Psychosocial Work Conditions are an important part of interpersonal and social interactions. Definitively, the psychosocial working environment is a summative term that covers the work of an individual and its overall impact on employee, the interaction among people in the workplace, external and internal organizational conditions, and organizational culture. It pertains to the social and interpersonal interactions that determine employee development and behavior in the workplace. A positive and supportive psychosocial work environment is beneficial to fostering employee satisfaction in an occupational setup (Jacobs, Hellman, Markowitz, & Wuest, 2013) and, consequently, employee productivity. Effective communication and feedback mechanism between novel employees and their equals, for instance, is crucial for cultivating the integration of interpersonal support and work routine among employees. Such integration improves the efficiency of work processes as well as the well-being of employees (Awan & Tahir, 2015). Donald et al. (2005) concluded that psychological well-being and commitment to the organization were strong predictors of performance.
People’s characteristics and psychosocial environments are innately interconnected through shared impacts and perceptions instead of being separated into diverse constructs. Through their experiences, individuals influence others around them in the workplace though behaviors that resonate with their unique perceptions of the situation. For example, affable individuals foster warm reciprocal relations whereas aggressive individuals foster argumentative communication and tend to be highly competitive in nature (Sadler & Woody, 2003). Depending on the context, individuals with both affable and aggressive traits have an influence on the environment in which they work. However, many factors influence the working conditions in an organization. Interpersonal communication and competitiveness, for instance, are major influencers of behavior within an organizational environment. Every function and activity in the workplace includes some form of communication – whether direct or indirect. Consequently, most businesses put high importance on interpersonal communication.
This study seeks to examine the correlation between individual competitiveness and interpersonal communication and how they interact to influence work conditions. To achieve this objective, it is hypothesized that individuals who competently use the communion approach to communication perceive work conditions to be more positive and enabling compared to those who are less humble. Secondly, it is hypothesized that individuals who are comparatively less competent and use the agency approach to communication perceive work conditions to be more positive compared to those who are humbler.
Most businesses fail to recognize the significance of quality working environment as a determinant of employee motivation and job satisfaction and, thus, face a wide range of challenges related to employee turnover, productivity, and commitment to the underlying organizational goals cause. Ideally, such organizations are inherently week and unable to introduce lean products and services to create a competitive edge (Aiken, Clarke, & Sloane, 2002). Employees are an essential element of the process of achieving the vision and mission of an organization. It is inherently imperative for employees to meet an organization’s performance criteria to ensure both efficiency and the quality of work. Achieving this goal requires employees to have an ideal working environment that enables them to work autonomously, freely, and interactively without problems that may undermine their ability to maximize their potentials and perform well.
Many fundamental work factors are crucial for determining satisfaction as well as how employees experience the value or significance of their work. Factors such as autonomy of work, interesting tasks, and relationships with colleagues impart the most positive impact on the attractiveness of work among employees. The management practices, protocols, and operational procedures used in the organization have significant impacts on the level of significance employees associate with their work. The creation of an ideal work environment in an organization affords valuable opportunities for increasing employee motivation, commitment, and productivity. Better work conditions are profitable (Nuse, 2016).
The achievement of business goals hinges mainly on the nature of the interactions between the employees. Therefore, a favorable working environment is critical to the performance of employees. An ideal working environment includes key factors such as job security, motivation, employee safety, good relations among employees, incentives for recognizing good performance, and inclusion in the decision-making process (Raziq & Maulabakhsh, 2015). There are many reasons for businesses to improve their work environments including fostering employee pride and belief in the organization, preventing a host of negative consequences, keeping costs low by improving the level of happiness among employees, and building a supportive culture that promotes employee and organizational growth.
Employee competition in the workplace is an innate element of most workplaces (Steinhage, Cable, & Wardley, 2017). Whether openly or otherwise, most organizations create and promote a dynamic in which workers compete among themselves for bonuses, promotions, and recognition. Therefore, competition is an inevitable element of work because every employee endeavors to outperform other employees for rewards and recognition. Ultimately, an employee’s personal ambitions and competitiveness suffice as fundamental drivers of performance. Notably, such competition among employees presents many benefits and challenges to organizations.
On one hand, a competitive work environment offers some competitive advantages. Some research studies have suggested that competition can serve as a source of motivation for employees (Kilduff, Elfenbein, & Staw, 2017), making them more determined and dedicated to achieve the desired results (Scott & Cherrington, 1974). The present literature also suggests that competition augments psychological and physiological activation that prepares the mind and body for increased input and effort and bolsters performance. Therefore, apart from fostering employee motivation and development, a healthy workplace competition helps employees increase efficiency, productivity, focus, and productivity.
The presence of several contenders aiming for similar achievements and goals such as salary increases or promotions compels employees to be diligent, work-oriented, and focused on the achievement of the goals or mission at hand (Lau & Kleiner, 2014). Employees become more focused when there is need to compete for a reward. Therefore, competition makes employees work harder toward achieving a goal. Healthy competition is an effective motivator because it inspires, stimulates, and helps keep workers excited and committed to their work, creating a sense of urgency that motivates employees to identify or create opportunities for growth and development. It can also improve an employee’s self-esteem.
On the other hand, unhealthy competition among employees can promote a toxic culture of high turnover and discouragement of employee morale. Negative workplace competition can result in a pressure-packed workplace environment where interpersonal conflicts among employees are commonplace. Notably, such competition can undermine the quality of work, create personal rivalries, and undermine individual self-esteem. Similarly, in addition to job insecurity and the unrelenting demand for better outcomes, unhealthy workplace competition can increase the stress levels among employees (Lau & Kleiner, 2014). Long working hours, more assignments, and the constant demand for peak performance increase employee stress levels. Stress among employees can have adverse impacts on efficiency and productivity. Dysfunctional competition stifles progress because employees typically compete against each other instead of collaborating on work tasks. In such an environment, employees become quite reluctant to create, promote, or share ideas with other staff.
Interpersonal communication refers to the process of sharing information and common understanding from between two people, which is very crucial for organizational effectiveness (Singh, 2014). It offers a means of reaching others with thoughts, ideas, values, and facts (WIlson, 2005) and influencing them to change their ideas and thoughts (Sethi & Seth, 2009). Effective communication skills, as well as interpersonal skills, are important for the survival and growth of an organization. Performance – at the individual and unit level – hinges significantly on the efficiency of information flow among employees and between managers and employees. Efficient communication is particularly critical in today’s culturally dynamic workplace (Marepalli, 2015). Effective interpersonal communication in the workplace depends on many elements – or skills – including decision making and problem solving, listening, assertiveness, verbal and non-verbal communication, and negotiation skills.
In any social interaction, an effective communication typically precipitates from the interpersonal behavior of complementarity or reciprocity of the parties involved. Based on this theory, the Interpersonal Circumplex Model is used to precisely predict the optimal maintaining rate of a personal relationship between two people – the sender and the recipient (Xue & Zhao, 2011). The IPC model is organized into two dimensions – agency and communication – that represent needs, interpersonal problems, traits and values. Agency refers to being individuated and is characterized by control, status, dominance, and power while communion refers to the connection between organizational parties and involves the aspect of love, friendliness, unity and affiliation. The two dimensions are further classified into eight variables including dominant, friendly-dominant, friendly, friendly submissive, submissive, hostile-submissive, hostile, and hostile-dominant. The IPC model explains the interrelationships between individuals at the workplace, and can be used to assess social support behaviors, interpersonal self-efficacy, values, motives, and impact.
Figure 1: Interpersonal Circumplex Model
Interpersonal communication plays four major roles in today’s multicultural business environment. One, it enables employees to understand the underlying organizational goal as well as the need to achieve the goal through concerted employee efforts. Two, interpersonal communication enables employees to understand the stakeholder and client requirements and balance their unique demands (Marepalli, 2015). Three, it creates an opportunity to identify new prospects in the business environment and formulate strategies for achieving the organizational goals. Lastly, it fosters collaboration with teams and other organizational units to achieve the mission and vision of the organization.
Boyd et al., (2010) suggest that an effective interpersonal communication with colleagues may alleviate stress associated with perceived adverse work conditions created by undue competition among workers. In addition, good interpersonal communication can reduce the negative impact of demands arising from the nature of the job such as burnout because the employees feel emotionally supported. This in turn fosters better work output, job satisfaction, and organizational effectiveness (Boyd et al., 2010). Good interpersonal communication is a useful resource for augmenting performance by increasing motivation among employees. When implemented correctly, interpersonal communication becomes a buffer against the adverse impact of communication breakdowns and barriers on the performance outcomes (De Clercq, Dimov & Belausteguigoitia, 2014).
Effective interpersonal communication fosters equally effective and strong associations among employees. Indeed, employees working together ought to have a special, common bond in order to deliver their best. Thus, interpersonal skills and the strong bonds they foster in workgroups create an ideal environment where positive competition among employees thrives. A combination of competitiveness and effective interpersonal communication creates an environment where inclusive and participative decision making takes place, employees are motivated, and work processes are effective. It also creates an organizational culture where misunderstandings and confusions are minimized leading to less conflicts. While competitiveness among employees can promote interpersonal conflicts resulting from broken communication links, competition is not always negative and can also be crucial for resolving conflicts and fostering interpersonal relationships among employees (University of Minnesota, 2013).
This research project[ganyumbez6] is a correlational, cross-sectional study that observes the effect of interaction between individual competitiveness and interpersonal communication and their effects on work conditions. With Qualtrics and directed to administrators, directors, and leaders of subdivisions, managing crewmembers as well as a variety of other executives of privately owned businesses in Malaysia. These were recruited by way of their individual Human Resource and Head of Departments.
[Survey Questions here, Appendix 1]
It was compulsory that each respondent by electronic means sign the agreement which was presented at the beginning of the survey. In addition, participants were given the option not to finish the questionnaire if they did not wish to at any point. Respondents were also informed that all material provided would be stringently held private.
[Consent Form here, Appendix 2]
The “Institutional Review Board for Human Participants Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh EH14 4AS, United Kingdom” gave permission to complete this research.
The respondents were one hundred and eighty-nine various upper management, administrators, directors, and leaders of subdivisions, managing crewmembers as well as a variety of other executives of privately owned businesses in Malaysia. These are individuals employed in the private divisions in establishments such as engineering, estate research, information technology and legal partnerships.
Data about the individuals themselves acquired for this investigation was be “age, sex, and job title” to find out if these aspects could produce dissimilar outcomes with respect to individual competitiveness / communication and the effect they may have on conditions at work.
“Work and Family Orientation Questionnaire (WOFO)”, which is a multidimensional measurement of attitudes toward family and achievement motivation as well as career (Helmreich & Spence, 1978), will be used. Only items that relate to competitiveness were included in the research. The survey requires the respondent to agree or disagree on a five-point scale. The Cronbach Alpha coefficient may vary, in dependence on various factors, from 0.50 to 0.74, and is therefore a satisfactory indicator of reliability for a questionnaire of this range.
For determining “interpersonal communication”, the “Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Values (CSIV) (Locke, 2000)” decides social individual conduct by proficiently evaluating an all-inclusive set of agent and commune values. Respondents designate how significant each kind of relational practice is for them on a five-point scale. Internal constancy and test-retest dependability are the mark of this test. Convergent as well as discriminant legitimacy with interpersonal “measures of traits (Bem, 1974), problems (Horowitz, 2000), motives (Atkinson, 1958), and goals (Dryer & Horowitz, 1997)” is what the CSIV will show.
The COPSOQ is an evaluative framework that analyses psychosocial factors affecting a large German sample (N = 2561 employees). Due to consistent refinement, an improved and less comprehensive version of it was developed. The number of items were reduced significantly from 141 to a neat 87. The German COPSOQ survey is critical to research as it acts as a screening instrument where psychosocial work load is recorded. The documented strain for all organizations and enterprises interested in the exercise is also included. The COPSOQ is often used in the development of instruments that evaluate psychometric properties and psychosocial risks. It was designed in a way that it is “theory-based without being based on one specific theory.” As such, it offers a comprehensive account of a broad range of factors constituting leading theories and concepts. The evaluation of the quantities of diagnostic power, criterion validity, reliability, construct validity generalizability of the single scales showed average to optimum measuring capabilities for the most of the scales (i.e. Freiburg, Germany Cronbach’s alpha mostly >0.7). The questions contained in the COPSOQ questionnaire are primarily derived from existing surveys with great degrees of validity and reliability. Most of the instruments have been approved and are frequently utilized in the field, for example,
the “Job Content Questionnaire” (Karasek.et.al.,.1998), the “Whitehall II Study” (Marmot.et.al.,.1991), and “Setterlind Stress Profile” (Setterlind.& Larsson, 1995). Out of the five conventional subscales, three were deemed relevant for the survey. They include interpersonal relations and leadership, influence and development, and demands. The COPSOQ presents an all-encompassing approach that measures a vast array of psychosocial features. As this trial was significantly smaller, the instrument was condensed to meet much of its needs. The improvised survey would be sufficient in assessing the psychosocial measurement properties.
Human Resource Departments and Head of Departments of businesses in the private sector were approached to attain permission to have the employees of the respective companies participate in this research. This was accomplished after the approval from the ethics board.
The research used three types of surveys. For cost effectiveness and timeliness, the link to the Qualtrics questionnaire was sent via email to the respective company’s Human Resource Departments and Head of Departments and they sent the links to the company’s employees. The respondents had fourteen days to respond. Shortly before the end of that period, reminder(s) were sent out. The study was conducted from June 2017 until November 2017.
Agreement was presented before the respondents went to the surveys and participants had the option not to do the survey if they did not want to. If the participants agreed to do the survey, they were required to click on the “agree” button before proceeding. They were then informed that all data given would be kept private and anonymous.
An initial investigation was completed to measure the associations amongst the constructs, which involved a strong desire to be more successful than others did and communication as well as in what way these constructs touch conditions at work. Moreover, a toned-down reversion breakdown was completed to examine the collaboration conclusion between the two constructs. This was performed with “PROCESS (Hayes, 2013) using SPSS MACRO”. Communication was entered as the moderator, a strong desire to be more successful than others was entered as the predictor, and work conditions as the variable of outcome.
The researcher seeks to find the connection between interpersonal communication and competitiveness in relation to the work conditions. The respondents were informed of the anticipated process and period of the study. Furthermore, they were given the liberty to withdraw or decline at any time. Importantly, the limits of confidentiality that includes sharing, data coding, and archiving were communicated. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) was contacted before this study was performed. They were not harmed in any way because of participation and respect was duly given to every one of the participants
190 participants successfully completed the survey. Before input into SPSS for analysis, the survey data was cleaned by performing a series of two consistency checks and treatment of missing responses in the questionnaires. The consistency checks identified the data that were out of range, duplicates, logically inconsistent, or had extreme input values and logical breakdowns. The missing responses in the survey were treated carefully using SPSS to reduce their overall adverse effects by either assigning a suitable value such as a neutral or imputed value or discarding them methodically through case wise deletion. A descriptive statistics analysis did not report any missing data.
Seven key assumptions were made during the data analysis. One, the researcher assumed that two or more dependent variables should be measured at the interval. Two, it is assumed that the independent variables consist of two or more independent groups. Three, it was assumed that there is independence of observations, implying that there is no significant relationship between the observations in each independent group or between the groups themselves. This assumption was tested in MANOVA. Four, it was assumed that the sample size was adequate for the study. Five, the researcher assumed that there are no univariate or multivariate outliers. Six, it was assumed that there is a multivariate normality. This assumption was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality. Lastly, it was assumed that there is a linear relationship between every pair of dependent variables for all group combinations for the two independent variables.
Based on these assumptions, moderated regression analyses were with PROCESS using SPSS Macro using competitiveness, communication style, and work conditions as the predictor, moderator, and outcome variables respectively. Work condition consisted of three outcome variables; “influence and development”, “demands”, and “interpersonal relations and leadership”. Each of these three outcome variables had one model per communication style. The results of the regression analysis were non-significant with slight correlations emerging in one model.
The study considered 190 participants to how individual competitiveness and good communication influence the creation of a positive psychosocial work. 43.2% of the total participants were males while 56.8% were females. There were no non-response rates.
Table 1
Participants Gender
| What is your gender? | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | Male | 82 | 43.2 | 43.2 | 43.2 |
| Female | 108 | 56.8 | 56.8 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 190 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
The age of the participants was measured in a ratio scale but a layer of ordering was applied to make interpretation easy. 17.9% of the participants ware aged 24 years and below. 50.0% of the participants were aged between 25 and 34 years. On the other hand, 19.5% of them were aged between 35 and 44 years. 8.9% of the participants were aged between 45 and 54 years with a small number (3.7%) being aged 55 years and above. The modal age group was 25-34 years.
Table 2
Participants’ age
| How old are you? | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | up to 24 years | 34 | 17.9 | 17.9 | 17.9 |
| 25-34 years | 95 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 67.9 | |
| 35-44 years | 37 | 19.5 | 19.5 | 87.4 | |
| 45-54 years | 17 | 8.9 | 8.9 | 96.3 | |
| 55 years and more | 7 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 190 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
The study sought some employment insights that assisted in describing the participants. For instance, 45.85 of them are supervisors in their current job positions with 54.2% not belonging to the supervision positions. All the participants responded to this survey item.
Table 3
Responses on supervision
| Do the following items apply to you?-Do you have a fixed-term employment contract? | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | Yes | 63 | 33.2 | 33.2 | 33.2 |
| No | 127 | 66.8 | 66.8 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 190 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
On the other hand, 33.2% of the participants reported to have a fixed-term employment contract. However, 66.8% reported that they did not have a fixed-term employment contract in their current jobs.
Table 4
Fixed-term employment contract
| Do you the following items apply to you?-Do you have a fixed-term employment contract? | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | Yes | 63 | 33.2 | 33.2 | 33.2 |
| No | 127 | 66.8 | 66.8 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 190 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
The survey found that 58.9% of the participants worked at least one time per month during public holidays and weekends. 41.1% of the participants claimed that they did not work during the public holidays or weekends, at least once. Further, 95.8% of the participants worked on a full time basis with 4.2% not working on a full time basis.
Table 5
Working over the weekends or holidays
| Questions regarding your working time. Do you work…-… at least 1 time per month on weekends or holidays? | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | Yes | 112 | 58.9 | 58.9 | 58.9 |
| No | 78 | 41.1 | 41.1 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 190 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Table 6
Full time work basis
| Do you the following items apply to you?-Do you work full time? | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | Yes | 182 | 95.8 | 95.8 | 95.8 |
| No | 8 | 4.2 | 4.2 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 190 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
On the other hand, 64.2% of the study participants worked at least once per week during the evenings or at night. 35.8% claimed that they did not work on schedules beyond 18.30 pm. Additionally, 44.2% of the participants claimed that they worked at least once in a week from home or outside their offices, as well as, from customers’ premises. However, 55.8% reported that the do not work from home or outside the office.
Table 7
Working in the evening and at night
| Questions regarding your working time. Do you work…-… at least 1 time per week evenings (after 18:30) or nights (before 5:00)? | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | Yes | 122 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.2 |
| No | 68 | 35.8 | 35.8 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 190 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Table 8
Work from home or outside the office
| Questions regarding your working time. Do you work…-… at least 1 time per week from home / outside of the office / at customers? | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | Yes | 84 | 44.2 | 44.2 | 44.2 |
| No | 106 | 55.8 | 55.8 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 190 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
The study assessed how work conditions are influenced by the connections between personal communication with others and competitiveness. The study found that work conditions had a negative linear relationship with overall communication style, R = -0.1631, p < 0.05. However, considering individual communication styles, the study found that hostile-dominant style had a weak negative relationship with work conditions, R = -0.1730, p < 0.05. However, the hostile-dominant communication style had a weak positive relationship with work conditions, R = 0.0299, p < 0.05.
On the other hand, there was a weak positive linear relationship between competitiveness and communication styles, R = 0.2178, p < 0.05. Therefore, a person with high competitive characters stands a high chance to have desirable communicating styles such as friendly-dominant style. However, when considering the specific types of communicating styles, the study found that there was a weak negative relationship between hostile-dominant communication styles and work conditions, R = -0.173, p < 0.05.
Individuals who possessed leadership and interpersonal competitiveness were likely to be associated with low levels of submissive and hostile characters of communication styles, R = -0.43, p < 0.05. Work conditions was found to have a significant weak positive relationship with personal competitiveness, R = 0.0832, p < 0.05. Such an idea indicates that a more competitive person was associated with high positive psychosocial work conditions.
The value for the Pearson correlation between work conditions and overall communication showed NaN. This shows a strong negative correlation between work conditions and overall communication style. However, calculation of the individual communication styles (friendly-dominant, friendly, friendly-submissive, submissive, hostile-submissive) shows a weak negative correlation, with an R-value of -0.1631. Although theoretically a negative correlation, the relationship between the work conditions and individual communication styles is significantly weak. The R value (-0.173) for the hostile-dominant results shows a stronger correlation between work conditions and hostile-dominant communication style, with a coefficient of determination (R2) value of 0.0299.
The relationship between competitiveness and communication is considerably weak even though the values of R and R2 were positive at 0.2178 and 0.0474 respectively. The correlation between competitiveness and work conditions was also statistically weak, with R and R2 values of 0.0832 and 0.0069 respectively. The correlation between working conditions and hostile communication style was also statistically weaker compared to the correlation between hostile-dominant and work conditions, with R and R2 values of -0.173 and 0.0299 respectively. Three correlations were observed between the three models of competitiveness, work conditions, and communication. There was a slightly positive correlation between competitiveness and the other two models. Work conditions and communication had a negative correlation with each other, and with competitiveness. There was a significant negative correlation between communication hostile-dominant style and work conditions. Notably, there was one effect of hostile/submissive communications style predicted from the correlation of interpersonal relations and leadership competitiveness (b=-0.43, p = .018). The chi-square statistic is 0. The p-value is 1. The result is not significant for the three at p < .05.
The demographic results of the study show that majority of the participants (87%) are less than 44 years of age and are not on permanent employment. Contractual employment seems to be preferred by both sexes, a dimension that was not found to affect communication. An emphasis on outside working hours’ work was found showing that participants often carry work home and with 44% of the participants affirming that they liked working outside their obvious work stations.
The correlation analysis was best fitted to respond and evaluate the hypothesis. As such, the correlation analysis has demonstrated that it is to some extent to assert that individual competitiveness and interpersonal communication do interact to influence work conditions. It was found that there was a weak correlation in all instances. However, there was a main effect of hostile/submissive communications style predicting interpersonal relations and leadership (b=-0.43, p = .018). This indicates a negative but slight relationship between being hostile/submissive and the work environment. This suggests that there might be a slight correlation, between negative interpersonal communication and working with teams in work conditions.
When a test of variables shows no significance, the results enhances one’s confidence that the null hypothesis is false. A low probability value casts doubt on the null hypothesis. It is conventional to conclude the null hypothesis is false if the probability value is less than 0.05. When the conclusion is that the null hypothesis is false, the null hypothesis is rejected. The probability value below which the null hypothesis is rejected is called the α (alpha) level or simply α (Wood, Freemantle, King & Nazareth, 2014). The data support the treatise that competitiveness influences work conditions positively and that work conditions effect competitiveness negatively. It also supports the fact that communication has an effect on work conditions, be it negative. There was a positive relationship between competitiveness. The support is weak, and the data are inconclusive on this instance. A reasonable course of action would be to redo the experiment.
There are however, potential reasons for the results not being significant. It is possible that there are characteristics of this respondent population that caused results to turn out differently than expected. A different type of worker such as production workers and laborers instead of top people might have yielded different results. Alternatively, perhaps there were outliers that we did not account for (i.e., confounds) that were not controlled that could explain these findings (Wood, Freemantle, King, & Nazareth, 2014). Perhaps the outcome would be different if a larger population was researched. This was a small sample and a larger population could possibly change the significance.
Theoretically, the circumplex model suggests that interpersonal motives are frustrated by others’ interpersonal behaviors which causes irritation (Horowitz et al., 2006). For example, individuals who value independence, social distance, and autonomy are expected to be irritated by individuals who are dependent and clingy. As opposed to individuals who value being in control and personal authority are expected to be irritated by individuals who are bossy, who acts superior, and arrogant (Horowitz, 2006). This framework suggests that depending on an individual’s interpersonal motives, different individuals could be sensitive to different specific types of behavior that others possess. The positive aspects of competitiveness effecting work conditions this study might tend to disagree with the idea that individuals who tend to value social distance, autonomy, and independence would be expected to be most frustrated by those who are dependent and clingy. Instead, it suggests that they complement each other except in instances where the communication is with leadership who are bossy. However, the model was designed to show how the communication types complement each other or promote negative behavior which the study correlates results to weakly.
Individual differences in sensitivities to aversive interpersonal behaviors likely moderate relations between others’ behavior and individuals’ responses (Hopwood, 2011). However slight the results, it does build on contributing to an interesting and somewhat surprising understandings of the nature of interpersonal sensitivities. The interpersonal principle of complementarity suggests that individuals tend to find the behavior of other individual most aversive if it does not compliment their own interpersonal styles (Hopwood, 2011) which this study supports. However, the theoretical model is constructed based on the assumption that balanced flexibility and cohesion levels are vital for a positive work condition. Competitiveness and work conditions would cause imbalance in positive and negative ways to the cohesion levels of communication regardless of the styles. Likewise, for communication on work conditions and competitiveness.
The practical implications are that when thinking of interpersonal relationships in work conditions, people tend to see opposite personalities as adversaries. The results of this study suggest they might actually be complementary. However, it was only weakly positive. A restudy of this research might show results more positive. Further research into how much of a complement exists would be good to perform. Then results from this study might give insight into this new theory. Although it is possible that some people may notice irritating social behavior more than others, it is also plausible that individual differences exist with regard to the kinds of specific irritants that are most bothersome for certain individuals. This is also a subject for further research. We have found a small significance in adverse reactions to leadership when it is hostile in nature in the workplace. The specific types of irritants would be beneficial to have knowledge of when setting up work conditions.
We have sought to respond to research questions related to competitiveness, work conditions, and how they relate to interpersonal communication. There is significant information to show that competitiveness and work conditions should be studied in more detail to see what specific aspects of the work conditions are negatively affected. Since there was a positive correlation, ever so weak, between competitiveness and the other two, it would be valuable to research in what way each are affected. Or why hostile-dominant communication style has a significant negative correlation to work conditions. Practical implications for this is that this study, being of an interpretive and exploratory nature, brings multiple opportunities for future research, both in terms of concept validation and theory development.
Although this research was carefully prepared, some limitations must be accepted. First, because of time constraints, the population of the experimental group is small, only one hundred eighty-nine respondents and might not represent many of the professionals in businesses all over the Malaysia. The sample size in this study was small relative to the preferred number of subjects desired. Future research should be conducted to verify the components of competitiveness found in this study.
Furthermore, the sample used in this research was obtained from a population of employees from only a few companies in the private sector in the country. It is possible that the culture cultivated by these companies may have influenced the pattern of relationships seen among factors of personality constructs, competitiveness, and the criteria assessed. Future studies should be conducted across multiple business environments and the results cross-validated.
In addition, the respondents should have been divided by age, gender, and cultural demographics to alleviate the possibility of bias. There were possibly uncontrolled and extraneous factors that interfered. There is always the possibility for bias in research so this is also possible in this study. There is also a possibility that the study did not look at delimitations and the variables should be narrowed in scope more.
Furthermore, it was limited to only a few businesses and might not relate to the overall implications for all businesses, both big and small. It is also possible that the answers from the respondents were biased as well. Since, the questionnaires were sent electronically and not in person, it gives the respondent leeway to not answer the questions truthfully.
The amounts of questions in the questionnaires were also large and this may have deterred some potential respondents form either participating or finishing the survey. The questions used in the survey were in English and the fact that some questions appear similar but not the same may have confused or again deter respondents from doing or finishing the survey. Perhaps future studies may consider using shorter and simpler questionnaires as well as have the questions translated to other languages to suite the local population.
In many instances, individuals who display explicit competitiveness are considered self-starters as well as high-performers. Rivalry and communicating are key workings, which become inevitable in many establishments. To create a favorable structural environment that fosters constructive work conditions, interpersonal communication within the business is vital. In order to create a favorable structural environment that fosters constructive work conditions, interpersonal communication within the business is vital.
Raziq & Maulabakhsh (2014), established that conditions and environment are significant worries for the business because work fulfillment affects workplace functionality. Awad and Alhashemi (2015) demonstrated that since it governs a strong work rapport and better performance from workers, communication is a dynamic portion of all organizations. The researcher’s conclusions show a noteworthy connection between obligation and work fulfillment. At work, individuals compete for designations, advantages, and against other companies for the share of markets.
The culture of the organization affects how workers interrelate as well as company ethics, standards, and guidelines. Individual competitiveness in the workplace can also be influenced by the working environment and the level of satisfaction of the employees in their employment. According to Awan and Tahir (2015), respectable relationships with colleagues are one of the central features in the creation of a respectable workplace environment, which definitely influences production output of workers within establishments.
Regardless of many benefits of the desire to be more successful than others in some professional settings, it can also painfully distress work circumstances. Affects in work conditions because of competition may lead to struggles, poor mental well-being and ruined relationships. A work environment that supports this competitiveness make it easy for employees to become more self-centered and less empathetic to peers, which leads to a breakdown of the work conditions. Fletcher and Nusbaum (2010) feel that high competitors are disposed toward counterproductive work behaviors and are poor supporters of a team. The formation of satisfactory work environments in an organization assists in increasing the level of production of the workers and interpersonal social interactions characterize optimum organizational work conditions. Effective maintaining of interpersonal communication with peers will generate sharing of ideas and tends to suppress negative feelings toward the work conditions. De Clercq, Dimov & Belausteguigoitia (2014), contend that although perceived work excess and organizational stressors reduce collaborative behaviors, these effects become reduced when levels of interpersonal sharing and job satisfaction are higher. However, when said employee is only concerned with self-serving behaviors such as a strong desire to be more successful than others are, effective interpersonal communication can successfully mitigate the negative influences on work conditions and actually divert unexpected conflict to enhance employee productivity.
On the other side of this, employees who have depleted motivation due to adverse work conditions are not motivated to devote more time and energy to their performance that could improve their organization. Good interpersonal communication can reduce the negative impact of demands from the job such as cause burnout, because the employees feel emotionally supported, which in turn fosters better work output, job satisfaction, and company success. Positive work conditions are based on successful cooperation among all parties and based on trust, commitment, and mutual agreement on common goals.
For the most part, the results for this research were not significant in all models researched. There were weak correlations between all variables and some were negative. Some were positive. However, the effect of hostile/submissive communications style predicting interpersonal relations and leadership showed some significance (b=-0.43, p = .018). This indicates a negative relationship between being hostile/submissive and the outcome of the relationship the employees have with their leadership. However, regardless of the outcome, there is a need for more research into interpersonal communication and competitiveness and how both correlate to influence work conditions in organizations. We found that competitiveness effects work conditions and interpersonal relations positively only slightly.
The implications of non-significant findings to this area of research is valuable as it shows that much more research is needed in the areas of work conditions where it is affected by interpersonal communication and competitiveness. There are specific suggestions that future researchers can do differently to help shed more light on the topic. Perhaps researchers should study a larger more diverse sample such as just women or just men. It could even be men versus women or look at a different set of variables with the same set of respondents or study a larger set of population and add more variables. Regardless, more research is needed to test individual’s competitiveness and interpersonal communication to see whether it fosters positive psychosocial work conditions.
Atkinson, J. W. (Ed.). (1958). Motives in fantasy, action, and society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461–484.
Awad, T., & Alhashemi, S. (2012). Assessing the effect of interpersonal communications on employees’ commitment and satisfaction. International Journal Of Islamic And Middle Eastern Finance And Management, 5(2), 134-156. doi.org/10.1108/17538391211233425
Awan, A., & Tahir, M. (2015). Impact of working environment on employee’s productivity: A case study of Banks and Insurance Companies in Pakistan. European Journal of Business and Management, 7(1), 329-345.
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2010). The Influence of School Administrators on Teacher Retention Decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 303-333.doi.org/10.3102/0002831210380788
Bridges, D., Davidson, R., Soule Odegard, P., Maki, I., & Tomkowiak, J. (2011). Interprofessional collaboration: three best practice models of interprofessional education. Medical Education Online, 16(1), 6035. http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/meo.v16i0.6035
Butler, T., & Waldroop, J. (2004). A Function-Centered Model of Interest Assessment for Business Careers. Journal of Career Assessment, 12(3), 270-284.
De Clercq, D., Dimov, D., & Belausteguigoitia, I. (2014). Perceptions of Adverse Work Conditions and Innovative Behavior: The Buffering Roles of Relational Resources. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(3), 515-542. doi.org/10.1111/etap.12121
Donald, I., Taylor, P., Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., Robertson, S., . . . Kenny, Dianna. (2005). Work Environments, Stress, and Productivity: An Examination Using ASSET. International Journal of Stress Management, 12(4), 409-423.
Dryer, D. C., & Horowitz, L. M. (1997). When do opposites attract? Interpersonal complementarity versus similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 592–603.
Fletcher, T., & Nusbaum, D. (2010). Development of the Competitive Work Environment Scale: A Multidimensional Climate Construct. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(1), 105-124.
Gurtman, M. (2009). Exploring Personality with the Interpersonal Circumplex. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(4), 601-619.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Helmreich, R., & Spence, J. (1978). The work and family orientation questionnaire: An objective instrument to assess components of achievement motivation and attitudes toward family and career. JSAS Catalog of Selected Document in Psychology, 8(35).
Hopwood, C., Ansell, E., Pincus, A., Wright, A., Lukowitsky, M., & Roche, M. (2011). The Circumplex Structure of Interpersonal Sensitivities. Journal of Personality, 79(4), 707-740. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011. 00696.x
Horney, K. (1977). The neurotic personality of our time. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Horowitz, L. M. (2000). Inventory of Interpersonal Problems manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Ivanko, S. (2015). Organizational Behavior. In Organizational Behavior Course Textbook (1st ed.). Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana.
Jones, P. (2007). A Hypercompetitive Strategy for 21st Century Business Development in Jamaica. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.985985
Kamdar, D., & Van Dyne, L. (2007). The joint effects of personality and workplace social exchange relationships in predicting task performance and citizenship performance. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1286-1298. doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1286
Karasek R, Brisson C, Kawakami N, Houtman I, Bongers P, Amick B. The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): An Instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. J Occupat Health Psychol. 1998;3(4):322–355.
Kayhan, E. (2003). Two Facets of Competitiveness and Their Influence on Psychological Adjustment (Undergraduate). Illinois Wesleyan University.
Khetarpal, V. (2010). Role of Interpersonal Communication in Creating Conducive Organizational Climate. ASBM Journal of Management.
Kohn, A. (1992). No Contest: The Case Against Competition (2nd ed.). New York, New York: Houghton Mifflin Hourcourt.
Locke, K. D. (2000). Circumplex scales of interpersonal values: Reliability, validity, and applicability to interpersonal problems and personality disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 75, 249-267.
Lopez, V., Sayers, J., & Cleary, M. (2017). Competitiveness in the Workplace: Attributes and Team Benefits. Issues In Mental Health Nursing, 38(6), 523-525. doi.org/10.1080/01612840.2017.1322430
Markey, P., & C, C. (2009). A brief assessment of the interpersonal circumplex: The IPIP-IPC. doi.org/10.1177/1073191109340382
Marmot MG, Smith GD, Stansfeld S, Patel C, North F, Head J, White I, Brunner E, Feeney A. Health inequalities among British civil servants. The Whitehall II Study. Lancet. 1991;337(8):1387–1393.
McEwan, K., Gilbert, P., & Duarte, J. (2011). An exploration of competitiveness and caring in relation to psychopathology. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51(1), 19-36. doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.2011.02010.x
McLean, B., & Elkind, P. (2004). The Smartest Guys in the Room. New York City, NY: Penguin Group.
Mudrack, P., Bloodgood, E., & Turnley, J. (2012). Some Ethical Implications of Individual Competitiveness. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(3), 347-359.
Olson, D. (2011). FACES IV and the circumplex model: Validation study. Journal of marital and family therapy, 37(1), 64-80.
Revision Raziq, A., & Maulabakhsh, R. (2014). Impact of Working Environment on Job Satisfaction. In 2nd GLOBAL CONFERENCE on BUSINESS, ECONOMICS, MANAGEMENT and Tourism (pp. 717-725). Prague, Czech Republic: Department of Management Sciences, Balochistan University of Information Technology, Engineering and Management Sciences Quetta.
Revision of Ethical Standard 3.04 of the “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct” (2002, as amended 2010). (2016). American Psychologist, 71(9), 900-900. doi.org/10.1037/amp0000102
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68
Sadler, P., & Woody, E. (2003). Is who you are who you’re talking to? Interpersonal style and complementarily in mixed-sex interactions. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 84(1), 80-96. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.80
Setterlind S, Larsson G. The stress profile: A psychosocial approach to measuring stress. Stress Medicine. 1995;11:85–92.
Singh, A. (2014). Role of Interpersonal Communication in Organizational Effectiveness. International Journal of Research in Management &, 1(4), 36-39.
Solinger, O., Olffen, W., Roe, R., & Zedeck, Sheldon. (2008). Beyond the Three-Component Model of Organizational Commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 70-83.
Song, S., & Olshfski, D. (2008). Friends at work: a comparative study of work attitudes in Seoul City Government and New Jersey State Government. Administration and Society, 40(2), 147-169.
Tanghe, J., Wisse, B., & van der Flier, H. (2009). The Role of Group Member Affect in the Relationship between Trust and Cooperation. British Journal of Management. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00643.x
Wood, J., Freemantle, N., King, M., & Nazareth, I. (2014). Trap of trends to statistical significance: likelihood of near significant P value becoming more significant with extra data. BMJ, 348(mar31 2), g2215-g2215. doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g2215
Instructions: Rate yourself on each item below, using the following scale. Write your answers on a separate sheet of paper and click on the “scoring” link upon completion.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = somewhat disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 somewhat agree 5 = strongly agree
Work
Mastery
7. I would rather do something at which I feel confident and relaxed than something that is challenging and difficult.
8. When a group I belong to plans an activity, I would rather direct it myself than just help and have someone else organize it.
9. I would rather learn easy, fun games than difficult, thought games.
10. If I were not good at something, I would rather keep struggling to master it than move on to something I may be good at.
Competitiveness
18 It annoys me when other people perform better than I do.
19. I try harder when I am in competition with other people.
For each item below, answer the following question: “When I am in interpersonal situations (such as with close friends, with strangers, at work, at social gatherings, and so on), in general how important is it to me that I act or appear or am treated this way?” Use the following rating scale:
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| not | mildly | moderately | very | extremely |
| important to me | important to me | important to me | important to me | important to me |
If when you are with others you generally consider it extremely important that you be well dressed, you would circle
4. If it is not important that you be well dressed, you would circle 0. If you consider it moderately important that you be well dressed, you would circle 2.
| 1. When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | …that I appear confident |
| 2. When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | …that I not expose myself to ridicule |
| 3. When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | …that I feel connected to them |
| 4. When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | …that I appear forceful |
| 5. When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | …that I live up to their expectations |
| 6. When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | …that I express myself openly |
| 7. When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | …that I keep my guard up |
| 8. When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | …that I get along with them |
| 9. When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | …that they acknowledge when I am right |
| 10. When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | …that I appear aloof |
| 11. When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | …that they support me when I am having problems |
| 12. When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | …that I keep the upper hand |
| 13. When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | …that I do what they want me to do |
| 14. When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | … “that they respect what I have to say” |
| 15. When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | …that they keep their distance from me |
| 16. When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | …that I make them feel happy |
| 17. When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | … “that I not back down when disagreements arise” |
| 18. When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | …that I not make mistakes in front of them |
| 19. When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | …that they come to me with their problems |
| 20. When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | …” that I am the one in charge” |
| 21. “When I am around them, it is” … | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | …that I go along with what they want to do |
| 22. “When I am around them, it is” … | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | …that I have an impact on them |
| 23. “When I am around them, it is” … | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | …that I do better than them |
| 24. When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | …that they approve of me |
| 25. When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | …that they not tell me what to do |
| 26. When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | …that I not say something stupid |
| 27. When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | … “that they show concern for how I am feeling” |
| 28. When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | …’that they mind their own business’ |
| 29. When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | …that I not make them angry |
| 30. “When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | … “that they listen to what I have to say” |
| 31. “When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ..”.that they not know what I am thinking or feeling” |
| 32. When I am around them, it is… | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | …that they not get their feelings hurt |
A.1: The following questions refer to the requirements of your job.
| always | often | some- times | seldom | never / hardly ever | |
| 1. Do you have to work very fast? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 2. Do you work at a high pace throughout the day? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 3. How often do you not have time to complete all your work tasks? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 4. Do you get behind with your work? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 5. Do you have to do overtime / extra work? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 6. Do you have to deal with other people’s personal problems as part of your work? | o | o | o | o | o |
A.1: Requirements of your job (Part 2).
| To a very large extent | To a large extent | Some- what | To a small extent | To a very small extent | |
| 7. Is your work emotionally demanding? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 8. Does your work require that you hide your feelings? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 9. Does your work require that you do not state your opinion? | o | o | o | o | o |
A.2: The following questions refer to the balance between work and private life: How far do you agree with the following statements? (Please give an answer on each line)
| To a very large extent | To a large extent | Some- what | To a small extent | To a very small extent | |
| 1. The demands of my work interfere with my home and family life. | o | o | o | o | o |
| 2. The amount of time my job takes up makes it difficult to fulfil my family responsibilities. | o | o | o | o | o |
| 3. My work drains so much of my energy that it has a negative effect on my private life. | o | o | o | o | o |
| 4. My work takes so much of my time that it has a negative effect on my private life. | o | o | o | o | o |
| 5. It happens that I should be at home and at work at the same time. | o | o | o | o | o |
| 6. I take care of work related tasks outside of my working time as well. | o | o | o | o | o |
| 7. I‘m available in my free time for people with whom I deal professionally. | o | o | o | o | o |
A.3: The following questions refer to how much influence and freedom you have in your work.
| always | often | some- times | seldom | never / hardly ever | |
| 1. Do you have a large degree of influence on the decisions concerning your work | o | o | o | o | o |
| 2. Can you influence the amount of work assigned to you? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 3. Do you have any influence on what you do at work? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 4. Can you decide when to take a break? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 5. Can you take holidays more or less when you wish? | o | o | o | o | o |
A.4: Development opportunities and meaning of work. (Part 1)
| always | often | some- times | seldom | never / hardly ever | |
| 1. Is your work varied? | o | o | o | o | o |
A.5: Development opportunities and meaning of work. (Part 2)
| To a very large extent | To a large extent | Some- what | To a small extent | To a very small extent | |
| 1. Do you have the possibility of learning new things through your work? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 2. Can you use your skills or expertise in your work? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 3. Is your work meaningful? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 4. Do you feel that the work you do is important? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 5. Are you proud to be part of the company? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 6. Do you enjoy telling others about your place of work? | o | o | o | o | o |
A.6:Now some questions about the arrangements and procedures in your work.
| To a very large extent | To a large extent | Some- what | To a small extent | To a very small extent | |
| 1. At your place of work, are you informed well in advance concerning for example important decisions, changes, or plans for the future? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 2. Do you receive all the information you need in order to do your work well? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 3. Does your work have clear objectives? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 4. Do you know exactly which areas are your responsibility? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 5. Do you know exactly what is expected of you at work? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 6. Are contradictory demands placed on you at work? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 7. Do you sometimes have to do things, which ought to have been done in a different way? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 8. Do you sometimes have to do things, which seem to you to be unnecessary? | o | o | o | o | o |
A.7: To what extent would you say that your immediate superiors….
| To a very large extent | To a large extent | Some- what | To a small extent | To a very small extent | I don’t have a superior | |
| 1. …make sure that the individual member of staff has good development opportunities? | o | o | o | o | o | o |
| 2. …give high priority to job satisfaction? | o | o | o | o | o | o |
| 3. …are good at work planning? | o | o | o | o | o | o |
| 4. …are good at solving conflicts? | o | o | o | o | o | o |
A.8: The following questions refer to your relationships with your colleagues and your superior. (Please give an answer on each line)
| always | often | some- times | seldom | never / hardly ever | I don’t have a superior / colleagues | |
| 1. How often do you get help and support from your colleagues? | o | o | o | o | o | o |
| 2. How often are your colleagues willing to listen to your problems at work? | o | o | o | o | o | o |
| 3. How often do you get help and support from your nearest superior? | o | o | o | o | o | o |
| 4. How often is your immediate superior willing to listen to your work related problems? | o | o | o | o | o | o |
| 5. How often do you talk with your superior about how well you carry out your work? | o | o | o | o | o | o |
| 6. How often do you talk with your colleagues about how well you carry out your work? | o | o | o | o | o | o |
| 7. Is it possible for you to talk to your colleagues while you are working? | o | o | o | o | o | o |
| 8. Is there a good atmosphere between you and your colleagues? | o | o | o | o | o | o |
| 9. Is there good co-operation between your colleagues at work? | o | o | o | o | o | o |
| 10. How often do you feel unjustly criticised, bullied or shown up in front of others by your colleagues and your superior? | o | o | o | o | o | o |
A.8a: The next four questions are not about your own job but about the workplace as a whole.
| To a very large extent | To a large extent | Some- what | To a small extent | To a very small extent | |
| 1. Does the management trust the employees to do their work well? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 2. Can the employees trust the information that comes from the management? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 3. Are conflicts resolved in a fair way? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 4. Is the work distributed fairly? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 5. Is your work recognised and appreciated by the management? | o | o | o | o | o |
A8b: The following questions pertain to your work environment:
| always | often | some- times | seldom | never / hardly ever | |
| 1. How often do you have to do physically strenuous work such as lift, carry or raise heavy objects? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 2. How often are you exposed to noise or loud background noise at your workplace? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 3. How often do you come in contact with chemicals or hazardous substances at your work? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 4. How often are you exposed to extreme temperatures or a draft at your workplace? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 5. How often are you exposed to poor air quality at work, e.g. cigarette smoke, gases or similar? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 6. How often are you exposed to poor lighting conditions at work, for example, glaring or low light? | o | o | o | o | o |
A.9: Are you worried about…
| To a very large extent | To a large extent | Some- what | To a small extent | To a very small extent | |
| 1. … becoming unemployed? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 2. … new technology making you / your work redundant? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 3. … it being difficult for you to find another job if you became unemployed? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 4. … being transferred to another job against your will? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 5. … the timetable being changed (shift, weekdays, time to enter and leave, …) against your will? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 6. … a decrease in your salary | o | o | o | o | o |
A.10: In the past 12 months, how often have you thought about…
| never | some times a year | some times a month | some times a week | each day | |
| 1. … giving up your profession? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 2. … changing your job? | o | o | o | o | o |
A.11: Regarding your work in general. How pleased are you with…
| very satisfied | satisfied | neither / nor | un- satisfied | highly unsatisfied | |
| 1. …your work prospects? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 2. …the people you work with? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 3. …the physical working conditions? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 4. …the way your group is run? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 5. …the way your abilities are used? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 6. … your salary? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 7. …your job as a whole, everything taken into consideration? | o | o | o | o | o |
Now some questions on work and health
A.12: Your state of health: If you evaluate the best conceivable state of health at 10 points and the worst at 0 points: How many points do you then give to your present state of health? Please put a cross by the corresponding number.
13: Energy and mental wellbeing: For each of the following statements please state how far they apply to you. How often …
| always | often | some- times | seldom | never / hardly ever | |
| 1. … do you feel physically exhausted? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 2. … do you feel emotionally exhausted? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 3. … did you feel worn out? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 4. … does it occur that you come to work, even though you really feel unwell and sick? | o | o | o | o | o |
| 5. … are you not able to stop thinking about work in your free time? | o | o | o | o | o |
A.14: How often do the following statements apply to you?
| always | often | some- times | seldom | never / hardly ever | |
| 1. At my work, I am full of energy. | o | o | o | o | o |
| 2. I am enthusiastic about my work. | o | o | o | o | o |
| 3. I am immersed in my work. | o | o | o | o | o |
Statements about yourself and your workplace
1: In what area are you (primarily) employed?
2: What is your gender?
| male | female |
3: How old are you?
| up to 24 years | 25-34 years | 35-44 years | 45-54 years | 55 years and more |
| o | o | o | o | o |
4: To what profession do you belong (current employment)?
5: Do you the following items apply to you?
| Yes | No | |
| Are you the supervisor for other employees? | o | o |
| Do you have a fixed-term employment contract? | o | o |
| Do you work full time? | o | o |
6: Questions regarding your working time. Do you work…
| Yes | No | |
| … at least 1 time per month on weekends or holidays? | o | o |
| … at least 1 time per week evenings (after 18:30) or nights (before 5:00)? | o | o |
| … at least 1 time per week from home / outside of the office / at customers? | o | o |
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET
PROJECT TITLE
Individual’s Competitiveness and Good Interpersonal Communication Foster Positive Psychosocial Work Condition.
INVITATION
You are being asked to take part in a research study on individual competitiveness, good interpersonal communication, and positive work condition. We are a group of researchers studying how individual competitiveness and good communication affect work conditions. The research is supervised by Dr. Teoh Ai Ni. The project had been approved by the School of Social Sciences Ethics Committee at Heriot-Watt University.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN
In this study, you will be asked to complete 3 standard questionnaires related to individual competitiveness, communication and work condition satisfaction.
AIM OF THE PROJECT
This study aims to examine how individual competitiveness and interpersonal communication interact to influence work conditions.
TIME COMMITMENT
The questionnaire typically takes 25 minutes to complete.
PARTICIPANT’S RIGHTS
You may decide to stop taking part in the research study at any time without explanation. You have the right to ask that any data you have supplied to that point be withdrawn.
BENEFITS AND RISKS
There are not known benefits or risks for you in this study.
COST, REIMBURSEMENT AND COMPENSATION
Your participation in this study is voluntary; there is no compensation for your participation in this study.
CONFIDENTIALITY/ANONYMITY
In compliance with the Data Protection Act and Freedom of Information Act, the data we collect will not contain any personally identifiable information about you. No one will link the data you provide to any identifying information you may supply. Data will be used in coursework carried out by Master’s students in Psychology. Additionally, it might be used for research outputs such as articles and conference presentations.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
The investigator, Teh Mei Er, and supervisor, Dr Teoh Ai Ni will be glad to answer your questions about this study and provide additional information on results if requested. The contact details are: Teh Mei Er at mt35@hw.ac.uk or +60102204265, and Dr Teoh Ai Ni at a.teoh@hw.ac.uk or +603 8894 3755.
PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM
By clicking the “agree” button below, you are agreeing that:
If you agree to take part in this study, you may click the “agree” button below
process vars = comp dom demands
/ y = comp
/ x = dom
/ m = demands
/ model = 1
process vars = comp dom ifDev
/ y = comp
/ x = dom
/ m = ifDev
/ model = 1
process vars = comp dom irl
/ y = comp
/ x = dom
/ m = irl
/ model = 1
process vars = comp fridom demands
/ y = comp
/ x = fridom
/ m = demands
/ model = 1
process vars = comp dom ifDev
/ y = comp
/ x = fridom
/ m = ifDev
/ model = 1
process vars = comp dom irl
/ y = comp
/ x = fridom
/ m = irl
/ model = 1
process vars = comp fri demands
/ y = comp
/ x = fri
/ m = demands
/ model = 1
process vars = comp fri ifDev
/ y = comp
/ x = fri
/ m = ifDev
/ model = 1
process vars = comp fri irl
/ y = comp
/ x = fri
/ m = irl
/ model = 1
process vars = comp frisub demands
/ y = comp
/ x = frisub
/ m = demands
/ model = 1
process vars = comp frisub ifDev
/ y = comp
/ x = frisub
/ m = ifDev
/ model = 1
process vars = comp frisub irl
/ y = comp
/ x = frisub
/ m = irl
/ model = 1
process vars = comp sub demands
/ y = comp
/ x = sub
/ m = demands
/ model = 1
process vars = comp sub ifDev
/ y = comp
/ x = sub
/ m = ifDev
/ model = 1
process vars = comp sub irl
/ y = comp
/ x = sub
/ m = irl
/ model = 1
process vars = comp hossub demands
/ y = comp
/ x = hossub
/ m = demands
/ model = 1
process vars = comp hossub ifDev
/ y = comp
/ x = hossub
/ m = ifDev
/ model = 1
process vars = comp hossub irl
/ y = comp
/ x = hossub
/ m = irl
/ model = 1
process vars = comp hos demands
/ y = comp
/ x = hos
/ m = demands
/ model = 1
process vars = comp hos ifDev
/ y = comp
/ x = hos
/ m = ifDev
/ model = 1
process vars = comp hos irl
/ y = comp
/ x = hos
/ m = irl
/ model = 1
process vars = comp hosdom demands
/ y = comp
/ x = hosdom
/ m = demands
/ model = 1
process vars = comp hosdom ifDev
/ y = comp
/ x = hosdom
/ m = ifDev
/ model = 1
process vars = comp hosdom irl
/ y = comp
/ x = hosdom
/ m = irl
/ model = 1.
Model = 1
Y = comp
X = dom
M = demand
Sample size
189
Analysis Outcome
COPSOQ- Work Conditions
| Cronbach’s Alpha | 0.691687994 |
| Correlation | 0.689072543 |
| Spearman-Brown Adjustment | 0.815918234 |
| Mean for Test | 33.57368421 |
| Standard Deviation for Test | 5.704323578 |
Work Family orientation – competitiveness
| Cronbach’s Alpha | 0.835440991 |
| Correlation | 0.713150837 |
| Spearman-Brown Adjustment | 0.832560475 |
| Mean for Test | 15.57894737 |
| Standard Deviation for Test | 4.034271466 |
Communication
| Cronbach’s Alpha | 0.936412082 |
| Correlation | 0.915683761 |
| Spearman-Brown Adjustment | 0.955986348 |
| Mean for Test | 104.9947368 |
| Standard Deviation for Test | 17.20694394 |
Manova Fit of All Three
Response Specification
To construct the linear combinations across responses,
[ ] Univariate Tests Also
[ ] Test Each Column Separately Also
| N | 190 |
| DFE | 189 |
Least Squares Means
Partial Correlation
P.Cov
| COMPETITIVENESS | WORK COND | sum_dominant | |
| COMPETITIVENESS | 16.3614592 | 1.92536898 | 3.02756892 |
| WORK COND | 1.92536898 | 32.7114731 | -2.5044277 |
| sum_dominant | 3.02756892 | -2.5044277 | 11.8046227 |
P.Corr
| COMPETITIVENESS | WORK COND | sum_dominant | |
| COMPETITIVENESS | 1.0000 | 0.0832 | 0.2178 |
| WORK COND | 0.0832 | 1.0000 | -0.1274 |
| sum_dominant | 0.2178 | -0.1274 | 1.0000 |
Profile
M Matrix
M
| COMPETITIVENESS | WORK COND | sum_dominant |
| 1 | -1 | 0 |
| 0 | 1 | -1 |
M-transformed Parameter Estimates
| Intercept | -17.994737 | 17.1210526 |
Whole Model
| Test | Value | Approx. F | NumDF | DenDF | Prob>F |
| Wilks’ Lambda | 1 | . | . | . | . |
| Pillai’s Trace | 2.071e-15 | . | . | . | . |
| Hotelling-Lawley | 2.071e-15 | . | . | . | . |
| Roy’s Max Root | 2.071e-15 | . | . | . | . |
| Eigenvalue | Canonical Corr |
| 2.071e-15 | 0 |
| 1.9722e-31 | 0 |
Eigvec
| 0.01687098 | -1.201e-18 |
| 0.01237199 | -0.0103361 |
Intercept
| Test | Value | Exact F | NumDF | DenDF | Prob>F |
| F Test | 7.5502004 | 709.7188 | 2 | 188 | <.0001* |
Competitiveness and communication
X Values
∑ = 3126
Mean = 16.453
∑(X – Mx)2 = SSx = 2231.074
Y Values
∑ = 2960
Mean = 15.579
∑(Y – My)2 = SSy = 3092.316
X and Y Combined
N = 190
∑(X – Mx)(Y – My) = 572.211
R Calculation
r = ∑((X – My)(Y – Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))
r = 572.211 / √((2231.074)(3092.316)) = 0.2178
Meta Numerics (cross-check)
r = 0.2178
Work conditions and competitiveness
X Values
∑ = 6379
Mean = 33.574
∑(X – Mx)2 = SSx = 6182.468
Y Values
∑ = 2960
Mean = 15.579
∑(Y – My)2 = SSy = 3092.316
X and Y Combined
N = 190
∑(X – Mx)(Y – My) = 363.895
R Calculation
r = ∑((X – My)(Y – Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))
r = 363.895 / √((6182.468)(3092.316)) = 0.0832
Meta Numerics (cross-check)
r = 0.0832
X Values
∑ = 6379
Work conditions and communication
Mean = 33.574
∑(X – Mx)2 = SSx = 6182.468
Y Values
∑ = 3126
Mean = 16.453
∑(Y – My)2 = SSy = 2231.074
X and Y Combined
N = 190
∑(X – Mx)(Y – My) = -473.337
R Calculation
r = ∑((X – My)(Y – Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))
r = -473.337 / √((6182.468)(2231.074)) = -0.1274
Meta Numerics (cross-check)
r = -0.1274
Work conditions and friendly, friendly-dominant, friendly friendly-submissive, submissive, hostile-submissive and hostile
X Values
∑ = 6379
Mean = 33.574
∑(X – Mx)2 = SSx = 6182.468
Y Values
∑ = 2650
Mean = 13.947
∑(Y – My)2 = SSy = 1479.474
X and Y Combined
N = 190
∑(X – Mx)(Y – My) = -493.263
R Calculation
r = ∑((X – My)(Y – Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))
r = -493.263 / √((6182.468)(1479.474)) = -0.1631
Meta Numerics (cross-check)
r = -0.1631
Work conditions and hostile
X Values
∑ = 6379
Mean = 33.574
∑(X – Mx)2 = SSx = 6182.468
Y Values
∑ = 2205
Mean = 11.605
∑(Y – My)2 = SSy = 1461.395
X and Y Combined
N = 190
∑(X – Mx)(Y – My) = -519.974
R Calculation
r = ∑((X – My)(Y – Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))
r = -519.974 / √((6182.468)(1461.395)) = -0.173
Meta Numerics (cross-check)
r = -0.173
| Outcome | Parameter | Estimate | se | t | p |
| demands | constant | 3.95 | 1.15 | 3.43 | 0.001 |
| comp | 0.02 | 0.22 | 0.09 | 0.926 | |
| dom | -0.18 | 0.35 | -0.51 | 0.607 | |
| int_1 | 0.00 | 0.06 | -0.02 | 0.981 | |
| influence and development | constant | 2.71 | 0.73 | 3.70 | 0.000 |
| comp | 0.11 | 0.14 | 0.76 | 0.447 | |
| dom | 0.09 | 0.22 | 0.43 | 0.669 | |
| int_1 | -0.04 | 0.04 | -0.88 | 0.378 | |
| interpersonal relations and leadership | constant | 2.69 | 0.65 | 4.16 | 0.000 |
| comp | 0.08 | 0.12 | 0.63 | 0.528 | |
| dom | 0.15 | 0.19 | 0.76 | 0.448 | |
| int_1 | -0.03 | 0.04 | -0.88 | 0.379 | |
| demands | constant | 3.05 | 1.22 | 2.50 | 0.013 |
| comp | 0.16 | 0.22 | 0.74 | 0.462 | |
| fri | 0.12 | 0.35 | 0.33 | 0.744 | |
| int_1 | -0.05 | 0.06 | -0.75 | 0.457 | |
| influence and development | constant | 3.22 | 0.77 | 4.20 | 0.000 |
| comp | 0.02 | 0.14 | 0.18 | 0.861 | |
| fri | -0.05 | 0.22 | -0.22 | 0.825 | |
| int_1 | -0.01 | 0.04 | -0.32 | 0.748 | |
| interpersonal relations and leadership | constant | 2.66 | 0.68 | 3.91 | 0.000 |
| comp | 0.05 | 0.12 | 0.38 | 0.704 | |
| fri | 0.16 | 0.20 | 0.79 | 0.429 | |
| int_1 | -0.02 | 0.04 | -0.65 | 0.519 | |
| demands | constant | 4.05 | 1.10 | 3.69 | 0.000 |
| comp | -0.09 | 0.20 | -0.47 | 0.642 | |
| frisub | -0.17 | 0.31 | -0.55 | 0.582 | |
| int_1 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.46 | 0.650 | |
| influence and development | constant | 3.78 | 0.69 | 5.46 | 0.000 |
| comp | -0.12 | 0.13 | -0.97 | 0.336 | |
| frisub | -0.21 | 0.20 | -1.04 | 0.299 | |
| int_1 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.79 | 0.430 | |
| interpersonal relations and leadership | constant | 2.87 | 0.61 | 4.73 | 0.000 |
| comp | 0.00 | 0.11 | 0.02 | 0.984 | |
| frisub | 0.09 | 0.17 | 0.52 | 0.603 | |
| int_1 | -0.01 | 0.03 | -0.30 | 0.768 | |
| demands | constant | 4.30 | 1.10 | 3.91 | 0.000 |
| comp | -0.07 | 0.20 | -0.33 | 0.742 | |
| sub | -0.25 | 0.32 | -0.78 | 0.437 | |
| int_1 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.30 | 0.764 | |
| influence and development | constant | 3.93 | 0.70 | 5.63 | 0.000 |
| comp | -0.14 | 0.13 | -1.11 | 0.268 | |
| sub | -0.26 | 0.20 | -1.26 | 0.208 | |
| int_1 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.93 | 0.353 | |
| interpersonal relations and leadership | constant | 3.31 | 0.62 | 5.38 | 0.000 |
| comp | -0.04 | 0.11 | -0.34 | 0.737 | |
| sub | -0.04 | 0.18 | -0.21 | 0.831 | |
| int_1 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.950 | |
| demands | constant | 4.18 | 1.11 | 3.75 | 0.000 |
| comp | 0.03 | 0.21 | 0.14 | 0.885 | |
| hossub | -0.25 | 0.33 | -0.75 | 0.455 | |
| int_1 | -0.01 | 0.06 | -0.09 | 0.928 | |
| influence and development | constant | 3.74 | 0.71 | 5.24 | 0.000 |
| comp | -0.07 | 0.13 | -0.49 | 0.622 | |
| hossub | -0.22 | 0.21 | -1.03 | 0.307 | |
| int_1 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.38 | 0.706 | |
| interpersonal relations and leadership | constant | 4.58 | 0.62 | 7.44 | 0.000 |
| comp | -0.20 | 0.11 | -1.79 | 0.074 | |
| hossub | -0.43 | 0.18 | -2.38 | 0.018 | |
| int_1 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 1.63 | 0.104 | |
| demands | constant | 4.92 | 1.01 | 4.89 | 0.000 |
| comp | -0.14 | 0.18 | -0.78 | 0.436 | |
| hos | -0.52 | 0.33 | -1.59 | 0.115 | |
| int_1 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.89 | 0.374 | |
| influence and development | constant | 3.81 | 0.65 | 5.89 | 0.000 |
| comp | -0.12 | 0.12 | -1.02 | 0.311 | |
| hos | -0.26 | 0.21 | -1.22 | 0.224 | |
| int_1 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.89 | 0.376 | |
| interpersonal relations and leadership | constant | 4.12 | 0.56 | 7.32 | 0.000 |
| comp | -0.15 | 0.10 | -1.51 | 0.134 | |
| hos | -0.33 | 0.18 | -1.76 | 0.080 | |
| int_1 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 1.31 | 0.190 | |
| demands | constant | 4.11 | 0.97 | 4.25 | 0.000 |
| comp | 0.01 | 0.18 | 0.06 | 0.950 | |
| hosdom | -0.28 | 0.33 | -0.85 | 0.399 | |
| int_1 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.931 | |
| influence and development | constant | 3.45 | 0.62 | 5.58 | 0.000 |
| comp | -0.03 | 0.11 | -0.27 | 0.787 | |
| hosdom | -0.16 | 0.21 | -0.75 | 0.456 | |
| int_1 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.19 | 0.849 | |
| interpersonal relations and leadership | constant | 4.02 | 0.54 | 7.49 | 0.000 |
| comp | -0.12 | 0.10 | -1.22 | 0.225 | |
| hosdom | -0.32 | 0.18 | -1.73 | 0.086 | |
| int_1 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 1.09 | 0.275 |
Figure 1
[ganyumbez6]Begin here next time
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.
Read moreEach paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.
Read moreThanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.
Read moreYour email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.
Read moreBy sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.
Read more