Research on "How can we get employees to work by themselves?".
•
5 likes•1,211 views
Award winning research (The Best Paper Award, BAASANA International Conference 2014 @ New Jersey).
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Research on "How can we get employees to work by themselves?".
Similar to Research on "How can we get employees to work by themselves?". (20)
More from Integral Leadership Center
More from Integral Leadership Center (16)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Research on "How can we get employees to work by themselves?".
- 1. 1 How Can We Get Employees to Work By Themselves? The Effects of Autonomous Work Environment and Positive Psychological Capital on Self-Directed Employee Behavior Jeonghwan Choi, PhD, MBA, ME Human Resource Development University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 2014
- 2. 2 A TENSION BETWEEN SUBORDINATE AND SUPERVISOR Subordinates want more autonomy to address frontline or local demands. Supervisors demand more self-directed employee behavior. • Email interviews & Telephone interview with 33 employees from 18 companies in 6 different countries. • Interview protocol: What is the most important thing to achieve a high performance? • Computer Aided Qualitative Data Analysis System (CAQDAS, Atlas.ti) technique was applied to draw a theme. • Self-directed employee participation/engagement in work emerged as a critical theme. What is the most important thing for you to achieve a high performance?
- 3. 3 A REAL VOICE FROM FIELD “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” (A quote from a manager at a Korean Automotive Manufacturing Company) “Employees’ self-directed participation in work is the most important thing to achieve a high performance.” (A quote from a director at a Korean Automotive Parts Manufacturing Company) Introduction How can we get employees to work by themselves?
- 4. 4 ENGINEER ‘HAN’ CASE • In depth telephone interviews with 9 engineers at a R&D team of a large Korean manufacturing company • Interview protocol: “How to get people work to address a technical problem by themselves?” • Engineers indicated “Han” as the most self-directed employee. Bring new ideas Taking initiative Redesigning tasks even if it is not required Going against general procedures if he think it helps achieving team/org goals
- 5. 5 DEMAND FOR SELF-DIRECTED EMPLOYEE Self-directed employees are the key resource to make continual organizational successes in recent quickly changing business environments. Work nature change Technology advancement Globalization Continual Organizational Successes Introduction
- 6. 6 RESPONSES TO THE DEMAND Recently many corporations introduce and implement ‘Autonomy Supporting Human Resource Practices’ (Google 20% rule, 3M 15% rule, Result-Only-Work-Environment). Google employees can spend one day a week working on their own projects that are not necessarily in the job description. In ROWE system, employees can decide how they work, when they work, and where they work, all by themselves. 3M allows employees to spend 15% of their time on individual research or initiative. But not all business organizations have been able to reap the benefits of the management practice! Why? Introduction
- 7. 7 PROBLEM Work Environment or Person Problem? Motivating employees to have high self- directed behavior (SDB)? Work environment? Personal characteristics? Introduction
- 8. 8 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK According to the Kurt Lewin’s Field theory, human behavior is a function of environment and person. Bandura’s social learning theory indicated that human behavior changes through the self- regulation process that comes from continual interactions with personal factors and environmental influences. Introduction [P] Developable Personal Factor [E] Environmental Influences at Work [B] Human Behavior B = f (E, P) Perception of Autonomy from Self-determination theory PsyCap from Positive Organizational Behavior theory Self-directed behavior from Self-leadership theory
- 9. 9 RESEARCH QUESTION Overarching research question: To what extent do employee perceived autonomous work environment (E) and personal psychological capital (P) relate to self-directed behavior? Four hypotheses were formulated and tested. Introduction Self-determination Theory Positive Organizational Behavior theory Self-leadership Theory
- 10. 10 HYPOTHESES H1: Employees who perceive a high level of autonomous work environment exhibit a high level of self-directed behavior. H2: Employees who have a high level of positive psychological capital (PsyCap) exhibit a high level of self- directed behavior. H3: Employees who perceive a high level of autonomous work environment have a high level of positive psychological capital (PsyCap). H4: The level of employee’s personal psychological capital (PsyCap) mediates the relationship between employee’s perceived autonomous work environment and self-directed behavior. Hypothesis for individual level study H3 H1 H2 PsyCap AWE SDB H4 Introduction
- 11. 11 NEED FOR AN INTERNATIONAL STUDY Need to know SDB in various work contexts 1. Standard work processes (little work flexibility): Manufacturing. 2. Hierarchical, collective, risk avoidant culture: Asian countries. A study was necessary to cultivate new knowledge and better understanding about SDB in terms of autonomous work environment and psychological capital in the non-western workplace. Introduction
- 12. 12 POPULATION & SAMPLE Method The target population for this study was employees in large Korean automotive parts manufacturing companies. 670 surveys were distributed at six large Korean automotive parts manufacturing companies. 489 (73%) employees participated in the study. 331 datasets (288 subordinates; 43 supervisor) were analyzed after matching and screening. Highly collectivistic, hierarchical, and uncertainty avoidant culture Equivalent work structure and work process (e.g. QS-9000 or ISO-9001 Certificated) Korean automotive parts manufacturing industry has sustainably grown in global economy Individualistic and uncertainty tolerate culture Flexible and flat organizational structure US service industry (Bank, Education, Healthcare) A B C D E F Confidential Confidential Confide ntial Confide ntial Confide ntial Western/US
- 13. 13 Method MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENT Measure Variable/ Instrument # of items (total 105+) English Version Reliability (Cronbach ‘s alpha) Sources Korean Version Reliability of this study (Cronbach ‘s alpha) Autonomy supporting WCQ 15 .92 ~ .96 Baard et al. (2004) .83 ~ .86 Psychological safety PsySafe 7 .82 Edmondson (1999), Kim (2007), Zhang (2011) .84 ~ .86 Supervisor perspective Leader- member exchange SLMX- MDM 12 .90 Greguras and Ford (2006) .86 Subordinate perspective Leader- member exchange LMX- MDM 12 .92 Greguras and Ford (2006) .83 Psychological Capital (PsyCap) PCQ-12 12 .88 Luthans et al. (2007), Park (2010) .81~.86 Self-directed behavior SDB 4 .90 Stewart (1996), Bono et al. (2003) .82~.87 Demographic information Age, gender, job, education tenure 5 - - - AWEPsyCapSDB
- 14. 14 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE Two written surveys (Subordinates, Supervisor) printed, packed, distributed, collected, codified, input, and stored. Method IRB approval [ UIUC #5094, 46.101(b)2] Recruiting organizations 6 companies gave agreement letters Survey distribution Supervisors put the information Supervisors seal the survey in an envelope Supervisor return the sealed envelope to researcher Codify supervisor information Codify subordinate information Subordinates return the sealed envelope to researcher Subordinates seal the survey in an envelope Subordinate put the information Destroy all identifiable data Store code book and consent letters in a secure place Data matching & screening Confidential Confidential Researcher Organization Supervisors Subordinates
- 15. 15 DATA ANALYSIS STRATEGY Multiple statistical analysis techniques were used to test proposed hypotheses. Method Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), Cronbach’s alpha Descriptive analysis (Mean, Standard deviation, Pearson’s correlation coefficient) Simple OLS, Sobel Test, Structural Equation Modeling Measurement validity & reliability Characteristics of respondents? Effects of AWE and PsyCap on SDB?
- 16. 16 MEASUREMENT AND VALIDITY ISSUES Prior to conducting further analyses, measurement validity was examine. Autonomous Work Environment Measure : • Applied short version of autonomy supporting (6 items from 15) • Removed four items from psychological safety (originally 7 items measure) • Four dimensional (Affect; Loyalty; Contribution; Professional respect) LMX-MDM measure showed a good validity. Psychological Capital Measure : • Four dimensional (Self-efficacy; Hope; Resiliency; Optimism) PsyCap measure showed a good validity. Self-directed Behavior Measure : • Item 4 (Going against established rules, policies and procedure if you can draw a better performance) was removed for low factor loading. Remark: Personality (Big Five) measure also showed a good validity (factor loading ranged .584 - .708) Result
- 17. 17 DEMOGRPHIC INFORMATION OF SAMPLE Participants were generally highly educated and experienced male technical experts in automotive part manufacturing industry. Subordinate (N=288) : • Average age: 34.7 years old • Average tenure years: 5.8 years • 90% are males • 65% graduated four- year or graduate college Supervisor (N=43) : • Average age: 44.7 years old • Average tenure year: 14.2 years • 100% males • 64% graduated four- year or graduate college Result Remarks: CAN THIS SAMPLE REPRESENT THE POPULATION? YES, BUT… Automotive parts manufacturing industry takes the largest proportion (39.9%) of employment in the S. Korean automotive industry. Demographic characteristics of the sample resembled the Korean automotive industry population (N = 721,368). However, the high education level of the sample might indicate a potential non-respondent bias (office workers rather than line workers because of limited accessibility to unionized line workers).
- 18. 18 A FRAMEWORK FOR DATA ANALYSIS Subordinate Dependent Variable (SDB) Supervisor Dependent Variable (SDB) SubordinateIndependent Variable(AWE,PsyCap) Domain 1 (n=233): Subordinate self-reported SDB = f (Subordinate AWE, PsyCap) Domain 2 (n=233): Supervisor rated subordinate’s SDB = f (Subordinate AWE, PsyCap) SupervisorIndependent Variables(AWE,PsyCap) Domain 4 (n=43): Subordinate rated (aggregated) supervisor’s SDB = f (Supervisor AWE, PsyCap ) Domain 3 (n=43): Supervisor self-reported SDB = f (Supervisor AWE, PsyCap, Big 5) Four study domains were constructed by roles (subordinates vs. supervisor) and data sources (self- reported vs. counterpart rated). Result
- 19. 19 SUMMARY OF DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS RESULTS Result Supervisors had higher PsyCap and SDB than subordinates. But there was no mean difference of perception of AWE between subordinates and supervisors. High correlations among key variables were found in Domain 1 and 3 (Self-reported data) while weak or non-significant correlations were found in Domain 2 and 4 (Counterpart-rated data). This finding might reveal the common method variance issue – overlapping variability due to data was collected from a single source (Podsakoff et al, 2003). Control variables (Demographic and Personality variables) were not included in further statistical analyses because no significant correlation was found in counterpart rated SDB (Domain 2, 4). Key Findings from Descriptive Analysis
- 20. 20 SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESIS TEST RESULTS Domain 1 Domain 2 Domain 3 Domain 4 H1 (AWE®SDB) S S S NS H1a (Autonomy supporting) S S S S H1b (Psychological safety) S NS S NS H1c (LMX) S S NS S H2 (PsyCap ®SDB) S S S NS H2a (Self-efficacy) S S S NS H2b (Hope) S S S NS H2c (Optimism) S NS S NS H2d (Resiliency) S NS S NS H3 (AWE ® PsyCap) S S S S H4 (Mediation of PsyCap for AWE) S NS S NS Result Overall, positive effects of AWE and PsyCap on SDB (H1-H3) were found in Domain 1 and 3 while the effects were weak or none in Domain 2 and 4. The positive PsyCap significantly mediated the relation between AWE and SDB in Domain 1 and 3, but not in Domain 2 and 4 Key Findings from Hypotheses Testing
- 21. 22 Domain 1: Domain 2: Domain 4: Domain 3: MEDIATION EFFECT ANALYSIS According to the Sobel test results, PsyCap mediated the relationship between AWE and self-rating SDB (Domain 1 & 3). But mediation effects of PsyCap were not found when counterpart rated SDB were used (Domain 2 & 4). Subordinate Self-SDB PsyCap AWE = .586** p <.001 = -.139 p =.053 = .875** p <.001 Supervisor rated SDB PsyCap AWE = .586** p <.001 = .086 p = .336 = .130 p = .144 Subordinates (team) rated SDB PsyCap AWE = .697** p <.001 = .209 p = .378 = .202 p = .357 Supervisor self SDB PsyCap AWE = .697** p <.001 = -.003 p = .988 = 1.01** p <.001 Note: Coefficients are unstandardized values. * p < .05; ** p < .01 Coefficient p Indirect effect (Sobel) .513** < .001 Direct effect - .139 .053 Total effect .374** < .001 Coefficient p Indirect effect (Sobel) .076 .147 Direct effect .086 .336 Total effect .163* .025 Coefficient p Indirect effect (Sobel) 704** < .001 Direct effect -.003 .988 Total effect .700** < .001 Coefficient p Indirect effect (Sobel) .141 .364 Direct effect .209 .378 Total effect .350 .053 Result
- 22. 24 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS Providing a high level of AWE is not sufficient to get employees to have a high level of SDB because employee’s personal PsyCap significantly mediates the relationship between AWE and SDB. Personal PsyCap The effects of AWE and PsyCap on SDB differ by roles (Subordinates < Supervisor) Data source variation The effects of AWE and PsyCap on SDB differ by data sources. (Self-reporting >> Counterpart evaluation). This results indicate the perceptual incongruence about SDB between subordinate and supervisor. Data Source Need to consider the cultural and industrial variation of SDB (i.e. The measurement item of Going against established rules failed in showing sufficient validity) Culture / Industry Discussion
- 23. 25 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS • Give a clear goal, and Delegate more decision powers to employees (Leadership than Micromanagement). • Institutionalize the self-directed behavior as a key performance index (KPI) in performance appraisal system. • Provide the PsyCap training program or intervention. • Be skillful in giving positive and developmental feedback or performance appraisal to their subordinates. • Take responsibility in developing and sustaining personal positive PsyCap (Participating training programs and Self- directed learning). The researcher suggests several practical implications to promote self- directed employee behavior for organizational leaders, HR managers, Supervisors, and Subordinates to promote self-directed employee behavior. Discussion
- 24. 26 FUTURE RESEARCH Extensive work environment factors • Macro level: sociopolitical conditions, labor market changes, national culture, organizational culture • Micro level: work types, customer characteristics, non-work social interactions Extensive person factors • Demographic characteristics (age) • Personality (conscientiousness?) Extensive multilevel studies • Team level effects (two-level) • Organizational effects? (Three levels) Extensive generalizabilit y • Industrial comparative study (MFG, ICT, Services, NPO) • International comparative study (Korea, US, Germany?) This study Discussion
- 25. 27 FINAL REMARKS Discussion Without nurturing the positive psychological capital, the autonomy supporting management practice would not work well in promoting self-directed employee behavior. This study is a stepping stone for further research aiming to develop self-directed employees. Clear goal and more decision powers to supervisors Institutionalize self-directed behavior Provide autonomous work environment Develop positive psychological capital
- 26. 28
- 27. 29 MEASUREMENT AND VALIDITY ISSUES Prior to conducting data analyses, data validity was examined by using CFA. A few measurement data were modified. Measure Validity issue Solution Autonomy supporting Not surpassed fit criteria (RMSEA, CFI, TLI) Item 13 had a poor factor loading (.467) Used the short version of measurement instrument Psychological safety Not surpassed fit criteria (CFI, TLI) Item 1, 3, 6, 7 had poor factor loadings (< .60) Removed problematic items Self-directed behavior Item 4 had significantly poor factor loadings ( .185~.480) Removed the item 4 Result
- 29. 31 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS (4/7) MEAN, SD, CORRELATIONS, AND RELIABILITIES OF OBSERVED VARIABLES OF SUBORDINATES (DOMAIN 1 & 2) All observed variables had acceptable ranges of reliability. Seven independent variables are significantly correlated to subordinate self- reported SDB (Domain 1). But the correlations between subordinates’ perceptions and supervisor-rated SDB are weak or not statistically significant (Domain 2). Result
- 30. 32 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS (5/7) MEAN, SD, CORRELATIONS, AND RELIABILITIES OF OBSERVED VARIABLES OF SUPERVISOR (DOMAIN 3 & 4) Result All observed variables had acceptable ranges of reliability. Seven independent variables are significantly correlated to supervisor self- reported SDB (Domain 3). But the correlations between supervisors’ perceptions and supervisor-rated SDB are weak or not statistically significant (Domain 4).
Editor's Notes
- Thanks for coming to my dissertation study presentation meeting. It’s my great honor to have the best committee for this study. I want to introduce Dr. Korte – Committee chair, and Dr. Jessica Li, Dr. Stine-Morrow, and Dr. James Rounds. I really appreciate committee Chair and committee members’ kind and constructive help for me. The title of my dissertation study is “The Effects of Autonomous Work Environment and Positive Psychological Capital on Self-directed Employee Behavior: Evidence from Korea”.
- This problem has been identified from preliminary studies. When I interviews with 24 employees from 18 different workplaces, I found out an interesting tension between subordinates and supervisors. Supervisors demand more self-directed employee behavior while subordinates want more autonomy. However, both subordinates and supervisors want to see and have high self-directedness.
- This study was inspired by real voices from business field. When I interviewed with 33 employees around the world with a question of “What is the most important thing for you to achieve a high-performance?”, A quote stroke me a lot. A manager at a large Korean automaker stressed the importance of self-directed employees with a quote that “You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink”. In addition, a director (now a CEO) confirmed the importance of self-directed employee by saying “Employees self-directed participation in work is the most thing to achieve a high performance”. These real voices motivated me to have a question “How can we get people to work by themselves?” in the workplace?.
- I conducted in-depth interviews with 9 engineers at a R&D team who shared with the same noise problem in large Korean manufacturing company. Many engineers reported that self-directed behavior was the most important factor to solve the noise problem. Especially, engineer “Han’s self-directed efforts were frequently referred by team members. The engineer brings new ideas, takes initiative for his idea, redesign tasks even if it is not required. He frequently find a new way of doing if he think it helps achieving team or organizational goals.
- In recent rapidly changing business environment, self-directed employees are regarded as the key resource to make continual organizational successes Because self-directed employees can address the rapid changes of work nature, technology advancement, and globalization more effectively and more proactively. For this reason, Business organizations make a lot of efforts to acquire and develop self-directed employees. For example, a few leading corporations such as Google, 3M have implemented “Autonomy Supporting HR Practices” like 20% rule, 15% rule. Many organizations have tried to emulated the “Autonomy Supporting HR Practices”, but not all business organizations have been able to reap the benefits of the HR Practice (e.g. Best Buy, Yahoo). Why this kind of thing is happening?
- For example, a few leading corporations… On 2006, Google introduced 20% time policy, and the company could develop many innovative products. In more recent years, result-only-work environment HR practice gets special attention from many business leaders and HR professionals for it’s innovative approach. Autonomy supporting HR practice is not new. 3M introduced 15% time rule on 1948. The well-known POST-IT has come from the 15% time on 1974.
- However, not all business organizations have been able to reap the benefits of autonomy supporting HR practices. Because business leaders, frontline managers, and HR professionals do not have sufficient knowledge or understanding how to motivate employees to have self-directed behavior. For example, many organizations introduced financial rewards for self-directed behavior with little considering intrinsic motivational strategies. And, this mechanistic replication of the HR practice result in poor long-term performance.
- However, not all business organizations have been able to reap the benefits of autonomy supporting HR practices. Because business leaders, frontline managers, and HR professionals do not have sufficient knowledge or understanding how to motivate employees to have self-directed behavior. For example, many organizations introduced financial rewards for self-directed behavior with little considering intrinsic motivational strategies. And, this mechanistic replication of the HR practice result in poor long-term performance.
- In order to address this problem, we must ask “What makes employees’ self-directed behavior?” According to Kurt Lewin’s field theory, Human behavior can be expressed by a function of Environment and Person. Bandura elaborated the equation, and he insisted that Human Behavior, Environmental factors, and Personal factors mutually interacts. From these foundational understanding about human behavior and Basing on Self-leadership theory, Self-determination theory, and Positive organizational Behavior theory, I built a model of this study. And I shaped a Research question of this study “To what extent do employee perceived autonomous work environment (E) and personal psychological capital (P) relate to self-directed behavior? “
- I proposed Seven hypotheses based on the research question. Overall, I hypothesized that the AWE and PsyCap have positive effects on SDB. Especially, I predicted that the PsyCap may mediate the relationship between AWE and SDB. In addition, I hypothesized that the Perceptional Gap about autonomous work environment (AWE) between subordinates and supervisor might have a negative impact on SDB. In multilevel, I hypothesized that the Supervisor’s PsyCap and Subordinate Collective PsyCap may have a positive relationship. And the Collective PsyCap may mediate the relationship between Collective AWE and SDB.
- From initial literature review, I got to know that more knowledge about self-directed behavior in terms of work environment and person factor is necessary in order to foster self-directed behavior like engineer Han. I propose that autonomous work environment as an environmental factor, and psychological capital as person factor that make great impacts on self-directed behavior.
- The purpose of this study is to identify and understand the role and impact of AWE and PsyCap that affect SDB in a non-western cultural context. In order to achieve the purpose, I chose employees at large Korean automotive manufacturing companies as the target population. I chose the target population because those employees are exposed to a different cultural contexts such as highly collectivistic, hierarchical, and uncertainty avoidant that is contrasting to western culture. In addition, the equivalent work structure and work process of the target population reduce the variations that are not considered in this study. 670 surveys were distributed at six large Korean automotive parts manufacturing companies, and Total 489 surveys were collected. And 331 datasets from 43 teams were analyzed after matching and screening.
- In order to examine the proposed hypotheses, the three key variables of Autonomous work environment; Psychological Capital; and Self-directed behavior were measured by 6 measurement instruments. Demographic variables and Personality information was also gathered to conduct further analyses.
- A quantitative survey method was used to achieve the purpose of this study. After getting official IRB approval from UIUC, I contacted several large Korean automotive part manufacturing companies. And two companies initially agreed to participate in the study. In order to reach more samples, I asked for possible organizations to those two companies. And I could recruit four more companies in S. Korea (Snowball sampling). Two written survey instruments – one for subordinate and the other for supervisor were printed, packed, distributed, gathered, codified, input, and stored in a safe place for confidentiality. In more detail, supervisors provided evaluations of his or her subordinates’ SDB and their perceptions of AWE, PsyCap, and their SDB. Subordinates provided their perceptions of AWE, PsyCap, and their SDB. In addition, they provide supervisor’s SDB.
- In order to test the proposed hypotheses, multiple statistical analysis techniques were used. Measurement validity were examined by using Confirmatory Factor Analysis because this study was constructed by the theoretical relationships among observed and unobserved latent variables. Mean, STD, and Pearson Correlation Coefficient were used to describe the characteristics of respondents. Simple OLS, Sobel test, and Structural Equation Modeling were used to investigate the effects of AWE and PsyCap on SDB in the individual level. Hierarchical Linear Modeling technique was used to study multilevel effects of key variables.
- The measurement validity assessment results showed that the PsyCap, LMX, and Personality had good validity levels with the data. And the data showed acceptable range of validity for multilevel data analysis. However, Autonomy supporting, Psychological safety, and Self-directed behavior measurement instruments were needed to be some modifications. Because of poor fit with measurement model and a few low factor-loading items, I used short version of autonomy supporting; Four items were removed from Psychological safety measurement Item 4 was removed for poor factor loading from Self-directed behavior measurement.
- The characteristics of the survey participants can be described as “they are generally highly educated and experienced male technical experts in automotive par manufacturing industry”. Interestingly, around 90% participants were males, and especially, supervisors are all males. 65% of participants had 4-year college or higher education. Can this sample represent the population? Yes. Because the characteristics of this sample resembled the Korean automotive industry workers. However, the higher education level might indicate a potential non-respondent bias (officer workers rather than line workers because of limited accessibility to Unionized line workers).
- A framework for data analysis was formulated in order to examine proposed hypotheses in each study domain. The Domain 1 and 2 analyzed the effects of subordinates’ perception of AWE and PsyCap on their self-reported SDB data and their supervisor rated SDB data. In Domain 3 and 4, the effects of supervisor’s perception of AWE and PsyCap on their self-reported SDB data and their subordinates’ aggregated ratings of the supervisor’s SDB. Investigating he effects of AWE and PsyCap on SDB in these multiple domains can help us to have new knowledge and further understanding in a more holistic way.
- Results of descriptive analyses indicate that “there were high correlations among key variables in study Domain 1 and 3 while weak or non-significant correlations were observed in Domain 2 and 4. This finding revealed the common method variance issue that is overlapping variability due to the way data were collected. More specifically, individuals who perceive a high level of AWE, PsyCap might give a high level of self-rated SDB while counterpart would not perceive as high as the individuals did. Supervisor had higher PsyCap and SDB than subordinates while there was no mean difference of perception of AWE between subordinate and supervisor. Company D and E were included in this study though they had less than 300 employees because those companies hired many contingent or part-time workers in normal operation, and it reached more than 300 employees. So, the possible differences were examined. Results indicated that there were no mean differences in key variables. Control variables (Demographic and Personality variables) were not included in further analysis because there was no significant correlations between those control variables and SDB in Domain 2 and 4.
- According to the results of Hypotheses testing, Positive effects of AWE and PsyCap on SDB (H1-H3) were found in Domain 1 and 3 while the effects were weak or none in Domain 2 and 4. The positive PsyCap significantly mediated the relation between AWE and SDB in Domain 1 and 3, but not in Domain 2 and 4 The H5 that of negative correlation between ΔAWE and SDB was rejected or not supported. The PsyCap contagion from supervisor to subordinates was not found in Korean sample (H6). The mediation effect of collective PsyCap between collective AWE and individual SDB (H7) was supported in Domain 1, but not in Domain 2.
- Correlation quantifies “how much one variable tends to change when the other one does.” Regression implicitly assumes that there is a one-way causal effect from the predictor variable(s) to the response variable. Thus, the effect of AWE, PsyCap on responding variables were analyzed by using simple OLS regression. Similar to the correlations analysis results, the strength of regression of predictor variables on responding variables in Domain 1 and 3 are stronger than Domain 2 and 4.
- Hypotheses 1-3 converge into a question of the mediating effect of employees’ psychological capital in the positive relationship between perceived autonomous work environment and self-directed behavior of subordinates. The mediation effect of PsyCap was tested by Sobel test and SEM.
- The SEM method was not able to address Domain 3 and Domain 4 because the sample size of Domain 3 and Domain 4 (n = 42) was significantly lower than necessary for SEM analysis. A typical sample size in studies where SEM is used is about 200 cases. It is noteworthy that the negative direct effect of AWE became significant in SEM analysis in domain 1.
- From these results, I could draw several conclusions. First, providing a high level of Autonomous Work Environment is not sufficient to get employees to have a high level of Self-directed behavior because employee’s personal PsyCap significantly mediates the relationship between AWE and SDB. Second, from the multilevel analysis, a cross level effect of Supervisor’s perception of AWE was found as a significant influential environmental factor. And subordinates’ positive PsyCap was identified as an important person factor to the Self-directed employee behavior. Third, contrary to the hypothesis, the perceptual gap about Autonomous work environment had a positive effect on Self-directed behavior. And this finding support the constructive conflict theory. The PsyCap contagion from supervisor to subordinates was not found in Korean Automotive Part manufacturing company sample. From thes findings, I draw several theoretical and practical implications.
- I suggests several practical implications for organizational leaders, HR professionals, and frontline managers to address the problem of inability to reap the benefits of autonomy supporting HR practices. First, Organizational leaders need to delegate more decision power to supervisors because the supervisor’s perceptions of AWE had a great impact on self-directed employee behavior. In addition, Organizational leader need to provide all level employees with clear organizational goals, objectives, strategies, and vision to encourage employees to have a high level PsyCap (Self-efficacy, Hope, Optimism, Resiliency) HR managers need to institutionalize the SDB as a key performance index. In order to secure long-term organizational effectiveness, the SDB should be included in performance appraisal system that can serve as a continual and systemic encouragement for SDB. In addition, providing the PsyCap training program or intervention to level up the positive PsyCap which can draw more SDB. Supervisors need to learn how to design and allocate meaningful jobs or tasks for their people to cause their subordinates to be more proactively engage in their work. In addition, Supervisors need to be skillful in giving positive appraisal to their subordinates to have them a higher PsyCap. Subordinates need to take responsibility in developing and sustaining personal PsyCap through participating training programs or self-directed learning. In addition, Subordinates need to align their SDB through continual social interactions with their supervisor and other employees.
- This study has a few limitations. And in order to overcome the limitation of this study, I suggest several future research ideas. A more macro and micro level work environmental factors may need to be explored. In this study, the autonomous work environment (AWE) was formulated with 1) Autonomy Supporting 2) Psychological Safety, and 3) LMX. However, macro level work environments such as sociopolitical condition, labor market change, national/organizational culture can affect employee behavior. In addition, micro level work environment such as work types, customer characteristic, non-work social interactions may also affect the self-directed employee behavior. Although this study did not include the demographic and personality variables in data analysis because there was no significant correlation between those variables with the dependent variable of supervisor-rated SDB, conscientiousness had a significant correlation with self-reported SDB. Thus, it need to be explored in future research. This study investigated the two-level effect. However, more extensive multilevel study can cultivate new knowledge and further understanding about SDB. For example, organizational effect can be set as the third level, and the effect of organizational level variables can be studied. This study focused on the Korean Automotive Part Manufacturing companies. And, more extensive industrial settings and multinational studies are necessary to increase generalizability of findings.
- In summary, this study attempted to identify and understand the role and impact of perceptions of autonomous work environment and positive psychological capital that affect self-directed behavior in a non-western work context. Results of hypotheses testing showed that“ Without nurturing the positive psychological capital, the autonomy supporting HR practice would not work in promoting self-directed employee behavior.” Developing self-directed employees is not an easy task for organizations, but it becomes the top priority to get continual organizational successes in quickly changing business environment. Who else will explore new opportunities, bring creative ideas, take initiatives for bright future except for self-directed employees? I believe that this study can be a foundational stepping stone for further research aiming to develop self-directed employees.
- For example, subordinate’s perception of the quality of leader-member exchange has high positive correlations with Domain 1 and 2 dependent variables. But the correlation between psychological safety and supervisor-rated self-directed behavior failed to reach significance in Domain 2 while the correlation is statistically significant in Domain 1.