The Impact of Personality and National Culture
on The New Ways of Working Concept
J. van Esch (311825)
MSc Business Information Management
Coach: prof. dr. ir. H.W.G.M. van Heck
Co-reader: dr. M.P.A. van Oosterhout
September 11th, 2012
The author declares that the text and work presented in this Master thesis is original and that no sources other
than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating the Master thesis.
The copyright of the Master thesis rests with the author. The author is responsible for its contents. RSM
Erasmus University is only responsible for the educational coaching and beyond that cannot be held responsible
for the content.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................. 5
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 6
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 9
1.1. Research Question ..................................................................................................................................... 10
1.2. Research Goal............................................................................................................................................. 10
1.3. Structure of Thesis ..................................................................................................................................... 10
2. Literature Review .............................................................................................................................................. 12
2.1. Personality .................................................................................................................................................. 12
2.2. Work Design ............................................................................................................................................... 19
3. Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................................................... 22
3.1. Work Practices ........................................................................................................................................... 23
3.2. Work Atmosphere ...................................................................................................................................... 26
3.3. Work Performance ..................................................................................................................................... 27
3.4. Work Arrangements ................................................................................................................................... 28
3.5. Personality Traits ........................................................................................................................................ 30
3.6. Control Variables ........................................................................................................................................ 30
3.7. Propositions ............................................................................................................................................... 31
4. Methodology and Measurement Instrument ................................................................................................... 33
4.1. Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 33
4.2. Measurement Instrument .......................................................................................................................... 34
4.3. Validity and Reliability of Constructs.......................................................................................................... 41
5. Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................... 43
5.1. Sample and Response ................................................................................................................................ 43
5.2. Univariate Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 43
5.3. Method of Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 46
5.4. Multivariate Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 49
5.5. Discussion of the Outcomes ....................................................................................................................... 66
6. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................... 77
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 4
6.1. Answering the Research Question ............................................................................................................. 77
6.2. Contributions to Theory ............................................................................................................................. 78
6.3. Contributions to Management Practice ..................................................................................................... 79
6.4. Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research ..................................................................................... 80
References ............................................................................................................................................................ 82
Appendix 1 – Culture ............................................................................................................................................. 91
A. Literature Review .......................................................................................................................................... 91
B. Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................................... 103
C. Methodology ............................................................................................................................................... 106
Appendix 2 – ‘Big Model’ .................................................................................................................................... 108
Appendix 3A – Survey Instrument (Dutch).......................................................................................................... 109
Appendix 3B – Survey Instrument (English) ........................................................................................................ 118
Appendix 3C – Context Sheet .............................................................................................................................. 125
Appendix 4A – Invitation ..................................................................................................................................... 126
Appendix 4B – Reminder ..................................................................................................................................... 127
Appendix 5 – Factor Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 128
Appendix 6 – Reliability Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 129
Appendix 7 – ‘PTO Bedrijfskunde’ Alumni .......................................................................................................... 130
Appendix 8 – Univariate Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 133
Appendix 9 – Correlations ................................................................................................................................... 136
Appendix 10A – Hypotheses ............................................................................................................................... 137
Appendix 10B – Outcomes Personality Traits ..................................................................................................... 139
Appendix 11 – Plots ............................................................................................................................................. 140
Appendix 12 – Graphs Interaction Effects........................................................................................................... 143
Appendix 13 – Regression Output Sub-model 1 ................................................................................................. 149
Appendix 14 – Regression Output Sub-model 2 ................................................................................................. 195
Appendix 15 – Regression Output Sub-model 3 ................................................................................................. 261
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 5
Acknowledgements
By finalizing this thesis, an end has come to a very exciting period, as this thesis is the last part of the master’s
programme Business Information Management (BIM) that I attended at the Rotterdam School of Management.
I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the great success of this programme.
Concerning this thesis, there is a number of people to whom I am particularly indebted:
First of all, I would like to thank Prof. Dr Ir Eric van Heck for his excellent and friendly way of coaching me
during the process. Many thanks for every advice you gave me, without which this thesis would not have been
what it is now. Although the focus has ultimately been shifted to personality, also thanks for all attempts to
search with me for a multinational company to validate the Culture model.
Besides, many thanks to Dr Marcel van Oosterhout. Officially you have been my co-reader since quite recently,
but from your position as project manager at Erasmus@Work, you have been closely involved from the
beginning. Thank you for critically reviewing my work and for all valuable recommendations.
Also thanks to the other members of Erasmus@Work, who shared their thoughts with me during the past year.
In particular, I want to mention the names of Drs. Nick van der Meulen and Dr Peter van Baalen for the
interesting discussions we had. Besides, thanks to Dr Jan van Dalen, Dr Ir Gert Jan Hofstede, Dr Ir Otto Koppius
and Prof. Dr Slawomir Magala for thinking along with me.
The number of ‘PTO Bedrijfskunde’ alumni who have completed my questionnaire has far exceeded my
expectations. Thanks to all participants!
My wonderful parents have been a great support to me. Regarding this thesis, you both contributed in
different ways. Dad inspired me to study Business Administration and assisted me with advice, while Mum
went through the thesis to correct my English. Thanks for everything you have done for me during my
studentship. Also thanks to my family members for their encouragements, in particular my sister Carla who
reviewed my work.
Last but not least, I want to express my gratitude to God, who strengthened and helped me during the past
year in which I worked on this thesis and in all the years before (Psalm 127:1).
Christian van Esch
Alblasserdam, September 2012
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 6
Executive Summary
The New Ways of Working (NWoW) concept is a new form to organize labour, with much autonomy for
workers to decide for themselves where, when and how work tasks are accomplished (Brummelhuis et al.,
2012). It appears that organizations highly differ regarding the adoption and use of NWoW practices – even
organizations that are operating in the same sector. Furthermore, there are major differences in terms of work
practices among divisions of the same, multinational organization.
Till now, little has been known about the impact of human related aspects such as personality and national
culture on the NWoW concept. Therefore, this thesis conducts exploratory research on this subject. Job design
literature suggests that work practices impact work performance (Grant et al., 2010). Others have argued that
work practices (and their impact on work performance) are related to both personality (e.g. Kichuk & Wiesner)
and culture (e.g. Hofstede, 2001).
Two separate models were developed for analyzing the impact of personality and national culture on the
NWoW concept, which are presented in the thesis. Moreover, the personality model has been validated. The
central research question hereby is: to what extent is the New Ways of Working concept affected by
personality?
The Personality model contains a number of building blocks that are briefly discussed below:
Personality: The model is founded on the dominant Big Five Model that distinguishes five separate dimensions
of personality, namely: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness (John et
al., 2008).
Work Practices: A number of work practices were selected, based on the assumption that the NWoW concept
affects three different core dimensions: people, place, and technology (Andersen, 2012). Two of them were
attributed to the people dimension: reflexivity and flex-time. Reflexivity (on location, schedule, and media use)
is the extent to which workers reflect upon their functioning and modify it accordingly (Schippers et al., 2007).
Flex-time is the proportion of work that is performed outside regular working hours.
The following two work practices were attributed to the place dimension: flex-place and Task Workplace Fit.
Flex-place is the proportion of work that is performed outside the office. Task Workplace Fit (TWPF) is a newly
developed concept, which measures the “degree in which people are able to find a workplace that suit the
tasks they want to perform, either inside or outside the office”. Regarding TWPF, the focus is on four distinct
types of workplace activities: Socialize, Learn, Focus, and Collaborate (Gensler, 2008).
One work practice was attributed to the technology dimension: media use. This concept is about how people’s
communication is divided among a set of variables.
Work Arrangements, Work Atmosphere, and Work Performance: Based on the suggestion that work practices
should be facilitated by management, a couple of work arrangements were defined: policies and agreements,
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 7
workplace design, and media availability. For a better conception of the impact of human related aspects, a
block with work atmosphere elements was added, consisting of empowerment and control. Finally, three
performance indicators were included in the conceptual model: employee satisfaction, work life balance, and
productivity.
The personality model was (partly) validated by means of an online questionnaire among alumni of the Dutch
‘Parttime Opleiding Bedrijfskunde’ of the Rotterdam School of Management. Questions were derived from the
‘New Worlds of Work framework’ (developed by Erasmus@Work) and the Big Five Inventory (John et al., 2008),
or newly developed (in case no questions were available yet). The analyses were conducted by means of
hierarchical (moderated) multiple regression analyses.
Regarding the significant direct effects, it was found that there are three work practices that have a positive
effect on employee satisfaction: TWPF Focus, TWPF Socialize, and TWPF Learn. Also work life balance is
positively affected by three work practices: ‘reflection on working hours and schedule’, ‘reflection on media
use’, and TWPF Focus. Productivity is positively affected by TWPF Learn. TWPF Collaborate was the only type of
TWPF that did not have a significant effect on employee satisfaction. Besides, nor flex-time nor-flex-place
significantly influences one of the three performance indicators.
Three direct effects of personality on NWoW Work Practices were found: Openness has a significant positive
impact on ‘reflection on media use’ and flex-place; Extraversion has a significant positive impact on TWPF
Collaborate.
Regarding the moderator analysis, eleven significant interaction effects were found (although not always the
main effects were significant). Five of them are positive: higher scores on Extraversion in combination with
more TWPF Focus and TWPF Collaborate, and higher scores on Neuroticism in combination with more TWPF
Learn result in a relatively higher employee satisfaction. A higher score on Agreeableness in combination with
more ‘reflection on choice of location’ and a higher score on Neuroticism in combination with more flex-time
result in a relatively higher productivity.
On the other hand, there were some significant negative interaction effects as well. Higher scores on
Extraversion in combination with more ‘reflection on choice of location’ and flex-place, and a higher score on
Agreeableness in combination with more TWPF Focus result in a relatively lower employee satisfaction.
Besides, a higher score on Conscientiousness in combination with more flex-time and TWPF Learn, and a higher
score on Openness in combination with more TWPF Learn result in a relatively lower productivity.
Further, some analyses were conducted for the impact of work arrangements on work practices.
Workplace design: It seems that private office rooms are beneficial for TWPF Focus and TWPF Learn. Backup
spaces are supportive for TWPF Socialize, while having an own desk is negatively related to flex-place.
Policies and agreements: Freedom to choose the own working hours has a significant positive influence on
‘reflection on working hours and schedule’ and flex-time; freedom to choose the own work locations has
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 8
significant positive impact on ‘reflection on choice of location, TWPF Focus, and TWPF Socialize. Contrary to
what was expected, no significant influence of Telework facilitation on ‘reflection on media use’ was found.
The outcomes of the data analysis were formulated as hypotheses for which additional research is required.
This was also one of the recommendations at the end of the thesis.
As answer to the research question, it was formulated that personality really matters, because personality
traits affects both the degree in which NWoW practices are applied and the relations between work practices
and work performance.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 9
1. Introduction
In 2005, a white paper was published by Microsoft CEO Bill Gates, in which he introduced ´The New World of
Work´. According to him, the world has rapidly changed: it has become interconnected and workers and
organizations are “nearing the point of information overload”, which affects both the productivity and the
health of workers. Employees are the heart of the enterprise and should be enabled to deal with issues like
information overload. In this process, software plays an important role. This white paper puts forward a new
form or organizing labor, in which collaboration, business intelligence and prioritizing scarce time and attention
are critical factors of success (Gates, 2005).
A couple of years later, not only Microsoft but also companies from completely different branches (e.g. Shell,
Philips, Rabobank, Essent) have adopted or have shown interest in the New Ways of Working (NWoW) concept.
Although each company designs its own New Way of Working, there are similarities as well (which will be
discussed in more detail later in this thesis).
The New Ways of Working concept has not gone unnoticed by scientists. Until now, research on several related
topics has been conducted. At the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, this topic is studied
by a multidisciplinary team called Erasmus@Work.
It appears that organizations highly differ regarding the degree in which they apply New Ways of Working
(NWoW) practices: organizations that are active in the same branch and that are characterized by quite similar
processes sometimes work according to extremely divergent work practices.
This phenomenon can be observed within countries, but is also present at the international level: it happens
that some divisions of the same multinational organization embrace NWoW practices, while other divisions are
not enthusiastic about the concept at all. They do not think that it would work for them.
Apart from the sector in which organizations operate, it could be that human related aspects such as
personality and national culture play an important role regarding the adoption and use of New Ways of
Working (practices).
In this thesis, a model has been developed to study the impact of personality on the NWoW concept
(Personality model), which builds on previous research by Erasmus@Work and relates to their ‘New Worlds of
Work framework’.
The model has interchangeable modules. In appendix 1, the transformations are discussed that have to be
made to use almost the same model for studying the impact of culture on the NWoW concept (Culture model)
and what the consequences are for the data analysis.
Personality and national culture are different concepts, but to some extent they are related to each other. The
first concept deals with the unique characteristics of individual persons, while the second concept is about
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 10
what a group of human beings differentiates from other groups. When culture is the “collective programming
of the mind”, personality could be regarded as the individual programming of the mind (Hofstede, 2001;
Hofstede & McCrae, 2004: p. 53).
The model that deals with the impact of personality (Personality model) will be validated in this thesis. The
Culture model was developed as a first way to explore the relationships with the New Ways of Working.
However, this model could not be validated due to a lack of commitment of companies to participate in the
study.
1.1. Research Question
The central research question of the thesis has been formulated as follows:
To what extent is the New Ways of Working concept affected by personality?
Sub-questions are:
1) To what extent does personality have an impact on the degree in which New Ways of Working aspects
are used by (knowledge) workers?
2) To what degree does personality have an influence on the relationship between New Ways of Working
aspects and outcomes of work?
3) Which New Ways of Working aspects fit to what personality aspects?
4) Which specific New Ways of Working arrangements should be strengthened to improve specific work
outcomes of people who have certain characteristics in terms of personality?
1.2. Research Goal
Because at this moment little is known about the impact of personality and national culture on the NWoW
concept, it is nearly impossible to verify statements like ‘this would not work for me’ or ‘this would not work in
our organization’. There is too little scientific theory on this topic to validate these statements.
The first goal of this thesis is to develop a model that could be used to analyze the relationship between
personality / national culture and the New Ways of Working. The second goal is to investigate the impact of
personality on this concept, by validating the Personality model.
Outcomes of this research could be useful for managers who pursue an appropriate way of working for their
organization that suits the kind of people they have employed.
Although only the Personality model is tested in this thesis, the Personality and Culture model complement
each other: they both shed light on the impact of human related aspects on the New Ways of Working.
1.3. Structure of Thesis
The next chapter gives a literature review on the two main streams of this thesis: personality and work design.
In chapter 3 the conceptual model of the Personality model is presented and discussed, and also the belonging
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 11
propositions. The fourth chapter is devoted to methodology and measurement instrument. The data analysis
finds place in the subsequent chapter, in which also the results are discussed. A conclusion is given in chapter
6; among other things, answers are formulated to the research questions here.
The first appendix presents the Culture model; it discusses how the impact of national culture on the NWoW
could be analyzed. In appendix 2 you can find the measurement tool that was used. In the subsequent
appendices, a number of graphs and (regression) tables are available.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 12
2. Literature Review
In this chapter, the research streams on which this thesis builds are described. First of all, the focus is on
literature on personality. Secondly, the other main stream of this thesis is introduced: work design. The chapter
ends with definitions of the New Ways of Working (NWoW) concept.
2.1. Personality
2.1.1. Defining Personality and Trait Theory
Robert B. Ewen (2003: p.5) defines personality as: “important and relatively stable characteristics within a
person that account for consistent patterns of behavior. Aspects of personality may be observable or
unobservable, and conscious or unconscious”. Alternatively, personality could be described as “a person’s
general style of interacting with the world, especially with other people” (Gray, 2007: p.537).
In this thesis, the focus is on personality from a ‘trait theory’ perspective. ‘Trait’ could be defined as “a
relatively stable predisposition to behave in a certain way”; the purpose of trait theory is to identify a set of
distinct personality dimensions on which psychological differences among individuals could be summarized
(Gray, 2007: p.538, 539).
Allport and Odbert (1936) conducted a study based on an English dictionary and found almost 18,000 terms by
which human behavior could be described. They identified four major categories, namely: 1) ‘personality
traits’, 2) ‘temporary states, moods, and activities’, 3) ‘highly evaluative judgement of conduct and reputation’,
and 4) ‘physical characteristics, capacities, and talents’.
Others have made different categorisations. For example, the distinction was made among (prototypical) traits,
states, and activities. The difference between traits and states is that traits are stable and enduring, while
states are temporary and brief (John et al., 2008: p.117, 118).
To some degree, traits and states are related to each other: trait could be seen as one’s enduring likelihood “of
entering temporarily into a particular state” (Gray, 2007: p.58).
That the focus is on personality from a trait perspective, does not mean that there are no other theoretical
perspectives on personality. The purpose of trait theory is to describe schematically human psychological
differences and to reveal their impact. However, trait theory does not focus on the internal mental processes
that precede people’s behaviour; this is done by other theoretical perspectives.
Quite famous are the psychodynamic perspective, which was founded by Sigmund Freud and the humanistic
perspective of which Abraham Maslow (hierarchy of human needs) is a representative (Gray, 2007: p.558-565).
These theories are interesting as well, but with the scope on our research goal, they are less relevant here.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 13
2.1.2. Conceptualization of Personality
2.1.2.1. Discovery of the Big Five
Nowadays, there is “initial consensus on a general taxonomy of personality traits, the ‘Big Five’ personality
dimensions” (John et al., 2008: p.116).
Two different research streams have been engaged in studying personality and were involved in the discovery
of the Big Five: the ‘lexical stream’ and the ‘questionnaire stream’. Especially the role of the lexical stream has
been crucial.
The lexical hypothesis says that all important differences between persons / characteristics have been encoded
in natural language. The work by Allport and Odbert, that was already mentioned in this chapter, is based on
this hypothesis. From their work, Cattell (1946) selected a subset of 4,500 trait terms for which he created
synonym clusters. He succeeded in reducing the 4,500 terms to 35 variables and conducted factor analyses on
them; he found 12 factors. These were the basis for his 16PF questionnaire.
Observer ratings on the 35 scales were obtained and factored by Tupes and Christal (1961). They concluded
that there are “five relatively strong and recurrent factors and nothing more of any consequence”. The five
personality factors they revealed are very much related to the present Big Five. Also Fiske (1949) concluded
that there are only five dimensions of personality.
Norman made a selection of the 20 best rating scales; this selection has been used in later research many
times. He replicated the Five Factors and also gave initial labels to them. Based on different sets of variables,
others found similar structures (Barrick & Mount, 1991; John et al., 2008: p.118, 119; McAdams, 1992: p.333;
McCrae & John, 1992: p.181-185).
Within the questionnaire stream, personality questionnaires were used that built on theories of Jung, Murray,
and Sullivan, for example. Consensus was reached on the existence of at least two factors (Neuroticism and
Extraversion) and the search for new dimensions was going on. Some proposed an Openness dimension, while
also a Constraint (Conscientiousness) dimension was opted. It could be that the questionnaire stream might
also have found five factors in the course of time.
The discovery of the Five Factors ultimately led to the merger of the lexical tradition and the questionnaire
tradition (McCrae & John, 1992: p.186).
2.1.2.2. Interpretation of the Big Five
It was Goldberg who called the five factors ‘Big Five’. This name does not refer to the importance of the five
dimensions, but expresses the broadness of each of them. The name ‘Big Five Model’ originates from the
questionnaire stream.
According to John et al. (2008: p.140), the five factors are “what the categories ‘plant’ and ‘animal’ are to the
world of biological objects”. McAdams (1992: p. 339) suggests to speak about ‘trait categories’ instead of ‘basic
traits’). Later in this chapter (section 2.1.4.4), it will be discussed how scholars have dealt with the broadness of
the factors.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 14
Although initial consensus was reached, the discussion was going on. Because the Big Five dimensions were
discovered by multiple researchers, there was not a single Big Five (John et al., 2008: p.125). This led to
confusion about the naming and interpretation of the factors.
It has been said that the label names are not always a very accurate representation of the factors
(Conscientiousness is supposed to be too narrow and Openness too vague), but replacing these names might
be confusing as well (John et al., 2008: p.138).
In literature, Norman’s factor names and numbers are often used: I Extraversion or Surgency, II Agreeableness,
III: Conscientiousness, IV: Emotional Stability, and V: Culture. However, he did not give a theoretical
explanation for these names.
Others have used the following labels: Extraversion (E), Agreeableness (A), Conscientiousness (C), Neuroticism
(N), and Openness to Experience (O).
It has also been suggested to use only the Roman Numbers (without the names), because they are theoretically
neutral. Others opted the use of initials (EACNO = OCEAN) which are less related to a specific theory and are
easier to interpret. (McCrae & John, 1992: p.180).
In this thesis, the factor names and definitions by John et al. (2008: p.138) will be used:
Extraversion (Energy, Enthusiasm): “an energetic approach toward the social and material world”. It
includes traits like “sociability, activity, assertiveness, and positive emotionality”. In other words: it is a
tendency to be outgoing (Gray, 2007: p. 541).
Agreeableness (Altruism, Affection): “a pro-social and communal orientation towards others”;
agreeableness encompasses traits such as “altruism, tender-mindedness, trust, and modesty”. The
high pole of this dimension represents people who value and respect others’ conventions and beliefs.
Conscientiousness (Constraint, Control of impulse): “socially prescribed impulse control”. This
dimension relates to task- and goal-directed behavior, strong will, responsibility, thinking before
acting, following norms and rules, trustworthiness, planning, organizing, and prioritizing tasks.
Neuroticism (Negative Emotionality, Nervousness): “negative emotionality”. Neuroticism is
characterized by emotional instability, feeling anxious and nervous, pessimism, and low self-esteem.
Openness to Experience (Originality, Open-Mindedness): “depth, originality, and complexity of an
individual’s mental and experiential life”. Having an active imagination and preference for variety and
tending to be less conservative and traditional are associated with this dimension (Zhang, 2003:
p.1432).
2.1.3. Personality Frameworks
This chapter continues by discussing the most important instruments that have emerged to measure
personality. The majority of them are based on the Big Five.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 15
2.1.3.1. 16 Personality Factors (16PF)
The 16PF, developed by Cattell, was already mentioned above; his instrument relates to the 12 factors he
found. Others reanalyzed the correlation matrices Cattell used, but they concluded that his factors were not
replicable across gender, age, or methods, or could not be found at all (Zuckerman et al., 1993, p.754).
To these twelve factors, four other factors were added by Cattell that he had only found by analysing
questionnaires (McCrae & John, 1992: p.187).
Despite of the current dominance of the Big Five, Cattell’s questionnaire (fifth edition) is still used quite
regularly. It requires 35 to 50 minutes to complete the 185 multiple choice items (Cattell & Cattell, 1995). An
example of the statements in the questionnaire is: “I like to go to parties”. For each statement, there are three
answer options: ‘yes’, ‘occasionally’, and ‘no’.
2.1.3.2. NEO Personality Inventory (Revised) (NEO-PI(R))
The work of Costa and McCrae (1985), who developed the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI), has played an
important role for the study of personality. Based on the ‘questionnaire tradition’, their inventory initially
measured only three dimensions: Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), and Openness (O). At that time, the first
two dimensions were ubiquitous within the questionnaire stream, while Openness was added by Costa and
McCrae, based on cluster analysis of the 16PF.
When they realized that their work did not include two factors of the Big Five (which was discovered by the
‘lexical tradition’), they decided to add items on Agreeableness and Conscientiousness to their NEO inventory.
In 1992, they published the NEO-PI-R (revised edition of the NEO-PI), consisting of 240 items that cover all five
factors (John et al., 2008: p.124, 125). The administration time of the NEO PI-R is 35 to 45 minutes. An example
of the items is: “Our ideas of right and wrong may not be right for everyone in the world”. The statements are
rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’.
2.1.3.3. NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI)
As the NEO-PI-R was too extensive for many research purposes, Costa and McCrae came up with a shorter
measure, which was called NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). The items of the NEO-FFI are based on the
NEO-PI-R and also represent the Big Five. Each of the five factors is measured by a 12-item scale (John et al.,
2008: p.125); so the NEO-FFI has 60 items in total. Compared to the NEO-PI-R, NEO-FFI reduces the
administration time from 35-45 minutes to 10-15 minutes.
2.1.3.4. Big Five Inventory (BFI)
To meet the desire for a short instrument for measuring the Big Five dimensions, John and his colleagues
(1991) developed the 44-item Big Five Inventory (BFI). Their purpose was to “create a brief inventory that
would allow efficient and flexible assessment of the dimensions when there is no need for more differentiated
measurement of individual facets” (John et al., 2010: p.129). Section 2.1.4.4 elaborates on these facets. All 44
statements of the BFI start with the statement “I see myself as someone who…”. An example of these items is:
“generates a lot of enthusiasm”. People have to rate themselves on a scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly)
to 5 (agree strongly). It takes about 5 minutes to complete the BFI questionnaire.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 16
2.1.3.5. Goldberg’s Trait Descriptive Adjectives (TDA)
The Trait Descriptive Adjectives (TDA) instrument, developed by Goldberg, is composed out of 100 single
adjectives (unipolar markers). One of the drawbacks of TDA is that context is lacking; therefore, items from
other inventories might be easier to understand. Saucier (1994) developed a shorter version of the TDA which
has only 40 items. Completing the original TDA takes about 10-15 minutes, while the Saucier’s abbreviated
version takes approximately 5 minutes to complete. The TDA uses a spectrum with nine labels. Four of them
belong to ‘inaccurate’ (extremely to slightly), one to ‘neither’, and the other four to ‘inaccurate’ (slightly to
extremely). People have to give a rating for the degree in which they regard themselves as being ‘disorganized’,
‘rude’, or ‘temperamental’ (Goldberg, 1992, John et al., 2008).
2.1.3.6. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
Each year, more than 3.5 million people fill in the 94 forced-choice items of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
(MBTI) (Durham University, 2012). This is the personality measuring tool that is used most often. However, this
inventory is not founded on the Big Five, but is Jungian-based and has four bipolar discontinuous scales:
Introversion-Extraversion, Sensation-Intuition, Thinking-Feeling, and Judging-Perceiving. Based on the
outcomes, respondents could be classified into sixteen different categories.
Some scholars are critical of the MBTI and say that the theory of Jung is outdated. Others are more nuanced
and have concluded that there is are some overlap between the MBTI and the Five Factor-based NEO-PI. In
fact, MBTI measures the Big Five factors, except Neuroticism (Furnham, 1996). Administration time of the MBTI
is about 30 minutes.
2.1.3.7. Two Final Remarks
Besides the instruments discussed above, there are many other tools for measuring the Big Five. John et al.
(2010: p.130) conclude that there is not a single instrument that could be considered as the ‘gold standard’.
One of the most prominent instruments for measuring the Big Five factors is the NEO-PI-R questionnaire, but
the choice for a certain tool should be determined by the research purposes. There is not a one-size-fits-all
measure (Vollrath, 2001: p.338).
In business practice, measurement tools are sometimes applied that might be lacking a scientific basis and/or
are not often used in scientific literature.
An interesting example of such a tool is ‘Management Drives’. This instrument distinguishes six drivers (colors)
that are related to colors. For example, the orange drive is the one that want to show progress, results, and
achievements (Management Drives, 2012). In this thesis, no further attention is given to this kind of
instruments.
2.1.4. Issues
Now some important instruments to measure personality have passed in review, it is time to reflect on issues
regarding personality, the Big Five, and the instruments that could be used to measure them, in order to choose
an appropriate method to map personality in this thesis.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 17
2.1.4.1. Stability of Personality
Research has been conducted on the stability of personality over time. It has been found that personality is
quite stable, even over longer periods of time (decades). The older people get, the more stable their
personality becomes. Especially after an age of 50, personality is extremely stable, although (small) changes can
always occur (Gray, 2007: p.544).
2.1.4.2. Universality
The taxonomic studies that are related to the Big Five were in English and the researchers were American. So,
an important question is whether the Big Five model is universal across languages and cultures.
Taxonomy projects by Hofstee, de Raad and colleagues – also among Dutch people – revealed that the five
factors are replicable in other countries as well (Denissen et al., 2007: p.152).
One exception is that, compared to the English Big Five, the Dutch fifth factor puts more emphasis on
Unconventionality and Rebelliousness instead of Intellect and Imagination. The researchers could not explain
this finding (Hofstee et al., 1997: p. 30). Still, there is no research that suggests that personality dimensions are
not universal and that cultures and languages have their own subset of personality dimensions (John et al.,
2008: p.121-124).
2.1.4.3. Predictive Power
According to some scholars, the Big Five are too broad to be good predictors; narrow traits are better
predictors because they are more specific and selective (McAdams, 1992: p.338).
Research on the prediction power of the Big Five has started quite recently. Scientist aimed to identify which
particular Big Five factors have impact on fundamental domains (such as health, work, and relationships). This
research is built on the assumption that there is an interaction between personal factors (traits) and
environmental factors (e.g. job, relationship).
It has been found that people’s traits influence the way in which they experience and explain things; besides,
these traits have an influence on people’s choices concerning both social and non-social environments (e.g.
jobs, places to live, music) and also on how they can adapt their environments to meet their desires.
The interaction between traits and the environment make that they “are hypothesized to influence the
behavioural, emotional, social, and material life outcomes of the individual” (John et al., 2008: p.141, 142).
One interesting finding here might be that relationships were found between the Big Five traits (in particular
Conscientiousness and Neuroticism) and job performance and satisfaction (John et al., 2008: p.141, 142).
2.1.4.4. Facets / Bandwidth-fidelity Dilemma
In section 2.1.2.2, the name of the Big Five was already explained: this refers to the high bandwidth of the
factors. Each of the five factors could be subdivided into a much larger number of personality characteristics.
These characteristics are also called ‘facets’. The Big Five factors aggregate these facets, by which useful
information might be lost. This has been posed as a point of critique on the Big Five (Barrick & Mount, 1991: p.
3).
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 18
To overcome this bandwidth-fidelity dilemma, personality could be examined hierarchically. This is exactly
what (for instance) the NEO-PI-R does (Soto & John, 2009: p.84). The 240 items of NEO-PI-R measure six facets
per factor. Also the NEO-FFI could be used to measure facets (John et al., 2008: p. 125).
The goal of the Big Five Inventory was to provide a quick measure for cases in which there is no need for
assessing the individual facets (John et al., 2008: p. 129). But, an attempt by Soto and John (2009) to develop
facet scales based on the 44 BFI items, proved to be successful: 10 BFI facet scales were made, which converge
with a subset of the 30 NEO-PI-R facets and also with facets from other Big Five inventories.
The following facets were derived from the BFI: assertiveness (extraversion), activity (extraversion), altruism
(agreeableness), compliance (agreeableness), order (conscientiousness), self-discipline (conscientiousness),
anxiety (neuroticism), depression (neuroticism), aesthetics (openness), and ideas (openness).
2.1.4.5. Number of Factors
Over time, there has been much debate about the number of factors. Some have argued that fewer factors
should be sufficient to measure personality traits; however empirical evidence is available that all five factors
are needed. Besides, it has been suggested that more than five factors are needed. It seems impossible
however to find a sixth, replicable factor (McCrae & John, 1992: p.189-192).
Among the authors who propagandize the existence of a sixth factor are Ashton and Lee (2006), who created
the HEXACO model and claim that they have found an additional factor, based on lexical studies: Honesty-
Humility. At the meantime, other factors were recomposed. In response, McCrae and Costa (2008: p.167) argue
that, from a conceptual and empirical point of view, Honesty and Humility correspond with two facets of
Agreeableness: Straightforwardness and Modesty.
2.1.4.6. Commercial Versus Free Inventories
Most of the inventories discussed above are proprietary instruments. Requiring permission from copyright
holders and paying fees for each questionnaire used, hinders the progress within the science of personality
assessment (Zheng et al., 2008).
For this reason, Goldberg laid the foundation for an international collaboration: the International Personality
Item Pool (IPIP). Items of the IPIP are in the public domain and now has over 2500 items. It contains equivalents
(with good internal consistency) for many popular commercial inventories such as PF16 and the NEO
inventories. There are also translations available of (some) items in more than 25 languages. It also contains a
measurement that is quite similar to the BFI: The 50 Big Five Factor Markers (BFFM) (Zheng et al., 2008; IPIP,
2012).
From the instruments discussed above, the BFI and Goldberg’s TDA are freely available.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 19
2.2. Work Design
2.2.1. Defining Work Design
The term ‘work design’ is not very clear and has been described in multiple ways. Torraco (2005: p.87) defines
it as “the systematic organization, design, and articulation of work activities at one or more levels of the
organization: system-wide, process, group, job, and task”.
Sinha & Van de Ven (2005: p.390), argue that work design and job design are separate concepts and cite Trist
(1981) who stated that “redesign of work leads beyond individual jobs to the organization of groups of workers,
and beyond that to the organization of support services”. In their article they deal with the design of work
within and between organizations. This implies that their ‘level’ of work design goes beyond individual
organizations. However, that is not what is focussed on in this thesis.
To be more specific, it might be better to use the term ‘job design’, which traditionally has been defined as “the
set of opportunities and constraints structured into assigned tasks and responsibilities that affect how an
employee accomplishes and experiences work”. Nowadays, this definition is broadened to “the process and
outcomes of how work is structured, organized, experienced, and enacted” (Grant et al., 2010: p.418).
2.2.2. Job Design Development
The history of job design traces back to the origin of organized work. By means of organized roles, the ancient
Egyptians were able to ‘run’ their society and to build great pyramids. Also in armies, that have existed for
thousands of years, specialized work roles have been of great importance (Morgenson & Humphrey, 2008).
The Industrial Revolution triggered a systematic study of work. Adam Smith (1776) suggested to break down
complex jobs into simpler jobs (division of labor), in order to improve performance. Charles Babbage (1835)
expanded on these ideas by presenting additional advantages such as cheaper labor (Parker et al., 2001).
In 1911, Frederick Taylor published his book The Principles of Scientific Management, which earned him the
title ‘father of scientific management’. According to him, increasing productivity would be beneficial to both
firm and worker, and therefore he aimed to determine scientifically (by means of observation and stopwatch)
the ‘one best way’ to perform tasks. Time, methods, and rules of work were fundamental to Taylor’s approach
(Nickels et al., 2008: p.260, 261). The introduction of the first moving assembly line by Henry Ford is strongly
related to his approach.
Research that took place at the Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne plant (1927-1933) revealed the
importance of human and psychological factors. Gradually, more researchers became concerned about the
effects of scientific management on employees’ well-being, satisfaction, and motivation, which “paved the way
for a full-blown research agenda on the design of jobs to satisfy and fulfill employees’ basic motives and
psychological needs” (Grant et al., 2010).
Over time, some prominent theories have been developed within the field of job design. For instance,
McGregor distinguished between Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X managers believe that workers are lazy and
dislike work, why Theory Y managers assume that employees are committed and like working towards a goal
(Nickels et al., 2008: p.269, 270; Grant et al., 2010: p.420).
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 20
Also Herzberg’s theory about motivators and hygiene factors has received much attention. Motivators are job
factors that make employees productive and satisfied, such as the work itself, achievement, recognition,
responsibility, and growth and advancement. Hygiene factors, on the other hand, can cause dissatisfaction if
absent, but do not motivate if present. Examples of hygiene or maintenance factors are: company policy and
administration, supervision, working conditions, interpersonal relationships, salary, status, and job security
(Nickels et al., 2008: p.265,266).
It seemed that empirical support to confirm the basic premise of the two-factor theory was lacking.
Nevertheless, it raised attention for concepts like job redesign, job enlargement, and job enrichment (Parker et
al., 2001: p.415; Grant et al., 2010: p.420).
A theory that is closely connected to job design is the Sociotechnical Systems Theory (SST) which dates back
from the 1950s and was developed by the Tavistock Institute, London. SST suggests that organizations are
composed of interacting people and a technical system that together produce services and products.
Productivity and satisfaction could be maximized by joint optimization of human and mechanical-technological
systems, which in turn could be achieved by autonomous workgroups (Grant et al., 2010: p.424; Morgeson &
Campion, 2003: p.426). Within the field of group work design, SST has received much attention as it focuses on
interrelations with other groups or units (Rousseau, 1977: p.19).
2.2.3. Job Characteristics Model
To date, the dominant model of job design is the Job Characteristics Model (JCM), developed by Hackman and
Oldham (Grant et al., 2010: p.421). This model, which was designed as an alternative for Herzberg’s two-factor
theory, distinguishes five core job characteristics: task significance, task identity, skill variety, autonomy, and
feedback.
Task significance is the impact that a job has on the lives and work of others. Task identity is the degree to
which a job allows to complete a whole, identifiable, visible piece of work from start to finish. Skill variety is the
extent to which different skills are involved in the job. Autonomy is the degree of freedom and discretion in the
scheduling of work and the determination of procedures. Feedback is the amount of clear, direct information
about performance and understanding the results of behavior (and of having internal control) (Grant et al.,
2010: p.421; Nickels et al., 2008: p.268).
The job characteristics theory suggests that the five job characteristics cause three critical psychological states
(experienced meaningfulness, responsibility, and knowledge of result) which in turn influence four outcomes:
motivation, satisfaction, performance, and withdrawal behaviors (Grant et al., 2010; Morgeson & Campion,
2003).
Over time, both extensions and challenges of the Job Characteristics Model have been proposed. A major
challenge came from the Social Information Processing Perspective. According to this view, not the structural
properties of the work itself, but rather how the work is socially constructed (cues from co-workers,
supervisors, customers, family members, and own behaviors and experiences) determine job perceptions and
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 21
attitudes. However, research points out that objective job characteristics are more significant than social cues
(Grant et al., 2010: 422, 423).
The difference between enriched tasks and enriched jobs has been a motive for some researchers to extend
the Job Characteristics Model.
More recently, new job characteristics, outcomes, mediators, and moderators were added to the model (Grant
et al., 2010: p.423). The Work Design Questionnaire, developed by Morgeson et al., distinguishes four broad
categories of job characteristics: task, physical, knowledge, and social (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2008). Other
researchers have broadened job design theories by presenting “new perspectives on the boundaries, processes
and outcomes of job design” (Grant et al., 2010: p.431). The traditional focus on motivation, satisfaction, and
withdrawal was extended by the following four categories: uncertainty, proactivity, dynamism, and creativity.
2.2.4. New Ways of Working
Three key characteristics of New Ways of Working could be distinguished. First of all, the timing of work has
become more flexible; work schedules are no longer fixed. Secondly, the place of work has become more
flexible. Thirdly, New Ways of Working are facilitated by new media technologies. Based on these
characteristics, Brummelhuis et al. (2012) define New Ways of Working as “a work design in which employees
can control the timing and place of their work, while being supported by electronic communication”.
The definition of New Ways of Working that is used by Erasmus@Work reads as follows: “a new form to
organize labour, where the employee has a high degree of autonomy to decide himself on time and place
where work will be done, while management of the work is primarily based on the employee’s output. This
enables the employee to find his balance between work and private. Hereby, he is supported by a flexible
working space and information technology, which enables him to execute his work efficient and effective,
within and outside the boundaries of the organization, alone and in collaboration with others, while it is not at
the expense of social cohesion within the organization”.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 22
3. Conceptual Framework
The current chapter presents the conceptual framework that was developed to study the impact of personality
on the New Ways of Working concept. This model is depicted in figure 3.1. An extended version of this model,
containing all variables, can be found in appendix 2.
The ‘building blocks’ or ‘modules’ represent different concepts, while the arrows stand for propositions. Both
concepts and propositions are explained in the sections below. First of all, the focus is on the blocks that both
the Personality model and the Culture model have in common.
To what extent the Cultural model differs from the Personality model is discussed in appendix 1.
Figure 3.1. – Conceptual model (Personality)
The concepts will be discussed in the following order:
1. Work Practices
2. Work Atmosphere
3. Work Performance
4. Work Arrangements
5. Personality Traits
6. Control Variables
This model is based on the assumption that the following three core dimensions are affected by the NWoW
concept: People, Place, and Technology (Andersen, 2012).
Work Arrangements People
- Policies / agreements
Place - Workplace design
Technology
- Media availability
Control variables Gender, Age, Position, Time dependency, Location dependency
Work Atmosphere Empowerment
Control
Work Practices People
- Reflexivity - Flexibility (time)
Place - Flexibility (place) - Task Workplace Fit
Technology - Media use
Personality Traits Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Openness
Work Performance
People
- Employee satisfaction
- Work life balance
Profit
- Productivity P1: +
P4
P5
P3
P2
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 23
Regarding people, there is a mental shift going on because digital tools become commonplace. This
enables working and communicating in different ways.
Regarding place, workers have become more fluid in terms of physical presence. For instance, they are
increasingly working on the move.
Regarding technology, technological developments challenge the idea that the office should be the
primary work location; they enable workers to perform their tasks at any time and at any location.
Based on this assumption, a number of Work Practices and Work Performance elements were selected that
should be part of the conceptual model. The Work Performance indicators (employee satisfaction, work life
balance, and productivity) were selected based on previous research by Erasmus@Work.
3.1. Work Practices
Regarding the people dimension, the focus is on reflexivity and flex-time. Two work practices are linked to the
place dimension: flex-place and Task Workplace Fit. Media use is related to the technology dimension.
3.1.1. Reflexivity
According to Schippers et al. (2007) reflexivity is “the extent to which teams reflect upon and modify their
functioning”. The authors regard reflexivity as a group process, although they state that it could also be
operationalized at the individual level. This is the case in this thesis.
Reflexivity is an iterative process, which consists out of the following components: reflection, planning, and
action/adaption, while reflection in turn is assumed to have three levels of depth: swallow, moderate, and
deep (Schippers, 2007: p.190).
The focus of this thesis is on three kinds of reflexivity, which are related to the other new work practices:
‘reflection on choice of location’, ‘reflection on working hours and schedule’, and ‘reflection on media usage’.
3.1.2. Flexibility
Flexible work arrangements includes flexibility in the scheduling of hours (flex-time), flexibility in the amount of
hours (part-time or job sharing), and flexibility in the location of work (flex-place) (Nadler et al., 2010). This
thesis addresses the first and the last type of flexibility. Flexibility in the amount of hours is not a typical
characteristic for the NWoW concept.
Although flex-time and flex-place often coincide (e.g. Raghuram et al., 2001), here they are conceptualized as
two free-standing practices, in order to measure their separate contributions.
3.1.2.1. Flex-place (where)
People became interested in the concept of telework during the oil crisis of the 1970s (Haddon & Brynin, 2005).
Since, telework has been studied by multiple of scientific disciplines (Bailey & Kurland, 2002) and has proven to
be a very rapidly changing phenomenon (Sullivan, 2003).
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 24
Telework is often associated with working from the home environment (e.g. Baruch, 2000). One should,
however, consider that this is only one example of telework/flex-place. Alternatively, people can work from an
external office or meeting location, at the client location, or on the road.
Hill et al. (2001: p.51) define flex-place as “giving employees varying degrees over where their work is done”. It
refers to people’s freedom to decide for themselves at what place they are going to perform their tasks.
Kurland & Bailey (1999) distinguish four types of telework: home-based telecommuting, satellite offices,
neighbourhood work center, and mobile workers.
Decreases in real-estate costs and contributions to the reduction of air pollution and traffic congestion were
mentioned (among other things) as benefits of telework (Bailey & Kurland, 2002).
3.1.2.2. Flex-time (when)
Nadler et al. (2010: p.865, 866) define flexible work scheduling, in agreement with Avery and Zabel (2001), as
“non-traditional variability in work schedules, allowing for less rigid attendance requirements”. Some benefits
of work schedule flexibility are: a greater range of customer service hours, higher employee satisfaction, and
increased attractiveness to potential employees.
Contrary to other scholars, Nadler et al. (2010) do not treat schedule flexibility as a homogeneous construct.
They suggest that there are eight types of work schedule flexibility, which are varying in terms of the amount of
flexibility in ending and starting schedule times, core hours present, and the flexibility of day-to-day changes.
The first option is that there is no flexibility at all. Flexi-tour means that starting time and corresponding
quitting time (fixed to the starting time) is flexible, but predetermined. In case of modified flexi-tour, there is an
ability to change starting time when needed, if it is notified before. This notification is not needed anymore
when the flex-time plan is a Gliding schedule. Modified gliding schedule is similar to gliding schedule, except
that there is a set of core hours. Till now, people had to work eight hours a day (fixed after starting time). This
changes in case of Variable day: both starting and ending times are flexible and there is a weekly quota of
working hours, but there are still core hours. Variable week replaces the quota of weekly working hours by a
quota of weekly goals (although there are core hours). The most extreme form of schedule flexibility, Crediting
schedule, has complete flexibility. There are no core hours anymore. Hours can be credited (or debited) from
one week to another week (e.g. vacation time).
3.1.3. Task Workplace Fit (TWPF)
Besides flex-place, also the design of a workplace is decisive for the extent to which people can find a place
where they can perform a certain task. Different tasks impose different requirements with regard to the
workplace. Task Workplace Fit could be defined as: the degree in which people are able to find a workplace
that suits the task they want to perform, either inside or outside the office.
Based on projects with thousands of companies and their annual workplace survey, Gensler (2008), a “leading
design firm for business”, identified four different work modes, by which all ‘day-to-day knowledge workplace
activities’ could be categorized: Focus, Collaborate, Learn, and Socialize.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 25
‘Focus’ is a work mode that requires concentration and attention. On average, an employee spends
59% of his/her time on focus work. Focus is about tasks like: thinking, reflecting, analysing, writing,
problem-solving, quantitative analysis, creating, imagining, reviewing, and assessing. Focus activities
require a workplace without acoustic and visual distractions.
On average, 22% of work time is spent on ‘Collaborate’. ‘Collaborate’ is working with other persons or
teams, in order to achieve a goal. It includes the following tasks: sharing knowledge and information,
discussing, listening, co-creating, showing, and brainstorming. Proximity and visual contract is
supportive for collaboration tasks.
‘Learn’ means that new knowledge or skills are acquired through education or experience. People
spend on average 4% of their time on learning. ‘Learn’ is about training, concept exploration and
development, problem-solving, memorising, discovery, teaching, reflecting, and integrating and
applying knowledge. The learning style is determinant for what type of workplace is required.
The fourth work mode, ‘Socialize’, is about creating “common bonds and values, collective identity
and productive relationships” through work interactions. ‘Socialize’ includes talking, laughing,
networking, trust building, recognition, celebrating interacting, mentoring, and enhancing
relationships. People spend on average 6% of their work time on socializing (Gensler, 2008).
Although it might be interesting to consider the proportion of time (quantity) spent on each workplace activity,
to some extent this is subject to the characteristics of the job itself. Some jobs might require relatively more of
a certain workplace activity than others. This does not have to be problematic at all.
What is really of interest here is whether workers can perform a certain task at the right place (quality).
Consequently, the purpose is to answer questions such as: to what extent do workers have access to a place
where they can Focus/Collaborate/Learn/Socialize at any time they need to?
This question implies that there can be variation at two different levels:
- The need for such (a) place(s)
- The availability of such (a) place(s)
When the availability of places for a certain workplace activity matches the desire for (a) place(s) that suits to
this activity, a Task Workplace Fit exists.
3.1.4. Media Use
Both definitions of New Ways of Working that were discussed in the previous chapter state that information
and communication technologies are an important enabler of the NWoW concept.
For quite a long time, the media richness theory has dominated scientific research on media use. According to
this theory, task performance could be improved by matching task information needs to the information
richness of a medium. However, the media richness theory did not appear to be able to deal with new media
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 26
such as computer mediated communication. For that reason, a new theory was developed, called ‘media
synchronicity theory’ (Dennis et al., 2008).
True synchronicity could be described as “a state in which individuals are working together at the same time
with a common focus”. People that are communicating synchronously do not automatically achieve
synchronicity. Therefore, Dennis et al. (2008) define ‘media synchronicity’ as “the extent to which the
capabilities of a communication medium enable individuals to achieve synchronicity”.
3.2. Work Atmosphere
The term ‘Work Atmosphere’ is used here as a collective noun for (inter)personal aspects. It deals with people’s
perceptions, behavior, and interaction with each other on work related issues.
3.2.1. Empowerment
Within scientific literature, the focus has largely been on two types of empowerment: structural empowerment
and psychological empowerment. The first one is employees’ perception of the actual empowering conditions
in the workplace, while psychological empowerment is how employees psychologically interpret or react to
these conditions (Laschinger et al., 2004). Besides, there is a third conception of empowerment, called the
process approach, which focuses on the relationship between structural antecedents and resulting
psychological states (Mathieu et al., 2006: p.97).
Although structural empowerment may empower employees, this is not necessarily the result. It makes
therefore more sense to focus on psychological empowerment, which implies a reaction of employees to the
structural empowerment conditions (Spreitzer, 1995: p.1443). Thomas & Velthouse (1990: p.668) defined
(psychological) empowerment as “intrinsic task motivation” and mention four cognitions in which the concept
manifests itself: Meaning, Competence, Self-determination, and Impact. Spreitzer (1995) elaborated on these
cognitions. Meaning is the value that a certain work goal or purpose has for someone; this judgement is based
on the individual’s own ideas or standards. Competence is someone’s belief that he or she is capable to
perform a certain task or activity ‘with skill’. This is also called ‘self-efficacy’. Self-determination is a feeling of
having choice in initiating, regulating, and continuing work behaviors and processes. Impact is the degree to
which ‘strategic, administrative, or operating outcomes at work’ can be influenced by an individual (impact is
the opposite of learned helplessness) (Spreitzer, 1995: p.1443,1444; Liden et al., 2000: p.407).
It is notable that these cognitions closely align with the critical psychological states of the Job Characteristics
Model (see section 2.2.3): Meaning is similar to meaningfulness, Impact to knowledge of results, and Self-
determination to experienced responsibility. However, the psychological empowerment approach differs from
the Job Characteristics model regarding its assumption that the psychological states “can arise from influences
over and above work characteristics, such as peer helping and supportive customer relationships” (Parker et
al., 2001: p.416, 417).
3.2.2. Control
Control has been defined as “the business process by which organizational entities impact and motivate other
entities to carry out collaborative plans to ensure that specific organizational goals are met” (Kang et al., 2011).
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 27
Within scientific literature, several forms of control have been distinguished. In the conceptual model, the
focus is on the following forms of control: Output control, Behavioral control, Social control, and Mutual
control.
The first two types of control belong to the category ‘formal control’, which deals with performance evaluation.
In case of Output control, people are rewarded for reaching desired outcomes. When Behavioral control is
applied, the focus is on whether people stick to rules and procedures (Kang et al., 2011).
Social control and Mutual control are informal modes of control, which means that they are based on social or
people strategies. The purpose of clan control is to reinforce acceptable behavior by spreading common values,
beliefs, and philosophy among the members of a group (Kirsch, 1997: p.217). Mutual control is the monitoring
of one another (Langfred, 2004: p.385).
3.3. Work Performance
A great challenge for companies is maximizing the triple bottom line ‘People, Planet, Profit’, which
encompasses social, ecological, and economic aspects. For this study, two aspects related to People and one
aspect related to Profit are selected.
Regarding People, the focus is on Employee Satisfaction and Work Life Balance, while Productivity is an aspect
that belongs to Profit.
To limit the scope of the model, only social and economic performance aspects are considered, which implies
that ecological aspects are disregarded here. Although these aspects are not unimportant, they are not often a
main motive for implementing the NWoW concept and therefore are ignored.
Together, the three selected aspects are labelled ‘Work Performance’. According to Tangen (2005),
performance could be defined as the successfulness of a company and its activities.
Now each of these aspects will be considered more closely.
3.3.1. Employee Satisfaction
Employee satisfaction or job satisfaction has been defined as “the extent of positive emotional response to the
job resulting from an employee’s appraisal of the job as fulfilling or congruent with the individual’s values”
(Morris & Venkatesh, 2010). Since the 1930s, job satisfaction has become a concept studied often. For
instance, it has been researched in relationship to concepts like productivity, employee commitment,
absenteeism, and turnover (Agho et al., 1993).
Researchers have found that employee satisfaction is an important driver of quality, customer satisfaction, and
productivity. With the rise of ‘the knowledge economy’, also the importance of employee satisfaction and
loyalty has increased: knowledge is a highly mobile resource which is stored in the heads of people who can
easily take it with them (Matzler et al., 2004). Because knowledge workers ‘own’ the production means,
companies are increasingly dependent on their employees (Drucker, 1999), which strengthens the need for
satisfying employees.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 28
3.3.2. Work Life Balance
The term ‘work life balance’ might be a little bit confusing. First of all, there is confusion about the term
‘balance’. Used as a noun (Oxford English Dictionary), it implies “an equal distribution of weight or amount”.
This might however not be the kind of balance meant in case of work life balance.
From a physical and psychological point of view, ‘balance’ means: “stability of body and mind”. This indicates
that balance can have “both an objective and a subjective meaning and measurement”.
Used as a verb (Oxford English Dictionary), balance means: “to off-set or compare, to equal and neutralise, to
bring or come into equilibrium”. It seems that balance is good, but it is not clear whether or not imbalance can
be favourable.
Regarding ‘work’ and ‘life’ similar difficulties arise. Is work only ‘paid employment’ or does it also include
unpaid hours (traveling hours)? Regarding life, the focus is often exclusively on family life, but this is “only one
aspect of life outside work”. Distinctions have been made between free time and leisure time, and committed
time and free time. Anyway, it seems to be clear that ‘work life balance’ could be defined in many ways (Guest,
2002).
To bypass these issues, the following definition of work life balance will be used: “a personal sense of when
both the work and home environment offset each other in such a way that the individual may be successful in
both environments” (Van der Meulen, 2010).
3.3.3. Productivity
The (multidimensional) term ‘productivity’ is often used, is “rarely adequately defined or explained” (Tangen,
2005), and has a meaning that varies in accordance to the context in which it is used. Nevertheless, some
crucial elements of productivity could be distinguished: it is related to the use and availability of resources.
Besides, it is strongly connected to the creation of value. Another characteristic of productivity is that it is a
relative concept: to observe an increase or decrease, there should be deviations from a standard (e.g.
competitor, other department) or changes over time (Tangen, 2005).
A quite broad definition of productivity was given by Hill (1993), which reads as follows: “the ratio of what is
produced to what is required to produce it. Productivity measures the relationship between output such as
goods and services produced, and inputs that include labour, capital, material and other resources” (Cited in
Tangen, 2005).
Compared to productivity of manual workers, quantifying and measuring knowledge-worker productivity is
much more complicated (Drucker, 1999, p.5). For that reason, often self-reported data is used in research on
productivity of nonmanufacturing industries (which is also the case in this thesis). Although a threat exists that
this method brings along a self-serving bias, it is reasonable that this bias is consistent across respondents and
therefore this method could be applied ‘safely’ (Eaton, 2003: p.157).
3.4. Work Arrangements
It might be clarifying to start this section by explaining why ‘Work Arrangements’ were added to the conceptual
model. This is based on the assumption that there are two requisites for the use of (NWoW) work practices. In
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 29
the first place, there should be a fit with human related aspects (personality traits and/or cultural values).
Besides, the practices should be facilitated by managers; employees should be allowed to use these practices.
This second requisite is captured by ‘Work Arrangements’.
Again, the triad People-Place-Technology was used as a basis: Policies/Agreements are related to the People
dimension, Workplace Design to Place, and Media Availability to Technology.
3.4.1. Policies / Agreements
Policies / Agreements focuses on what is agreed on the place where and the time when work is done. It deals
with the question whether or not people are allowed to work in a flexible way.
In the literature, a distinction is made between two kinds of flexibility policies: formal and informal. Formal
flexibility policies are defined as “written, officially approved human resource policies that provide flexibility
based on the approval of the HR department and supervisor discretion” (Kossek et al., 2005: p. 349). When
more flexibility is permitted by supervisors than formally allowed, there is talk of informal flexibility. Because
this kind of flexibility is not formal, it is invisible to higher-level managers (Eaton, 2003: p.147).
3.4.2. Workplace Design
More attention for flexibility regarding the location of work, does not mean that the office design has become
less important. Instead, the office type should facilitate and align with the new way of working.
According to Danielsson and Bodin (2008), both architectural (spatial organization) and functional (work
organization) should be considered in the categorization of office environments. Elaborating on existing
literature, they composed a categorisation that meets these two goals.
These are the seven office types they distinguish: cell office, shared room office, small open plan office,
medium-sized open plan office, large open plan office, flex office, and combi office.
Cell office: in case of this office design, there are multiple private room offices. Each room has a
window and the small rooms are connected to each other by long corridors. The majority of amenities
needed are available in the rooms. Characteristic for this design are independence and concentration
possibilities.
Shared room office: shared room offices are ‘populated’ by 2-3 persons. Work stations are freely
arranged and colleagues share a window. Sometimes divisional elements like screens are used to
provide privacy to individuals. Amenities are mostly found outside the office, although shared room
offices for team-based work (interactive project work) often have work facilities in the room. People
are divided among the rooms, based on the type of work they do. The choice for this office
environment is often motivated by lack of space.
Open plan offices: this office design has a shared room, in which workstations are often freely
arranged in groups. For noise reduction and privacy issues, screens can be used. There are no
individual windows in the open plan office. Amenities are sometimes at the individual workstation.
Employees mainly work individually, work is routine-based and levels of interaction are low. The
choice for this office environment is motivated by the desire for being flexible to change. It enables
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 30
the implementation of changes without any need for reconstruction. There are three kinds of open
plan offices: small open plan, medium-sized open plan, and large open plan.
o Small open plan: a room is shared by 4-9 persons.
o Medium-sized open plan: a room is shared by 10-24 persons.
o Large open plan: a room is shared by more than 24 persons.
Flex office: flex office is the most flexible office type in which both employees and furniture are
flexible. There is often an open plan office (although this is not a strict requirement), and there are
‘backup spaces’ for specific tasks (e.g. concentrated work, private phone calls, and meetings). Because
of absenteeism (e.g. expected illness, work outside the office), this office is dimensioned for less than
70% of the workforce to be present at the same time. By means of information technology, people can
freely book workstations, both inside and outside the office. There are shared amenities in common
spaces.
Combi office: in this type of workplace, employees spend more than 20% of their time “at
workstations other than their ‘own’“ (Danielsson & Bodin, 2008). Individual workstations could be
located both in an individual room or in an open plan office: there is ‘no strict spatial definition’. Again,
there are backup spaces. The choice for this office environment is motivated by teamwork and sharing
of common amenities. Movement of teams in the office finds place on an as-needed basis. Work
facilities are shared.
3.4.3. Media Availability
Before a certain type of media can be used, the organization should have adopted it. Media availability is the
degree in which people are provided with media, which could be regarded as a prerequisite for Media Use. The
media categories on which this thesis focuses are based on Dennis et al. (2008) and will be discussed later (see
section 4.2.1.4).
3.5. Personality Traits
The personality traits block resembles the Big Five model. These are the Five Factors that map personality
(traits), which were discussed in the literature review (2.1.2.2) (John & Srivastava, 1999):
1. Extraversion
2. Agreeableness
3. Conscientiousness
4. Neuroticism
5. Openness
3.6. Control Variables
Finally, some control variables were added to the conceptual model, namely:
1. Gender
2. Age
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 31
3. Position
4. Time/location dependency
Gender and age are two general human characteristics. Knowing people’s position within the organisation is
helpful because it is related to their decision-power regarding the use of certain work practices.
Time and location dependency are relevant because they tell us to what extent certain work practices are
allowed by the type of work.
3.7. Propositions
Based on the conceptual model, a number of propositions were formulated. These are presented in this section.
3.7.1 Proposition 1: New Work Practices – Work Performance
In chapter 2, a review of the literature on Job Design was given. Job Design theories suppose that the way in
which work is organized, impacts the behavior and performance outcomes of employees. In line with these
theories, it is reasonable that NWoW Work Practices have an impact on Work Performance of employees.
The New Ways of Working concept was developed to meet (younger) employees’ (knowledge workers)
expectations for collaboration tools and methods that enable them to get their work done (Van Heck, 2010). If
it is true that NWoW Work Practices better fit the needs of employees than traditional practices, a positive
impact of these practices on Work Performance could be expected:
P1: NWoW Work Practices have a positive impact on Work Performance.
3.7.2. Proposition 2: Work Arrangements – Work Practices
In section 3.4, the assumption was discussed that there is a relationship between Work Arrangements and the
practices that are performed: before employees can apply NWoW Work Practices, these practices should be
facilitated to them through Work Arrangements. To verify this assumption, the following proposition was
formulated:
P2: Work Arrangements impact NWoW Work Practices.
3.7.3. Proposition 3: Personality Traits – Work Practices
Personality determines people’s preferences (John et al., 2008). The NWoW concept differs from the more
traditional ways of organizing work. Workers have much more freedom in deciding when they work, where
they work, and how they work (e.g. concerning communication means).
It could be that certain types of personalities are more likely to adopt and use (certain) NWoW practices than
others (Lamond, 2000): they are more likely to work for an organization that provides these practices and use
the opportunities offered by their organization more intensively than others: Therefore:
P3: Specific Personality Traits impact Work Practices.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 32
3.7.4. Proposition 4: Personality Traits – Work Practices/Work Performance
The previous proposition states that the preference for and use of certain Work Practices (adoption) is affected
by Personality Traits. However, there could be not only an impact of personality on the use of NWoW practices,
but also on the effect of these practices on Work Performance (e.g. Barrick & Mount, 1991).
A conflict between Personality Traits and (one or more) NWoW Work Practices could have a different impact
on (one or more) Work Outcomes than a match between these two. This results in the following proposition:
P4: Specific Personality Traits impact the relationship between Work Practices and Work Performance.
3.7.5. Proposition 5: Personality Traits (Work Atmosphere) –Work Practices/Work
Performance
When it is true that Personality Traits impact the relationship between Work Practices and Work Performance,
it could be valuable to know whether this relationship goes via Work Atmosphere or not. This provides a
deeper understanding of the relationship.
It could be that having a certain Work Atmosphere benefits the degree in which people with certain Personality
Traits benefit (in terms of Work Performance) from Work Practices, because the Atmosphere enables them to
apply the practices. This leads to the following proposition:
P5: Specific Personality Traits impact via Work Atmosphere the relationship between Work Practices and Work
Performance.
3.7.6 Summary of Propositions
In short, these are the propositions that were formulated:
P1: NWoW Work Practices have a positive impact on Work Performance.
P2: Work Arrangements impact NWoW Work Practices.
P3: Specific Personality Traits impact Work Practices.
P4: Specific Personality Traits impact the relationship between Work Practices and Work Performance.
P5: Specific Personality Traits impact via Work Atmosphere the relationship between Work Practices and Work
Performance.
Because the amount of knowledge on the relationship between personality and the New Ways of Working
concept is limited, the propositions are formulated in a quite open way. This aligns with the purpose of this
study, namely: contributing to the development of new theory on the topic of NWoW (exploratory research).
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 33
4. Methodology and Measurement Instrument
This chapter describes how the data for this thesis was collected. Based on the conceptual model that was
presented in the previous chapter, a measurement instrument was developed. An explanation is given on the
composition of this instrument.
4.1. Methodology
4.1.1. Research Design
According to Sekeran (2003), a questionnaire is an effective data collection mechanism. It is defined as “a pre-
formulated written set of questions to which respondents record their answers, usually within rather closely
defined alternatives” (Sekeran, 2003: p.236).
Within this context, a major advantage of a questionnaire is that it enables elaboration on previous work by
Erasmus@Work (the New Worlds of Work framework). Also for determining people’s personality traits,
questionnaires have proven to be very useful.
4.1.2. Level of Analysis
The level of analysis in this thesis is the individual worker. More specific, the focus is on individual alumni of the
Dutch ‘Part-Time Opleiding Bedrijfskunde’ (Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University).
The group of alumni is interesting for several reasons: in terms of sectors, organizations and positions, there is
quite some variation. At the same time, most of the alumni could be regarded as knowledge workers, the type
of worker for whom the New Ways of Working concept was particularly developed.
4.1.3. Context and Data Collection
As just stated, the study took place within the context of Erasmus@Work, an interdisciplinary research
program that focuses on high performance work in collaboration with several innovative firms.
The data was collected as follows: first of all, the questionnaire (presented in the remainder of this chapter)
was made up in GlobalPark, an online survey tool. Subsequently, names and email addresses of 809 alumni
were entered into the system; this data was derived from the Alumni Guide 2011.
There were also some names in the guide without contact details. Therefore, these persons had to be skipped.
When people had more than one email address, the private ones were selected. This is because private email
addresses are not subject to job changes. From the first shift, a total of 91 emails bounced. In that case, the
corporate email addresses were used (if available). From the 42 emails that were sent in the second shift, 8
emails bounced again.
Being personal was very important in this case, in order to acquire goodwill. All alumni got a personalized email
in Dutch (appendix 4a). The subject of the email was: ‘request from a fellow’. Each message contained a unique
link that referred to the questionnaire. Respondents were able to interrupt the questionnaire and continue at a
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 34
later moment. Confidentiality of the answers was promised. Respondents could indicate whether or not they
would like to receive a summary of the findings afterwards.
The survey was available from July 23 till August 9, 2012. After one workweek, a reminder was sent to people
who did not start / complete the survey yet (appendix 4b). At the end, a 218 respondent had completed the
questionnaire.
4.2. Measurement Instrument
Now a description will be given of how the survey instrument was developed. There are two major sources for
the selected questions: the New Worlds of Work framework, developed by Erasmus@Work and the Big Five
Inventory (John et al., 2008). The advantage of using these sources is that these questions were validated
previously. Also much attention is given to the constructs that were not derived from these two sources.
The final version of the survey instrument can be found in appendix 3a (Dutch). An English version is available
in appendix 3b.
As in chapter 3, the concepts will be discussed in the following order:
1. Work Practices
2. Work Atmosphere
3. Work Performance
4. Work Arrangements
5. Personality Traits
6. Control Variables
4.2.1. Work Practices
4.2.1.1. Reflexivity
Brahm & Schippers (2010) developed constructs to measure ‘reflection on choice of location’ and ‘reflection on
media usage’. These two constructs are included in the questionnaire. In terms of formulation, these constructs
are almost identical.
A construct that could be used to measure ‘reflection on working hours and schedule’ was not available yet.
The New Worlds of Work framework had a construct called Time Shifting, but this construct presupposes that
people are working from their home location. However, the NWoW concept is about people’s freedom to work
at any location.
Therefore, a new construct was developed, analogous to the two existing ones. First of all, the following
observations were made:
- ‘Reflection on choice of location’ is about the tuning of work location to certain tasks.
- ‘Reflection on media usage’ is about the tuning of a certain medium to a specific message.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 35
- The new construct should be about the tuning of working hours to the personal situation (or the
situation of the household/family).
In line with these observations, the following items were formulated for ‘reflection on working hours and
schedule’:
1. I carefully consider which hours are best suited for work, given my personal situation or the situation
of the members of my household/family
2. When I notice that working hours don’t suit my personal situation or the situation of the members of
my household/family, I will adjust my time schedule
3. I try to match my working hours with my personal situation or with the situation of the members of
my household/family
4.2.1.2. Flexibility
Flex-place
To measure the place aspect of flexible work, a question developed by Erasmus@Work has been selected:
‘Indicate in percentages how your working time is divided across different locations’. There are five options: (1)
at the office, (2) at external office or meeting location, (3) at client location, (4) on the road, and (5) at home.
Respondents are asked to divide a total of 100% among these locations.
Flex-time
The descriptive part of the Erasmus@Work framework contained the following questions on employment:
1) Could you, please, indicate for how many hours you are currently employed?
This concerns the contractually agreed number of hours, excluding overtime.
__ hours per week.
2) How many hours per week do you spend on your work on average?
This concerns the actual total number of hours, including overtime, business travel (not commuter travel),
education, meetings, etc.
__ hours per week.
To these questions, a number of questions were added; some of them intend to measure flex-time:
3) How many hours do you work in a typical week outside regular working hours* (e.g. not from 9 to 5)? __
hour(s)
*also mention the hour(s) you worked on day(s) you are not contracted, including the weekend.
4) How many of these hours are overwork (non-contractually agreed hours)? __ hour(s)
5) How many hours do you take off during regular working hours for private matters? __ hour(s)
The focus is mainly on two aspects of schedule flexibility:
- The number of hours worked outside ‘working time’ (Q3).
- The number of hours spent on personal issues during ‘work time’ (Q5).
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 36
Both answers should give an indication of the degree in which people deviate from ‘standard’ working hours.
4.2.1.3. Task Workplace Fit (TWPF)
As no measure was available for this concept, based on Gensler (2008) a new construct was developed.
This resulted in the following items:
1. The availability of places for […] matches my desire
2. I can find a place for […] at any time I need it
3. My needs for places for […] are fully met within the current situation
After contacting the authors of Gensler (2008), they provided the questions they used themselves for their
research. From their questionnaire, the following descriptions of the work modes were derived, that replace
the […]:
1. Socialize: social interaction
2. Learn: training / learning new skills
3. Focus: focused individual work (requiring concentration)
4. Collaborate: working with another person or group
So, in total 12 items are used to measure task / work place fit.
4.2.1.4. Media Use
Dennis et al. (2008) compared the media below on their synchronicity. The table below presents their findings:
Medium Synchronicity level
Face-to-face High
Video Conference High
Telephone Conference Medium
Synchronous Instant Messaging Medium
Synchronous Electronic Conferencing Low-Medium
Asynchronous Electronic Conferencing Low
Asynchronous Electronic Mail Low
Voice Mail Low
Fax Low
Documents Low
Table 4.1. – Media synchronicity (adapted from Dennis et al. (2008))
However, these categories seem to be much too complex to use within a survey question. It is for example not
very clear at first sight (and without definitions) what the difference is between Synchronous Electronic
Conferencing and Asynchronous Electronic Conferencing.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 37
The questions on ‘medium of contact colleagues’ and ‘medium of contact manager’ from the Erasmus@Work
framework were combined into one question in combination with an abridged and simplified list of these
media categories. This resulted in the following question:
In which way do you primarily contact your colleagues and manager(s)?
Please, divide the total contact with your colleagues and manager(s) across the following means of contact.
Please note you can only enter whole numbers in percentages: the total must equal 100%.
Face-to-face
Video Conference
Telephone / Telephone Conference
Chat / Instant Messaging
Electronic Mail
Voice Mail
Fax
Documents
Other
4.2.2. Work Atmosphere
4.2.2.1. Empowerment
In paragraph 3.2.1, four different cognitions of empowerment were described: Meaning, Competence, Self-
determination, and Impact. The corresponding instrument, developed by Spreitzer (1995), was selected to
measure these cognitions. For each cognition, Spreitzer developed a construct with three items on a 5-point
Likert scale.
Some of these statements were somewhat rewritten by the Erasmus@Work team. Statements are formulated
like: ‘I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work activities’ (Competence).
4.2.2.2. Control
Also for the other Work Atmosphere concept (Control), items from the Eramus@Work framework were
selected. This concerns the constructs on Outcome control, Behavioural control, Social control, and Mutual
control. The questions on Behavioural control originate to Snell (1992), while Social control is measured on an
adapted version of a construct from Langfred (2004).
The items are formulated like: ‘In my work, I am judged on the way in which I do my work, not on the outcome
of my work’ (Behavioural control).
4.2.3. Work Performance
4.2.3.1. Employee Satisfaction
The employee satisfaction construct in the Erasmus@Work framework was developed by Jun et al. (2006) and
is measured by four items on a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’). An
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 38
example of these statements is: ‘If a friend is looking for a job, I would recommend this organization to him or
her’.
4.2.3.2. Work Life Balance
The work life balance-construct also comes from the Erasmus@Work framework and is a shortened version of
a measurement developed by Hill et al. (2001). It consists out of four items, which are measured on a 5-point
Likert scale. These items are formulated like: ‘when I am on holiday, I can disassociate myself from my work
and enjoy myself’.
4.2.3.3. Productivity
The measurement developed by Staples et al. (1999) forms the basis of this construct, which was further
developed by Erasmus@Work based on Ramirez and Nembhard (2004). Earlier research by Erasmus@Work
revealed that the first 5 items of the productivity construct were sufficient to measure the belonging concept.
Therefore, a shortened version has been selected. An example of the items is: ‘within my working group, I
believe that my own performance is among the best 25%’.
4.2.4. Work Arrangements
There are two ways to measure the Personality model (and the Culture model):
The model can be tested among people that all work for the same organization. In case of the Culture
model, the focus is on one single multinational organization which has divisions in several countries.
The model can be tested among people working for many different organizations (which is the case in
the subsequent chapters).
When the first option is chosen, it might be an option to leave the questions on Work Arrangements outside
the questionnaire and to use a Context Sheet (see appendix 3c). This is because work practices are facilitated
within an organization or are not, and therefore not much variation is expected at the individual level. From
each participation division (or department) only one person (manager) has to answer the questions of the
Context sheet.
For the second option, questions were newly developed. These will be presented now.
4.2.4.1. People (Policies/Agreements)
The following two questions were formulated to measure the degree of freedom people experience in
determining their own working hours and work location(s):
1) Please rate the amount of freedom management gives you in determining your own working hours - on a
scale from 1 (no freedom) to 10 (full freedom)
It is not necessary that you use this freedom. Please enter a whole number.
2) Please rate the amount of freedom management gives you in determining your own work location(s) - on a
scale from 1 (no freedom) to 10 (full freedom)
It is not necessary that you use this freedom. Please enter a whole number.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 39
4.2.4.2. Place (Workplace Design)
Based on the article by Danielsson and Bodin (2008), which was discussed in section 3.4.2, the following
questions were added to the questionnaire:
1) Do you have your own work place / desk in the office of the company?
Yes, I have my own work place / desk
No, work places / desks are flexible
2) With how many other persons do you share a room within the office of the company?
I have a private room
With 1-2 other persons
With 3-8 other persons
With 9-23 other persons
With more than 23 other persons
3) Does the office have 'backup spaces' for specific tasks, such as concentrated work, private phone calls, and
meetings?
Yes
No
4.2.4.3. Technology (Media Availability)
In section 4.2.1.4, a question was formulated to measure in which ways people communicate with their
colleagues and manager. A condition for using media in the business context is that these media are provided
to people by their company. This question is added to ask whether this condition is met or not:
1) Which of the following facilities for telework (i.e. working at another location than the office of the
company) are provided to you by the company?
Laptop
Smart phone
Mobile internet
Access via internet to business applications / data
None of these facilities
4.2.4.4. General Question
Finally, a general question was added to the list of questions:
1) Overall, how do you rate the degree in which the company facilitates you for telework - on a scale from 1
(not at all) to 10 (in full)?
It is not necessary that you use this freedom. Please enter a whole number.
4.2.5. Personality Traits
It was already stated in chapter 2 that the choice for a certain measurement tool should be determined by the
type of research for which it is used.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 40
Given the dominance of the Big Five for personality research, which is “the most established and well-validated
model of personality” the MBTI will be left out of consideration as it is based on previous theories (Denissen et
al., 2007: p.152).
The data for this thesis will be collected by means of a survey. Because there is already a large amount of
questions on New Ways of Working aspects, a brief measure of the personality dimensions is preferred, that is
reliable and undisputed at the same time. Several authors advice the use of BFI when time and space are
limited and there is no need to focus on specific facets of personality (Denissen et al., 2007: p.152, 155).
An advantage of measures such as the NEO-PI-R, NEO-FFI en 16PF (or freely available equivalents from IPIP) is
that they are hierarchical, but these inventories take relatively much time to complete, contrary to the BFI.
Given the exploratory character of this study, facets are not of utmost importance here. Moreover, to some
degree the BFI is hierarchical as well, as it could also be used to measure facets – which was explained above.
There is even a shorter version of the BFI available that only has 10 items which could be completed in only one
minute or less. Reliability and validity are largely remained compared to the BFI-44 (original), but there are
substantial losses as well and therefore the BFI-10 is recommended to use only in settings when there is no
alternative (e.g. telephone surveys) (Rammelstedt & John, 2007; Gosling et al., 2003). This is not the case here.
So, in short: the BFI was selected because it is a brief, complete and original measure of the Big Five.
Another important point was that a validated Dutch translation of the BFI was already there. Denissen et al.
(2007), who translated the BFI in Dutch, emphasised that translated items should be equivalent in terms of
meaning to the English original. Testing the Dutch BFI made clear that there was a congruence coefficient
between these two of 0.92; this implies that the overall factor structures are quite similar to the English version
(Denissen et al., 2007: p.153).
All five factors are measured by the BFI: Extraversion (8 items), Agreeableness (9 items), Conscientiousness (9
items), Neuroticism (8 items), and Openness (10 items).
4.2.6. Other questions
4.2.6.1. Control variables
Some additional questions were needed to measure the control variables: age, gender, position and
time/location dependency.
The questions on age and gender were derived from the Erasmus@Work framework. Erasmus@Work also
developed questions on time and location dependency, which are used here as well.
To question people’s (power) position within the organization, the following question was added:
Which one of the following best describes your position within the company?
- Employee (no management function)
- Top Manager
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 41
- Middle Manager
- Operational Manager
- Independent / Hired
4.2.7. General Questions
Furthermore, some questions were added about the home situation, education level, industry (based on the
classification of the Dutch Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek), and department.
Last but not least, a general question was added, which is related to the overall NWoW concept: this is the first
question in appendix 3a/3b.
4.3. Validity and Reliability of Constructs
New constructs were developed to measure Task Workplace Fit. First of all, the assumption that the data on
these items fit a factor structure has been validated. This is done by means of a principal component factor
analysis. Appendix 5 shows that there is indeed a clear factor structure. Also the conditions for factor analysis
are met: the Barlett’s test of sphericity, which tests the presence of correlations among the correlations, has a
significant result (χ2 = 2083.355, p = 0.000) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure (0.829) indicates that factor
analysis is appropriate here: KMO values that are higher than 0.8 are considered as good (Hair et al., 2006:
p.114-115).
Many variables in this thesis are measured by means of multiple items. Therefore, it is useful to assess the
degree in which these items are consistent. A diagnostic measure that is often used to observe the consistency
of entire scales is Cronbach’s alpha. In general, a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.70 is the lower limit, but in exploratory
research 0.60 is sufficient as well. Sometimes the possibility exists to improve Cronbach’s alpha by deleting one
or more items from the scale (Hair et al., 2006: p.137).
Appendix 6 gives for each construct the Cronbach’s alpha and the Corrected item-Total correlation. The
Corrected item-Total correlation is the correlation between each item and the sum score of the other items,
and indicates how well a certain item suit the other ones.
It appears that most of the Cronbach’s alphas meet the lower limit. Regarding the newly developed constructs,
especially Task / WorkPlace Fit (TWPF) Focus (0.951) and TWPF Learn (0.925) have very high Cronbach’s alphas
and also the other new constructs are well above the lower limit: TWPF Collaborate (0.894), TWPF Socialize
(0.860), and ‘Reflection on working hours and schedule’ (0.819).
Nevertheless, the alpha’s for the constructs that measure control are below 0.70. Mutual control (0.697) and
Output control (0.684) are not far from this value, but alphas for Behavioural control (0.378) and Social control
(0.365) are.
Deleting items is not a desirable option, as this results in a loss of information. Especially when the Cronbach’s
alphas were (almost) 0.70, removing one or more items was not considered here. This applies to Mutual
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 42
control (0.697), Agreeableness (0.684) and Conscientiousness (0.688), for which Cronbach’s alphas are slightly
below 0.70.
Relatively large increases could be gained by deleting the first item of Social control ‘The organization has not
influenced my attitude and behaviour’( from 0.365 to 0.467) and the third item of Behavioural control ‘My
actual working results are seldom compared with planned results’ (from 0.378 to 0.482). However, also in that
case, the alphas remain far below 0.70. Therefore, all items were kept with the side mark that Behavioural
control and Social control are not measured on consistent scales.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 43
5. Data Analysis
This chapter describes the analyses that have been conducted, both at the univariate and at the multivariate
level. After that, the outcomes are discussed in accordance with the propositions that were formulated in
chapter 3.
5.1. Sample and Response
During the 2.5 weeks in which the survey was ‘available’, 218 persons completed the questionnaire. Given the
fact that for 752 persons the email did not bounce (it is assumed that this is the number of people who actually
received the invitation), the completion rate is 28.989%. Besides, 82 persons started working on the survey, but
did not finish it. Some of them explained by email why they ceased; the main reason was that they found the
questionnaire too long and/or too monotonous. In that case, it was explained in a reply why the number of
questions was quite large: this is due to the comprehensiveness of the New Ways of Working concept and
scientific requirements (for which sometimes virtually the same questions are asked multiple times). On
average, it took respondents 1324.2 seconds (approximately 22 minutes) to complete the survey.
Regarding gender, the majority of respondents was male (180, 82.569%); which implies that 38 females
(17.431%) filled in the questionnaire. This unequal distribution aligns more or less with the distribution of
gender among high educated business people in general and the distribution among PTO Bedrijfskunde alumni
in particular.
Also a question was added to trace the age of respondents. It appears that the average age was 44.147
(median: 43). The youngest respondent was 30 and the oldest was 64. One of the females was apparently
ashamed of her age and answered that she was 0 years old (a baby) – which was classified as a missing value.
The standard deviation of the age of respondents is 8.008.
Most of the respondents have a top management function (63; 28.899%), while also middle managers (58;
26.606%) and employees without a management function (49; 22.477%) are well represented. Besides, there
were respondents who are independent/hired (31; 14.220%) and operational managers (17; 7.798).
Respondents are from 16 different sectors. Well represented are ‘Financial institutions’ (18.807%),
‘Consultancy and research’ (14.678%), and ‘Industry’ (12.844%).
A table with details about the respondents and graphs are available in appendix 7.
5.2. Univariate Analysis
In this section, descriptions of single variables are given. A more detailed summary of the data (mean, standard
deviation, minimum, maximum) can be found in appendix 8.
5.2.1. Work Practices
Reflexivity: the reflexivity of the respondents is not very high. Reflection on media usage has the highest
average value (3.648), while reflection on choice of location has an average of 3.569 and reflection on working
hours and schedule has an average of 3.498. Reflexivity is measured on a Likert scale, ranging from 1 to 5.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 44
Flex-time: on average, respondents work 10.115 hours per week outside regular working hours. Although they
are contracted for 37.083 hours, they actually spend 46.454 hours on their work each week (excluding
commuting time). On the other side, 1.849 regular working hours are taken for private issues. Commuting time
is about 7 hours per week.
It appeared that people did not always interpret the questions on flex-time as they were intended.
Respondents were asked to indicate for how many hours they work outside regular working hours (e.g. not
from 9 to 5). After that, people should answer how many of these hours are overwork. Some people mentioned
the total amount of hours spent on overwork in an average week. For that reason, the flex-time variable was
calculated differently than originally intended (see paragraph 4.2.1.2): the total amount of hours worked
outside regular working hours was divided by the total amount of hours actually spent on work (excluding
commuting time) in an average week. So, in this case ‘flex-time’ is the percentage of work that is performed
during non-regular working hours. There is one side-mark: the amount of hours spent on work is not equally
distributed over the five job functions. Employees work on average 43.776 hours, top managers 52.079 hours,
middle managers 45.310 hours, operational managers 44.824 hours, and independent / hired workers 42.290
hours. It could be that some respondents are forced to work outside regular working hours, because too many
hours are spent on work (the hours do not go in a regular workweek). In these cases, there is no real schedule
flexibility. On average, 20.914% of the work is performed outside regular working hours.
One respondent answered that he works 60 hours per week outside regular working hours. However, this
amount is higher than his total amount of working hours per week. This single answer has been deleted from
the dataset.
Flex-place: the average person who completed the questionnaire spends a majority of 53.033% of his/her
working hours at the office of the organization. 16.900% of work time is spent at the client location, 15.938% at
home, 8.861% at an external office or meeting location and 5.268% on the road. 46.967% of the work tasks are
accomplished outside the office.
According to the questionnaire, respondents had to divide a total of 100% over their work locations. However,
for 9 persons, the totals did not sum up to 100; for these respondents, the answers to this question were
removed.
Task Workplace Fit (TWPF): according to the respondents, finding a place for Collaborate is easiest (3.713). This
is followed by Socialize (3.688) and Focus (3.661). Learn lags behind with an average score of 3.303. The TWPF
constructs are measured on 5-point Likert scales.
On average, respondents spend 10.137% of their time on Socialize, 6.858% on Learn, 40.806% on Focus, and
35.701% on Collaborate.
Media use: most often, respondents communicate Face-to-face with their colleagues and manager (44.225%).
Electronic mail (27.730%) and Telephone (or telephone conference) (15.405%) are communication means that
are used quite often. 5% of the communication takes place via Documents, 2.235% via Chat or Instant
Messaging, 2.270% via Video conference, 1.890% via Voice mail and 0.065% via Fax. Modern communication
technologies seem to have replaced communication via fax. 1.180% of communication takes place via Other,
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 45
not further specified means. Again, not for each respondent (18 persons in total) the answers summed up to
100. Therefore, also here faulty answers were deleted from the dataset.
5.2.2. Work Atmosphere
Empowerment: respondents seem to value the work goal / purpose quite high: the average score on
Empowerment Meaning is 4.054. The scores on Self-determination (people’s belief that they have autonomy
and control over how to do their tasks) and Competence (people’s belief that they are able to perform their
tasks) are even higher: respectively 4.321 and 4.297. Empowerment Impact – people’s perception that they can
make a difference at work – has a slightly lower score (but still high): 3.928.
Control: on average, respondents score 2.802 on behavioral control, 3.375 on social control, 3.217 on mutual
control, and 3.494 on output control.
Both empowerment and control are measured on 5 point Likert-scales.
5.2.3. Work Performance
Of the three Work Performance indicators, average scores on work life balance are relatively low, but not bad:
3.753; respondents are reasonably able to distinguish between their professional and private lives. The score
for employee satisfaction (3.753) is slightly higher. The average value for productivity equals 3.950, which
implies that the respondents regard themselves as being highly effective and productive.
5.2.4. Work Arrangements
Policies/agreements
Ratings: on average, respondents rate the freedom management gives them in determining their working
hours – regardless whether they use this freedom with 7.583 (on a scale from 1 to 10). This score is quite high.
The freedom for choosing work locations is lower: 6.823. Overall, respondents rate the degree in which they
are facilitated for telework with 7.553.
A number of answers have been deleted, because they were not in the range 1-10. For Work Time Freedom
Rate: 2, for the Work Location Freedom Rate: 3, and for the Telework Facilitation Rate: 1.
Workplace design
Room Sharing: some variables that belong to Work Arrangements are nominal. Most of the respondents (74)
have a private room in the office of the organization (33.945%). 41 respondents (18.807%) are sharing a room
with 1-2 other persons. There are 37 respondents who share a room with 3-8 others and also 37 persons who
share a room 9-23 persons (16.972%). 13.303% or 29 respondents are sharing a room in the office with more
than 23 others.
Own Work Place: a majority of 146 respondents (66.972%) have their own work place or desk in the office of
the company. The other 72 respondents (33.028%) report that workplaces and desks are flexible.
Backup Spaces: 166 respondents (76.147%) are working in an office that has Backup Spaces for specific tasks
such as concentrated work, private phone calls, and meetings. The other 52 respondents (23.853%) do not
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 46
have these facilities. Of the 144 respondents that are sharing a room with 1 or more others, 23.611% do not
have Backup Spaces.
Media availability
Media Facilitation: in total, 135 respondents (61.927%) report that videoconferencing is facilitated by the
organization; for the other 83 (38.073%) videoconferencing is not facilitated.
Regarding the other facilities for communication, 179 (82.110%) respondents are equipped by the organization
with a laptop, 163 (74.771%) with a smartphone, 150 (68.807%) with mobile internet, and 199 (91.284%) with
online access to business applications.
5.2.5. Personality Traits
The average respondent scores (5-point Likert scale) are quite high on Extraversion (3.838), Conscientiousness
(3.779), Openness (3.746), and Agreeableness (3.657) and quite low on the Neuroticism dimension (2.179).
The differences among the five different positions (ranging from employee to independent/hired) are not very
large. However, top-managers score higher on all five dimensions except neuroticism, compared to employees.
A graph in which positions and personality traits are compared against each other, can be found in appendix
7.5.
5.2.6. Control Variables
Outcomes on gender, age, and position were already described in section 5.1. Besides, there are two other
control variables: Time Dependency and Location Dependency. Both types of constraints have relatively low
averages: the mean of Time Dependency is 2.258 and the mean of Location Dependency is 2.350, which implies
that the constraints for flexible work (in terms of time and place) are limited.
5.3. Method of Analysis
Most of the relationships in this thesis are tested by means of linear multiple regression analysis. In this section,
an explanation of this method is given and a number of issues regarding its use are discussed.
5.3.1. Linear Multiple Regression Analysis
Multiple regression analysis is a technique that could be used for analyzing the relationship between one
dependent variable and multiple independent variables. Both the dependent variable and independent
variables should be metric, although -after transformation- non-metric variables could be included as well (e.g.
by means of dummy variables). Multiple regression analysis distinguishes itself from simple regression analysis
by the number of independent variables involved (simple: 1, multiple: >1) (Hair et al., 2006: p.176-177).
There are two non-mutually exclusive applications for which multiple regression is used: prediction and
explanation. Prediction is about how well the regression variate predicts the dependent variable; explanation
focuses on the magnitude, sign and statistical relevance of each independent variables (Hair et al., 2006:
p.190).
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 47
Three types of multiple regression could be distinguished. Standard multiple regression can be used to evaluate
relationships between a set of independent variables and a dependent variable. All variables are entered at
once. Hierarchical regression enables researchers to enter one variable or a block of variables at a time. This is
useful to get more insights in what part of the variance is caused by which variables. Stepwise regression
(forward, stepwise, backward, remove) is a method by which the researcher defines a set of variables from
which variables are selectively added or deleted. This goes on until an overall criterion measure has been
achieved. Although this method is very efficient in selecting the subset of variables that maximizes the
predictive accuracy, its use is not recommended because of its high dependency on data and the relatively high
risk that falsely significant variables are selected (Hair et al., 2006: p.209; Kroonenberg & Linting, 2011: p.27).
5.3.2. Issues
5.3.1.1. Linearity
The first assumption of linear regression analysis is that the variables have a linear relationship. To check
whether this assumption has been met, one can plot the standardized residuals (ZRESID) against the
standardized predicted values (ZPRED). If the graph shows a pattern (such as a curved shape), this could
indicate that the linearity assumption is not met (Field, 2009: p.247, 248).
Besides, residual plots are a good indicator for non-linearity: when a consistent curvilinear pattern is visible, the
variables do not have a linear relation (Kroonenberg & Linting, 2011: p.30; Hair et al., 2006: p.205, 206).
5.3.1.2. Homoscedasticity
Regression analysis also assumes that “dependent variables exhibit equal levels of variance across the range of
predictor variables”. (Hair et al., 2006: p.83). In a regression analysis, the variance of a dependent variable is
explained; it is important that this variance is not concentrated to a limited range of independent values.
Alternatively, the relationship is heteroscedastic.
The graph of ZRESID plotted against ZPRED could also be used to check this assumption. Preferred is a plot in
which the dots are randomly dispersed around zero. If a graph funnels out, it could be that there is
homoscedasticity in the data (Hair et al., 2006: p.83; De Vocht, 2009: p.209; Field, 2009: p.247, 248).
5.3.1.3. Normality
Multiple regression also builds on the assumption that residuals, which are the difference between predicted
values and observed values, have a normal distribution with a mean of zero. According to some scholars, this
does not imply that the variables themselves should be normally distributed. However, when the response
(dependent) variable has a normal distribution, the residuals will often also be normally distributed. An
advantage of the F-test is that it is robust; when samples are not small (>50), the prediction will be reasonable
accurate, even when the response variable does not have a quite normal distribution.
A normal distribution of the predictor (independent) variables is no strict requirement, but a strange
distribution might affect the distribution of the residuals (Kroonenberg & Linting, 2011: p.31).
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 48
To check visually whether the normality assumption is met or not, there are two options: one can look at a
histogram of the standardized residuals and / or at a normal probability plot (P-P plot) (Hair et al., 2006: p.208;
De Vocht, 2009: p.209). Regarding the P-P plot, a straight line indicates that there is a normal distribution.
5.3.1.4. Multicollinearity
When there is a strong interdependence between explanatory variables, a multicollinearity problem could
occur. This happens when it is not possible anymore to distinguish the separate contributions of the dependent
variables from the independent variable.
There are multiple ways to detect the existence of multicollinearity. First of all, one can look at the standard
errors of the regression coefficients. Also a correlation matrix might indicate the existence of multicollinearity,
but this method is not suitable in case of more than two explanatory variables. Fortunately, there are some
other methods to deal with this deficiency: the partial correlation and the part correlation give a good
indication of the possible existence of a multicollinearity problem. In this thesis the focus is on tolerances and
VIF-values: tolerances lower than 0.2 or VIF-values higher than 5 could indicate that there might be a
multicollinearity problem, although even then this is not necessarily the case (Van Dalen & De Leede, 2009:
p.526-530).
5.3.1.5. Autocorrelation
A fifth assumption is that ‘autocorrelation’ or ‘serial correlation’ does not occur. This might especially be a risk
when there are time series data (longitudinal study): in that case, the residue for a certain period t might be
negatively or positively be correlated with a residue for an earlier period. Autocorrelation can be detected by
means of the Durbin-Watson test (Van Dalen & De Leede, 2009: p.556-557). The value should be around 2 (no
autocorrelation).
5.3.1.6. Outliers
Outliers might impact the regression analysis. Given the fact that many variables were measured by means of
constructs (with 5-point Likert scales), the existence of outliers is limited.
In the univariate analysis, it was explained why some answers were excluded from the analysis. This was done
when it was obvious that the respondent did not answer the questions in an appropriate way. In the
multivariate analysis, the existence of (possible) outliers was limited and therefore no cases were excluded.
5.3.1.7. Checking the Assumptions
For all regression analyses, residual histograms, normal P-P Plots and ZRESID/ZPRED plots were ‘inspected’ and
in some cases also the partial plots. In appendix 11 some examples of these graphs are available.
Once in a while, small deviations from the normal distribution were observed (especially in case of TWPF), but
these deviations were acceptable.
Regarding the Durbin-Watson test, no large deviations from the value of 2 were detected. This finding aligns
the expectation: the data used in this thesis was measured at only one point in time.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 49
5.4. Multivariate Analysis
In this section, a number of sub-models that are based on the main conceptual model (discussed in Chapter 3)
are presented and validated.
First of all, there is a need for defining the variables of interest: in the multivariate analysis, the focus is mainly
on the people and place dimensions of the conceptual model. This implies that the technology dimension is not
taken into consideration. There are two reasons for this choice: first of all, for the quality of this thesis, it is
important to limit the scope. Besides, the technology aspects of the NWoW concept have already been studied
to some extent within the context of Erasmus@Work (e.g. Baas, 2010). Also the fifth propositions has been left
out of consideration; a separate thesis could be devoted to this proposition.
Initially, there were five different variables for measuring flexibility place: ‘at the office’, ‘at external office or
meeting location’, ‘at client location’, ‘on the road’, and ‘at home’. The number of variables is reduced by
merging the five variables except ‘at the office’ to one ‘flex-place’ variable. This is in line with the definition of
the NWoW: people could work anywhere and are no longer bound to the office. Nowadays, flex-place is not
only about working at home, but about working at every desired location.
In short, the focus here is on the following work practices: ‘Reflection on working hours and schedule’,
‘Reflection on choice of location’, ‘Reflection on media use’, Flex-time, Flex-place, Task work place Fit (TWPF)
Socialize, TWPF Learn, TWPF Focus, and TWPF Collaborate.
These work practices could be subdivided into three broader categories: Reflexivity, Flexibility, and Task Work
Place Fit.
Also a number of control variables are included in the analysis: gender, age, position (and time and location
dependency). Position was a nominal variable, but has been recoded into five dummies to include this variable
in the regression. For statistical reasons, one of the dummies is left out of the analyses: ‘employee (without
management function)’. This is our reference group. Time and location dependency are related to the analysis
of sub-model 3.
In case of deviations from the statistical regression model, this is indicated by the term ‘variant b’. Output for
these regression models is also available in the appendices.
After the analysis of the latest sub-model, the outcomes of this research will be discussed.
Preliminary analysis of data includes the calculation of correlations. A correlation table can be found in
appendix 9.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 50
5.4.1. Sub-model 1: Personality – Work Practices – Work Performance
The first sub-model that has been analyzed can be depicted as follows:
This sub-model was validated by means of hierarchical multiple regression analyses. The variables are entered
into the regression model in two stages / blocks:
First stage: control variables (gender, age, and position) (regression model 1)
Second stage: work practice variables (regression model 2)
Relationship between Work Practices and Work Performance (Relation 1)
First of all, the focus is on the relationship between work practices and work performance. In the sub-model
that was presented above, this is arrow number 1:
Relation 1a: Reflexivity – Work Performance
Reflexivity was defined earlier as the extent to which workers reflect on their functioning and modify it
accordingly (Schippers et al., 2007). The conceptual model suggest that, regarding the NWoW concept, there
are three important things people might reflect on: schedule, location and media.
It could be that reflexivity results in a higher work performance: more reflection leads to better choices
regarding the optimal hours, places, and communication means, which benefits the outcomes of work.
More optimal decisions regarding work conditions (time, place, media) could increase productivity. Besides,
reflection on schedule and location could help workers to find a better balance between work and private life.
The statistical regression model is as follows:
Work performance = α + (β1Gender + β2Age + β3.2Position_d2 + β3.3Position_d3 + β3.4Position_d4 +
β3.5Position_d5) + β4Reflection on working hours and schedule + β5Reflection on choice of location + β6Reflection
on media use + ε
For each of the three performance indicators (dependent variables), a regression analysis has been conducted.
The output of these regression analyses can be found in appendix 13.1.
The regression model with only the control variables (regression model 1) is in none of the cases significant
(Employee satisfaction: F = 1.924, p = 0.078, Work life balance: F = 1.093, p = 0.368, Productivity: F = 0.795, p =
0.575).
Work Practices 1a) Reflexivity 1b) Flexibility
1c) TWPF
Work Performance - Empl. satisfaction - Work life balance
- Productivity
Work Practices Work Performance 1 2
3
Personality
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 51
It appears that there is no type of reflexivity that has a significant influence on employee satisfaction (F = 1.916,
p = 0.051). Regarding work life balance (F = 4.194, p = 0.000; R2
= 0.154; adj. R2 = 0.117), there are two types of
reflection that have a significant impact: ‘reflection on working hours and schedule’ (β4 = 0.275, p = 0.000) and
‘reflection on media use’ (β6 = 0.223, p = 0.006). Besides, ‘reflection on media use’ also has a significant positive
influence (β6 = 0.266, p = 0.000) on productivity (F = 3.538, p = 0.000; R2
= 0.133; adj. R2 = 0.096).
To explain how these results should be interpreted, the latest finding is used as an example: an increase of one
point on the 5-point Likert scale of ‘reflection on media use’, causes an increase of 0.266 on the 5-point Likert
scale of productivity.
Relation 1b: Flexibility – Work Performance
Literature on telework suggests that there is a positive relationship between telework (flex-place and flex-time)
on productivity and work life balance (e.g. Hill et al., 2001). The more flexible workers are regarding time and
place, the more productive they become.
It could be that the flex-time element of telework enables people to find a better balance between their work
and private life. Experiencing more freedom regarding work places and work schedule makes work more
flexible and varied, which may boost employee satisfaction.
The statistical regression model is as follows (and the output is available in appendix 13.2):
Work performance = α + (β1Gender + β2Age + β3.2Position_d2 + β3.3Position_d3 + β3.4Position_d4 +
β3.5Position_d5) + β4Flex-place + β5Flex-time + ε
Again, three analyses have been conducted: one for each performance indicator. The same control variables
are used as in relation 1a, which implies that the first regression models (control variables) are identical to the
ones in the analyses of the previous relation.
The regression models do not become significant after adding the second block of dependent variables (flex-
time and flex-place): employee satisfaction: F = 1.572, p = 0.135, work life balance: F = 1.526, p = 0.150,
productivity: F = 0.821, p = 0.585.
Relation 1c: Task Workplace Fit – Work Performance
In general, it could be that the relationship between Task Workplace Fit (TWPF) and work performance is as
follows: when people are better able to find a workplace that suits their activities, this benefits the quality of
their activities, which in turn has a positive influence on work performance.
Being able Focus is very important for knowledge workers. Interruptions and distractions at work lead to an
inferior concentration, while the inability to concentrate is a barrier to productivity (Gensler, 2008). This
suggests that more TWPF Focus results in a higher productivity.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 52
Sometimes Socializing is regarded as distraction from work, but – especially in case of knowledge work – could
be essential in getting the work done. Some authors emphasize the importance of social capital for
organizations (Cross & Prusak, 2002).
Also the well-being literature recognizes the importance of social support and interpersonal relationships.
When a work environment is humane, people feel more energized and passionate at work (Cartwright &
Holmes, 2006: p.200).
It therefore could be that a broader facilitation of Socializing places results in a better work performance (in
general), and more specific in a higher productivity and more employee satisfaction.
Collaborating with others is valuable, because a group of persons is more creative than an individual. It is
helpful in finding innovative ideas and solutions. More than 70% of what people know about their job, can be
attributed to interaction with colleagues (Gensler, 2008). Knowledge is needed to get the job done, and
therefore a positive influence of TWPF Collaborate on work performance is expected.
According to Peter Drucker (1999), knowledge work requires continuous Learning and teaching. Scientists
emphasise the importance of knowledge management and intellectual capital for the performance of
organizations. It therefore could be that work performance improves when there is a better fit between
Learning tasks and workplace.
The statistical regression model is as follows:
Work performance = α + (β1Gender + β2Age + β3.2Position_d2 + β3.3Position_d3 + β3.4Position_d4 +
β3.5Position_d5) + β4TWPF Focus + β5TWPF Collaborate + β6TWPF Learn + β7TWPF Socialize + ε
Three of these analyses were conducted, one for each of the performance indicators. The output is available in
appendix 13.3.
Regarding employee satisfaction, the first finding is that the dummy for position 2 has a significant positive
influence (β3.2 = 0.245, p = 0.039): this means that top-managers are in general 0.245 more satisfied (on a 5-
point Likert scale) than employees without a management function.
Besides, there are three types of Task Workplace Fit that have a positive impact on employee satisfaction:
TWPF Focus (β4 = 0.101, p = 0.038), TWPF Learn (β6 = 0.112, p = 0.018), and TWPF Socialize (β7 = 0.221, p =
0.001). The R2 of this regression model is 0.261 (adj. R
2 = 0.225; F = 7.271, p = 0.000).
There is one type of Task Workplace Fit that significantly influences work life balance: TWPF Focus (β4 = 0.145, p
= 0.013). (R2 = 0.122, adj. R
2 = 0.079; F = 2.858, p = 0.002). Besides, the dummy for position 2 (top-manager) is
significant (β3.2 = -0.366, p = 0.010): top-managers score 0.366 lower on work life balance (on a 5-point Likert
scale) than employees without a management function.
Also productivity is affected by one type of Task Workplace Fit: TWPF Learn (β6 = 0.087, p = 0.020). The model
(F = 2.767, p = 0.003) has an explanatory power (R2) of 0.118 (adj. R
2 = 0.076).
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 53
Relationship between Personality Traits and Work Practices (Relation 2)
The research is continued by analyzing relation 2 of sub-model 1:
Relation 2a: Personality Traits – Reflexivity
It is reasonable that certain types of people are more likely to reflect on their functioning than others. The
Conscientiousness dimension of personality is about thinking before acting. For this reason, it could be that this
dimension positively influences the three types of reflexivity.
People who score high on the Openness dimension, prefer new experiences and are more likely to break up
routines and to be creative. Therefore, also some impact of Openness on reflexivity is expected (especially in
case of ‘reflection on media use’).
The statistical regression model is as follows:
Reflexivity = α + (β1Gender + β2Age + β3.2Position_d2 + β3.3Position_d3 + β3.4Position_d4 + β3.5Position_d5) +
β4Extraversion + β5Agreeableness + β6Conscientiousness + β7Neuroticism + β8Openness + ε
For each type of reflexivity, a separate analysis has been conducted. The output can be found in appendix 13.4.
Regarding ‘reflection on working hours and schedule’, the model with only control variables is already
significant (F = 4.103, p = 0.001; R2 = 0.105, adj. R
2 = 0.079) and there is a positive influence of dummy variable
gender on this type of reflection (β1 = 0.310, p = 0.027), while the impact of age is negative (β2 = -0.021, p =
0.002). This implies that women score 0.310 point higher on ‘reflection on working hours and schedule’
(measured on the 5-point Likert scale). Besides, younger people reflect more on their working hours.
Including the personality traits into the regression model does not result in a significant change of R2 (ΔR
2 =
0.012, p = 0.740); personality traits do not significantly impact ‘reflection on working hours and schedule’.
In case of ‘reflection on choice of location’, the first regression model with only the control variables is not
significant (F = 1.454, p = 0.196). After adding the personality dimensions (ΔR2 = 0.005, p = 0.960), there is still
no significant model (F = 0.871, p = 0.570).
None of the control variables are significantly influencing ‘reflection on media use’ (F = 1.086, p = 0.372). There
is one personality trait that impacts ‘reflection on media use’: Openness (β8 = 0.246, p = 0.012). The impact of
Agreeableness (β5 = 0.206, p = 0.052) is slightly above the significance level. The explanatory power (R2) of the
second regression model (including the personality dimensions) is 0.092 (adj. R2 = 0.043), which is quite low.
Personality Traits Extraversion
Agreeableness Conscientiousness
Neuroticism Openness
Work Practices 2a) Reflexivity 2b) Flexibility
2c) TWPF
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 54
Relation 2b: Personality Traits – Flexibility
Some people prefer working flexible in terms of location and time and regard this as a good alternative to
traditional ways of working. Others prefer to work at the office during business hours. It could be that
personality is a determining factor for the degree in which flexibility practices are applied.
The statistical regression model is as follows:
Flexibility = α + (β1Gender + β2Age + β3.2Position_d2 + β3.3Position_d3 + β3.4Position_d4 + β3.5Position_d5)
β4Extraversion + β5Agreeableness + β6Conscientiousness + β7Neuroticism + β8Openness + ε
For both concepts of flexibility (flex-time and flex-place) a separate regression analysis was conducted (output
is available in appendix 13.5).
The model with only control variables has not a significant influence on flex-time (F = 1.632, p = 0.140). Adding
the personality dimensions (ΔR2 = 0.034, p = 0.192) does not make the model significant (F = 1.582, p = 0.106).
One of the dummies, position_d5 (independent / hired), has impact (β3.5 = 23.101, p = 0.001) on flex-place in
the model with only control variables (F = 4.557, p = 0.000; R2 = 0.120, adj. R
2 = 0.093). This implies that,
compared with employees without management function (the reference group) independent people work
23.101% more often outside the office.
When the personality dimensions are added (regression model 2: F = 2.908, p = 0.001), also ‘Openness’ is
significantly influencing flex-place (β8 = 8.984, p = 0.049). However, compared to regression model 1 (control
variables) the change of R2
is not significant (ΔR2 = 0.021, p = 0.457).
When only Openness is added to the model with control variables, the change of R2
is significant (ΔR2 = 0.019, p
= 0.036). The R2
of this model is 0.139 (adj. R2
= 0.109) (variant b; F = 4.610, p = 0.000).
Relation 2c: Personality Traits – Task Workplace Fit
The degree in which people can find places where they can perform a certain type of workplace activity is
supposed to rely largely on policies / agreements regarding telework and workplace design and therefore less
impact of personality traits is expected.
The statistical regression model is as follows:
TWPF = α + (β1Gender + β2Age + β3.2Position_d2 + β3.3Position_d3 + β3.4Position_d4 + β3.5Position_d5)
β4Extraversion + β5Agreeableness + β6Conscientiousness + β7Neuroticism + β8Openness + ε
The output can be found in appendix 13.6. Both regression model 1 (F = 1.661, p = 0.132) and regression model
2 (F = 1.656, p = 0.086) are not significant for TWPF Focus.
In case of TWPF Socialize, both the control regression model (F = 0.793, p = 0.577) and the extended regression
model (F = 1.204, p = 0.286) are not significant either.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 55
For the regression on TWPF Collaborate (F = 1.822, p = 0.096), the model with only control variables is not
significant, but the second model is (F = 2.243, p = 0.014; R2 = 0.107, adj. R
2 = 0.060): Extraversion significantly
influences the extent to which people can find a place to Collaborate (β4 = 0.302, p = 0.011).
Regarding TWPF Learn, both the first (F = 0.733, p = 0.580) and second (F = 1.289, p = 0.233) regression model
lack significance.
Relationship between Personality Traits and Work Performance (Relation 3)
The analysis is continued by validating the third and last relationship of sub-model 1.
To some extent, influences of personality on work performance are expected (John et al., 2008). It could be for
example that people who are higher on the Conscientiousness dimension take their work more seriously and
therefore are more productive, compared to others.
The statistical regression model is as follows:
Work Performance = α + (β1Gender + β2Age + β3.2Position_d2 + β3.3Position_d3 + β3.4Position_d4 +
β3.5Position_d5) + β4Extraversion + β5Agreeableness + β6Conscientiousness + β7Neuroticism + β8Openness + ε
Separate regression analyses were conducted for each of the performance indicators. The output is available in
appendix 13.7.
For the influence of personality traits on employee satisfaction, no significant model has been found
(regression model 1: F = 1.924, p = 0.078; regression model 2: F = 1.661, p = 0.084). However, when the focus is
only on the impact of Extraversion on employee satisfaction, the beta is significant: β4 = 0.204, p = 0.025 (F =
2.404, p = 0.022; R2 = 0.075, adj. R
2 = 0.044) (variant b).
Work life balance is negatively affected by Neuroticism (β7 = -0.301, p = 0.007). Again a significant dummy for
position 2 is found; this result has already been discussed (F = 2.114, p = 0.021; R2 = 0.102, adj. R
2 = 0.054).
Conscientiousness has a significant positive influence (β6 = 0.448, p = 0.000) on productivity (F = 5.691, p =
0.000; R2 = 0.234, adj. R
2 = 0.193).
Final remark sub-model 1
There are significant relationships between work practices and work performance, personality traits and work
practices, and personality traits and work performance.
Two direct effects of personality traits on work performance were found, but these effects are not mediated by
one of the NWoW practices.
3) Work Performance Employee satisfaction
Work life balance Productivity
Personality Traits Extraversion
Agreeableness Conscientiousness
Neuroticism Openness
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 56
A more extensive discussion about the outcomes of this sub-model is given after the validation of the latest
sub-model (number 3).
5.4.2. Sub-model 2 – Moderating Effect of Personality Traits
In the previous sub-model, it was analyzed among other things to what extent personality is decisive for the
degree to which NWoW work practices are applied / used.
The second sub-model is about the influence of personality on the effects of work practices on work
performance.
The proposition here is that due to different personality traits, people experience NWoW practices in a
different way, which results in varying effects of ‘work practices’ on ‘work performance indicators’.
First of all, a graphical representation of this sub-model is given:
Hierarchical moderated regression analyses are used to validate sub-model 2. To prevent problems of
multicollinearity, the independent variables have been centered by subtracting their mean (Kroonenberg &
Linting, 2011: p. 19).
To indicate that a certain variable is centred, a ‘C’ is added to the variable name (e.g. in the appendices). By
multiplying each of the work practices with each of the (separate) personality traits, interaction terms were
computed.
The independent variables are added to the regression analysis in three stages/blocks:
First stage: control variables (gender, age, and position) (regression model 1: identical to the control
models of sub-model 1, relation 1).
Second stage: mean centered work practice variable and mean centered personality variables
(regression model 2)
Third stage: interaction terms (regression model 3)
Work Performance Employee satisfaction
Work life balance Productivity
Personality Traits Extraversion
Agreeableness Conscientiousness
Neuroticism Openness
Work Practices Reflexivity Flexibility
TWPF
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 57
Because the impact of work practices on work performance (relation 1) and the impact of personality traits on
work performance (relation 2) has already been analyzed for sub-model 1, here the emphasis is on the added
value of the interaction terms to the regression models.
The focus is especially on the R Square Change (ΔR2) and its significance (which measures the difference
between regression model 2 and regression model 3 after adding the block of interaction terms for
personality). It is important to realize that the interpretation of the parameters changes when an interaction
term is included: they now represent the number of units change in the predicted value, when a predictor
changes one unit, given that the other predictor(s) are equal to zero (Kroonenberg & Linting, p.19). Because
centered variables are used, the main effect of one independent variable is examined against the means of the
other independent variables.
The moderating impact of personality traits is also examined for relations that were not significant in the
analysis of the first sub-model (relation 1). Especially when the main effects are not significant, outcomes have
to be interpreted cautiously.
Relation 4a: Personality – Reflexivity / Work Performance
The analysis of sub-model 2 starts by focussing on the moderating impact of personality traits on the relation
between reflexivity and work performance.
The statistical regression model is as follows:
Work Performance = α + (β1Gender + β2Age + β3.2Position_d2 + β3.3Position_d3 + β3.4Position_d4 +
β3.5Position_d5) + β4ReflexivityC + β5ExtraversionC + β6AgreeablenessC + β7ConscientiousnessC +
β8NeuroticismC + β9OpennessC + β10ReflexivityC*ExtraversionC + β11ReflexivityC*AgreeablenessC +
β12ReflexivityC*ConscientiousnessC + β13ReflexivityC*NeuroticismC + β14ReflexivityC*OpennessC + ε
This model was validated nine times in total: for each of the performance indicators (employee satisfaction,
work life balance, and productivity) and for each type of reflexivity (‘reflection on working hours and schedule’,
‘reflection on choice of location’, and ‘reflection on media use’). The output is available in appendix 14.1.
Employee satisfaction
According to the outcomes of sub-model 1, none of the three types of reflexivity has significant influence on
employee satisfaction.
In case of ‘Reflection on working hours and schedule’ the R2 change, caused by adding the interaction terms to
the regression model, is not significant (ΔR2 = 0.009, p = 0.849).
Regarding the relationship between ‘reflection on choice of location’ and employee satisfaction, regression
model 2 is not significant (F = 1.718, p = 0.065), but regression model 3 is (F = 1.833, p = 0.026; R2 = 0.135 adj.
R2 = 0.061); however, the change in R
2 is not significant (ΔR
2 = 0.044, p = 0.079).
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 58
When only ReflocC*ExtraversionC is added in the third stage to the regression model (variant b; F = 2.045, p =
0.019; R2 = 0.116 adj. R
2 = 0.059), both the change in R
2 (ΔR
2 = 0.024, p = 0.020) and the interaction term is
significant (β10 = -0.296, p = 0.020).
The main effect of ‘Reflection on choice of location’ on employee satisfaction is not significant (β4 = 0.108, p =
0.087), but the main effect of Extraversion on employee satisfaction is (β5 = 0.208, p = 0.044).
It is notable that ‘reflection on media use’, for which no significant effect was found in the analysis of relation
1a, when isolated from the other two types of reflexivity, does have a significant influence (β4 = 0.154, p =
0.045) on employee satisfaction (regression model 2: R2 = 0.100 adj. R
2 = 0.047; F = 1.885, p = 0.038). No
interaction effect of personality traits has been found for this relationship (ΔR2 = 0.014, p = 0.686).
Work life balance
The analysis of the first sub-model revealed that ‘reflection on working hours and schedule’ and ‘reflection on
media use’ have a significant impact on work life balance. These relationships are not moderated by personality
traits: adding the block with interaction terms does not add significantly to the explanatory power of the
regression model (‘reflection on working hours and schedule’: ΔR2 = 0.005, p = 0.934; ‘reflection on media use’:
ΔR2 = 0.020, p = 0.439).
‘Reflection on choice of location’ has no impact on work life balance and the R2 change due to the interaction
terms is not significant (ΔR2 = 0.014, p = 0.667).
Productivity
A significant influence of ‘reflection on media use’ on productivity was found in sub-model 1. This relationship
is not moderated by personality traits (ΔR2 = 0.011, p = 0.638).
‘Reflection on working hours and schedule’ and ‘reflection on choice of location’ did not significantly impact
productivity. After adding the interaction terms for personality, R2 do not show a significant change in case of
‘reflection on working hours and schedule’ (ΔR2 = 0.015, p = 0.549).
Regarding ‘reflection on choice of location’, the change in the explanatory power is not significant either (ΔR2 =
0.037, p = 0.078). There is, however, one interaction term that has a significant influence: when only this
variable (ReflocC*AgreeablenessC: β11 = 0.193, p = 0.049) is added in the third regression block, the R2 change
(variant b) is slightly significant (ΔR2 = 0.014, p = 0.049) (R
2 = 0.252 adj. R
2 = 0.204; F = 5.256, p = 0.000).
The main effect of ‘reflection on choice of location’ (β4 = 0.026, p = 0.929) on productivity and the main effect
of Agreeableness (β6 = -0.011, p = 0.864) on productivity are not significant.
Relation 4b: Personality – Flexibility / Work Performance
The analysis is continued by validating the moderating effect of personality on the relationship between
flexibility and work performance.
The statistical regression model is as follows:
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 59
Work Performance = α + (β1Gender + β2Age + β3.2Position_d2 + β3.3Position_d3 + β3.4Position_d4 +
β3.5Position_d5) + β4FlexibilityC + β5ExtraversionC + β6AgreeablenessC + β7ConscientiousnessC + β8NeuroticismC
+ β9OpennessC + β10FlexibilityC*ExtraversionC + β11FlexibilityC*AgreeablenessC +
β12FlexibilityC*ConscientiousnessC + β13FlexibilityC*NeuroticismC + β14FlexibilityC*OpennessC + ε
The model has been validated six times: for each performance indicator and for each flexibility concept (output
can be found in appendix 14.2).
The analysis of relation 1b of sub-model 1 did not reveal a significant influence of flexibility (flex-time, flex-
place) on work performance (employee satisfaction, work life balance, productivity).
Regarding employee satisfaction, regression models 1 and 2 for both flex-time and flex-place are not
significant. This does not change after adding the interaction terms (regression model 3 – flex-time: F = 1.481, p
= 0.131, ΔR2 = 0.019, p = 0.511; flex-place: F = 1.421, p = 0.130, ΔR
2 = 0.029, p = 0.294).
When only Extraversion is added to the regression model in the second stage, and only Flex-
placeC*ExtraversionC is added in the third stage, regression model 2 (F = 2.152, p = 0.033; R2 = 0.080 adj. R
2 =
0.043) and regression model 3 (F = 2.414, p = 0.013; R2 = 0.099 adj. R
2 = 0.058) do appear to be significant and a
significant interaction effect is found: β10 = -0.006 (p = 0.041) (variant b).
The main effect of Extraversion on employee satisfaction is significant (β5 = 0.224, p = 0.015); the main effect of
flex-place on employee satisfaction is not significant (β4 = -0.002, p = 0.330).
No significant change of R2 took place when the interaction terms were added to the regression model in case
of work life balance (flex-time: ΔR2 = 0.014, p = 0.686; flex-place: ΔR
2 = 0.004, p = 0.971).
It turns out that flex-time has a small, significant influence on work life balance (β4 = -0.008, p = 0.039)
(regression model 2: F = 2.316, p = 0.009), but a regression model without personality traits (variant b: only
control variables and flex-time) is not significant (F = 1.701, p = 0.110).
In the analysis of sub-model 1, no significant impact of flex-time or flex-place on productivity was found.
Regarding flex-time, the moderator analyse revealed that there are two interaction terms with a significant
beta: Flex-timeC*ConscientiousnessC (β12 = -0.015, p = 0.011) and flex-timeC*NeuroticismC (β13 = 0.011, p =
0.033) (R2 = 0.301 adj. R
2 = 0.241; F = 5.005, p = 0.000).
The main effect of Conscientiousness on productivity is significant (β7 = 0.402, p = 0.000); the main effects of
Neuroticism (β8 = -0.119, p = 0.083) and flex-time on productivity (β4 = 0.003, p = 0.239) are not significant.
Regarding flex-place, adding the interaction terms to the regression model does not result in a significant
change of the explanatory power (ΔR2 = 0.016, p = 0.536).
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 60
Relation 4c: Personality – Task Workplace Fit / Work Performance
The last relation of sub-model 2 for which moderator analyses are conducted concerns the effect of personality
on the relationship between Task Workplace Fit and Work Performance.
The statistical regression model is as follows:
Work Performance = α + (β1Gender + β2Age + β3.2Position_d2 + β3.3Position_d3 + β3.4Position_d4 +
β3.5Position_d5) + β4Task Workplace FitC + β5ExtraversionC + β6AgreeablenessC + β7ConscientiousnessC +
β8NeuroticismC + β9OpennessC + β10Task Workplace FitC*ExtraversionC + β11Task Workplace
FitC*AgreeablenessC + β12Task Workplace FitC*ConscientiousnessC + β13Task Workplace FitC*NeuroticismC +
β14Task Workplace FitC*OpennessC + ε
This model has been validated twelve times in total (three performance indicators times four types of TWPF) .
Output is available in appendix 14.3.
Employee satisfaction
The analysis of relation 1c revealed that there are three types of Task Workplace Fit that have a significant
impact on employee satisfaction: TWPF Focus, TWPF Learn, and TWPF Socialize.
The influence of TWPF Socialize on employee satisfaction is not moderated by personality traits (ΔR2 = 0.013, p
= 0.662).
FocusC*ExtraversionC (β10 = 0.213, p = 0.021) and FocusC*AgreeablenessC (β11 = -0.280, p = 0.011) have a
significant impact on the relationship between TWPF Focus and employee satisfaction (R2 = 0.225 adj. R
2 =
0.159; F = 3.401, p = 0.000).
The main effect of TWPF Focus on employee satisfaction is significant (β4 = 0.260, p = 0.000); the main effects
of Extraversion on employee satisfaction (β5 = 0.069, p = 0.488) and Agreeableness on employee satisfaction
(β6 = 0.175, p = 0.115) are not significant.
The interaction term LearnC*NeuroticismC (β13 = 0.311, p = 0.004) has a significant impact on the relationship
between TWPF Learn and employee satisfaction (R2 = 0.210 adj. R
2 = 0.142; F = 3.109, p = 0.000).
The main effect of TWPF Learn on employee satisfaction is significant (β4 = 0.237, p = 0.000); the main effect of
Neuroticism on employee satisfaction is not significant (β8 = -0.075, p = 0.451).
According to the analysis of relation 1c (sub-model 1), there was no significant impact of TWPF Collaborate on
employee satisfaction. However, in this case TWPF Collaborate is isolated from the other TWPF variables and
now it does have a significant influence on employee satisfaction (β4 = 0.260, p = 0.000) (R2 = 0.157 adj. R
2 =
0.107; F = 3.165, p = 0.000).
Adding the interaction terms for examining the moderating effect of personality traits does not result in a
significant change of R2
(ΔR2 = 0.042, p = 0.068). When only the interaction term for Extraversion is added in the
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 61
third block to the regression model (variant b), the change in R2
is significant (ΔR2 = 0.039, p = 0.002) and also
the beta for CollaborateC*ExtraversionC (β10 = 0.327, p = 0.002) (R2 = 0.196 adj. R
2 = 0.144; F = 3.803, p = 0.000)
is significant.
The main effect of TWPF Collaborate on employee satisfaction is significant (β4 = 0.265, p = 0.000); the main
effect of Extraversion on employee satisfaction is not significant (β5 = 0.104, p = 0.689).
Work life balance
In the analysis of relation 1c (sub-model 1), it was found that only TWPF Focus has a significant influence on
work life balance.
However, when the Task Workplace Fit variables are isolated from one another (regression model 2), the other
three types also have a significant impact on work life balance: TWPF Socialize (β4 = 0.181, p = 0.008) (F = 2.588,
p = 0.003; R2 = 0.132 adj. R
2 = 0.081), TWPF Learn (β4 = 0.114, p = 0.031) (F = 2.364, p = 0.007; R
2 = 0.122 adj. R
2
= 0.070), and TWPF Collaborate (β4 = 0.166, p = 0.012) (F = 2.529, p = 0.004; R2 = 0.129 adj. R
2 = 0.078).
It appears that none of the four relations are moderated by one or more interaction terms (TWPF Socialize: ΔR2
= 0.038, p = 0.110; TWPF Collaborate ΔR2 = 0.037, p = 0.126; TWPF Learn: ΔR
2 = 0.024, p = 0.353; TWPF Focus
ΔR2 = 0.038, p = 0.092).
Productivity
It was found in the analysis of relation 1c (sub-model 1) that TWPF Learn has a significant positive influence on
productivity. Adding the interaction terms to the regression model does not reveal a significant change of R2.
This implies that personality traits as a whole do not add significantly to the explanatory power of the model
(ΔR2 = 0.031, p = 0.124). But when only the interaction terms for Conscientiousness and Openness are included
in the third stage (variant b), the change of R2 is significant (ΔR
2 = 0.030, p = 0.014) and also the betas are:
LearnC*ConscientiousnessC (β12 = -0.157, p = 0.030) and LearnC*OpennessC (β14 = -0.178, p = 0.026) (F = 6.244,
p = 0.000).
The main effects of TWPF Learn (β4 = 0.114, p = 0.000) and Conscientiousness (β7 = 0.404, p = 0.000) on
productivity are significant; the main effect of Openness on productivity is not significant (β9 = 0.116, p =
0.091).
Regarding the other three types of TWPF, a similar result has been found as for work life balance. It was
concluded earlier (relation 1c, sub-model 1) that these variables do not significantly impact productivity, but
when they are isolated from each other, they do: TWPF Socialize (β4 = 0.179, p = 0.000) (F = 7.330; p = 0.000; R2
= 0.301 adj. R2 = 0.260), TWPF Focus (β4 = 0.076, p = 0.019) (F = 5.803, p = 0.000; R
2 = 0.254 adj. R
2 = 0.211), and
TWPF Collaborate (β4 = 0.092, p = 0.023) (F = 5.765, p = 0.000; R2 = 0.253 adj. R
2 = 0.209).
The personality traits do not moderate the relations between Task Workplace Fit and productivity (TWPF
Socialize: ΔR2 = 0.014, p = 0.533; TWPF Collaborate ΔR
2 = 0.002, p = 0.989; TWPF Learn: ΔR
2 = 0.031, p = 0.124;
TWPF Focus ΔR2 = 0.015, p = 0.530).
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 62
5.4.3. Sub-model 3 – Work Arrangements – Work Practices
The third sub-model deals with the impact of work arrangements on work practices. It is reasonable that
certain conditions should be met before people could apply NWoW work practices.
Also this sub-model has been validated by means of hierarchical multiple regression analyses, by using an
approach that is quite similar to the approach of sub-model 1.
First stage: control variables (gender, age, position, time dependency, and location dependency)
(regression model 1)
Second stage: work practice variables (regression model 2)
Depending on the type of relation (more related to time versus more related to location), (one of the) two
additional control variables – time dependency and location dependency – are included in the analyses of this
sub-model.
Relation 5a: Workplace Design & Freedom Work Location – Task Workplace Fit
In chapter 3, Task Workplace Fit was defined as “the degree in which people are able to find a workplace that
suit the task they are performing, either within or outside the office”. As a starting point, it is suggested that
there are two elements that define whether people are able to find a place that suit their needs. First of all, the
design of the office is very important. For instance: do people have their own room, or do they share a room
with others? Besides, also the policies and agreements on and facilitation of telework are relevant: when
workers cannot find a place in the office that suits their task, they have additional possibilities to find such a
place when they are allowed to work elsewhere.
It could be that having a private room benefits TWPF Focus and TWPF Learn, while a shared room benefits
TWPF Socialize and TWPF Collaborate. Besides, backup spaces and freedom to choose work locations could
have a positive impact on all types of TWPF.
The statistical regression model is as follows:
TWPF = α + (β1Gender + β2Age + β3.2Position_d2 + β3.3Position_d3 + β3.4Position_d4 + β3.5Position_d5 +
β4Location Dependency) + β5.2Room sharing_d2 + β5.3Room sharing_d3 + β5.4Roomsharing_d4 +
β5.5Roomsharing_d5 + β6Own Workplace + β7Backup Spaces + β8Freedom Work Location + ε
Work Practices Work Arrangements
Task Workplace Fit Focus
Socialize Collaborate
Learn
Workplace design Room sharing
Own work place Backup spaces
Freedom work loc.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 63
This model has been validated four times in total. The output can be found in appendix 15.1.
TWPF Focus
Regarding TWPF Focus, the model with only control variables is already significant (F = 2.643, p = 0.012; R2 =
0.082, adj. R2 = 0.051). There are two variables that have influence on this type of Task Workplace Fit: Age (β2 =
0.021, p = 0.015) and location dependency (β4 = -0.229, p = 0.004).
In regression model 2 (F = 4.729, p = 0.000; R2 = 0.249, adj. R
2 = 0.196), the impact of location dependency is no
longer significant (β4 = -0.135, p = 0.110).
Having a private room is indeed very beneficial for focus: all room sharing dummies have a significant negative
influence on TWPF Focus, when workers with a single room are the reference group: Room sharing_d2 (share a
room with 1-2 others: β5.2 = -0.442, p = 0.020), Room sharing_d3 (share a room with 3-8 others: β5.2 = -0.892, p
= 0.000), Room sharing_d4 (share a room with 9-23 others: β5.4 = -1.032, p = 0.000), Room sharing_d5 (share a
room with more than 23 others: β5.5 = -0.912, p = 0.000). Also the degree in which people can choose their own
work location has a positive impact on TWPF Focus (β8 = 0.074, p = 0.012).
TWPF Socialize
The model with only control variables is not significant (F = 0.670, p = 0.697), but regression model 2 is (F =
2.549, p = 0.002; R2 = 0.151, adj. R
2 = 0.092). It appears that the control variable location dependency has a
positive influence on TWPF Socialize (β4 = 0.141, p = 0.037).
The degree of freedom that people have to choose their own work location(s) (β8 = 0.059, p = 0.012) and the
availability of backup spaces (β7 = 0.351, p = 0.005) also have a significant impact on this type of Task
Workplace Fit.
TWPF Collaborate
The model with only control variables is not significant for the regression on TWPF Collaborate (F = 1.781, p =
0.093). After adding the remainder of the variables to the regression model, there is a significant model (F =
1.801, p = 0.040; R2 = 0.112, adj. R
2 = 0.050), but the betas themselves are not significant.
TWPF Learn
For TWPF Learn, the first regression model (control variables) is not significant (F = 1.692, p = 0.112), but the
second regression model appears to be significant (F = 2.153, p = 0.011; R2 = 0.131, adj. R
2 = 0.070). All
dummies on Room sharing have a negative impact on TWPF Learn; in case of two dummies, this impact is
significant: Room sharing_d2 (share a room with 1-2 others: β6.2 = -0.447, p = 0.017) and Room sharing_d4
(share a room with 9-23 others: β6.4 = -0.605, p = 0.012).
Relation 5b: Workplace Design & Freedom Work Location – Flex-place
This relationship is quite similar to relation 5a. It is expected that the design of the workplace in combination
with freedom to work outside the office, influences the amount of flex-time.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 64
The statistical regression model is as follows:
Flex-place = α + (β1Gender + β2Age + β3.2Position_d2 + β3.3Position_d3 + β3.4Position_d4 + β3.5Position_d5 +
β4Location Dependency) + β5.2Room sharing_d2 + β5.3Room sharing_d3 + β5.4Roomsharing_d4 +
β5.5Roomsharing_d5 + β6Own Workplace + β7Backup Spaces + β8Freedom Work Location + ε
Output is available in appendix 15.2. The first regression model with control variables is already significant (F =
8.082, p = 0.000; R2 = 0.222, adj. R
2 = 0.195). However, the second regression model (F = 6.074, p = 0.000; R
2 =
0.308, adj. R2 = 0.257) has a higher predictive power (ΔR
2 = 0.086, p = 0.002).
Again, it appears that especially independent / hired workers (position 5) are engaged in flex-place (β3.5 =
25.949, p = 0.000). Location dependency has a significant negative impact on flex-place (β4 = -8.634, p = 0.001).
Another significant negative influence comes from having an own work place / desk in the office of the
organization (β6 = -18.555, p = 0.000).
Relation 5c: Freedom Work Location – Reflection on Choice of Location
The next relationship validates the proposition that more freedom to choose the work location(s) leads to
more reflection on work location.
The statistical regression model is as follows:
Reflection on choice of location = α + (β1Gender + β2Age + β3.2Position_d2 + β3.3Position_d3 + β3.4Position_d4 +
β3.5Position_d5 + β4Location Dependency) + β5Freedom Work Location + ε
Output is available in appendix 15.3. According to the regression model with only control variables (F = 3.812, p
= 0.001; R2 = 0.114, adj. R
2 = 0.084), location dependency has a negative effect on the degree in which people
reflect on the choice of their work location (β4 = -0.240, p = 0.000). This effect reduces (β4 = -0.142, p = 0.030) in
regression model 2, but remains significant (F = 4.783, p = 0.000; R2 = 0.157, adj. R
2 = 0.124). Also a significant
effect of freedom work location has been found, although this is a small effect (β5 = 0.072, p = 0.001).
Relation 5d: Freedom Working Hours – Flex-time
It is expected that people who receive freedom to choose their own working hours, will also use this freedom.
In this model (and the next model), the control variable ‘location constraints’ has been replaced by ‘time
constraints’.
Flex-place
Workplace design Room sharing
Own work place Backup spaces
Freedom work loc.
Reflection on choice of location
Freedom work location
Flex-time Freedom working
hours
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 65
The statistical regression model is as follows:
Flex-time = α + (β1Gender + β2Age + β3.2Position_d2 + β3.3Position_d3 + β3.4Position_d4 + β3.5Position_d5 +
β4Time Dependency) + β5Freedom Working Hours + ε
Output is available in appendix 15.4. Both the first regression model (F = 3.054, p = 0.004; R2 = 0.094, adj. R
2 =
0.063) and the second regression model (F = 3.245, p = 0.002; R2 = 0.112, adj. R
2 = 0.078) is significant. The
dummies for position 2 (top manager: β3.2 = 7.800, p = 0.002) and position 3 (middle manager: β3.3 = 5.274, p =
0.043) have a significant impact on flex-time. These results were not found in the analysis or relation 2b.
Time dependency negatively influences the percentage of work that is performed during non-regular working
hours (β4 = -2.783, p = 0.039), while freedom of choosing working hours has a positive influence (β5 = 1.149, p =
0.041).
Relation 5e: Freedom Working Hours – Reflection on Working Hours and Schedule
The assumption that will be validated now is that more freedom to choose working hours results in more
reflection on working hours and schedule.
The statistical regression model is as follows:
Reflection on working hours and schedule = α + (β1Gender + β2Age + β3.2Position_d2 + β3.3Position_d3 +
β3.4Position_d4 + β3.5Position_d5 + β4Time Dependency) + β5Freedom Working Hours + ε
Output is available in appendix 15.5. In regression model 1, there are two control variables that have a
significant negative impact on reflection on working hours and schedule: age (β1 = -0.019, p = 0.005) and time
dependency (β4 = -0.141, p = 0.043) (F = 3.993, p = 0.000; R2 = 0.119, adj. R
2 = 0.089). Contrary to the outcomes
of relation 2a, gender does not have a significant effect here.
In regression model 2, the effect of time dependency is no longer significant (β4 = -0.002, p = 0.984). Instead,
the control variable position d_2 becomes significant (β3.2 = -0.284, p = 0.045). It appears that freedom working
hours has a significant influence on reflection on working hours and schedule (β5 = 0.128, p = 0.000) (F = 5.979,
p = 0.000; R2 = 0.188, adj. R
2 = 0.157).
Relation 5f: Telework Facilitation Rate – Reflection on Media Use
It is expected that a higher degree of telework facilitation results in more reflection on media use.
The statistical regression model is as follows:
Reflection on media use = α + (β1Gender + β2Age + β3.2Position_d2 + β3.3Position_d3 + β3.4Position_d4 +
β3.5Position_d5) + β4Telework facilitation rate + ε
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 66
Output is available in appendix 15.6. I appears that both regression model 1 (F = 1.078, p = 0.377; R2 = 0.030,
adj. R2 = 0.002) and regression model 2 (F = 0.966, p = 0.457; R
2 = 0.031, adj. R
2 = -0.001) are not significant,
which means that there is no statistical support for what was expected.
5.5. Discussion of the Outcomes
In the remainder of this chapter, the findings of the research are discussed with reference to the propositions
that were formulated in chapter 3. Given the exploratory character of this study, explanations are formulated as
hypotheses. Further research is needed to validate these statements.
5.5.1. P1 - “NWoW Work Practices have a positive impact on Work Performance”
5.5.1.1. Reflexivity
It has been found that two types of reflexivity have a significant positive influence on work life balance:
‘reflection on working hours and schedule’ and ‘reflection on media use’. Besides, ‘reflection on media use’
impacts productivity significantly as well.
Hypothesis 1A – ‘Reflection on working hours and schedule’ has a significant positive impact on work life
balance
Carefully considering which hours are best suited for work and trying to match working hours with the personal
situation (or the situation of the household / family) results in a better work life balance. Following White et al.
(2003, p.192), personal discretion over time and flexible working hours enable employees to have a more
balanced lifestyle. This argument is in line with Hill et al. (2001: p.49) who argue that more (perceived) job
flexibility makes it possible for employees to better balance their work and family life: it enables them to select
the highest quality working hours and the highest quality personal and family hours.
Hypothesis 1B – ‘Reflection on media use’ has a significant positive impact on work life balance
The relationship between ‘reflection on media use’ and work life balance could be as follows: according to
Friedman et al. (1998: p.124), telecommunication media enhance people’s flexibility regarding their work.
More concrete: these technologies enable workers to accomplish their tasks at their own time and location.
It is in line with scientific literature (Beauregard, 2009) and the previous hypothesis that more flexibility is
beneficial for a better balance between work and private life. Also Perrons (2003) concludes that new media
expand the temporal and spatial range of paid work. This results in more flexibility and time sovereignty and
enables workers “to combine interesting, enjoyable, intellectually challenging and highly satisfying work with
family life” (Perrons, 2003: p. 88).
Hypothesis 1C – ‘Reflection on media use’ has a significant positive impact on productivity
‘Reflection on media use’ does not only affect work life balance, but also has a significant influence on
productivity. Theories such as the media richness theory and the media synchronicity theory suggest that a
better match between message and medium contributes to a more efficient communication. For instance,
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 67
communicating via one single medium (e.g. face-to-face) is less effective than using a set of media. Regarding
the media synchronicity theory, Dennis et al. (2008) concluded that for conveyance processes (transmission of
new information that enables the receiver to create a mental model) media that support lower synchronicity
are required, while for convergence processes (transmission of interpreted information for reaching a common
understanding) media with a higher synchronicity result in a better communication performance (see also
section 3.1.4; Dennis et al., 2008: p.575, 588).
By tuning the medium to the type of message, communication improves, which in turn could be supportive for
employees’ productivity.
Reflection on media – employee satisfaction
The analysis of sub-model 2 suggests that there is also a (significant) positive impact of ‘reflection on media
use’ on employee satisfaction, but this effect was not found in the analysis of sub-model 1. Therefore, this
relation is not taken into consideration here.
5.5.1.2. Flexibility
Hypothesis 1D – Nor flex-place nor flex-time has a significant impact on one of the performance indicators
This outcome of the analysis contradicts scientific sources which claim that more flexibility results in a higher
work performance (e.g. Baltes et al., 1999; Hill et al., 2001).
First of all it could be that, contrary to what the literature suggests, there is no relationship between flexibility
and performance indicators; at least not for the group of respondents in this study.
Alternatively, the relationship between flexibility and work performance could be more sophisticated than
initially thought: more use of flexibility practices does not necessarily improve performance. Elaborating on
this, it could be that not the absolute use of flexibility practices is relevant for a better work performance, but
that the focus should be on the optimal balance between flexibility on the one hand and job characteristics,
personal situation, and preferences on the other hand: what matters is the ‘goodness of fit’ between
individuals and their jobs (and belonging work practices) (Lamond, 2000: p.70).
5.5.1.3. Task Workplace Fit
In the analysis of sub-model 1, a number of significant and positive relations were found: TWPF Focus, TWPF
Learn, and TWPF Socialize impact employee satisfaction, TWPF Focus impacts work life balance, and TWPF
Learn impacts productivity.
Surprisingly, the analysis of the second sub-model revealed that all types of TWPF impact each of the three
performance indicators. It could be that the regression analyses for sub-model 2 were more ‘sensitive’,
because the four types of TWPF were separated from each other in these analyses (they were no longer put
together into the regression models). Supportive for these findings is the existence of significant correlations
between each of the four TWPF types and each of the three performance indicators (appendix 9). Alternatively,
it could be that the four TWPF types are quite related to each other: they also have quite similar (skewed)
distributions (with a peak at value 4).
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 68
The emphasis in this discussion is particularly on the relations that were significant in both the analysis of sub-
model 1 and sub-model 2.
Hypothesis 1E – TWPF Collaborate has no significant impact on employee satisfaction, but the other three
types of TWPF have
The data indicates that all types of Task Workplace Fit significantly affect employee satisfaction, except TWPF
Collaborate (analysis sub-model 1). This could imply that workers experience these three types of Task
Workplace Fit positively.
The univariate analysis suggests that it is relatively easy to find a place that suits Collaboration activities:
compared to the other three types of TWPF, TWPF Collaborate has the highest mean score.
It could be that places for Collaboration activities are more or less expected by knowledge workers, and –
under the condition that a minimum level of Collaboration places is met – incremental amounts above this
threshold do not (significantly) impact workers’ satisfaction level anymore.
Hypothesis 1F – Task Workplace Fit Focus has a significant positive impact on work life balance
For Focus activities, a silent location with a minimum of interruptions and distractions is needed. Especially in
case of shared office rooms, the home environment better meets these requirements than the office
(Montreuil & Lippel, 2003: p.349). People who report a high TWPF Focus, can find a place for Focus activities at
any time they need it, either inside or outside the office (under the condition that there are flex-place policies).
It could be that workers who cannot find a Focus place during working hours, accomplish their Focus tasks
during their free time (at home), at the expense of their work life balance.
Alternatively, it could be that TWPF Focus relates to more flex-place (and more concrete: working at home),
which in turn result in a better work life balance, but this explanation is not (significantly) supported by the
data.
Hypothesis 1G – Task Workplace Fit Learn has a significant positive impact on productivity
The literature argues that learning new skills improve knowledge workers’ productivity. According to Drucker
(1999), especially in case of knowledge work, continuous learning is required.
It could be that TWPF Learn benefits the quality of learning activities, which in turn results in a higher
productivity. Besides, it is arguable that organizations that facilitate relatively many places for learning (e.g. at
the office), put more emphasis on Learn and therefore have higher skilled and more productive workers.
5.5.2. Proposition 2 - “Work Arrangements impact NWoW Work Practices”
5.5.2.1. Work Arrangements
Hypothesis 2A – Private office rooms have a significant positive impact on TWPF Learn and TWPF Focus
According to the literature, in shared office rooms (e.g. open plan offices) there are negative effects of acoustic
environment: workers are increasingly distracted and experience more concentration difficulties. Especially
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 69
distracting in open plan offices are noises from voice, laughter, and telephone ringing (Kaarlela-Tuomaala et al.,
2009).
Given that Learn and Focus activities require concentration, private offices better suit these workplace tasks
(although the requirements for Learn environments might differ according to people’s learning style; Gensler,
2008).
Hypothesis 2B – Own workplace / desk does not have a significant impact on Task Workplace Fit, but has a
significantly negative impact on flex-place
For Task Workplace Fit, it does not matter where exactly people find places that suit their activities. Depending
on policies and agreements that apply, they can find places both inside or outside the office; an own desk in
the office is not necessarily required.
Regarding flex-place, the situation is different. Telework has a monetary benefit for organizations: it enables
them to move to flexible offices, by which rental costs can be reduced. In these offices, the number of desks is
lower than the number of people employed. Workers can use any desk available (Martínez-Sánchez et al.,
2007: p.210).
Additionally, workers who have an own desk in the office, could feel obliged to work there, while people
without an own desk in the office might be stimulated to work elsewhere.
Furthermore, having an own workplace / desk could diminish people’s interest in working at a different
location, because the need to do so is limited.
Hypothesis 2C – Freedom to choose work location(s) has a significant positive impact on both TWPF Focus
and TWPF Socialize, but concerning TWPF Socialize, workers remain dependent on (backup spaces in) the
office
The data suggests that backup spaces for specific tasks such as concentrated work, private phone calls and
meetings only have a significant positive influence on TWPF Socialize. At the meantime, freedom to choose a
work location has a significant positive influence on both TWPF Focus and TWPF Socialize.
It could be that it is more easy for flexible workers to find a place at their own location (e.g. at home) that suits
their Focus tasks, while for Socializing activities (backup spaces in) the office or external offices and meeting
locations are preferred.
Supportive for this hypothesis is that not only the freedom to choose a work location, but also location
dependency seems to have a significant positive impact on TWPF Socialize. This result implicates that, when
people are no longer location bound (which relates to more flex-time), it is more difficult to find a place that
suit their Socializing needs.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 70
Hypothesis 2D – Neither workplace design nor freedom to choose work location(s) has a significant impact on
TWPF Collaborate
It could be that freedom to choose the work location(s) does not matter that much, because the office is the
place par excellence for Collaboration activities. Besides, it could be that the workplace design is not very
important, because the requirements for Collaboration locations are relatively limited; this statement can be
supported by the finding of this study that the average score on TWPF Collaborate is relatively high (which is in
line with hypothesis 1E).
5.5.2.2. Policies / Agreements
Hypothesis 2E – Telework facilitation does not have a significant impact on ‘reflection on media use’, but
‘freedom to choose working hours’ has a significant positive influence on ‘reflection on working hours and
schedule’ and ‘freedom to choose work locations’ has a significant positive influence on ‘reflection on choice
of location’
The data suggests that ‘reflection on working hours and schedule’ is significantly affected by ‘freedom to
choose working hours’, while ‘reflection on choice of location’ is significantly influenced by ‘freedom to choose
work locations’. These results are quite obvious.
However, no significant impact was found of ‘telework facilitation’ on ‘reflection on media use’. An explanation
could be that media availability does not spur people to reflect on their media use. Alternatively, it could be
that ‘telework facilitation’ is too general: because it covers more aspects than media availability alone, no
significant impact was found.
Hypothesis 2F – ‘Freedom to choose working hours’ has a significant positive influence on flex-time, but
‘freedom to choose work locations’ does not have a significant influence on flex-place
According to the data analysis, flex-time is affected by the amount of freedom workers have to choose their
working hours, but flex-place is not affected by freedom to choose the own work locations. It could be that
regarding flex-place other factors play a more dominant role, such as the control variable time dependency, for
which a negative significant effect on flex-place has been found.
5.5.3. Proposition 3 - “Specific Personality Traits impact Work Practices”
Three positive effects of personality traits on work practices have been found: Openness influences both
‘reflection on media use’ and ‘flex-place’ and Extraversion impacts Task Workplace Fit Collaborate.
Hypothesis 3A – Openness has a significant positive impact on ‘reflection on media use’ and flex-place
According to Barrick et al. (2003: p.51), the Openness dimension is related to traits such as originality and
unconventionality. People who are high on this dimension are more creative, prefer new experiences, and are
more likely to break up routines (John et al., 2008).
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 71
It could be that people who score high on Openness continually consider alternative ways of doing, and
therefore also reflect more on media use. This is in line with Jacques et al. (2009) who found an impact of
Openness on the intention to use various information technologies.
A similar reasoning applies to the impact of Openness on flex-place: these people are looking for alternative
ways to accomplish their tasks, which results in a larger portion of work that is accomplished at a different
location than the office.
Hypothesis 3B – Extraversion has a significant positive impact on Task Workplace Fit Collaborate
Contrary to the expectation that Task Workplace Fit is not affected by personality (see section 5.4.1), the data
suggests a significant positive effect of Extraversion on TWPF Collaborate.
According to the literature on personality traits, extravert people are collaborators par excellence: Extraversion
predicts people’s preference for group work (Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2005: p.252). Given that collaboration
is relatively easy for extravert people, it could be that they are more likely to mark a certain location as suitable
for working with others.
5.5.4. Proposition 4 - “Specific Personality Traits impact the relationship between Work
Practices and Work Performance”
First of all, some general remarks have to be made regarding the moderated regression analysis. It sometimes
appeared that the interaction term (predictor*moderator) was significant, but one or both main effects
was/were not significant. There is confusion among scientists about what exactly a moderator is and which
relations have to be significant (Sharma et al., 1981). Holmberg (2002) gives the following definition of
‘moderator’: “a variable that specifies conditions under which a given predictor is related to an outcome”. In
line with this definition, the focus here is on all significant interaction terms. To get a better understanding of
how the findings should be interpreted, a number of graphs were drawn (based on both significant and not
significant relations). These graphs are available in appendix 12.
5.5.4.1. Reflexivity
The data-analysis revealed that there are two significant interaction effects regarding the relationship between
reflexivity and work performance, caused by Extraversion and Agreeableness.
Hypothesis 4A: A higher score on Extraversion in combination with more ‘reflection on choice of location’
result in a relatively lower employee satisfaction
A characteristic of extravert people is that they focus on the outer world and are energized by interaction with
others (John et al., 2008; Lamond, 2000); they highly value interpersonal interactions, such as those that occur
at work (Judge & Mount, 2002: p.531).
It could be that ‘reflection on choice of location’ does make extraverts relatively less satisfied, because they are
less willing to reflect on their location: they prefer to work with colleagues at the office and are less likely to
consider alternatives.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 72
Hypothesis 4B: A higher score on Agreeableness in combination with more ‘reflection on choice of location’
result in a relatively higher productivity
Agreeableness is associated with being cooperative and exchanging thoughts and ideas with others (Barrick &
Mount, 1991). From this point of view, it could be that agreeable people prefer to work at the office and
therefore are less likely to reflect on the choice of their work location. However, the data does not support this
statement.
Because agreeable people are more likely to help others, it could be that others push their work towards them
(Witt et al., 2002: p.165). Reflecting on choice of location could result in a higher percentage of time that is
worked at alternative locations (not in the office). According Barrick & Mount (1991), being flexible is also a
characteristic of agreeable persons. It could be that less time from agreeable people is consumed when they
reflect more on the choice of their location and more on working somewhere else, which results in a higher
productivity.
5.5.4.2. Flexibility
In the previous chapter, three significant interaction effects from Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and
Neuroticism were found for the relationship between flexibility and work performance.
Hypothesis 4C: A higher score on Extraversion in combination with more flex-place result in a relatively lower
employee satisfaction
It was already discussed that extravert people are sociable; they have a preference for working with others
(hypothesis 4A).
Lamond (2000: p.68) argue that extraverts only appreciate types of telework that include high levels of intra-
and extra organizational communication. However, many types of telework (especially working at home) imply
working alone, outside the physical presence of colleagues. For this reason it could be that flex-place is less
satisfying for extravert people.
Hypothesis 4D: A higher score on Conscientiousness in combination with more flex-time result in a relatively
lower productivity
Although a positive direct effect of Conscientiousness on productivity was found (hypothesis C), the data also
suggests that in case of flex-time being conscientious is disadvantageous. According to Stumpf and Parker
Stumpf and Parker (1999: p.850), Conscientiousness is related to (healthy) perfectionism. It could be that
conscientious people spend more time on perfecting their tasks (already done), whereas others work outside
regular working hours to complete their tasks (not yet finished); this in turn could be related to conscientious
people’s tendency to self-regulate themselves too extensively (Yeo & Neal, 2004; see also hypothesis 4J).
Hypothesis 4E: A higher score on Neuroticism in combination with more flex-time result in a relatively higher
productivity
Literature suggests that there is a relationship between Neuroticism and (performance) anxiety (Wetherell et
al., 2002: p.246). Neurotic people are feeling more anxious, guilty, and depressed than others (John et al.,
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 73
2008). Besides, it is argued that people who feel extremely anxious or unsuccessful regarding social interaction,
have a preference for being alone (Long & Averill, 2003: p.31).
It could be that neurotic people feel more comfortable when they work outside the office hours, because it
gives them the feeling that they are less closely watched by their manager and colleagues. Being more happy /
feeling at ease in turn is beneficial for workers’ productivity.
5.5.4.3. Task Workplace Fit
For the relationship between Task Workplace Fit and work performance, a total of six significant interaction
terms were found.
Hypothesis 4F: A higher score on Extraversion in combination with more TWPF Focus result in a relatively
higher employee satisfaction
The literature suggests that the performance of extravert people improves in the presence of distractions
(Morgenstern et al.,1974; Campbell & Hawley, 1982). From this point of view, it is surprising that the data
suggests that extraverts are relatively more satisfied with the availability of Focus locations.
It could be that extravert people have a differing conception of Focus locations (and also consider noisier places
as suitable for Focus tasks). Alternatively or in addition to this, it could be that extraverts are relatively more
satisfied with Focus locations because of their tendency to experience more positive emotions and to have a
higher satisfaction level in general (Judge & Mount, 2002).
Hypothesis 4G: A higher score on Agreeableness in combination with more TWPF Focus result in a relatively
lower employee satisfaction
People who are high on the Agreeableness dimension grant much value to the thoughts and options of others.
Striving for a common understanding is characteristic for Agreeableness (John et al., 2008). It could be that
agreeable people are relatively less satisfied with Focus locations because they want to discuss their ideas with
others, whereas the purpose of Focus locations is to work alone (there is at least no interaction with others).
Hypothesis 4H: A higher score on Neuroticism in combination with more TWPF Learn result in a relatively
higher employee satisfaction
In line with the literature that argues that neurotic people have a preference for being alone (Long & Averill,
2003), it could be that they have an individualistic learning style (learning without others). Eysenck and
Graydon (1989: p.685) argue that anxious (neurotic) people are more “adversely affected by distractions”.
Together these two arguments could explain why neurotic people are relatively more satisfied with places that
suit their Learn activities and where they can withdraw themselves.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 74
Hypothesis 4I: A higher score on Extraversion in combination with more TWPF Collaborate result in a
relatively higher employee satisfaction
Being high on the Extraversion dimension is related to a preference for working with others (Morgeson et al.,
2003: p.588); extravert people like to Collaborate. This could explain why especially extravert people are
satisfied when they can find sufficient places for their Collaboration tasks.
Besides, extravert people are more likely to experience more positive emotions and to be more satisfied than
others (Judge & Mount, 2002). This could be an additional (or alternative) explanation.
Hypothesis 4J: A higher score on Conscientiousness in combination with more TWPF Learn result in a
relatively lower productivity
According to the literature, Conscientiousness has a negative influence on performance in learning contexts.
This is because in these contexts, conscientious people tend to be self-deceptive; they may self-regulate
themselves excessively (Yeo & Neal, 2004: p.234). It could be that more availability of places that fit Learning
tasks is related to more leaning activities (in terms of quality and quantity), which is disadvantageous for the
productivity of conscientious people.
Hypothesis 4K: A higher score on Openness in combination with more TWPF Learn result in a relatively lower
productivity
At first sight, it is counterintuitive that Openness in relationship to TWPF Learn has a relatively negative impact
on productivity, as Openness is associated with intellectual curiosity (John et al., 2008). The literature suggests
however that Openness is positively related with a deep approach of learning, but negatively to a surface
approach (Zhang, 2003: p.1440). It could be that people who are high on the Openness dimension are learning
too extensively (digging too deep), which makes that they benefit less from TWPF Learn in terms of
productivity.
5.5.4. Other Findings
5.5.4.1. Direct Effect of Personality Traits on Work Performance
The data suggests that there are three direct effects of personality traits on work performance.
Hypothesis A: Extraversion has a significant positive impact on employee satisfaction
It was already mentioned earlier in this chapter (hypothesis 4F) that extravert people are more likely to
experience positive emotions, which in turn affects their satisfaction (Judge & Mount, 2002).
Hypothesis B: Neuroticism has a significant negative impact on work life balance
There is consensus among scientists that neuroticism negatively impacts employee satisfaction because
neurotic people are more likely to experience negative emotions (John et al, 2008: p.142; Valcour, 2007:
p.1518), but no significant effect was found in the dataset.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 75
However, the data suggests that there is a significant negative effect of neuroticism on work life balance.
People who score high on this dimension are more affected by stress, evaluate situations more negatively, and
have a tendency to feel unhappy. It could be that neurotic people take their negative feelings home and feel
more burdened, which results in an inferior balance between work and private life.
Hypothesis C: Conscientiousness has a significant positive impact on productivity
Conscientious people are “dependable, self-disciplined, hard-working, and achievement striving” (Barrick et al.,
2003: p.50). The literature argues that the Conscientiousness dimension is positively related to performance on
almost all types of jobs, but especially to conventional jobs, which are characterized by methodological or
procedural activities (Barrick et al., 2003: p.50).
5.5.4.1. Control Variables
Hypothesis D: Top managers score higher on employee satisfaction but lower on work life balance
It could be that top-managers have more opportunities to adapt their work methods to their preferences,
which makes them more satisfied with their jobs. However, at the same time, being a top-manager is a busy
job, which is reflected by a lower work life balance.
Hypothesis E: Women and young people are more likely to reflect on working hours and schedule
The literature suggests that especially women combine their jobs with work in the household and / or raising
children (Nadler et al., 2010: p.898; Perrons, 2003).
In addition to this, in most of the cases these are younger people who have small children that require
attention and care. This could explain why especially younger workers reflect on working hours and schedule.
Alternatively, schedule flexibility is enabled by information and communication technologies (Friedman et al.,
1998: p.124); it could be that younger generations (e.g. digital natives) are more familiar with these
technologies and/or are less likely to stick to old work patterns.
Hypothesis F: Independent / hired people work relatively more outside the office (flex-place); especially top
managers and middle-managers accomplish a higher percentage of their tasks outside regular working hours
(flex-time)
Regarding independent / hired workers, flex-place seems to be a characteristic of their job function.
In case of top-managers and middle-managers, it could be that they have a more flexible working schedule.
Alternatively, this finding could be due to the higher amount of hours worked by top- and middle managers
(see paragraph 5.2.1).
5.6. Final Remarks
A table that summarizes all hypotheses mentioned on the previous pages, can be found in appendix 10a. The
data analysis supports all four propositions for which analyses have been conducted: work arrangements affect
work practices, which in turn affect work performance. Besides, personality has an impact on work practices
and on the relation between work practices and work performance. Additional research is needed to validate
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 76
the more specific hypotheses that have been formulated. These hypotheses are graphically represented in the
figures below:
Figure 5.1. – Hypotheses for proposition 1 & 3 and ‘other findings’.
Figure 5.2. – Hypotheses for proposition 2 & 4.
The green blocks represent ‘personality traits’, the blue blocks ‘work practices’, the red blocks ‘work
outcomes’, the orange blocks ‘work arrangements’, and the grey blocks ‘control variables’.
A solid line means that there is a significant relation, while a dotted line means that there is not a significant
relation. In figure 5.2, the dashed arrow stands for a main effect that is not significant. When a hypothesis
consists out of multiple arrows, lowercase letters are added to the description.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 77
6. Conclusion
This chapter formulates answers to the research questions, describes contributions to management practice
and theory, discusses the limitations of this study, and finally gives a number of recommendations for further
research.
6.1. Answering the Research Question
At the beginning of this thesis (chapter 1), a general research question and a number of sub-questions were
formulated. Now that the data has been analysed and the outcomes have been discussed, answers can be
given to these questions, beginning with the sub-questions and ending with the overall research question.
- The first sub-question was: To what extent does personality have an impact on the degree in which New Ways
of Working aspects are used by knowledge workers?
Three effects of personality traits on work practices were found. Openness has a significant impact on the
degree in which workers reflect on the type of medium; and besides, there is a significant influence of
Openness on the amount of flex-place work.
Further, Extraversion is related to Task Workplace Fit Collaborate: people on the high end of the Extraversion
dimension are more likely to find a place that suits their Collaboration needs.
- The second sub-question was: To what degree does personality have an influence on the relationship between
New Ways of Working aspects and outcomes of work?
A total of eleven significant personality interaction terms (on the relationship between work practices and work
outcomes) were found. In five cases, the effect was positive and in six cases the effect was negative. Each of
the five personality traits moderate at least one relation.
Interaction terms were significant for six relations with employee satisfaction and five relations with
productivity. Regarding work life balance, no significant moderating effect was found, but there was a direct
negative impact of Neuroticism on work life balance.
- The third sub-question was: Which New Ways of Working aspects fit to what personality aspects?
When the focus is especially on the (positive) direct and moderating effects of personality, it appears that
‘reflection on choice of location’ especially fits to Agreeableness; TWPF Focus and TWPF Collaborate to
Extraversion; flex-time and TWPF Learn fit to Neuroticism, and ‘reflection on media use’ and flex-place fit to
Openness. On the other hand, negative interaction effects indicate that ‘reflection on choice of location’ and
flex-place fit less well to Extraversion; TWPF Focus to Agreeableness; flex-time to Conscientiousness; and TWPF
Learn to Conscientiousness and Openness.
- The fourth sub-question was: Which specific New Ways of Working arrangements should be strengthened to
improve specific work outcomes of people who have certain characteristics in terms of personality?
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 78
This really depends. The analysis suggests that in general employee satisfaction can be improved by more
TWPF Focus (especially for extravert people, but less for agreeable people), TWPF Learn (especially for neurotic
people), and TWPF Socialize.
People are better able to find a place for Focus and Learn activities when they have private office rooms (in the
office). Besides, freedom to choose work location(s) has a positive impact on TWPF Focus. The latest work
arrangement also has a positive impact on TWPF Socialize. Another option is to stimulate TWPF Socialize by
means of backup spaces.
Reflection on choice of location and flex-place have a relatively negative impact on employee satisfaction for
extravert people. This implies that freedom to choose work location(s) is relatively less important for extraverts
(although it is useful for them regarding TWPF Focus), while having an own desk at the office is relatively more
important for them.
Work life balance could be improved by more ‘reflection on working hours and schedule’, more ‘reflection on
media use’, and more TWPF Focus. For the first type of reflection, freedom to choose working hours is
important. How to support TWPF Focus was already discussed above.
For a higher productivity, ‘reflection on media use’ is beneficial and also TWPF Learn (but relatively less for
people who score high on Conscientiousness and Openness). It was already mentioned that TWPF Learn can be
stimulated by private office rooms. Agreeable people are relatively more productive due to ‘reflection on
choice of location (freedom to choose the own work location); Conscientious people are relatively less
productive in case of flex-place, while neurotic people are relatively more productive (own workplace / desk is
more important for conscientious people than for neurotic people).
Now it is time to formulate an answer to the overall research question: to what extent is the New Ways of
Working concept affected by personality?
The results of this study indicate that personality really matters. The NWoW work practices do not suit to all
workers equally. Personality impacts both the degree in which NWoW are used and the effects of work
practices on work performance. It seems that, in order to optimize work performance, it is important to get a
match between the worker and work practices.
6.2. Contributions to Theory
A major contribution of this thesis is that a model was developed for analyzing the impact of human related
aspects (personality and culture) on the New Ways of Working. This model is based on job design theory, but
also incorporates personality trait theory (and national culture theory). There were some issues regarding the
development of the model.
In the first place, organizations (or divisions of organizations) differ on the degree in which NWoW practices are
facilitated for employees. This imposed the need for a model (and belonging measurement instrument) that
applies to both organizations that facilitate these practices and to organizations that do not facilitate them.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 79
Secondly, the model should be applicable both for assessing the degree in which a certain type of people (in
terms of personality and national culture) apply NWoW practices (do they use them more/less than others?)
and the extent to which human related aspects have impact on the effects of work practices on work
performance (do they experience them differently than others?).
For selecting the most relevant work practices, the assumption was made the NWoW concept affects the
following three dimensions: people, place and technology (Andersen, 2012).
Some new concepts (and measurement constructs) were developed in relationship with existing concepts and
based on scientific literature (Gensler, 2008; Brahm & Schippers, 2010): ‘reflection on working hours and
schedule’ and Task Workplace Fit (Socialize, Lean, Focus, and Collaborate).
This thesis has also contributed to personality trait theory. Only in the last few decades that scientists have
paid attention to the external validity and predictive value of the Big Five dimensions. They base their research
on the assumption that the personality dimensions interact with environmental factors and together produce
behavioral and experiential outcomes (John et al., 2008: p.141). The research findings of this thesis support this
assumption.
6.3. Contributions to Management Practice
According to the personality selection literature, identifying personality factors for a certain job or role enables
management to predict performance of individuals. This study is helpful for managers of organizations that
apply (or consider to apply) New Ways of Working practices and want to predict outcomes of work (to some
extent).
Personality could also be used to predict performance of teams, but this is more complex: the personality
profile should not only fit to the job requirements, but also to the team (including their personalities).
However, when organizations take the trouble to match personalities with jobs and teams, the literature
suggests that this pays off (Kichuk & Wiesner, 1997).
Managers should realize that employees differ in terms of personality and that these differences have impact
on the use and effects of work practices.
It depends on how a New Way of Working is designed, to determine what exactly the effect of personality is.
For example, one could conclude that flex-place (e.g. working at home) requires especially introvert workers
who prefer to work alone, but this is not the case when a type of flex-place is applied that includes tasks that
are mainly accomplished at the client location.
Besides – elaborating on this example – it would be wrong to conclude that the organization needs exclusively
introvert people, because this personality trait is important for other work practices (e.g. Collaboration).
Personality has especially impact on the relationships between work practices - work life balance and work
practices – productivity. Both performance indicators are important. More productivity enables businesses to
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 80
gain a higher profit; employee satisfaction is especially relevant in case of knowledge work, because the
companies’ resources are stored in the heads of their employee. Unsatisfied employees are more likely to
change jobs (Drucker, 1999).
There are roughly two ways to match personality and work practices. Changing people’s personality is not
possible and therefore managers should match work practices to the people they have employed.
Alternatively, organizations could hire people who have certain characteristics in terms of personality, which is
a much more time consuming approach.
6.4. Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research
The study was conducted among alumni from the ‘PTO Bedrijfkunde’ of the Rotterdam School of Management.
Respondents have different ages, are working in multiple industries and several job positions are represented
(varying from top-manager to independent/hired workers). These are strengths of the dataset.
Generally speaking, most knowledge workers (to whom the New Ways of Working concept applies) are well
educated. They however do not necessarily have a university degree like the respondents in this study.
Moreover, respondents all completed a quite similar (business) education program besides their job, which
might not only be an indication of their level of education, but also of their level of motivation. Related to this
is the large number of respondents with management functions and the huge amount of time that people
spend on their job.
According to Gray (2007: p.543), a problem with almost all personality questionnaires is that the items are
quite transparent. It is not difficult for someone to present himself differently. This means that the researcher
is highly dependent on the honesty of respondents and the insights they have regarding their own behavior
and attitude.
The risk for a self-serving bias was also present regarding the measurement of performance by means of self-
reported data. Within the context of this study, asking peers and/or supervisors to answer questions on
personality and performance was not feasible. It could be that there was indeed a self-serving bias, but when it
is consistent across respondents, the effects are reduced (Eaton, 2003: p.157).
In section 5.4.2, it was stated that for the moderator analysis mean-centered data was used. This method is
quite often applied with the purpose to reduce multicollinearity – and is widely recommended (Kroonenberg &
Linting, 2011).
However, some scientists argue that multicollinearity cannot be eliminated by centering variables. Although
the VIFs (see section 4.3.1.4) are lowered by mean-centering, the ‘problem’ still exists, but is masked.
Echambabi and Hess (2007) conclude that mean-centering does not hurt, but does not help either; however,
there could be good reasons to use mean-centered data for interpretation purposes (Dalal & Zickar, 2011).
When the same moderator analyses in this thesis were conducted without mean-centered data, it appeared
that the VIFs were quite high indeed. This implies that the quality of the estimations of the parameters is not
always optimal. Nevertheless, the parameters for the interaction terms are identical in both (mean-centered
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 81
and not mean-centered data) analyses (Dalal & Zickar, 2011: p.345). In most cases, collinearity problems
cannot be remedied after the data collection (Echambabi and Hess, 2007).
Regarding the impact of human related aspects on the NWoW concept, this thesis covers only the tip of the
iceberg. The following recommendations are made for further research:
In line with the explanatory character of this study, the focus was on personality traits, but not on facets. In
other words: personality was studied at the highest level. It might, however, be valuable to analyse the
relations at a deeper level. Paunonen and Ashton (2001: p.524) concluded that “both the broad factors and
narrow facets predicted substantial numbers of criteria, but the later did noticeably better in that regard”,
which is in line with findings by others (Mershon and Gorsuch, 1988). Soto and John (2009) developed 10 facet
scales based on the BFI, and therefore this type of analysis can be conducted on the existing dataset.
Alternatively, the NEO-PI-R (or an IPIP equivalent) could be used, which distinguishes no less than 30 facets.
The results of this study are based on quantitative data. It could be valuable to complement these findings by
means of interviews. Another recommendation for a more comprehensive understanding is to consider also
the relationships of the conceptual model that have not been analyzed yet. The focus was not on the effects of
media use and work atmosphere (empowerment and control).
Additionally, it could be very interesting to conduct a similar analysis within one single organization, preferably
before and after the implementation of a new way of working in order to find out whether the match between
personality and work practices improves or not.
Besides a personality model, a culture model was developed (which is described in appendix 1). The finding
that personality does matter to the use and effect of NWoW practices is supportive for the assumption that
human related aspects are relevant within this context. The first two hypotheses of the culture model have
already been validated, but the other four have not.
Last but not least, this research has yielded a number of hypotheses that are described in the previous chapter
and need to be validated as well. A table with these hypotheses can be found in appendix 10a.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 82
References
Adolphus, M. (2011). Meet the author of... Cultural Differences in a Globalizing World. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/authors/interviews/cdgw_book.htm
Agho, A. O. (1993). Determinants of Employee Job Satisfaction: An Empirical Test of a Causal Model. Human Relations, 46(8), 1007-1027. doi:10.1177/001872679304600806
Andersen, K. H. (2012). The New World of Work: What does the Workplace of the Future Look Like? Retrieved September 10, 2012, from http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/emea/presscentre/pressreleases/NWOW.mspx#nwow
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., de Vries, R. E., Perugini, M., Gnisci, A., & Sergi, I. (2006). The HEXACO model of personality structure and indigenous lexical personality dimensions in Italian, Dutch, and English. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(6), 851-875. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.06.003
Baas, P. (2010). Task-Technology Fit in the Workplace.
Bailey, D. E., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). A review of telework research: findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 383-400. doi:10.1002/job.144
Baltes, B., Briggs, T., & Huff, J. (1999). Flexible and compressed workweek schedules: A meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 496-513.
Baruch, Y. (2000). Teleworking : benefits and pitfalls as perceived by professionals and managers. Work, 34-49.
Barkema, H. G., & Vermeulen, F. (1997). What differences in the cultural backgrounds of partners are detrimental for international joint ventures? Journal of International Business Studies, 28(4), 845–864. JSTOR. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/155497
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel psychology. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x/abstract
Baskerville, R. F. (2003). Hofstede never studied culture. Science, 28, 1-14.
Baskerville-Morley, R. (2005). A research note: the unfinished business of culture. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(4), 389-391. doi:10.1016/j.aos.2004.08.002
Beauregard, T. A. and Henry, L. C. (2009) Making the link between work-life balance practices and organizational performance. Human resource management review, 19 , 9-22.
Berthon, P., Pitt, L., Ewing, M., & Carr, C. L. (2002). Potential Research Space in MIS : A Framework for Envisioning and Evaluating Research Replication , Extension , and Generation. Information Systems Research, (December), 416-427.
Brewer, P., & Venaik, S. (2010). GLOBE practices and values: A case of diminishing marginal utility? Journal of International Business Studies, 41(8), 1316-1324. Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/jibs.2010.23.
Brahm & Schippers (2010). Development of Team Competencies by means of computer-aided collaborative learning, Working Paper.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 83
Brummelhuis, L. L., Bakker, A. B., Hetland, J., & Keulemans, L. (2012). Do new ways of working foster work engagement ? Psicothema, 24, 113-120.
Campbell, J. B., & Hawley, C. W. (1982). Study habits and Eysenck’s theory of extraversion-introversion. Journal of Research in Personality, 16(2), 139-146. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(82)90070-8
Cartwright, S., & Holmes, N. (2006). The meaning of work: The challenge of regaining employee engagement and reducing cynicism. Human Resource Management Review, 16(2), 199-208. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.03.012
Cattell, R. B., & P. Cattell, H. E. (1995). Personality Structure and the New Fifth Edition of the 16PF. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(6), 926-937. doi:10.1177/0013164495055006002
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., Dissou, G., & Heaven, P. (2005). Personality and preference for academic assessment: A study with Australian University students. Learning and Individual Differences, 15(4), 247-256. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2005.02.002
Chan, J., To, H.-P., & Chan, E. (2006). Reconsidering Social Cohesion: Developing a Definition and Analytical Framework for Empirical Research. Social Indicators Research, 75(2), 273-302. doi:10.1007/s11205-005-2118-1
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: happy and unhappy people. Journal of personality and social psychology, 38(4), 668-78.
Cross, R., & Prusak, L. (2002). The People Who Make Organizations Go-or Stop. Harvard business review.
Dalal, D. K., & Zickar, M. J. (2011). Some Common Myths About Centering Predictor Variables in Moderated Multiple Regression and Polynomial Regression. Organizational Research Methods, 15(3), 339-362. doi:10.1177/1094428111430540
Danielsson, C. B., & Bodin, L. (2008). Office Type in Relation to Health, Well-Being, and Job Satisfaction Among Employees. Environment and Behavior, 40(5), 636-668. doi:10.1177/0013916507307459
De Bony, J. (2009). Role Of National Context In The Transfer Of Practices In Organizations: Learning From Ethnographic Studies. warwick.ac.uk, 1-22. Retrieved from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/conf/olkc/archive/olkc4/papers/3djacquelinedebony.pdf
Dedrick, J., Gurbaxani, V., & Kraemer, K. L. (2003). Information Technology and Economic Performance : A Critical Review of the Empirical Evidence. Computing, 35(1), 1-28.
Denissen, J. J. a, Geenen, R., van Aken, M. a G., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). Development and validation of a Dutch translation of the Big Five Inventory (BFI). Journal of personality assessment, 90(2), 152-7. doi:10.1080/00223890701845229
Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., & Valacich, J. S. (2008). Media, Tasks, and Communication Processes: A Theory of Media Synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 575-600.
De Vocht, A. (2009). Basishandboek SPSS 17. Utrecht: Bijleveld Press.
Drucker, P. F. (1999). Knowledge-Worker Productivity : The Biggest Challenge. California Management Review, 2(Winter), 79-94.
Durham University. (2012). MBTI. Retrieved August 6, 2012, from http://www.dur.ac.uk/careers/s/careerplanning/options/tool/mbti/
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 84
Earley, P. C. (2006). Leading cultural research in the future: a matter of paradigms and taste. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 922–931. Nature Publishing Group. Retrieved from http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jibs/journal/v37/n6/abs/8400236a.html
Eaton, S. C. (2003). If You Can Use Them : Flexibility Policies , Organizational Commitment , and Perceived Performance. Main, 42(2), 145-168.
Echambadi, R., & Hess, J. D. (2007). Mean-Centering Does Not Alleviate Collinearity Problems in Moderated Multiple Regression Models. Marketing Science, 26(3), 438-445. doi:10.1287/mksc.1060.0263
Erez, M. (2010). Culture and job design Culture and the Autonomous Workgroup : Socio-techincal Models. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 400(June 2009), 389-400. doi:10.1002/job
Ewen, R. (2003). An introduction to theories of personality (6th ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eysenck, M. W., & Graydon, J. (1989). Susceptibility to Distraction as a Function of Personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 10(6), 681-687.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Friedman, S. D., Christensen, P., & DeGroot, J. (1998). Work and life: the end of the zero-sum game. Harvard business review, 76(6), 119-29.
Furnham, A. (1996). The big five versus the big four: the relationship between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and NEO-PI five factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(2), 303-307.
Gates, B. (2005). Dital Workstyle: The New World of Work. A Microsoft White Paper.
Gensler. (2008). Workplace Survey.
Georgas, J., & Berry, J. W. (1995). An Ecocultural Taxonomy for Cross-Cultural Psychology. Cross-Cultural Research, 29(2), 121-157. doi:10.1177/106939719502900202
Goldberg, L. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological assessment, 4(1), 26-42.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504-528. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1.
Grant, A. M., Fried, Y., & Juillerat, T. (2010). Work matters: Job design in classic and contemporary perspectives. APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/books/12169/013.html
Gray, P. (2007). Psychology (6th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.
Guest, D. E. (2002). Perspectives on the study of work-life balance. Social Science Information, 41(2), 255–279. Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://ssi.sagepub.com/content/41/2/255.short
Haddon, L., & Brynin, M. (2005). The character of telework and the characteristics of teleworkers. New Technology, Work and Employment, 20(1), 34-46. doi:10.1111/j.1468-005X.2005.00142.x
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 85
Hair, J. F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L.(2006). Multivariate data analysis, 6th edition, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenaars, A. (2000). Building cross-cultural competence: How to create wealth from conflicting values. Yale Univ Press.
Hill, E., Hawkins, A., & Ferris, M. (2001). Finding an Extra Day a Week: The Positive Influence of Perceived Job Flexibility on Work and Family Life Balance*. Family Relations. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2001.00049.x/full
Hofstede. (2001). Cultures consequences, 2th edition, SAGE.
Hofstede, G. (2003). What is culture? A reply to Baskerville. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(7-8), 811-813. doi:10.1016/S0361-3682(03)00018-7
Hofstede, G. (2006). What did GLOBE Really Measure? Researchers’ Mind versus Respondents' Minds. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 882–896. Nature Publishing Group. Retrieved from http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jibs/journal/v37/n6/abs/8400233a.html
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede’s Culture Dimensions: An Independent Validation Using Rokeach's Value Survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15(4), 417-433. doi:10.1177/0022002184015004003
Hofstede, Geert. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, Geert. (2010). The GLOBE debate: Back to relevance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(8), 1339-1346. Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/jibs.2010.31
Hofstede, Geert, & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Personality and Culture Revisited: Linking Traits and Dimensions of Culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(1), 52-88. doi:10.1177/1069397103259443
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill.
Holmbeck, G. N. (2002). Post-hoc probing of significant moderational and mediational effects in studies of pediatric populations. Journal of pediatric psychology, 27(1), 87-96.
House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: an introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37(1), 3-10. doi:10.1016/S1090-9516(01)00069-4
IPIP. (2012). International Personality Item Pool: A Scientific Collaboratory for the Development of Advanced Measures of Personality and Other Individual Differences. Retrieved from http://ipip.ori.org/
Jacob, N. (2005). Cross-cultural investigations: emerging concepts. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(5), 514-528. doi:10.1108/09534810510614986
Jacques, P. H., Garger, J., Brown, C. A., & Deale, C. S. (2009). Personality and Virtual Reality Team Candidates: The Roles of Personality Traits, Technology Anxiety and Trust as Predictors of Perceptions of Virtual Reality Teams. Journal of Business and Management, 15(2).
Javidan, M., House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & De Luque, M. S. (2006). Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences: a comparative review of GLOBE’s and Hofstede's approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 897–914. JSTOR. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4540392
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 86
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory--Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114-158). New York: Guilford Press.
John, O. P. & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In Pervin, L. A. & John, O. P. (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. New York: The Guilford Press.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530-541. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.3.530
Jun, M., & Cai, S. (2006). TQM practice in maquiladora: Antecedents of employee satisfaction and loyalty. Journal of Operations Management. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272696305001609.
Kaarlela-Tuomaala, A., Helenius, R., Keskinen, E., & Hongisto, V. (2009). Effects of acoustic environment on work in private office rooms and open-plan offices - longitudinal study during relocation. Ergonomics, 52(11), 1423-44. doi:10.1080/00140130903154579
Kichuk, S. L., & Wiesner, W. H. (1997). The big five personality factors and team performance: implications for selecting successful product design teams. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 14(3-4), 195-221. doi:10.1016/S0923-4748(97)00010-6
Kogut, B., & Singh, H. (1988). The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of international business studies, 19(3), 411–432. JSTOR. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/155133
Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. a., & Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and boundary management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work–family effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(2), 347-367. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.07.002
Kroonenberg, P. M., & Linting, M. (2011). Multiple Regression for Students. The essentials of multiple regression.
Kurland, N. B., & Bailey, D. E. (2000). The Advantages and Challenges of Working Here , There, Anywhere , and Anytime. Journal of Business.
Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of Culture’s Consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede's cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 285-320. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1810390
Kirsch, L. (1997). Portfolios of control modes and IS project management. Information Systems Research. Retrieved from http://isr.journal.informs.org/content/8/3/215.short
Lamond, D. (2000). Personality and telework. Managing Telework. London.
Langfred, C. W. (2004). Too Much of a Good Thing? Negative Effects of High Trust and Individual Autonomy in Self-Managing Teams. The Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 385-399.
Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J. E., Shamian, J., & Wilk, P. (2004). A longitudinal analysis of the impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(4), 527-545. doi:10.1002/job.256
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 87
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. The Journal of applied psychology, 85(3), 407-16. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10900815
Long, C. R., & Averill, J. R. (2003). Solitude: An Exploration of Benefits of Being Alone. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 33(1), 21-44. doi:10.1111/1468-5914.00204
MacIntosh, R. (1998). Global attitude measurement: an assessment of the World Values Survey postmaterialism scale. American Sociological Review, 63(3), 452–464. JSTOR. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2657558
Management Drives. (2012). Management Drives - Mastering Leadership. Retrieved August 6, 2012, from http://www.managementdrives.com/
Martínez-Sánchez, A., Pérez-Pérez, M., De-Luis-Carnicer, P., & Vela-Jiménez, M. J. (2007). Telework, human resource flexibility and firm performance. New Technology, Work and Employment, 22(3), 208-223. doi:10.1111/j.1468-005X.2007.00195.x
Maseland, R., & van Hoorn, A. (2010). Values and marginal preferences in international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(8), 1325-1329. doi:10.1057/jibs.2010.24
Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. M. (2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness: an empirical test of an integrated model. The Journal of applied psychology, 91(1), 97-108. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.97
Matzler, K., Fuchs, M., & Schubert, A. K. (2004). Employee Satisfaction : Does Kano’ s Model Apply? Total quality management, 15(9-10), 1179-1198.
Mershon, B., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Number of factors in the Personality Sphere: Does Increase in Factors increase predictability of Real-Life Criteria? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(4), 675-680. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.55.4.675
McAdams, D. P. (1992). The five-factor model in personality: a critical appraisal. Journal of personality, 60(2), 329-61.
McCae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2008). The Five-Factor Theory of Personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 159-181). New York: Guilford Press.
McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith-a failure of analysis. Human relations, 55(1), 89. Retrieved from http://hum.sagepub.com/content/55/1/89.short
Minkov, M. (2011). Cultural Differences in a Globalizing World (p. 293). Emerald.
Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2011). The evolution of Hofstede’s doctrine. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18(1), 10-20. doi:10.1108/13527601111104269
Montreuil, S., & Lippel, K. (2003). Telework and occupational health: a Quebec empirical study and regulatory implications. Safety Science, 41(4), 339-358. doi:10.1016/S0925-7535(02)00042-5
Morgenstern, F., Hodgson, R., & Law, L. (1974). Work efficiency and personality: A comparison of introverted and extraverted subjects exposed to conditions of distraction and distortion of stimulus in a learning task. Ergonomics. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00140137408931340
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 88
Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2003). Work Design. Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12, 423-452.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2008). Job and team design: Toward a more integrative conceptualization of work design. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 27. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Morgeson, F. P., Reider, M. H., & Campion, M. A. (2005). Selecting Individuals in Team Settings: the Importance of Social Skills, Personality Characteristics, and Teamwork Knowledge. Personnel Psychology, 58(3), 583-611. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.655.x
Nadler, J. T., Cundiff, N. L., Lowery, M. R., & Jackson, S. (2010). Perceptions of organizational attractiveness: The differential relationships of various work schedule flexibility programs. Management Research Review, 33(9), 865-876. doi:10.1108/01409171011070297
Nakata, C. (2009). Beyond Hofstede - Culture Frameworks for Global Marketing and Management. (C. Nakata, Ed.)Management. Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230240834
Newman, K. L., & Nollen, S. D. (1996). Culture and congruence: The fit between management practices and national culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(4), 753–779. JSTOR. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/155511
Nickels, W. G., McHugh, J. M., & McHugh, S. M. (2008). Understanding Business. McGraw-Hill.
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. doi:10.1348/096317901167460
Paunonen, S., & Ashton, M. (2001). Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(3), 524-539.
Perrons, D. (2003). The New Economy and the Work-Life Balance: Conceptual Explorations and a Case Study of New Media. Gender, Work & Organization, 10(1), 65-93. doi:10.1111/1468-0432.00004
Raghuram, S., London, M., & Larsen, H. H. (2001). Flexible employment practices in Europe: country versus culture. International Journal of Human Resource Management , 12(5), 738-753. doi:10.1080/09585190110047811
Ralston, D. A., Guastafson, D. J., Elsass, P. M., Cheung, F., & Terpstra, R. H. (1992). Eastern values: a comparison of managers om the United States, Hong Kong, and the People’s Republic of China. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(5), 664-671.
Ramírez, Y. W., & Nembhard, D. a. (2004). Measuring knowledge worker productivity: A taxonomy. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(4), 602-628. doi:10.1108/14691930410567040
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 203-212. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001.
Rousseau, D. M. (1977). Technological differences in job characteristics, employee satisfaction, and motivation: A synthesis of job design research and sociotechnical systems theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19(1), 18-42. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(77)90052-6
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five Markers. Journal of personality assessment, 63(3), 506-516.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 89
Schippers, M. C., Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2007). Reflexivity in Teams: A Measure and Correlates. Applied Psychology, 56(2), 189-211. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00250.x
Schwartz, S. (2008). Cultural value orientations: Nature and implications of national differences. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, (921). Retrieved from http://seangallaghersite.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Monograph_Cultural_Value_Orientations1.29340248.pdf
Sekeran, U. (2003). Research Methods for Business (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Sharma, S., Durand, R. M., & Gur-Arie, O. (1981). Identification and Analysis of Moderator Variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 291-300.
Sinha, K. K., & Van der Ven, A. H. (2005). Designing Work Within and Between Organizations. Organization Science, 16(4), 389-408.
Sivakumar, K., & Nakata, C. (2001). The stampede toward Hofstede’s framework: avoiding the sample design pit in cross-cultural research. Journal of international business studies, 32(3), 555–574. JSTOR. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/3069497
Smith, P. B. (2006). When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled: The GLOBE and Hofstede projects. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 915–921. Nature Publishing Group. Retrieved from http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jibs/journal/v37/n6/abs/8400235a.html
Snell, S. A. (1992). Control Theory in Strategic Human Resource Management: The Mediating Effect of Administrative Information. The Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 292-327.
Soto, Christopher J., & John, O. P. (2009). Ten facet scales for the Big Five Inventory: Convergence with NEO PI-R facets, self-peer agreement, and discriminant validity. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(1), 84-90. Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.10.002.
Spreitzer, G. M. (2011). Psychological Empowerment In The Workplace : Dimensions , Measurement , And Validation. Management, 38(5), 1442-1465.
Staples, D. S., Hulland, J. S., & Higgins, C. A. (1999). A Self-Efficiacy Theory Explanation for the Management of Remote Workers in Virtual Organizations. Organization Science, 10(6), 758-776.
Stumpf, H., & Parker, W. D. (2000). A hierarchical structural analysis of perfectionism and its relation to other personality characteristics. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 837-852.
Sullivan, C. (2003). What’s in a name? Definitions and conceptualisations of teleworking and homeworking. New Technology, Work and Employment, 18(3), 158-165. doi:10.1111/1468-005X.00118
Tangen, S. (2005). Demystifying productivity and performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 54(1), 34-46. doi:10.1108/17410400510571437
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (2012). of Empowerment : Elements “ Interpretive ” Model An Motivation Task Intrinsic of. Management, 15(4), 666-681.
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Work Design Theory : A Review and Critique with Implications for Human Resource Development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(1).
Tung, R. L., & Verbeke, A. (2010). Beyond Hofstede and GLOBE: Improving the quality of cross-cultural research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(8), 1259-1274. Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/jibs.2010.41
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 90
Valcour, M. (2007). Work-based resources as moderators of the relationship between work hours and satisfaction with work-family balance. The Journal of applied psychology, 92(6), 1512-23. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1512
Van der Meulen, D. (2010). Modeling the Choice of Telework Frequency and its Effects on Productivity and Work/Life Balance.
Van Heck, E. (2010). New ways of working - Microsoft ’s ‘mobility’ office. RSM Insight, 1, 4-6.
Venaik, S., & Brewer, P. (2008). Contradictions in national culture: Hofstede vs GLOBE. Retrieved from http://www.mba.biu.ac.il/stfhome/bijaoui/891/case/2011/culturehofsted.pdf
Venkatesh, V. (2010). Job Characteristics and Job Satisfaction: Understanding the Role of Enterprise Resource Planning System Implementation. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 143-161.
Vollrath, M. (2001). Personality and stress. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42(1), 335-347.
Wetherell, J. L., Reynolds, C. a, Gatz, M., & Pedersen, N. L. (2002). Anxiety, cognitive performance, and cognitive decline in normal aging. The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences, 57(3), P246-55.
White, M., Hill, S., Mcgovern, P., Mills, C., & Smeaton, D. (2003). “High-performance” Management Practices , Working Hours and Work – Life Balance. British Journal of Industrial Relations, (June), 175-195.
Zhang, L. (2003). Does the big five predict learning approaches? Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1431-1446.
Yeo, G. B., & Neal, A. (2004). A Multilevel Analysis of Effort , Practice , and Performance : Effects of Ability , Conscientiousness , and Goal Orientation. Applied Psychology, 89(2). doi:10.1037/0021-9010
Zhang, L. (2003). Does the big five predict learning approaches? Personality and Individual Differences, 34(8), 1431-1446. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00125-3
Zheng, L., Goldberg, L. R., Zheng, Y., Zhao, Y., Tang, Y., & Liu, L. (2008). Reliability and Concurrent Validation of the IPIP Big-Five Factor Markers in China. Personality and individual differences, 45(7), 649-654. Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.009
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Joireman, J., Teta, P., & Kraft, M. (1993). A Comparison of Three Structural Models for Personality: The Big Three, the Big Five, and the Alternative Five. Journal of personality and social psychology, 65(4), 757-768.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 91
Appendix 1 – Culture
A. Literature Review
Initially, the purpose of this thesis was in particular to develop a conceptual model in order to investigate the
impact of national culture on the New Ways of Working concept. Despite several attempts, it was not possible
to gather data internationally to validate the Culture model. This appendix reviews the literature on (national)
culture, discusses the conceptual model, and describes methodological implications.
A.1. Defining Culture
In scientific literature, there is no consensus on the right definition of culture. That is why several scientists
have created their own definitions.
Sometimes, a quite old (1871) but famous definition, formulated by Tylor, is cited. According to him, culture is
“that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and
habits acquired by man as a member of society” (Nakata, 2009: p.62).
Geert Hofstede defines culture as “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes one group or
category of people from another”. Culture is collective, manifested in behaviors, and common to some (but not
to all) people (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004).
A quite broad definition of culture was given by Herskovitz. According to him, culture is the “man-made part of
the environment” (Javidan et al., 2006: p.899).
Culture could be analyzed on several levels. Hofstede (1991) enumerates the following list of levels: national,
regional, ethnic, religious, linguistic, gender, generation, social class, and organizational / corporate. The author
states that this list is not exhaustive. Other levels of culture could be added as well. National culture is about
differences among countries.
Cultural differences manifest themselves in symbols, heroes, rituals, and values. These four elements each have
their own level of depth and could be depicted as an onion.
Symbols are in the outermost and values in the innermost layer of the onion and could be described as
‘words, gestures, pictures, or objects’ with a specific meaning for people of a certain culture. They
appear and disappear quite fast and cultural groups are copying symbols from each other.
Heroes are people who serve as a model for behavior. They have characteristics that are highly valued
within a culture.
Rituals are “collective activities, technically superfluous to reaching desired ends”, but they are
“considered as socially essential” (Hofstede, 1991). Rituals can vary from greeting methods to religious
ceremonies.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 92
Symbols, heroes and rituals, which are put together under the term ‘practices’, are visible to outside observers.
Besides, practices there are also ‘values’. These are broad and deeply rooted tendencies, based on which an
individual prefers “certain states of affairs over others”. Both practices and values are ‘components’ of culture
(Hofstede, 1991: p.6-8).
A.2. National Culture and Management
Within scientific literature, three research streams have emerged on the relationship between national culture
and management.
The first stream says management has nothing to do with national culture, because management is
about “objective practices and autonomous actors” (De Boby, 2009). This view is more or less out-
dated.
According to the emic current stream, cultures are characterized by uniqueness; quantitative
comparisons are not possible. This stream argues that in-depth qualitative descriptive and interpretive
studies are the appropriate way to study culture.
The third stream (etic current) says that national cultures are comparable, based on general
dimensions. Researchers of this stream (which derives from psychology) conduct Cross-Cultural
Studies (CSS). Frameworks are developed to make quantitative comparisons of national cultures (De
Bony, 2009: p.4).
The most dominant frameworks used by the latest stream mentioned, are discussed in the sections below.
A.3. Culture Frameworks
This paragraph describes and evaluates the most prevalent frameworks in literature to measure cultural
differences.
A.3.1. Hofstede
The framework developed by Geert Hofstede is perhaps the most influential model to classify culture (Kirkman
et al., 2006: p.285). His book, Culture’s Consequences, has become a ‘super classic’ (Nakata et al., 2009:
p.40,70) and has been cited more than 54,000 times (Tung & Verbeke, 2010: p.1239). Based on an attitude
survey research of IBM employees from international subsidiaries in 71 countries, carried out between 1967
and 1973, Hofstede defined four dimensions on which cultures can be classified (Nakata et al., 2009: p.70,72;
Barkema & Vermeulen, 1997: p.846; McSweeney, 2002: p.90, 94; Hofstede & McCae, 2004: p.61).
A fifth dimension, ‘Long-Term Orientation’ (initially called ‘Confucian dynamism’) was added later, based on
research conducted in China (Nakata et al., 2009: p.30; Barkema & Vermeulen, 1997: p.847). These surveys
were especially designed to capture dimensions of culture which are relevant in Asia (Newman & Nollen, 1996).
Quite recently (2010), a sixth dimension was added to the model: Indulgence versus Restraint. This dimension
was based on research by Michael Minkov and is related to his dimension Industry versus Indulgence
(descripted in 2.1.2.6) (Minkov, 2011: p.36; Hofstede et al., 2010: p.44, 45).
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 93
Hofstede’s approach has had much influence on management studies, especially for Information Systems
research (Baskerville, 2005: p.390); the framework is regarded as the dominant paradigm in business studies
(Nakata et al., 2009: p.3).
These are the six dimensions defined by Hofstede (Hofstede & Bond, 1984):
Power Distance (PDI): the extent to which it is accepted by less powerful members of institutions and
organizations that power is distributed unequally.
Individualism versus Collectivism (IDV): ‘Individualism’ and ‘Collectivism’ are two sides of a bipolar
continuum. Individualism means that people are only looking after themselves and their immediate
family; in collectivistic cultures, people are part of in-groups of collectivises.
Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS): ‘Masculinity’ emphasizes success, money, and things, whereas
‘femininity’ emphasizes caring for others and quality of life.
Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI): UAI deals with how comfortable people feel in case of ambiguous
situations. These are situations that are unstructured, unclear, or unpredictable. UAI also deals with
the degree in which beliefs and institutions are built to avoid these situations.
Long-Term versus Short-Term Orientation (LTO): this dimension is about the orientation of people. In
some cultures, people are oriented on the future, while people in other cultures are more focussed on
the present.
Indulgence versus Restraint (IVR): the most recent added dimension deals with the degree in which
gratification of desires related to enjoying life and having fun (and not desires in general) are allowed.
Indulgence means that this degree is high, while restraint implies a low degree (Hofstede et al., 2010).
Especially, the Individualism dimensions have received much attention, although sometimes it has been
interpreted in a different way than it was originally intended (Minkov, 2011: p.46).
A.3.2. GLOBE
GLOBE (abbreviation for Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) is a research program
that investigates cultural values and practices and their impact on organizational practices and leadership in a
large number of varying countries (61 in total, House et al., 2002: p.3).
The Principal Investor of GLOBE was Robert J. House (House et al., 2002: p.3). In 1991, he wanted to do
research on leadership internationally, but he moved his scope to national and organizational cultures
(Hofstede, 2006: p.882). Over time, a research team has been composed, with almost 200 people involved.
Two of them are Co-Principal Investors, the others are Country Co-Investors. Country Co-Investors are most
often natives of the cultures for which they collect data.
The GLOBE study is highly related to Hofstede’s model. It is based on the same fundamentals (for instance, the
dimensions paradigm). The aim of GLOBE was to extend and improve Hofstede’s work (Hofstede 2006, p.883).
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 94
GLOBE uses the following nine dimensions to study culture (House et al., 2002: p. 5,6):
Uncertainty Avoidance
Power Distance
Collectivism I: Societal Collectivism
Collectivism II: In-Group Collectivism
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Future Orientation
Performance Orientation
Humane Orientation
According to House et al. (2002), the first three cognitions reflect Hofstede’s Uncertainty Avoidance, Power
Distance and Individualism dimensions. Also the three subsequent dimensions are related to Hofstede’s
framework. While ‘Collectivism I’ is about the emphasis a society puts on individualism/collectivism,
‘Collectivism II’ is about in-group collectivism (family, organization).
Hofstede’s Masculinity dimension was split up into ‘Gender Egalitarianism’ and ‘Assertiveness’. The first one
deals with gender role differences and gender discrimination, and the second one with being assertive,
aggressive and confrontational in social relationships (House et al., 2002: p.6).
The last three dimensions are (partly) derived from several other sources. Future orientation is about
individual’s behaviors such as planning, investing in the future, and delaying gratification. Performance
Orientation is the degree to which organizations and societies are stimulating group members to improve their
performance and to become more excellent. Hofstede’s Long Term-Orientation is included in GLOBE’s
Performance Orientation.
Humane Orientation is the degree to which organizations/societies “encourage and reward individuals for
being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous, caring, and kind to others” (House et al., 2002: p.6).
Each of the nine dimensions is measured on four scales, both in ‘as is’ and ‘should be’ terms. ‘As is’ questions
are intended to measure practices, while ‘should be’ questions are intended to measure values. While Hofstede
has made a clear distinction between national culture and organizational culture (for both concepts he
developed a separate framework), GLOBE uses this single framework to analyze both levels of culture.
Measuring organizational culture is done by using largely the same questions, in which ‘society’ is replaced by
‘organization’.
Although some of the dimensions in the Hofstede and GLOBE model look similar, there are some big
differences. For instance, the Uncertainty Dimensions of both frameworks are significant negatively correlated,
which indicated that they are two entirely opposite concepts (Venaik and Brewer, 2008: p.6).
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 95
A.3.3. Schwartz
Based on literature study, Shalom H. Schwartz, an Israeli psychologist, composed a list of fifty-six values.
Initially, he focused on differences between individuals; later on, he moved the scope to countries / national
cultures. He developed a classification which distinguishes seven cultural value orientations. Together, they
form three cultural value dimensions: ‘embeddedness versus autonomy’, ‘hierarchy versus egalitarianism’, and
‘mastery versus harmony’ (Schwartz, 2008: p.9).
A.3.4. Trompenaars
The study of Fons Trompenaars, conducted in forty countries among forty-six thousand managers revealed
seven dimensions (Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 2000):
Universalism versus particularism
Individualism versus collectivism
Neutral versus emotional
Specific versus diffuse
Achievement versus ascription
Orientation in time
Attitudes towards the environment
Though quite often used by business consultants, these dimensions are - according to Minkov (2011: p.48) -
purely based on imagination and lack statistical evidence.
A.3.5. World Values Survey
A very comprehensive research on values, led by the political scientist Robert Inglehart from the United States,
is the World Values Study.
The study group that conducts this research has developed a survey with more than 360 items included; the
questions are about subjects such as ecology, economy, education, emotions, family, gender and sexuality,
government and politics, health, happiness, leisure and friends, morality, religion, society and nation, and work
(Hofstede, 1991: p.33).
The goal of the study is to “identify and understand changes in global attitudes” (MacIntosh, 1998: p.452).
According to the researchers, a worldwide shift is going on to a post-materialism attitude. The emphasize is
getting more on “free expression of ideas, greater democratisation, and the development of more humane
societies” instead of material well-being (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004: p.60).
Initially, no dimensions were used. Later, two of them were found, based on data analysis: ‘well-being versus
survival’ and ‘secular-rational versus traditional authority’.
A.3.6. Minkov
One of Hofstede’s followers is Michael Minkov from Bulgeria. He and Gert Jan Hofstede (Geert’s son) were co-
authors of Geert Hofstede’s third edition of Cultures and Organizations. Minkov wrote a book titled Cultural
Differences in a Globalizing World. It was recommended by Geert Hofstede as the “breakthrough in cross-
cultural research that we have been waiting for”. In this book, he presented a new framework with four
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 96
dimensions based on the World Values Survey and statistics from the United Nations and the World Health
Organization. The four dimensions he distinguishes are:
Industry versus Indulgence: the Industry pole is about prioritising hard work and thrift, while the
Indulgence pole is about prioritising leisure.
Monumentalism versus Flexumility: Monumentalism is about being proud and stable, while
Flexumility is about humility and flexibility. Identities, values, norms and beliefs are not changeable in
case of Monumentalism, but are in case of Flexumility.
Hypometropia versus Prudence: this dimension deals with time horizon differences. In cultures that
could be characterized as Hypometropia, people are more likely to act according to their ‘instincts’
(higher risks), while in prudent cultures these instincts are managed prudently (lower risks).
Exclusionism versus Universalism: in cultures characterized by Exclusionism, there are “stronger ties
between generations and within groups of relatives”. However, interests of strangers are neglected. In
Universalism-cultures the opposite holds (Minkov, 2011; Adolphus, 2011).
It appeared that Exclusionism versus Universalism had a strong correlation with Hofstede’s Collectivism versus
Individualism. This is the only indisputable equivalent in the two frameworks, although ‘Monumentalism versus
Flexumility’ correlates significantly with Short-term and Long-term orientation. To integrate Hofstede’s and
Minkov’s frameworks, Indulgence versus Restraint was added to Hofstede’s model (Adolphus, 2011; Hofstede
et al., 2010: p.45).
A.4. Conceptualization of Culture
In this paragraph, the major issues related to the use of frameworks are described. The focus is largely on the
framework developed by Hofstede, which is the dominant model in cross-cultural research. Most of the
discussion in scientific literature is about his framework. Other frameworks are criticised less; that might be
because they are applied less often and/or developed later (Venaik and Brewer, 2008: p.6).
Some of the criticism on Hofstede also holds for the other frameworks described above, as they are built on the
same paradigm. This paragraph also describes fundamental differences between the frameworks.
A.4.1. Use of Dimensions
The approach of measuring and ordering cultural differences by using a set of dimensions, was introduced by
Hofstede. According to him, the dimensions paradigm had become ‘normal science’ (Kuhn), as it had been
broadly accepted. All frameworks described in the previous paragraph are built on this paradigm (Hofstede,
2006: p883). Before Hofstede’s work, culture was treated as a single variable (Minkov & Hofstede, 2011: p.11).
One of the objections against dimensions is that qualitative methods are more suitable to measure culture
(Smith, 2006: p.915). Related to this view is the notion that surveys are not able to map differences in cultures.
Hofstede contradicts this notion, although he states that surveys should not be the only way (Hofstede, 2001:
p.73). Dimensions do not exist is reality, but they are needed to understand and deal with the complex social
world (Hofstede, 2006: p.895).
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 97
Hofstede’s work was also criticised for the way in which dimensions were determined. Moreover, the number
of dimensions was subject to discussion.
Hofstede discovered the first four dimensions by analyzing data collected at IBM for a consultancy project.
Some researchers found it problematic that his sample was limited to a single multinational cooperation
(Kirkman et al., 2006: p.286). Besides, the data was not gathered with the purpose in mind to develop a cultural
framework (Baskerville, 2005: p.390). However, later research and analyses confirmed Hofstede’s initial
findings (Minkov & Hofstede, 2011: p.14).
The GLOBE project has distinguished more dimensions than Hofstede did. According to the GLOBE researchers,
Hofstede only investigated what IBM was interested in. There might be some undiscovered dimensions, which
are not in the framework yet. They refer to the dimension Long-Term Orientation which was also added later,
based on additional research (Javidan et al., 2006: p.898)
On the contrary, Hofstede of the opinion that GLOBE’s model lacks parsimony, as it counts eighteen dimensions
in total (values and practices are measured separately for each of the nine dimensions) (Venaik and Brewer,
2008: p.7).
Hofstede is willing to add new dimensions to his framework, but they have to be “conceptually and statistically
independent” from the existing dimensions. They should also be significantly validated by “conceptually related
external measures” (Hofstede, 2001: p.73).
According to Minkov and Hofstede (2011: p.17), there is not one best way to construct cultural dimensions.
Hofstede regards both Schwartz’ classification and the World Values Survey as different ways of cutting the
same pie (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004: p60; Hofstede, 1991.: p.32, 33) and supposes that a deeper analysis of the
World Values Survey data would reveal additional dimensions that are not in their framework yet.
A.4.2. Values and Practices
In a previous section, it was stated that Hofstede distinguishes between values and practices. National cultures
are largely based on values and less on practices. For organizational cultures the opposite holds. That’s why
Hofstede developed a separate model with different dimensions to map organizational cultures (Hofstede,
1991: p.283).
Javidan et al. (2006: p.904), involved in the GLOBE program, reanalyzed Hofstede’s data and found no empirical
ground to distinguish between organizational and national cultures: “Hofstede and his colleagues (Hofstede et
al., 1990) are not supported in their claim that cultural practices are limited to the domain of organizations, and
that values have no place in organizational culture”. GLOBE does not therefore make a distinction and uses only
one framework to measure both levels of culture by using almost the same questions (‘society’ is replaced by
‘organization’).
The tool developed by Hofstede to measure national culture is called ‘Value Survey Module’. This instrument
(and similar instruments as well) has been criticized for being preoccupied with values, while other attributes of
culture are overlooked. Other aspects of culture should be considered as well (Nakata et al., 2009: p.42).
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 98
Javidan et al. (2006) discuss two assumptions which they attribute to the Hofstede approach. The first
assumption is what they call onion assumption: when the collective’s values are known, it is also known what is
actually happening in that culture (day-to-day activities). The other assumption was called ecological values
assumption: knowing the values of members within a culture is enough to know the culture itself, while other
manifestations of culture are neglected.
Hofstede contradicts that his work is built on these assumptions, by arguing that culture should be studied at
the aggregate level and by quoting his own work in which he states that culture is more than values alone and
that there are different elements of culture as well (Hofstede, 2010: p.1341). However, according to Nakata et
al. (2009: p.42), Hofstede does not practice what he preaches, because he does not measure those other
aspects.
GLOBE claims to measure both values (should be) and practices (as is), but analysis of GLOBE’s measurements
resulted in negative correlations between ‘as is’ and ‘should be’ for most of the dimensions. This is striking,
because one would expect that people tend to practice their values (Brewer & Venaik, 2010: p.1317). Javidan
et al. (2006) suggest that the relationship between values and practices might be more complex than
supposed. Maseland and Van Hoorn (2010) explain these findings by the theory of diminishing marginal utility,
while Brewer and Venaik (2010) contradict the applicability of this theory and suggest that the nature of each
culture dimension and questionnaire used may be responsible.
According to Hofstede, the major problem is that the GLOBE project members and he himself are using the
same terms, but not with a similar meaning. While Hofstede’s dimensions are based on ‘values as desired’
(what people actually desire), GLOBE’s dimensions are based on ‘values as the desirable’ (what they ought to
desire). ‘Values as desired’ are at least better related to deeds than ‘values as the desirable’.
The definition of practices is also different. Hofstede’s practices are work-related pragmatic issues, while
GLOBE’s practices are abstract aspects of societies and organizations in which respondents operate. As
described above, the meaning of ‘organizational culture’ is also distinctive (Hofstede, 2010: p.1340-1342).
Earley (2006: p.924) states that he agrees with Hofstede’s opinion that the distinction between ‘as is’ and
‘should be’ is artificial and supposes that outcomes are influenced by psychological processing.
A.4.3. Aggregation
Because a nation is not able to fill in a questionnaire, data is measured at an individual level (Earley, 2006:
p.926). For this reason it is sometimes argued that surveys are not usable to measure culture. While Hofstede
uses self-reports (statements about oneself), GLOBE asks respondents to answer questions in relation to the
environment (e.g. country or organization). A good question is however whether respondents are
knowledgeable enough to answer these questions. Therefore, the approach of GLOBE is problematic as well
(Hofstede, 2010: p.1344).
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 99
A.4.4. Culture versus Nation
When frameworks are used, there is a danger that ‘nation’ is used as a surrogate for ‘culture’. Georgas and
Berry (1995: p.122) call this the onomastic fallacy. Replacing culture by nation is an oversimplification, because
countries are not homogenous entities (Nakata et al., 2009: p.73,125,130,268; Baskerville, 2003: p.1,6).
Switzerland, for example, has a relatively small population, but there are significant differences between
German-speaking and Italian-speaking areas (Jacob, 2005: p.515).
Besides, borders of nations change over time and even if they remain unchanged, they are still permeable
because of immigration and economic zones (Nakata et al., 2009: p.251).
Contradictory to these statements are some research findings by Schwartz and Inglehart. They both compared
different subgroups within a nation (Schwartz: young-old, male-female, teachers-students; Inglehart: income,
rural/urban residence) on their own classification and found high correlations across countries (Schwartz, 2008:
p.15). However, it is doubtful what would be the results when different ethnicities from a single country would
be compared against each other.
Hofstede (2001: p.73; 2003: p.812) recognizes that nations are not the best units for studying culture. He
literally agrees that ‘nation states cannot be equated with national cultures’. The problem is that there is often
no alternative.
A.4.5. Replication
There have been some issues with the replication of Hofstede’s model (Baskerville, 2003: p.5). According to
Hofstede, differences arise because replications are not always carried out professionally. Amateurs are
entering the field of cross-cultural research and besides, there could be statistical, methodological, and
epistemological explanations for the deviant results (Hofstede, 2003: p.813).
Another possibility is that one of Hofstede’s assumptions is faulty and that it is an illusion that cultures are
“relatively stable systems in equilibrium” (Kirkman et al., 2006: p.302,312). This argument is discussed in the
next section.
A.4.6. Cultural Determinism
Hofstede argues that the outer layer of the ‘onion’ (practices) can change fast, while the inner layer (values)
changes slowly. Values are deeply rooted; they are acquired in childhood and passed from generation to
generation (Hofstede, 1991: p.12,13). Therefore, they will remain relatively stable. That is the reason why the
Hofstede scores, based on measurement of values at IBM, are still up-to-date. The four (and later five)
dimensions “are assumed to have centuries-old roots” (Hofstede, 2001: p.73).
The “increasingly fluid nature” of culture is caused by social developments like globalization, traversing of
national borders, co-mingling, hybridizing, morphing, clashing through media, migration, telecommunications,
international trade, information technology, supranational organizations, and terrorism (Nakata et al., 2009:
p.4).
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 100
Tung & Verbeke (2010: p.1263) refer to the ‘ocean metaphor’: at a given time, cultural values may ‘lie dormant’
in a country. However, they awake when they are re-ignited by external events. Examples of these events are
foreign direct investment and rapid internationalization. For example, Ralston and al. (1992) discovered that
cultural values of Chinese managers are changing quite fast.
One of the objectives of the World Values Survey was to find out whether cultural values are changing.
Researchers involved in the project, showed that this is the case (Schwartz, 2008: p.17). Based on a study
(covering a period of 36 years) in Belgium, Italy, France, the Netherlands, West-Germany, and the United
States, Inglehart concluded that cultural differences became less outspoken, although the convergence was
partial as cultural differences did not disappear (Minkov, 2011: p.42). Schwartz (2008: p.17) found that relative
positions of countries are changing very slowly.
Minkov and Hofstede (2011: p.13) endorse Inglehart’s findings; Hofstede would always have recognized the
evolution of cultures, but it is impact should not be overestimated, because they move more or less into the
same direction: “differences between them are not necessarily lost”.
Nonetheless, Hofstede was accused of cultural determinism because of his approach. To prove this, opponents
state that his theory is almost exclusively used to investigate the influence of culture as a cause (main effect or
moderating effect), but rarely as an effect (Nakata et al., 2009: p.46).
According to Schwartz (2008: p.17, 50) cultures are subject to “social conflict, tension and change”, and
therefore “one-time, static measures of the overall culture” are undesirable.
A.4.7. Two Epistemologies
Nakata et al. (2009: p.255-257) state that there are two kinds of epistemologies. On the one hand, there is an
idealized-superorganic epistemology (modernist), which considers culture as cognitive, bounded, fixed,
coherent and unified. The realist-organic epistemology (postmodernist) regards culture as changeable,
unsettled, disjunctive, and more than cognitive. Both epistemologies are valuable: they complement each
other. Together, they enrich our understanding of culture.
Social sciences both have modernist and postmodernist research method to investigate culture, while cultural
research in business studies is primarily based on modernist approaches (like the frameworks described in this
chapter).
Looking at culture from a realist-organic epistemology would have the following implications (Nakata, 2009:
p.255-257):
Culture is organic and resides on the level of individuals. There is no unifying ‘cosmic unity’ above.
Research should focus on “customs, artifacts, actions, and symbolates’ instead of ‘values, ideals, and
personality” (Nakata, 2009: p.256).
“Culture is an evolving complex of ideas, actions, and beliefs” (Nakata, 2009: p.256).
There is an influence of individuals on culture and of culture on individuals.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 101
Is it required to go beyond Hofstede? The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between national
culture and the NWoW concept. In previous sections, culture was described as an onion with several layers. In
the heart of this onion there are the deeply-rooted values. The outer rings represent symbols, heroes, and
rituals, collectively referred to as ‘practices’. In fact, implementing the New Ways of Working concept means
replacing existing practices by other (new) ones.
According to the theory developed by Hofstede, national culture expresses itself mainly in values, while
organizational culture manifests itself mainly in practices. Changing practices might be a hard job, but changing
values is (almost) impossible. It might be interesting to investigate how organizational cultures are related to
the NWoW concept, but this is beyond the scope of this thesis. For these reasons the focus should be especially
on values. Important to know is whether the NWoW practices clash with cultural values or not.
A.5. Choosing a Framework
The work of Hofstede is used and cited often by management scholars. International business textbooks use his
classification to explain the relevance of cultural differences. Much of the cross-cultural research is based on
Hofstede’s model and it is foreseeable that it will remain popular, although it’s also expected that some
researchers will prefer the GLOBE model (Venaik and Brewer, 2008: p.8).
The popularity of the Hofstede model does not automatically mean that this approach is the most appropriate.
A less used framework might be applicable as well. However, a major advantage of the popular frameworks
(Hofstede, GLOBE) is that new research can be related to previous research. Besides, more scientists have paid
attention to these frameworks and they are verified more often. To elect a less often applied framework, it
should be superior to the more dominant ones.
To some extent, the criticism described above could also be applied to the smaller frameworks. They are based
on the same principles, like the dimensions paradigm. This implies that there is no fundamental reason to
prefer one of these frameworks over the two ‘big’ ones.
GLOBE representatives claim that their model is an improved and extended version of Hofstede’s model.
Scientists differ in their opinions whether or not GLOBE meets this target. According to Nakata et al. (p. 4) the
five dimensions defined by Hofstede are sufficient to describe all national cultures. Earley (2006: p.928)
appreciates the GLOBE project as a leadership study, but as a values study he regards it as one of many; the
added value of GLOBE over Hofstede’s framework is questionable.
In fact, there are no convincing arguments to select another framework than the one developed by Hofstede,
which is the dominant model in cross-cultural research. However, besides the Indulgence vs. Restraint
dimension, which was based on findings by Minkov (Industry vs. Indulgence), also Monumentalism versus Self-
Effacement could be investigated. This is a Minkov-dimension that has not been incorporated into the Hofstede
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 102
conceptualization yet, although survey questions on this dimension were added to the Hofstede Survey Values
Module 2008. The choice for combining these two frameworks does not imply that culture could not be
conceptualized alternatively; there is not a one best way, but within the context of this study this is the most
appropriate method.
A.6. Organizational Culture
In the previous sections the term ‘organizational culture’ was already mentioned. Whereas GLOBE uses the
same dimensions to access both national culture and organizational culture, Hofstede developed a separate
framework to map organizational culture. According to Hofstede, national culture and organizational culture
are phenomena of different nature due to a different mix of values and practices. He regards “shared
perceptions of daily practices” as the core of organizational culture and distinguishes six cross-organizational
dimensions (Hofstede et al., 2010):
Process oriented versus results oriented: this dimension is about a concern with means versus a
concern with goals.
Employee oriented versus job oriented: this dimension is about a focus on people versus a focus on
completing the job.
Parochial versus professional: in a parochial culture, the organization is important for the identity of
employees, while in a professional culture the type of job is more relevant.
Open system versus closed system: this dimension deals with openness to newcomers and outsiders.
In an open system almost everyone fits and new people are very soon part of the group; in a closed
system the opposite is true.
Loose versus tight control: this dimension deals with the internal structuring of the organization.
Normative versus pragmatic: this dimension is about business ethics and honesty.
It seems, however, that there is less consensus regarding the dimensions of organizational culture as there is
not a dominant model (yet). Besides, it seems to be very difficult to map organizational culture by means of
survey questions.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 103
B. Conceptual Framework
In this chapter, the Culture conceptual model is presented which focuses on the impact of cultural values instead
of personality traits. Although this model is not validated in this thesis, it is quite related to the conceptual
model that deals with personality. Both similarities and differences are discussed in this chapter.
First of all, the conceptual model that deals with Hofstede’s cultural values dimensions is presented in the
picture below (figure B.1).
Figure B.1. – Conceptual model (Culture)
Compared to the Personality Model that was presented in Chapter 3, this conceptual model has an additional
arrow: proposition 6.
It could be that Cultural Values relate to Work Arrangements, because in certain cultures specific Work
Arrangements (that facilitate NWoW) are more likely to be present than in other cultures (Cagliano et al.,
2010). Culture is something that exists mainly at the aggregate level (Hofstede, 2001); it could be that they
differ regarding which Work Arrangements are dominant.
Also, an extra control variable is added: Nationality at birth.
Work Arrangements People
- Policies / agreements
Place - Workplace design
Technology
- Media availability
Control variables Gender, Age, Nationality at birth, Position, Time dependency, Location dependency
Work Atmosphere Empowerment
Control
Work Practices People
- Reflexivity - Flexibility (time)
Place - Flexibility (place) - Task workplace fit
Technology - Media use
Cultural Values Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity, Uncertainty Avoidance, Long-Term
Orientation, Indulgence, Monumentalism
Work Performance
People
- Employee satisfaction
- Work life balance
Profit
- Productivity P1: +
P4
P5
P3 P6
P2
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 104
B.1. Cultural Values
For cultural aspects, the conceptual model is largely based on theory developed by Geert Hofstede, whose
framework is by far the most applied conceptualization of culture in cross-cultural research. Quite recently, a
new dimension was added to this framework, based on research by Minkov: Indulgence vs. Restraint.
In this thesis, Hofstede’s framework is supplemented by a Minkov dimension that is not incorporated into the
framework (yet), although it is -by way of an experiment- included in his Values Survey Module 2008:
Monumentalism vs. Self-Effacement.
This implies that the following dimensions are included:
1. Power Distance (Hofstede)
2. Individualism vs. Collectivism (Hofstede)
3. Masculinity vs. Femininity (Hofstede)
4. Uncertainty Avoidance (Hofstede)
5. Long vs. Short-Term Orientation (Hofstede)
6. Indulgence vs. Restraint (Hofstede/Minkov)
7. Monumentalism vs. Self-Effacement (Minkov)
A description of these seven dimensions was given in sections A.3.1 and A.3.6, while the choice for them was
explained in section A.5.
B.2. Propositions Culture Model
Compared to the Personality model, there are two common propositions: P1 and P2. The other propositions are
different. The ‘new’ propositions are described in the text below.
B.1.1. P3: Cultural Values –Work Practices
An important characteristic of NWoW work practices is that they increase employees’ freedom to decide for
themselves where they work, when they work, and how they work. This implies an increase in autonomy of
employees.
The degree in which autonomy is given to and accepted by employees, is subject to cultural differences (see
literature review). This point of view could be supported by a huge amount of literature that attributes
differences in work practices to differences in cultural values (e.g. Kogut & Sing, 1988). For that reason, it is
expected that in some cultures NWoW work practices are more common than in other cultures. So:
P3: Specific Cultural Values impact Work Practices
B.1.2. P4: Cultural Values – Work Practices/Work Performance
Proposition 3 expects that the presence of certain Work Practices is influenced by Cultural Values; they are
more likely to be applied under specific cultural conditions than under others.
However, we are not only interested in how cultural values impact the presence of NWoW Work Practices, but
also in how cultural values influence the effect of Work Practices. A conflict between core Cultural Values and
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 105
(one or more) Work Practices is expected to have a different impact on (one or more) Work Outcomes than a
match between these two. This assumption is expressed in the following proposition:
P4: Specific Cultural Values impact the relationship between Work Practices and Work Performance.
B.1.2. P5: Cultural Values (Work Atmosphere) – Work Practices/Work Performance
To understand the relationship described in the previous proposition, it might be valuable to be more specific
by adding the concept of Work Atmosphere.
It was proved that the elements of Work Atmosphere (empowerment and control) are affected by Cultural
Values (Hofstede, 2001) and besides, it is reasonable that Work Atmosphere impacts the relationship between
Work Practices and Work Performance, because these elements might be supportive (or not) to the effects of
NWoW Work Practices on Work Performance. Therefore:
P5: Specific Cultural Values impact via Work Atmosphere the relationship between Work Practices and Work
Performance.
B.1.4. P6: Cultural Values – Work Arrangements
There are multiple ways to arrange work and therefore management has to make choices. Besides, scientific
literature demonstrates that ways of organizing work are culture-bound (Hofstede et al., 2010). Leaving aside
all other considerations, it could be that managers are likely to prefer Work Arrangements that match their
Cultural Values over the ones that are lacking harmony with their deeply rooted tendencies. The relationship
between Cultural Values and Work Arrangements is expressed in the following proposition:
P6(C): Specific Cultural Values impact Work Arrangements.
B.1.5. Summary of the Propositions
These are the propositions that have been formulated for the Personality model:
P1: NWoW Work Practices have a positive impact on Work Performance.
P2: Work Arrangements impact NWoW Work Practices.
P3: Specific Cultural Values impact Work Practices.
P4: Specific Cultural Values impact the relationship between Work Practices and Work Performance.
P5: Specific Cultural Values impact via Work Atmosphere the relationship between Work Practices and Work
Performance.
P6: Specific Cultural Values impact Work Arrangements.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 106
C. Methodology
This chapter describes how Hofstede’s framework could be included in the conceptual model from a
methodological point of view and discusses what the implications are for the data analysis.
C.1. Collecting Data on Culture
Researchers applying Hofstede’s framework have two options. First of all, they can use existing Hofstede
country scores. These scores are published on Hofstede’s website (geert-hofstede.com) or could be derived
from his books (e.g. Hofstede, 2001). Alternatively, researchers can measure the cultural values themselves
(from which they can compose their ‘own’ country scores). For this purpose, survey questions (and
corresponding formulas) were made available by Hofstede, which can be downloaded and used for free.
There are several reasons why the latter option is preferred for this research (measuring values instead of using
existing scores).
First of all, the focus is on a select group of people: knowledge workers who are employed (or having their own
company).
Secondly, especially when the focus is on workers who are all employed by the same multinational
organization, respondents might not be representative for the population of their country. It could be that they
are ‘infected’ by foreign values (e.g. of their organizations’ home culture) and it is likely most of them come
from the same specific areas of their countries.
Thirdly, when there is much within country variation (i.e. subcultures), using existing data might give a
distorted/incomplete image.
Fourthly, Hofstede’s view that cultural values were established in the early childhood and are quite stable, is
not undisputed. The ‘ocean metaphor’ (Tung & Verbeeke, 2010; see section A.4.6) supposes that values may
change suddenly because of external events.
Fifthly, the Hofstede scores are quite old: they are based on data from a few decades ago. Measuring cultural
values gives an extra guarantee that appropriate data is used.
Last but not least, it might be useful for the analyses when cultural values could be traced back to individuals.
C.2. Measuring Cultural Values
To measure the cultural dimensions of his framework, Hofstede developed the Values Survey Module 2008
(VSM 2008). This module is the successor of VSM 94 and is also the latest version of the VSM.
Besides the five Hofstede dimensions (Power Distance, Individualism vs. Collectivism, Masculinity vs.
Femininity, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Long vs. Short-Term Orientation), also two dimensions which were
based on research by Michael Minkov (Indulgence vs. Restraint and Monumentalism vs. Self-Effacement) could
be measured by using VSM 08. The latter two were added ‘by way of experiment’, as they might reveal ‘new’
aspects of national culture. So VSM 08 covers all Cultural Values of the conceptual model and no additional
measure is needed for cultural aspects.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 107
VSM measures each of the seven dimensions by four questions on five-point scales. This means that VSM 08
has a total of 28 ‘content questions’. The other six questions that belong to VSM 08 are about demographics
(gender, age, education level, kind of job, present nationality, and nationality at birth).
For each separate dimension, an index formula was defined in the manual belonging to VSM 08 to aggregate
the individual answers to the country level. The Power Distance Index (PDI), for instance, can be calculated by
substituting the following formula: PDI = 35(m07 – m02) + 25(m23 – m26) + C(pd), in which m07 is the mean
score for question 07 and C(pd) a positive or negative constant. This constant can be chosen to shift the PDI
scores to values between 0 and 100; it does not affect the comparison between countries, however.
C.3. Levels of Analysis
In chapter 2, Hofstede’s definition of culture was cited: ‘the collective mental programming of the mind’.
Especially the word ‘collective’ in this definition is important. According to Hofstede, his dimensions are
exclusively suitable for country-level studies and could not be used for studying individual personalities and
organizational cultures.
Hofstede equates culture to forests and individuals to trees to show the difference between the individual and
country level. For comparing organizational cultures (of companies within the same country), Hofstede
developed a distinct framework (Hofstede, 2008).
Despite Hofstede’s arguments for using his dimensions only at the country-level, they have been applied by a
majority of researchers at individual or group/organizational levels (Kirkman et al., 2006: p.228). According to
Sivakumar & Nakata (2001: p.557), the validity of using a certain level as unit of cultural analysis is determined
by the research question in case.
Earley (2006) researched culture at the individual level, operationalizing it purely as a psychological construct.
He admits that this approach might take “the ‘culture’ out of culture”, neglecting that culture is collective by
nature, but defends his method by pointing at limitations of Hofstede’s approach. Hofstede ignores that there
is interaction among cultural values. An aggregate measure of culture is problematic as well, because it might
overwhelm variability among subgroups (p.924, 925).
In short: there is a contrast between doctrine (Hofstede) and practice: both low (individual) and high (country)
levels of analysis have been used and defended by scholars and both have their advantages and disadvantages.
It might be interesting to validate propositions of the Culture Model both at a country-level and at an
individual-level. At the country-level data is aggregated and the number of cases is identical to the number of
countries involved. If the (majority of) respondents are ‘similar’ on all criteria other than nationality, the
influence of certain national cultures could be analyzed (Hofstede, 2008).
However, when the goal of the study is to find out how cultural values are related to work practices and how
these values influence the proposed relationship between NWoW work practices and work performance, an
individual level of analysis is needed. This kind of research might help to make predictions regarding people in
other countries (based on how culture is ‘composed’ in that country).
Appendix 2 – ‘Big Model’
WORK PRACTICES
People Reflexivity
Reflection on working hours and schedule Reflection on choice of location
Reflection on media use Flexibility (time)
Flex-time
Place Flexibility (place)
At the office At external office or meeting location
At client location On the road
At home Task / work place fit
Socialize Learn Focus
Collaborate
Technology Media use
Face-to-face Video conference
Telephone (conference) Chat / instant messaging
Electronic mail Voice mail
Fax Documents
Other
WORK ATMOSPHERE Empowerment
Meaning Competence
Self determination Impact Control
Behavioural control Social control
Mutual control
WORK PERFORMANCE Employee satisfaction
Work life balance
Productivity
WORK PRACTICES
People Policies / Agreements Freedom work location Freedom working hours
Telework facilitation rate
Place Workplace design
Room sharing Own work place
Backup place
Technology Media availability
Laptop Smartphone
Mobile internet Access via internet to appl. & data
PERSONALITY TRAITS Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Neuroticism
Openness
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 109
Appendix 3A – Survey Instrument (Dutch)
INTRODUCTION PAGE Hartelijk dank voor uw bereidheid om deze vragenlijst in te vullen! Mijn naam is Christian van Esch en ik hoop binnenkort af te studeren aan de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam. Om die reden ben ik momenteel bezig met een onderzoek naar de relatie tussen persoonlijkheid en het (al dan niet) gebruik van flexibele werkpraktijken. Uw medewerking aan dit onderzoek wordt zeer op prijs gesteld! Het invullen van de vragenlijst zal ongeveer 15 minuten in beslag nemen. De survey is in principe anoniem en antwoorden worden volledig vertrouwelijk behandeld. Wel wordt aan het einde van de vragenlijst om een e-mailadres gevraagd. Deze vraag hoeft u alleen in te vullen als u een samenvatting van de onderzoeksresultaten wilt ontvangen. Let op: er zijn geen goede of foute antwoorden! Mocht u vragen hebben, dan kunt u contact met mij opnemen door een mailtje te sturen naar: [email protected]. Klik op 'Verder' om de vragenlijst te beginnen. IDEAL JOB 1) Aan welke eigenschappen voldoet -volgens u- de ideale baan? Geef aan op onderstaand spectrum waar uw voorkeuren liggen. U kunt hierbij uw huidige baan buiten beschouwing laten.
Werknemer kiest zelf zijn/haar werklocatie(s) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Werkgever bepaalt werklocatie(s) Werkgever beslist hoe het werk wordt gedaan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Werknemer beslist hoe het werk wordt gedaan Input control (nadruk op proces) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Output control (nadruk op resultaat) Traditionele vormen van communicatie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Communicatie dmv moderne communicatietechnologieën Open kantoortuin 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Kantoor met kleine (privé)kamertjes Werktijden staan vast 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Werknemer kiest zelf zijn/haar werktijden Mobiel ('overal') werken 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Werken op een vaste locatie (bijv. het kantoor)
BIG FIVE INVENTORY I De volgende vragen hebben betrekking op uw persoonlijkheid. Hierbij geldt: er zijn geen goede of foute antwoorden. 1 = Geheel mee oneens 2 = Oneens 3 = Neutraal 4 = Mee eens 5 = Geheel mee eens 2) Ik zie mijzelf als iemand die...
- ...spraakzaam is - ...geneigd is kritiek te hebben op anderen (R) - ...grondig te werk gaat - ...somber is - ...origineel is, met nieuwe ideeën komt - ...terughoudend is (R) - ...behulpzaam en onzelfzuchtig ten opzichte van anderen is - ...een beetje nonchalant kan zijn (R) - ...ontspannen is, goed met stress kan omgaan (R)
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 110
- ...benieuwd is naar veel verschillende dingen - ...vol energie is - ...snel ruzie maakt (R) - ...een werker is waar men van op aan kan - ...gespannen kan zijn - ...scherpzinnig, een denker is - ...veel enthousiasme opwekt - ...vergevingsgezind is - ...doorgaans geneigd is tot slordigheid (R) - ...zich veel zorgen maakt - ...een levendige fantasie heeft - ...doorgaans stil is (R) - ...mensen over het algemeen vertrouwt
BIG FIVE INVENTORY II 3) Ik zie mijzelf als iemand die...
- ...geneigd is lui te zijn (R) - ...emotioneel stabiel is, niet gemakkelijk overstuur raakt (R) - ...vindingrijk is - ...voor zichzelf opkomt - ...koud en afstandelijk kan zijn (R) - ...volhoudt tot de taak af is - ...humeurig kan zijn - ...waarde hecht aan kunstzinnige ervaringen - ...soms verlegen, geremd is (R) - ...attent en aardig is voor bijna iedereen - ...dingen efficiënt doet - ...kalm blijft in gespannen situaties (R) - ...een voorkeur heeft voor werk dat routine is (R) - ...hartelijk, een gezelschapsmens is - ...soms grof tegen anderen is (R) - ...plannen maakt en deze doorzet - ...gemakkelijk zenuwachtig wordt - ...graag nadenkt, met ideeën speelt - ...weinig interesse voor kunst heeft (R) - ...graag samenwerkt met anderen - ...gemakkelijk afgeleid is (R) - ...het fijne weet van kunst, muziek, of literatuur
Mocht u opmerkingen hebben met betrekking tot de voorgaande vragen, dan kunt u die hier noteren (OPTIONEEL) WORK PRACTICES I De vragen op de volgende pagina's hebben betrekking op uw huidige baan. 4) Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen: <<Time dependency>>
- Het overgrote deel van mijn werkzaamheden is gebonden aan vaste tijden - De aard van mijn werk stelt mij niet in staat om op door mij gewenste tijden te werken - Ik kan mijn werk alleen op vooraf vastgestelde tijden uitvoeren
<<Location dependency>> - Het overgrote deel van mijn werkzaamheden is gebonden aan (een) vaste locatie(s) - De aard van mijn werk stelt mij niet in staat om op een locatie van mijn keuze te werken - Ik kan mijn werk alleen op vooraf vastgestelde locaties uitvoeren
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 111
5) Geef aan in procenten hoe uw werktijd verdeeld is over onderstaande locaties. <<Flex-place>> U kunt alleen gehele procentuele getallen invullen; het totaal dient gelijk te zijn aan 100%.
- Op kantoor __ - Op extern kantoor of vergaderlocatie __ - Op klantlocatie __ - Onderweg (bijvoorbeeld trein: dit betreft geen woon-werk verkeer) __ - Thuis __
6) Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen: <<Reflection on choice of location>>
- Ik overweeg zorgvuldig welke werklocatie het meest geschikt is voor de taak die ik uit ga voeren - Wanneer ik merk dat een werklocatie niet geschikt is voor een bepaalde taak die ik uitvoer, kies ik een
andere werklocatie - Ik probeer mijn taken te matchen met mijn werklocatie
WORK PRACTICES II 7) Verdeel uw werkzaamheden over de volgende categorieën Geef aan hoe uw werkzaamheden verdeeld zijn over de volgende categorieën van werk-gerelateerde activiteiten. Neem een gemiddelde week als uitgangspunt. Let op: u kunt alleen <b>hele getallen</b> invoeren. Het totaal moet gelijk zijn aan 100% (u hoeft het %-teken niet in te voeren).
- Sociale interactie / pauzes met collega's __ - Training / nieuwe vaardigheden leren __ - Gefocust individueel werk (dat concentratie vereist) __ - Werken met iemand anders / een groep (face-to-face of dmv tele-/videoconferentie) __ - Overig (bijv. papierwerk zoals faxen, kopiëren, printen) __
8) Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen: Neem alle locaties in beschouwing waar u werkt in een gemiddelde week (bijv. op kantoor, thuis etc.). De categorieën van werk-gerelateerde activiteiten komen overeen met de vorige vraag. Mocht één of meer vra(a)g(en) niet relevant zijn in uw situatie, dan kan/kunnen deze worden overgeslagen. <<TWPF Socialize>>
- De beschikbaarheid van plaatsen voor sociale interactie voldoet aan mijn wens - Ik kan op elk gewenst moment een plek vinden voor sociale interactie - Mijn behoeften aan plaatsen voor sociale interactie zijn volledig vervuld binnen de huidige situatie
<<TWPF Learn>> - De beschikbaarheid van plaatsen voor training / nieuwe vaardigheden leren voldoet aan mijn wens - Ik kan op elk gewenst moment een plek vinden voor training / nieuwe vaardigheden leren - Mijn behoeften aan plaatsen voor training / nieuwe vaardigheden leren zijn volledig vervuld binnen de
huidige situatie <<TWPF Focus>>
- De beschikbaarheid van plaatsen voor gefocust individueel werk (dat concentratie vereist) voldoet aan mijn wens
- Ik kan op elk gewenst moment een plek vinden voor gefocust individueel werk (dat concentratie vereist)
- Mijn behoeften aan plaatsen voor gefocust individueel werk (dat concentratie vereist) zijn volledig vervuld binnen de huidige situatie
<<TWPF Collaborate>> - De beschikbaarheid van plaatsen voor werken met iemand anders / een groep voldoet aan mijn wens - Ik kan op elk gewenst moment een plek vinden voor werken met iemand anders / een groep - Mijn behoeften aan plaatsen voor werken met iemand anders / een groep zijn volledig vervuld binnen
de huidige situatie WORK PRACTICES III 9) Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen: <<Reflection on working hours and schedule>>
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 112
- Ik overweeg zorgvuldig welke tijden het meest geschikt zijn voor werk, gezien mijn persoonlijke situatie of de situatie van mijn huisgenoten / gezinsleden
- Wanneer ik merk dat werktijden niet aansluiten op mijn persoonlijke situatie of de situatie van mijn huisgenoten / gezinsleden, dan pas ik mijn tijdschema aan
- Ik probeer mijn werktijden te matchen met mijn persoonlijke situatie of de situatie van mijn huisgenoten / gezinsleden
10) Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen: Met medium wordt het type communicatiemiddel bedoeld dat u gebruikt om te communiceren (bijvoorbeeld e-mail, chat of telefoon) <<Reflection on media use>>
- Ik overweeg zorgvuldig welk medium het meest geschikt is voor welk type bericht - Wanneer ik merk dat een bericht niet aankomt via het ene medium (bijvoorbeeld e-mail), dan stap ik
over op een meer interactief medium - Ik probeer het type bericht te matchen met het medium - Ik controleer altijd of mijn bericht is aangekomen zoals bedoeld
11) Op welke manier(en) heeft u voornamelijk contact met uw collega's en manager (of opdrachtgever)? <<Media use>> Verdeel het totale contact met uw collega's en manager over de volgende manieren van contact. U kunt alleen gehele getallen invullen (in procenten): <b>het totaal dient gelijk te zijn aan 100% (u hoeft het %-teken niet in te voeren).
- Face-to-face __ - Video Conferentie __ - Telefoon / Telefoon Conferentie __ - Chat / Instant Messaging __ - E-mail __ - Voice Mail __ - Fax __ - Documenten __ - Anders __
Mocht u opmerkingen hebben met betrekking tot de voorgaande vragen, dan kunt u die hier noteren (OPTIONEEL) WORK ATMOSPHERE I 12) Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen: <<Meaning>>
- Het werk dat ik doe, is erg belangrijk voor mij - Mijn werkactiviteiten hebben persoonlijke betekenis voor mij - Het werk dat ik doe, is betekenisvol voor mij
<<Competence>> - Ik heb vertrouwen in mijn vermogen om mijn werk te doen - Ik ben zelfverzekerd voor wat betreft mijn capaciteiten om mijn werkzaamheden te verrichten - Ik heb de vaardigheden aangeleerd die noodzakelijk zijn voor mijn werk
<<Self-determination>> - Ik heb aanzienlijke zelfstandigheid om te bepalen hoe ik mijn werk doe - Ik kan zelf beslissen hoe ik mijn werk moet aanpakken - Ik heb ruime gelegenheid voor onafhankelijkheid en vrijheid ten aanzien van de manier waarop ik mijn
werk verricht <<Impact>>
- Mijn impact op hetgeen er binnen mijn afdeling gebeurt, is groot - Ik heb veel controle over hetgeen er binnen mijn afdeling gebeurt - Ik heb een aanzienlijke invloed op hetgeen er binnen mijn afdeling gebeurt
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 113
WORK ATMOSPHERE II 13) Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen: <<Outcome control>>
- Ik word beloond voor het leveren van hoogwaardige producten en diensten aan de klant - Salarisverhogingen zijn afhankelijk van hoe goed ik mijn werk verricht - Onderscheidingen op mijn afdeling zijn afhankelijk van hoe goed de medewerkers hun werk verrichten - Binnen de organisatie wordt men beoordeeld op werkresultaten (en niet op het aantal uren dat men
werkt) <<Behavioural control>>
- In mijn werk dien ik vastomlijnde en vooraf vastgestelde processen of regels te volgen - Ik word in mijn werk afgerekend op de manier waarop ik mijn werkzaamheden verricht, niet op de
uitkomsten van mijn werkzaamheden - Mijn daadwerkelijke werkresultaten worden zelden vergeleken met geplande resultaten - Ik heb regelmatig overleg met mijn manager om mijn werkzaamheden en functioneren te bespreken
<<Social control>> - De organisatie heeft geen invloed gehad op mijn houding en gedrag (R) - Sinds mijn aanstelling bij de organisatie zijn mijn persoonlijke waarden en die van de organisatie
steeds meer gelijk geworden - De managers van de organisatie hebben mij uitgelegd wat er van mij verwacht wordt in mijn functie - Ik heb de waarden geleerd die belangrijk zijn binnen de organisatie
<<Mutual control>> - Mijn collega' s controleren onderling of iedereen voldoende bijdraagt aan gezamenlijke projecten of
doelen - Mijn collega's houden in de gaten of iedereen zijn verantwoordelijkheden ten aanzien van
gezamenlijke projecten of doelen nakomt - In het geval van gezamenlijke projecten of doelen wordt zelden onderling nagegaan of iedereen de
gestelde deadlines haalt (R) - De voortgang van collega’s aangaande gezamenlijke projecten of doelen wordt door collega’s
onderling in de gaten gehouden Mocht u opmerkingen hebben met betrekking tot de voorgaande vragen, dan kunt u die hier noteren (OPTIONEEL) WORK PERFORMANCE <<Employee satisfaction>> 14) Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen:
- Als een bekende op zoek is naar werk, zou ik hem of haar deze organisatie aanbevelen - Het geeft mij persoonlijk bevrediging wanneer ik mijn werk goed uitvoer - Ik vertel anderen met trots dat ik deel uitmaak van deze organisatie - Deze organisatie is voor mij de beste organisatie om voor te werken
15) Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen: <<Work life balance>>
- Ik ben in staat om een goede balans te vinden tussen de eisen die mijn werk stelt en mijn gezins- en privé leven
- Ik heb buiten mijn werk voldoende tijd om een goede balans tussen mijn werk en mijn gezins- en privé leven te vinden
- Wanneer ik vakantie heb, kan ik mezelf losmaken van het werk en me goed amuseren - Ik ben erin geslaagd om een zeer goede balans te treffen tussen mijn werk en mijn gezins- en privé
leven 16) Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen: <<Productivity>>
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 114
- Ik geloof dat ik een effectieve medewerker ben - Binnen mijn werkgroep behoren mijn eigen prestaties naar mijn oordeel tot de beste 25% - Ik ben tevreden over de kwaliteit van mijn werkresultaten - Ik werk zeer efficiënt - Ik ben een zeer productieve medewerker
WORK ARRANGEMENTS IN HET GEVAL DAT UW ORGANISATIE BESCHIKT OVER MEERDERE KANTOREN, BEANTWOORD DAN DE VOLGENDE DRIE VRAGEN VOOR HET KANTOOR WAAR HET VAAKST WERKT 17) Heeft u een eigen werkplek / bureau in het kantoor van uw organisatie?
Ja, ik heb een eigen werkplek / bureau
Nee, werkplekken / bureaus zijn flexibel 18) Met hoeveel andere mensen deelt u een kamer in het kantoor van de organisatie?
Ik heb een kamer alleen
Met 1-2 anderen
Met 3-8 anderen
Met 9-23 anderen
Met meer dan 23 anderen 19) Heeft het kantoor 'backup ruimtes' voor speciale taken zoals geconcentreerd werk, persoonlijke telefoongesprekken en ontmoetingen?
Ja
Nee 20) Beoordeel de mate van vrijheid die u in principe heeft om uw eigen werktijden te kiezen - op een schaal van 1 (geen vrijheid) tot 10 (volkomen vrijheid). Het is niet noodzakelijk dat u van deze vrijheid gebruik maakt. Voer een geheel getal in. __ 21) Beoordeel de mate van vrijheid die u in principe heeft om uw eigen werklocatie(s) te kiezen - op een schaal van 1 (geen vrijheid) tot 10 (volkomen vrijheid). Het is niet noodzakelijk dat u van deze vrijheid gebruik maakt. Voer een geheel getal in. __ 22) Wordt door de organisatie videoconferencing mogelijk gemaakt / gefaciliteerd?
Ja
Nee 23) Welke van de volgende faciliteiten voor telewerk (d.w.z. werken op een andere locatie dan het kantoor) worden door <u>de organisatie</u> aan u verstrekt?
Laptop Smartphone Mobiel internet Toegang via internet tot bedrijfsapplicaties / data Geen van deze faciliteiten
24) Het geheel overziend, hoe beoordeelt u de mate waarin de organisatie u de mogelijkheden verschaft voor telewerk - op een schaal van 1 (totaal niet) tot 10 (volkomen)? Het is niet noodzakelijk dat u van deze mogelijkheden gebruik maakt. Voer een geheel getal in. __ Mocht u opmerkingen hebben met betrekking tot de voorgaande vragen, dan kunt u die hier noteren (OPTIONEEL)
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 115
OPEN QUESTIONS 25) Kun je aangeven hoeveel uur uw huidige dienstverband bedraagt? Het betreft hier het contractueel overeengekomen aantal uren, exclusief overwerk. 26) Hoeveel uur bent u gemiddeld per week bezig met uw werk? Het betreft hier het werkelijke totaal aantal uren, inclusief overwerk, zakelijk verkeer (géén woon-werk verkeer), opleidingen, bijeenkomsten etc. __ uur/uren per week 27) Hoeveel uur besteedt u in een gemiddelde week aan woon-werk verkeer? met woon-werk verkeer wordt het reizen tussen de plaats waar u woont en de plaats waar u werkt bedoelt. __ uur/uren per week 28) Hoeveel uur werkt u in een gemiddelde week buiten reguliere werktijden* (bijv. niet van 9 tot 5)? *hierbij gaat het ook om het aantal uren dat u werkt op dagen dat u niet gecontracteerd bent, inclusief het weekend. __ uur/uren per week 29) Hoeveel van deze uren is overwerk (niet-contractueel vastgestelde uren)? __ uur/uren per week 30) Hoeveel uur neemt u vrij tijdens reguliere werktijden voor privé-aangelegenheden (in een gemiddelde werkweek)? __ uur/uren per week 31) Welk percentage van uw werktijd besteedt u aan contact met uw collega's en manager in een normale week? __ % PERSONAL INFORMATION 32) Wat is uw geslacht?
Man
Vrouw 33) Wat is uw leeftijd? __ jaar 34) Wat is de beste omschrijving van uw thuissituatie?
Alleenstaand
Partner (ook werkend) en minderjarig(e) kind(eren)
Partner (niet werkend) en minderjarig(e) kind(eren)
Partner (ook werkend)
Partner (niet werkend)
Overig (graag toelichten): __________ 35) Wat is uw opleidingsniveau?
- graag één selecteren... - Basisonderwijs - Middelbaar onderwijs - LBO - MBO - HBO - WO (drs. / MSc.) - Professionele graad (bijvoorbeeld MBA) - Gepromoveerd (PhD)
36) In welke industrie is uw organisatie voornamelijk actief?
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 116
- graag één selecteren... - Landbouw, bosbouw en visserij - Winning van delfstoffen - Industrie - Productie en distributie van en handel in elektriciteit, aardgas, stoom en gekoelde lucht - Winning en distributie van water; afval- en afvalwaterbeheer en saneringen - Bouwnijverheid - Groothandel en detailhandel; reparatie van auto’s - Vervoer en opslag - Logies-, maaltijd- en drankverstrekking - Informatie en communicatie - Financiële instellingen - Verhuur van en handel in onroerend goed - Advisering, onderzoek en overige specialistische zakelijke dienstverlening - Verhuur van roerende goederen en overige zakelijke dienstverlening - Openbaar bestuur, overheidsdiensten en verplichte sociale verzekeringen - Onderwijs - Gezondheidszorg en welzijnszorg - Cultuur, sport en recreatie - Overige dienstverlening - Huishoudens als werkgever; niet-gedifferentieerde productie van goederen en diensten door
huishoudens voor eigen gebruik - Extraterritoriale organisaties en lichamen
37) Wat is de beste omschrijving van uw positie binnen de organisatie?
Werknemer (geen management functie)
Top-manager
Midden-manager
Operationeel manager
Onafhankelijk / ingehuurd 38) Wat is de beste omschrijving van uw afdeling binnen de organisatie?
Finance/Accounting
Human Resources
Information Technologie/MIS
Administratie
Sales
Marketing
Research en/of Development
Manufacturing
Engineering
Overig (graag toelichten):__________ Mocht u opmerkingen hebben met betrekking tot de voorgaande vragen, dan kunt u die hier noteren (OPTIONEEL) EMAIL U bent gekomen aan het einde van de vragenlijst. Heel hartelijk bedankt voor uw participatie! Er bestaat een mogelijkheid om na afloop van het onderzoek een samenvatting van de onderzoeksresultaten te ontvangen. Als u hiervoor in aanmerking wilt komen, vul dan hieronder uw gegevens in. Mocht u geen belangstelling hebben, dan kunt u onderstaande vragen overslaan.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 117
Wat is uw e-mailadres? __________ Voor welke organisatie werkt u? __________ Selecteer uw voorkeur:
JA, ik ontvang graag een samenvatting van de onderzoeksresultaten na afloop FINAL PAGE Bedankt voor het invullen van de vragenlijst! Uw bijdrage wordt enorm gewaardeerd. Alle antwoorden zijn verzonden en u kunt dit scherm nu sluiten.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 118
Appendix 3B – Survey Instrument (English)
1) To which properties does the ideal job meet -according to you-? Please indicate on the spectrum below what are your preferences are. Hereby, you should disregard your current job. 1. (R) Employee chooses work location(s) him-/herself 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Employer determines work location(s) 2. Employer decides how the work is done 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Employee decides how the work is done 3. Input control (emphasis on process) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Output control (emphasis on result) 4. Traditional forms of communication 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Communication through modern comm. technologies 5. (R) Open office space 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Office with small (private) rooms 6. Working hours are solid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Employee chooses his/her own working hours 7. (R) Mobile working (‘everywhere) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Working at one solid location (e.g. the office)
BIG FIVE INVENTORY I The following questions are related to your personality. Please note: there are no right or false answers. 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly agree 2) I see myself as someone who…
- ...is talkative - ...tends to find fault with others (R) - ...does a thorough job - ...is depressed, blue - …is original, comes up with new ideas - …is reserved (R) - …is helpful and unselfish with others - …can be somewhat careless (R) - …is relaxed, handles stress well (R) - …is curious about many different things - …is full of energy - …starts quarrels with others (R) - …is a reliable worker - …can be tense - …is ingenious, a deep thinker - …generates a lot of enthusiasm - …has a forgiving nature - …tends to be disorganized (R) - …worries a lot - …has an active imagination - …tends to be quiet (R) - …is generally trusting
BIG FIVE INVENTORY II 3) I see myself as someone who…
- …tends to be lazy (R) - …is emotionally stable, not easily upset (R) - …is inventive - …has an assertive personality - …can be cold and aloof (R) - …perseveres until the task is finished - …can be moody - …values artistic, aesthetic experiences - …is sometimes shy, inhibited (R)
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 119
- …is considerate and kind to almost everyone - …does things efficiently - …remains calm in tense situations (R) - …prefers work that is routine (R) - …is outgoing, sociable - …is sometimes rude to others (R) - …makes plans and follows through with them - …get nervous easily - …likes to reflect, play with ideas - …has few artistic interests (R) - …likes to cooperate with others - …is easily distracted (R) - …is sophisticated in art, music, or literature
WORK PRACTICES I The survey starts by asking a number of questions about your current job.
4) Please indicate to which extent you agree with the following statements: <<Time dependency>>
- The majority of my work has to be carried out at set times - The nature of my work does not allow me to work the hours I would prefer - I can only do my work at predetermined times
<<Location dependency>> - The majority of my work has to be carried out at (a) fixed location(s) - The nature of my work does not allow me to work at a location I prefer - I can only work at predetermined locations
5) Indicate in percentages how your working time is divided across different locations. <<Flex-place>> Note you can only enter whole numbers in percentages; the total must equal 100%. You don't have to enter the %-sign.
- At the office __ - At external office or meeting location __ - At client location __ - On the road __ - At home __
6) Please indicate to which extent you agree with the following statements: <<Reflection on choice of location>>
- I carefully consider which work location is best suited to the task I am going to perform - When I notice that a work location is not suited to a specific task that I am performing, I will select a
different work location - I try to match my tasks to my work location
WORK PRACTICES II 7) How are your work tasks divided among the following workplace activities? Please divide your tasks among the following categories of workplace activity. Please note you can only enter whole numbers in percentages: the total must equal 100% (you don’t have to enter the %-sign).
- Social interaction / breaks with colleagues __ - Training / learning new skills __ - Focused individual work (requiring concentration) __ - Working with another person or group (face-to-face or tele/video conference) __ - Other (e.g. paperwork like faxing, copying, printing) __
8) Please indicate to which extent you agree with the following statements:
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 120
You should consider all locations at which you do your job (e.g. at the office, at home, etc.). Please note that this question deals with the same workplace activities as in the previous question. You are allowed to skip questions that are not relevant in your situation. <<TWPF Socialize>>
- The availability of places for social interaction matches my desire - I can find a place for social interaction at any time I need it - My needs for places for social interaction are fully met within the current situation
<<TWPF Learn>> - The availability of places for training / learning new skills matches my desire - I can find a place for training / learning new skills at any time I need it - My needs for places for training / learning new skills are fully met within the current situation
<<TWPF Focus>> - The availability of places for focused individual work (requiring concentration) matches my desire - I can find a place for focused individual work (requiring concentration) at any time I need it - My needs for places for focused individual work (requiring concentration) are fully met within the
current situation <<TWPF Collaborate>>
- The availability of places for working with another person or group matches my desire - I can find a place for working with another person or group at any time I need it - My needs for places for working with another person or group are fully met within the current
situation WORK PRACTICES III 9) Please indicate to which extent you agree with the following statements: <<Reflection on working hours and schedule>>
- I carefully consider which hours are best suited for work, given my personal situation or the situation of the members of my household/family
- When I notice that working hours don’t suit with my personal situation or with the situation of the members of my household/family, I will adjust my time schedule
- I try to match my working hours with my personal situation or with the situation of the members of my household/family
10) Please indicate to which extent you agree with the following statements: Medium refers to the means of communication that you use to communicate (for example e-mail, chat or telephone) <<Reflection on media use>>
- I carefully consider which medium is best suited to what type of message - When I notice that a message does not come across via one medium (for example e-mail), then I will
switch to a more interactive medium - I try to match the type of message with the medium - I always check whether my message has been received as intended
11) In which way do you interact with your colleagues and manager? <<Media use>> Divide the interaction that you have with your colleagues and manager across the following means of interaction. Please note you can only enter whole numbers in percentages: the total must equal 100% (you don't have to enter the %-sign).
- Face-to-face __ - Video Conference __ - Telephone / Telephone Conference __ - Chat / Instant Messaging __ - Electronic Mail __ - Voice Mail __ - Fax __ - Documents __ - Other __
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 121
WORK ATMOSPHERE I 12) Please indicate to which extent you agree with the following statements: <<Meaning>>
- The work that I do is very important to me - My job activities are personally meaningful to me - The work I do is meaningful to me
<<Competence>> - I am confident about my ability to do my job - I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work activities - I have mastered the skills necessary for my job
<<Self-determination>> - I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job - I can decide on my own how to go about doing my work - I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job
<<Impact>> - My impact on what happens in my department is large - I have a great deal of control over what happens in my department - I have significant influence over what happens in my department
WORK ATMOSPHERE II 13) Please indicate to which extent you agree with the following statements: <<Outcome control>>
- I am rewarded for delivering high-quality products and services to the customer - Salary increases are dependent on how well I do my work - In my department, awards are dependent on how well the employees do their work - Within [the organisation] people are evaluated on work results (and not on the amount of hours that
they work) <<Behavioural control>>
- My work follows well-defined and predetermined processes - In my work, I am judged on the way in which I do my work, not on the outcome of my work - My actual working results are seldom compared with planned results - I have regular meetings with my manager to discuss my work and performance
<<Social control>> - The organisation has not influenced my attitude and behaviour (R) - Since my employment with the organisation my personal values and those of the organisation have
become increasingly similar - The managers of the organisation have explained to me what is expected of me in my position - I have learnt which values are important within the organisation
<<Mutual control>> - My colleagues check among themselves whether everybody contributes sufficiently towards common
projects and objectives - My colleagues check whether everybody meets their responsibilities with respect to common projects
and objectives - In case of common projects and objectives, people hardly ever check whether everybody meets the
deadlines (R) - The progress of colleagues with respect to projects and objectives is checked mutually by those
colleagues WORK PERFORMANCE <<Employee satisfaction>> 14) Please indicate to which extent you agree with the following statements:
- If a friend is looking for a job, I would recommend this organisation to him or her - It gives me personal satisfaction when I carry out my work well - I tell others with pride that I am part of this organisation - This organisation is the best organisation for me to work for
<<Work life balance>>
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 122
15) Please indicate to which extent you agree with the following statements: - I am able to find a proper balance between the demands of my work and my family and private life - I have sufficient time outside of work to find a proper balance between my work and my family and
private life - When I am on holiday, I can disassociate myself from my work and enjoy myself - I have achieved a very good balance between my work and my family and private life
16) Please indicate to which extent you agree with the following statements: <<Productivity>>
- I believe that I am an effective employee - Within my working group, I believe that my own performance is among the best 25% - I am satisfied with the quality of my working results - I work extremely efficiently - I am an extremely productive employee
WORK ARRANGEMENTS IN CASE YOUR COMPANY HAS MULTIPLE OFFICES, PLEASE ANSWER THE NEXT THREE QUESTIONS CONSIDERING THE OFFICE WHERE YOU WORK MOST OFTEN. 17) Do you have your own work place / desk in the office of the company?
Yes, I have my own work place / desk
No, work places / desks are flexible 18) With how many other persons do you share a room within the office of the company?
I have a private room
With 1-2 other persons
With 3-8 other persons
With 9-23 other persons
With more than 23 other persons 19) Does the office have 'backup spaces' for specific tasks, such as concentrated work, private phone calls, and meetings?
Yes
No 20) Please rate the amount of freedom management gives you in determining your own working hours - on a scale from 1 (no freedom) to 10 (full freedom) It is not necessary that you use this freedom. Please enter a whole number. __ 21) Please rate the amount of freedom management gives you in determining your own work location(s) - on a scale from 1 (no freedom) to 10 (full freedom) It is not necessary that you use this freedom. Please enter a whole number. __ 22) Is videoconferencing made possible / facilitated by the organization?
Yes
No 23) Which of the following facilities for telework (i.e. working at another location than the office of the company) are provided to you by the company?
Laptop Smart phone Mobile internet Access via internet to business applications / data None of these facilities
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 123
24) Overall, how do you rate the degree in which the company facilitates you for telework - on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 10 (in full)? It is not necessary that you use this freedom. Please enter a whole number. __
OPEN QUESTIONS 25) Could you please indicate for how many hours you are currently employed? This concerns the contractually agreed number of hours, excluding overtime. __ hours per week 26) How many hours per week do you spend on your work on average? This concerns the actual total number of hours, including overtime, business travel (not commuter travel), education, meetings, etc. __ hours per week 27) How many hours per week do you spend on commuter travel? by commuter travel we mean travel between your place of residence and place of work. __ hours per week 28) How many hours do you work in an ordinary week outside regular working hours* (e.g. not from 9 to 5)? *also mention the hour(s) you worked on day(s) you aren’t contracted, including the weekend. __ hour(s)
29) How many of these hours are overwork (non-contractually agreed hours)? __ hour(s)
30) How many hours do you take off during regular working hours for private matters? __ hour(s)
31) What percentage of your time do you spend on contact with your colleagues and manager in an ordinary week? __ %
PERSONAL INFORMATION 32) What is your gender?
Male
Female 33) What age are you? __ years old 34) What is the best description of your private situation?
Single
With partner (employed) and (a) minor child(ren)
With partner (unemployed) and (a) minor child(ren)
With partner (employed)
With partner (unemployed)
Other (please specify):__________ 35) What is your level of education? [[categorisation based on the Dutch education sysyem]] 36) In which sector is your organization mainly active? [[Dutch sector classification Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek ]]
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 124
37) What is the best description of your position within the organization?
Employee (no management function)
Top manager
Middle manager
Operational manager
Independent / hired 38) What is the best description of your department within the organization?
Finance/Accounting
Human Resources
Information Technologie/MIS
Administration
Sales
Marketing
Research and/or Development
Manufacturing
Engineering
Other (please specify):__________
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 125
Appendix 3C – Context Sheet
The context sheet contains the following question on the three dimensions:
People (Policies/Agreements)
- Employees are trained in using work location(s) as good as possible
- Employees are trained in collaborating virtually
- Managers are trained in coaching leadership and result-driven management
- There are clear agreements on availability
- There is a 'physical minimum' defined within teams (e.g. regular meetings at the office)
- There is a reliance based management style (employees needn't account for how, where, and when
they do their work)
- There are timesheets
- Employees could choose their own working hours
- Employees could choose their own working location
- There are a governance model and KPIs to measure output of employees
Place (Workplace design)
- The office is divided in separate rooms
- The office is (half) open
- The office is divided based on activity-related working
- In the office, allocation of work places to persons is fully flexible
- Employees are facilitated to work at home
- Employees are facilitated for telework (performing tasks while commuting)
Technology (Media availability)
- All information needed by our employees in order to their work is available digitally
- Employees do have video conferencing on their personal workplace
- Employees do have instant messaging / unified communications on their personal workplace
- Employees are facilitated for using web 2.0 network services (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter etc.)
- Employees have mobile access via internet to business applications and data
- Employees are equipped with laptops
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 126
Appendix 4A – Invitation
Subject: Verzoek van een vakgenoot Geachte heer #u_manvrouw# #u_name#, Uw emailadres heb ik gevonden in de alumnigids van de parttime opleiding bedrijfskunde(RSM). Net als u ben ik bedrijfskundige en momenteel ben ik bezig met het schrijven van een scriptie voor de master Business Information Management. Mijn onderzoek geeft inzicht in hoe flexibele werkpraktijken op een succesvolle manier kunnen worden toegepast, iets wat in de praktijk niet vanzelfsprekend blijkt te zijn. Hierbij richt ik me met name op werkpraktijken die gerelateerd zijn aan Het Nieuwe Werken en leg ik een verbinding met persoonlijkheidskenmerken. Voor mijn onderzoek ben ik zowel geïnteresseerd in kenniswerkers die gebruik maken van flexibele werkpraktijken als in personen die dat niet / in mindere mate doen. Ik zou het heel erg op prijs stellen als u mij zou willen helpen door een online, Nederlandstalige vragenlijst in te vullen. U kunt deze vragenlijst openen door op de volgende link te klikken: #code_complete# Het invullen van de vragenlijst duurt 15 tot 20 minuten. De data wordt anoniem verwerkt. Indien u dat wilt, ontvangt u na afloop van het onderzoek een samenvatting van de resultaten. Dit kunt u aangeven aan het einde van de vragenlijst. Nogmaals: uw deelname wordt enorm gewaardeerd! Alvast heel hartelijk bedankt! Met vriendelijke groet, Christian van Esch Student Bedrijfskunde Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus Universiteit
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 127
Appendix 4B – Reminder
Subject: Uw mening telt! Geachte #u_gender# #u_name#, Afgelopen maandag heb ik u een mailtje gestuurd, waarin ik u vroeg om uw bijdrage aan mijn afstudeeronderzoek door het invullen van een vragenlijst. Mijn scriptie gaat over de relatie tussen persoonlijkheid en flexibele werkpraktijken die gerelateerd zijn aan Het Nieuwe Werken (bijv. flex-time, flex-place en het gebruik van moderne communicatietechnologie). Ik wil graag te weten komen welk type persoonlijkheid wel/niet aansluit op deze manieren van werk. Voor mijn onderzoek ben ik zowel geïnteresseerd in kenniswerkers die gebruik maken van bovengenoemde werkpraktijken als in personen die dat niet doen. Mogelijk is dit verzoek in eerste instantie aan uw aandacht ontsnapt of heeft u nog geen geschikt moment kunnen vinden. Heel graag nodig ik u uit om alsnog deel te nemen aan mijn onderzoek, waarvan u –indien gewenst– de resultaten krijgt toegestuurd. U kunt de vragenlijst openen door op de volgende link te klikken: #code_complete# Mocht u reeds begonnen zijn met het invullen van de vragen, dan kunt u de vragenlijst hervatten op het punt waar u hem hebt onderbroken. Uw medewerking wordt enorm gewaardeerd! Bij voorbaat hartelijk dank! Met vriendelijke groet, Christian van Esch Student Bedrijfskunde Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus Universiteit
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 128
Appendix 5 – Factor Analysis
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. ,829
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 2083,355
df 66
Sig. ,000
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4
TWPF Focus 1 ,931 ,097 ,122 ,169
TWPF Focus 2 ,918 ,130 ,180 ,154
TWPF Focus 3 ,898 ,132 ,248 ,142
TWPF Learn 1 ,085 ,934 ,050 ,111
TWPF Learn 2 ,149 ,896 ,103 ,083
TWPF Learn 3 ,103 ,897 ,152 ,228
TWPF Collaborate 1 ,212 ,083 ,840 ,238
TWPF Collaborate 2 ,175 ,083 ,868 ,214
TWPF Collaborate 3 ,154 ,144 ,861 ,206
TWPF Socialize 1 ,161 ,121 ,213 ,832
TWPF Socialize 2 ,208 ,105 ,161 ,825
TWPF Socialize 3 ,085 ,219 ,300 ,828
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 129
Appendix 6 – Reliability Analysis
Construct Cronbach’s α Corrected item – Total correlation
(minimum / maximum)
Reflection on choice of location 0.732* 0.517 / 0.599
Reflection on media usage 0.759 (0.808 = 4) 0.410 / 0.671
Reflection on working hours and
schedule 0.819* 0.644 / 0.704
TWPF Socialize 0.860* 0.704 / 0.777
TWPF Learn 0.925* 0.818 / 0.864
TWPF Focus 0.951* 0.890 / 0.902
TWPF Collaborate 0.894* 0.781 / 0.805
Empw. Meaning 0.872* 0.743 / 0.786
Empw. Competence 0.828* 0.636 / 0.734
Empw. Self-determination 0.877* 0.709 / 0.799
Empw. Impact 0.879* 0.754 / 0.803
Output control 0.684* 0.405 / 0.595
Behavioural control 0.378 (0.482 = 3) 0.041 / 0.337
Social control 0.365 (0.467 = 1) 0.040 / 0.282
Mutual control 0.697 (0.828 = 3) 0.151 / 0.668
Employee satisfaction 0.811 (0.851 = 2) 0.403 / 0.759
Work life balance 0.859 (0.898 = 3) 0.524 / 0.801
Productivity 0.824* 0.574 / 0.699
Extraversion 0.791* 0.346 / 0.645
Agreeableness 0.672 (0.689 = BFI02) 0.153 / 0.410
Conscientiousness 0.688* 0.301 / 0.472
Neuroticism 0.806* 0.435 / 0.619
Openness 0.720 (0.722 = BFI35) 0.214 / 0.507
Time dependency 0.725* 0.529 / 0.588
Location dependency 0.810* 0.654 / 0.687
* Cronbach’s alpha cannot be improved by deleting items
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 130
Appendix 7 – ‘PTO Bedrijfskunde’ Alumni
Variable Frequency Percentage
Gender Male 180 82.569
Female 38 17.431
Age 30 -< 35 23 10.550
35 -< 40 48 22.018
40 -< 45 48 22.018
45 -< 50 34 15.596
50 -< 55 42 19.266
55 -< 60 13 5.963
60 -< 65 9 4.128
Missing 1 0.459
Position Employee 49 22.477
Top manager 63 28.899
Middle manager 58 26.606
Operational manager 17 7.798
Independent / hired 31 14.220
A.7.1. Gender Alumni
Male 83%
Female 17%
Gender
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 131
A.7.2. Age Alumni
A.7.3. Position Alumni
Employee 22%
Top manager 29%
Middle manager
27%
Operational manager
8%
Independent / hired 14%
Position
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 132
A.7.4. Sector Alumni
A.7.5. Personality - Position
Agriculture, forestry and fishing
1%
Mining of minerals 2%
Industry 13%
Production, distribution and trade electricity
2%
Building industry 5%
Wholesale and retail trade
1%
Transport and storage
1%
Information and communication
8%
Financial institutions 19%
Rental / trade real estate
1%
Consultancy and reserach
15%
Public administration
8%
Education 3%
Healthcare and
welfare 8%
Culture, sport, and recreation
2% Other services 11%
Sector
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
Personality - Position
Employee
Top-manager
Middle-manager
Operational manager
Independent / hired
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 133
Appendix 8 – Univariate Analysis
Quantitative Variables
Variable n Mean Median Standard dev. Range
Refl. on choice of location 218 3.569 3.667 0.736 1.667 / 5
Refl. on media usage 218 3.648 3.750 0.623 1.333 / 5
Refl. on working hours and
schedule
218 3.498 3.667 0.789 1 / 5
Hours contracted 218 37.083 40.000 6.632 0 / 50
Hours work 218 46.454 45.000 10.481 9 / 75
Hours commuting 218 7.005 6.000 4.121 0 / 25
Non-regular work hours 217 10.115 10.000 7.406 0 / 30
Non-regular free hours 218 1.849 1.000 2.926 0 / 20
At the office 209 53.033 60.000 29.605 0 / 100
At ext. office or meeting
location
209 8.861 5.000 10.775 0 / 60
At client location 209 16.900 10.000 22.992 0 / 100
On the road 209 5.268 0.000 7.491 0 / 35
At home 209 15.938 10.000 14.984 0 / 100
Flex-time 217 20.914 20.000 13.495 0 / 88.889
Flex-place 209 46.967 40.000 29.605 0 / 100
TWPF Socialize 218 3.688 4.000 0.739 1 / 5
TWPF Learn 218 3.303 3.333 0.960 0 / 5
TWPF Focus 218 3.661 4.000 0.980 1 / 5
TWPF Collaborate 218 3.713 4.000 0.790 1.667 / 5
Face-to-face 200 44.225 40.000 21.224 0 / 90
Video Conference 200 2.270 0.000 4.365 0 / 30
Telephone (conf.) 200 15.405 15.000 9.822 0 / 50
Chat / Instant Messaging 200 2.235 0.000 4.154 0 / 20
Electronic Mail 200 27.730 25.000 15.341 5 / 80
Voice Mail 200 1.890 0.000 2.860 0 / 15
Fax 200 0.065 0.000 0.460 0 / 5
Documents 200 5.000 3.000 6.499 0 / 5
Other 200 1.180 0.000 6.809 0 / 85
Meaning 218 4.054 4.000 0.637 2 / 5
Competence 218 4.297 4.000 0.508 2 / 5
Self-determination 218 4.321 4.000 0.585 2 / 5
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 134
Impact 218 3.928 4.000 0.776 1.333 / 5
Output control 218 3.494 3.500 0.690 1 / 5
Behavioural control 218 2.802 2.750 0.595 1.250 / 4.500
Social control 218 3.375 3.500 0.533 1.500 / 4.750
Mutual control 218 3.217 3.250 0.675 1.250 / 5.000
Employee satisfaction 218 3.753 3.750 0.680 1.250 / 5
Work life balance 218 3.710 4.000 0.749 1.500 / 5
Productivity 218 3.950 4.000 0.493 2.200 / 5
Work Time Freedom Rate 216 7.583 8.000 1.838 1 / 10
Work Location Freedom
Rate
215 6.823 7.000 2.433 1 / 10
Telework Facilitation Rate 217 7.553 8.000 2.036 1 / 10
Extraversion 218 3.838 3.875 0.525 1.625 / 5
Agreeableness 218 3.657 3.667 0.421 2.667 / 4.889
Conscientiousness 218 3.779 3.778 0.440 2.444 / 4.889
Neuroticism 218 2.179 2.250 0.533 1 /3.750
Openness 218 3.746 3.750 0.455 2.500 / 4.900
Time dependency 218 2.258 2.000 0.753 1/4
Location dependency 218 2.350 2.333 0.864 1/5
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 135
Qualitative Variables
Variable n Answer option # %
Room Sharing 218 I have a private room 74 33.945
With 1-2 other persons 41 18.807
With 3-8 other persons 37 16.972
With 9-23 other persons 37 16.972
With more than 23 other persons 29 13.303
Own Work Place 218 Yes, I have my own work place / desk 146 66.972
No, work places / desks are flexible 72 33.028
Backup Spaces 218 Yes 166 76.147
No 52 23.853
Videoconferencing 218 Yes 135 61.927
No 83 38.073
Media Facilitation 218 Laptop 179 82.110
Smartphone 163 74.771
Mobile Internet 150 68.807
Online access to business applications
and data
199 91.284
None of these facilities 4 1.835
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 136
Appendix 9 – Correlations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1. Extraversion
2. Agreeableness .251**
3. Conscient. .149* .164*
4. Neuroticism -.441** -.276** -.275**
5. Openness .274** .102 .025 -.214**
6. Ref choice loc. -.006 .012 -.016 .064 -.007
7. Ref w. hours -.024 .083 -.012 .043 -.046 .276**
8. Ref media use .080 .147* .076 .007 .161* .225** .229**
9. Flex-time .107 -.066 .020 .000 .137* .099 -.131 -.016
10. Flex-place .051 .040 -.036 -.028 .122 .325** .106 .183** .348**
11. Socialize .123 .057 -.034 -.074 -.076 .074 .006 .131 .090 -.156*
12. Learn .201** .050 .095 -.135* .012 .144** .156* .033 -.018 -.031 .355**
13. Focus .165* -.032 .080 -.091 .120 .044 .125 .015 .119 -.111 .385** .283**
14. Collaborate .263** .129 .037 -.206** .052 .036 .021 .101 .053 -.067 .519** .276** .422**
15. Empl. satisf. .200** .125 .023 -.143* .062 .078 .005 .154* .081 -.063 .405** .310** .334** .339**
16. Work life bal. .086 .146* .092 -.202** .024 .074 .333** .225** -.182** -.033 .190** .183** .239** .171* .194**
17. Productivity .198** .112 .436** -.271** .130 .049 .119 .335** .047 -.005 .243** .266** .187** .188** .324** .229**
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 137
Appendix 10A – Hypotheses
P1 NWoW Work Practices have a positive impact on Work Performance
H1A ‘Reflection on working hours and schedule’ has a significant positive impact on work life balance
H1B ‘Reflection on media use’ has a significant positive impact on work life balance
H1C ‘Reflection on media use’ has a significant positive impact on productivity
H1D Neither flex-place nor flex-time has a significant impact on one of the performance indicators
H1E TWPF Collaborate has no significant impact on employee satisfaction, but the other three types of
TWPF have
H1F Task Workplace Fit Focus has a significant positive impact on work life balance
H1G Task Workplace Fit Learn has a significant positive impact on productivity
P2 Work Arrangements impact NWoW Work Practices
H2A Private office rooms have a significant positive impact on TWPF Learn and TWPF Focus
H2B Own workplace / desk does not have a significant impact on Task Workplace Fit, but has a significantly
negative impact on flex-place
H2C Freedom to choose work location(s) has a significant positive impact on both TWPF Focus and TWPF
Socialize, but concerning TWPF Socialize, workers remain dependent on (backup spaces in) the office
H2D Nor workplace design nor freedom to choose work location(s) has a significant impact on TWPF
Collaborate
H2E Telework facilitation does not have a significant impact on ‘reflection on media use’, but ‘freedom to
choose working hours’ has a sign. positive influence on ‘reflection on working hours and schedule’ and
‘freedom to choose work locations’ has a sign. positive influence on ‘reflection on choice of location’
H2F ‘Freedom to choose working hours’ has a significant positive influence on flex-time, but ‘freedom to
choose work locations’ does not have a significant influence on flex-place
P3 Specific Personality Traits impact Work Practices
H3A Openness has a significant positive impact on ‘reflection on media use’ and flex-place
H3B Extraversion has a significant positive impact on Task Workplace Fit Collaborate
P4 Specific Personality Traits impact the relationship between Work Practices and Work Performance
H4A A higher score on Extraversion in combination with more ‘reflection on choice of location’ result in a
relatively lower employee satisfaction
H4B A higher score on Agreeableness in combination with more ‘reflection on choice of location’ result in a
relatively higher productivity
H4C A higher score on Extraversion in combination with more flex-place result in a relatively lower employee
satisfaction
H4D A higher score on Conscientiousness in combination with more flex-time result in a relatively lower
productivity
H4E A higher score on Neuroticism in combination with more flex-time result in a relatively higher
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 138
productivity
H4F A higher score on Extraversion in combination with more TWPF Focus result in a relatively higher
employee satisfaction
H4G A higher score on Agreeableness in combination with more TWPF Focus result in a relatively lower
employee satisfaction
H4H A higher score on Neuroticism in combination with more TWPF Learn result in a relatively higher
employee satisfaction
H4I A higher score on Extraversion in combination with more TWPF Collaborate result in a relatively higher
employee satisfaction
H4J A higher score on Conscientiousness in combination with more TWPF Learn result in a relatively lower
productivity
H4K A higher score on Openness in combination with more TWPF Learn result in a relatively lower
productivity
Other findings / hypotheses
HA Extraversion has a significant positive impact on employee satisfaction
HB Neuroticism has a significant negative impact on work life balance
HC Conscientiousness has a significant positive impact on productivity
HD Top managers score higher on employee satisfaction but lower on work life balance
HE Women and young people are more likely to reflect on working hours and schedule
HF Independent / hired people work relatively more outside the office (flex-place); especially top managers
and middle-managers accomplish a higher percentage of their tasks outside regular working hours (flex-
time)
Table A10.1. – Summary hypotheses per proposition (based on data analysis)
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 139
Appendix 10B – Outcomes Personality Traits
Work Practices Work performance
Refl. on med. use Flex-place TWPF Collaborate Employee satisfac. Work life balance Productivity
Pe
rso
nal
ity
trai
ts
Extraversion (+) Direct effect
(+) Direct effect
(-) Mod: Reflection on
choice of location
(-) Mod: Flex-place
(+) Mod: TWPF Focus
(+) Mod: TWPF
Collaborate
Agreeableness (-) Moderating effect
TWPF Focus
(+) Mod: Reflection on
choice of location
Conscientiousness
(+) Direct effect
(-) Mod: Flex-time
(-) Mod: TWPF Learn
Neuroticism (+) Mod: TWPF Learn (+) Direct effect (+) Mod: Neuroticism
Openness (+) Direct effect (+) Direct effect (+) Mod: TWPF Learn
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 140
Appendix 11 – Plots
A11.1. Histogram Standardized Residuals
Figure A11.1 – Histogram of the Standardized Residuals for Reflexivity – Employee satisfaction (sub-model 1, relation 1a)
A11.2. Normal P-P Plot
Figure A11.2 – Normal P-P Plot for Reflexivity – Employee satisfaction (sub-model 1, relation 1a)
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 141
A11.3. ZRESID - ZPRESID
Figure A11.3 – Standardized residuals (ZRESID) vs. standardized predicted values for Reflexivity – Employee satisfaction (sub-model 1,
relation 1a)
A11.4. Residual lots
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 142
Figure A11.4 – Residual plots for Reflexivity – Employee satisfaction (sub-model 1, relation 1a)
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 143
Appendix 12 – Graphs Interaction Effects
Figure A12.1 – Graph for Reflection on choice of location (X) Employee satisfaction (Y), and Extraversion (Z)
Figure A12.2 – Graph for Reflection on location (X) Productivity (Y), and Agreeableness (Z)
Figure A12.3 – Graph for Flex-place (X) Employee satisfaction (Y), and Extraversion (Z)
Figure A12.4 – Graph for Flex-time (X) Productivity (Y), and Conscientiousness (Z)
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 144
Figure A12.5 – Graph for Flex-time (X) Productivity (Y), and Neuroticism (Z)
Figure A12.6 – Graph for TWPF Focus (X) Employee satisfaction (Y), and Extraversion (Z)
Figure A12.7 – Graph for TWPF Focus (X) Employee satisfaction (Y), and Agreeableness (Z)
Figure A12.8 – Graph for TWPF Learn (X) Employee satisfaction (Y), and Neuroticism (Z)
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 145
Figure A12.9 – Graph for TWPF Collaborate (X) Employee satisfaction (Y), and Extraversion (Z)
Figure A12.10 – Graph for TWPF Learn (X) Productivity (Y), and Conscientiousness (Z)
Figure A12.11 – Graph for TWPF Learn (X) Productivity (Y), and Openness (Z)
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 146
Output Regression Models
Appendix 13 – Regression Output Sub-model 1 ................................................................................................. 149
13.1. Reflexivity – Work Performance ............................................................................................................ 149
13.1.1. Reflexivity – Employee satisfaction ................................................................................................. 149
13.1.2. Reflexivity – Work life balance ........................................................................................................ 151
13.1.3. Reflexivity – Productivity ................................................................................................................. 153
13.2. Flexibility – Work Performance .............................................................................................................. 155
13.2.1. Flexibility – Employee satisfaction .................................................................................................. 155
13.2.2. Flexibility – Work life balance ......................................................................................................... 157
13.2.3. Flexibility – Productivity .................................................................................................................. 159
13.3. Task Workplace Fit – Work Performance ............................................................................................... 161
13.3.1. Task Workplace Fit – Employee satisfaction ................................................................................... 161
13.3.2. Task Workplace Fit – Work life balance .......................................................................................... 163
13.3.3. Task Workplace Fit – Productivity ................................................................................................... 165
13.4. Personality Traits – Reflexivity ............................................................................................................... 167
13.4.1. Personality Traits – Reflection on working hours and schedule ..................................................... 167
13.4.2. Personality Traits – Reflection on choice of location ...................................................................... 169
13.4.3. Personality Traits – Reflection on media use .................................................................................. 171
13.5. Personality Traits – Flexibility................................................................................................................. 173
13.5.1. Personality Traits – Flex-time .......................................................................................................... 173
13.5.2.A. Personality Traits – Flex-place ..................................................................................................... 175
13.5.2.B. Personality Traits – Flex-place (Variant B) ................................................................................... 177
13.6. Personality Traits – Task Workplace Fit ................................................................................................. 179
13.6.1. Personality Traits – Task Workplace Fit Focus ................................................................................ 179
13.6.2. Personality Traits – Task Workplace Fit Socialize ............................................................................ 181
13.6.3. Personality Traits – Task Workplace Fit Collaborate ....................................................................... 183
13.6.4. Personality Traits – Task Workplace Fit Learn................................................................................. 185
13.7. Personality Traits – Work Performance ................................................................................................. 187
13.7.1.A. Personality Traits – Employee satisfaction .................................................................................. 187
13.7.1.B. Personality Traits – Employee satisfaction (Variant B) ................................................................ 189
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 147
13.7.2. Personality Traits – Work life balance ............................................................................................. 191
13.7.3. Personality Traits – Productivity ..................................................................................................... 193
Appendix 14 – Regression Output Sub-model 2 ................................................................................................. 195
14.1. Personality – Reflexivity / Work Performance ....................................................................................... 195
14.1.1. Personality – Reflection on working hours and schedule / Employee satisfaction......................... 195
14.1.2.A. Personality – Reflection on choice of location / Employee satisfaction ...................................... 197
14.1.2.B. Personality – Reflection on choice of location / Employee satisfaction (Variant B) .................... 199
14.1.3. Personality – Reflection on media use / Employee satisfaction ..................................................... 201
14.1.4. Personality – Reflection on working hours and schedule / Work life balance ................................ 203
14.1.5. Personality – Reflection on choice of location / Work life balance ................................................ 205
14.1.6. Personality – Reflection on media use/ Work life balance ............................................................. 207
14.1.7. Personality – Reflection on working hours and schedule / Productivity ........................................ 209
14.1.8.A. Personality – Reflection on choice of location / Productivity ...................................................... 211
14.1.8.B. Personality – Reflection on choice of location / Productivity (Variant B) .................................... 213
14.1.9. Personality – Reflection on media use/ Productivity ...................................................................... 215
14.2. Personality – Flexibility / Work Performance......................................................................................... 217
14.2.1. Personality – Flex-time / Employee satisfaction ............................................................................. 217
14.2.2.A. Personality – Flex-place / Employee satisfaction ......................................................................... 219
14.2.2.B. Personality – Flex-place / Employee satisfaction (Variant B) ....................................................... 221
14.2.3.A. Personality – Flex-time / Work life balance ................................................................................. 223
14.2.3.B. Personality – Flex-time / Work life balance (Variant B) ............................................................... 225
14.2.4. Personality – Flex-place / Work life balance ................................................................................... 227
14.2.5. Personality – Flex-time / Productivity ............................................................................................. 229
14.2.6. Personality – Flex-place / Productivity ............................................................................................ 231
14.3. Personality – Task Workplace Fit / Work Performance ......................................................................... 233
14.3.1. Personality – TWPF Focus / Employee satisfaction ......................................................................... 233
14.3.2. Personality – TWPF Socialize / Employee satisfaction .................................................................... 235
14.3.3.A. Personality – TWPF Collaborate / Employee satisfaction ............................................................ 237
14.3.3.B. Personality – TWPF Collaborate / Employee satisfaction (Variant B) .......................................... 239
14.3.4. Personality – TWPF Learn / Employee satisfaction ......................................................................... 241
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 148
14.3.5. Personality – TWPF Focus / Work life balance ................................................................................ 243
14.3.6. Personality – TWPF Socialize / Work life balance ........................................................................... 245
14.3.7. Personality – TWPF Collaborate / Work life balance ...................................................................... 247
14.3.8. Personality – TWPF Learn / Work life balance ................................................................................ 249
14.3.9. Personality – TWPF Focus / Productivity ........................................................................................ 251
14.3.10. Personality – TWPF Socialize / Productivity .................................................................................. 253
14.3.11. Personality – TWPF Collaborate / Productivity ............................................................................. 255
14.3.12.A. Personality – TWPF Learn / Productivity ................................................................................... 257
14.3.12.B. Personality – TWPF Learn / Productivity (Variant B) ................................................................. 259
Appendix 15 – Regression Output Sub-model 3 ................................................................................................. 261
15.1. Workplace design & Freedom work location – Task Workplace Fit ....................................................... 261
15.1.1. Workplace design & Freedom work location – TWPF Focus ........................................................... 261
15.1.2. Workplace design & Freedom work location – TWPF Socialize ...................................................... 263
15.1.3. Workplace design & Freedom work location – TWPF Collaborate ................................................. 265
15.1.4. Workplace design & Freedom work location – TWPF Learn ........................................................... 267
15.2.1. Workplace design & Freedom work location – Flex-place .............................................................. 269
15.3.1. Freedom work location – Reflection on choice of location ............................................................ 271
15.4.1. Freedom working hours – Flex-time ............................................................................................... 273
15.5.1. Freedom working hours – Reflection on working hours and schedule ........................................... 275
15.6.1. Telework facilitation rate – Reflection on media use ..................................................................... 277
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 149
Appendix 13 – Regression Output Sub-model 1
13.1. Reflexivity – Work Performance
13.1.1. Reflexivity – Employee satisfaction
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,228a ,052 ,025 ,67289
2 ,277b ,077 ,037 ,66883 2,072
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 5,227 6 ,871 1,924 ,078a
Residual 95,083 210 ,453
Total 100,310 216
2 Regression 7,712 9 ,857 1,916 ,051b
Residual 92,598 207 ,447
Total 100,310 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, Refl. media, Refl. location, Refl. time c. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 150
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 3,713 ,280 13,280 ,000
Gender -,023 ,123 -,012 -,183 ,855 ,968 1,033
Age -,001 ,006 -,013 -,176 ,860 ,892 1,121
Position d_2 ,328 ,130 ,219 2,522 ,012 ,600 1,667
Position d_3 -,061 ,132 -,040 -,466 ,642 ,619 1,616
Position d_4 ,058 ,190 ,023 ,306 ,760 ,797 1,255
Position d_5 ,054 ,157 ,028 ,341 ,733 ,690 1,449
2 (Constant) 2,921 ,482 6,064 ,000
Gender -,040 ,125 -,022 -,318 ,751 ,927 1,079
Age ,000 ,006 ,005 ,075 ,940 ,849 1,178
Position d_2 ,323 ,131 ,216 2,466 ,014 ,583 1,715
Position d_3 -,045 ,132 -,029 -,342 ,732 ,610 1,640
Position d_4 ,070 ,190 ,028 ,369 ,712 ,795 1,258
Position d_5 ,028 ,158 ,014 ,177 ,860 ,678 1,476
Refl. location ,069 ,066 ,074 1,037 ,301 ,872 1,147
Refl. time -,009 ,064 -,010 -,134 ,893 ,816 1,225
Refl. media ,140 ,077 ,128 1,815 ,071 ,890 1,124
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 151
13.1.2. Reflexivity – Work life balance
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,174a ,030 ,003 ,74413
2 ,393b ,154 ,117 ,69996 2,251
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 3,630 6 ,605 1,093 ,368a
Residual 116,284 210 ,554
Total 119,914 216
2 Regression 18,495 9 2,055 4,194 ,000b
Residual 101,420 207 ,490
Total 119,914 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, Refl. media, Refl. location, Refl. time c. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 152
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 3,958 ,309 12,799 ,000
Gender ,041 ,137 ,021 ,302 ,763 ,968 1,033
Age -,003 ,007 -,032 -,440 ,661 ,892 1,121
Position d_2 -,281 ,144 -,172 -1,959 ,051 ,600 1,667
Position d_3 -,158 ,146 -,093 -1,082 ,281 ,619 1,616
Position d_4 ,094 ,211 ,034 ,445 ,657 ,797 1,255
Position d_5 -,104 ,174 -,049 -,599 ,550 ,690 1,449
2 (Constant) 2,016 ,504 3,999 ,000
Gender -,026 ,131 -,013 -,196 ,845 ,927 1,079
Age ,004 ,006 ,048 ,697 ,487 ,849 1,178
Position d_2 -,234 ,137 -,143 -1,708 ,089 ,583 1,715
Position d_3 -,072 ,138 -,043 -,523 ,601 ,610 1,640
Position d_4 ,086 ,198 ,031 ,436 ,664 ,795 1,258
Position d_5 -,175 ,165 -,082 -1,058 ,291 ,678 1,476
Refl. location -,049 ,069 -,048 -,701 ,484 ,872 1,147
Refl. time ,275 ,067 ,291 4,115 ,000 ,816 1,225
Refl. media ,223 ,081 ,186 2,751 ,006 ,890 1,124
a. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 153
13.1.3. Reflexivity – Productivity
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,149a ,022 -,006 ,49546
2 ,365b ,133 ,096 ,46983 2,151
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1,171 6 ,195 ,795 ,575a
Residual 51,551 210 ,245
Total 52,722 216
2 Regression 7,030 9 ,781 3,538 ,000b
Residual 45,693 207 ,221
Total 52,722 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, Refl. media, Refl. location, Refl. time c. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 154
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 4,087 ,206 19,850 ,000
Gender ,113 ,091 ,086 1,242 ,216 ,968 1,033
Age -,005 ,004 -,074 -1,030 ,304 ,892 1,121
Position d_2 ,098 ,096 ,090 1,023 ,307 ,600 1,667
Position d_3 ,000 ,097 ,000 -,001 ,999 ,619 1,616
Position d_4 ,153 ,140 ,084 1,093 ,276 ,797 1,255
Position d_5 ,053 ,116 ,038 ,460 ,646 ,690 1,449
2 (Constant) 3,043 ,338 8,993 ,000
Gender ,119 ,088 ,091 1,355 ,177 ,927 1,079
Age -,002 ,004 -,032 -,458 ,647 ,849 1,178
Position d_2 ,074 ,092 ,068 ,808 ,420 ,583 1,715
Position d_3 ,026 ,093 ,023 ,282 ,778 ,610 1,640
Position d_4 ,151 ,133 ,083 1,138 ,257 ,795 1,258
Position d_5 -,017 ,111 -,012 -,149 ,882 ,678 1,476
Refl. location -,036 ,046 -,053 -,770 ,442 ,872 1,147
Refl. time ,027 ,045 ,042 ,592 ,554 ,816 1,225
Refl. media ,266 ,054 ,337 4,907 ,000 ,890 1,124
a. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 155
13.2. Flexibility – Work Performance
13.2.1. Flexibility – Employee satisfaction
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,231a ,053 ,025 ,66790
2 ,244b ,060 ,022 ,66899 2,050
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 5,026 6 ,838 1,878 ,086a
Residual 89,219 200 ,446
Total 94,245 206
2 Regression 5,630 8 ,704 1,572 ,135b
Residual 88,615 198 ,448
Total 94,245 206
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, Flextime, Flexplace c. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 156
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 3,752 ,280 13,418 ,000
Gender ,044 ,126 ,024 ,346 ,730 ,960 1,041
Age -,003 ,006 -,032 -,434 ,665 ,891 1,122
Position d_2 ,369 ,131 ,248 2,813 ,005 ,608 1,644
Position d_3 ,000 ,135 ,000 ,002 ,998 ,632 1,583
Position d_4 ,065 ,189 ,026 ,342 ,733 ,796 1,256
Position d_5 ,085 ,159 ,044 ,536 ,592 ,691 1,446
2 (Constant) 3,791 ,295 12,855 ,000
Gender ,044 ,127 ,025 ,349 ,727 ,954 1,048
Age -,003 ,006 -,035 -,474 ,636 ,889 1,124
Position d_2 ,336 ,135 ,226 2,491 ,014 ,577 1,734
Position d_3 -,029 ,137 -,018 -,209 ,835 ,609 1,643
Position d_4 ,047 ,190 ,019 ,249 ,804 ,790 1,265
Position d_5 ,106 ,164 ,055 ,646 ,519 ,652 1,533
Flextime ,347 ,377 ,070 ,919 ,359 ,822 1,216
Flexplace -,002 ,002 -,079 -,999 ,319 ,764 1,309
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 157
13.2.2. Flexibility – Work life balance
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,176a ,031 ,002 ,74860
2 ,241b ,058 ,020 ,74173 1,971
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 3,567 6 ,595 1,061 ,387a
Residual 112,082 200 ,560
Total 115,649 206
2 Regression 6,717 8 ,840 1,526 ,150b
Residual 108,932 198 ,550
Total 115,649 206
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, Flextime, Flexplace c. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 158
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 3,995 ,313 12,745 ,000
Gender ,078 ,142 ,039 ,551 ,582 ,960 1,041
Age -,004 ,007 -,044 -,593 ,554 ,891 1,122
Position d_2 -,266 ,147 -,162 -1,812 ,072 ,608 1,644
Position d_3 -,154 ,151 -,090 -1,022 ,308 ,632 1,583
Position d_4 ,091 ,212 ,033 ,429 ,668 ,796 1,256
Position d_5 -,109 ,178 -,051 -,614 ,540 ,691 1,446
2 (Constant) 4,114 ,327 12,582 ,000
Gender ,098 ,141 ,049 ,693 ,489 ,954 1,048
Age -,004 ,007 -,043 -,585 ,559 ,889 1,124
Position d_2 -,194 ,150 -,118 -1,300 ,195 ,577 1,734
Position d_3 -,095 ,152 -,055 -,625 ,532 ,609 1,643
Position d_4 ,104 ,211 ,038 ,493 ,623 ,790 1,265
Position d_5 -,069 ,181 -,032 -,379 ,705 ,652 1,533
Flextime -,010 ,004 -,178 -2,335 ,021 ,822 1,216
Flexplace ,001 ,002 ,030 ,378 ,706 ,764 1,309
a. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 159
13.2.3. Flexibility – Productivity
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,171a ,029 ,000 ,48318
2 ,179b ,032 -,007 ,48493 2,082
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1,413 6 ,235 1,009 ,421a
Residual 46,693 200 ,233
Total 48,106 206
2 Regression 1,545 8 ,193 ,821 ,585b
Residual 46,561 198 ,235
Total 48,106 206
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, Flextime, Flexplace c. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 160
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 4,102 ,202 20,274 ,000
Gender ,138 ,091 ,108 1,513 ,132 ,960 1,041
Age -,005 ,004 -,086 -1,162 ,247 ,891 1,122
Position d_2 ,119 ,095 ,112 1,249 ,213 ,608 1,644
Position d_3 ,013 ,097 ,012 ,136 ,892 ,632 1,583
Position d_4 ,152 ,137 ,087 1,109 ,269 ,796 1,256
Position d_5 ,053 ,115 ,039 ,466 ,642 ,691 1,446
2 (Constant) 4,100 ,214 19,182 ,000
Gender ,137 ,092 ,106 1,483 ,140 ,954 1,048
Age -,005 ,004 -,087 -1,175 ,241 ,889 1,124
Position d_2 ,102 ,098 ,096 1,041 ,299 ,577 1,734
Position d_3 -,001 ,100 -,001 -,010 ,992 ,609 1,643
Position d_4 ,146 ,138 ,083 1,055 ,293 ,790 1,265
Position d_5 ,055 ,119 ,040 ,466 ,642 ,652 1,533
Flextime ,198 ,274 ,056 ,724 ,470 ,822 1,216
Flexplace -,001 ,001 -,036 -,451 ,652 ,764 1,309
a. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 161
13.3. Task Workplace Fit – Work Performance
13.3.1. Task Workplace Fit – Employee satisfaction
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,228a ,052 ,025 ,67289
2 ,511b ,261 ,225 ,59992 2,026
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 5,227 6 ,871 1,924 ,078a
Residual 95,083 210 ,453
Total 100,310 216
2 Regression 26,170 10 2,617 7,271 ,000b
Residual 74,140 206 ,360
Total 100,310 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2
b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2,
TWPF Learn, TWPF Collaborate, TWPF Focus, TWPF Socialize
c. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 162
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 3,713 ,280 13,280 ,000
Gender -,023 ,123 -,012 -,183 ,855 ,968 1,033
Age -,001 ,006 -,013 -,176 ,860 ,892 1,121
Position d_2 ,328 ,130 ,219 2,522 ,012 ,600 1,667
Position d_3 -,061 ,132 -,040 -,466 ,642 ,619 1,616
Position d_4 ,058 ,190 ,023 ,306 ,760 ,797 1,255
Position d_5 ,054 ,157 ,028 ,341 ,733 ,690 1,449
2 (Constant) 2,016 ,339 5,949 ,000
Gender -,008 ,110 -,005 -,077 ,939 ,963 1,039
Age -,003 ,006 -,037 -,571 ,568 ,857 1,167
Position d_2 ,245 ,118 ,164 2,073 ,039 ,575 1,741
Position d_3 -,038 ,118 -,025 -,325 ,746 ,611 1,637
Position d_4 -,078 ,171 -,031 -,457 ,648 ,786 1,272
Position d_5 ,031 ,142 ,016 ,218 ,828 ,671 1,490
TWPF Socialize ,221 ,068 ,240 3,226 ,001 ,649 1,540
TWPF Learn ,112 ,047 ,158 2,388 ,018 ,815 1,227
TWPF Focus ,101 ,049 ,146 2,088 ,038 ,739 1,354
TWPF Collaborate ,071 ,065 ,082 1,092 ,276 ,635 1,575
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 163
13.3.2. Task Workplace Fit – Work life balance
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,174a ,030 ,003 ,74413
2 ,349b ,122 ,079 ,71497 2,122
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 3,630 6 ,605 1,093 ,368a
Residual 116,284 210 ,554
Total 119,914 216
2 Regression 14,611 10 1,461 2,858 ,002b
Residual 105,303 206 ,511
Total 119,914 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, TWPF Learn, TWPF Collaborate, TWPF Focus, TWPF Socialize c. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 164
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 3,958 ,309 12,799 ,000
Gender ,041 ,137 ,021 ,302 ,763 ,968 1,033
Age -,003 ,007 -,032 -,440 ,661 ,892 1,121
Position d_2 -,281 ,144 -,172 -1,959 ,051 ,600 1,667
Position d_3 -,158 ,146 -,093 -1,082 ,281 ,619 1,616
Position d_4 ,094 ,211 ,034 ,445 ,657 ,797 1,255
Position d_5 -,104 ,174 -,049 -,599 ,550 ,690 1,449
2 (Constant) 2,861 ,404 7,083 ,000
Gender ,047 ,132 ,024 ,360 ,720 ,963 1,039
Age -,005 ,007 -,057 -,814 ,417 ,857 1,167
Position d_2 -,366 ,141 -,223 -2,594 ,010 ,575 1,741
Position d_3 -,161 ,141 -,095 -1,139 ,256 ,611 1,637
Position d_4 -,013 ,204 -,005 -,065 ,948 ,786 1,272
Position d_5 -,131 ,169 -,062 -,776 ,439 ,671 1,490
TWPF Socialize ,055 ,082 ,055 ,674 ,501 ,649 1,540
TWPF Learn ,061 ,056 ,078 1,082 ,280 ,815 1,227
TWPF Focus ,145 ,058 ,191 2,513 ,013 ,739 1,354
TWPF
Collaborate
,082 ,077 ,087 1,061 ,290 ,635 1,575
a. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 165
13.3.3. Task Workplace Fit – Productivity
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,149a ,022 -,006 ,49546
2 ,344b ,118 ,076 ,47501 1,966
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1,171 6 ,195 ,795 ,575a
Residual 51,551 210 ,245
Total 52,722 216
2 Regression 6,242 10 ,624 2,767 ,003b
Residual 46,480 206 ,226
Total 52,722 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, TWPF Learn, TWPF Collaborate, TWPF Focus, TWPF Socialize c. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 166
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 4,087 ,206 19,850 ,000
Gender ,113 ,091 ,086 1,242 ,216 ,968 1,033
Age -,005 ,004 -,074 -1,030 ,304 ,892 1,121
Position d_2 ,098 ,096 ,090 1,023 ,307 ,600 1,667
Position d_3 ,000 ,097 ,000 -,001 ,999 ,619 1,616
Position d_4 ,153 ,140 ,084 1,093 ,276 ,797 1,255
Position d_5 ,053 ,116 ,038 ,460 ,646 ,690 1,449
2 (Constant) 3,260 ,268 12,151 ,000
Gender ,114 ,087 ,087 1,308 ,192 ,963 1,039
Age -,005 ,004 -,080 -1,129 ,260 ,857 1,167
Position d_2 ,067 ,094 ,062 ,713 ,477 ,575 1,741
Position d_3 ,017 ,094 ,015 ,178 ,859 ,611 1,637
Position d_4 ,089 ,135 ,048 ,656 ,513 ,786 1,272
Position d_5 ,043 ,112 ,031 ,386 ,700 ,671 1,490
TWPF Socialize ,095 ,054 ,142 1,749 ,082 ,649 1,540
TWPF Learn ,087 ,037 ,169 2,338 ,020 ,815 1,227
TWPF Focus ,040 ,038 ,080 1,048 ,296 ,739 1,354
TWPF Collaborate ,018 ,051 ,029 ,353 ,724 ,635 1,575
a. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 167
13.4. Personality Traits – Reflexivity
13.4.1. Personality Traits – Reflection on working hours and schedule
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,324a ,105 ,079 ,75769
2 ,342b ,117 ,069 ,76180 1,967
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,105a 4,103 6 210 ,001
2 ,012b ,547 5 205 ,740
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 14,133 6 2,355 4,103 ,001a
Residual 120,558 210 ,574
Total 134,691 216
2 Regression 15,721 11 1,429 2,463 ,007b
Residual 118,970 205 ,580
Total 134,691 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism c. Dependent Variable: Refl. time
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 168
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 4,529 ,315 14,385 ,000
Gender ,310 ,139 ,148 2,228 ,027 ,968 1,033
Age -,021 ,007 -,217 -3,137 ,002 ,892 1,121
Position d_2 -,277 ,146 -,160 -1,896 ,059 ,600 1,667
Position d_3 -,258 ,149 -,144 -1,738 ,084 ,619 1,616
Position d_4 ,013 ,214 ,004 ,061 ,951 ,797 1,255
Position d_5 ,040 ,177 ,018 ,228 ,820 ,690 1,449
2 (Constant) 4,229 1,018 4,155 ,000
Gender ,316 ,145 ,151 2,183 ,030 ,903 1,107
Age -,021 ,007 -,217 -3,067 ,002 ,858 1,165
Position d_2 -,257 ,155 -,148 -1,656 ,099 ,537 1,862
Position d_3 -,252 ,150 -,141 -1,685 ,094 ,615 1,625
Position d_4 ,067 ,220 ,023 ,302 ,763 ,762 1,311
Position d_5 ,029 ,183 ,013 ,159 ,874 ,652 1,533
Extraversion -,031 ,117 -,021 -,266 ,790 ,712 1,404
Agreeableness ,200 ,132 ,107 1,516 ,131 ,867 1,153
Conscient. -,076 ,128 -,043 -,599 ,550 ,848 1,179
Neuroticism ,045 ,117 ,030 ,386 ,700 ,690 1,448
Openness -,035 ,120 -,020 -,290 ,772 ,894 1,118
a. Dependent Variable: Refl. time
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 169
13.4.2. Personality Traits – Reflection on choice of location
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,200a ,040 ,012 ,73183
2 ,211b ,045 -,007 ,73886 1,947
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,040a 1,454 6 210 ,196
2 ,005b ,205 5 205 ,960
ANOVAc
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 4,673 6 ,779 1,454 ,196a
Residual 112,470 210 ,536
Total 117,143 216
2 Regression 5,231 11 ,476 ,871 ,570b
Residual 111,912 205 ,546
Total 117,143 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2
b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2,
Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism
c. Dependent Variable: Refl. location
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 170
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 3,939 ,304 12,954 ,000
Gender ,317 ,134 ,162 2,359 ,019 ,968 1,033
Age -,007 ,007 -,080 -1,113 ,267 ,892 1,121
Position d_2 -,161 ,141 -,099 -1,136 ,257 ,600 1,667
Position d_3 -,093 ,144 -,056 -,649 ,517 ,619 1,616
Position d_4 -,140 ,207 -,051 -,675 ,500 ,797 1,255
Position d_5 -,114 ,171 -,054 -,666 ,506 ,690 1,449
2 (Constant) 3,740 ,987 3,789 ,000
Gender ,331 ,140 ,170 2,362 ,019 ,903 1,107
Age -,007 ,007 -,079 -1,076 ,283 ,858 1,165
Position d_2 -,147 ,151 -,091 -,973 ,332 ,537 1,862
Position d_3 -,088 ,145 -,053 -,603 ,547 ,615 1,625
Position d_4 -,112 ,214 -,041 -,523 ,601 ,762 1,311
Position d_5 -,112 ,177 -,053 -,631 ,529 ,652 1,533
Extraversion ,024 ,113 ,017 ,215 ,830 ,712 1,404
Agreeableness ,041 ,128 ,024 ,322 ,748 ,867 1,153
Conscient. -,076 ,124 -,045 -,611 ,542 ,848 1,179
Neuroticism ,070 ,113 ,050 ,614 ,540 ,690 1,448
Openness ,021 ,117 ,013 ,177 ,860 ,894 1,118
a. Dependent Variable: Refl. location
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 171
13.4.3. Personality Traits – Reflection on media use
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,173a ,030 ,002 ,62340
2 ,303b ,092 ,043 ,61057 1,946
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,030a 1,086 6 210 ,372
2 ,062b 2,784 5 205 ,019
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 2,532 6 ,422 1,086 ,372a
Residual 81,613 210 ,389
Total 84,145 216
2 Regression 7,722 11 ,702 1,883 ,043b
Residual 76,423 205 ,373
Total 84,145 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism c. Dependent Variable: Refl. media
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 172
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 3,994 ,259 15,418 ,000
Gender -,013 ,114 -,008 -,111 ,912 ,968 1,033
Age -,009 ,006 -,111 -1,541 ,125 ,892 1,121
Position d_2 ,094 ,120 ,069 ,784 ,434 ,600 1,667
Position d_3 -,086 ,122 -,061 -,701 ,484 ,619 1,616
Position d_4 -,014 ,176 -,006 -,077 ,939 ,797 1,255
Position d_5 ,242 ,146 ,136 1,664 ,098 ,690 1,449
2 (Constant) 1,421 ,816 1,743 ,083
Gender -,082 ,116 -,050 -,707 ,480 ,903 1,107
Age -,010 ,006 -,134 -1,860 ,064 ,858 1,165
Position d_2 ,109 ,125 ,080 ,876 ,382 ,537 1,862
Position d_3 -,076 ,120 -,054 -,635 ,526 ,615 1,625
Position d_4 ,054 ,177 ,023 ,304 ,762 ,762 1,311
Position d_5 ,271 ,147 ,152 1,847 ,066 ,652 1,533
Extraversion ,007 ,094 ,006 ,071 ,943 ,712 1,404
Agreeableness ,206 ,106 ,139 1,951 ,052 ,867 1,153
Conscient. ,150 ,102 ,106 1,471 ,143 ,848 1,179
Neuroticism ,174 ,094 ,149 1,857 ,065 ,690 1,448
Openness ,246 ,097 ,179 2,543 ,012 ,894 1,118
a. Dependent Variable: Refl. media
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 173
13.5. Personality Traits – Flexibility
13.5.1. Personality Traits – Flex-time
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,212a ,045 ,017 13,40877
2 ,280b ,079 ,029 13,32950 2,079
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,045a 1,632 6 209 ,140
2 ,034b 1,499 5 204 ,192
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1760,200 6 293,367 1,632 ,140a
Residual 37577,156 209 179,795
Total 39337,356 215
2 Regression 3091,536 11 281,049 1,582 ,106b
Residual 36245,820 204 177,676
Total 39337,356 215
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism c. Dependent Variable: Flextime
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 174
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 15,908 5,584 2,849 ,005
Gender 1,620 2,463 ,045 ,658 ,511 ,966 1,035
Age ,014 ,121 ,009 ,119 ,905 ,889 1,125
Position d_2 7,077 2,589 ,238 2,733 ,007 ,601 1,664
Position d_3 4,512 2,629 ,147 1,716 ,088 ,620 1,613
Position d_4 ,608 3,795 ,012 ,160 ,873 ,797 1,254
Position d_5 5,727 3,169 ,147 1,807 ,072 ,693 1,443
2 (Constant) -2,063 17,875 -,115 ,908
Gender 1,361 2,542 ,038 ,535 ,593 ,896 1,115
Age ,007 ,122 ,004 ,055 ,956 ,857 1,167
Position d_2 6,903 2,722 ,233 2,536 ,012 ,538 1,860
Position d_3 4,565 2,622 ,149 1,741 ,083 ,616 1,623
Position d_4 ,280 3,856 ,006 ,073 ,942 ,763 1,311
Position d_5 6,253 3,230 ,160 1,936 ,054 ,659 1,517
Extraversion 2,100 2,055 ,081 1,022 ,308 ,721 1,386
Agreeableness -3,555 2,319 -,110 -1,533 ,127 ,880 1,136
Conscient. 1,218 2,249 ,039 ,542 ,589 ,851 1,175
Neuroticism 2,182 2,045 ,086 1,067 ,287 ,702 1,424
Openness 3,716 2,112 ,125 1,760 ,080 ,891 1,122
a. Dependent Variable: Flextime
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 175
13.5.2.A. Personality Traits – Flex-place
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,346a ,120 ,093 28,08366
2 ,375b ,140 ,092 28,10512 2,034
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,120a 4,557 6 201 ,000
2 ,021b ,939 5 196 ,457
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 21563,276 6 3593,879 4,557 ,000a
Residual 158527,031 201 788,692
Total 180090,308 207
2 Regression 25270,351 11 2297,305 2,908 ,001b
Residual 154819,957 196 789,898
Total 180090,308 207
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism c. Dependent Variable: Flexplace
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 176
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 52,873 11,733 4,506 ,000
Gender 4,836 5,307 ,061 ,911 ,363 ,962 1,039
Age -,149 ,255 -,041 -,584 ,560 ,894 1,119
Position d_2 -4,779 5,516 -,074 -,866 ,387 ,607 1,647
Position d_3 -5,246 5,662 -,077 -,927 ,355 ,631 1,585
Position d_4 -8,293 7,968 -,077 -1,041 ,299 ,796 1,257
Position d_5 23,101 6,588 ,280 3,506 ,001 ,689 1,452
2 (Constant) 30,322 38,388 ,790 ,431
Gender 5,342 5,503 ,068 ,971 ,333 ,896 1,116
Age -,168 ,260 -,046 -,647 ,518 ,861 1,162
Position d_2 -6,088 5,850 -,094 -1,041 ,299 ,541 1,850
Position d_3 -5,479 5,678 -,081 -,965 ,336 ,628 1,592
Position d_4 -9,019 8,154 -,084 -1,106 ,270 ,761 1,314
Position d_5 22,378 6,793 ,271 3,294 ,001 ,649 1,541
Extraversion ,485 4,370 ,009 ,111 ,912 ,712 1,404
Agreeableness -,493 4,962 -,007 -,099 ,921 ,869 1,150
Conscient. -2,521 4,796 -,038 -,526 ,600 ,848 1,180
Neuroticism -,114 4,361 -,002 -,026 ,979 ,690 1,450
Openness 8,984 4,528 ,138 1,984 ,049 ,902 1,109
a. Dependent Variable: Flexplace
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 177
13.5.2.B. Personality Traits – Flex-place (Variant B)
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,346a ,120 ,093 28,08366
2 ,373b ,139 ,109 27,84495 2,041
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,120a 4,557 6 201 ,000
2 ,019b 4,461 1 200 ,036
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 21563,276 6 3593,879 4,557 ,000a
Residual 158527,031 201 788,692
Total 180090,308 207
2 Regression 25022,006 7 3574,572 4,610 ,000b
Residual 155068,302 200 775,342
Total 180090,308 207
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, Openness c. Dependent Variable: Flexplace
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 178
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 52,873 11,733 4,506 ,000
Gender 4,836 5,307 ,061 ,911 ,363 ,962 1,039
Age -,149 ,255 -,041 -,584 ,560 ,894 1,119
Position d_2 -4,779 5,516 -,074 -,866 ,387 ,607 1,647
Position d_3 -5,246 5,662 -,077 -,927 ,355 ,631 1,585
Position d_4 -8,293 7,968 -,077 -1,041 ,299 ,796 1,257
Position d_5 23,101 6,588 ,280 3,506 ,001 ,689 1,452
2 (Constant) 20,691 19,170 1,079 ,282
Gender 4,590 5,263 ,058 ,872 ,384 ,962 1,040
Age -,178 ,253 -,049 -,705 ,482 ,891 1,122
Position d_2 -5,981 5,499 -,092 -1,088 ,278 ,601 1,665
Position d_3 -5,463 5,615 -,080 -,973 ,332 ,631 1,586
Position d_4 -8,925 7,906 -,083 -1,129 ,260 ,795 1,258
Position d_5 22,713 6,535 ,275 3,476 ,001 ,688 1,453
Openness 9,089 4,303 ,140 2,112 ,036 ,980 1,020
a. Dependent Variable: Flexplace
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 179
13.6. Personality Traits – Task Workplace Fit
13.6.1. Personality Traits – Task Workplace Fit Focus
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,213a ,045 ,018 ,96922
2 ,286b ,082 ,032 ,96214 1,854
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,045a 1,661 6 210 ,132
2 ,036b 1,620 5 205 ,156
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 9,361 6 1,560 1,661 ,132a
Residual 197,273 210 ,939
Total 206,634 216
2 Regression 16,861 11 1,533 1,656 ,086b
Residual 189,773 205 ,926
Total 206,634 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism c. Dependent Variable: TWPF Focus
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 180
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 2,800 ,403 6,953 ,000
Gender -,001 ,178 ,000 -,005 ,996 ,968 1,033
Age ,017 ,009 ,135 1,897 ,059 ,892 1,121
Position d_2 ,299 ,187 ,139 1,598 ,111 ,600 1,667
Position d_3 ,042 ,190 ,019 ,224 ,823 ,619 1,616
Position d_4 ,376 ,274 ,103 1,369 ,172 ,797 1,255
Position d_5 -,025 ,226 -,009 -,113 ,911 ,690 1,449
2 (Constant) 1,366 1,285 1,063 ,289
Gender -,043 ,183 -,016 -,233 ,816 ,903 1,107
Age ,019 ,009 ,152 2,108 ,036 ,858 1,165
Position d_2 ,177 ,196 ,082 ,900 ,369 ,537 1,862
Position d_3 ,024 ,189 ,011 ,125 ,901 ,615 1,625
Position d_4 ,295 ,278 ,081 1,061 ,290 ,762 1,311
Position d_5 -,067 ,231 -,024 -,289 ,773 ,652 1,533
Extraversion ,305 ,148 ,164 2,068 ,040 ,712 1,404
Agreeableness -,202 ,167 -,087 -1,214 ,226 ,867 1,153
Conscient. ,141 ,161 ,063 ,873 ,384 ,848 1,179
Neuroticism ,006 ,148 ,003 ,041 ,967 ,690 1,448
Openness ,114 ,152 ,053 ,749 ,455 ,894 1,118
a. Dependent Variable: TWPF Focus
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 181
13.6.2. Personality Traits – Task Workplace Fit Socialize
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,149a ,022 -,006 ,74273
2 ,246b ,061 ,010 ,73678 1,860
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,022a ,793 6 210 ,577
2 ,039b 1,681 5 205 ,141
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 2,624 6 ,437 ,793 ,577a
Residual 115,845 210 ,552
Total 118,469 216
2 Regression 7,187 11 ,653 1,204 ,286b
Residual 111,282 205 ,543
Total 118,469 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism c. Dependent Variable: TWPF Socialize
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 182
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 3,409 ,309 11,044 ,000
Gender -,083 ,136 -,042 -,608 ,544 ,968 1,033
Age ,006 ,007 ,070 ,962 ,337 ,892 1,121
Position d_2 ,079 ,143 ,049 ,552 ,581 ,600 1,667
Position d_3 -,094 ,146 -,056 -,648 ,518 ,619 1,616
Position d_4 ,212 ,210 ,077 1,007 ,315 ,797 1,255
Position d_5 -,044 ,173 -,021 -,254 ,800 ,690 1,449
2 (Constant) 3,640 ,984 3,699 ,000
Gender -,060 ,140 -,030 -,428 ,669 ,903 1,107
Age ,010 ,007 ,108 1,484 ,139 ,858 1,165
Position d_2 -,005 ,150 -,003 -,031 ,975 ,537 1,862
Position d_3 -,107 ,145 -,064 -,741 ,460 ,615 1,625
Position d_4 ,196 ,213 ,071 ,920 ,359 ,762 1,311
Position d_5 -,131 ,177 -,062 -,740 ,460 ,652 1,533
Extraversion ,216 ,113 ,154 1,915 ,057 ,712 1,404
Agreeableness ,079 ,128 ,045 ,616 ,539 ,867 1,153
Conscient. -,124 ,123 -,074 -1,004 ,317 ,848 1,179
Neuroticism -,053 ,113 -,038 -,468 ,640 ,690 1,448
Openness -,237 ,116 -,146 -2,038 ,043 ,894 1,118
a. Dependent Variable: TWPF Socialize
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 183
13.6.3. Personality Traits – Task Workplace Fit Collaborate
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,222a ,049 ,022 ,78114
2 ,328b ,107 ,060 ,76613 2,020
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,049a 1,822 6 210 ,096
2 ,058b 2,663 5 205 ,023
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 6,670 6 1,112 1,822 ,096a
Residual 128,139 210 ,610
Total 134,809 216
2 Regression 14,484 11 1,317 2,243 ,014b
Residual 120,325 205 ,587
Total 134,809 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism c. Dependent Variable: TWPF Collaborate
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 184
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 3,319 ,325 10,224 ,000
Gender -,086 ,143 -,041 -,598 ,551 ,968 1,033
Age ,004 ,007 ,043 ,608 ,544 ,892 1,121
Position d_2 ,413 ,151 ,238 2,738 ,007 ,600 1,667
Position d_3 ,125 ,153 ,070 ,816 ,415 ,619 1,616
Position d_4 ,294 ,221 ,100 1,329 ,185 ,797 1,255
Position d_5 ,332 ,182 ,147 1,818 ,071 ,690 1,449
2 (Constant) 2,318 1,023 2,264 ,025
Gender -,099 ,146 -,047 -,679 ,498 ,903 1,107
Age ,008 ,007 ,082 1,150 ,252 ,858 1,165
Position d_2 ,245 ,156 ,141 1,570 ,118 ,537 1,862
Position d_3 ,096 ,151 ,053 ,636 ,526 ,615 1,625
Position d_4 ,236 ,222 ,080 1,064 ,288 ,762 1,311
Position d_5 ,201 ,184 ,089 1,095 ,275 ,652 1,533
Extraversion ,302 ,118 ,201 2,567 ,011 ,712 1,404
Agreeableness ,111 ,133 ,059 ,834 ,405 ,867 1,153
Conscient. -,033 ,128 -,019 -,259 ,796 ,848 1,179
Neuroticism -,115 ,117 -,078 -,976 ,330 ,690 1,448
Openness -,073 ,121 -,042 -,603 ,547 ,894 1,118
a. Dependent Variable: TWPF Collaborate
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 185
13.6.4. Personality Traits – Task Workplace Fit Learn
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,148a ,022 -,006 ,96438
2 ,254b ,065 ,014 ,95455 1,982
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,022a ,788 6 210 ,580
2 ,043b 1,870 5 205 ,101
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 4,398 6 ,733 ,788 ,580a
Residual 195,306 210 ,930
Total 199,704 216
2 Regression 12,917 11 1,174 1,289 ,233b
Residual 186,787 205 ,911
Total 199,704 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism c. Dependent Variable: TWPF Learn
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 186
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 3,794 ,401 9,468 ,000
Gender ,092 ,177 ,036 ,519 ,604 ,968 1,033
Age -,012 ,009 -,098 -1,357 ,176 ,892 1,121
Position d_2 ,046 ,186 ,022 ,247 ,805 ,600 1,667
Position d_3 -,136 ,189 -,063 -,721 ,472 ,619 1,616
Position d_4 ,275 ,273 ,077 1,009 ,314 ,797 1,255
Position d_5 ,103 ,225 ,037 ,456 ,649 ,690 1,449
2 (Constant) 2,549 1,275 1,999 ,047
Gender ,046 ,181 ,018 ,256 ,798 ,903 1,107
Age -,008 ,009 -,066 -,908 ,365 ,858 1,165
Position d_2 -,119 ,195 -,056 -,611 ,542 ,537 1,862
Position d_3 -,164 ,188 -,075 -,875 ,383 ,615 1,625
Position d_4 ,200 ,276 ,056 ,723 ,470 ,762 1,311
Position d_5 ,002 ,229 ,001 ,007 ,994 ,652 1,533
Extraversion ,340 ,146 ,186 2,324 ,021 ,712 1,404
Agreeableness -,014 ,165 -,006 -,086 ,931 ,867 1,153
Conscient. ,113 ,160 ,052 ,706 ,481 ,848 1,179
Neuroticism -,088 ,146 -,049 -,600 ,549 ,690 1,448
Openness -,088 ,151 -,042 -,582 ,561 ,894 1,118
a. Dependent Variable: TWPF Learn
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 187
13.7. Personality Traits – Work Performance
13.7.1.A. Personality Traits – Employee satisfaction
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,228a ,052 ,025 ,67289
2 ,286b ,082 ,033 ,67028 2,070
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,052a 1,924 6 210 ,078
2 ,030b 1,327 5 205 ,254
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 5,227 6 ,871 1,924 ,078a
Residual 95,083 210 ,453
Total 100,310 216
2 Regression 8,208 11 ,746 1,661 ,084b
Residual 92,102 205 ,449
Total 100,310 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism c. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 188
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 3,713 ,280 13,280 ,000
Gender -,023 ,123 -,012 -,183 ,855 ,968 1,033
Age -,001 ,006 -,013 -,176 ,860 ,892 1,121
Position d_2 ,328 ,130 ,219 2,522 ,012 ,600 1,667
Position d_3 -,061 ,132 -,040 -,466 ,642 ,619 1,616
Position d_4 ,058 ,190 ,023 ,306 ,760 ,797 1,255
Position d_5 ,054 ,157 ,028 ,341 ,733 ,690 1,449
2 (Constant) 2,829 ,895 3,159 ,002
Gender -,032 ,127 -,018 -,253 ,801 ,903 1,107
Age ,001 ,006 ,011 ,154 ,878 ,858 1,165
Position d_2 ,234 ,137 ,156 1,708 ,089 ,537 1,862
Position d_3 -,077 ,132 -,050 -,583 ,561 ,615 1,625
Position d_4 ,042 ,194 ,016 ,214 ,831 ,762 1,311
Position d_5 -,024 ,161 -,013 -,152 ,879 ,652 1,533
Extraversion ,169 ,103 ,131 1,648 ,101 ,712 1,404
Agreeableness ,129 ,116 ,080 1,110 ,268 ,867 1,153
Conscient. -,035 ,112 -,023 -,311 ,756 ,848 1,179
Neuroticism -,043 ,103 -,034 -,421 ,674 ,690 1,448
Openness -,015 ,106 -,010 -,140 ,889 ,894 1,118
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 189
13.7.1.B. Personality Traits – Employee satisfaction (Variant B)
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,228a ,052 ,025 ,67289
2 ,273b ,075 ,044 ,66647 2,077
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,052a 1,924 6 210 ,078
2 ,022b 5,062 1 209 ,025
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 5,227 6 ,871 1,924 ,078a
Residual 95,083 210 ,453
Total 100,310 216
2 Regression 7,475 7 1,068 2,404 ,022b
Residual 92,835 209 ,444
Total 100,310 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, Extraversion c. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 190
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 3,713 ,280 13,280 ,000
Gender -,023 ,123 -,012 -,183 ,855 ,968 1,033
Age -,001 ,006 -,013 -,176 ,860 ,892 1,121
Position d_2 ,328 ,130 ,219 2,522 ,012 ,600 1,667
Position d_3 -,061 ,132 -,040 -,466 ,642 ,619 1,616
Position d_4 ,058 ,190 ,023 ,306 ,760 ,797 1,255
Position d_5 ,054 ,157 ,028 ,341 ,733 ,690 1,449
2 (Constant) 2,881 ,462 6,232 ,000
Gender -,034 ,122 -,019 -,276 ,783 ,967 1,035
Age ,001 ,006 ,011 ,150 ,881 ,873 1,145
Position d_2 ,245 ,134 ,163 1,826 ,069 ,554 1,805
Position d_3 -,074 ,131 -,048 -,562 ,575 ,618 1,619
Position d_4 ,031 ,189 ,012 ,165 ,869 ,794 1,260
Position d_5 ,000 ,157 ,000 ,001 ,999 ,674 1,483
Extraversion ,204 ,091 ,158 2,250 ,025 ,903 1,107
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 191
13.7.2. Personality Traits – Work life balance
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,174a ,030 ,003 ,74413
2 ,319b ,102 ,054 ,72482 2,127
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,030a 1,093 6 210 ,368
2 ,072b 3,268 5 205 ,007
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 3,630 6 ,605 1,093 ,368a
Residual 116,284 210 ,554
Total 119,914 216
2 Regression 12,214 11 1,110 2,114 ,021b
Residual 107,700 205 ,525
Total 119,914 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism c. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 192
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 3,958 ,309 12,799 ,000
Gender ,041 ,137 ,021 ,302 ,763 ,968 1,033
Age -,003 ,007 -,032 -,440 ,661 ,892 1,121
Position d_2 -,281 ,144 -,172 -1,959 ,051 ,600 1,667
Position d_3 -,158 ,146 -,093 -1,082 ,281 ,619 1,616
Position d_4 ,094 ,211 ,034 ,445 ,657 ,797 1,255
Position d_5 -,104 ,174 -,049 -,599 ,550 ,690 1,449
2 (Constant) 3,853 ,968 3,979 ,000
Gender ,022 ,138 ,011 ,163 ,871 ,903 1,107
Age -,001 ,007 -,011 -,159 ,874 ,858 1,165
Position d_2 -,430 ,148 -,262 -2,905 ,004 ,537 1,862
Position d_3 -,194 ,143 -,115 -1,358 ,176 ,615 1,625
Position d_4 ,011 ,210 ,004 ,054 ,957 ,762 1,311
Position d_5 -,231 ,174 -,109 -1,325 ,187 ,652 1,533
Extraversion ,048 ,111 ,034 ,434 ,665 ,712 1,404
Agreeableness ,180 ,126 ,102 1,434 ,153 ,867 1,153
Conscient. ,022 ,121 ,013 ,185 ,854 ,848 1,179
Neuroticism -,301 ,111 -,216 -2,707 ,007 ,690 1,448
Openness -,046 ,115 -,028 -,402 ,688 ,894 1,118
a. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 193
13.7.3. Personality Traits – Productivity
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,149a ,022 -,006 ,49546
2 ,484b ,234 ,193 ,44387 2,111
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, Openness, Agreeableness, Conscient., Extraversion, Neuroticism c. Dependent Variable: Productivity
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,022a ,795 6 210 ,575
2 ,212b 11,332 5 205 ,000
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1,171 6 ,195 ,795 ,575a
Residual 51,551 210 ,245
Total 52,722 216
2 Regression 12,334 11 1,121 5,691 ,000b
Residual 40,389 205 ,197
Total 52,722 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism c. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 194
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 4,087 ,206 19,850 ,000
Gender ,113 ,091 ,086 1,242 ,216 ,968 1,033
Age -,005 ,004 -,074 -1,030 ,304 ,892 1,121
Position d_2 ,098 ,096 ,090 1,023 ,307 ,600 1,667
Position d_3 ,000 ,097 ,000 -,001 ,999 ,619 1,616
Position d_4 ,153 ,140 ,084 1,093 ,276 ,797 1,255
Position d_5 ,053 ,116 ,038 ,460 ,646 ,690 1,449
2 (Constant) 2,124 ,593 3,582 ,000
Gender -,016 ,084 -,012 -,194 ,847 ,903 1,107
Age -,005 ,004 -,080 -1,205 ,230 ,858 1,165
Position d_2 ,013 ,091 ,012 ,143 ,886 ,537 1,862
Position d_3 -,019 ,087 -,017 -,213 ,832 ,615 1,625
Position d_4 ,090 ,128 ,049 ,702 ,484 ,762 1,311
Position d_5 ,047 ,107 ,033 ,437 ,663 ,652 1,533
Extraversion ,050 ,068 ,053 ,738 ,462 ,712 1,404
Agreeableness -,001 ,077 -,001 -,013 ,989 ,867 1,153
Conscient. ,448 ,074 ,400 6,023 ,000 ,848 1,179
Neuroticism -,099 ,068 -,107 -1,459 ,146 ,690 1,448
Openness ,099 ,070 ,091 1,405 ,161 ,894 1,118
a. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 195
Appendix 14 – Regression Output Sub-model 2
14.1. Personality – Reflexivity / Work Performance
14.1.1. Personality – Reflection on working hours and schedule / Employee satisfaction
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,228a ,052 ,025 ,67289
2 ,288b ,083 ,029 ,67156
3 ,303c ,092 ,014 ,67656 2,050
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,052a 1,924 6 210 ,078
2 ,031b 1,139 6 204 ,341
3 ,009c ,399 5 199 ,849
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 5,227 6 ,871 1,924 ,078a
Residual 95,083 210 ,453
Total 100,310 216
2 Regression 8,309 12 ,692 1,535 ,114b
Residual 92,001 204 ,451
Total 100,310 216
3 Regression 9,222 17 ,542 1,185 ,279c
Residual 91,088 199 ,458
Total 100,310 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, bficC, RefTimeC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, bficC, RefTimeC, bfieC, bfinC, RefTimeC_bfiaC, RefTimeC_bfioC, RefTimeC_bfieC, RefTimeC_bficC, RefTimeC_bfinC d. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 196
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 3,640 ,289 12,578 ,000
Gender -,041 ,129 -,023 -,321 ,749 ,883 1,133
Age ,002 ,006 ,018 ,250 ,803 ,820 1,219
Position d_2 ,241 ,138 ,161 1,748 ,082 ,530 1,887
Position d_3 -,069 ,133 -,045 -,522 ,602 ,607 1,648
Position d_4 ,040 ,194 ,016 ,204 ,839 ,762 1,312
Position d_5 -,025 ,161 -,013 -,157 ,875 ,652 1,533
bfieC ,170 ,103 ,131 1,653 ,100 ,712 1,405
bfiaC ,123 ,117 ,076 1,052 ,294 ,858 1,166
bficC -,033 ,113 -,021 -,290 ,772 ,847 1,181
bfinC -,045 ,103 -,035 -,433 ,665 ,690 1,450
bfioC -,014 ,106 -,009 -,130 ,897 ,894 1,119
RefTimeC ,029 ,062 ,034 ,473 ,637 ,883 1,132
3 (Constant) 3,615 ,293 12,333 ,000
Gender -,045 ,131 -,025 -,346 ,730 ,868 1,153
Age ,002 ,006 ,023 ,309 ,758 ,815 1,227
Position d_2 ,247 ,140 ,165 1,763 ,080 ,521 1,918
Position d_3 -,073 ,135 -,048 -,545 ,586 ,601 1,665
Position d_4 ,069 ,198 ,027 ,349 ,727 ,744 1,344
Position d_5 -,027 ,164 -,014 -,166 ,869 ,642 1,557
bfieC ,161 ,105 ,125 1,533 ,127 ,692 1,445
bfiaC ,127 ,120 ,079 1,055 ,293 ,824 1,214
bficC -,031 ,114 -,020 -,269 ,788 ,832 1,202
bfinC -,037 ,106 -,029 -,347 ,729 ,667 1,499
bfioC -,002 ,109 -,001 -,021 ,984 ,857 1,167
RefTimeC ,032 ,066 ,037 ,486 ,627 ,773 1,293
RefTimeC_bfieC ,044 ,122 ,028 ,360 ,719 ,780 1,281
RefTimeC_bfiaC ,123 ,141 ,068 ,870 ,385 ,748 1,337
RefTimeC_bficC ,090 ,144 ,047 ,625 ,533 ,808 1,238
RefTimeC_bfinC ,079 ,127 ,051 ,620 ,536 ,668 1,497
RefTimeC_bfioC -,070 ,135 -,038 -,517 ,606 ,861 1,162
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 197
14.1.2.A. Personality – Reflection on choice of location / Employee satisfaction
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,228a ,052 ,025 ,67289
2 ,303b ,092 ,038 ,66827
3 ,368c ,135 ,061 ,66018 2,070
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,052a 1,924 6 210 ,078
2 ,040b 1,485 6 204 ,185
3 ,044c 2,006 5 199 ,079
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 5,227 6 ,871 1,924 ,078a
Residual 95,083 210 ,453
Total 100,310 216
2 Regression 9,206 12 ,767 1,718 ,065b
Residual 91,104 204 ,447
Total 100,310 216
3 Regression 13,578 17 ,799 1,833 ,026c
Residual 86,732 199 ,436
Total 100,310 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, RefLocC, bfiaC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, RefLocC, bfiaC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC, RefLocC_bfiaC, RefLocC_bficC, RefLocC_bfioC, RefLocC_bfinC, RefLocC_bfieC d. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 198
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 3,635 ,282 12,894 ,000
Gender -,063 ,129 -,035 -,493 ,622 ,879 1,137
Age ,002 ,006 ,019 ,266 ,790 ,853 1,172
Position d_2 ,248 ,137 ,165 1,811 ,072 ,535 1,870
Position d_3 -,069 ,132 -,044 -,521 ,603 ,614 1,628
Position d_4 ,052 ,193 ,021 ,269 ,788 ,761 1,313
Position d_5 -,014 ,161 -,007 -,087 ,931 ,651 1,536
bfieC ,167 ,103 ,129 1,630 ,105 ,712 1,405
bfiaC ,125 ,116 ,077 1,080 ,282 ,867 1,154
bficC -,028 ,112 -,018 -,248 ,804 ,847 1,181
bfinC -,050 ,103 -,039 -,486 ,627 ,689 1,451
bfioC -,017 ,106 -,011 -,159 ,874 ,894 1,119
RefLocC ,094 ,063 ,102 1,495 ,136 ,955 1,047
3 (Constant) 3,617 ,282 12,823 ,000
Gender -,038 ,128 -,021 -,294 ,769 ,861 1,162
Age ,002 ,006 ,021 ,292 ,771 ,842 1,187
Position d_2 ,276 ,136 ,184 2,034 ,043 ,528 1,892
Position d_3 -,051 ,132 -,033 -,385 ,701 ,599 1,669
Position d_4 ,001 ,194 ,000 ,003 ,998 ,736 1,358
Position d_5 ,000 ,160 ,000 ,001 ,999 ,639 1,565
bfieC ,227 ,103 ,175 2,194 ,029 ,683 1,464
bfiaC ,119 ,115 ,074 1,036 ,301 ,856 1,168
bficC -,013 ,111 -,008 -,114 ,910 ,840 1,191
bfinC -,025 ,103 -,020 -,247 ,805 ,673 1,486
bfioC ,022 ,106 ,015 ,210 ,834 ,874 1,144
RefLocC ,075 ,065 ,081 1,149 ,252 ,868 1,152
RefLocC_bfieC -,494 ,168 -,273 -2,939 ,004 ,505 1,980
RefLocC_bfiaC ,139 ,172 ,065 ,810 ,419 ,680 1,470
RefLocC_bficC -,119 ,165 -,052 -,720 ,472 ,845 1,184
RefLocC_bfinC -,255 ,149 -,157 -1,707 ,089 ,512 1,953
RefLocC_bfioC -,007 ,143 -,003 -,047 ,963 ,796 1,256
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 199
14.1.2.B. Personality – Reflection on choice of location / Employee satisfaction (Variant B)
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,228a ,052 ,025 ,67289
2 ,303b ,092 ,038 ,66827
3 ,340c ,116 ,059 ,66101 2,031
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,052a 1,924 6 210 ,078
2 ,040b 1,485 6 204 ,185
3 ,024c 5,510 1 203 ,020
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 5,227 6 ,871 1,924 ,078a
Residual 95,083 210 ,453
Total 100,310 216
2 Regression 9,206 12 ,767 1,718 ,065b
Residual 91,104 204 ,447
Total 100,310 216
3 Regression 11,613 13 ,893 2,045 ,019c
Residual 88,697 203 ,437
Total 100,310 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, RefLocC, bfiaC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, RefLocC, bfiaC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC, RefLocC_bfieC d. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 200
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 3,635 ,282 12,894 ,000
Gender -,063 ,129 -,035 -,493 ,622 ,879 1,137
Age ,002 ,006 ,019 ,266 ,790 ,853 1,172
Position d_2 ,248 ,137 ,165 1,811 ,072 ,535 1,870
Position d_3 -,069 ,132 -,044 -,521 ,603 ,614 1,628
Position d_4 ,052 ,193 ,021 ,269 ,788 ,761 1,313
Position d_5 -,014 ,161 -,007 -,087 ,931 ,651 1,536
bfieC ,167 ,103 ,129 1,630 ,105 ,712 1,405
bfiaC ,125 ,116 ,077 1,080 ,282 ,867 1,154
bficC -,028 ,112 -,018 -,248 ,804 ,847 1,181
bfinC -,050 ,103 -,039 -,486 ,627 ,689 1,451
bfioC -,017 ,106 -,011 -,159 ,874 ,894 1,119
RefLocC ,094 ,063 ,102 1,495 ,136 ,955 1,047
3 (Constant) 3,570 ,280 12,737 ,000
Gender -,033 ,128 -,018 -,257 ,797 ,870 1,149
Age ,003 ,006 ,030 ,418 ,676 ,850 1,177
Position d_2 ,276 ,136 ,184 2,033 ,043 ,530 1,885
Position d_3 -,036 ,131 -,023 -,273 ,785 ,607 1,647
Position d_4 ,050 ,191 ,020 ,262 ,793 ,761 1,313
Position d_5 ,002 ,159 ,001 ,015 ,988 ,650 1,539
bfieC ,208 ,103 ,160 2,022 ,044 ,692 1,446
bfiaC ,139 ,115 ,086 1,214 ,226 ,864 1,157
bficC -,018 ,111 -,011 -,159 ,874 ,845 1,183
bfinC -,026 ,102 -,021 -,259 ,796 ,683 1,465
bfioC ,007 ,105 ,005 ,067 ,946 ,886 1,129
RefLocC ,108 ,063 ,117 1,719 ,087 ,947 1,056
RefLocC_bfieC -,296 ,126 -,163 -2,347 ,020 ,898 1,114
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 201
14.1.3. Personality – Reflection on media use / Employee satisfaction
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,228a ,052 ,025 ,67289
2 ,316b ,100 ,047 ,66532
3 ,337c ,114 ,038 ,66845 2,049
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,052a 1,924 6 210 ,078
2 ,048b 1,801 6 204 ,100
3 ,014c ,619 5 199 ,686
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 5,227 6 ,871 1,924 ,078a
Residual 95,083 210 ,453
Total 100,310 216
2 Regression 10,010 12 ,834 1,885 ,038b
Residual 90,299 204 ,443
Total 100,310 216
3 Regression 11,392 17 ,670 1,500 ,097c
Residual 88,917 199 ,447
Total 100,310 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, RefMedC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, RefMedC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC, RefMedC_bfieC, RefMedC_bfiaC, RefMedC_bficC, RefMedC_bfioC, RefMedC_bfinC d. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 202
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 3,605 ,282 12,799 ,000
Gender -,020 ,127 -,011 -,155 ,877 ,901 1,110
Age ,003 ,006 ,030 ,414 ,679 ,844 1,185
Position d_2 ,217 ,136 ,145 1,595 ,112 ,535 1,869
Position d_3 -,065 ,131 -,042 -,497 ,620 ,614 1,629
Position d_4 ,033 ,193 ,013 ,173 ,863 ,762 1,312
Position d_5 -,066 ,161 -,034 -,410 ,682 ,642 1,558
bfieC ,168 ,102 ,130 1,650 ,100 ,712 1,404
bfiaC ,097 ,116 ,060 ,836 ,404 ,851 1,175
bficC -,058 ,112 -,038 -,518 ,605 ,839 1,192
bfinC -,070 ,103 -,055 -,680 ,497 ,679 1,473
bfioC -,053 ,107 -,035 -,492 ,624 ,867 1,154
RefMedC ,154 ,076 ,141 2,018 ,045 ,908 1,101
3 (Constant) 3,634 ,284 12,776 ,000
Gender -,012 ,128 -,007 -,093 ,926 ,890 1,123
Age ,001 ,006 ,017 ,231 ,818 ,830 1,204
Position d_2 ,234 ,137 ,156 1,702 ,090 ,530 1,885
Position d_3 -,056 ,133 -,036 -,422 ,674 ,602 1,662
Position d_4 ,065 ,195 ,026 ,332 ,740 ,751 1,331
Position d_5 -,047 ,166 -,024 -,286 ,775 ,613 1,632
bfieC ,173 ,105 ,133 1,648 ,101 ,682 1,465
bfiaC ,130 ,120 ,080 1,085 ,279 ,811 1,233
bficC -,078 ,115 -,051 -,679 ,498 ,800 1,250
bfinC -,065 ,107 -,051 -,606 ,545 ,632 1,583
bfioC -,074 ,109 -,049 -,679 ,498 ,843 1,187
RefMedC ,170 ,080 ,156 2,118 ,035 ,826 1,211
RefMedC_bfieC -,192 ,187 -,094 -1,026 ,306 ,532 1,880
RefMedC_bfiaC ,031 ,164 ,013 ,188 ,851 ,870 1,150
RefMedC_bficC ,225 ,190 ,088 1,184 ,238 ,812 1,232
RefMedC_bfinC ,060 ,151 ,034 ,399 ,690 ,606 1,651
RefMedC_bfioC ,108 ,174 ,048 ,617 ,538 ,725 1,379
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 203
14.1.4. Personality – Reflection on working hours and schedule / Work life balance
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,174a ,030 ,003 ,74413
2 ,441b ,194 ,147 ,68830
3 ,446c ,199 ,131 ,69463 2,105
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,030a 1,093 6 210 ,368
2 ,164b 6,909 6 204 ,000
3 ,005c ,260 5 199 ,934
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 3,630 6 ,605 1,093 ,368a
Residual 116,284 210 ,554
Total 119,914 216
2 Regression 23,269 12 1,939 4,093 ,000b
Residual 96,646 204 ,474
Total 119,914 216
3 Regression 23,896 17 1,406 2,913 ,000c
Residual 96,018 199 ,483
Total 119,914 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, bficC, RefTimeC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, bficC, RefTimeC, bfieC, bfinC, RefTimeC_bfiaC, RefTimeC_bfioC, RefTimeC_bfieC, RefTimeC_bficC, RefTimeC_bfinC d. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 204
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 3,642 ,297 12,282 ,000
Gender -,074 ,132 -,037 -,559 ,577 ,883 1,133
Age ,005 ,006 ,059 ,849 ,397 ,820 1,219
Position d_2 -,351 ,141 -,214 -2,484 ,014 ,530 1,887
Position d_3 -,117 ,136 -,069 -,856 ,393 ,607 1,648
Position d_4 -,009 ,199 -,003 -,045 ,965 ,762 1,312
Position d_5 -,240 ,165 -,113 -1,449 ,149 ,652 1,533
bfieC ,058 ,106 ,041 ,547 ,585 ,712 1,405
bfiaC ,119 ,120 ,067 ,993 ,322 ,858 1,166
bficC ,046 ,115 ,027 ,396 ,692 ,847 1,181
bfinC -,315 ,106 -,226 -2,980 ,003 ,690 1,450
bfioC -,035 ,109 -,022 -,326 ,745 ,894 1,119
RefTimeC ,305 ,063 ,323 4,830 ,000 ,883 1,132
3 (Constant) 3,626 ,301 12,050 ,000
Gender -,065 ,135 -,033 -,485 ,629 ,868 1,153
Age ,006 ,007 ,060 ,855 ,394 ,815 1,227
Position d_2 -,335 ,144 -,204 -2,326 ,021 ,521 1,918
Position d_3 -,109 ,138 -,065 -,791 ,430 ,601 1,665
Position d_4 ,009 ,203 ,003 ,045 ,964 ,744 1,344
Position d_5 -,246 ,168 -,116 -1,463 ,145 ,642 1,557
bfieC ,046 ,108 ,032 ,422 ,673 ,692 1,445
bfiaC ,134 ,124 ,076 1,083 ,280 ,824 1,214
bficC ,044 ,117 ,026 ,379 ,705 ,832 1,202
bfinC -,305 ,108 -,219 -2,818 ,005 ,667 1,499
bfioC -,020 ,112 -,012 -,177 ,859 ,857 1,167
RefTimeC ,318 ,068 ,337 4,665 ,000 ,773 1,293
RefTimeC_bfieC ,066 ,125 ,038 ,529 ,597 ,780 1,281
RefTimeC_bfiaC ,030 ,145 ,015 ,206 ,837 ,748 1,337
RefTimeC_bficC -,019 ,148 -,009 -,130 ,897 ,808 1,238
RefTimeC_bfinC ,140 ,131 ,083 1,072 ,285 ,668 1,497
RefTimeC_bfioC ,010 ,139 ,005 ,070 ,944 ,861 1,162
a. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 205
14.1.5. Personality – Reflection on choice of location / Work life balance
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,174a ,030 ,003 ,74413
2 ,327b ,107 ,055 ,72448
3 ,348c ,121 ,046 ,72768 2,068
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,030a 1,093 6 210 ,368
2 ,077b 2,924 6 204 ,009
3 ,014c ,643 5 199 ,667
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 3,630 6 ,605 1,093 ,368a
Residual 116,284 210 ,554
Total 119,914 216
2 Regression 12,840 12 1,070 2,039 ,023b
Residual 107,074 204 ,525
Total 119,914 216
3 Regression 14,541 17 ,855 1,615 ,063c
Residual 105,373 199 ,530
Total 119,914 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, RefLocC, bfiaC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, RefLocC, bfiaC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC, RefLocC_bfiaC, RefLocC_bficC, RefLocC_bfioC, RefLocC_bfinC, RefLocC_bfieC d. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 206
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 3,927 ,306 12,847 ,000
Gender -,002 ,139 -,001 -,017 ,986 ,879 1,137
Age -,001 ,007 -,005 -,076 ,939 ,853 1,172
Position d_2 -,419 ,148 -,256 -2,826 ,005 ,535 1,870
Position d_3 -,187 ,143 -,111 -1,311 ,191 ,614 1,628
Position d_4 ,020 ,210 ,007 ,094 ,925 ,761 1,313
Position d_5 -,222 ,174 -,105 -1,277 ,203 ,651 1,536
bfieC ,046 ,111 ,033 ,418 ,676 ,712 1,405
bfiaC ,177 ,126 ,100 1,410 ,160 ,867 1,154
bficC ,028 ,121 ,017 ,231 ,817 ,847 1,181
bfinC -,306 ,111 -,219 -2,753 ,006 ,689 1,451
bfioC -,048 ,115 -,029 -,416 ,678 ,894 1,119
RefLocC ,075 ,068 ,074 1,092 ,276 ,955 1,047
3 (Constant) 3,918 ,311 12,602 ,000
Gender ,012 ,142 ,006 ,086 ,932 ,861 1,162
Age -,001 ,007 -,006 -,078 ,938 ,842 1,187
Position d_2 -,399 ,150 -,244 -2,668 ,008 ,528 1,892
Position d_3 -,170 ,145 -,101 -1,174 ,242 ,599 1,669
Position d_4 -,016 ,214 -,006 -,075 ,940 ,736 1,358
Position d_5 -,217 ,177 -,102 -1,230 ,220 ,639 1,565
bfieC ,076 ,114 ,054 ,667 ,505 ,683 1,464
bfiaC ,180 ,127 ,102 1,414 ,159 ,856 1,168
bficC ,035 ,122 ,021 ,284 ,777 ,840 1,191
bfinC -,299 ,113 -,215 -2,649 ,009 ,673 1,486
bfioC -,036 ,116 -,022 -,306 ,760 ,874 1,144
RefLocC ,077 ,072 ,076 1,062 ,290 ,868 1,152
RefLocC_bfieC -,245 ,185 -,124 -1,323 ,187 ,505 1,980
RefLocC_bfiaC ,000 ,190 ,000 ,001 ,999 ,680 1,470
RefLocC_bficC -,178 ,182 -,071 -,981 ,328 ,845 1,184
RefLocC_bfinC -,111 ,165 -,062 -,673 ,502 ,512 1,953
RefLocC_bfioC ,083 ,157 ,039 ,528 ,598 ,796 1,256
a. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 207
14.1.6. Personality – Reflection on media use/ Work life balance
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,174a ,030 ,003 ,74413
2 ,398b ,158 ,109 ,70336
3 ,422c ,178 ,108 ,70364 2,204
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,030a 1,093 6 210 ,368
2 ,128b 5,176 6 204 ,000
3 ,020c ,968 5 199 ,439
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 3,630 6 ,605 1,093 ,368a
Residual 116,284 210 ,554
Total 119,914 216
2 Regression 18,993 12 1,583 3,199 ,000b
Residual 100,921 204 ,495
Total 119,914 216
3 Regression 21,389 17 1,258 2,541 ,001c
Residual 98,525 199 ,495
Total 119,914 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, RefMedC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, RefMedC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC, RefMedC_bfieC, RefMedC_bfiaC, RefMedC_bficC, RefMedC_bfioC, RefMedC_bfinC d. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 208
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 3,828 ,298 12,859 ,000
Gender ,047 ,134 ,024 ,350 ,727 ,901 1,110
Age ,002 ,007 ,022 ,315 ,753 ,844 1,185
Position d_2 -,462 ,144 -,282 -3,214 ,002 ,535 1,869
Position d_3 -,171 ,138 -,101 -1,234 ,219 ,614 1,629
Position d_4 -,005 ,204 -,002 -,022 ,982 ,762 1,312
Position d_5 -,311 ,170 -,147 -1,828 ,069 ,642 1,558
bfieC ,046 ,108 ,033 ,429 ,668 ,712 1,404
bfiaC ,119 ,123 ,067 ,964 ,336 ,851 1,175
bficC -,022 ,118 -,013 -,189 ,850 ,839 1,192
bfinC -,353 ,109 -,253 -3,243 ,001 ,679 1,473
bfioC -,119 ,113 -,073 -1,055 ,293 ,867 1,154
RefMedC ,298 ,080 ,249 3,702 ,000 ,908 1,101
3 (Constant) 3,823 ,299 12,767 ,000
Gender ,054 ,135 ,027 ,403 ,687 ,890 1,123
Age ,002 ,007 ,018 ,261 ,794 ,830 1,204
Position d_2 -,466 ,144 -,285 -3,225 ,001 ,530 1,885
Position d_3 -,174 ,140 -,103 -1,244 ,215 ,602 1,662
Position d_4 -,004 ,205 -,002 -,020 ,984 ,751 1,331
Position d_5 -,313 ,174 -,147 -1,794 ,074 ,613 1,632
bfieC ,012 ,110 ,008 ,108 ,914 ,682 1,465
bfiaC ,138 ,126 ,078 1,093 ,276 ,811 1,233
bficC -,054 ,121 -,032 -,444 ,658 ,800 1,250
bfinC -,377 ,113 -,270 -3,345 ,001 ,632 1,583
bfioC -,144 ,115 -,088 -1,261 ,209 ,843 1,187
RefMedC ,317 ,084 ,265 3,752 ,000 ,826 1,211
RefMedC_bfieC ,216 ,197 ,096 1,095 ,275 ,532 1,880
RefMedC_bfiaC ,090 ,173 ,036 ,518 ,605 ,870 1,150
RefMedC_bficC ,137 ,200 ,049 ,686 ,494 ,812 1,232
RefMedC_bfinC ,159 ,159 ,083 1,001 ,318 ,606 1,651
RefMedC_bfioC ,196 ,183 ,081 1,068 ,287 ,725 1,379
a. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 209
14.1.7. Personality – Reflection on working hours and schedule / Productivity
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,149a ,022 -,006 ,49546
2 ,499b ,249 ,205 ,44058
3 ,514c ,264 ,201 ,44164 2,075
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,022a ,795 6 210 ,575
2 ,227b 10,263 6 204 ,000
3 ,015c ,803 5 199 ,549
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1,171 6 ,195 ,795 ,575a
Residual 51,551 210 ,245
Total 52,722 216
2 Regression 13,124 12 1,094 5,634 ,000b
Residual 39,598 204 ,194
Total 52,722 216
3 Regression 13,908 17 ,818 4,194 ,000c
Residual 38,815 199 ,195
Total 52,722 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, bficC, RefTimeC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, bficC, RefTimeC, bfieC, bfinC, RefTimeC_bfiaC, RefTimeC_bfioC, RefTimeC_bfieC, RefTimeC_bficC, RefTimeC_bfinC d. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 210
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 4,074 ,190 21,463 ,000
Gender -,042 ,085 -,032 -,497 ,620 ,883 1,133
Age -,003 ,004 -,051 -,764 ,446 ,820 1,219
Position d_2 ,034 ,091 ,031 ,375 ,708 ,530 1,887
Position d_3 ,002 ,087 ,002 ,023 ,981 ,607 1,648
Position d_4 ,085 ,127 ,046 ,664 ,507 ,762 1,312
Position d_5 ,044 ,106 ,031 ,418 ,676 ,652 1,533
bfieC ,053 ,068 ,056 ,781 ,436 ,712 1,405
bfiaC -,017 ,077 -,015 -,226 ,821 ,858 1,166
bficC ,454 ,074 ,405 6,148 ,000 ,847 1,181
bfinC -,103 ,068 -,111 -1,524 ,129 ,690 1,450
bfioC ,101 ,070 ,093 1,456 ,147 ,894 1,119
RefTimeC ,082 ,040 ,130 2,018 ,045 ,883 1,132
3 (Constant) 4,062 ,191 21,232 ,000
Gender -,032 ,086 -,025 -,379 ,705 ,868 1,153
Age -,003 ,004 -,048 -,711 ,478 ,815 1,227
Position d_2 ,029 ,091 ,026 ,315 ,753 ,521 1,918
Position d_3 -,002 ,088 -,002 -,026 ,979 ,601 1,665
Position d_4 ,087 ,129 ,048 ,674 ,501 ,744 1,344
Position d_5 ,058 ,107 ,041 ,544 ,587 ,642 1,557
bfieC ,050 ,069 ,053 ,731 ,465 ,692 1,445
bfiaC -,028 ,079 -,023 -,350 ,727 ,824 1,214
bficC ,457 ,075 ,408 6,119 ,000 ,832 1,202
bfinC -,088 ,069 -,095 -1,272 ,205 ,667 1,499
bfioC ,090 ,071 ,082 1,255 ,211 ,857 1,167
RefTimeC ,070 ,043 ,111 1,610 ,109 ,773 1,293
RefTimeC_bfieC ,027 ,079 ,024 ,343 ,732 ,780 1,281
RefTimeC_bfiaC ,125 ,092 ,095 1,356 ,177 ,748 1,337
RefTimeC_bficC ,044 ,094 ,031 ,462 ,644 ,808 1,238
RefTimeC_bfinC ,018 ,083 ,016 ,218 ,828 ,668 1,497
RefTimeC_bfioC ,084 ,088 ,063 ,957 ,340 ,861 1,162
a. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 211
14.1.8.A. Personality – Reflection on choice of location / Productivity
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,022a ,795 6 210 ,575
2 ,215b 9,593 6 204 ,000
3 ,037c 2,015 5 199 ,078
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,149a ,022 -,006 ,49546
2 ,487b ,237 ,193 ,44395
3 ,524c ,274 ,212 ,43853 2,107
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1,171 6 ,195 ,795 ,575a
Residual 51,551 210 ,245
Total 52,722 216
2 Regression 12,515 12 1,043 5,292 ,000b
Residual 40,207 204 ,197
Total 52,722 216
3 Regression 14,453 17 ,850 4,421 ,000c
Residual 38,269 199 ,192
Total 52,722 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, RefLocC, bfiaC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, RefLocC, bfiaC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC, RefLocC_bfiaC, RefLocC_bficC, RefLocC_bfioC, RefLocC_bfinC, RefLocC_bfieC d. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 212
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 4,143 ,187 22,119 ,000
Gender -,030 ,085 -,023 -,347 ,729 ,879 1,137
Age -,005 ,004 -,075 -1,129 ,260 ,853 1,172
Position d_2 ,019 ,091 ,017 ,208 ,835 ,535 1,870
Position d_3 -,015 ,087 -,013 -,172 ,864 ,614 1,628
Position d_4 ,095 ,129 ,052 ,736 ,462 ,761 1,313
Position d_5 ,051 ,107 ,036 ,479 ,633 ,651 1,536
bfieC ,049 ,068 ,052 ,723 ,470 ,712 1,405
bfiaC -,003 ,077 -,002 -,035 ,972 ,867 1,154
bficC ,451 ,074 ,403 6,058 ,000 ,847 1,181
bfinC -,102 ,068 -,110 -1,499 ,135 ,689 1,451
bfioC ,098 ,070 ,090 1,393 ,165 ,894 1,119
RefLocC ,040 ,042 ,060 ,960 ,338 ,955 1,047
3 (Constant) 4,117 ,187 21,974 ,000
Gender -,024 ,085 -,018 -,279 ,781 ,861 1,162
Age -,004 ,004 -,066 -1,008 ,314 ,842 1,187
Position d_2 ,019 ,090 ,018 ,215 ,830 ,528 1,892
Position d_3 -,014 ,087 -,013 -,163 ,871 ,599 1,669
Position d_4 ,115 ,129 ,063 ,893 ,373 ,736 1,358
Position d_5 ,047 ,106 ,033 ,438 ,662 ,639 1,565
bfieC ,058 ,069 ,062 ,849 ,397 ,683 1,464
bfiaC -,011 ,077 -,010 -,146 ,884 ,856 1,168
bficC ,458 ,074 ,409 6,209 ,000 ,840 1,191
bfinC -,081 ,068 -,087 -1,182 ,238 ,673 1,486
bfioC ,122 ,070 ,112 1,736 ,084 ,874 1,144
RefLocC ,022 ,043 ,033 ,507 ,613 ,868 1,152
RefLocC_bfieC -,093 ,112 -,071 -,837 ,404 ,505 1,980
RefLocC_bfiaC ,258 ,114 ,165 2,257 ,025 ,680 1,470
RefLocC_bficC ,156 ,109 ,093 1,420 ,157 ,845 1,184
RefLocC_bfinC ,000 ,099 ,000 ,004 ,997 ,512 1,953
RefLocC_bfioC -,144 ,095 -,103 -1,520 ,130 ,796 1,256
a. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 213
14.1.8.B. Personality – Reflection on choice of location / Productivity (Variant B)
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,149a ,022 -,006 ,49546
2 ,487b ,237 ,193 ,44395
3 ,502c ,252 ,204 ,44081 2,108
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,022a ,795 6 210 ,575
2 ,215b 9,593 6 204 ,000
3 ,014c 3,921 1 203 ,049
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1,171 6 ,195 ,795 ,575a
Residual 51,551 210 ,245
Total 52,722 216
2 Regression 12,515 12 1,043 5,292 ,000b
Residual 40,207 204 ,197
Total 52,722 216
3 Regression 13,277 13 1,021 5,256 ,000c
Residual 39,445 203 ,194
Total 52,722 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, RefLocC, bfiaC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, RefLocC, bfiaC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC, RefLocC_bfiaC d. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 214
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 4,143 ,187 22,119 ,000
Gender -,030 ,085 -,023 -,347 ,729 ,879 1,137
Age -,005 ,004 -,075 -1,129 ,260 ,853 1,172
Position d_2 ,019 ,091 ,017 ,208 ,835 ,535 1,870
Position d_3 -,015 ,087 -,013 -,172 ,864 ,614 1,628
Position d_4 ,095 ,129 ,052 ,736 ,462 ,761 1,313
Position d_5 ,051 ,107 ,036 ,479 ,633 ,651 1,536
bfieC ,049 ,068 ,052 ,723 ,470 ,712 1,405
bfiaC -,003 ,077 -,002 -,035 ,972 ,867 1,154
bficC ,451 ,074 ,403 6,058 ,000 ,847 1,181
bfinC -,102 ,068 -,110 -1,499 ,135 ,689 1,451
bfioC ,098 ,070 ,090 1,393 ,165 ,894 1,119
RefLocC ,040 ,042 ,060 ,960 ,338 ,955 1,047
3 (Constant) 4,150 ,186 22,312 ,000
Gender -,038 ,085 -,029 -,445 ,657 ,877 1,140
Age -,005 ,004 -,076 -1,151 ,251 ,853 1,172
Position d_2 ,012 ,090 ,011 ,137 ,891 ,534 1,873
Position d_3 -,017 ,087 -,016 -,201 ,841 ,614 1,629
Position d_4 ,094 ,128 ,051 ,737 ,462 ,761 1,313
Position d_5 ,039 ,106 ,028 ,370 ,712 ,649 1,541
bfieC ,041 ,068 ,043 ,603 ,547 ,709 1,410
bfiaC -,011 ,077 -,009 -,144 ,886 ,864 1,157
bficC ,455 ,074 ,407 6,159 ,000 ,846 1,182
bfinC -,096 ,068 -,104 -1,425 ,156 ,688 1,454
bfioC ,104 ,070 ,096 1,493 ,137 ,892 1,121
RefLocC ,026 ,042 ,039 ,626 ,532 ,929 1,076
RefLocC_bfiaC ,193 ,097 ,124 1,980 ,049 ,945 1,058
a. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 215
14.1.9. Personality – Reflection on media use/ Productivity
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,149a ,022 -,006 ,49546
2 ,564b ,318 ,278 ,41981
3 ,574c ,330 ,272 ,42146 2,250
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,022a ,795 6 210 ,575
2 ,296b 14,752 6 204 ,000
3 ,011c ,681 5 199 ,638
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1,171 6 ,195 ,795 ,575a
Residual 51,551 210 ,245
Total 52,722 216
2 Regression 16,770 12 1,397 7,929 ,000b
Residual 35,953 204 ,176
Total 52,722 216
3 Regression 17,375 17 1,022 5,754 ,000c
Residual 35,347 199 ,178
Total 52,722 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, RefMedC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, RefMedC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC, RefMedC_bfieC, RefMedC_bfiaC, RefMedC_bficC, RefMedC_bfioC, RefMedC_bfinC d. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 216
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 4,056 ,178 22,826 ,000
Gender ,003 ,080 ,003 ,043 ,966 ,901 1,110
Age -,002 ,004 -,039 -,617 ,538 ,844 1,185
Position d_2 -,013 ,086 -,012 -,155 ,877 ,535 1,869
Position d_3 ,000 ,083 ,000 -,002 ,998 ,614 1,629
Position d_4 ,077 ,121 ,042 ,635 ,526 ,762 1,312
Position d_5 -,019 ,102 -,013 -,184 ,854 ,642 1,558
bfieC ,049 ,064 ,052 ,755 ,451 ,712 1,404
bfiaC -,051 ,073 -,043 -,691 ,490 ,851 1,175
bficC ,411 ,071 ,367 5,823 ,000 ,839 1,192
bfinC -,141 ,065 -,153 -2,175 ,031 ,679 1,473
bfioC ,039 ,067 ,036 ,586 ,559 ,867 1,154
RefMedC ,241 ,048 ,304 5,017 ,000 ,908 1,101
3 (Constant) 4,068 ,179 22,681 ,000
Gender ,013 ,081 ,010 ,157 ,875 ,890 1,123
Age -,003 ,004 -,047 -,730 ,466 ,830 1,204
Position d_2 -,015 ,087 -,014 -,176 ,861 ,530 1,885
Position d_3 -,007 ,084 -,006 -,085 ,932 ,602 1,662
Position d_4 ,078 ,123 ,043 ,635 ,526 ,751 1,331
Position d_5 -,019 ,104 -,013 -,179 ,858 ,613 1,632
bfieC ,038 ,066 ,040 ,575 ,566 ,682 1,465
bfiaC -,041 ,076 -,035 -,543 ,588 ,811 1,233
bficC ,404 ,073 ,361 5,557 ,000 ,800 1,250
bfinC -,142 ,068 -,153 -2,098 ,037 ,632 1,583
bfioC ,028 ,069 ,026 ,412 ,681 ,843 1,187
RefMedC ,243 ,051 ,307 4,800 ,000 ,826 1,211
RefMedC_bfieC ,057 ,118 ,038 ,482 ,630 ,532 1,880
RefMedC_bfiaC ,095 ,104 ,057 ,921 ,358 ,870 1,150
RefMedC_bficC ,115 ,120 ,062 ,963 ,337 ,812 1,232
RefMedC_bfinC ,019 ,095 ,015 ,203 ,839 ,606 1,651
RefMedC_bfioC ,057 ,110 ,036 ,523 ,601 ,725 1,379
a. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 217
14.2. Personality – Flexibility / Work Performance
14.2.1. Personality – Flex-time / Employee satisfaction
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,228a ,052 ,025 ,67366
2 ,299b ,089 ,035 ,67001
3 ,329c ,109 ,032 ,67119 2,092
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,052a 1,912 6 209 ,080
2 ,037b 1,381 6 203 ,224
3 ,019c ,857 5 198 ,511
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 5,206 6 ,868 1,912 ,080a
Residual 94,849 209 ,454
Total 100,055 215
2 Regression 8,925 12 ,744 1,657 ,079b
Residual 91,130 203 ,449
Total 100,055 215
3 Regression 10,856 17 ,639 1,418 ,131c
Residual 89,199 198 ,450
Total 100,055 215
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, FlextimeC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, FlextimeC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC, FlextC_bfieC, FlextC_bfioC, FlextC_bficC, FlextC_bfiaC, FlextC_bfinC d. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 218
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 3,704 ,283 13,098 ,000
Gender -,050 ,128 -,028 -,393 ,694 ,895 1,117
Age ,001 ,006 ,007 ,095 ,925 ,857 1,167
Position d_2 ,207 ,139 ,138 1,490 ,138 ,521 1,919
Position d_3 -,093 ,133 -,060 -,703 ,483 ,607 1,647
Position d_4 ,039 ,194 ,016 ,203 ,839 ,763 1,311
Position d_5 -,018 ,164 -,009 -,107 ,915 ,647 1,545
bfieC ,175 ,104 ,134 1,693 ,092 ,718 1,393
bfiaC ,151 ,117 ,093 1,290 ,198 ,870 1,150
bficC -,022 ,113 -,014 -,193 ,847 ,850 1,177
bfinC -,054 ,103 -,042 -,523 ,602 ,698 1,432
bfioC -,034 ,107 -,023 -,317 ,751 ,878 1,139
FlextimeC ,003 ,004 ,060 ,860 ,391 ,921 1,085
3 (Constant) 3,749 ,285 13,153 ,000
Gender -,057 ,129 -,031 -,440 ,661 ,879 1,137
Age ,000 ,006 -,005 -,073 ,942 ,846 1,182
Position d_2 ,204 ,139 ,136 1,463 ,145 ,519 1,926
Position d_3 -,110 ,134 -,072 -,825 ,410 ,599 1,670
Position d_4 ,023 ,197 ,009 ,117 ,907 ,741 1,349
Position d_5 -,063 ,166 -,032 -,382 ,703 ,635 1,576
bfieC ,155 ,106 ,119 1,462 ,145 ,685 1,460
bfiaC ,116 ,124 ,071 ,936 ,350 ,776 1,289
bficC ,051 ,122 ,033 ,421 ,674 ,731 1,368
bfinC -,011 ,106 -,009 -,103 ,918 ,661 1,514
bfioC ,011 ,113 ,008 ,101 ,920 ,786 1,272
FlextimeC ,003 ,004 ,063 ,858 ,392 ,844 1,185
FlextC_bfieC -,001 ,007 -,013 -,156 ,876 ,637 1,571
FlextC_bfiaC -,018 ,009 -,150 -1,974 ,050 ,776 1,289
FlextC_bficC ,004 ,009 ,031 ,399 ,690 ,757 1,321
FlextC_bfinC ,004 ,008 ,045 ,522 ,602 ,599 1,669
FlextC_bfioC ,009 ,009 ,073 ,964 ,336 ,795 1,258
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 219
14.2.2.A. Personality – Flex-place / Employee satisfaction
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,232a ,054 ,025 ,66707
2 ,290b ,084 ,028 ,66632
3 ,336c ,113 ,033 ,66431 2,060
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,054a 1,899 6 201 ,083
2 ,030b 1,076 6 195 ,378
3 ,029c 1,236 5 190 ,294
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 5,070 6 ,845 1,899 ,083a
Residual 89,442 201 ,445
Total 94,512 207
2 Regression 7,936 12 ,661 1,490 ,131b
Residual 86,576 195 ,444
Total 94,512 207
3 Regression 10,663 17 ,627 1,421 ,130c
Residual 83,848 190 ,441
Total 94,512 207
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, bficC, FlexplaceC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, bficC, FlexplaceC, bfieC, bfinC, FlexplC_bfinC, FlexplC_bfioC, FlexplC_bfiaC, FlexplC_bficC, FlexplC_bfieC d. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 220
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 3,686 ,282 13,078 ,000
Gender ,055 ,131 ,030 ,417 ,677 ,892 1,121
Age ,000 ,006 -,001 -,020 ,984 ,859 1,164
Position d_2 ,262 ,139 ,176 1,886 ,061 ,538 1,860
Position d_3 -,017 ,135 -,011 -,125 ,900 ,625 1,599
Position d_4 ,026 ,194 ,011 ,134 ,894 ,756 1,322
Position d_5 ,019 ,165 ,010 ,114 ,909 ,615 1,626
bfieC ,187 ,104 ,147 1,806 ,072 ,712 1,404
bfiaC ,073 ,118 ,046 ,625 ,533 ,869 1,150
bficC -,059 ,114 -,038 -,516 ,606 ,847 1,181
bfinC -,052 ,103 -,041 -,502 ,616 ,690 1,450
bfioC -,033 ,108 -,022 -,301 ,764 ,884 1,131
FlexplaceC -,001 ,002 -,058 -,787 ,432 ,860 1,163
3 (Constant) 3,655 ,288 12,676 ,000
Gender ,074 ,131 ,041 ,565 ,573 ,885 1,130
Age 2,786E-5 ,006 ,000 ,004 ,996 ,826 1,211
Position d_2 ,288 ,139 ,194 2,069 ,040 ,534 1,874
Position d_3 ,001 ,136 ,000 ,005 ,996 ,612 1,634
Position d_4 ,102 ,197 ,041 ,517 ,606 ,726 1,377
Position d_5 ,060 ,166 ,032 ,361 ,719 ,608 1,646
bfieC ,185 ,105 ,145 1,763 ,080 ,691 1,447
bfiaC ,072 ,118 ,045 ,609 ,543 ,853 1,172
bficC -,051 ,115 -,034 -,445 ,657 ,820 1,219
bfinC -,054 ,104 -,043 -,521 ,603 ,683 1,464
bfioC -,014 ,111 -,009 -,123 ,902 ,840 1,191
FlexplaceC -,002 ,002 -,075 -1,015 ,312 ,852 1,174
FlexplC_bfieC -,007 ,003 -,171 -2,161 ,032 ,744 1,344
FlexplC_bfiaC ,004 ,004 ,078 1,073 ,285 ,879 1,138
FlexplC_bficC ,002 ,004 ,048 ,664 ,508 ,881 1,135
FlexplC_bfinC -,001 ,003 -,022 -,274 ,785 ,717 1,396
FlexplC_bfioC ,000 ,004 ,007 ,098 ,922 ,888 1,126
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 221
14.2.2.B. Personality – Flex-place / Employee satisfaction (Variant B)
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,232a ,054 ,025 ,66707
2 ,282b ,080 ,043 ,66114
3 ,314c ,099 ,058 ,65584 2,043
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,054a 1,899 6 201 ,083
2 ,026b 2,810 2 199 ,063
3 ,019c 4,232 1 198 ,041
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 5,070 6 ,845 1,899 ,083a
Residual 89,442 201 ,445
Total 94,512 207
2 Regression 7,526 8 ,941 2,152 ,033b
Residual 86,985 199 ,437
Total 94,512 207
3 Regression 9,347 9 1,039 2,414 ,013c
Residual 85,165 198 ,430
Total 94,512 207
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfieC, FlexplaceC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfieC, FlexplaceC, FlexplaceC_bfieC d. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 222
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 3,739 ,279 13,417 ,000
Gender ,049 ,126 ,027 ,385 ,701 ,962 1,039
Age -,002 ,006 -,028 -,388 ,698 ,894 1,119
Position d_2 ,368 ,131 ,248 2,811 ,005 ,607 1,647
Position d_3 ,001 ,134 ,001 ,010 ,992 ,631 1,585
Position d_4 ,065 ,189 ,026 ,341 ,733 ,796 1,257
Position d_5 ,068 ,156 ,036 ,433 ,666 ,689 1,452
2 (Constant) 3,693 ,277 13,312 ,000
Gender ,046 ,125 ,025 ,364 ,716 ,957 1,045
Age ,000 ,006 -,006 -,076 ,939 ,872 1,147
Position d_2 ,276 ,136 ,186 2,037 ,043 ,557 1,796
Position d_3 -,012 ,134 -,007 -,086 ,931 ,628 1,593
Position d_4 ,027 ,188 ,011 ,141 ,888 ,788 1,269
Position d_5 ,046 ,161 ,024 ,283 ,778 ,637 1,571
bfieC ,207 ,092 ,162 2,253 ,025 ,894 1,119
FlexplaceC -,001 ,002 -,060 -,826 ,410 ,879 1,138
3 (Constant) 3,676 ,275 13,354 ,000
Gender ,064 ,125 ,035 ,510 ,611 ,952 1,050
Age ,000 ,006 -,006 -,078 ,938 ,872 1,147
Position d_2 ,294 ,135 ,197 2,178 ,031 ,555 1,803
Position d_3 ,009 ,133 ,006 ,066 ,948 ,624 1,601
Position d_4 ,087 ,189 ,035 ,459 ,647 ,769 1,300
Position d_5 ,066 ,160 ,035 ,413 ,680 ,634 1,577
bfieC ,224 ,091 ,176 2,454 ,015 ,886 1,129
FlexplaceC -,002 ,002 -,070 -,977 ,330 ,874 1,144
FlexplaceC_bfieC -,006 ,003 -,142 -2,057 ,041 ,952 1,050
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 223
14.2.3.A. Personality – Flex-time / Work life balance
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,174a ,030 ,002 ,74568
2 ,347b ,120 ,068 ,72054
3 ,366c ,134 ,060 ,72395 2,058
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,030a 1,084 6 209 ,373
2 ,090b 3,472 6 203 ,003
3 ,014c ,619 5 198 ,686
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 3,615 6 ,603 1,084 ,373a
Residual 116,211 209 ,556
Total 119,826 215
2 Regression 14,432 12 1,203 2,316 ,009b
Residual 105,394 203 ,519
Total 119,826 215
3 Regression 16,054 17 ,944 1,802 ,030c
Residual 103,772 198 ,524
Total 119,826 215
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, FlextimeC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, FlextimeC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC, FlextC_bfieC, FlextC_bfioC, FlextC_bficC, FlextC_bfiaC, FlextC_bfinC d. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 224
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 3,924 ,304 12,903 ,000
Gender ,029 ,138 ,014 ,208 ,835 ,895 1,117
Age -,001 ,007 -,012 -,168 ,867 ,857 1,167
Position d_2 -,377 ,149 -,230 -2,524 ,012 ,521 1,919
Position d_3 -,159 ,143 -,094 -1,110 ,268 ,607 1,647
Position d_4 ,013 ,208 ,005 ,063 ,949 ,763 1,311
Position d_5 -,173 ,176 -,080 -,983 ,327 ,647 1,545
bfieC ,069 ,111 ,048 ,617 ,538 ,718 1,393
bfiaC ,156 ,126 ,087 1,236 ,218 ,870 1,150
bficC ,037 ,122 ,022 ,307 ,759 ,850 1,177
bfinC -,285 ,111 -,202 -2,571 ,011 ,698 1,432
bfioC -,019 ,115 -,012 -,168 ,866 ,878 1,139
FlextimeC -,008 ,004 -,142 -2,078 ,039 ,921 1,085
3 (Constant) 3,960 ,307 12,879 ,000
Gender ,033 ,139 ,017 ,236 ,814 ,879 1,137
Age -,002 ,007 -,023 -,314 ,754 ,846 1,182
Position d_2 -,373 ,150 -,228 -2,481 ,014 ,519 1,926
Position d_3 -,172 ,144 -,102 -1,191 ,235 ,599 1,670
Position d_4 -,039 ,212 -,014 -,186 ,853 ,741 1,349
Position d_5 -,199 ,179 -,092 -1,111 ,268 ,635 1,576
bfieC ,029 ,115 ,020 ,255 ,799 ,685 1,460
bfiaC ,112 ,134 ,063 ,836 ,404 ,776 1,289
bficC ,073 ,132 ,043 ,554 ,580 ,731 1,368
bfinC -,272 ,115 -,193 -2,377 ,018 ,661 1,514
bfioC ,031 ,122 ,019 ,255 ,799 ,786 1,272
FlextimeC -,009 ,004 -,156 -2,173 ,031 ,844 1,185
FlextC_bfieC ,008 ,008 ,085 1,020 ,309 ,637 1,571
FlextC_bfiaC -,009 ,010 -,070 -,926 ,355 ,776 1,289
FlextC_bficC ,012 ,010 ,093 1,228 ,221 ,757 1,321
FlextC_bfinC ,007 ,008 ,070 ,814 ,417 ,599 1,669
FlextC_bfioC ,007 ,010 ,050 ,672 ,502 ,795 1,258
a. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 225
14.2.3.B. Personality – Flex-time / Work life balance (Variant B)
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,174a ,030 ,002 ,74568
2 ,233b ,054 ,022 ,73817 2,110
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,030a 1,084 6 209 ,373
2 ,024b 5,273 1 208 ,023
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 3,615 6 ,603 1,084 ,373a
Residual 116,211 209 ,556
Total 119,826 215
2 Regression 6,488 7 ,927 1,701 ,110b
Residual 113,338 208 ,545
Total 119,826 215
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, Flextime c. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 226
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 3,950 ,311 12,720 ,000
Gender ,044 ,137 ,022 ,319 ,750 ,966 1,035
Age -,003 ,007 -,030 -,414 ,679 ,889 1,125
Position d_2 -,282 ,144 -,172 -1,958 ,052 ,601 1,664
Position d_3 -,157 ,146 -,093 -1,076 ,283 ,620 1,613
Position d_4 ,094 ,211 ,034 ,444 ,657 ,797 1,254
Position d_5 -,114 ,176 -,053 -,647 ,519 ,693 1,443
2 (Constant) 4,089 ,313 13,051 ,000
Gender ,058 ,136 ,029 ,427 ,670 ,964 1,037
Age -,003 ,007 -,029 -,399 ,690 ,889 1,125
Position d_2 -,220 ,145 -,134 -1,517 ,131 ,580 1,724
Position d_3 -,118 ,146 -,070 -,809 ,420 ,611 1,636
Position d_4 ,099 ,209 ,036 ,474 ,636 ,797 1,255
Position d_5 -,064 ,176 -,030 -,363 ,717 ,682 1,466
Flextime -,009 ,004 -,158 -2,296 ,023 ,955 1,047
a. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 227
14.2.4. Personality – Flex-place / Work life balance
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,176a ,031 ,002 ,74698
2 ,328b ,108 ,053 ,72769
3 ,335c ,112 ,032 ,73550 1,991
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,031a 1,070 6 201 ,382
2 ,077b 2,800 6 195 ,012
3 ,004c ,176 5 190 ,971
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 3,581 6 ,597 1,070 ,382a
Residual 112,155 201 ,558
Total 115,736 207
2 Regression 12,477 12 1,040 1,963 ,029b
Residual 103,259 195 ,530
Total 115,736 207
3 Regression 12,952 17 ,762 1,408 ,136c
Residual 102,783 190 ,541
Total 115,736 207
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, bficC, FlexplaceC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, bficC, FlexplaceC, bfieC, bfinC, FlexplC_bfinC, FlexplC_bfioC, FlexplC_bfiaC, FlexplC_bficC, FlexplC_bfieC d. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 228
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 4,001 ,308 12,998 ,000
Gender ,036 ,143 ,018 ,254 ,800 ,892 1,121
Age -,002 ,007 -,025 -,339 ,735 ,859 1,164
Position d_2 -,424 ,152 -,257 -2,791 ,006 ,538 1,860
Position d_3 -,191 ,147 -,111 -1,295 ,197 ,625 1,599
Position d_4 ,007 ,212 ,003 ,033 ,973 ,756 1,322
Position d_5 -,201 ,181 -,096 -1,111 ,268 ,615 1,626
bfieC ,050 ,113 ,036 ,444 ,657 ,712 1,404
bfiaC ,199 ,128 ,112 1,549 ,123 ,869 1,150
bficC ,061 ,124 ,036 ,494 ,622 ,847 1,181
bfinC -,290 ,113 -,209 -2,567 ,011 ,690 1,450
bfioC -,053 ,118 -,032 -,449 ,654 ,884 1,131
FlexplaceC -,001 ,002 -,037 -,507 ,613 ,860 1,163
3 (Constant) 3,986 ,319 12,487 ,000
Gender ,044 ,145 ,022 ,302 ,763 ,885 1,130
Age -,002 ,007 -,021 -,281 ,779 ,826 1,211
Position d_2 -,419 ,154 -,255 -2,720 ,007 ,534 1,874
Position d_3 -,195 ,151 -,113 -1,294 ,197 ,612 1,634
Position d_4 ,026 ,218 ,009 ,118 ,906 ,726 1,377
Position d_5 -,200 ,184 -,095 -1,087 ,278 ,608 1,646
bfieC ,059 ,116 ,042 ,507 ,613 ,691 1,447
bfiaC ,208 ,131 ,117 1,584 ,115 ,853 1,172
bficC ,045 ,128 ,027 ,353 ,724 ,820 1,219
bfinC -,290 ,115 -,209 -2,532 ,012 ,683 1,464
bfioC -,073 ,123 -,044 -,595 ,552 ,840 1,191
FlexplaceC -,001 ,002 -,039 -,524 ,601 ,852 1,174
FlexplC_bfieC ,000 ,004 -,005 -,059 ,953 ,744 1,344
FlexplC_bfiaC ,002 ,004 ,038 ,524 ,601 ,879 1,138
FlexplC_bficC -,001 ,004 -,016 -,220 ,826 ,881 1,135
FlexplC_bfinC -,001 ,004 -,014 -,171 ,864 ,717 1,396
FlexplC_bfioC -,003 ,004 -,051 -,709 ,479 ,888 1,126
a. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 229
14.2.5. Personality – Flex-time / Productivity
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,149a ,022 -,006 ,49664
2 ,491b ,241 ,196 ,44397
3 ,548c ,301 ,241 ,43155 2,066
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,022a ,791 6 209 ,578
2 ,219b 9,754 6 203 ,000
3 ,060c 3,372 5 198 ,006
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1,171 6 ,195 ,791 ,578a
Residual 51,549 209 ,247
Total 52,720 215
2 Regression 12,706 12 1,059 5,372 ,000b
Residual 40,014 203 ,197
Total 52,720 215
3 Regression 15,846 17 ,932 5,005 ,000c
Residual 36,874 198 ,186
Total 52,720 215
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, FlextimeC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, FlextimeC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC, FlextC_bfieC, FlextC_bfioC, FlextC_bficC, FlextC_bfiaC, FlextC_bfinC d. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 230
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 4,177 ,187 22,294 ,000
Gender -,028 ,085 -,021 -,329 ,742 ,895 1,117
Age -,005 ,004 -,084 -1,266 ,207 ,857 1,167
Position d_2 ,002 ,092 ,002 ,019 ,985 ,521 1,919
Position d_3 -,025 ,088 -,022 -,286 ,775 ,607 1,647
Position d_4 ,089 ,128 ,048 ,692 ,489 ,763 1,311
Position d_5 ,059 ,109 ,041 ,543 ,588 ,647 1,545
bfieC ,057 ,069 ,060 ,830 ,407 ,718 1,393
bfiaC ,011 ,078 ,009 ,140 ,889 ,870 1,150
bficC ,459 ,075 ,406 6,117 ,000 ,850 1,177
bfinC -,104 ,068 -,112 -1,529 ,128 ,698 1,432
bfioC ,089 ,071 ,082 1,258 ,210 ,878 1,139
FlextimeC ,001 ,002 ,028 ,437 ,662 ,921 1,085
3 (Constant) 4,189 ,183 22,857 ,000
Gender -,010 ,083 -,008 -,119 ,905 ,879 1,137
Age -,005 ,004 -,088 -1,357 ,176 ,846 1,182
Position d_2 ,007 ,090 ,006 ,078 ,938 ,519 1,926
Position d_3 -,030 ,086 -,027 -,352 ,725 ,599 1,670
Position d_4 ,113 ,127 ,061 ,890 ,374 ,741 1,349
Position d_5 ,060 ,107 ,042 ,563 ,574 ,635 1,576
bfieC ,096 ,068 ,101 1,407 ,161 ,685 1,460
bfiaC ,021 ,080 ,018 ,264 ,792 ,776 1,289
bficC ,402 ,079 ,356 5,120 ,000 ,731 1,368
bfinC -,119 ,068 -,127 -1,741 ,083 ,661 1,514
bfioC ,031 ,073 ,028 ,420 ,675 ,786 1,272
FlextimeC ,003 ,002 ,076 1,181 ,239 ,844 1,185
FlextC_bfieC ,005 ,005 ,074 ,999 ,319 ,637 1,571
FlextC_bfiaC ,001 ,006 ,016 ,241 ,810 ,776 1,289
FlextC_bficC -,015 ,006 -,175 -2,565 ,011 ,757 1,321
FlextC_bfinC ,011 ,005 ,165 2,143 ,033 ,599 1,669
FlextC_bfioC -,009 ,006 -,101 -1,512 ,132 ,795 1,258
a. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 231
14.2.6. Personality – Flex-place / Productivity
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,171a ,029 ,000 ,48199
2 ,472b ,222 ,175 ,43797
3 ,489c ,239 ,171 ,43898 2,075
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,029a 1,013 6 201 ,418
2 ,193b 8,072 6 195 ,000
3 ,016c ,821 5 190 ,536
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1,412 6 ,235 1,013 ,418a
Residual 46,695 201 ,232
Total 48,108 207
2 Regression 10,703 12 ,892 4,650 ,000b
Residual 37,405 195 ,192
Total 48,108 207
3 Regression 11,494 17 ,676 3,509 ,000c
Residual 36,613 190 ,193
Total 48,108 207
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, bficC, FlexplaceC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, bficC, FlexplaceC, bfieC, bfinC, FlexplC_bfinC, FlexplC_bfioC, FlexplC_bfiaC, FlexplC_bficC, FlexplC_bfieC d. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 232
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 4,164 ,185 22,478 ,000
Gender ,023 ,086 ,018 ,273 ,785 ,892 1,121
Age -,005 ,004 -,090 -1,314 ,190 ,859 1,164
Position d_2 ,032 ,091 ,030 ,348 ,728 ,538 1,860
Position d_3 ,001 ,089 ,001 ,016 ,987 ,625 1,599
Position d_4 ,081 ,127 ,046 ,635 ,526 ,756 1,322
Position d_5 ,057 ,109 ,042 ,526 ,599 ,615 1,626
bfieC ,050 ,068 ,054 ,728 ,467 ,712 1,404
bfiaC -,044 ,077 -,039 -,575 ,566 ,869 1,150
bficC ,413 ,075 ,379 5,518 ,000 ,847 1,181
bfinC -,111 ,068 -,125 -1,640 ,103 ,690 1,450
bfioC ,083 ,071 ,078 1,166 ,245 ,884 1,131
FlexplaceC ,000 ,001 -,017 -,252 ,802 ,860 1,163
3 (Constant) 4,148 ,191 21,772 ,000
Gender ,029 ,086 ,023 ,336 ,737 ,885 1,130
Age -,005 ,004 -,084 -1,201 ,231 ,826 1,211
Position d_2 ,035 ,092 ,033 ,376 ,707 ,534 1,874
Position d_3 ,008 ,090 ,007 ,088 ,930 ,612 1,634
Position d_4 ,110 ,130 ,062 ,840 ,402 ,726 1,377
Position d_5 ,051 ,110 ,038 ,466 ,642 ,608 1,646
bfieC ,073 ,069 ,081 1,059 ,291 ,691 1,447
bfiaC -,027 ,078 -,024 -,349 ,727 ,853 1,172
bficC ,411 ,076 ,377 5,392 ,000 ,820 1,219
bfinC -,106 ,068 -,119 -1,552 ,122 ,683 1,464
bfioC ,061 ,073 ,058 ,837 ,404 ,840 1,191
FlexplaceC ,000 ,001 -,018 -,262 ,793 ,852 1,174
FlexplC_bfieC -,001 ,002 -,037 -,508 ,612 ,744 1,344
FlexplC_bfiaC -,001 ,003 -,015 -,224 ,823 ,879 1,138
FlexplC_bficC -,003 ,002 -,092 -1,359 ,176 ,881 1,135
FlexplC_bfinC -,001 ,002 -,023 -,302 ,763 ,717 1,396
FlexplC_bfioC -,003 ,002 -,082 -1,224 ,223 ,888 1,126
a. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 233
14.3. Personality – Task Workplace Fit / Work Performance
14.3.1. Personality – TWPF Focus / Employee satisfaction
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,228a ,052 ,025 ,67289
2 ,414b ,171 ,122 ,63845
3 ,474c ,225 ,159 ,62497 1,963
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,052a 1,924 6 210 ,078
2 ,119b 4,877 6 204 ,000
3 ,054c 2,779 5 199 ,019
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 5,227 6 ,871 1,924 ,078a
Residual 95,083 210 ,453
Total 100,310 216
2 Regression 17,155 12 1,430 3,507 ,000b
Residual 83,155 204 ,408
Total 100,310 216
3 Regression 22,582 17 1,328 3,401 ,000c
Residual 77,728 199 ,391
Total 100,310 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, TWPFFocC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, TWPFFocC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC, FocC_bficC, FocC_bfioC, FocC_bfiaC, FocC_bfieC, FocC_bfinC d. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 234
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 3,863 ,272 14,220 ,000
Gender -,023 ,121 -,013 -,189 ,850 ,903 1,107
Age -,003 ,006 -,036 -,522 ,602 ,840 1,191
Position d_2 ,195 ,131 ,130 1,496 ,136 ,535 1,869
Position d_3 -,082 ,126 -,053 -,653 ,515 ,615 1,626
Position d_4 -,023 ,185 -,009 -,122 ,903 ,758 1,319
Position d_5 -,010 ,153 -,005 -,065 ,948 ,652 1,533
bfieC ,103 ,099 ,080 1,043 ,298 ,698 1,434
bfiaC ,173 ,111 ,107 1,557 ,121 ,861 1,161
bficC -,065 ,107 -,042 -,611 ,542 ,845 1,183
bfinC -,045 ,098 -,035 -,456 ,649 ,690 1,448
bfioC -,040 ,101 -,026 -,391 ,696 ,892 1,121
TWPFFocC ,217 ,046 ,312 4,685 ,000 ,918 1,089
3 (Constant) 3,908 ,268 14,598 ,000
Gender ,060 ,121 ,033 ,494 ,622 ,863 1,159
Age -,005 ,006 -,059 -,858 ,392 ,827 1,209
Position d_2 ,210 ,129 ,140 1,636 ,103 ,528 1,892
Position d_3 -,050 ,123 -,032 -,403 ,687 ,610 1,640
Position d_4 -,005 ,182 -,002 -,030 ,976 ,750 1,333
Position d_5 -,039 ,153 -,020 -,255 ,799 ,625 1,599
bfieC ,069 ,099 ,053 ,694 ,488 ,665 1,503
bfiaC ,175 ,111 ,108 1,582 ,115 ,828 1,208
bficC -,138 ,107 -,089 -1,289 ,199 ,814 1,229
bfinC -,109 ,098 -,085 -1,114 ,266 ,663 1,507
bfioC -,079 ,102 -,053 -,775 ,439 ,846 1,182
TWPFFocC ,260 ,047 ,373 5,509 ,000 ,850 1,177
FocC_bfieC ,213 ,092 ,174 2,322 ,021 ,691 1,448
FocC_bfiaC -,280 ,109 -,184 -2,567 ,011 ,758 1,318
FocC_bficC ,055 ,105 ,035 ,523 ,602 ,846 1,182
FocC_bfinC ,184 ,109 ,136 1,693 ,092 ,602 1,660
FocC_bfioC ,009 ,101 ,006 ,088 ,930 ,923 1,084
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 235
14.3.2. Personality – TWPF Socialize / Employee satisfaction
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,228a ,052 ,025 ,67289
2 ,469b ,220 ,174 ,61937
3 ,482c ,232 ,167 ,62204 2,116
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,052a 1,924 6 210 ,078
2 ,168b 7,310 6 204 ,000
3 ,013c ,650 5 199 ,662
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 5,227 6 ,871 1,924 ,078a
Residual 95,083 210 ,453
Total 100,310 216
2 Regression 22,052 12 1,838 4,790 ,000b
Residual 78,258 204 ,384
Total 100,310 216
3 Regression 23,309 17 1,371 3,544 ,000c
Residual 77,000 199 ,387
Total 100,310 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, TWPFSocC, bfiaC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, TWPFSocC, bfiaC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC, SocC_bficC, SocC_bfioC, SocC_bfieC, SocC_bfiaC, SocC_bfinC d. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 236
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 3,811 ,262 14,572 ,000
Gender -,011 ,118 -,006 -,094 ,925 ,902 1,108
Age -,003 ,006 -,030 -,453 ,651 ,849 1,178
Position d_2 ,235 ,126 ,157 1,862 ,064 ,537 1,862
Position d_3 -,039 ,122 -,025 -,319 ,750 ,614 1,630
Position d_4 -,028 ,180 -,011 -,154 ,878 ,759 1,317
Position d_5 ,022 ,149 ,011 ,146 ,884 ,651 1,537
bfieC ,093 ,096 ,072 ,971 ,333 ,700 1,429
bfiaC ,101 ,107 ,063 ,942 ,347 ,866 1,155
bficC ,009 ,104 ,006 ,084 ,933 ,844 1,185
bfinC -,025 ,095 -,019 -,259 ,796 ,690 1,450
bfioC ,069 ,099 ,046 ,697 ,487 ,876 1,141
TWPFSocC ,353 ,059 ,383 6,007 ,000 ,939 1,065
3 (Constant) 3,815 ,265 14,385 ,000
Gender ,010 ,120 ,005 ,079 ,937 ,869 1,151
Age -,003 ,006 -,031 -,452 ,652 ,843 1,186
Position d_2 ,232 ,129 ,155 1,796 ,074 ,517 1,936
Position d_3 -,028 ,123 -,018 -,227 ,821 ,605 1,653
Position d_4 -,024 ,184 -,010 -,133 ,894 ,733 1,364
Position d_5 ,020 ,151 ,011 ,136 ,892 ,640 1,562
bfieC ,092 ,100 ,071 ,914 ,362 ,643 1,555
bfiaC ,113 ,111 ,070 1,016 ,311 ,821 1,218
bficC -,004 ,105 -,002 -,034 ,973 ,828 1,208
bfinC -,039 ,098 -,031 -,404 ,687 ,658 1,519
bfioC ,063 ,100 ,042 ,632 ,528 ,863 1,159
TWPFSocC ,352 ,060 ,382 5,842 ,000 ,900 1,111
SocC_bfieC ,014 ,129 ,008 ,111 ,912 ,761 1,314
SocC_bfiaC -,160 ,135 -,088 -1,191 ,235 ,712 1,405
SocC_bficC ,152 ,151 ,071 1,010 ,314 ,776 1,289
SocC_bfinC ,089 ,120 ,058 ,746 ,456 ,638 1,567
SocC_bfioC ,105 ,131 ,056 ,801 ,424 ,788 1,269
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 237
14.3.3.A. Personality – TWPF Collaborate / Employee satisfaction
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,228a ,052 ,025 ,67289
2 ,396b ,157 ,107 ,64385
3 ,446c ,199 ,131 ,63542 2,048
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,052a 1,924 6 210 ,078
2 ,105b 4,229 6 204 ,000
3 ,042c 2,089 5 199 ,068
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 5,227 6 ,871 1,924 ,078a
Residual 95,083 210 ,453
Total 100,310 216
2 Regression 15,744 12 1,312 3,165 ,000b
Residual 84,566 204 ,415
Total 100,310 216
3 Regression 19,961 17 1,174 2,908 ,000c
Residual 80,349 199 ,404
Total 100,310 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, TWPFColC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, TWPFColC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC, ColC_bficC, ColC_bfioC, ColC_bfieC, ColC_bfiaC, ColC_bfinC d. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 238
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 3,790 ,272 13,921 ,000
Gender -,007 ,122 -,004 -,061 ,952 ,901 1,110
Age -,001 ,006 -,013 -,181 ,856 ,853 1,173
Position d_2 ,172 ,132 ,115 1,303 ,194 ,531 1,884
Position d_3 -,101 ,127 -,065 -,795 ,427 ,614 1,629
Position d_4 -,018 ,187 -,007 -,094 ,925 ,758 1,319
Position d_5 -,075 ,155 -,039 -,483 ,630 ,649 1,542
bfieC ,094 ,100 ,072 ,936 ,350 ,690 1,449
bfiaC ,101 ,112 ,063 ,906 ,366 ,864 1,157
bficC -,027 ,108 -,017 -,247 ,805 ,848 1,179
bfinC -,015 ,099 -,011 -,148 ,883 ,687 1,455
bfioC ,003 ,102 ,002 ,034 ,973 ,893 1,120
TWPFColC ,250 ,059 ,290 4,264 ,000 ,893 1,120
3 (Constant) 3,730 ,272 13,731 ,000
Gender -,013 ,123 -,007 -,109 ,913 ,876 1,141
Age -,001 ,006 -,007 -,105 ,916 ,843 1,186
Position d_2 ,183 ,131 ,122 1,397 ,164 ,526 1,900
Position d_3 -,078 ,126 -,050 -,619 ,537 ,609 1,642
Position d_4 ,008 ,186 ,003 ,043 ,966 ,741 1,349
Position d_5 -,090 ,153 -,046 -,586 ,559 ,647 1,545
bfieC ,099 ,101 ,077 ,977 ,330 ,657 1,522
bfiaC ,046 ,117 ,029 ,397 ,692 ,769 1,300
bficC -,035 ,109 -,023 -,324 ,747 ,806 1,240
bfinC -,035 ,101 -,027 -,346 ,730 ,642 1,559
bfioC -,018 ,104 -,012 -,175 ,862 ,834 1,199
TWPFColC ,260 ,059 ,302 4,392 ,000 ,853 1,172
ColC_bfieC ,364 ,119 ,224 3,054 ,003 ,747 1,339
ColC_bfiaC ,036 ,135 ,020 ,265 ,791 ,680 1,472
ColC_bficC -,062 ,135 -,032 -,457 ,648 ,823 1,215
ColC_bfinC ,095 ,145 ,052 ,655 ,513 ,632 1,582
ColC_bfioC -,011 ,125 -,006 -,088 ,930 ,838 1,194
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 239
14.3.3.B. Personality – TWPF Collaborate / Employee satisfaction (Variant B)
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,228a ,052 ,025 ,67289
2 ,396b ,157 ,107 ,64385
3 ,443c ,196 ,144 ,63037 2,024
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,052a 1,924 6 210 ,078
2 ,105b 4,229 6 204 ,000
3 ,039c 9,816 1 203 ,002
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 5,227 6 ,871 1,924 ,078a
Residual 95,083 210 ,453
Total 100,310 216
2 Regression 15,744 12 1,312 3,165 ,000b
Residual 84,566 204 ,415
Total 100,310 216
3 Regression 19,645 13 1,511 3,803 ,000c
Residual 80,665 203 ,397
Total 100,310 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, TWPFColC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, TWPFColC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC, TWPFColC_bfieC d. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 240
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 3,790 ,272 13,921 ,000
Gender -,007 ,122 -,004 -,061 ,952 ,901 1,110
Age -,001 ,006 -,013 -,181 ,856 ,853 1,173
Position d_2 ,172 ,132 ,115 1,303 ,194 ,531 1,884
Position d_3 -,101 ,127 -,065 -,795 ,427 ,614 1,629
Position d_4 -,018 ,187 -,007 -,094 ,925 ,758 1,319
Position d_5 -,075 ,155 -,039 -,483 ,630 ,649 1,542
bfieC ,094 ,100 ,072 ,936 ,350 ,690 1,449
bfiaC ,101 ,112 ,063 ,906 ,366 ,864 1,157
bficC -,027 ,108 -,017 -,247 ,805 ,848 1,179
bfinC -,015 ,099 -,011 -,148 ,883 ,687 1,455
bfioC ,003 ,102 ,002 ,034 ,973 ,893 1,120
TWPFColC ,250 ,059 ,290 4,264 ,000 ,893 1,120
3 (Constant) 3,711 ,268 13,861 ,000
Gender -,016 ,120 -,009 -,130 ,897 ,901 1,110
Age ,000 ,006 -,003 -,041 ,967 ,851 1,175
Position d_2 ,181 ,129 ,121 1,396 ,164 ,531 1,885
Position d_3 -,079 ,124 -,051 -,637 ,525 ,612 1,634
Position d_4 ,008 ,183 ,003 ,046 ,963 ,757 1,321
Position d_5 -,089 ,152 -,046 -,588 ,557 ,648 1,543
bfieC ,104 ,098 ,080 1,060 ,290 ,689 1,451
bfiaC ,050 ,111 ,031 ,452 ,651 ,845 1,183
bficC -,031 ,106 -,020 -,294 ,769 ,848 1,180
bfinC -,021 ,097 -,017 -,219 ,827 ,687 1,456
bfioC -,016 ,100 -,011 -,161 ,872 ,889 1,125
TWPFColC ,265 ,058 ,307 4,590 ,000 ,887 1,127
TWPFColC_bfieC ,327 ,104 ,202 3,133 ,002 ,955 1,047
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 241
14.3.4. Personality – TWPF Learn / Employee satisfaction
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,228a ,052 ,025 ,67289
2 ,403b ,162 ,113 ,64177
3 ,458c ,210 ,142 ,63110 1,992
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,052a 1,924 6 210 ,078
2 ,110b 4,477 6 204 ,000
3 ,047c 2,391 5 199 ,039
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 5,227 6 ,871 1,924 ,078a
Residual 95,083 210 ,453
Total 100,310 216
2 Regression 16,290 12 1,357 3,296 ,000b
Residual 84,020 204 ,412
Total 100,310 216
3 Regression 21,052 17 1,238 3,109 ,000c
Residual 79,258 199 ,398
Total 100,310 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, TWPFLrnC, bfiaC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, TWPFLrnC, bfiaC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC, LrnC_bfiaC, LrnC_bfioC, LrnC_bficC, LrnC_bfieC, LrnC_bfinC d. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 242
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 3,585 ,271 13,250 ,000
Gender -,042 ,122 -,023 -,343 ,732 ,903 1,107
Age ,003 ,006 ,031 ,441 ,659 ,855 1,170
Position d_2 ,258 ,131 ,173 1,971 ,050 ,536 1,865
Position d_3 -,043 ,126 -,028 -,337 ,736 ,613 1,632
Position d_4 -1,891E-5 ,186 ,000 ,000 1,000 ,761 1,315
Position d_5 -,025 ,154 -,013 -,161 ,872 ,652 1,533
bfieC ,099 ,100 ,076 ,989 ,324 ,694 1,441
bfiaC ,132 ,111 ,082 1,186 ,237 ,867 1,153
bficC -,058 ,108 -,038 -,543 ,588 ,846 1,182
bfinC -,025 ,098 -,020 -,254 ,799 ,689 1,451
bfioC ,003 ,102 ,002 ,034 ,973 ,893 1,120
TWPFLrnC ,208 ,047 ,294 4,430 ,000 ,935 1,069
3 (Constant) 3,425 ,271 12,629 ,000
Gender ,024 ,122 ,013 ,195 ,846 ,870 1,149
Age ,006 ,006 ,066 ,954 ,341 ,823 1,215
Position d_2 ,250 ,132 ,167 1,894 ,060 ,511 1,958
Position d_3 ,015 ,126 ,010 ,122 ,903 ,594 1,684
Position d_4 ,091 ,186 ,036 ,488 ,626 ,737 1,357
Position d_5 -,085 ,154 -,044 -,550 ,583 ,633 1,581
bfieC ,040 ,100 ,031 ,399 ,691 ,666 1,503
bfiaC ,150 ,111 ,093 1,351 ,178 ,844 1,185
bficC -,123 ,110 -,080 -1,123 ,263 ,787 1,271
bfinC -,075 ,099 -,059 -,755 ,451 ,659 1,518
bfioC ,032 ,102 ,021 ,317 ,752 ,863 1,158
TWPFLrnC ,237 ,049 ,334 4,825 ,000 ,828 1,208
LrnC_bfieC ,179 ,105 ,137 1,703 ,090 ,613 1,632
LrnC_bfiaC -,006 ,123 -,004 -,050 ,960 ,759 1,317
LrnC_bficC ,180 ,119 ,113 1,520 ,130 ,714 1,400
LrnC_bfinC ,311 ,106 ,244 2,923 ,004 ,571 1,752
LrnC_bfioC -,128 ,128 -,072 -1,005 ,316 ,767 1,304
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 243
14.3.5. Personality – TWPF Focus / Work life balance
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,174a ,030 ,003 ,74413
2 ,409b ,168 ,119 ,69953
3 ,454c ,206 ,138 ,69176 2,100
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,030a 1,093 6 210 ,368
2 ,137b 5,606 6 204 ,000
3 ,038c 1,921 5 199 ,092
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 3,630 6 ,605 1,093 ,368a
Residual 116,284 210 ,554
Total 119,914 216
2 Regression 20,090 12 1,674 3,421 ,000b
Residual 99,825 204 ,489
Total 119,914 216
3 Regression 24,686 17 1,452 3,035 ,000c
Residual 95,228 199 ,479
Total 119,914 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, TWPFFocC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, TWPFFocC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC, FocC_bficC, FocC_bfioC, FocC_bfiaC, FocC_bfieC, FocC_bfinC d. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 244
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 4,135 ,298 13,894 ,000
Gender ,031 ,133 ,016 ,234 ,816 ,903 1,107
Age -,005 ,006 -,052 -,747 ,456 ,840 1,191
Position d_2 -,466 ,143 -,284 -3,256 ,001 ,535 1,869
Position d_3 -,198 ,138 -,117 -1,442 ,151 ,615 1,626
Position d_4 -,049 ,203 -,018 -,240 ,810 ,758 1,319
Position d_5 -,217 ,168 -,102 -1,292 ,198 ,652 1,533
bfieC -,014 ,108 -,010 -,128 ,898 ,698 1,434
bfiaC ,221 ,122 ,125 1,819 ,070 ,861 1,161
bficC -,006 ,117 -,004 -,053 ,958 ,845 1,183
bfinC -,302 ,107 -,217 -2,817 ,005 ,690 1,448
bfioC -,069 ,111 -,042 -,626 ,532 ,892 1,121
TWPFFocC ,204 ,051 ,267 4,012 ,000 ,918 1,089
3 (Constant) 4,101 ,296 13,842 ,000
Gender ,102 ,134 ,052 ,761 ,448 ,863 1,159
Age -,005 ,006 -,052 -,754 ,452 ,827 1,209
Position d_2 -,453 ,142 -,276 -3,181 ,002 ,528 1,892
Position d_3 -,188 ,137 -,111 -1,378 ,170 ,610 1,640
Position d_4 -,033 ,202 -,012 -,163 ,871 ,750 1,333
Position d_5 -,255 ,170 -,120 -1,500 ,135 ,625 1,599
bfieC -,066 ,110 -,047 -,603 ,547 ,665 1,503
bfiaC ,258 ,123 ,146 2,099 ,037 ,828 1,208
bficC -,064 ,118 -,038 -,542 ,588 ,814 1,229
bfinC -,353 ,108 -,253 -3,259 ,001 ,663 1,507
bfioC -,117 ,112 -,071 -1,036 ,301 ,846 1,182
TWPFFocC ,225 ,052 ,295 4,309 ,000 ,850 1,177
FocC_bfieC ,196 ,102 ,147 1,932 ,055 ,691 1,448
FocC_bfiaC -,053 ,121 -,032 -,441 ,660 ,758 1,318
FocC_bficC ,198 ,116 ,117 1,711 ,089 ,846 1,182
FocC_bfinC ,209 ,120 ,142 1,740 ,083 ,602 1,660
FocC_bfioC ,128 ,111 ,076 1,148 ,252 ,923 1,084
a. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 245
14.3.6. Personality – TWPF Socialize / Work life balance
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,174a ,030 ,003 ,74413
2 ,363b ,132 ,081 ,71424
3 ,412c ,170 ,099 ,70715 2,108
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,030a 1,093 6 210 ,368
2 ,102b 3,990 6 204 ,001
3 ,038c 1,822 5 199 ,110
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 3,630 6 ,605 1,093 ,368a
Residual 116,284 210 ,554
Total 119,914 216
2 Regression 15,844 12 1,320 2,588 ,003b
Residual 104,070 204 ,510
Total 119,914 216
3 Regression 20,401 17 1,200 2,400 ,002c
Residual 99,513 199 ,500
Total 119,914 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, TWPFSocC, bfiaC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, TWPFSocC, bfiaC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC, SocC_bficC, SocC_bfioC, SocC_bfieC, SocC_bfiaC, SocC_bfinC d. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 246
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 4,026 ,302 13,350 ,000
Gender ,033 ,136 ,017 ,245 ,807 ,902 1,108
Age -,003 ,007 -,031 -,435 ,664 ,849 1,178
Position d_2 -,429 ,146 -,262 -2,942 ,004 ,537 1,862
Position d_3 -,174 ,141 -,103 -1,238 ,217 ,614 1,630
Position d_4 -,024 ,207 -,009 -,116 ,908 ,759 1,317
Position d_5 -,207 ,172 -,097 -1,205 ,229 ,651 1,537
bfieC ,009 ,111 ,006 ,083 ,934 ,700 1,429
bfiaC ,166 ,124 ,094 1,339 ,182 ,866 1,155
bficC ,045 ,120 ,027 ,373 ,709 ,844 1,185
bfinC -,291 ,110 -,209 -2,659 ,008 ,690 1,450
bfioC -,003 ,114 -,002 -,028 ,978 ,876 1,141
TWPFSocC ,181 ,068 ,180 2,668 ,008 ,939 1,065
3 (Constant) 4,021 ,302 13,336 ,000
Gender ,000 ,137 ,000 -,003 ,997 ,869 1,151
Age -,003 ,007 -,027 -,383 ,702 ,843 1,186
Position d_2 -,418 ,147 -,255 -2,840 ,005 ,517 1,936
Position d_3 -,200 ,140 -,118 -1,425 ,156 ,605 1,653
Position d_4 -,004 ,209 -,001 -,018 ,986 ,733 1,364
Position d_5 -,193 ,171 -,091 -1,123 ,263 ,640 1,562
bfieC -,056 ,114 -,040 -,493 ,622 ,643 1,555
bfiaC ,198 ,126 ,112 1,568 ,118 ,821 1,218
bficC ,053 ,120 ,032 ,444 ,658 ,828 1,208
bfinC -,293 ,111 -,210 -2,641 ,009 ,658 1,519
bfioC ,029 ,114 ,018 ,258 ,797 ,863 1,159
TWPFSocC ,167 ,068 ,166 2,434 ,016 ,900 1,111
SocC_bfieC ,041 ,147 ,021 ,280 ,780 ,761 1,314
SocC_bfiaC ,263 ,153 ,131 1,716 ,088 ,712 1,405
SocC_bficC ,278 ,171 ,119 1,622 ,106 ,776 1,289
SocC_bfinC ,173 ,136 ,103 1,269 ,206 ,638 1,567
SocC_bfioC ,111 ,149 ,054 ,741 ,460 ,788 1,269
a. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 247
14.3.7. Personality – TWPF Collaborate / Work life balance
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,174a ,030 ,003 ,74413
2 ,360b ,129 ,078 ,71533
3 ,408c ,166 ,095 ,70887 2,088
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,030a 1,093 6 210 ,368
2 ,099b 3,875 6 204 ,001
3 ,037c 1,747 5 199 ,126
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 3,630 6 ,605 1,093 ,368a
Residual 116,284 210 ,554
Total 119,914 216
2 Regression 15,529 12 1,294 2,529 ,004b
Residual 104,386 204 ,512
Total 119,914 216
3 Regression 19,917 17 1,172 2,332 ,003c
Residual 99,997 199 ,502
Total 119,914 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, TWPFColC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, TWPFColC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC, ColC_bficC, ColC_bfioC, ColC_bfieC, ColC_bfiaC, ColC_bfinC d. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 248
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 4,034 ,302 13,336 ,000
Gender ,039 ,136 ,020 ,285 ,776 ,901 1,110
Age -,002 ,007 -,026 -,364 ,716 ,853 1,173
Position d_2 -,470 ,147 -,287 -3,204 ,002 ,531 1,884
Position d_3 -,209 ,141 -,124 -1,487 ,138 ,614 1,629
Position d_4 -,028 ,208 -,010 -,134 ,894 ,758 1,319
Position d_5 -,264 ,172 -,124 -1,533 ,127 ,649 1,542
bfieC -,002 ,111 -,001 -,016 ,987 ,690 1,449
bfiaC ,162 ,124 ,092 1,302 ,194 ,864 1,157
bficC ,028 ,120 ,017 ,233 ,816 ,848 1,179
bfinC -,282 ,110 -,202 -2,564 ,011 ,687 1,455
bfioC -,034 ,113 -,021 -,300 ,765 ,893 1,120
TWPFColC ,166 ,065 ,176 2,545 ,012 ,893 1,120
3 (Constant) 4,058 ,303 13,392 ,000
Gender ,033 ,137 ,017 ,244 ,808 ,876 1,141
Age -,003 ,007 -,034 -,476 ,635 ,843 1,186
Position d_2 -,468 ,146 -,286 -3,201 ,002 ,526 1,900
Position d_3 -,199 ,140 -,118 -1,422 ,156 ,609 1,642
Position d_4 -,019 ,208 -,007 -,093 ,926 ,741 1,349
Position d_5 -,285 ,171 -,134 -1,664 ,098 ,647 1,545
bfieC -,051 ,113 -,036 -,447 ,655 ,657 1,522
bfiaC ,221 ,130 ,125 1,692 ,092 ,769 1,300
bficC ,040 ,122 ,024 ,329 ,742 ,806 1,240
bfinC -,322 ,113 -,231 -2,853 ,005 ,642 1,559
bfioC -,052 ,116 -,032 -,446 ,656 ,834 1,199
TWPFColC ,151 ,066 ,160 2,283 ,024 ,853 1,172
ColC_bfieC ,151 ,133 ,085 1,134 ,258 ,747 1,339
ColC_bfiaC ,207 ,151 ,108 1,373 ,171 ,680 1,472
ColC_bficC ,102 ,150 ,049 ,681 ,497 ,823 1,215
ColC_bfinC ,275 ,162 ,138 1,695 ,092 ,632 1,582
ColC_bfioC ,205 ,139 ,104 1,470 ,143 ,838 1,194
a. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 249
14.3.8. Personality – TWPF Learn / Work life balance
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,174a ,030 ,003 ,74413
2 ,349b ,122 ,070 ,71836
3 ,382c ,146 ,073 ,71734 2,046
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
Durbin-Watson
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,030a 1,093 6 210 ,368
2 ,092b 3,556 6 204 ,002
3 ,024c 1,116 5 199 ,353 2,046
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 3,630 6 ,605 1,093 ,368a
Residual 116,284 210 ,554
Total 119,914 216
2 Regression 14,642 12 1,220 2,364 ,007b
Residual 105,272 204 ,516
Total 119,914 216
3 Regression 17,514 17 1,030 2,002 ,013c
Residual 102,400 199 ,515
Total 119,914 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, TWPFLrnC, bfiaC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, TWPFLrnC, bfiaC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC, LrnC_bfiaC, LrnC_bfioC, LrnC_bficC, LrnC_bfieC, LrnC_bfinC d. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 250
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 3,908 ,303 12,902 ,000
Gender ,017 ,136 ,009 ,125 ,901 ,903 1,107
Age ,000 ,007 -,002 -,022 ,982 ,855 1,170
Position d_2 -,416 ,147 -,254 -2,836 ,005 ,536 1,865
Position d_3 -,175 ,142 -,104 -1,235 ,218 ,613 1,632
Position d_4 -,011 ,208 -,004 -,055 ,957 ,761 1,315
Position d_5 -,231 ,173 -,109 -1,338 ,182 ,652 1,533
bfieC ,010 ,112 ,007 ,085 ,932 ,694 1,441
bfiaC ,182 ,125 ,103 1,460 ,146 ,867 1,153
bficC ,010 ,120 ,006 ,079 ,937 ,846 1,182
bfinC -,291 ,110 -,208 -2,638 ,009 ,689 1,451
bfioC -,036 ,114 -,022 -,317 ,751 ,893 1,120
TWPFLrnC ,114 ,053 ,147 2,169 ,031 ,935 1,069
3 (Constant) 3,778 ,308 12,252 ,000
Gender ,034 ,139 ,017 ,245 ,806 ,870 1,149
Age ,003 ,007 ,029 ,400 ,689 ,823 1,215
Position d_2 -,449 ,150 -,274 -2,993 ,003 ,511 1,958
Position d_3 -,153 ,144 -,091 -1,066 ,288 ,594 1,684
Position d_4 ,020 ,211 ,007 ,094 ,925 ,737 1,357
Position d_5 -,247 ,175 -,116 -1,413 ,159 ,633 1,581
bfieC -,028 ,114 -,020 -,244 ,807 ,666 1,503
bfiaC ,179 ,126 ,101 1,420 ,157 ,844 1,185
bficC -,001 ,125 ,000 -,006 ,995 ,787 1,271
bfinC -,320 ,113 -,230 -2,844 ,005 ,659 1,518
bfioC ,002 ,115 ,001 ,018 ,986 ,863 1,158
TWPFLrnC ,124 ,056 ,160 2,216 ,028 ,828 1,208
LrnC_bfieC ,048 ,120 ,034 ,402 ,688 ,613 1,632
LrnC_bfiaC ,073 ,140 ,039 ,522 ,602 ,759 1,317
LrnC_bficC ,248 ,135 ,143 1,843 ,067 ,714 1,400
LrnC_bfinC ,145 ,121 ,104 1,202 ,231 ,571 1,752
LrnC_bfioC -,093 ,145 -,048 -,641 ,522 ,767 1,304
a. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 251
14.3.9. Personality – TWPF Focus / Productivity
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,149a ,022 -,006 ,49546
2 ,504b ,254 ,211 ,43895
3 ,519c ,270 ,207 ,43986 2,065
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,022a ,795 6 210 ,575
2 ,232b 10,593 6 204 ,000
3 ,015c ,830 5 199 ,530
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1,171 6 ,195 ,795 ,575a
Residual 51,551 210 ,245
Total 52,722 216
2 Regression 13,417 12 1,118 5,803 ,000b
Residual 39,305 204 ,193
Total 52,722 216
3 Regression 14,220 17 ,836 4,323 ,000c
Residual 38,502 199 ,193
Total 52,722 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, TWPFFocC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, TWPFFocC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC, FocC_bficC, FocC_bfioC, FocC_bfiaC, FocC_bfieC, FocC_bfinC d. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 252
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 4,225 ,187 22,621 ,000
Gender -,013 ,083 -,010 -,157 ,875 ,903 1,107
Age -,006 ,004 -,102 -1,551 ,123 ,840 1,191
Position d_2 ,000 ,090 ,000 -,004 ,997 ,535 1,869
Position d_3 -,020 ,086 -,018 -,236 ,814 ,615 1,626
Position d_4 ,068 ,127 ,037 ,532 ,595 ,758 1,319
Position d_5 ,052 ,105 ,037 ,490 ,625 ,652 1,533
bfieC ,027 ,068 ,029 ,399 ,690 ,698 1,434
bfiaC ,014 ,076 ,012 ,187 ,852 ,861 1,161
bficC ,437 ,074 ,390 5,935 ,000 ,845 1,183
bfinC -,100 ,067 -,108 -1,483 ,140 ,690 1,448
bfioC ,090 ,069 ,083 1,295 ,197 ,892 1,121
TWPFFocC ,076 ,032 ,150 2,371 ,019 ,918 1,089
3 (Constant) 4,259 ,188 22,608 ,000
Gender ,007 ,085 ,005 ,079 ,937 ,863 1,159
Age -,007 ,004 -,118 -1,769 ,078 ,827 1,209
Position d_2 ,007 ,090 ,007 ,082 ,935 ,528 1,892
Position d_3 -,005 ,087 -,004 -,057 ,954 ,610 1,640
Position d_4 ,069 ,128 ,038 ,538 ,591 ,750 1,333
Position d_5 ,041 ,108 ,029 ,376 ,707 ,625 1,599
bfieC ,024 ,070 ,025 ,339 ,735 ,665 1,503
bfiaC ,009 ,078 ,007 ,112 ,911 ,828 1,208
bficC ,419 ,075 ,375 5,580 ,000 ,814 1,229
bfinC -,116 ,069 -,125 -1,682 ,094 ,663 1,507
bfioC ,089 ,072 ,082 1,238 ,217 ,846 1,182
TWPFFocC ,089 ,033 ,175 2,668 ,008 ,850 1,177
FocC_bfieC ,025 ,065 ,028 ,379 ,705 ,691 1,448
FocC_bfiaC -,122 ,077 -,110 -1,584 ,115 ,758 1,318
FocC_bficC -,007 ,074 -,006 -,098 ,922 ,846 1,182
FocC_bfinC ,040 ,077 ,041 ,521 ,603 ,602 1,660
FocC_bfioC -,038 ,071 -,034 -,543 ,588 ,923 1,084
a. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 253
14.3.10. Personality – TWPF Socialize / Productivity
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,149a ,022 -,006 ,49546
2 ,549b ,301 ,260 ,42495
3 ,562c ,315 ,257 ,42586 2,130
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,022a ,795 6 210 ,575
2 ,279b 13,579 6 204 ,000
3 ,014c ,825 5 199 ,533
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1,171 6 ,195 ,795 ,575a
Residual 51,551 210 ,245
Total 52,722 216
2 Regression 15,884 12 1,324 7,330 ,000b
Residual 36,839 204 ,181
Total 52,722 216
3 Regression 16,631 17 ,978 5,394 ,000c
Residual 36,091 199 ,181
Total 52,722 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, TWPFSocC, bfiaC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, TWPFSocC, bfiaC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC, SocC_bficC, SocC_bfioC, SocC_bfieC, SocC_bfiaC, SocC_bfinC d. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 254
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 4,229 ,179 23,570 ,000
Gender -,006 ,081 -,004 -,070 ,944 ,902 1,108
Age -,007 ,004 -,109 -1,709 ,089 ,849 1,178
Position d_2 ,014 ,087 ,013 ,159 ,874 ,537 1,862
Position d_3 ,001 ,084 ,001 ,007 ,994 ,614 1,630
Position d_4 ,055 ,123 ,030 ,447 ,655 ,759 1,317
Position d_5 ,070 ,102 ,050 ,685 ,494 ,651 1,537
bfieC ,012 ,066 ,012 ,176 ,860 ,700 1,429
bfiaC -,015 ,074 -,013 -,205 ,838 ,866 1,155
bficC ,470 ,071 ,420 6,586 ,000 ,844 1,185
bfinC -,090 ,065 -,097 -1,379 ,169 ,690 1,450
bfioC ,141 ,068 ,130 2,078 ,039 ,876 1,141
TWPFSocC ,179 ,040 ,268 4,434 ,000 ,939 1,065
3 (Constant) 4,235 ,182 23,323 ,000
Gender ,003 ,082 ,002 ,039 ,969 ,869 1,151
Age -,007 ,004 -,108 -1,697 ,091 ,843 1,186
Position d_2 -,006 ,089 -,006 -,072 ,943 ,517 1,936
Position d_3 ,014 ,084 ,012 ,164 ,870 ,605 1,653
Position d_4 ,025 ,126 ,013 ,197 ,844 ,733 1,364
Position d_5 ,065 ,103 ,046 ,626 ,532 ,640 1,562
bfieC ,044 ,069 ,047 ,643 ,521 ,643 1,555
bfiaC -,027 ,076 -,023 -,350 ,727 ,821 1,218
bficC ,469 ,072 ,419 6,500 ,000 ,828 1,208
bfinC -,100 ,067 -,108 -1,495 ,136 ,658 1,519
bfioC ,132 ,069 ,121 1,919 ,056 ,863 1,159
TWPFSocC ,174 ,041 ,261 4,224 ,000 ,900 1,111
SocC_bfieC -,054 ,089 -,041 -,607 ,545 ,761 1,314
SocC_bfiaC -,158 ,092 -,119 -1,715 ,088 ,712 1,405
SocC_bficC -,009 ,103 -,006 -,085 ,933 ,776 1,289
SocC_bfinC -,116 ,082 -,104 -1,419 ,157 ,638 1,567
SocC_bfioC ,007 ,090 ,005 ,082 ,935 ,788 1,269
a. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 255
14.3.11. Personality – TWPF Collaborate / Productivity
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,149a ,022 -,006 ,49546
2 ,503b ,253 ,209 ,43931
3 ,505c ,255 ,192 ,44416 2,096
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,022a ,795 6 210 ,575
2 ,231b 10,519 6 204 ,000
3 ,002c ,115 5 199 ,989
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1,171 6 ,195 ,795 ,575a
Residual 51,551 210 ,245
Total 52,722 216
2 Regression 13,351 12 1,113 5,765 ,000b
Residual 39,371 204 ,193
Total 52,722 216
3 Regression 13,465 17 ,792 4,015 ,000c
Residual 39,258 199 ,197
Total 52,722 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, TWPFColC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, bfiaC, TWPFColC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC, ColC_bficC, ColC_bfioC, ColC_bfieC, ColC_bfiaC, ColC_bfinC d. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 256
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 4,202 ,186 22,621 ,000
Gender -,007 ,084 -,006 -,087 ,931 ,901 1,110
Age -,006 ,004 -,092 -1,397 ,164 ,853 1,173
Position d_2 -,010 ,090 -,009 -,106 ,915 ,531 1,884
Position d_3 -,027 ,086 -,024 -,316 ,752 ,614 1,629
Position d_4 ,068 ,127 ,037 ,537 ,592 ,758 1,319
Position d_5 ,028 ,106 ,020 ,265 ,791 ,649 1,542
bfieC ,022 ,068 ,024 ,328 ,743 ,690 1,449
bfiaC -,011 ,076 -,010 -,147 ,883 ,864 1,157
bficC ,451 ,074 ,403 6,126 ,000 ,848 1,179
bfinC -,089 ,068 -,096 -1,315 ,190 ,687 1,455
bfioC ,105 ,070 ,097 1,515 ,131 ,893 1,120
TWPFColC ,092 ,040 ,147 2,296 ,023 ,893 1,120
3 (Constant) 4,205 ,190 22,148 ,000
Gender -,006 ,086 -,005 -,074 ,941 ,876 1,141
Age -,006 ,004 -,092 -1,379 ,169 ,843 1,186
Position d_2 -,012 ,092 -,011 -,131 ,896 ,526 1,900
Position d_3 -,027 ,088 -,024 -,307 ,759 ,609 1,642
Position d_4 ,068 ,130 ,037 ,520 ,603 ,741 1,349
Position d_5 ,030 ,107 ,021 ,280 ,779 ,647 1,545
bfieC ,029 ,071 ,031 ,407 ,684 ,657 1,522
bfiaC -,019 ,082 -,016 -,227 ,820 ,769 1,300
bficC ,445 ,076 ,397 5,834 ,000 ,806 1,240
bfinC -,090 ,071 -,097 -1,268 ,206 ,642 1,559
bfioC ,103 ,073 ,095 1,413 ,159 ,834 1,199
TWPFColC ,093 ,041 ,149 2,243 ,026 ,853 1,172
ColC_bfieC -,016 ,083 -,013 -,189 ,850 ,747 1,339
ColC_bfiaC -,031 ,094 -,024 -,329 ,742 ,680 1,472
ColC_bficC -,045 ,094 -,032 -,478 ,633 ,823 1,215
ColC_bfinC -,015 ,102 -,011 -,148 ,882 ,632 1,582
ColC_bfioC -,005 ,087 -,004 -,062 ,951 ,838 1,194
a. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 257
14.3.12.A. Personality – TWPF Learn / Productivity
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,149a ,022 -,006 ,49546
2 ,522b ,272 ,229 ,43373
3 ,550c ,303 ,243 ,42978 2,087
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,022a ,795 6 210 ,575
2 ,250b 11,672 6 204 ,000
3 ,031c 1,754 5 199 ,124
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1,171 6 ,195 ,795 ,575a
Residual 51,551 210 ,245
Total 52,722 216
2 Regression 14,345 12 1,195 6,355 ,000b
Residual 38,377 204 ,188
Total 52,722 216
3 Regression 15,965 17 ,939 5,084 ,000c
Residual 36,757 199 ,185
Total 52,722 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, TWPFLrnC, bfiaC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, TWPFLrnC, bfiaC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC, LrnC_bfiaC, LrnC_bfioC, LrnC_bficC, LrnC_bfieC, LrnC_bfinC d. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 258
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
2 (Constant) 4,116 ,183 22,507 ,000
Gender -,021 ,082 -,016 -,257 ,798 ,903 1,107
Age -,004 ,004 -,066 -1,024 ,307 ,855 1,170
Position d_2 ,025 ,089 ,023 ,286 ,775 ,536 1,865
Position d_3 -,002 ,085 -,001 -,018 ,986 ,613 1,632
Position d_4 ,069 ,126 ,038 ,552 ,581 ,761 1,315
Position d_5 ,046 ,104 ,033 ,446 ,656 ,652 1,533
bfieC ,015 ,067 ,016 ,221 ,825 ,694 1,441
bfiaC ,000 ,075 ,000 ,006 ,995 ,867 1,153
bficC ,436 ,073 ,389 5,996 ,000 ,846 1,182
bfinC -,090 ,067 -,098 -1,355 ,177 ,689 1,451
bfioC ,108 ,069 ,099 1,570 ,118 ,893 1,120
TWPFLrnC ,104 ,032 ,202 3,270 ,001 ,935 1,069
3 (Constant) 4,141 ,185 22,416 ,000
Gender -,006 ,083 -,005 -,077 ,939 ,870 1,149
Age -,005 ,004 -,083 -1,265 ,207 ,823 1,215
Position d_2 ,077 ,090 ,071 ,861 ,390 ,511 1,958
Position d_3 ,009 ,086 ,008 ,101 ,920 ,594 1,684
Position d_4 ,108 ,126 ,059 ,853 ,395 ,737 1,357
Position d_5 ,054 ,105 ,039 ,519 ,604 ,633 1,581
bfieC ,027 ,068 ,029 ,399 ,690 ,666 1,503
bfiaC -,005 ,076 -,004 -,066 ,947 ,844 1,185
bficC ,399 ,075 ,357 5,344 ,000 ,787 1,271
bfinC -,078 ,067 -,084 -1,153 ,250 ,659 1,518
bfioC ,114 ,069 ,105 1,647 ,101 ,863 1,158
TWPFLrnC ,118 ,033 ,230 3,538 ,001 ,828 1,208
LrnC_bfieC ,026 ,072 ,027 ,361 ,719 ,613 1,632
LrnC_bfiaC -,012 ,084 -,010 -,142 ,887 ,759 1,317
LrnC_bficC -,166 ,081 -,144 -2,050 ,042 ,714 1,400
LrnC_bfinC -,008 ,072 -,008 -,104 ,917 ,571 1,752
LrnC_bfioC -,189 ,087 -,147 -2,180 ,030 ,767 1,304
a. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 259
14.3.12.B. Personality – TWPF Learn / Productivity (Variant B)
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,149a ,022 -,006 ,49546
2 ,522b ,272 ,229 ,43373
3 ,550c ,302 ,254 ,42681 2,080
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,022a ,795 6 210 ,575
2 ,250b 11,672 6 204 ,000
3 ,030c 4,336 2 202 ,014
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1,171 6 ,195 ,795 ,575a
Residual 51,551 210 ,245
Total 52,722 216
2 Regression 14,345 12 1,195 6,355 ,000b
Residual 38,377 204 ,188
Total 52,722 216
3 Regression 15,925 14 1,137 6,244 ,000c
Residual 36,797 202 ,182
Total 52,722 216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, TWPFLrnC, bfiaC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC c. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, bfioC, TWPFLrnC, bfiaC, bficC, bfieC, bfinC, LrnC_bfioC, LrnC_bficC d. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 260
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
3 (Constant) 4,141 ,181 22,832 ,000
Gender -,006 ,081 -,005 -,077 ,939 ,899 1,112
Age -,005 ,004 -,081 -1,263 ,208 ,840 1,191
Position d_2 ,078 ,089 ,072 ,872 ,384 ,513 1,949
Position d_3 ,004 ,084 ,004 ,048 ,962 ,611 1,636
Position d_4 ,105 ,124 ,057 ,841 ,402 ,752 1,330
Position d_5 ,052 ,103 ,037 ,510 ,610 ,650 1,539
bfieC ,027 ,066 ,029 ,404 ,687 ,690 1,448
bfiaC -,002 ,074 -,002 -,032 ,974 ,865 1,156
bficC ,404 ,072 ,361 5,576 ,000 ,826 1,210
bfinC -,074 ,066 -,080 -1,123 ,263 ,682 1,466
bfioC ,116 ,068 ,107 1,698 ,091 ,871 1,149
TWPFLrnC ,114 ,032 ,222 3,607 ,000 ,913 1,095
LrnC_bficC -,157 ,072 -,136 -2,186 ,030 ,891 1,122
LrnC_bfioC -,178 ,079 -,139 -2,242 ,026 ,905 1,105
a. Dependent Variable: Productivity
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 261
Appendix 15 – Regression Output Sub-model 3
15.1. Workplace design & Freedom work location – Task Workplace
Fit
15.1.1. Workplace design & Freedom work location – TWPF Focus
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,286a ,082 ,051 ,95279
2 ,499b ,249 ,196 ,87694 1,865
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,082a 2,643 7 207 ,012
2 ,167b 6,337 7 200 ,000
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 16,797 7 2,400 2,643 ,012a
Residual 187,918 207 ,908
Total 204,715 214
2 Regression 50,912 14 3,637 4,729 ,000b
Residual 153,803 200 ,769
Total 204,715 214
a. Predictors: (Constant), Location dependency, Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Location dependency, Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, Room Sharing d_3, Room Sharing d_5, Backup Place, Room Sharing d_2, Own Work Place, Freedom work location, Room Sharing d_4 c. Dependent Variable: TWPF Focus
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 262
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 3,086 ,413 7,468 ,000
Gender -,064 ,177 -,025 -,361 ,719 ,946 1,057
Age ,021 ,009 ,175 2,458 ,015 ,873 1,145
Position d_2 ,366 ,187 ,171 1,954 ,052 ,582 1,719
Position d_3 ,118 ,190 ,054 ,624 ,533 ,602 1,662
Position d_4 ,330 ,277 ,089 1,191 ,235 ,800 1,250
Position d_5 ,000 ,224 ,000 -,001 ,999 ,683 1,465
Location dependency -,229 ,079 -,199 -2,877 ,004 ,926 1,080
2 (Constant) 3,241 ,548 5,910 ,000
Gender -,042 ,169 -,016 -,249 ,804 ,884 1,132
Age ,018 ,008 ,148 2,230 ,027 ,858 1,165
Position d_2 -,076 ,196 -,036 -,389 ,698 ,449 2,230
Position d_3 -,089 ,187 -,040 -,475 ,635 ,527 1,898
Position d_4 ,203 ,265 ,054 ,766 ,445 ,741 1,349
Position d_5 -,132 ,213 -,047 -,617 ,538 ,638 1,568
Location dependency -,135 ,084 -,117 -1,606 ,110 ,706 1,416
Room Sharing d_2 -,442 ,188 -,178 -2,345 ,020 ,653 1,531
Room Sharing d_3 -,892 ,192 -,341 -4,656 ,000 ,699 1,431
Room Sharing d_4 -1,032 ,227 -,399 -4,548 ,000 ,487 2,052
Room Sharing d_5 -,912 ,233 -,319 -3,916 ,000 ,565 1,771
Backup Place ,196 ,155 ,085 1,267 ,207 ,825 1,212
Own Work Place -,210 ,163 -,101 -1,286 ,200 ,603 1,658
Freedom work
location
,074 ,029 ,186 2,546 ,012 ,702 1,425
a. Dependent Variable: TWPF Focus
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 263
15.1.2. Workplace design & Freedom work location – TWPF Socialize
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,149a ,022 -,011 ,74227
2 ,389b ,151 ,092 ,70346 1,930
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,022a ,670 7 207 ,697
2 ,129b 4,353 7 200 ,000
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 2,585 7 ,369 ,670 ,697a
Residual 114,048 207 ,551
Total 116,634 214
2 Regression 17,663 14 1,262 2,549 ,002b
Residual 98,971 200 ,495
Total 116,634 214
a. Predictors: (Constant), Location dependency, Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Location dependency, Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, Room Sharing d_3, Room Sharing d_5, Backup Place, Room Sharing d_2, Own Work Place, Freedom work location, Room Sharing d_4 c. Dependent Variable: TWPF Socialize
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 264
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 3,309 ,322 10,279 ,000
Gender -,055 ,138 -,028 -,402 ,688 ,946 1,057
Age ,006 ,007 ,070 ,946 ,345 ,873 1,145
Position d_2 ,069 ,146 ,042 ,471 ,638 ,582 1,719
Position d_3 -,101 ,148 -,061 -,686 ,494 ,602 1,662
Position d_4 ,136 ,216 ,048 ,629 ,530 ,800 1,250
Position d_5 -,050 ,174 -,024 -,287 ,774 ,683 1,465
Location dependency ,043 ,062 ,049 ,690 ,491 ,926 1,080
2 (Constant) 2,265 ,440 5,149 ,000
Gender -,097 ,135 -,049 -,714 ,476 ,884 1,132
Age ,008 ,006 ,081 1,157 ,249 ,858 1,165
Position d_2 ,002 ,157 ,001 ,012 ,990 ,449 2,230
Position d_3 -,063 ,150 -,038 -,424 ,672 ,527 1,898
Position d_4 ,167 ,212 ,060 ,789 ,431 ,741 1,349
Position d_5 ,012 ,171 ,006 ,070 ,944 ,638 1,568
Location dependency ,141 ,067 ,163 2,100 ,037 ,706 1,416
Room Sharing d_2 -,211 ,151 -,113 -1,398 ,164 ,653 1,531
Room Sharing d_3 -,187 ,154 -,095 -1,214 ,226 ,699 1,431
Room Sharing d_4 ,209 ,182 ,107 1,149 ,252 ,487 2,052
Room Sharing d_5 -,013 ,187 -,006 -,071 ,943 ,565 1,771
Backup Place ,351 ,124 ,202 2,824 ,005 ,825 1,212
Own Work Place ,206 ,131 ,132 1,571 ,118 ,603 1,658
Freedom work
location
,059 ,023 ,196 2,526 ,012 ,702 1,425
a. Dependent Variable: TWPF Socialize
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 265
15.1.3. Workplace design & Freedom work location – TWPF Collaborate
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,238a ,057 ,025 ,77487
2 ,335b ,112 ,050 ,76491 2,011
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,057a 1,781 7 207 ,093
2 ,055b 1,775 7 200 ,094
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 7,485 7 1,069 1,781 ,093a
Residual 124,289 207 ,600
Total 131,775 214
2 Regression 14,756 14 1,054 1,801 ,040b
Residual 117,018 200 ,585
Total 131,775 214
a. Predictors: (Constant), Location dependency, Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Location dependency, Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, Room Sharing d_3, Room Sharing d_5, Backup Place, Room Sharing d_2, Own Work Place, Freedom work location, Room Sharing d_4 c. Dependent Variable: TWPF Collaborate
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 266
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 3,447 ,336 10,258 ,000
Gender -,124 ,144 -,060 -,861 ,390 ,946 1,057
Age ,007 ,007 ,071 ,978 ,329 ,873 1,145
Position d_2 ,410 ,152 ,238 2,692 ,008 ,582 1,719
Position d_3 ,129 ,154 ,073 ,836 ,404 ,602 1,662
Position d_4 ,266 ,225 ,089 1,181 ,239 ,800 1,250
Position d_5 ,312 ,182 ,140 1,713 ,088 ,683 1,465
Location
dependency
-,098 ,065 -,106 -1,513 ,132 ,926 1,080
2 (Constant) 3,076 ,478 6,431 ,000
Gender -,111 ,147 -,054 -,757 ,450 ,884 1,132
Age ,006 ,007 ,064 ,894 ,372 ,858 1,165
Position d_2 ,222 ,171 ,129 1,295 ,197 ,449 2,230
Position d_3 ,058 ,163 ,032 ,354 ,724 ,527 1,898
Position d_4 ,195 ,231 ,065 ,844 ,400 ,741 1,349
Position d_5 ,285 ,186 ,128 1,532 ,127 ,638 1,568
Location
dependency
-,041 ,073 -,044 -,556 ,579 ,706 1,416
Room Sharing d_2 -,255 ,164 -,128 -1,552 ,122 ,653 1,531
Room Sharing d_3 -,227 ,167 -,108 -1,358 ,176 ,699 1,431
Room Sharing d_4 -,244 ,198 -,118 -1,233 ,219 ,487 2,052
Room Sharing d_5 -,071 ,203 -,031 -,349 ,727 ,565 1,771
Backup Place ,234 ,135 ,127 1,731 ,085 ,825 1,212
Own Work Place ,109 ,142 ,066 ,765 ,445 ,603 1,658
Freedom work
location
,034 ,026 ,107 1,341 ,181 ,702 1,425
a. Dependent Variable: TWPF Collaborate
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 267
15.1.4. Workplace design & Freedom work location – TWPF Learn
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,233a ,054 ,022 ,94425
2 ,362b ,131 ,070 ,92079 2,035
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,054a 1,692 7 207 ,112
2 ,077b 2,526 7 200 ,016
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 10,562 7 1,509 1,692 ,112a
Residual 184,564 207 ,892
Total 195,127 214
2 Regression 25,555 14 1,825 2,153 ,011b
Residual 169,572 200 ,848
Total 195,127 214
a. Predictors: (Constant), Location dependency, Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Location dependency, Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, Room Sharing d_3, Room Sharing d_5, Backup Place, Room Sharing d_2, Own Work Place, Freedom work location, Room Sharing d_4 c. Dependent Variable: TWPF Learn
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 268
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 4,073 ,410 9,946 ,000
Gender ,025 ,175 ,010 ,140 ,889 ,946 1,057
Age -,006 ,009 -,053 -,739 ,461 ,873 1,145
Position d_2 ,091 ,185 ,043 ,490 ,625 ,582 1,719
Position d_3 -,079 ,188 -,037 -,420 ,675 ,602 1,662
Position d_4 ,209 ,274 ,058 ,761 ,447 ,800 1,250
Position d_5 ,107 ,222 ,039 ,482 ,630 ,683 1,465
Location dependency -,227 ,079 -,202 -2,876 ,004 ,926 1,080
2 (Constant) 3,907 ,576 6,785 ,000
Gender ,035 ,177 ,014 ,196 ,845 ,884 1,132
Age -,009 ,008 -,073 -1,033 ,303 ,858 1,165
Position d_2 -,178 ,206 -,085 -,865 ,388 ,449 2,230
Position d_3 -,167 ,196 -,077 -,852 ,395 ,527 1,898
Position d_4 ,158 ,278 ,044 ,569 ,570 ,741 1,349
Position d_5 ,034 ,224 ,013 ,154 ,878 ,638 1,568
Location dependency -,129 ,088 -,115 -1,466 ,144 ,706 1,416
Room Sharing d_2 -,477 ,198 -,197 -2,411 ,017 ,653 1,531
Room Sharing d_3 -,339 ,201 -,133 -1,687 ,093 ,699 1,431
Room Sharing d_4 -,605 ,238 -,240 -2,537 ,012 ,487 2,052
Room Sharing d_5 -,307 ,245 -,110 -1,254 ,211 ,565 1,771
Backup Place ,241 ,163 ,108 1,484 ,139 ,825 1,212
Own Work Place -,143 ,171 -,071 -,834 ,405 ,603 1,658
Freedom work
location
,053 ,031 ,136 1,730 ,085 ,702 1,425
a. Dependent Variable: TWPF Learn
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 269
15.2.1. Workplace design & Freedom work location – Flex-place
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,471a ,222 ,195 26,48324
2 ,555b ,308 ,257 25,43303 2,001
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,222a 8,082 7 198 ,000
2 ,086b 3,384 7 191 ,002
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 39676,896 7 5668,128 8,082 ,000a
Residual 138869,652 198 701,362
Total 178546,549 205
2 Regression 55000,331 14 3928,595 6,074 ,000b
Residual 123546,217 191 646,839
Total 178546,549 205
a. Predictors: (Constant), Location dependency, Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Location dependency, Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, Room Sharing d_3, Room Sharing d_5, Backup Place, Room Sharing d_2, Own Work Place, Freedom work location, Room Sharing d_4 c. Dependent Variable: Flexplace
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 270
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 69,784 11,521 6,057 ,000
Gender ,384 5,077 ,005 ,076 ,940 ,937 1,068
Age ,044 ,245 ,012 ,178 ,859 ,871 1,148
Position d_2 -,862 5,299 -,013 -,163 ,871 ,587 1,703
Position d_3 -1,763 5,416 -,026 -,325 ,745 ,615 1,626
Position d_4 -4,403 7,715 -,040 -,571 ,569 ,798 1,252
Position d_5 24,959 6,255 ,303 3,990 ,000 ,681 1,469
Location dependency -11,613 2,255 -,337 -5,150 ,000 ,917 1,091
2 (Constant) 65,554 16,021 4,092 ,000
Gender -2,158 5,039 -,028 -,428 ,669 ,877 1,141
Age ,007 ,237 ,002 ,029 ,977 ,855 1,170
Position d_2 4,144 5,780 ,064 ,717 ,474 ,455 2,197
Position d_3 2,270 5,513 ,033 ,412 ,681 ,548 1,826
Position d_4 1,967 7,709 ,018 ,255 ,799 ,737 1,356
Position d_5 25,949 6,214 ,315 4,176 ,000 ,636 1,572
Location dependency -8,634 2,460 -,251 -3,509 ,001 ,710 1,408
Room Sharing d_2 3,113 5,668 ,041 ,549 ,584 ,663 1,508
Room Sharing d_3 5,904 5,606 ,076 1,053 ,294 ,693 1,443
Room Sharing d_4 -1,623 6,664 -,021 -,243 ,808 ,480 2,084
Room Sharing d_5 -10,982 6,982 -,126 -1,573 ,117 ,566 1,768
Backup Place -2,187 4,556 -,031 -,480 ,632 ,846 1,182
Own Work Place -18,555 4,818 -,299 -3,851 ,000 ,603 1,659
Freedom work
location
1,500 ,853 ,126 1,759 ,080 ,711 1,406
a. Dependent Variable: Flexplace
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 271
15.3.1. Freedom work location – Reflection on choice of location
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,338a ,114 ,084 ,70121
2 ,396b ,157 ,124 ,68586 1,783
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,114a 3,812 7 207 ,001
2 ,042b 10,367 1 206 ,001
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 13,122 7 1,875 3,812 ,001a
Residual 101,781 207 ,492
Total 114,902 214
2 Regression 17,998 8 2,250 4,783 ,000b
Residual 96,904 206 ,470
Total 114,902 214
a. Predictors: (Constant), Location dependency, Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Location dependency, Position d_5, Position d_4, Gender, Age , Position d_3, Position d_2, Freedom work location c. Dependent Variable: Refl. location
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 272
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 4,238 ,304 13,935 ,000
Gender ,256 ,130 ,132 1,965 ,051 ,946 1,057
Age -,003 ,006 -,028 -,398 ,691 ,873 1,145
Position d_2 -,074 ,138 -,046 -,536 ,592 ,582 1,719
Position d_3 ,001 ,140 ,001 ,010 ,992 ,602 1,662
Position d_4 -,180 ,204 -,065 -,885 ,377 ,800 1,250
Position d_5 -,071 ,165 -,034 -,433 ,666 ,683 1,465
Location dependency -,240 ,059 -,279 -4,103 ,000 ,926 1,080
2 (Constant) 3,533 ,369 9,565 ,000
Gender ,201 ,129 ,104 1,561 ,120 ,929 1,077
Age -,002 ,006 -,022 -,321 ,749 ,872 1,146
Position d_2 -,125 ,136 -,078 -,923 ,357 ,574 1,743
Position d_3 -,025 ,137 -,015 -,186 ,853 ,600 1,668
Position d_4 -,194 ,199 -,070 -,975 ,331 ,800 1,250
Position d_5 -,100 ,161 -,048 -,618 ,537 ,681 1,469
Location dependency -,142 ,065 -,165 -2,185 ,030 ,720 1,388
Freedom work
location
,072 ,022 ,239 3,220 ,001 ,744 1,344
a. Dependent Variable: Refl. location
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 273
15.4.1. Freedom working hours – Flex-time
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,307a ,094 ,063 13,14619
2 ,335b ,112 ,078 13,04384 2,124
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,094a 3,054 7 206 ,004
2 ,018b 4,245 1 205 ,041
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 3694,620 7 527,803 3,054 ,004a
Residual 35601,376 206 172,822
Total 39295,996 213
2 Regression 4416,921 8 552,115 3,245 ,002b
Residual 34879,075 205 170,142
Total 39295,996 213
a. Predictors: (Constant), Time dependency, Position d_3, Gender, Position d_4, Age , Position d_5, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Time dependency, Position d_3, Gender, Position d_4, Age , Position d_5, Position d_2, Freedom working hours c. Dependent Variable: Flextime
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 274
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 23,884 6,015 3,971 ,000
Gender ,793 2,432 ,022 ,326 ,745 ,955 1,047
Age ,031 ,120 ,018 ,261 ,794 ,880 1,136
Position d_2 7,838 2,562 ,264 3,060 ,003 ,592 1,688
Position d_3 5,169 2,607 ,168 1,983 ,049 ,615 1,626
Position d_4 ,160 3,734 ,003 ,043 ,966 ,792 1,263
Position d_5 5,712 3,122 ,146 1,829 ,069 ,687 1,455
Time dependency -3,991 1,217 -,221 -3,279 ,001 ,965 1,037
2 (Constant) 12,240 8,219 1,489 ,138
Gender ,236 2,428 ,007 ,097 ,923 ,943 1,060
Age ,036 ,119 ,021 ,306 ,760 ,880 1,137
Position d_2 7,800 2,542 ,262 3,069 ,002 ,592 1,688
Position d_3 5,274 2,587 ,171 2,038 ,043 ,615 1,626
Position d_4 ,485 3,708 ,010 ,131 ,896 ,791 1,265
Position d_5 5,778 3,098 ,148 1,865 ,064 ,687 1,455
Time dependency -2,783 1,343 -,154 -2,073 ,039 ,780 1,281
Freedom working
hours
1,149 ,558 ,153 2,060 ,041 ,787 1,270
a. Dependent Variable: Flextime
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 275
15.5.1. Freedom working hours – Reflection on working hours and schedule
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,345a ,119 ,089 ,75134
2 ,434b ,188 ,157 ,72286 1,971
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,119a 3,993 7 207 ,000
2 ,069b 17,632 1 206 ,000
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 15,780 7 2,254 3,993 ,000a
Residual 116,853 207 ,565
Total 132,633 214
2 Regression 24,993 8 3,124 5,979 ,000b
Residual 107,640 206 ,523
Total 132,633 214
a. Predictors: (Constant), Time dependency, Position d_3, Gender, Position d_4, Age , Position d_5, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Time dependency, Position d_3, Gender, Position d_4, Age , Position d_5, Position d_2, Freedom working hours c. Dependent Variable: Refl. time
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 276
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 4,782 ,344 13,912 ,000
Gender ,268 ,139 ,129 1,931 ,055 ,955 1,047
Age -,019 ,007 -,199 -2,860 ,005 ,884 1,132
Position d_2 -,280 ,146 -,162 -1,912 ,057 ,591 1,691
Position d_3 -,243 ,149 -,136 -1,630 ,105 ,614 1,628
Position d_4 -,023 ,213 -,008 -,110 ,913 ,792 1,263
Position d_5 ,017 ,176 ,007 ,095 ,924 ,685 1,460
Time dependency -,141 ,069 -,135 -2,040 ,043 ,966 1,035
2 (Constant) 3,492 ,451 7,739 ,000
Gender ,202 ,135 ,097 1,504 ,134 ,942 1,061
Age -,019 ,007 -,196 -2,941 ,004 ,884 1,132
Position d_2 -,284 ,141 -,164 -2,015 ,045 ,591 1,691
Position d_3 -,233 ,143 -,130 -1,624 ,106 ,614 1,629
Position d_4 ,014 ,206 ,005 ,067 ,947 ,790 1,265
Position d_5 ,044 ,170 ,020 ,262 ,794 ,684 1,462
Time dependency -,002 ,074 -,001 -,020 ,984 ,773 1,293
Freedom working
hours
,128 ,030 ,299 4,199 ,000 ,779 1,284
a. Dependent Variable: Refl. time
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 277
15.6.1. Telework facilitation rate – Reflection on media use
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 ,173a ,030 ,002 ,62488
2 ,177b ,031 -,001 ,62591 1,968
Model Summary
Model
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 ,030a 1,078 6 209 ,377
2 ,001b ,316 1 208 ,575
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 2,525 6 ,421 1,078 ,377a
Residual 81,610 209 ,390
Total 84,134 215
2 Regression 2,648 7 ,378 ,966 ,457b
Residual 81,486 208 ,392
Total 84,134 215
a. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Age , Gender, Position d_3, Position d_2 b. Predictors: (Constant), Position d_5, Position d_4, Age , Gender, Position d_3, Position d_2, Telework facilitation c. Dependent Variable: Refl. media
The Impact of Personality and National Culture on The New Ways of Working Concept 278
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 3,992 ,260 15,329 ,000
Gender -,012 ,115 -,007 -,106 ,916 ,966 1,035
Age -,009 ,006 -,110 -1,526 ,129 ,895 1,118
Position d_2 ,094 ,121 ,069 ,781 ,435 ,601 1,664
Position d_3 -,086 ,123 -,060 -,698 ,486 ,620 1,614
Position d_4 -,017 ,181 -,007 -,094 ,925 ,805 1,242
Position d_5 ,242 ,146 ,136 1,658 ,099 ,691 1,448
2 (Constant) 3,885 ,323 12,044 ,000
Gender -,018 ,115 -,011 -,156 ,876 ,959 1,043
Age -,008 ,006 -,106 -1,457 ,147 ,885 1,130
Position d_2 ,094 ,121 ,069 ,781 ,436 ,601 1,664
Position d_3 -,082 ,123 -,058 -,670 ,503 ,618 1,617
Position d_4 -,022 ,181 -,009 -,119 ,906 ,804 1,244
Position d_5 ,243 ,146 ,136 1,660 ,098 ,691 1,448
Telework
facilitation
,012 ,022 ,039 ,562 ,575 ,975 1,026
a. Dependent Variable: Refl. media