusbaum, E., & Beaty, R. (2014). Blessed are the meek? Honesty-humility, agreeableness, and the HEXACO structure of religious beliefs, motives, and values. Personality and Individual Differences,66(1), 19–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, C., Zhu, J., Endo, T., & Matsubara, S. (2017). Money, honor and duty: Global professional service firms in comparative perspective. Accounting, Organizations and Society,62(1), 82–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tallman, R., & Bruning, N. (2008). Relating employees’ psychological contracts to their personality. Journal of Managerial Psychology,23(6), 688–712.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuzun, I., Cetin, F., & Basum, H. (2017). Deviant employee behavior in the eyes of colleagues: The role of organizational support and self-efficacy. Eurasian Business Review,7(3), 389–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, E., Chernatony, L., & Buil, I. (2013). Building bank brands: How leadership behavior influences employee commitment. Journal of Business Research,66(2), 163–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei, L., Liu, J., Zhang, Y., & Chiu, R. (2008). The role of corporate culture in the process of strategic human resource management: Evidence from Chinese enterprises. Human Resource Management,47(4), 777–794.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weller, S. (2015). Sample size estimation: The easy way. Field Methods,27(4), 333–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B., Murphy, G., & Coffey, V. (2013). Organizational culture and willingness to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context. International Journal of Project Management,31(8), 1163–1174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, S., Patterson, F., Koczwara, A., & Sofat, J. (2016). The value of being a conscientious learner: Examining the effects of the big five. Journal of Workplace Learning,28(7), 424–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wurthmann, K. (2017). Implicit theories and issues characteristics as determinants of moral awareness and intentions. Journal of Business Ethics,142(1), 93–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, B. (2003). Identifying valid and reliable measures for dimensions of learning Culture. Advances in Developing Human Resources,5(2), 152–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zikmund, W., & Babin, B. J. (2007). Exploring marketing research (9th ed.). USA: Thomson South-Western.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bang College of Business, KIMEP University, Almaty, 050010, Kazakhstan

    Yuliya Frolova & Monowar Mahmood

Authors
  1. Yuliya Frolova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Monowar Mahmood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monowar Mahmood.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Frolova, Y., Mahmood, M. Variations in employee duty orientation: impact of personality, leadership styles and corporate culture. Eurasian Bus Rev 9, 423–444 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-019-00135-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-019-00135-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation