UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY International School of Business HO TAN VUONG Job Resourcefulness: Antecedents and Outcomes MASTER OF BUSINESS (HONOURS) Ho Chi Minh City – Year 2018 UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY International School of Business HO TAN VUONG Job Resourcefulness: Antecedents and Outcomes MASTER OF BUSINESS (HONOURS) SUPERVISOR: DR NGUYEN THI MAI TRANG Ho Chi Minh City – Year 2018 Table of Contents List of Acronyms List of figures List of tables Acknowledgement Abstract Introduction Literature review and hypotheses development 12 The Five-Factor Model of personality traits 12 Job resourcefulness 14 Personality traits and JR 15 JR and job performance 18 The role of QWL 19 Psychological hardiness and JR 22 Research methodology 25 Research design 25 Sample characteristics 28 Measurement 29 Data analysis and results 30 The Cronbach’s alpha test 30 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) test 31 Composite reliability ( ) and average variance extracted ( ) test 33 Structural model and hypothesis testing 35 Hypothesis Testing 36 Multi-group analysis 37 Discussion 38 Conclusion and implications 40 Theoretical implications 41 Implications for management 42 Limitations and direction for future research 43 References 45 Appendix 1: Guideline for pilot study 56 Appendix 2: Vietnamese Questionnaire 58 Appendix 3: Descriptive statistic of sample 60 Appendix 4: The results of Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of reliability 62 Appendix 5: CFA of the model 65 Appendix 6: Structural results (standardized estimates) of the model 69 List of Acronyms JR: Job Resourcefulness PH: Psychological Hardiness QWL: Quality of Work Life CFA: Confirmatory Factor Analysis SEM: Structural Equation Modeling List of figures Figure 1: Conceptual model 24 Figure 2: Research procedure 25 Figure 3: Structural results (standardized estimates) of the model 36 List of tables Table 1: Standardized CFA loadings of items 32 Table 2: Measure correlations, the squared correlation, and AVE 34 Table 3: Structural paths in the model 35 Table 4: Standardized direct, indirect and total effects between constructs 35 Acknowledgement Firstly, I would first like to express my honest thanks to my supervisor Prof Nguyen Thi Mai Trang for her patience, encouragement, and immense knowledge Her guidance and strongly support help me in all the time of writing and research of the thesis, even in the moments of stressful Besides my supervisor, I would also like to acknowledge all teachers who taught me in International School of Business (ISB) during MBUS course The knowledge I gained will certainly support not only for my work but also for my life in the future Thirdly, I would like to thank the proposal and final thesis defense committees, especially Dr Tran Ha Minh Quan and Dr Nguyen Phong Nguyen for their insightful comments and encouragement Beside, my sincere thanks also go to all respondents who participated in my pilot study and main survey I thank my classmates of MBUS for useful discussions, for sleepless nights studying together before examinations, and for all unforgettable moments we have had in the last two years Last but not least, I must express my profoundly thanks to my family for give me the best conditions for studying and doing this thesis Especially, I would like to send my thanks to Ha Thi Truc Mai, who is not only my MBUS classmate but also my wife, for supporting, encouraging and standing by my side in any circumstances Abstract The study investigates the impact of personality traits of openness to experience, conscientiousness and psychological hardiness on job resourcefulness of service employees in Vietnam It also examines the relationships between job resourcefulness, quality of work life, and job performance at individual level An empirical test with a sample of 217 employees from various service industries by means of structural equation modeling indicates that these personality traits have a positive relative to job resourcefulness Furthermore, job resourcefulness has positive impact on quality of work life, and together with quality of work life, has positive influence on job performance of service employees Based on these results, the study contributes to personality theory and the author also suggests some implications for managers in order to enhance individual performance and quality of work life through personality traits and job resourcefulness Introduction Today’s competitive environment puts many challenges on managers in operating as efficiently as possible across industries (Harris, Artis, Fogliasso, & Fleming, 2008; Harris, Artis, Walters, & Licata, 2006; Harris, Ladik, Artis, & Fleming, 2013) In the service industry, the reduction in organizational support and resource cutback (Harris et al., 2006; Harris et al., 2013) has underlined the importance of finding quality staffs, who can achieve their goals with limited resources Researchers addressed this problem with the development of the construct ―Job Resourcefulness‖ (JR) (Harris et al., 2006; Licata, Mowen, Harris, & Brown, 2003) Resourceful staffs can take advantage of everything available around them, create opportunities and persist in trying different strategies to find the best tactics As businesses have to maximize their profits by operating both efficiency and effectiveness with resource constraints- the era of ―do more with less‖ (Harris et al., 2006; Thurow & Cunningham, 1999), job resourcefulness (JR) is becoming more and more important Resourcefulness in work means not only ―can-do‖ but also ―will-do-at-any-cost‖ attitude, ―out-of-the-box‖ thinking to solve the problems in every situation Licata et al (2003) laid the foundation stone in conceptualizing and defining JR as ―an enduring disposition to garner scarce resources and overcome obstacles in pursuit of job-related goals‖ (p 257) As a situational-level personality trait, JR is a hierarchical personality trait and is preceded by the combined effect of elemental traits (e.g conscientiousness, introversion) and compound traits (e.g activity needs, competitiveness) (Licata et al., 2003) This construct is aimed at assessing the staffs’ ability to work effectively in scare resource climate A growing stream of Appendix 2: Vietnamese Questionnaire BẢNG CÂU HỎI Tôi Hồ Tấn Vương, học viên cao học lớp MBUS7 – Viện đào tạo quốc tế (ISB) – Trường Đại học Kinh tế TP Hồ Chí Minh Tơi thực đề tài nghiên cứu khóa luận tốt nghiệp mong Anh/ Chị dành chút thời gian hoàn thành bảng câu hỏi Bảng khảo sát hướng tới nhân viên ngành dịch vụ, khoảng 10–15 phút để hoàn thành Nếu anh/ chị có thắc mắc nào, vui lòng liên hệ qua địa email hotanvuongqn@gmail.com số điện thoại 0906.056.113 Tôi cam kết câu trả lời bảo mật phục vụ cho mục đích nghiên cứu Tơi xin chân thành cảm ơn giúp đỡ quý anh/ chị! Phần A Screening Question Anh/ Chị có làm việc ngành dịch vụ?  Có, tơi làm việc ngành dịch vụ (Xin vui lòng tiếp tục phần B)  Không, (Xin cảm ơn, dừng khảo sát đây) Part B Main Question Vui lòng hồn thành bảng câu hỏi sau cách đặt dấu X vào trả lời thích hợp Thang điểm quy ước từ (1) ―hồn tồn khơng đồng ý‖ đến (7) ―hoàn toàn đồng ý‖ 7 7 Tôi thường cảm thấy sáng tạo Tơi người giàu trí tưởng tượng Tơi thường tìm tòi giải pháp Tơi độc đáo (khác) với người khác Tôi người có lực Tơi người có xếp, gọn gàng Tơi có tính kỷ luật, trật tự Tôi người tỉ mỉ Tôi tài giỏi dám làm công việc 10 Tôi có tài xoay xở việc tìm tòi phương pháp để hồn thành cơng việc 11 Tơi tự hào làm hồn cảnh khan nguồn lực 12 Trong công việc, đầy sáng tạo để vượt qua chướng ngại 13 Tôi tin nhân viên hữu dụng 14 Tơi hài lòng với kết cơng việc 15 Tơi nghĩ quản lý tơi tin tơi nhân viên có lực 16 Tôi nghĩ đồng nghiệp tơi tin tơi nhân viên làm việc có hiệu 17 Mặc dù tình hình cơng việc tồi tệ, tơi tiếp tục tận tâm để hồn thành nhiệm vụ giao 18 Tôi sẵn sàng làm việc thêm cần thiết 19 Khi có vấn đề xảy cơng việc, tơi thường giải 20 Tơi kiểm sốt hầu hết thứ xảy cơng việc 21 Tơi thích thú đương đầu với thách thức công việc 58 22 Tôi đối phó với vấn đề xảy bất ngờ công việc 23 Công việc mang lại lợi ích sức khỏe tốt 24 Tơi hài lòng với tơi trả cho cơng việc 25 Cơng việc tơi tốt cho gia đình tơi (những nhu cầu gia đình khác; ví dụ có thời gian tham gia hoạt động gia đình) 26 Tơi có nhiều bạn tốt cơng việc 27 Ngồi cơng việc, tơi có thời gian tận hưởng sống 28 Tôi cảm thấy công việc giúp nhận hết tiềm lực 29 Cơng việc giúp tăng kỹ chuyên môn 30 Cơng việc giúp tơi phát triển tính sáng tạo Phần C Demographics Giới tính:  Nam  Nữ Tuổi:  Dưới 25  Trên 25 đến 35  Trên 35 đến 45  Trên 45 Vị trí tại:  Nhân viên  Giám sát/ Trưởng nhóm  Quản lý  Khác: …… Lĩnh vực dịch vụ:  Ngân hàng/ Tài Marketing  Logistic  Truyền thông  Dịch vụ tư vấn (IT, Kiến trúc, …)  Sales  Khác: … Mức thu thập (triệu VND):  Dưới Trình độ học vấn:  Trên đến 10  Trên 10 đến 20  Trên 20  Cấp  Đại học/ Cao Đẳng Kinh nghiệm làm viêc:  Dưới tháng  Trên năm đến năm  Sau đại học  Trên tháng đến năm  Trên năm 59 Appendix 3: Descriptive statistic of sample Statistics Gender N Valid Missing Skewness Std Error of Skewness Kurtosis Std Error of Kurtosis Age Position Field Income Education Year 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 -,065 ,165 -2,014 ,329 ,114 ,165 -,431 ,329 1,247 ,165 ,119 ,329 -,180 ,165 -,924 ,329 ,073 ,165 -,632 ,329 1,064 ,165 1,331 ,329 -,191 ,165 -,899 ,329 Gender Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Male 105 48,4 48,4 48,4 Female 112 51,6 51,6 100,0 Total 217 100,0 100,0 Age Frequency Valid Under 25 Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Percent 65 30,0 30,0 30,0 From 25 to under 35 130 59,9 59,9 89,9 From 35 to under 45 22 10,1 10,1 100,0 217 100,0 100,0 Total Position Frequency Valid Staff Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 146 67,3 67,3 67,3 Supervisor/ Leader 44 20,3 20,3 87,6 Manager 27 12,4 12,4 100,0 217 100,0 100,0 Total 60 Field Frequency Valid Bank/Finance Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 38 17,5 17,5 17,5 Logistic 12 5,5 5,5 23,0 Sales 43 19,8 19,8 42,9 Consultant Service (IT, Architect ) 63 29,0 29,0 71,9 Marketing 22 10,1 10,1 82,0 Others 39 18,0 18,0 100,0 Total 217 100,0 100,0 Income Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Under 25 11,5 11,5 11,5 From to under 10 87 40,1 40,1 51,6 From 10 to under 20 77 35,5 35,5 87,1 Over 20 28 12,9 12,9 100,0 217 100,0 100,0 Total Education Frequency Valid High school Graduated Post graduated Total Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1,8 1,8 1,8 175 80,6 80,6 82,5 38 17,5 17,5 100,0 217 100,0 100,0 Year Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Under months 29 13,4 13,4 13,4 From months to under years 62 28,6 28,6 41,9 From years to under years 80 36,9 36,9 78,8 Over years 46 21,2 21,2 100,0 217 100,0 100,0 Total 61 Appendix 4: The results of Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of reliability Openness to Experience Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items ,883 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha Item Deleted if Item Deleted Total Correlation if Item Deleted PT1 14,82 12,345 ,759 ,844 PT2 14,42 12,088 ,776 ,837 PT3 14,45 13,147 ,733 ,855 PT4 14,72 12,296 ,717 ,861 Conscientiousness Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items ,891 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha Item Deleted if Item Deleted Total Correlation if Item Deleted PT5 15,46 15,388 ,691 ,885 PT6 15,59 12,910 ,815 ,839 PT7 15,48 13,501 ,796 ,847 PT8 15,67 14,184 ,748 ,865 62 Psychological Hardiness Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items ,909 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha Item Deleted if Item Deleted Total Correlation if Item Deleted PH1 25,93 33,115 ,623 ,912 PH2 25,45 32,989 ,719 ,897 PH3 25,76 32,100 ,830 ,882 PH4 26,13 32,780 ,741 ,894 PH5 25,75 31,699 ,773 ,889 PH6 25,88 31,230 ,817 ,882 Job Resourcefulness Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items ,883 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted if Item Deleted Total Correlation Item Deleted JR1 14,91 10,473 ,714 ,862 JR2 14,57 10,432 ,776 ,838 JR3 14,57 10,357 ,754 ,846 JR4 14,64 10,491 ,737 ,853 63 Job Performance Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items ,924 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted if Item Deleted Total Correlation Item Deleted JP1 15,87 15,354 ,822 ,901 JP2 16,19 15,080 ,809 ,905 JP3 15,90 14,236 ,843 ,894 JP4 15,85 15,543 ,821 ,902 Quality of Work Life Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items ,912 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted if Item Deleted Total Correlation Item Deleted QWL1 34,30 72,896 ,685 ,903 QWL2 34,02 73,555 ,708 ,901 QWL3 33,87 74,187 ,713 ,900 QWL4 33,44 75,349 ,695 ,902 QWL5 33,62 73,441 ,669 ,904 QWL7 33,90 71,999 ,765 ,896 QWL8 33,55 73,341 ,700 ,901 QWL9 33,72 72,571 ,774 ,895 64 Appendix 5: CFA of the model 65 Model Fit Summary CMIN Model Default model Saturated model Independence model NPAR 80 465 30 CMIN 799,924 ,000 5802,481 DF 385 435 P ,000 CMIN/DF 2,078 ,000 13,339 RMR, GFI Model Default model Saturated model Independence model RMR ,094 ,000 ,995 GFI ,812 1,000 ,110 AGFI ,773 PGFI ,672 ,049 ,103 NFI Delta1 ,862 1,000 ,000 RFI rho1 ,844 IFI Delta2 ,923 1,000 ,000 TLI rho2 ,913 RMSEA ,071 ,239 LO 90 HI 90 ,064 ,078 ,234 ,244 117 123 19 19 Baseline Comparisons Model Default model Saturated model Independence model ,000 ,000 CFI ,923 1,000 ,000 RMSEA Model Default model Independence model Default model Independence model PCLOSE ,000 ,000 66 Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) Belonging Knowledge Survival QWL3 QWL2 QWL1 QWL5 QWL9 QWL8 QWL7 PH3 PH2 PH1 PT3 PT2 PT1 PT7 PT6 PT5 JP3 JP2 JP1 JR3 JR2 JR1 PH4 PH5 PH6 PT4 PT8 JP4 JR4 QWL4 < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < - QualityWorkLife QualityWorkLife QualityWorkLife Survival Survival Survival Belonging Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge PsychologicalHardiness PsychologicalHardiness PsychologicalHardiness OpennesstoExperience OpennesstoExperience OpennesstoExperience Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness JobPerformance JobPerformance JobPerformance JobResourcefulness JobResourcefulness JobResourcefulness PsychologicalHardiness PsychologicalHardiness PsychologicalHardiness OpennesstoExperience Conscientiousness JobPerformance JobResourcefulness Belonging Estimate ,988 ,990 1,000 ,925 ,946 1,000 1,000 1,021 ,994 1,000 1,000 ,857 ,806 1,000 1,064 1,083 1,000 1,065 ,941 1,000 ,915 ,897 1,000 ,987 ,968 ,959 1,036 1,091 1,040 ,989 ,884 ,985 ,928 S.E ,101 ,095 C.R 9,826 10,440 P *** *** ,080 ,083 11,556 11,379 *** *** ,060 ,065 16,951 15,256 *** *** ,068 ,080 12,673 10,112 *** *** ,077 ,075 13,753 14,444 *** *** ,076 ,066 14,075 14,293 *** *** ,053 ,050 17,188 17,820 *** *** ,069 ,075 ,062 ,064 ,060 ,081 ,073 ,049 ,072 ,080 14,310 12,981 15,366 16,125 18,040 12,797 13,614 17,985 13,750 11,573 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Label 67 Covariances: (Group number - Default model) QualityWorkLife QualityWorkLife QualityWorkLife QualityWorkLife QualityWorkLife PsychologicalHardiness PsychologicalHardiness PsychologicalHardiness PsychologicalHardiness OpennesstoExperience OpennesstoExperience OpennesstoExperience Conscientiousness Conscientiousness JobPerformance e10 e19 < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > PsychologicalHardiness OpennesstoExperience Conscientiousness JobPerformance JobResourcefulness OpennesstoExperience Conscientiousness JobPerformance JobResourcefulness Conscientiousness JobPerformance JobResourcefulness JobPerformance JobResourcefulness JobResourcefulness e9 e22 Estimate ,949 ,991 ,985 1,283 ,983 ,778 ,983 1,213 ,886 ,945 1,027 ,899 1,256 ,951 1,086 ,339 -,239 S.E ,136 ,138 ,146 ,173 ,136 ,110 ,130 ,148 ,115 ,126 ,136 ,114 ,160 ,126 ,138 ,081 ,051 C.R 6,953 7,189 6,737 7,420 7,213 7,098 7,550 8,208 7,735 7,484 7,572 7,877 7,854 7,568 7,883 4,185 -4,711 P *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Label Correlations: (Group number - Default model) QualityWorkLife QualityWorkLife QualityWorkLife QualityWorkLife QualityWorkLife PsychologicalHardiness PsychologicalHardiness PsychologicalHardiness PsychologicalHardiness OpennesstoExperience OpennesstoExperience OpennesstoExperience Conscientiousness Conscientiousness JobPerformance e10 e19 < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > PsychologicalHardiness OpennesstoExperience Conscientiousness JobPerformance JobResourcefulness OpennesstoExperience Conscientiousness JobPerformance JobResourcefulness Conscientiousness JobPerformance JobResourcefulness JobPerformance JobResourcefulness JobResourcefulness e9 e22 Estimate ,735 ,828 ,730 ,834 ,842 ,677 ,760 ,823 ,791 ,787 ,751 ,866 ,814 ,812 ,814 ,322 -,451 68 Appendix 6: Structural results (standardized estimates) of the model 69 Model Fit Summary CMIN Model Default model Saturated model Independence model NPAR 74 465 30 CMIN 845,711 ,000 5802,481 DF 391 435 P ,000 CMIN/DF 2,163 ,000 13,339 RMR, GFI Model Default model Saturated model Independence model RMR ,103 ,000 ,995 GFI ,800 1,000 ,110 AGFI ,762 PGFI ,673 ,049 ,103 NFI Delta1 ,854 1,000 ,000 RFI rho1 ,838 IFI Delta2 ,916 1,000 ,000 TLI rho2 ,906 Baseline Comparisons Model Default model Saturated model Independence model ,000 ,000 CFI ,915 1,000 ,000 RMSEA Model Default model Independence model RMSEA ,073 ,239 LO 90 ,067 ,234 HI 90 ,080 ,244 PCLOSE ,000 ,000 70 Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) JobResourcefulness JobResourcefulness JobResourcefulness QualityWorkLife Belonging Knowledge Survival JobPerformance JobPerformance QWL3 QWL2 QWL1 QWL5 QWL9 QWL8 QWL7 PH3 PH2 PH1 PT3 PT2 PT1 PT7 PT6 PT5 JP3 JP2 JP1 JR3 JR2 JR1 PH4 PH5 PH6 PT4 PT8 JP4 JR4 QWL4 < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < - PsychologicalHardiness OpennesstoExperience Conscientiousness JobResourcefulness QualityWorkLife QualityWorkLife QualityWorkLife QualityWorkLife JobResourcefulness Survival Survival Survival Belonging Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge PsychologicalHardiness PsychologicalHardiness PsychologicalHardiness OpennesstoExperience OpennesstoExperience OpennesstoExperience Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness JobPerformance JobPerformance JobPerformance JobResourcefulness JobResourcefulness JobResourcefulness PsychologicalHardiness PsychologicalHardiness PsychologicalHardiness OpennesstoExperience Conscientiousness JobPerformance JobResourcefulness Belonging Estimate ,322 ,480 ,148 1,030 ,999 ,996 1,000 ,340 ,833 ,934 ,952 1,000 1,000 1,024 ,997 1,000 1,000 ,856 ,807 1,000 1,060 1,080 1,000 1,069 ,926 1,000 ,912 ,892 1,000 ,987 ,971 ,965 1,042 1,100 1,037 ,986 ,883 ,989 ,927 S.E ,056 ,071 ,064 ,101 ,102 ,097 C.R 5,739 6,777 2,315 10,148 9,758 10,316 P *** *** ,021 *** *** *** ,139 ,164 ,081 ,084 2,458 5,093 11,506 11,302 ,014 *** *** *** ,061 ,065 16,919 15,241 *** *** ,068 ,080 12,496 10,044 *** *** ,077 ,075 13,734 14,438 *** *** ,075 ,066 14,290 14,123 *** *** ,053 ,050 17,162 17,714 *** *** ,073 ,078 ,063 ,065 ,061 ,081 ,072 ,049 ,075 ,080 13,567 12,420 15,310 16,015 17,997 12,793 13,688 18,022 13,122 11,578 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Label 71 Covariances: (Group number - Default model) PsychologicalHardiness OpennesstoExperience PsychologicalHardiness e10 e19 < > < > < > < > < > OpennesstoExperience Conscientiousness Conscientiousness e9 e22 Estimate ,777 ,948 ,985 ,346 -,227 S.E ,109 ,127 ,130 ,082 ,052 C.R 7,101 7,486 7,552 4,235 -4,407 P *** *** *** *** *** Label Correlations: (Group number - Default model) PsychologicalHardiness OpennesstoExperience PsychologicalHardiness e10 e19 < > < > < > < > < > OpennesstoExperience Conscientiousness Conscientiousness e9 e22 Estimate ,679 ,784 ,761 ,326 -,419 72 ... conscientiousness and psychological hardiness on job resourcefulness of service employees in Vietnam It also examines the relationships between job resourcefulness, quality of work life, and job performance... review and hypotheses development 12 The Five-Factor Model of personality traits 12 Job resourcefulness 14 Personality traits and JR 15 JR and job performance... positive relative to job resourcefulness Furthermore, job resourcefulness has positive impact on quality of work life, and together with quality of work life, has positive influence on job performance