| Literature DB >> 30100771 |
Muhammad Aamir Shafique Khan1, Du Jianguo1, Ahmed Abdul Hameed2, Tehseen Ul Mushtaq2, Muhammad Usman2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study is twofold. First, we examined the relationship between workplace romance and employee job performance and tested the role of affective commitment foci - namely, affective coworker commitment, affective supervisor commitment, and affective organizational commitment - as parallel mediators in the relationship between workplace romance and employee job performance. Second, we tested the moderating role of culture on the interrelationships between workplace romance, affective commitment foci, and employee job performance.Entities:
Keywords: Pakistan; People’s Republic of China; affective commitment; cross-cultural comparison; health sector; job performance; paramedical staff; workplace romance
Year: 2018 PMID: 30100771 PMCID: PMC6064156 DOI: 10.2147/PRBM.S168542
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Psychol Res Behav Manag ISSN: 1179-1578
Scale items
| WR1: I want my relationship with my colleague to last for a very long time. |
| WR2: I am committed to maintaining my relationship with my colleague. |
| WR3: I would not feel very upset if my relationship with my colleague were to end in the near future (reverse coded). |
| WR4: It is likely that I will date someone other than my current partner at workplace within the next year (reverse coded). |
| WR5: I feel much attached to our relationship – very strongly linked to my colleague. |
| WR6: I want my relationship with my colleague to last forever. |
| WR7: I am oriented toward the long-term future of my relationship with my colleague. |
| AOC1: I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization. |
| AOC2: I do not feel emotionally attached to this organization (reverse coded). |
| AOC3: I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own. |
| AOC4: I do not feel a strong sense of belongingness to my organization (reverse coded). |
| AOC5: This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me. |
| JP1: How do you evaluate his/her work effort? |
| JP2: How do you evaluate the quantity of his/her work? |
| JP3: How do you evaluate the quality of his/her work? |
| JP4: How do you evaluate his/her overall performance? |
Note:
We replaced the term “organization” with “supervisor” and “coworkers” to measure affective commitment with supervisor and coworkers, respectively.
Means and correlations
| Construct | Means | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. WR | 3.54 | 0.91 | ||||||||
| 2. ACC | 3.71 | 0.86 | 0.18 | |||||||
| 3. ASC | 3.69 | 0.88 | 0.20 | 0.36 | ||||||
| 4. AOC | 3.70 | 0.87 | 0.17 | 0.40 | 0.40 | |||||
| 5. JP | 3.64 | 0.88 | 0.20 | 0.42 | 0.42 | 0.59 | ||||
| 6. Culture | 1.48 | 0.50 | −0.65 | −0.09 | −0.15 | −0.13 | −0.19 | |||
| 7. Gender | 1.45 | 0.50 | −0.02 | 0.02 | 0.002 | −0.04 | 0.02 | 0.10 | ||
| 8. Age | 35.80 | 6.68 | 0.18 | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.11 | −17 | 0.06 | |
| 9. Experience | 6.64 | 4.83 | 0.10 .009 | 0.03 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.11 | −0.04 | 0.050 | 0.88 |
Note: n=312,
p<0.05,
p<0.01 level (two-tailed).
Abbreviations: WR, workplace romance; ACC, affective colleague commitment; ASC, affective supervisor commitment; AOC, affective organizational commitment; JP, job performance.
Figure 1Structural Model 2 – Mediation model: this model shows the mediation of the relationship between work romance and employee job performance through three foci of affective commitment.
Abbreviations: WR, workplace romance; ACC, affective colleague commitment; ASC, affective supervisor commitment; AOC, affective organizational commitment; JP, job performance.
Discriminant validity, convergent validity, and internal consistency
| Construct overall | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | CR | AVE | MSV | ASV | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. WR | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.68 | 0.05 | 0.04 | |||||
| 2. ACC | 0.19 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.62 | 0.22 | 0.15 | ||||
| 3. ASC | 0.21 | 0.39 | 0.89 | 0.86 | 0.61 | 0.20 | 0.14 | |||
| 4. AOC | 0.17 | 0.44 | 0.40 | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.66 | 0.37 | 0.19 | ||
| 5. JP | 0.22 | 0.47 | 0.45 | 0.61 | 0.87 | 0.88 | 0.64 | 0.37 | 0.21 | |
| Pakistan | ||||||||||
| 1. WR | 0.86 | 0.50 | 0.02 | 0.01 | ||||||
| 2. ACC | 0.06 | 0.88 | 0.60 | 0.24 | 0.12 | |||||
| 3. ASC | 0.15 | 0.37 | 0.85 | 0.59 | 0.17 | 0.11 | ||||
| 4. AOC | 0.03 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.90 | 0.69 | 0.21 | 0.11 | |||
| 5. JP | 0.05 | 0.49 | 0.41 | 0.46 | 0.86 | 0.60 | 0.24 | 0.16 | ||
| People’s Republic of China | ||||||||||
| 1. WR | 0.90 | 0.59 | 0.06 | 0.04 | ||||||
| 2. ACC | 0.24 | 0.89 | 0.63 | 0.27 | 0.17 | |||||
| 3. ASC | 0.14 | 0.37 | 0.87 | 0.64 | 0.21 | 0.14 | ||||
| 4. AOC | 0.19 | 0.52 | 0.43 | 0.87 | 0.63 | 0.56 | 0.26 | |||
| 5. JP | 0.16 | 0.45 | 0.46 | 0.75 | 0.89 | 0.67 | 0.56 | 0.25 | ||
Note:
Abbreviations: WR, workplace romance; ACC, affective colleague commitment; ASC, affective supervisor commitment; AOC, affective organizational commitment; JP, job performance; AVE, average variance extracted; MSV, maximum variance shared; ASV, average variance shared; CR, composite reliability; α, Cronbach’s alpha.
Direct and indirect effects and 95% CIs
| Parameter | Estimate | Lower | Upper |
|---|---|---|---|
| Model 2 – Mediation Model | |||
| Direct effects | |||
| ACC <--- WR | 0.201 | 0.058 | 0.354 |
| ASC <--- WR | 0.221 | 0.083 | 0.363 |
| AOC <--- WR | 0.188 | 0.052 | 0.327 |
| JP <----- WR | 0.055 | −0.057 | 0.172 |
| JP <--- ACC | 0.230 | 0.103 | 0.366 |
| JP <--- ASC | 0.216 | 0.078 | 0.343 |
| JP <--- AOC | 0.481 | 0.331 | 0.616 |
| Indirect effects | |||
| JP <-- ACC, ASC, AOC <-- WR | 0.184 | 0.078 | 0.286 |
Note:
Empirical 95% CI does not overlap with zero.
Abbreviations: WR, workplace romance; ACC, affective colleague commitment; ASC, affective supervisor commitment; AOC, affective organizational commitment; JP, job performance.
Direct and indirect effects and 95% CIs
| Parameter | Estimate | Lower | Upper |
|---|---|---|---|
| Moderated mediation – Pakistan | |||
| Direct effects | |||
| ACC <--- WR | 0.074 | −0.107 | 0.264 |
| ASC <--- WR | 0.151 | −0.052 | 0.378 |
| AOC <--- WR | 0.046 | −0.136 | 0.214 |
| JP <------ WR | −0.014 | −0.258 | 0.277 |
| JP <----- ACC | 0.366 | 0.170 | 0.561 |
| JP <---- --ASC | 0.211 | 0.012 | 0.438 |
| JP <----- AOC | 0.316 | 0.129 | 0.531 |
| Indirect effects | |||
| JP <-- ACC, ASC, AOC <-- WR | 0.075 | −0.036 | 0.220 |
| Moderated mediation: People’s Republic of China | |||
| Direct effects | |||
| ACC <--- WR | 0.255 | 0.061 | 0.450 |
| ASC <--- WR | 0.157 | −0.045 | 0.350 |
| AOC <--- WR | 0.217 | 0.021 | 0.419 |
| JP <------ WR | −0.019 | −0.176 | 0.135 |
| JP <----- ACC | 0.105 | −0.053 | 0.295 |
| JP <----- ASC | 0.198 | 0.020 | 0.376 |
| JP <--- --AOC | 0.685 | 0.503 | 0.827 |
| Indirect effects | |||
| JP <-- ACC, ASC, AOC <-- WR | 0.207 | 0.025 | 0.395 |
Note:
Empirical 95% CI does not overlap with zero.
Abbreviations: WR, workplace romance; ACC, affective colleague commitment; ASC, affective supervisor commitment; AOC, affective organizational commitment; JP, job performance.