Eurasian Business Review

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 423–444 | Cite as

Variations in employee duty orientation: impact of personality, leadership styles and corporate culture

  • Yuliya Frolova
  • Monowar MahmoodEmail author
Regular Article


This study aims to assess the extent and variations of employee duty orientation in a transition economy context, i.e., in Kazakhstan. Adopting ideas from the attitudinal theory, normative theory and exchange theory perspectives, the study further investigates relationships between personality traits and duty orientation as well as moderating role of leadership styles and corporate culture on personality-duty orientation relationship. Data were collected from employees of 284 organizations in three main big cities of Kazakhstan. The findings revealed higher level of employee duty orientation as well as variations in employees’ duty orientation between local and multinational corporations. It also identified the influence of individual personality traits, leadership styles and organizational culture on employees’ level of duty orientation. Among different personality traits, conscientiousness appeared to have the highest significant positive influence, and emotionality has highest significant negative influence on duty orientation. Among different leadership styles, autocratic leadership seems to have the most significant influence on duty orientation. Among types of organizational culture, adhocracy culture appears to have most significant positive influence on duty orientation. While individual-level factors are mostly blamed for employees’ duty orientation, the findings show influence of contextual factors such as leadership styles and corporate culture on employee duty orientation. It depicts a holistic view of employee duty orientation and opens new avenues to consider duty orientation from multi-level perspectives. Based on empirical evidence, the study provides recommendations for managers to nurture employee duty orientation for improved organizational performance.


Duty orientation Leadership Corporate culture Personality Kazakhstan 



  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavoir. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process,50(2), 179–211.Google Scholar
  2. Aldieri, L., & Vinci, C. (2018). Innovation effects on employment in high-tech and low-tech industries: Evidence from large international firms within the triad. Eurasian Business Review,8(2), 229–243.Google Scholar
  3. Antonakis, J., Aio, B., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly,14(3), 261–295.Google Scholar
  4. Ashton, M., & Lee, K. (2008). The prediction of Honesty-Humility-related criteria by the HEXACO and Five-Factor Models of personality. Journal of Research in Personality,42(5), 1216–1228.Google Scholar
  5. Ashton, M., Lee, K., De Vries, R., 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.Google Scholar
  6. Bell, S. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,92(3), 595–615.Google Scholar
  7. Bentea, C., & Anghelache, V. (2012). Comparative aspects concerning the effects of extraversion on performance in a cognitive task in competitive and cooperative conditions. Procedia Social and behavioral Sciences,33, 558–562.Google Scholar
  8. Bradley, B., Baur, J., Sanford, C., & Postlethwaite, B. (2013). Team players and collective performance: How agreeableness affects team performance over time. Small Group Research,44(6), 680–711.Google Scholar
  9. Brislin, R. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,1(3), 185–216.Google Scholar
  10. Brummel, B., & Parker, K. (2015). Obligation and entitlement in society and the workplace. Applied Psychology,64(1), 127–160.Google Scholar
  11. Caldwell, C., Floyd, L., Atkins, R., & Holzgrefe, R. (2012). Ethical duties of organizational citizens: Obligation owed by highly committed employees. Journal of Business Ethics,110(3), 285–299.Google Scholar
  12. Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. (2006). Diagsing and changing organizational culture. San Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  13. Chou, S., & Stauffer, J. (2016). A theoretical classification of helping behavior and helping motives. Personnel Review,45(5), 871–888.Google Scholar
  14. Cialdini, R., Re, R., & Kallgren, C. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,58(6), 1015–1026.Google Scholar
  15. Conrads, J., Irlenbusch, B., Rilke, R., & Walkowitz, G. (2013). Lying and team incentives. Journal of Economic Psychology,34(1), 1–7.Google Scholar
  16. Cropanza, R., & Mitchell, M. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management,31(6), 874–900.Google Scholar
  17. De Dreu, C., & Nauta, A. (2009). Self-interest and other orientations in organizational behavior: Implications for job performance, pro-social behavior and personal initiatives. Journal of Applied Psychology,94(4), 913–926.Google Scholar
  18. De Hoogh, A., Greer, L., & Den Hartog, D. (2015). Diabolical dictators or capable commanders? An investigation of the differential effects of autocratic leadership on team performance. The Leadership Quarterly,26(5), 687–701.Google Scholar
  19. De Vries, R. (2013). The 24-item Brief HEXACO Inventory (BHI). Journal of Research in Personality,47(6), 871–880.Google Scholar
  20. Dinger, F., Dickhäuser, O., Hilbig, B., Müller, E., Steinmayr, R., & Wirthwein, L. (2015). From basic personality to motivation: Relating the HEXACO factors to achievement goals. Learning and Individual Differences,40(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
  21. Estiri, M., Amiri, N., Khajehejan, D., & Rayej, H. (2018). Leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior in hospitality industry: A study on effect of gender. Eurasian Business Review,8(3), 267–284.Google Scholar
  22. Flint, D., Haley, L., & McNally, J. (2013). Individual and organizational determinants of turnover intent. Personnel Review,42(5), 552–572.Google Scholar
  23. Folger, R., Ganegoda, D., Rice, D., Taylor, R., & Wo, H. (2013). Bounded automy and behavioral ethics: Deonance and reactance as competing motives. Human Relations,66(7), 905–924.Google Scholar
  24. Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior,23, 133–187.Google Scholar
  25. Gatsonis, C., & Sampson, A. (1989). Multiple correlation: Exact power and sample size calculations. Psychologoical Bulletin,106(3), 516–524.Google Scholar
  26. Gonzalez-Mule, E., DeGeest, D., Kiersch, G., & Mount, M. (2013). Gender diffferences in personality predictors of countreproductive behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychologoy,28(4), 333–353.Google Scholar
  27. Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2015). The value of corporate culture”. Journal of Financial Economics,117(1), 60–76.Google Scholar
  28. Gumusluoglu, L., Aygun, Z., & Scandura, T. (2017). A multilevel examination of beneent leadership and invation behavior in R&D contexts: A social identity apparoach. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,24(4), 479–493.Google Scholar
  29. Gürerk, Ö., Irlenbusch, B., & Rockenbach, B. (2009). Motivating teammates: The leader’s choice between positive and negative incentives. Journal of Economic Psychology,30(4), 591–607.Google Scholar
  30. Hair, J., Jr., Hult, G., Christian, M., & Marko, M. (2014a). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). USA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  31. Hair, J., Jr., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuelwieser, V. (2014b). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). European Business Review.,26(2), 106–121.Google Scholar
  32. Hannah, S., Jennings, P., Bluhm, D., Peng, A., & Schaubroeck, J. (2014). Duty orientation: Theoretical development and preliminary construct testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,123(2), 220–238.Google Scholar
  33. Hilbig, B., & Zettler, I. (2015). When the cat’s away, some mice will play: A basic trait account of dishonest behavior. Journal of Research in Personality,57(1), 72–88.Google Scholar
  34. Hilbig, B., Zettler, I., Leist, F., & Heydasch, T. (2013). It takes two: Honesty-humility and agreeableness differently predict active versus reactive cooperation. Personality and Individual Differences,54(5), 598–603.Google Scholar
  35. Ismail, K., & Ford, D. (2010). Organizational leadership in central Asia and the Caucasus: Research considerations and directions. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,27(2), 321–340.Google Scholar
  36. Israel, G. (2003). Determining sample size. Gainesville: Program Evaluation and Organizational Development Unit, IFAS: University of Florida.Google Scholar
  37. Jennings, P., Mitchell, M., & Hannah, S. (2014). The moral self: A review and integration of the literature. Journal of Organizational Behavior,36(1), 104–168.Google Scholar
  38. Kae, R., & Van der Flier, H. (2010). Using multiple and specific criteria to assess the predictive validity of the Big Five personality factors on academic performance. Journal of Research in Personality,44(1), 142–145.Google Scholar
  39. Kramer, A., Bhave, D., & Johnson, T. (2014). Personality and group performance: The importance of personality compositions and work tasks. Personality and Individual Differences,58(1), 132–137.Google Scholar
  40. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. (2014). The Dark Triad, the Big Five, and the HEXACO model. Personality and Individual Differences,67(1), 2–9.Google Scholar
  41. Lewis, G., & Bates, T. (2014). How genes influence personality: Evidence from multi-facet twin analysis of the HEXACO dimensions. Journal of Research in Personality,51(1), 9–17.Google Scholar
  42. Lourenço, P., Dimas, I., & Rebelo, T. (2014). Effective workgroups: The role of diversity and culture. Journal of Work and organizational Psychology,30(3), 123–132.Google Scholar
  43. Low, P. (2007). Father Leadership and small business management: The Kazakhstan perspective. Journal of Management Development,26(8), 723–736.Google Scholar
  44. Macht, G., Nembhard, D., Kim, J., & Rothrock, L. (2014). Structural models of extraversion, communication, and team performance. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,44(1), 82–91.Google Scholar
  45. Mahmood, M., & Baimukhamedova, A. (2013). Training and Development in Kazakhstan. International Journal of Training and Development,17(3), 156–171.Google Scholar
  46. Minbaeva, D., & Touron, M. (2013). Clannism: Definition and implications for human resource management. Management International Review,53(1), 109–139.Google Scholar
  47. Moss, S., Song, M., Hannah, S., Wang, Z., & Sumanth, J. (2019). The duty to improve oneself: How duty orientation mediates the relationship between ethical leadership and followers’ feedback-seeking and feedback-avoiding behavior. Journal of Business Ethics. Scholar
  48. Nicholls, C., Lane, H., & Brehm, M. (1999). Taking self-managed teams to Mexico. Academy of Management Executive,13(3), 15–27.Google Scholar
  49. Piva, M., & Vivarelli, M. (2018). Technological change and employment: Is Europe ready for the challenge? Eurasian Business Review,8, 13–32.Google Scholar
  50. Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., & Podsakoff, N. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology,63, 539–569.Google Scholar
  51. Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Wiley.Google Scholar
  52. Schwartz, H. (1993). A theory of deontic work motivation. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,19(2), 204–214.Google Scholar
  53. Shamir, B. (1990). Calculations, values, and identities: The source of collectivistic work behavior. Human Relations,43(3), 313–332.Google Scholar
  54. Shamir, B. (1991). Meaning, self and motivation in organizations. Organization Studies,12(3), 405–424.Google Scholar
  55. Shieh, G. (2007). A unified approach to power calculation and sample size determination for random regression model. Psychometrika,72(3), 347–360.Google Scholar
  56. Silvia, P., Nusbaum, E., & Beaty, R. (2014). Blessed are the meek? Honesty-humility, agreeableness, and the HEXACO structure of religious beliefs, motives, and values. Personality and Individual Differences,66(1), 19–23.Google Scholar
  57. Spence, C., Zhu, J., Endo, T., & Matsubara, S. (2017). Money, honor and duty: Global professional service firms in comparative perspective. Accounting, Organizations and Society,62(1), 82–97.Google Scholar
  58. Tallman, R., & Bruning, N. (2008). Relating employees’ psychological contracts to their personality. Journal of Managerial Psychology,23(6), 688–712.Google Scholar
  59. Tuzun, I., Cetin, F., & Basum, H. (2017). Deviant employee behavior in the eyes of colleagues: The role of organizational support and self-efficacy. Eurasian Business Review,7(3), 389–405.Google Scholar
  60. Wallace, E., Chernatony, L., & Buil, I. (2013). Building bank brands: How leadership behavior influences employee commitment. Journal of Business Research,66(2), 163–171.Google Scholar
  61. Wei, L., Liu, J., Zhang, Y., & Chiu, R. (2008). The role of corporate culture in the process of strategic human resource management: Evidence from Chinese enterprises. Human Resource Management,47(4), 777–794.Google Scholar
  62. Weller, S. (2015). Sample size estimation: The easy way. Field Methods,27(4), 333–347.Google Scholar
  63. Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B., Murphy, G., & Coffey, V. (2013). Organizational culture and willingness to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context. International Journal of Project Management,31(8), 1163–1174.Google Scholar
  64. Wood, S., Patterson, F., Koczwara, A., & Sofat, J. (2016). The value of being a conscientious learner: Examining the effects of the big five. Journal of Workplace Learning,28(7), 424–434.Google Scholar
  65. Wurthmann, K. (2017). Implicit theories and issues characteristics as determinants of moral awareness and intentions. Journal of Business Ethics,142(1), 93–116.Google Scholar
  66. Yang, B. (2003). Identifying valid and reliable measures for dimensions of learning Culture. Advances in Developing Human Resources,5(2), 152–162.Google Scholar
  67. Zikmund, W., & Babin, B. J. (2007). Exploring marketing research (9th ed.). USA: Thomson South-Western.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Eurasia Business and Economics Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bang College of BusinessKIMEP UniversityAlmatyKazakhstan

Personalised recommendations