New Public Management Reform in South Korea

Examining the Relationship between Civil Servant
Perceptions of Organizational Culture and Job Attitudes:
in the Context of the New Public Management Reform
in South Korea
Ji Sung Kim1 & Seung-Hyun Han2
Published online: 28 December 2016
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract This study investigates the relationship between public officials’ perceptions
of organizational culture and their job attitudes, particularly emphasizing a mediating
role of job satisfaction under the new public management reform in South Korea.
Data collected from Korean civil servants indicate that perceptions of the competing
values rooted in different organizational culture types—clan, market, hierarchy, and
adhocracy—differentially affect their job attitudes. In addition, the findings show the
mediating influence of job satisfaction between public officials’ perceptions of organizational culture and organizational commitment.
Keywords Perceived organizational culture .Job satisfaction . Organizational
commitment . Competing values framework
Introduction
In contrast to the popular belief that BHappy workers are productive^ the organizational
behavior literature argues that direct and distinct relationships between job attitudes and
job performance are generally poor (Latham 2007; Bowling 2007) and instead vary
considerably across contexts and with job complexity (Judge et al. 2001; Triandis 1994).
Studies investigating this relationship within the context of relational dynamics such as
leader-member exchange have indicated that a job environment is more important to
Public Organiz Rev (2017) 17:157–175
DOI 10.1007/s11115-016-0372-0
The original version of this article was revised: The caption of Fig. 2 is not correct. Figure 2 caption should
read as ‘Fig. 2 Competing values framework (K. S. Cameron and Quinn (2011))’
* Seung-Hyun Han
[email protected]
1 Korea University, Seoul, South Korea
2 University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA
understand the effects of employees’ attitudes on job performance (Harris et al. 2009;
Triandis 1994).
Although organizational culture has not been a major focus of research examining
job attitudes, and there have been few references to organizational culture among the
major reviews and meta-analyses on the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of
job attitudes (Bowling 2007; Judge et al. 2001; Meyer et al. 2010), a growing body of
research includes organizational culture, one aspect of the job environment, particularly
as an antecedent of job attitudes (Farh et al. 2007; Jackson 2002; Kim 2014; Ng et al.
2009; Saari and Judge 2004). Furthermore, in spite of great diversity among definitions
and measures of organizational culture, some researchers have argued that organizational culture provides a lens for a better understanding of job attitudes, in that
organizational culture directly and indirectly influences job attitudes, as well as their
antecedents (Martin 1992; Trice and Beyer 1992). Nonetheless, there are only few
established frameworks that explain how organizational culture affects employees’ job
attitudes and, in turn, their behaviors in public management research (Ajzen 2006;
Jackson 2002). Although several studies (e.g., Goulet and Frank 2002; Moon 2000;
Wright and Davis 2003) have found different results in levels of job attitudes across
different sectors, studies have not generally examined differences associated with
organizational culture, and there have been a dearth of studies simultaneously investigating direct and indirect relationships among organizational culture, job satisfaction
(JS), and organizational commitment (OC) in the public sector. Investigating the
relationships between cultural elements and job attitudes could provide new understandings, particularly because values, which are seen as the core of organizational
culture (Peters and Waterman 1982), have been shown to affect job attitudes (Eby and
Dobbins 1997; Locke 1976). This study sheds light on the notion that culture, which
includes shared values, is an important factor influencing job outcomes but there is
variation in how employees perceive culture within an organization and the variation
can lead to different outcomes with respect to job attitudes. This is important because
perception, rather than an Bobjective reality,^ will influence attitudes and behaviors.
The goal of this research is to increase our understanding of how employee
perception of cultural elements, i.e., values, influences their job attitudes in the context
of the New Public Management (NPM, hereafter) Reform in South Korea. First, this
study investigates the relationship between employee perception of organizational
culture and job attitudes in the public sector, focusing specifically on whether values
associated with different types of organizational culture have different impacts on
employee attitudes. Second, this study examines whether JS mediates the relationship
between employee perception of organizational culture and OC.
The following section introduces the research context and the theoretical background of this study. Then empirical evidence used to develop the conceptual model
is presented (see Fig. 1). Next, the methods used for this study are described and the
results of data analyses are reported. Lastly, findings and implications for theory and
practice are discussed.
Research Context
To explore the relationship between public employees’ perception of culture and job
attitudes, this research studies civil servants from a Korean government ministry during
158 Kim J.S., Han S.-H.
a time that involved a number of mergers and reorganizations. Since the governmental
restructuring in 2008 by Lee Myoung-bak administration, most of the government
ministries were reorganized in order to achieve a small but practical government that is
effective and serves people first. During this process, the 18-Ministry and 4-Office
system of the previous administration was reorganized into a 15-Ministry and 2-Office
system through the integration or relocation of departments and offices. This reorganization, which was in line with themes of NPM, pointedly emphasized values and
attributes of market and adhocracy cultures. Its stated goals—to attain efficiency and
effectiveness, decrease redundant organizations, and ultimately to decrease the number of
employees, while emphasizing that government needs to serve its citizens (Min 2008)—
are clearly line with NPM principles. It should be noted that NPM, a globally prevailing
managerial paradigm to enhance efficiency in the public sector, has proliferated in Korea
since the 1990s, and has shifted the focus of public management from an emphasis on the
implementation of formal rules based on hierarchical structures to an emphasis on clientoriented performance improvement in market-oriented and entrepreneurial ways
(Osborne and Gaebler 1992; Parker and Bradley 2000). This period of organizational
change provides an interesting context for surfacing the effect of organizational culture
on employee attitudes in the public sector.
Organizational Culture and Values
Over the past three decades, there have been varying conceptions of culture (Martin
1992; Schein 1991). Nevertheless, there is a clear message from scholars in a variety of
fields that culture plays a critical role with respect to organizational performance. Much
of the literature regarding organizational culture emphasizes the notion of shared
assumptions (Schein 2010), attitudes and perceptions that bind organizational members together and influence how they think about themselves, their coworkers, and
their work (Alvesson 2002; Palthe and Kossek 2003), as well as values and
behaviors and environmental and organizational realities that influence an organization (Kopelman et al. 1990). Schein’s (1981, 1990, 2010), conceptual framework of
culture, which has been especially influential in the study of organizational culture,
defines culture as Bthings that group members share or hold in common^ (2010, p. 16),
and emphasizes that culture involves assumptions, values, beliefs, adaptations,
perceptions, and learning.
Perception of
Organizational
Culture
Organizational
Commitment
Job
Satisfaction
Fig. 1 Conceptual model
Civil Servants’ Perceived Organizational Culture & Job Attitudes 159
Not all researchers define culture as the ‘thing’ that holds the organization together.
Martin (1992), for example, argues that organizational cultures are not necessarily
unifying. She notes that culture is not static over time and that several different cultures
can exist in the same organization. Thus, any definition of culture needs to take into
account the possibility of competing subcultures that are a fact of life in the organization. In this regards, the Competing Values Framework (CVF) (Cameron and Quinn
2011) is noteworthy because it provides an organizing mechanism that sees organizations as having a dominant culture, but also recognizes that culture may change over
time. Moreover, focusing on cultural values, CVF recognizes that subunits within an
organization can have their own unique culture. Shared cultural values can be regarded
as the crucial source of variation among organizational groups.
Competing Values Framework (CVF)
The Competing Values Framework (CVF) was developed using multidimensional scaling
by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1981) in an attempt to make sense of the organizational
effectiveness literature, which provided contradictory definitions of organizational effectiveness and explanations of what makes an organization effective. The framework
explains how people evaluate organizations and how organizations are characterized by
a particular set of shared beliefs and values (Arsenault and Faerman 2014; Hartnell et al.
2010; Lund 2003). CVF also clarifies how values, as a key component of organizational
culture, are communicated in organizations (Gregory et al. 2009; Helfrich et al. 2007;
Mohr et al. 2012).
According to CVF, organizational culture can be measured along two dimensions or
axes. The first focuses on the level of flexibility and individuality versus stability and
organizational structuring; the second focuses on the degree to which attention is paid
to internal organizational dynamics versus the external environment and the organization’s competitive position (Cameron and Quinn 2011). When juxtaposed, the two axes
create four domains that represent four distinct cultures: Hierarchy, Clan, Adhocracy,
and Market (see Fig. 2).
Internal Focus External Focus
Flexibility
Clan Culture
Human relations
Cohesion
Mentoring
Morale
Perceived organizational Support
Adhocracy Culture
Dynamic & entrepreneurial
Adapt to changes
Acquisition of resources
Flexibility
Innovation & openness
Growth
Stability
Hierarchy Culture
Coordination & efficiency
Adherence to bureaucratic rules &
procedures
Stability & predictability
Market Culture
Result oriented
Rational goals & clarity of tasks
Competition
Achievement
Fig. 2 Competing values framework (K. S. Cameron and Quinn (2011))
160 Kim J.S., Han S.-H.
The four cultures depicted in CVF represent a member’s values about an organization; what they define as good, right, and appropriate; and which core values are used
for forming judgments and taking action (Goodman et al. 2001). The clan culture is
characterized by cohesion, morale and an emphasis on human resource development.
The adhocracy culture reflects a dynamic, entrepreneurial, and creative work environment that aims to grow and acquire resources through flexibility and readiness. The
market culture focuses on getting the job done, and achieving productivity and
efficiency. Finally, the hierarchy culture emphasizes a clear organizational structure,
effective information management, and well-defined responsibilities and bureaucratic
structures. Examining organizational culture based on the cultural attributes associated
with the two value dimensions—internal/external focus and flexibility/stability—sheds
light on how culture might influence employees’ attitudes (Cameron and Quinn 2011).
Although there is no one superior or ideal culture, organizations tend to develop a
dominant orientation over time as they respond to challenges and changes in the
environment (Schein 1991). As is true of individuals, organizations tend to respond
to challenges and changes by amplifying their core cultural values so that various
attributes of organizational culture become more solidified and prominent (Cameron
and Quinn 2011). Cameron et al. (2007) note that while some organizations have a
dominant type of culture, others have multiple cultures working simultaneously in
different locations and departments.
Organizational Commitment (OC)
OC is a theoretical construct that examines employee-organization psychological linkages.
According to Mowday et al. (1982), OC includes employees’ acceptance of organizational
values and goals, their willingness to make strong efforts to support their organization in
order to attain organizational goals, and their intention to maintain organizational membership. In contrast, Allen and Meyer’s (1990) definition of OC, which is one of the most
commonly referred to in recent studies, examines three components of commitment1
—
affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment—only one
of which focuses on employees’ acceptance of organizational goals. Common to these
three components of OC, however, is the idea of a Bpsychological state that links an
individual to an organization^ (Allen and Meyer 1990, p. 14).
In extant OC studies, change initiatives, managerial paradigms, sectoral differences,
and job insecurity have been shown to be antecedent variables of OC (e.g., Siegel et al.
2005; Perryer and Jordan 2005). In addition, OC has been found to predict organizational effectiveness and job performance (Riketta 2008; Sturges et al. 2005), as well as
such job-related behaviors as turnover (e.g., Stinglhamber and Vandenberghe 2003;
Sturges et al. 2005), intention to quit (e.g., Cole and Bruch 2006; Powell and Meyer
2004), and extra-role behaviors (e.g., Carmeli 2005; Mowday et al. 1982). Based on
empirical evidence of affective commitment as the strongest and the most consistent
1 BAffective commitment refers to the employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization… Continuance commitment refers to an awareness of the costs associated with
leaving the organization… Finally, normative commitment reflects a feeling of obligation to continue
employment.^ (Meyer and Allen 1997, p. 11).
Civil Servants’ Perceived Organizational Culture & Job Attitudes 161
construct related to organizational behaviors, this study focused on affective commitment as outcome in the research model.
Job Satisfaction (JS)
Job satisfaction (JS) is arguably one of the most explored work orientation variables in
organizational studies over the last five decades (Anderson et al. 2001). In general, JS
has been defined as the Bemotional state of liking one’s job,^ which results from
employees’ job experiences (Locke 1976, p. 1300). Additionally, Ivancevich et al.
(2007) point out that JS reflects employees’ perception of whether they fit into their
organizations.
A substantial amount of empirical research has presented JS as an antecedent to
affective commitment (e.g., Mowday et al. 1982; Vandenberg and Scarpello 1990).
In addition, JS has been found to be a strong predictor of such organizational
outcome variables as absenteeism, turnover, work performance, and prosocial
behaviors (e.g., Tett and Meyer 1993; Trevor 2001). JS has also been studied as a
dependent variable that is influenced by employees’ personal characteristics and job
characteristics such as pay, promotion, job design, and having influence over goal
setting (Agho et al. 1993; O’Leary-Kelly and Griffin 1995).
Relationships among Perception of Organizational Culture and OC, and JS
Only a few studies have employed CVF to investigate the relationship between
employee perception of organizational cultures and employees’ job attitudes (e.g.,
Lund 2003). However, as Howard (1998) notes, CVF provides us with a Bdescriptive
content^ (p. 232) of organizational culture; it specifies configurations of organizational
culture; and it provides tools for measuring and analyzing organizational culture.
Moreover, values, which are central to CVF, have been regarded as a key element of
organizational culture (Boxx et al. 1991; Braunscheidel et al. 2010; Robert and Wasti
2002), and are considered to be more tangible than assumptions and more stable than
artifacts (Howard 1998). Thus, this study contributes to the literature by using an
organizational culture framework that explicitly reflects values.
Although little research has examined the influence of perceived organizational
culture on job attitudes using CVF, some studies contribute to our understanding of
this relationship. For example, using Cameron and Freeman’s (1991) version of CVF to
measure organizational culture, Lund (2003) found that overall JS is higher in perceived clan and adhocracy cultures, which focus on flexibility and spontaneity, than in
perceived market and hierarchy cultures, which focus on control and stability.
Similarly, researchers employing Wallach’s (1983) Organizational Culture Index to
measure organizational cultures2 have found that strong perceived bureaucratic cultures
negatively affect employees’ JS and OC, whereas cultures valuing innovation and
people in the organization positively influence employees’ job attitudes (Lok and
2 Wallach’s (1983) supportive culture, innovative culture, and bureaucratic culture, with orientations of culture
related to people, innovation, and [stable] bureaucratic structure, respectively, are close to clan culture,
adhocracy culture, and hierarchy culture from CVF, in terms of what each culture values in an organization.
162 Kim J.S., Han S.-H.
Crawford 2001; Odom et al. 1990; Silverthorne 2004). Since JS and OC have been
shown to have a positive relationship, Hypotheses 1a through 1d are suggested.
Hypothesis 1a: Perceived adhocracy culture will be positively associated with
both their JS and OC.
Hypothesis 1b: Perceived clan culture will be positively associated with both their
JS and OC.
Hypothesis 1c: Perceived hierarchical culture will be negatively associated with
both their JS and OC.
Hypothesis 1d: Perceived market culture will be negatively associated with both
their JS and OC.
This study also examines a mediating effect of JS on the relationship between
perceived organizational culture and OC. While arguments have been made regarding
their conceptual redundancy, JS and OC have been shown to be distinct variables in
that OC focuses on employees’ attitudes toward the organization as a whole, whereas
JS focuses on specific job characteristics (Vandenberg and Lance 1992). Investigating
these two job attitudes in the context of their relationship to perceived organizational
culture could thus be informative and further clarify their conceptual distinction.
Although some studies have found that JS and OS have a reciprocal relationship
(e.g., Huang and Hsiao 2007), most research has assumed that JS influences OC
(Buchanan 1974; Mowday et al. 1982; Reichers 1985) or that it plays a role as an
intervening variable within relationships between other variables (e.g., structural determinants) and OC (e.g., Gaertner 1999; Lok and Crawford 2001; Markovits et al. 2010;
Mueller and Lawler 1999; Wallace 1995). For example, using Meyer and Allen’s
(1991) three-component model of OC, Clugston (2000) found that OC played a
partially mediating role between JS and employees’ intent to leave. Similarly,
Williams and Hazer (1986) found that JS mediates the relationship between all
independent variables they studied (i.e., age, pre-employment expectations, perceived
job characteristics, and the consideration dimension of leadership style) and OC.
Arguably, JS, which is associated with job-specific characteristics, would more likely
to be influenced by changes in working conditions than would OC, which would likely
be more influenced by other components outside of the job (Mueller and Lawler 1999;
Vandenberg and Lance 1992). Thus, we this study proposes that JS will mediate the
relationship between perceived organizational culture and OC.
Hypothesis 2: The relationship between perceived organizational culture and OC
will be mediated through JS.
Methods
According to the research purpose, this study included the ministries that were created
by integrating two or more central government agencies.3 That is, the ministries that
were not merged were excluded from the data set. The survey was conducted by the
3 To ensure confidentiality as requested, we will not reveal actual name of the ministry here.
Civil Servants’ Perceived Organizational Culture & Job Attitudes 163
Ministry of Public Administration and Security (MOPAS) including a wide range of
information such as sex, age, positions, tenure, and so forth. The data collection method
ensured that each employee could only respond once. In total, 421 of 749 public
employees completed the survey, yielding a 56.07 % response rate.
As shown in Table 1, 73.5 % of the respondents were male and 25.6 % were female;
6.1 % were in the 20–29 age group, 37.5 % were in the 30–39 age group, 40.8 % were
in the 40–49 age group, and 14.6 % were in the 50 or older age group. Regarding job
position, 15.44 % of the respondents were at a managerial level (grade 4 or higher). In
terms of years in current position, 22.1 % had been in their job less than 5 years, 13.7 %
had been in their job between 6 and 10 years, 19.1 % had been in their job between 11
and 15 years, 18.5 % had been in their job between 16 and 20 years, and 25.5 % had
been in their job over 20 years.
Since the data were not collected using random sampling, this study statistically
tested whether sample proportions matched proportions of subgroups in the population,
examining both the gender ratio and distributions of employees’ job grades in annual
statistical reports of MOPAS. Our analyses showed no statistically significant differences in terms of gender ratio or ratio of managers to non-managers (two-sample
proportion ratio test: z = −0.3547, p > .10 for gender ratio; z = −0.6857, p > .10 for
manager ratio) (Table 2).
The survey used three instruments to measure the constructs in our conceptual
framework. All instruments have previously shown acceptable levels of reliability
and validity. Perceived organizational culture was measured using the 16 items of
the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)4 (Cameron and Quinn
Table 1 Sample demographic
data Variables Values Frequency Percentage
Gender Male 267 63.4
Female 152 36.1
Age 20s 28 6.7
30s 204 48.5
40s 138 32.8
50s 50 11.8
Job rank 3rd grade or higher 6 1.4
4th grade 44 10.5
5th grade 143 34.0
6th grade or lower 218 51.8
Seniority 5 years of less 109 25.9
6 ~ 10 years 84 20.0
11 ~ 15 years 84 20.0
16 ~ 20 years 63 15.0
20 years or more 76 18.0
421 100
4 Since we focused on intra-organizational variability with regard to employee perception of culture, we used
individual-level data and used individuals as the level of analysis.
164 Kim J.S., Han S.-H.
2011). Based on CVF, four attributes of culture—dominant characteristics, organizational leadership, organizational glue, management of employees—were measured. To measure affective commitment, Allen and Meyer’s (1990) Affective
Commitment Scale (ACS) items were used. The items focus on employees’
feelings such as emotional attachment and dedication to the organization. A
sample question is BI feel a strong sense of belonging to my organizations.^
Job satisfaction was measured using the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) (Hackman
and Oldham 1975). This instrument measures both employees’ overall JS such as
general satisfaction, internal work motivation, and growth satisfaction, and employees’
satisfaction with specific job facets—job security, compensation, co-workers, and
supervisor. A sample question is BMy job allows me be gone on my own to perform
work my own.^
Results
Following a two-step analytical procedure, this study first examined the measurement
model, and then used the structural model to test the proposed hypotheses. Covariation
data was used as input to LISREL (Version 8.80). This section describes the results of
data analyses, including descriptive statistics, reliability and validity statistics from the
measurement structure, and results of the tests of the hypotheses.
Figure 3 shows the perceived cultural profile of the sample organization. Overall,
attributes associated with each cultural type emerged and no one culture dominates over
the others. Nevertheless, employees perceive attributes of market culture to be the
strongest across the four types of culture, followed by attributes of hierarchy, clan, and
adhocracy cultures, although the differences are generally small (Market: 4.52, hierarchy:
4.48, clan: 4.50, adhocracy: 4.20).
The Measurement Model Prior to testing the study hypotheses, tests of reliability and
validity were conducted to ensure that the measures used in the study had appropriate
psychometric properties (Kaplan 2008). Inter-construct correlation coefficient estimates,
Cronbach alpha (α) coefficients (Cronbach 1951; Cronbach and Shavelson 2004), and
Table 2 Descriptive analysis and inter-construct correlation coefficients
M SD AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Adhocracy 4.20 1.16 0.55 (0.87)
2. Market 4.52 1.08 0.56 0.855 (0.85)
3. Hierarchy 4.50 1.13 0.57 0.847 0.793 (0.87)
4. Clan 4.48 1.07 0.54 0.739 0.768 0.816 (0.80)
5. Job Satisfaction 2.74 0.69 0.59 0.440 0.387 0.424 0.388 (0.85)
6. Organizational Commitment 3.22 0.76 0.69 0.390 0.402 0.457 0.437 0.645 (0.86)
n = 421. All correlation coefficients are significant at p < .01. Coefficient alpha reliability estimates are
reported on the main diagonal
Civil Servants’ Perceived Organizational Culture & Job Attitudes 165
factor loadings from a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were all examined. Table 2 shows
inter-construct correlations and Cronbach α coefficients along with descriptive statistics.
To examine convergent validity for each factor, average variance shared between
each construct and its measure was calculated (Gall 2003). According to Fornell and
Larcker (1981), the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) should be 0.50 or above. As
seen in Table 2, all AVE statistics were greater than 0.50. In addition, the Cronbach α
coefficients for all measurement constructs are acceptable (above .80), indicating that
all measures have appropriate levels of reliability.
Since the four attributes of culture show high correlations with one another, a
multicollinearity test was conducted using the variance inflation factor (VIF) to verify
the existence of four distinct organizational cultures (see Table 3).5 The VIFs for the
four culture dimensions fell in the range of 3.16 to 4.67, which are smaller than 10, the
standard criterion suggested by Pedhazur (1997). Thus, this study concludes that
multicollinearity problem does not exist.
Finally, a second-order confirmatory factor analysis of the OCAI measures was
conducted (see Table 4) using the following indices to test the model: (1) goodness-of5 Although the four cultures are conceptually distinct, one should expect high statistical correlations among the
cultural measures because the four cultures emerge from two dimensions, and so overlap in focus. For
example, clan and adhocracy share an emphasis on flexibility; clan and hierarchy are both internallyfocused; and so on. Tests of multicollinearity allow us to examine the degree to which this affects the
statistical analysis.
Table 3 Collinearity test of OCAI dimensions
Mean S.D. Tolerance VIF
Adhocracy 4.20 1.16 .215 4.661
Market 4.52 1.07 .317 3.156
Clan 4.50 1.13 .214 4.672
Hierarchy 4.48 1.07 .247 4.045
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
Adhocracy
Market
Hierarchy
Clan
External
Internal Control
Flexibility
Fig. 3 Cultural profile of the sample organization
166 Kim J.S., Han S.-H.
fit index (GFI); (2) adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI); (3) comparative fit index (CFI);
(4) normed fit index (NFI); and (5) root mean square residual (RMR). The CFA analysis
results substantiate the adequacy of the item-to-factor associations and the number of
dimensions underlying the proposed model (Hair et al. 2009), providing further evidence
of construct validity in the OCAI model.
The Structural Model To test the hypotheses, the data was analyzed based on the
structural model (see Fig. 4) using the maximum likelihood method to estimate the model.
Figure 4 shows estimated path coefficients and the associated t-values of the paths.
The fit statistics indicate that the research model provides a good fit to the data
(CFI = .97; NFI = .97; RMR = .03). The indices are within the range that suggests
a good model fit. This study therefore proceeded to test the specified paths for the
specific hypotheses.
Collective associations among the exogenous and endogenous variables, path coefficient estimates for all relationships among the constructs, and standardized path
Table 4 CFA analysis results of OCAI measures
Models GFI AGFI CFI NFI RMR
Adhocracy 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.01
Market 0.97 0.93 0.97 0.96 0.02
Clan 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.01
Hierarchy 0.98 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.02
(Note: ** p<0.01)
Adhocracy
Market
Clan
Hierarchy
Job
Satisfaction
Commitment
-0.23 (-1.08)
0.26 (1.37)
0.60** (17.82) 0.06 (0.29)
1.16**
(6.07)
-0.50**
(-3.33)
-0.44**
(-2.81)
-0.45**(-2.77)
0.86** (6.84)
Fig. 4 SEM results with standardized path coefficients
Civil Servants’ Perceived Organizational Culture & Job Attitudes 167
coefficient estimates were examined to determine the overall effect sizes of each
relationship (Hair et al. 2009; Kline 2010). As the standard determinant for the
statistical significance of standardized path coefficients, a cut-off t-value (t-value ≥
|1.96|) was applied (Kline 2010).
Figure 4 shows that not all types of perceived organizational culture have a
significant effect on employees’ attitudes. In particular, a non-significant direct paths
were found for the adhocracy culture (γ1 = −.23; |t| = 1.08 and γ2 = 0.26; |t| = 1.37).
Employees’ perceptions of clan and hierarchy culture in their organizations have a
statically significant direct effect on both JS (γ5 = 1.16; |t| = 6.07 and γ7 = −.50;
|t| = 3.33, respectively) and OC (γ6 = −0.45; |t| = 2.77 and γ8 = 0.86; |t| = 6.84,
respectively). Market culture perceived by individuals do not have a significantly
negative effect on JS (γ3 = 0.06; |t| = 0.29), but do have a significantly negative effect
on employees’ OC (γ4 = 0.44; |t| = 2.81).
Although perceived clan culture appears to have a negative effect on OC, there
is a need to consider the total effects of the cultural dimensions on OC, which are
composed of both direct effects and indirect effects through JS. Table 5 shows that
employees’ perceptions of the attributes of the clan culture ultimately have a
positive effect on OC because the indirect effects through JS are larger than the negative
direct effect.
Finally, according to the path coefficients estimates (β1 = .60; |t| = 17.82), overall JS
plays mediating role in the relationship between organizational culture and employees’
OC. Table 6 shows the summarized results for the hypothesis tests.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore the direct and inverse relationship between
perceived organizational culture and employees’ attitude. Overall, our findings showed
that different attributes of organizational culture differently affect JS and OC. Perceived
values of clan culture positively affect employees’ JS, but negatively affect employees’
commitment to their organization in terms of the direct effect, whereas perceived
attributes of hierarchy culture negatively influence employees’ JS but positively affect
their OC. Moreover, perceived values of market culture in the organization did not
affect JS but negatively affected OC.
It is interesting that the directions of the path coefficients from perceived organizational
culture to JS were in line with the hypotheses, while the path coefficients from perceived
organizational culture to OC, except in the case of market culture, were not. That is, our
findings indicate that employees’ perception of clan culture decreases the level of OC
Table 5 Total causal effects between organizational culture and OC
Paths to OC Indirect effects (through JS) Direct effects Total effects
Market N/A -.44 -.44
Clan (1.16)*(.60) = .696 -.45 .25
Hierarchy (−.50)*(.60) = −.30 .86 .56
168 Kim J.S., Han S.-H.
[through a direct path] whereas their perception of hierarchical culture enhances their
commitment. In addition, values associated with market culture—competition and a
result-orientation—appear to negatively affect employees’ commitment. Thus, despite
the fact that Korean government has adopted NPM practices that emphasize marketoriented values and customer-oriented performance, public employees might thus still
prefer organizational stability and integration values over competitiveness and change.
Interestingly, the directions of path coefficients to JS and OC are opposite although
JS mediates the relationship between perceived organizational culture and OC. The
negative relationship in the direct path between attributes of clan culture and OC might
be related to the specific focus of commitment. Clan culture focuses on teamwork and
concern for people, which might induce employees to commit to coworkers or supervisors rather than to their organization.
Theoretical Implications Given that public and private sector organizations are distinct with regard to organizational culture, structures, work environments, job characteristics, and job attitudes (Moon 2000; Rainey 2009), there is a need to investigate
these relationships further in the public sector. This study suggests several important
implications for theory. Overall, the findings present additional empirical support for
the notion that perceived values associated with organizational culture influence employees’ attitudes (Howard 1998). Our finding that attributes of the different cultures
differently affect employees’ job attitudes raises questions regarding value congruence
between existing organizational values and values emphasized through organizational
change initiatives. In particular, the negative effects of perceived market culture on OC
and the nonsignificant effects of perceived adhocracy culture on job attitudes imply that
NPM might not be effective in Korean public organizations or that these values are not
viewed positively by public employees.
Most importantly, study provides additional empirical support for the notion that
perceived organizational culture should be considered as an important influence on job
attitudes, and sheds light on the relationship between perceived organizational culture
and job attitudes in public sector organizations. As noted earlier, organizational culture
Table 6 Summary of hypothesis tests
Hypotheses Results Support
H1a: Adhocracy → JS Not significant No
Adhocracy → OC Not significant
H1b: Clan → JS Positive Yes
Clan → OC Positive (Directly negative but positive
in total effects)
H1c: Hierarchy → JS Negative Partially
Hierarchy → OC Positive
H1d: Market → JS Not significant Partially
Market → OC Negative
H2: JS mediates the relationship between
perceived organizational culture and OC
Yes
Civil Servants’ Perceived Organizational Culture & Job Attitudes 169
has not received much attention as a determinant of job attitudes relative to structural
antecedents of job attitudes. In that public sector organizations have been regarded as
different from private sector organizations in terms of job characteristics, employees’
motivation, work environment and so forth, studies examining the influence of perceived
organizational culture on work-related variables in public sector organizations are much
needed. Overall, this study contributes to the organizational behavior literature by
examining the relationship between perceived organizational culture and job attitudes
of public sector employees, an area that has received little attention in previous literature.
Lastly, this study empirically demonstrated that JS precedes OC and plays a
mediating role between perceived organizational culture and OC. As mentioned above,
this is consistent with the majority of studies examining the relationship between JS and
OC, although there is still not full consensus regarding the relationship between the two
job attitudes. In this regard, this study contributes to the literature by providing
additional empirical evidence for the relationship between JS and OC.
Practical Implications Our findings also offer important implications for public
management practitioners. First, the finding that perceived market culture negatively
affect OC implies that the current emphasis on NPM in public sector organizations
might be less effective in the long run than is currently assumed. If NPM conflicts with
shared values of employees and perceived cultures in public organizations, as indicated
in several previous studies (Harrow and Willcocks 1990; Parker and Bradley 2000), the
implementation of NPM might not lead to expected increases in productivity and
efficiency in the public sector.
The finding that perceived values associated with clan culture positively affect both
JS and OC imply that public management practices valuing participation, teamwork,
and sense of family enhance employees’ job attitudes in a more effective and stable
way, especially in comparison with attributes of cultures having an opposite directional
influence on these job attitudes. Interestingly, although perceived values associated
with hierarchy culture negatively influence JS, they have a large positive effect on OC.
Hence, managerial practices associated with values of hierarchy culture, such as order,
formal rules and regulation, still might be effective or necessary in public sector
organizations. For example, one would expect that public employees’ tasks should be
in accordance with the law and regulatory rules. Thus, managerial practices overemphasize competition and efficient performance might conflict with cultural values
emphasizing accountability and formal procedures.
Limitations
This study has several certain limitations. First, findings are based on the perceptions of
employees who voluntarily responded to the questionnaire, and may not be representative of all the employees in the Ministry. In addition, our sample is drawn from one
central public agency in Korea, and so the findings may not be generalizable to private
sector organizations, other Korean central government agencies, government organizations at the local level, or organizations in other national settings.
Second, the data reflect these employees’ perceptions of attributes of organizational
culture, rather than objective measures of these variables. Third, the model did not
consider subcultures, but rather looked at the Ministry as a whole. Although cultures
170 Kim J.S., Han S.-H.
often differ across departments, divisions, or teams, analyses were not conducted for
subunits of the organization. Finally, it should be noted that the data were collected
from the sample during a specific time span, and so the analyses do not reflect
longitudinal changes. All of these limitations suggest that results must be interpreted
with caution.
Areas for Further Research
The theoretical implications and limitations of this study suggest several ideas for
further research. First, the differential directions of effects of perceived organizational
culture on the two job attitudes raise important questions. This finding is counterintuitive and in contradiction to the study hypotheses, which were derived from current
theory and empirical research, which suggests that job attitudes will be affected in the
same direction (e.g., Gaertner 1999; Lok and Crawford 2001). Further research is
necessary to examine specific conditions that might lead to such results.
Second, more research comparing private, public or nongovernment (nonprofit)
sector organizations will be needed. Building on findings presented in this study, future
research on whether perceived hierarchical culture influences job attitudes differently
across settings would be particularly valuable.
Third, this study examined organizational culture using individual perceptions of
organizational-level culture. Future studies might examine the relationships between
organizational culture and job attitudes at the subunit level.
Finally, this study examined OC. Employees can, however, be committed differentially to the organization as a whole, their supervisors, coworkers, career, and so on
(Meyer et al. 1993; Reichers 1985). Our finding of a negative direct effect of employees’ perception of clan culture on their OC might be associated with the specific
focus of employee commitment. Arguably, clan culture, which values warmness and
caring between people, might lead employees to commit more to their coworkers or
team than to the organization as a whole. Future studies considering foci of commitment might provide more tailored explanations.
Concluding Remarks
This study investigated the relationship between perceived organizational culture and
employees’ job attitudes in a Korean central agency in the context of the NPM Reform.
The findings indicate that employees’ perception of attributes of organizational culture
differentially affect employees’ job attitudes. Moreover, the findings provide additional
empirical support for the proposition that JS precedes employees’ OC and plays a
mediating role for JS within a relationship between perceived cultural values and OC.
Overall, this study contributes to public management theory in that the findings support
the impact of perceived organizational culture on employees’ job attitudes in the public
organization context, an area where there has been a relative lack of empirical research.
In addition, our findings suggest a need for managers and those developing organizational policies for public organizations to look more closely at whether managerial
practices aligned with values associated with NPM fit well into public organizations
where traditional values are still appreciated.
Civil Servants’ Perceived Organizational Culture & Job Attitudes 171
Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to Professor Sue R. Faerman for her invaluable advice and
critical comments on an earlier draft and to Dr. Geunpil Ryu for his help on data collection for this study.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Funding This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National
Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2015S1A3A2046562).
References
Agho, A. O., Mueller, C. W., & Price, J. L. (1993). Determinants of employee job satisfaction: an empirical
test of a causal model. Human Relations, 46(8), 1007–1027. doi:10.1177/001872679304600806.
Ajzen, I. (2006). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned
behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative
commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18. doi:10.1111/j.2044-
8325.1990.tb00506.x.
Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding organizational culture. London: Sage.
Anderson, N., Ones, D., Sinangil, H. K., & Viswesvaran, C. (2001). Handbook of industrial, work &
organizational psychology (Vol. 1 & 2). CA: Sage.
Arsenault, P., & Faerman, S. R. (2014). Embracing paradox in management: the value of the competing values
framework. Organization Management Journal, 11(3), 147–158.
Bowling, N. A. (2007). Is the job satisfaction-job performance relationship spurious? A meta-analytic
examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71(2), 167–185. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.04.007.
Boxx, W. R., Odom, R. Y., & Dunn, M. G. (1991). Organizational values and value congruency and their
impact on satisfaction, commitment, and cohesion: an empirical examination within the public sector.
Public Personnel Management, 20(2), 195–205. doi:10.1177/009102609102000207.
Braunscheidel, M. J., Suresh, N. C., & Boisnier, A. D. (2010). Investigating the impact of organizational culture
on supply chain integration. Human Resource Management, 49(5), 883–911. doi:10.1002/hrm.20381.
Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: the socialization of managers in work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(4), 533–546.
Cameron, K. S., & Freeman, S. J. (1991). Cultural congruence, strength, and type: relationships to effectiveness. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5, 23–58.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: based on the
competing value framework (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cameron, K. S., Quinn, R. E., DeGraff, J., & Thakor, A. V. (2007). Competing values leadership: creating
value in organizations. MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Carmeli, A. (2005). Perceived external prestige, affective commitment, and citizenship behaviors.
Organization Studies, 26(3), 443–464. doi:10.1177/0170840605050875.
Clugston, M. (2000). The mediating effects of multidimensional commitment on job satisfaction and intent to leave.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(4), 477–486. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200006)21:4<477::AIDJOB25>3.0.CO;2-7.
Cole, M. S., & Bruch, H. (2006). Organizational identity strength, identification, and commitment and their
relationships to turnover intention: does organizational hierarchy matter? Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 27(5), 585–605.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.
doi:10.1007/BF02310555.
Cronbach, L. J., & Shavelson, R. J. (2004). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(3), 391–418. doi:10.1177/0013164404266386.
Eby, L. T., & Dobbins, G. H. (1997). Collective orientation in teams: an individual and group-level analysis.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 275–295. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199705)18:3<275
::AID-JOB796>3.0.CO;2-C.
172 Kim J.S., Han S.-H.
Farh, J. L., Hackett, R., & Liang, J. (2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived
organizational support-employee outcome relationships in China: comparing the effects of power distance
and Traditionality. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 715–729.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement
error: algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388. doi:10.2307/3150980.
Gaertner, S. (1999). Structural determinants of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in turnover
models. Human Resource Management Review, 9(4), 479–493. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00030-3.
Gall, M. (2003). Educational research: an introduction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Goodman, E. A., Zammuto, R. F., & Gifford, B. D. (2001). The competing values framework: understanding
the impact of organizational culture on the quality of work life. Organization Development Journal, 19(3),
58–68.
Goulet, L. R., & Frank, M. L. (2002). Organizational commitment across three sectors: public, non-profit, and
for-profit. Public Personnel Management, 31(2), 201–210. doi:10.1177/009102600203100206.
Gregory, B. T., Harris, S. G., Armenakis, A. A., & Shook, C. L. (2009). Organizational culture and
effectiveness: a study of values, attitudes, and organizational outcomes. Journal of Business Research,
62(7), 673–679. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.021.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 60(2), 159–170. doi:10.1037/h0076546.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Harris, K. J., Wheeler, A. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (2009). Leader-member exchange and empowerment: direct
and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance. The Leadership
Quarterly, 20(3), 371–382. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.006.
Harrow, J., & Willcocks, L. (1990). Public services management: activities, initiatives and limits to learning.
Journal of Management Studies, 27(3), 281–304. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1990.tb00248.
Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Angelo, K. (2011). Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: a
meta-analytic investigation of the competing values Framework’s theoretical suppositions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 96(4), 677–694. doi:10.1037/a0021987.
Helfrich, C. D., Li, Y. F., Mohr, D. C., Meterko, M., & Sales, A. E. (2007). Assessing an organizational culture
instrument based on the competing values framework: exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.
Implementation Science, 2(1), 13–26. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-2-13.
Howard, L. W. (1998). Validating the competing values model as a representation of organizational cultures.
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 6(3), 231–253.
Huang, T., & Hsiao, W. (2007). The causal relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Social Behavior and Personality, 35(9), 1265–1276. doi:10.1108/eb028886.
Ivancevich, J. M., Konopaske, R., & Matteson, M. T. (2007). Organizational behavior and management.
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Jackson, T. (2002). The Management of People across cultures: valuing people differently. Human Resource
Management, 41(4), 455–475. doi:10.1002/hrm.10054.
Judge, T. A., Thoreson, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance
relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376–407. doi:10.1037
/0033-2909.127.3.376.
Kaplan, D. W. (2008). Structural equation modeling: foundations and extensions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kim, H. (2014). Transformational leadership, organizational clan culture, organizational affective commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior: a case of South Korea’s public sector. Public Organization
Review, 14(3), 397–417. doi:10.1007/s11115-013-0225-z.
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. NY: Guilford Press.
Kopelman, R. E., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1990). The role of climate and culture in productivity. In B.
Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Latham, G. P. (2007). Work motivation: history, theory, research, and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (2001). Antecedents of organizational commitment and the mediating role of job
satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(8), 594–613. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000006302.
Lund, D. B. (2003). Organizational culture and job satisfaction. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
18(3), 219–236. doi:10.1108/0885862031047313.
Markovits, Y., Davis, A. J., Fay, D., & van Dick, R. (2010). The link between job satisfaction and
organizational commitment: differences between public and private sector employees. International
Public Management Journal, 13(2), 177–196. doi:10.1080/10967491003756682.
Civil Servants’ Perceived Organizational Culture & Job Attitudes 173
Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: three perspectives. Oxford University Press.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment.
Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. doi:10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: theory, research, and application. CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations (Extension
and test of a three-component conceptualization). Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538–551.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.538.
Meyer, J. P., Hecht, T. D., Gill, H., & Toplonytsky, L. (2010). Person–organization (culture) fit and employee
commitment under conditions of organizational change: a longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 76(3), 458–473.
Min, J. (2008). A case study on the reorganization of Korean central government, Lee Administration,
February 2008. Journal of Korean Organizational Studies, 5(2), 267–292.
Mohr, D. C., Young, G. J., & Burgess Jr., J. F. (2012). Employee turnover and operational performance: the
moderating effect of group-oriented organisational culture. Human Resource Management Journal, 22(2),
216–233.
Moon, M. J. (2000). Organizational commitment revisited in new public management: motivation, organizational culture, sector, and managerial level. Public Performance and Management Review, 24(2), 177–
194. doi:10.2307/3381267.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: the psychology of
commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. Academic Press.
Mueller, C. W., & Lawler, E. J. (1999). Commitment to nested organizational units: some basic principles and
preliminary findings. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62(4), 325–346. doi:10.2307/2695832.
Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, K. L., & Yim, F. H. K. (2009). Does the job satisfaction-job performance relationship
vary across cultures? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40(5), 761–796.
O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., & Griffin, R. W. (1995). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In N. Brewer
and C. Wilson (eds.). Psychology and Policing, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Odom, R. Y., Boxx, W. R., & Dunn, M. G. (1990). Organizational cultures, commitment, satisfaction, and
cohesion. Public Productivity and Management Review, 14(2), 157–169. doi:10.2307/3380963.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: how the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the
public sector. Addison-Wesley.
Palthe, J., & Kossek, E. E. (2003). Sub-cultures and employment modes: translating HR strategy into practice.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(3), 287–309. doi:10.1108/09534810310475532.
Parker, R., & Bradley, L. (2000). Organisational culture in the public sector: evidence from six Organisations.
International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(2), 125–141. doi:10.1108/09513550010338773.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: explanation and prediction. Orlando:
Harcourt Brace.
Perryer, C., & Jordan, C. (2005). The influence of leader behaviors on organizational commitment: a study in
the Australian public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 28(5), 379–396. doi:10.1081
/PAD-200055193.
Peters, T., & Waterman, R, H. (1982). In search of excellence, New York: Harper and Row.
Powell, D. M., & Meyer, J. P. (2004). Side-bet theory and the three-component model of organizational
commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 157–177. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00050-2.
Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1981). A competing values approach to organizational effectiveness. Public
Productivity Review, 5(2), 122–140. doi:10.2307/3380029.
Rainey, H. G. (2009). Understanding and managing public organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. The Academy of
Management Review, 10(3), 465–476.
Riketta, M. (2008). The causal relation between job attitudes and performance: a meta-analysis of panel
studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 472–481. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.472.
Robert, C., & Wasti, S. A. (2002). Organizational individualism and collectivism: theoretical development and an
empirical test of a measure. Journal of Management, 28(4), 544–566. doi:10.1177/014920630202800404.
Saari, L. M., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human Resource Management,
43(4), 395–407. doi:10.1002/hrm.20032.
Schein, E. H. (1981). Does Japanese management style have a message for American managers? Sloan
Management Review, 21(1), 55–68.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational Culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109–119. doi:10.1037/0003-066
X.45.2.109.
Schein, E. H. (1991). What is culture? In P. Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis, C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.),
Reframing organizational culture. Newbury Park: Sage.
174 Kim J.S., Han S.-H.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Siegel, P. A., Post, C., Brockner, J., Fishman, A. Y., & Garden, C. (2005). The moderating influence of
procedural fairness on the relationship between work-life conflict and organizational commitment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 13–24. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.13.
Silverthorne, C. (2004). The impact of organizational culture and person-organization fit on organizational
commitment and job satisfaction in Taiwan. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 25(7),
592–599. doi:10.1108/01437730410561477.
Stinglhamber, F., & Vandenberghe, C. (2003). Organizations and supervisors as sources of support and targets of
commitment: a longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(3), 251–270. doi:10.1002/job.192.
Sturges, J., Conway, N., Guest, D., & Liefooghe, A. (2005). Managing the career deal: the psychological
contract as a framework for understanding career management, organizational commitment and work
behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 821–838. doi:10.1002/job.341.
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and
turnover: path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46(2), 259–293.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00874.x.
Trevor, C. O. (2001). Interactions among actual ease-of-movement determinants and job satisfaction in the
prediction of voluntary turnover. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 621–638. doi:10.2307
/3069407.
Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill Press.
Trice, H., & Beyer, J. (1992). The culture of work organizations. NJ: Simon & Schuster.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (1992). Examining the causal order of job satisfaction and organizational
commitment. Journal of Management, 18(1), 153–167. doi:10.1177/014920639201800110.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Scarpello, V. (1990). The matching model: an examination of the processes underlying
realistic job previews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 60–67.
Wallace, J. E. (1995). Organizational and professional commitment in professional and nonprofessional
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 228–255. doi:10.2307/2393637.
Wallach, E. J. (1983). Individuals and organizations: the cultural match. Training and Development Journal,
37(2), 28–36.
Williams, L. J., & Hazer, J. T. (1986). Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction and commitment in
turnover models: a reanalysis using latent variable structural equation methods. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71(2), 219–231. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.2.219.
Wright, B. E., & Davis, B. S. (2003). Job satisfaction in the public sector. The American Review of Public
Administration, 33(1), 70–90. doi:10.1177/0275074002250254.
Ji Sung Kim is a research professor at the Institute for Governmental Studies of Korea University. She earned
her doctoral degree in public administration at the Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Public Policy,
University at Albany, State University of New York. Her research interests include organizational culture,
employees’ job attitudes, employees’ work-life balance, gender governance, and qualitative methods in public
administration.
Seung-hyun (Caleb) Han is an assistant professor of Human Resources and Organization Development at the
University of Georgia. Dr. Han received his doctoral degree in Human Resource Development from the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His research interests are knowledge sharing process, knowledge
management systems and learning organization.
Civil Servants’ Perceived Organizational Culture & Job Attitudes 175


Get Professional Assignment Help Cheaply

Buy Custom Essay

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
New Public Management Reform in South Korea
Just from $9/Page
Order Essay

Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?

Whichever your reason is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.

Why Choose Our Academic Writing Service?

  • Plagiarism free papers
  • Timely delivery
  • Any deadline
  • Skilled, Experienced Native English Writers
  • Subject-relevant academic writer
  • Adherence to paper instructions
  • Ability to tackle bulk assignments
  • Reasonable prices
  • 24/7 Customer Support
  • Get superb grades consistently

Online Academic Help With Different Subjects

Literature

Students barely have time to read. We got you! Have your literature essay or book review written without having the hassle of reading the book. You can get your literature paper custom-written for you by our literature specialists.

Finance

Do you struggle with finance? No need to torture yourself if finance is not your cup of tea. You can order your finance paper from our academic writing service and get 100% original work from competent finance experts.

Computer science

Computer science is a tough subject. Fortunately, our computer science experts are up to the match. No need to stress and have sleepless nights. Our academic writers will tackle all your computer science assignments and deliver them on time. Let us handle all your python, java, ruby, JavaScript, php , C+ assignments!

Psychology

While psychology may be an interesting subject, you may lack sufficient time to handle your assignments. Don’t despair; by using our academic writing service, you can be assured of perfect grades. Moreover, your grades will be consistent.

Engineering

Engineering is quite a demanding subject. Students face a lot of pressure and barely have enough time to do what they love to do. Our academic writing service got you covered! Our engineering specialists follow the paper instructions and ensure timely delivery of the paper.

Nursing

In the nursing course, you may have difficulties with literature reviews, annotated bibliographies, critical essays, and other assignments. Our nursing assignment writers will offer you professional nursing paper help at low prices.

Sociology

Truth be told, sociology papers can be quite exhausting. Our academic writing service relieves you of fatigue, pressure, and stress. You can relax and have peace of mind as our academic writers handle your sociology assignment.

Business

We take pride in having some of the best business writers in the industry. Our business writers have a lot of experience in the field. They are reliable, and you can be assured of a high-grade paper. They are able to handle business papers of any subject, length, deadline, and difficulty!

Statistics

We boast of having some of the most experienced statistics experts in the industry. Our statistics experts have diverse skills, expertise, and knowledge to handle any kind of assignment. They have access to all kinds of software to get your assignment done.

Law

Writing a law essay may prove to be an insurmountable obstacle, especially when you need to know the peculiarities of the legislative framework. Take advantage of our top-notch law specialists and get superb grades and 100% satisfaction.

What discipline/subjects do you deal in?

We have highlighted some of the most popular subjects we handle above. Those are just a tip of the iceberg. We deal in all academic disciplines since our writers are as diverse. They have been drawn from across all disciplines, and orders are assigned to those writers believed to be the best in the field. In a nutshell, there is no task we cannot handle; all you need to do is place your order with us. As long as your instructions are clear, just trust we shall deliver irrespective of the discipline.

Are your writers competent enough to handle my paper?

Our essay writers are graduates with bachelor's, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college degree. All our academic writers have a minimum of two years of academic writing. We have a stringent recruitment process to ensure that we get only the most competent essay writers in the industry. We also ensure that the writers are handsomely compensated for their value. The majority of our writers are native English speakers. As such, the fluency of language and grammar is impeccable.

What if I don’t like the paper?

There is a very low likelihood that you won’t like the paper.

Reasons being:

  • When assigning your order, we match the paper’s discipline with the writer’s field/specialization. Since all our writers are graduates, we match the paper’s subject with the field the writer studied. For instance, if it’s a nursing paper, only a nursing graduate and writer will handle it. Furthermore, all our writers have academic writing experience and top-notch research skills.
  • We have a quality assurance that reviews the paper before it gets to you. As such, we ensure that you get a paper that meets the required standard and will most definitely make the grade.

In the event that you don’t like your paper:

  • The writer will revise the paper up to your pleasing. You have unlimited revisions. You simply need to highlight what specifically you don’t like about the paper, and the writer will make the amendments. The paper will be revised until you are satisfied. Revisions are free of charge
  • We will have a different writer write the paper from scratch.
  • Last resort, if the above does not work, we will refund your money.

Will the professor find out I didn’t write the paper myself?

Not at all. All papers are written from scratch. There is no way your tutor or instructor will realize that you did not write the paper yourself. In fact, we recommend using our assignment help services for consistent results.

What if the paper is plagiarized?

We check all papers for plagiarism before we submit them. We use powerful plagiarism checking software such as SafeAssign, LopesWrite, and Turnitin. We also upload the plagiarism report so that you can review it. We understand that plagiarism is academic suicide. We would not take the risk of submitting plagiarized work and jeopardize your academic journey. Furthermore, we do not sell or use prewritten papers, and each paper is written from scratch.

When will I get my paper?

You determine when you get the paper by setting the deadline when placing the order. All papers are delivered within the deadline. We are well aware that we operate in a time-sensitive industry. As such, we have laid out strategies to ensure that the client receives the paper on time and they never miss the deadline. We understand that papers that are submitted late have some points deducted. We do not want you to miss any points due to late submission. We work on beating deadlines by huge margins in order to ensure that you have ample time to review the paper before you submit it.

Will anyone find out that I used your services?

We have a privacy and confidentiality policy that guides our work. We NEVER share any customer information with third parties. Noone will ever know that you used our assignment help services. It’s only between you and us. We are bound by our policies to protect the customer’s identity and information. All your information, such as your names, phone number, email, order information, and so on, are protected. We have robust security systems that ensure that your data is protected. Hacking our systems is close to impossible, and it has never happened.

How our Assignment Help Service Works

1. Place an order

You fill all the paper instructions in the order form. Make sure you include all the helpful materials so that our academic writers can deliver the perfect paper. It will also help to eliminate unnecessary revisions.

2. Pay for the order

Proceed to pay for the paper so that it can be assigned to one of our expert academic writers. The paper subject is matched with the writer’s area of specialization.

3. Track the progress

You communicate with the writer and know about the progress of the paper. The client can ask the writer for drafts of the paper. The client can upload extra material and include additional instructions from the lecturer. Receive a paper.

4. Download the paper

The paper is sent to your email and uploaded to your personal account. You also get a plagiarism report attached to your paper.

smile and order essay GET A PERFECT SCORE!!! smile and order essay Buy Custom Essay


Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more
error: Content is protected !!
Open chat
1
Need assignment help? You can contact our live agent via WhatsApp using +1 718 717 2861

Feel free to ask questions, clarifications, or discounts available when placing an order.
  +1 718 717 2861           + 44 161 818 7126           [email protected]
  +1 718 717 2861         [email protected]