Intrinsic Motivation 1

Running head: Intrinsic Motivation

THE IMPACTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING CULTURE AND PROACTIVE

PERSONALITY ON ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AND INTRINSIC
MOTIVATION: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF PERCEIVED JOB COMPLEXITY

BAEK-KYOO (BRIAN) JOO

Winona State University
P.O. Box 5838
Winona, MN 55987
Tel: (507) 457-5191
Email: bjoo@winona.edu

TAEJO LIM
Samsung HRD Center
Yongin, Gyunggi-do, Korea
Email: levulim.lim@samsung.com

Author Note: This paper is submitted for a conference proceeding of 2008 Midwest Academy of
Management Conference. The correspondence should be directed to the first author. This
manuscript has not been presented or published elsewhere at the time it is submitted.

Intrinsic Motivation 2

THE IMPACTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING CULTURE AND PROACTIVE

PERSONALITY ON ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AND INTRINSIC
MOTIVATION: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF PERCEIVED JOB COMPLEXITY
This paper investigates the impact of personal characteristics (proactive personality)
and contextual characteristics (organizational learning culture and job complexity) on
employees intrinsic motivation and organizational commitment. The results suggest
that employees exhibited the highest organizational commitment, when the
organization had a higher learning culture. Employees were more intrinsically
motivated, when they showed higher proactive personality. The perception of their
job complexity partially mediated the relationships between the antecedents (i.e.,
organizational learning culture and proactive personality) and the consequences (i.e.,
organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation).
Key words: Organizational Commitment, Organizational Learning, Leader-Member Exchange
The impact of organizational commitment on individual performance and organizational
effectiveness has prompted much interest among researchers (Allen & Meyer, 1996; Beck &
Wilson, 2000; Mowday, 1998). Organizational commitment refers to an individuals feelings
about the organization as a whole. It is the psychological bond that an employee has with an
organization and has been found to be related to goal and value congruence, behavioral
investments in the organization, and likelihood to stay with the organization (Mowday, Steers, &
Porter, 1982). It has become more important than ever in understanding employee work-related
behavior because it is identified as more stable and less subject to daily fluctuations than job
satisfaction (Angle & Perry, 1983; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1982). While the antecedents of
organizational commitment include organizational characteristics, personal characteristics,
group/leader relations, and job characteristics, the consequences of organizational commitment
are the job performance variables including intention to leave, turnover, and output measure
(Mathieu & Zajac, 1990).
People are more productive and creative, when they are motivated primarily by the passion,
interest, enjoyment, satisfaction, and challenge of the work itselfnot by external pressures or
rewards (Amabile, 1996; Amabile & Kramer, 2007). A necessary component of intrinsic
motivation is the individuals orientation or level of enthusiasm for the activity (Amabile, 1988).
While motivational orientation may be partially shaped by the environment (i.e., organizational,
social, job characteristics) (Amabile, 1983), there is also evidence suggesting a stable, trait-like
nature (e.g., Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994). Thus, intrinsic motivation encompasses
both contextual and personal characteristics. Because intrinsic motivation affects an employees
decision to initiate and sustain creative effort over time (Amabile, 1988), intrinsic motivation has
been cited as one of the most prominent personal qualities for the enhancement of creativity
(Amabile, 1983, 1988, 1996).
Organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation are important constructs in human
resources (HR) and organization behavior (OB) field. Both constructs share the personal
characteristics and contextual characteristics for their antecedents. Moreover, they are two of the
most frequently used variables for satisfaction, performance, change, and innovation and
creativity. Although the consequences of organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation are

Intrinsic Motivation 3

not in the scope of this study, they ultimately influence on employee creativity, innovation, and
organizational performance and employee job/career satisfaction and turnover. While the extent
of research on intrinsic motivation and organizational commitment has increased during the past
two decades, little research has been conducted, focusing on the two topics simultaneously.
The purpose of this research is to investigate the impact of personal characteristics (i.e.,
proactive personality) and contextual characteristics (i.e., organizational learning culture and job
complexity) on intrinsic motivation and organizational commitment of employees. The
theoretical contributions of this study lie in its integrative approach encompassing both personal
and contextual factors. Another contribution is that it links organizational commitment research
with motivation research. This article is divided into four parts. The first part provides a
theoretical framework and hypotheses. Then, research methods including data collection and
measures are described. The next part summarizes the research findings, based on a confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation model (SEM) analysis. Finally, the implications,
limitations, and future research areas will be discussed.
Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
As a result of a comprehensive literature review, a set of constructs was selected: proactive
personality for personal characteristics and organizational learning culture and job complexity
for contextual characteristics. These constructs are considered necessary for influencing intrinsic
motivation and organizational commitment. The hypothesized model for this study is illustrated
in Figure 1.
--------------------------------------------Insert Figure 1 about here
--------------------------------------------Organizational Learning Culture
At the organizational level, organizational learning culture is one of the key contextual
components to enhance organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation. By definition, it
refers to an organization skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at
modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights (Garvin, 1993: 80). Watkins and
Marsicks (1997) framework for the learning organization served as another theoretical base for
this study. They identified seven action imperatives for a learning organization: (1) create
continuous learning opportunities; (2) promote inquiry and dialogue; (3) encourage collaboration
and team learning; (4) establish systems to capture and share learning; (5) empower people to
have a collective vision; (6) connect the organization to the environment, and (7) use leaders who
model and support learning at the individual, team, and organization levels. Thus, learning
organization involves an environment in which organizational learning is structured so that
teamwork, collaboration, creativity, and knowledge processes have a collective meaning and
value (Confessore & Kops, 1998).

Intrinsic Motivation 4

Proactive Personality
People are not always passive recipients of environmental constraints on their behavior;
rather, they can intentionally and directly change their current circumstances (Crant, 2000).
Bateman and Crant (1993) introduced proactive disposition as a construct that identifies
differences among people to the extent that they take action to influence their environments.
Proactive people are likely to be those who define their role more flexibly, with ownership of
longer term goals beyond their job (Parker et al., 2006). Proactive personality is defined as a
belief in ones ability to overcome constraints by situational forces and the ability to affect
changes in the environment (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Thus, proactive personality is a complex,
multiple-caused construct that has important personal and organizational consequences (Crant,
2000).
More specifically, Crant (2000: 436) described proactive behavior as taking initiative in
improving current circumstances or creating new one; it involves challenging the status quo
rather than passively adapting to present conditions. By definition, employees with a proactive
personality are predisposed to enact their environments. Proactive individuals look for
opportunities and act on them, show initiative, take action, and are persistent in successfully
implementing change (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Crant, 2000). Therefore, proactive behavior is
more crucial than ever because of the changing nature of work (Parker, 1998).
Perceived Job Complexity
Job design has long been considered to be an important contributor to employees
individual motivation, attitudes, and creative performance at work (Amabile, 1988; Hackman &
Oldham, 1980; Kanter, 1988; Shalley et al., 2004; West & Farr, 1989). The job characteristics
model consists of five factors: variety, identity, significance, autonomy, and feedback (Hackman
& Oldham, 1980; Oldham & Cummings, 1996). As Drucker (1988) put it, organizations are
shifting to the information-based organization, or self-governing units of knowledge specialists.
Complex jobs demand creative outcomes by encouraging employees to focus simultaneously on
multiple dimensions of their work, whereas highly simple or routine jobs may inhibit such a
focus (Oldham & Cummings, 1996). When jobs are complex and challenging, individuals are
likely to be excited about their work activities and interested in completing these activities in the
absence of external controls or constraints (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Oldham & Cummings,
1996; Shalley & Gibson, 2004).
Organizational learning culture Perceived job complexity. Job design will vary
depending on organizational environment, business domain or industry, and job function. In this
increasingly competitive environment in which frequent changes in technologies, markets,
government regulations and customers give rise to turbulence and unpredictability (Unsworth &
Parker, 2003, p. 175), organizational learning culture can significantly influence core job
characteristics in many ways. As Drucker (1988) put it, organizations are shifting to informationbased organizations, or self-governing units of knowledge specialists. Jobs not only in service
and knowledge work, but also in manufacturing are becoming more knowledge-oriented,
highlighting the importance of cognitive characteristics of work (Parker, Wall, & Cordery,
2001). By definition, knowledge work is unpredictable, multidisciplinary, and non-repetitive
tasks with evolving, long-term goals which, due to their inherent ambiguity and complexity,

Intrinsic Motivation 5

require collaborative effort in order to take advantage of multiple viewpoints (Janz, Colquitt, &
Noe, 1997, pp. 882-883).
Enriched forms of job design are most appropriate where uncertainty is high (Parker et al.,
2001), because autonomy has been identified to be salient for knowledge workers. It is likely that
an increasingly uncertain environment requires an organizational learning culture and that
knowledge workers prefer complex jobs (i.e., broadly defined jobs) to simple and routine work
(i.e., narrowly defined jobs) (Parker et al., 2001). In jobs that require high levels of knowledge
and creativity, job occupants work attitudes (i.e., the perception of job complexity) may vary
directly with the level of organizational learning culture. That is, attitudes should be more
favorable when environmental characteristics such as organizational learning culture
complement the knowledge and creativity requirements of the work (Marsick & Watkins, 2003;
Shalley, Gibson, & Blum, 2000).
Hypothesis 1: Organizational learning culture will be positively related to perceived job
complexity.
Proactive personality Perceived job complexity. Research has shown that positively
disposed individuals rate characteristics of the task or the job as more enriched than do less
positively disposed individuals (Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000). Researchers have also argued that
narrow role orientations can impair performance (Karasek & Theorell, 1990; Parker et al., 1997).
For example, Klein (1976) found that Tayloristic job design can result in people having narrower
role orientations in which they are not interested in only their immediate job, which ultimately
stifles innovation (Parker et al., 2006). When employees are higher in proactive personality, they
were likely to perceive higher job complexity. That is, proactive people tend to rate job
characteristics as more enriched than do less positively disposed individuals (Brief, Butcher, &
Roberson, 1995; James & Jones, 1980; Judge et al., 1998; Judge et al., 2000; Kraiger, Billings, &
Isen, 1989; Necowitz & Roznowski, 1994; Parker et al., 2006).
Hypothesis 2: Proactive personality will be positively related to perceived job
characteristics.
Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment refers to an individuals feelings about the organization as a
whole. It is the psychological bond that an employee has with an organization and has been
found to be related to goal and value congruence, behavioral investments in the organization, and
likelihood to stay with the organization (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1982). Organizational
commitment is conceptualized as an affective response that results from an evaluation of the
work situation that links the individual to the organization. As Mowday et al. (1982) stated,
organizational commitment is the strength of an individuals identification with and
involvement in an organization (p. 27). It is the process by which the goals of the organization
and those of the individual become increasingly integrated or congruent (Hall, Schneider, &
Nygren, 1970).
Meyer and Allen (1966) have termed the three components as affective commitment,
continuance commitment, and normative commitment. Mowday et al. (1982) also identified
three characteristics of organizational commitment: (a) a strong belief in and acceptance of the
organizations goals and values; (b) a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the
organization; and (c) a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization. Therefore,

Intrinsic Motivation 6

organizational commitment not only indicates an affective bond between the individual and the
organization but also willingness to stay with the organization. This study focuses on affective
organizational commitment. To be more specific for this study, the affective component of
organizational commitment is defined as the employees emotional attachment to, identification
with, and involvement in the organization. Employees with a strong affective commitment
continue employment with the organization because they want to do so (Meyer & Allen, 1991,
p. 67).
Organizational learning culture Organizational commitment. While the possible close
link between organizational learning culture and organizational commitment has been much said,
little identified study has yet investigated the relationship between the two constructs.
Organizational characteristics can enhance organizational commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990).
Lim (2003) also reported that there were moderate but significant correlations between affective
organizational commitment and sub-constructs of organizational learning, ranging from .31
to .51. Thus, it is likely that the more employees perceive that an organization provides
continuous learning, dialogue and inquiry, team learning, established system, empowerment,
system connection, and strategic leadership, the higher they are psychologically attached to their
organization.
Hypothesis 3: Organizational learning culture will be positively related to organizational
commitment.
Perceived job complexity Organizational commitment. A meta-analysis by Mathieu and
Zajac (1990) found that job characteristics and job satisfaction can enhance organizational
commitment, which, in turn, affects the job performance variables (e.g., intention to leave,
turnover, and output measure). In general, productivity, commitment, and collegiality also
increased, when people held positive perceptions about their work context. People were more
productive, committed, and collegial when they were more motivated especially by the
satisfactions of the work itself (Amabile & Kramer, 2007). In particular, task autonomy has been
identified to impact employees organizational commitment (Dunham et al., 1994).
Hypothesis 4: Perceived job complexity will be positively related to organizational
commitment.
Intrinsic Motivation
Intrinsic motivation is defined as any motivation that arises from the individuals positive
reaction to qualities of the task itself; this reaction can be experienced as interest, involvement,
curiosity, satisfaction, or positive challenge (Amabile, 1996, p.115). A necessary component of
intrinsic motivation is the individuals orientation or level of enthusiasm for the activity
(Amabile, 1988). A number of studies on individual creativity have focused on the importance of
intrinsic motivation (i.e., feelings of competence and self-determination on a given task) for
creativity (Amabile, 1988, 1996; Shalley, 1991; Shalley & Oldham, 1997). Regarding how
peoples perceptions of their work context affected creativity, people were more creative when
people saw their organizations as collaborative, cooperative, open to new ideas, able to evaluated
and develop new ideas fairly, clearly focused on an innovative vision, and willing to reward
creative work (Amabile & Kramer, 2007, p. 80).
Perceived job complexity Intrinsic motivation. It has been suggested that the way jobs
are structured contributes to employees intrinsic motivation and creative performance at work

Intrinsic Motivation 7

(e.g., Amabile, 1988). In particular, jobs that are designed to be complex and demanding (high
on autonomy and complexity) are expected to foster higher levels of intrinsic motivation than
will relatively simple, routine jobs (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Complex jobs are those that
provide job incumbents with independence, opportunity to use a variety of skills, information
about their performance, and chance to complete an entire and significant piece of work (Baer,
Oldham, & Cummings, 2003). Task-based intrinsic motivation, which is performing a task for its
own sake because of enjoyment and interest in the task (i.e., flow), leads to being highly engaged
in the task, which helps to spur creative behaviors rather than relying on habitual responses
(Amabile, 1996; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Parker et al., 2001). Thus, when individuals are
intrinsically involved in their work, all of their attention and effort is focused on their jobs,
making them more persistent and more likely to consider different alternatives, which should
lead to higher levels of creativity (Shalley et al., 2000).
Hypothesis 5: Perceived job complexity will be positively related to intrinsic motivation.
Proactive personality Intrinsic motivation. While motivational orientation may be
partially shaped by the environment (i.e., organizational, social, job characteristics) (Amabile,
1983), there is also evidence suggesting a stable, trait-like nature (e.g., Amabile, Hill,
Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994). While there is an increasing research on proactivity and intrinsic
motivation, no study that examined the relationship between proactive personality and intrinsic
motivation has been found. As the two constructs have much commonality, a strong positive
relationship is expected. This study would be a starting point for the research between them in
the future.
Hypothesis 6: Proactive personality will be positively related to intrinsic motivation.
In summary, the conceptual model represents only an attempt to portray the relationships
among the factors related to organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation. It is far from
exhaustive. One contribution of this model is its integration of useful theory and research from
related literatures, such as organizational learning, personality, job design, organizational
commitment, and motivation.
Methods
Sample and data collection procedure will be described. Then, the information about four
measures will be elaborated below. Finally, the analytical strategy will be briefly discussed.
Sample and Data Collection Procedure
Four Fortune Global 500 companies participated in this study, representing diverse
industries: manufacturing, finance, construction, and trading. A convenience sampling approach
was used to insure representation within each of the demographic characteristics of importance
to this study (i.e., hierarchical level, job type, and length of LMX). A self-administered Internetbased online survey was used to obtain individual perceptions. Of the approximately 500
employees contacted by face-to-face, responses were received from 283 employees (Response
rate: 57%).
The demographic variables included: (a) gender, (b) age, (c) education level, (d)
hierarchical level, (e) the type of job, and (f) the length of a leader-follower relationship. Most
respondents were male (88%) in their 30s (95%) in manager or assistant manager position

Intrinsic Motivation 8

(98%). In terms of educational level, 44% of the respondents graduated from 4 year college, and
35% from graduate school. The length of the relationships with current supervisor was evenly
distributed across the categories: less than one year (21%), between one year to two years (23%),
between two to three years (16%), between three to five years (20%), and over five years (20%).
Classification by job types were as follows: 8% in marketing and sales, 13% in production, 9%
in engineering, 36% in research and development, 18% in information technology, 6% in
supporting function such as finance, HR, and legal, and 10% in others. In summary, most
respondents were highly educated male managers or assistant managers in their 30s.
Measures
All constructs used multi-item scales that have been developed and used in the Unites
States. The instruments were prepared for use in Korea using appropriate translation-backtranslation procedures. We used the survey questionnaire with a 5-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Organizational learning culture. To measure the organizational learning culture, as
suggested by Yang (2003) and Marsick and Watkins (2003), this study used seven items (i.e.,
OLC-15, 16, 10, 11, 15, 13, and 14) from Yang, Watkins, and Marsicks (2004) shortened
version of the dimensions of learning organization questionnaire (DLOQ), originally developed
by Watkins and Marsick (1997). The seven items represent each sub-construct (i.e., continuous
learning, dialogue and inquiry, team learning, empowerment, embedded system, system
connection, and strategic leadership). In effect, this treats organizational learning culture as a
single (uni-dimensional) construct. Coefficient alphas for the seven dimensions ranged from .68
to .83 (Yang et al., 2004). The reliability of seven items was .83 in this study. A sample item
included: In my organization, whenever people state their view, they also ask what others
think.
Proactive personality. The self-report measure of proactivity was a 10-item scale of the
proactivity personality survey (PPS) (Siebert et al., 1999), a shortened version of the instrument
originally developed by Bateman and Crant (1993). The correlation between the original full 17item scale and the shortened 10-item scale was .96. The reliability coefficient of the 10-item
scale was .86, which was similar to that of the full version (.88) (Siebert et al., 1993). The
internal consistency reliability was .85 in this study. A sample item was: I excel at identifying
opportunities.
Perceived job complexity. Six items from the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) (Hackman &
Oldham, 1980) were used to assess the challenges and complexity of employees jobs. Originally,
this instrument is composed of 15 items: three items for each of the five job characteristics (skill
variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback). The median alpha of the job
characteristics measures in Oldham and Cummings (1996) study was .68. Researchers in
previous studies argued that the sub-constructs of job characteristics are not independent of one
another (Dunham, 1976; Kulik, Oldham & Langner, 1988; Pierce & Dunham, 1978). In this
study, therefore, we used only six items: task significance (3 items) and autonomy (3 items).
Task significance and autonomy are considered to be more appropriate for measuring job
complexity. The internal consistency reliability was .80 in this study. A sample item included,
the job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do the work.

Intrinsic Motivation 9

Organizational commitment. Of the three characteristics of organizational commitment

(i.e., affective, continuance, and normative commitment), in this study, we used affective
organizational commitment, which was measured with the 8-item affective commitment scale
(Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993). Allen and Meyer (1996) reported that the median reliability of
many research was .85. In this study, the internal consistency reliability was .90. A sample item
was, I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization.
Intrinsic motivation. Tierney, Farmer, & Graen (1999) developed a 5-item measure for
employee intrinsic motivation, based on the work of Amabile (e.g., 1985). Items targeted
enjoyment for activities related to generating new ideas and activities. Whereas Tierney et al.,
reported that the internal consistency reliability was .74, it was .84 in this study. A sample item
was I enjoy coming up with new ideas for products.
Results
The results of the study are reported in four parts. First, the construct validity of each
measurement model is examined by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Second, the descriptive
statistics, correlations, and reliabilities of the reduced measurement model for the structural
model analyses are reported. Third, the hypothesized structural model is tested in comparison
with several alternative structural models. The best model is selected, based on both theoretical
considerations and a comparison of statistical indices. Finally, the results of the hypothesis
testing are addressed. All model tests (i.e., CFA and SEM) were based on the covariance matrix
and used maximum likelihood estimation as implemented in LISREL 8 (Joreskog & Sorbom,
1993).
Measurement Model Assessment
The purpose of assessing a models overall fit is to determine the degree to which the
model as a whole is consistent with the empirical data (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2000). CFA
was used to estimate convergent and discriminate validity of indicators of the five constructs:
organizational learning culture, proactive personality, perceived job complexity, organizational
commitment, and intrinsic motivation.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to estimate the quality of the factor
structure and designated factor loadings by statistically testing the fit between a proposed
measurement model and the data (Yang, 2005). The purpose of assessing a models overall fit is
to determine the degree to which the model as a whole is consistent with the empirical data
(Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2000). As a result of CFA, the overall measurement model
indicated an acceptable fit to the data ( 2 [584] = 2222.87; p = .00; RMSEA = .093; NNFI = .89;
CFI = .90; SRMR = .070). Table 1 shows the factor loadings of an overall CFA. All of the factor
loadings were over .50.
--------------------------------------------Insert Table 1 about here
---------------------------------------------

Intrinsic Motivation 10

Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities

Table 2 presents the correlations among the five constructs and the reliabilities. All the
correlations indicated significant relationships (p < .01) among the constructs. Overall, most
correlations showed moderate and positive relationships among the five constructs. The
relationship between proactive personality and internal motivation was the highest (r = .70),
whereas the relationship between organizational learning culture and internal motivation was
comparatively weak (r = .27). All measures demonstrated adequate levels of reliability (.80 .90).
--------------------------------------------Insert Table 2 about here
--------------------------------------------Structural Model Assessment
The purpose of the structural model analysis is to determine whether the theoretical
relationships specified at the conceptualization stage are supported by the data (Diamantopoulos
& Siguaw, 2000). The adequacy of the structural model was estimated by comparing the
goodness-of-fit to the hypothesized model and the two additional nested models. The hypotheses
are examined through investigating the path coefficients and the total effect sizes of the
constructs in the final model.
Figure 1 illustrates the strengths of the relationships among the constructs, showing path
coefficients and overall model fit of the hypothesized structural model. The hypothesized model
indicated a good fit in all indices ( 2 [587] = 2226.09; p = .00; RMSEA = .093; NNFI = .89; CFI
= .90; SRMR = .075). All the paths among constructs were significant (t > 1.96). Overall, 44% of
the variance in organizational commitment was explained by organizational learning culture,
proactive personality, and perceived job complexity. About 54% of the variance in intrinsic
motivation was accounted for by organizational learning culture, proactive personality, and
perceived job complexity.
In addition, an alternative model was tested, excluding two direct paths: one from
organizational learning culture to organizational commitment and the other from proactive
personality to turnover intention (see Figure 2). While this alternative model exhibited a
marginally acceptable fit to the data ( 2 [589] = 2081.13; p = .00; RMSEA = .095; NNFI = .89;
CFI = .89; SRMR = .10), the percentages of the variances in the two variables were smaller than
those of hypothesized model (organizational commitment: 34%, intrinsic motivation: 32%).
--------------------------------------------Insert Figure 2 about here
---------------------------------------------

Intrinsic Motivation 11

In summary, the hypothesized model and the alternative model provided equivalent fits to
the data. Although the alternative model was better in terms of parsimony, the hypothesized
model was accepted as the final model, based on the consideration of the three criteria: (a)
goodness-of-fit, (b) estimated parameters with theoretical relationships, and (c) the law of
parsimony.
Hypotheses Testing
All the research hypotheses were supported, showing statistically significant path
coefficients (t < 1.96, p > .05). Organizational learning culture was found to be significantly
associated with perceived job complexity (H1: path coefficient = .21, t = 3.13) and
organizational commitment (H3: path coefficient = .38, t = 6.04). Proactive personality turned
out to be significantly related to job complexity (H2: path coefficient = .38, t = 5.44) and
intrinsic motivation (H5: path coefficient = .59, t = 8.72). Perceived job complexity was
significantly associated with organizational commitment (H4: path coefficient = .43, t = 6.34)
and intrinsic motivation (H6: path coefficient = .25, t = 3.99). Total indirect effects of
organizational learning culture and proactive personality on organizational commitment and
intrinsic motivation mediated by perceived job complexity were .25 and .15 respectively.
Discussion
The findings of this study are discussed on the basis of the hypothesized model, comparing with
previous research. Then, we will discuss the implications of this study for research and practice
in the field of HR/OB. In addition, the limitations of this study and recommendations for future
research are discussed. Finally, some conclusions are followed.
Findings of this Study
This study found that organizational learning culture, proactive personality, and perceived
job complexity contribute to organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation. More
specifically, employees exhibited the highest organizational commitment, when the organization
had a higher learning culture. Employees were more intrinsically motivated, when they showed
higher proactive personality. The perception of their job complexity partially mediated the
relationships between the antecedents (i.e., organizational learning culture and proactive
personality) and the consequences (i.e., organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation).
Overall, 44% of the variance in organizational commitment was explained by organizational
learning culture, proactive personality, and perceived job complexity. About 54% of the variance
in intrinsic motivation was accounted for by organizational learning culture, proactive
personality, and perceived job complexity.
Organizational learning culture. The more employees perceive that an organization
provides continuous learning, dialogue and inquiry, team learning, established system,
empowerment, system connection, and strategic leadership, the higher they are psychologically
attached to their organization. Moreover, when employees perceive that an organization provides
better organizational learning culture, they are more likely to realize job complexity, which, in
turn, affects organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation. An increasingly uncertain

Intrinsic Motivation 12

environment requires an organizational learning culture and knowledge workers prefer complex
jobs to simple and routine work (Parker et al., 2001). Organizational learning culture can
significantly influence job complexity in many ways. For instance, enriched forms of job design
are most appropriate where uncertainty is high (Parker et al., 2001), and autonomy has been
identified to be particularly salient for knowledge workers (Janz et al., 1997).
Proactive personality. This study replicated the results of the previous studies that when
employees have higher in proactive personality, they tended to be highly motivated intrinsically.
Employees with higher in proactive personality were likely to perceive higher job complexity.
That is, proactive people tend to rate job characteristics as more enriched than do less positively
disposed individuals (Brief, Butcher, & Roberson, 1995; James & Jones, 1980; Judge et al.,
1998; Judge et al., 2000; Kraiger, Billings, & Isen, 1989; Necowitz & Roznowski, 1994; Parker
et al., 2006). One of the new findings of this study is the strong and positive relationship between
proactive personality and intrinsic motivation. While there were a lot of similarities between the
two constructs, as a result of CFA, they found to be distinctive.
Perceived job complexity. In this study, perceived job complexity was significantly related
to organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation, playing a role as a mediator. When
employees perceived higher job complexity, more specifically, higher task significance and
autonomy, employees are more likely to conduct their work in active and creative ways. Results
of previous studies tend to be generally consistent with the above results (e.g., Amabile &
Gryskiewicz, 1989; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Hatcher et al., 1989; Farmer, Tierney, & KungMcIntyre, 2003; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Shalley et al., 2004; Parker et al., 2001). Complex
and demanding jobs are expected to foster higher levels of intrinsic motivation than will
relatively simple, routine jobs (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Shalley & Gibson, 2004). Thus, this
study confirmed the findings of the previous research.
Implications
Replicating previous research and examining new findings, this study takes the multilevel
efforts: organizational level (organizational learning culture) as well as job (job complexity) and
individual level (proactive personality). With regard to the theoretical contributions, this study
linked organizational learning, personality, job design, organizational commitment, and
motivation research. To be more specific, whereas the links between job design, organizational
commitment and motivation have been widely investigated, little research has explored the
antecedents such as organizational learning culture and proactive personality. The practical
implications for HR/OD professionals who develop relevant practices for the purpose of
enhancing organizational commitment and employee motivation are suggested below.
As long as the knowledge-based economy and the war for talent continue, more and more
firms will try to become employers of choice (Gubman, 2004). And firms that fail to secure a
loyal base of workers constantly place an inexperience group of non-cohesive units on the front
lines of their organization, much to their own detriment (Guthrie, 2001). In order effectively to
attract, motivate, and retain talented employees, many firms try to become employers of choice
defined as firms that are always the first choice of first-class candidates due to their status and
reputation in terms of corporate culture and HR practices (Sutherland, Torricelli, & Karg, 2002).
In other words, employers of choice are those organizations that outperform their competition in
attracting, developing, and retaining people with business-required talent. They achieve this

Intrinsic Motivation 13

reputation through innovative and compelling HR practices that benefit both employees and their
organizations. Thus, it is critically important to monitor employees job satisfaction, motivation,
and organizational commitment level. In this vein, periodical survey-feedback approach is highly
recommended. If fact, research has established a direct link between employee retention rates
and sales growth and companies that are cited as one of the 100 Best Companies to Work For
routinely outperform their competition on many other financial indicators of performance
(Fulmer, Gerhart, & Scott, 2003).
Managers and HR/OD professionals can support employees organizational commitment in
the organizational level as well as in job and individual level by developing, improving, and
delivering the relevant practices. HR/OD practitioners can support managers by providing
relevant HR practices and services: changing organizational culture, enhancing organizational
learning, developing transformative and supportive leadership, designing more challenging,
complex, autonomous jobs, and hiring and retaining proactive employees. However, changing
one factor alone (e.g., hiring proactive employees) will not help organizational commitment and
intrinsic motivation, if other factors are not in place (e.g., organizational learning culture).
Therefore, HR practices should not be implemented alone. Rather, each practice should be
delivered and applied in a concerted way and in a holistic perspective. In other words, enhancing
organizational commitment of employees will require an integrated strategy, incorporating
elements of culture management, organizational structure, job redesign, and leadership
development. This is by no means an easy feat, which is why organizations that are successful in
building this type of organization are likely to have a sustainable competitive advantage.
Limitations and Future Research
In terms of methodology, this study has several potential limitations. First, because this
study, like most creativity studies, relied on self-reported and or reflective recollection of the
indicators of the constructs in this study by employees who volunteered their participation.
Second, this empirical study confines itself to cross-sectional survey method, which leaves room
for speculation with regard to causality among the variables. In addition, the sample of this study,
consisting most of highly educated male managers, is likely restricted to a certain group with
similar demographic characteristics (e.g., male of relatively high cognitive ability).
To solve the limitations above, methodologically, future research needs to be based on
objective indicators and multiple sources. In addition, to increase generalizability of the present
study, more studies in various industries representing diverse demographic cohorts are needed.
More specifically, this study focused on knowledge workers with higher educational level. The
results might vary by the cohorts in different educational levels. More research in different
educational background is recommended.
Conclusion
A good workplace is believed to produce higher quality products, support more innovation,
have the ability to attract more talented people, and experience less resistance to change and
lower turnover costs, all of which translate directly into a better bottom line (Joo & McLean,
2006; Levering, 1996). Conversely, dissatisfied workers may be able to solve their problems by
leaving the job. Thus, it is imperative to improve organizational commitment and intrinsic

Intrinsic Motivation 14

motivation through positive organizational learning culture and job design. HR/OD professionals
can help their employees win the race of sustained competitive advantages.

Intrinsic Motivation 15

RERERENCES
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. 1996. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the
organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49(3),
252-276.
Amablie, T. M. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 10: 123-168.
Amabile, T. M. 1995. Discovering the unknowable, managing the unmanageable. In C. M. Ford
& D. A. Gioia (Eds.), Creative action in organizations: Ivory tower visions and real world
voices (pp. 77-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Amablie, T. M. 1996. Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Amabile, T. M., & Conti, R. 1999. Changes in the work environment for creativity during
downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 630-640.
Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N D. 1989. The creative environment scales: Work environment
inventory. Creativity Research Journal, 2: 231-252.
Amabile, T. M., & Kramer, S. J. 2007. Inner work life: Understanding the subtext of business
performance. Harvard Business Review, 85(5), 72-83.
Andrew, F M., & Farris, G. F. 1967. Supervisory practices and innovation in scientific teams.
Personnel Psychology, 20: 497-575.
Angle, H., & Perry, J. (1983). Organizational commitment: Individual and organizational influences.
Work and Occupations, 10(2), 123-146.
Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. 1985. Proactive feedback seeking: The instrumental use of
the information environment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58: 67-79.
Baer, M., Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. 2003. Rewarding creativity: When does it really
matter? The Leadership Quarterly, 14: 569-586.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. 1993. The proactive component of organizational behavior: A
measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2): 103-118.
Beck, K., & Wilson, C. 2000. Development of affective organizational commitment: A crosssequential examination of change with tenure. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56(1), 114-136.
Bedeian, A., Kemery, E., & Pizzolatto, A. 1991. Career commitment and expected utility of present
job as predictors of turnover intentions and turnover behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
39(3), 331-343.
Beyerlein, M. M., Johnson, D. A., & Beyerlein, S. T. 1999. Advances in interdisciplinary
studies of work teams. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bluedorn, A. D. (1982). A unified model of turnover from organizations. Human Relations, 35(2),
135-153.
Confessore, S. J., & Kops, W. J. 1998. Self-directed learning and the learning organization:
Examining the connection between the individual and the learning environment. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 9(4): 365-375.
Crant, J. M. 2000. Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3): 435-62.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1996. Creativity: Flow and psychology of discovery and invention. New
York: Harper Perennial.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Getzel, J. W. 1988. Creativity and problem finding. In F. H. Farley &
R. W. Neperud (Eds.), The foundations of aesthetics, art, and art education (pp. 91-106).
New York: Praeger.

Intrinsic Motivation 16

Damanpour, F. 1995. Is your creative organization innovative? In C. M. Ford & D. A. Gioia

(Eds.), Creative action in organizations: Ivory tower visions and real world voices (pp.
125-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dansereau, F., Cashman, J., & Graen, G. 1973. Instrumentality theory and equity theory as
complementary approaches in predicting the relationship of leadership and turnover among
managers. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10(2): 184-200.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. 1975. A vertical dyad approach to leadership within
formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13: 46-78.
Deluga, R. J. 1998. Leader-member exchange quality and effectiveness ratings: The role of
subordinate-supervisor conscientiousness similarity. Group and Organization
Management, 23: 189-216.
Drucker, P. 1988. The coming of the new organizations. Harvard Business Review, JanuaryFebruary, 45-53.
Dunegan, K. J., Duchon, D., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1992. Examining the link between leader-member
exchange and subordinate performance: The role of task analyzability and variety as
moderators. Journal of Management, 18(1): 59-76.
Farmer, Tierney, & Kung-McIntyre. 2003. Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role
identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5): 618-630.
Ford, C. M. 1995. Creativity is a mystery: Clues from the investigators notebooks. In C. M.
Ford & D. A. Gioia (Eds.), Creative action in organizations: Ivory tower visions and real
world voices (pp. 12-49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G.R. 1987. The validity of the Job Characteristics Model: A review and meta
analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40: 287-322.
Fulmer, I. S., Gerhart, B., & Scott, K. S. 2003. Are the 100 best better? An empirical
investigation of the relationship between being a great place to work and firm performance.
Personnel Psychology, 56(4), 965-993.
Gardner, H. 1993. Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences, New York: Basic
Books.
Garvin, D. A. 1993. Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 71(4): 78-91.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. 2001. When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related
to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3):
513-524.
Gubman, E. 2004. From engagement to passion for work: The search for the missing person.
Human Resource Planning, 27(3), 42-46.
Guthrie, J. P. 2001. High-involvement work practices, turnover, and productivity: Evidence from
New Zealand. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 180-190.
Joo, B., & McLean, G. N. 2006. Best employer studies: A conceptual model from a literature
review and a case study. Human Resource Development Review, 5(2): 228-257.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. 2000. Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating
role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2): 237-249.
Koch, J., & Steers, R. 1978. Job attachment satisfaction, and turnover among public employees.
Journal of Vocational behavior, 12(2), 119-128.
Lee, C. H., & Bruvold, N. T. 2003. Creating value for employees: investment in employee
development. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(6), 981-1000.

Intrinsic Motivation 17

Levering, R. 1996. Employability and trust. Conference Board meeting, Chicago, 12

September, 1996. Retrieved August 3, 2007, from
http://resources.greatplacetowork.com/article/pdf/building-trust.pdf
Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. 2002. Theres no place like home? The contributions
of work and nonwork creativity support to employees creative performance. Academy of
Management, 45(4): 757-767.
Marsick, V. L., & Watkins. K. E. 2003. Demonstrating the value of an organizations learning
culture: The dimensions of the learning of the learning organization questionnaire.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2): 132-151.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. 1990. A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and
consequences of organizational commitment. Psychology Bulletin, 108(2), 171-194.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. 1991. A three component conceptualization of organization commitment.
Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-89.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. 1997. Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morgeson, F. P. 2005. The external leadership of self-managing teams: Intervening in the
context of novel and disruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3): 497-508.
Morrison, E. W. 1993. Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources, and
outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 557-589.
Mowday, R. 1998. Reflections on the study and relevance of organizational commitment. Human
Resource Management Review, 8(4), 387-401.
Mowday, R., Porter, L., & Dubin, R. 1974. Unit performance, situational factors and employee
attitudes in spatially separated work unites. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 12(2), 231-248.
Mowday, R., Steers, R., & Porter, L. 1982. Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of
commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.
Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Uhlman, C. E., Costanza, D. P., & Threlfall, K. V. 1993.
Personality variables and skill acquisition: Performance while practicing a complex task.
Human Performance, 6(4): 345-481.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. 2002. Leading creative people:
Orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13(6): 705-750.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. 1996. Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3): 607-634.
Organ, D. W. 1990. The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw
& L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 12: 43-72.
Parker, S. K. 1998. Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other
organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6): 835-852.
Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Cordery, J. L. 2001. Future work design research and practice:
Towards an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 74(4): 413-440.
Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. 1997. Thats not my job: Developing flexible
employee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 899-929.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. 2006. Modeling the antecedents of proactive
behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3): 636-652.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. 1996. Proactive socialization and behavioral self-management.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48(3): 301-323.

Intrinsic Motivation 18

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. 1994. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of
individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3): 580607.
Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. 1999. Proactive personality and career success.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3): 416-427.
Senge, P. M. 1990. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New
York: Doubleday.
Shalley, C. E. 1991. Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on
individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2): 179-185.
Shalley, C. E., & Gibson, L. L. 2004. What leaders need to know: A review of social and
contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1):
3353.
Shalley, C. E., Gibson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. 2000. Matching creativity requirements and the
work environment: Effects on satisfaction and intentions to leave. Academy of
Management Journal, 43(2): 215-223.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. 2004. The effects of personal and contextual
characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management,
30(6): 933-958.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. 1997. Process and structure in leader-member exchange.
Academy of Management Review, 22(2): 522-552.
Steers, R. 1977. Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 22(1), 46-56.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. 1999. The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R.
J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-15). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Sutherland, M. M., Torricelli, D. G., & Karg, R. F. 2002. Employer-of-choice branding for
knowledge workers. South African Journal of Business Management, 33(4), 13-20.
Thompson, J. A. 2005. Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5): 1011-1017.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. 2002. Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and
relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6): 11371148.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. 1999. An examination of leadership and employee
creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52(3): 591-620.
Unsworth, K. L., & Parker, S. K. 2003. Proactivity and innovation: Promoting a new workforce
for the new workplace. In D. Holman, T. D. Wall, C. W. Clegg, P. Sparrow, & A. Howard
(Eds.). The new workplace: A guide to the human impact of modern working practices
(pp. 175-196). Chicester, England: Wiley.
Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, L. & Hezlett, S. 2003. Mentoring: A review and directions for future
research. In J. Martocchio & J. Ferris (Eds.) Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management, 22: 39-124. Oxford: Elsevier Science LTD.
Wehner, L., Csikzentmihalyi, M., & Magyari-Beck, I. 1991. Current approaches used in studying
creativity: An exploratory investigation. Creativity Research Journal, 4: 261-271.

Intrinsic Motivation 19

West, M., & Farr, J. 1990. Innovation at work. In M. West & J. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and
creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 3-13). New York:
Wiley.
Williams, W. M., & Yang, L. T. 1999. Organizational creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),
Handbook of creativity (pp. 373-391). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E., & Griffin, R.W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational
creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2): 293-321.
Zhou, J. 2003. When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of
supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of
Applied Psychology. 88(3): 413-422.
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. 2003. Awakening employee creativity: The role of leader emotional
intelligence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4-5): 545-568.
Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. 2003. Research on employee creativity: A critical review and
directions for future research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, 12: 165-217.

Intrinsic Motivation 20

TABLE 1
Factor Loadings

OLC-1
OLC-2
OLC-3
OLC-4
OLC-5
OLC-6
OLC-7
PP-1
PP-2
PP-3
PP-4
PP-5
PP-6
PP-7
PP-8
PP-9
PP-10
PJC-1
PJC-2
PJC-3
PJC-4
PJC-5
PJC-6
AOC-1
AOC-2
AOC-3
AOC-4
AOC-5
AOC-6
AOC-7
AOC-8
IM-1
IM-2
IM-3
IM-4
IM-5
Note, n = 283

Organizational
Learning Culture
.63
.66
.61
.77
.63
.70
.76

Proactive
Personality

Perceived Job
Complexity

Organizational
Commitment

Intrinsic
Motivation

.66
.77
.56
.59
.72
.69
.66
.69
.68
.68
.72
.65
.71
.71
.72
.64
.69
.71
.63
.59
.87
.88
.77
.91
.79
.77
.71
.78
.82

Intrinsic Motivation 21

TABLE 2
Descriptive Statistics and Reliabilities
N
283

Mean
3.29

S.D
.63

1
(.83)

2. Proactive Personality

283

3.65

.49

.32**

(.85)

3. Perceived Job
Complexity
4. Organizational
Commitment
5. Intrinsic Motivation

283

3.75

.53

.34**

.45**

(.80)

283

3.28

.76

.53**

.32**

.56**

(.90)

283

3.74

.64

.27**

.70**

.52**

.33**

1. Organizational
Learning Culture

Note, the phi matrix from CFA; * p < .05;

**

p < .01;

(.84)

Intrinsic Motivation 22

FIGURE 1
A Conceptual (Hypothesized) Model

Organizational
Learning
Culture

H3

Organizational
Commitment

.38
H1

H4

.21

.43
Perceived Job
Complexity

Proactive
Personality

H2

H6

.38

.25
H5
.59

significant path; * p < .05 (t > 1.96);

Intrinsic
Motivation

Non-significant path

Intrinsic Motivation 23

FIGURE 2
Alternative (Full Mediation) Model

Organizational
Learning
Culture

Organizational
Commitment
.25

.58
Perceived Job
Complexity

Proactive
Personality

.43

significant path; * p < .05 (t > 1.96);

.56
Intrinsic
Motivation

Non-significant path