A CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF MOTIVATIONAL ANTECEDENTS OF JOB OUTCOMES AND HOW ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE MODERATES Aziz BAKAY Jun HUANG A.R. Sanchez, Jr. School of Business A.R. Sanchez, Jr. School of Business WHTC 211, 5201 University Boulevard WHTC 211, 5201 University Boulevard Texas A&M International University Texas A&M International University Laredo, TX, 78041 Laredo, TX, 78041 Office: (956) 326-2552 Office: (956) 326-2552 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Email: email@example.com ABSTRACT This paper investigates into the relationship between motivation and job outcomes in work environment. The motivational antecedents of organizational outcomes are differentiated into extrinsic and intrinsic motivations. The influences of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on the job outcome variables, that are job satisfaction and job performance, are typified in our conceptual model. Therefore, this study looks into the moderating effect of organizational culture on the relationship between motivational variables and organizational outcomes. We identified four organizational cultures from the extant literature to be included in our conceptual model; competitive, bureaucratic, entrepreneurial, and consensual. Propositions are given regarding the moderating effect of organizational culture on the motivational antecedents of job outcomes. Future research directions are discussed. Key words: Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, organizational culture, job outcomes, job performance, job satisfaction. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1722048 INTRODUCTION The organizational culture as a set of values, beliefs, assumptions are partially manifested in physically observable artifacts such as rituals, ceremonies, stories, work settings (Schein, 1990). Schein argues that organizational culture as set of assumptions developed by the group, allows members “to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration” whilst it being a transmitted to the new members and thought to be the right path “to perceive, think, and feel in relation to these problems” (1990: 111) Looking into the surface manifestations of the organizational culture might divert the focus from exploring the real casual aspects of how organizations run. Therefore, digging deep through the organizational environment in order to reach a more veiled construct, culture, is an important step in finding the determinants of individual behavior in organization. In another study (Schein, 1996), he also argues that having research perspectives from different disciplines such as anthropology, ethnography, and social psychology would extend the literature in order to illuminate the culture per se in organizations that is not frequently grasped accurately in both methodological and conceptual views. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations as personal traits are considered in academic studies that included clinical experiments related to educational-creativity context, or in a work environment setting (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey & Tighe, 1994; Deci, 1975; Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 1999; Markus, Manville & Agres, 2000; O'Reilly, 1989). Level of self- determination and competence are relevant concepts to intrinsic motivation (Deci, Ryan; 1985), as well as the interest on the work itself, and loving what you do (Amabile, 1997), rather than the benefits associated with the outcomes of the work and reward structure which allude to extrinsic motivation. In one of the highly cited meta-analysis, it was found that there is a negative association between the extrinsic and intrinsic motivation (Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 1999) resulting in that extrinsic motivation undermines intrinsic motivation. Some other studies imply the additive nature (Amabile et al., 1994) of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation that some certain combination of two could improve the overall outcome especially in creativity context. Amabile defined Intrinsic Motivation Principle suggesting that “informational and enabling extrinsic motivation can be conducive, particularly if initial levels of intrinsic motivation are high” (1997: 46). However, the type and timing of the extrinsic motivation become crucial in order to observe a competitive and/or creative outcome achieved through a certain combination of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Culture and Organization Smircich (1983) portrayed the interface of culture as an anthropological concept with organization that is drawn from organization theory, elaborating on the proposed associations. Actions of individuals including behaviors, attitudes, interactions with other members of the organization, and person-organization fit in terms of the alignment of the individual and organizational values (O`Reilly, Chatman & Caldwell, 1991) manifest the existence of culture; therefore, Smircich (1983) suggested that culture may be empirically used and tested in organizational research as an independent variable within the context of comparative management studies considering especially the multinational organizations. Cultural context can be tested by including the variations across cultures and drawing implications with regards to the organizational outcomes. Second, organization as a system encompasses culture, as “social glue” (Smircich, 1983: 344) shared and produced by the members of the organization. Thus, culture is an integral and internal part of the organization. As characteristics of the firm; structure, size, technology as well as rituals, ceremonies etc. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1722048 are thought to have impact on the employee behavior, the effectiveness of the management and other organizational outcomes. Schein (1990) argues that before immediately starting to measure what organizational culture is, it is highly essential and important to define the periphery of organizational culture. He contends that survey design by its nature assumes that relevant knowledge regarding organizational culture is available; however survey method lacks ability to capture culture as an abstract phenomenon. The ambiguity of organizational culture may be balanced by clinically observing the organizations and conducting interviews allowing researcher to reach deep beyond the artifacts such as values and assumptions (Schein, 1990). Therefore, his suggestion to research into the power centers, senior members and/or leaders of the organizations is of importance because it can yield better information in the sense that the culture creation and dissemination of norms, values and beliefs start from relatively high levels of the organization. On the other hand, Cooke & Rousseau (1988) argue that quantitative analysis allow large-scale organizational analysis as opposed to clinical observations that are somewhat vague and contingent upon client’s requests. In addition, the Organizational Culture Inventory (OCI) that was designed to reveal the thinking/cultural styles of individuals in an organization that are related to managerial effectiveness, interpersonal relations and individual well-being. Some of these cultural/thinking styles are constructs capturing various behavioral norms and attitudes such as Humanistic-Helpful, Approval, Dependent, Competitive, and Achievement. OCI as a diagnostic system can be applied to all levels of the organization allowing members to identify the current behavioral norms and ideal culture profiles. Thus, the cultural and behavioral change management focus can be directed towards the needed sections of the large organizational system. The members of an organization from a practitioner point of view, culture might delineate some expectations that create pressure upon individuals while creating an organization-specific individual behavior on the way attaining the organizational goals (O’Reilly, 1989). O’Reilly also stated that “culture can be thought of as a potential social control system” (1989: 12) that helps shaping the work-related behavior of the employee. Thus, the culture utilized as the integral part of the organization and portrayed so that it could be managed as a tool, and it is instrumented towards a strengthened entity in terms of performance measures. Organization culture and organizational climate, and work values are investigated and distinctions across concepts were made by researchers. Deshpande & Farley (1999) found out rather than climate and innovative perspectives across firms, corporate culture and market orientation are essential factors that distinguish the Japanese and Indian firms from each other. In addition, analysis show that bureaucratic and consensual corporate cultures did not support the performance as opposed to entrepreneurial and competitive culture. Commitment was found to be associated with motivation therefore leading to productivity (Mahal, 2009). Sagie & Elizur (1996) identified three main research streams in work values domain; investigating the underlying facets of the work values; exploring the consequential and antecedents of work values; and researching into cross-cultural evaluations of the work values. Authors suggest that culture as a moderator could be utilized in order to explain the antecedents of job outcomes. In our study, we are positing organizational culture in our model in the sense that it moderates the motivational antecedents of job outcomes. Organizational Culture and Performance The impact of organizational culture on corporate performance has received great attention lately. Denison (1984) examined the relationship between corporate culture and performance. Using survey data as an indication of cultural managerial style and Standard and Poor's financial ratios as indicators of performance, this research compares a set of 34 large American firms. The result showed that the cultural and behavioral characteristics of organizations have a measurable effect on a company's performance. Organizations with a participative culture not only perform better than those without such a culture, but the margin of difference that widens over time suggests a possible cause-and-effect relationship between culture and performance. Kotter and Heskett (1992) used the data from 207 firms over a five year period and examined the impact of organizational culture on long term economic performance. They found that corporate culture has a significant impact on a firm’s long term economic performance. Marcoulides and Heck (1993) proposed a model in which organizational culture was measured using several latent variables, including organizational structure, organizational values, task organization, climate, and individual values and beliefs. The performance was measured by capital, market and financial indicators. Data from 26 companies were used. The result of their study showed that task organization among all the latent variables had the most significant impact on performance. Based on the data collected from 1000 units from the Financial Analysis Made Easy database of registered British companies, Ogbonna and Harris (2000) examined the relationship between organizational culture and performance. They used customer satisfaction, sales growth, market share, competitive advantage and sales volume to measure performance. They measure organizational culture with competitive culture, innovation culture, bureaucratic culture and community culture. The results showed that all four organizational cultures had direct association with performance. 25 percent of variance in corporate performance can be explained by innovative and competitive culture. However, bureaucratic and community cultures were not directly related to performance. Ezirim, Nwibere & Emecheta (2010) used four culture types that introduced by Deshapande and Farley (1999) to examine the relationship between organizational culture and performance. This organizational culture typology asserts that an organization may be classified as one of these types of culture: competitive, entrepreneurial, bureaucratic and consensual. The performance was, again, measured by examining the profitability ratios: sales volume and market share. They found out that competitive, entrepreneurial and consensual organizational cultures positively and significantly influence profitability, sales volume and market shares. In contrast, bureaucratic organizational culture was negatively but not significantly related to organizational performance. Liu (2009) assessed the relationship between organizational culture and new service development performance. Research results indicated that there were strongly complementary relationships among innovative supportive culture, market orientation culture, learning culture and customer communication culture. The study outlined that the new service development management should perform to foster the different new service development organizational culture together and thereby enhance the performance of new service development activities. Intrinsic-Extrinsic Motivation and Job Outcomes Deci defined intrinsic motivation as behaviors that “a person engages in to feel competent and self-determining” (1975: 61). Therefore, intrinsic motivation is not ascribed to expectation of any rewards for the individual thus there is no pecuniary or non-pecuniary outcome of the activity but only itself. Activity is also only carried out by the sake of oneself. “Activities are ends in themselves rather than means to an end” (Deci, 1975: 23) explains the operational definition of the intrinsic motivation. Numerous experiments and research have been conducted on the factors that motivate individuals in various environments. As such, motivational factors associated with work-related, and education-related situations are clinically experimented and empirically tested in order to reveal the origin and outcomes of the motivation. Therefore, some of these studies in the literature tied the intrinsic motivation into creativity in work settings by clinical experiments. One of these studies (Amabile, 1997) argues that what an employee can do is determined by the level of expertise, creativity; however utilization of these resources and efficiently engaging into the task depend on the intrinsic task motivation. The extrinsic motivation can be associated with attaining some goal, achieving an aim, obtaining a reward or meeting a deadline (Deci, Ryan; 1985), acquiring recognition as well as some pushing factors apart from the self and the work itself. Therefore, the efforts associated with attaining some certain work outcomes are aroused by extrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1997). In addition, the existence of tension and feeling of pressured are in relation with the extrinsic motivation. Even though there is no specific reward associated with the work, person can feel pressured and experience tension when there is ego-involvement in the work-process (Deci, Ryan; 1985). Thus, control factors are of importance when operationalizing the extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. As such, no-reward control group against reward group (Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 1999), initial level of intrinsic motivation, timing of extrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1997) might add value and reliability of the measures. Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999) conducted a meta-analysis on the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation using 128 experimental studies. The analysis concluded that the all rewards types (engagement-contingent, completion-contingent, performance- contingent) significantly weakened the free-choice intrinsic motivation and only two out of three reward types (engagement-contingent and completion contingent) undermined the self- reported interest. This antagonism among the two motivational constructs can be exemplified within the context of an engineer, where a person is less willing to undertake a project given to him by his superior as opposed to a state where he has high intrinsic motivation to undertake a project of his own design (Amabile, 1997). Therefore, for our research purposes, we don’t account for any differentiations of reward types, timing of extrinsic rewards and initial level of intrinsic motivation as implied in Intrinsic Motivation Principle. Thus, we would hypothesize a simple negative relationship between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. On the other hand, the additive effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation have value in the sense that an optimum combination can help reaching improved learning and educational goals (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, Tighe, 1994). Based on this approach, our conceptual model postulates the coexistence of these related motivational factors in a work environment and investigates the joint impact on job performance and job satisfaction. Rich, Lepine and Crawfor (2010) investigated the job engagement, job involvement, job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation as antecedents of two job performance dimensions: task performance and organizational citizenship behavior. In addition, their study tested mediating role of these work values between the other affective-motivational states and performance dimensions; whereby, intrinsic motivation did not exceed job engagement in explaining the relationship besides being statistically insignificant. Motivation was discussed in the context of information system projects (Mahaney & Lederer, 2006), open-source software projects and contribution of volunteer programmers (Markus, Manville & Agres; 2000). The former study attempted to explain IS project success by intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. Client satisfaction and perceived quality were predicted by intrinsic rewards whilst extrinsic rewards predicted project implementation success but not the other two outcomes. The latter study discusses the self-employed “hackers”. These program developers find value in participating and being involved in the open-source codes that improve the software from various aspects. However, programmers are not virtually employees nor contracted labor of the underlying organization that releases the software (i.e. Linux, Netscape Navigator). The study elaborates on the extrinsic motivational factors, such as recognition and enhanced reputation among their peers, monetary rewards, and immediate benefit of using improved software; as well as intrinsic motivational factors such as altruism and ideology. Thus, the coexisting relationship between intrinsically motivated behavior and extrinsic rewards are discussed in IS perspective. The relationship between extrinsic reward and performance has been studied by a number of scholars. Farr (1976) concluded that workers were more productive when they receive pay linked to performance, while workers receiving equal pay were less productive regardless of performance. Huber (1985) found that goal-contingent pay had the largest positive effect on performance, when goals were assigned. Eisenberger, Haskins & Gambleton (1999) reveal that expected increasing in salary and monetary reward related to performance positively impact innovative behavior and performance. According to O’Driscoll and Randall (1999), extrinsic rewards include elements such as pay and fringe benefits, job security, promotion or advancement opportunities within the organization, the social climate, and physical working conditions. When extrinsic rewards are offered and provided, employees are found to be motivated to work hard to produce quality results since the failure to receive those rewards disappoints them (Mahaney & Lederer, 2006). Broad (2007) stated that tangible incentives are effective in increasing performance for new task and encouraging “thinking smarter”. Flynn (1998) argued that reward programs keep high spirits among employees, boosts up their morale and create a linkage between performance and motivation of the employees. The basic purpose of reward program is to define a system to pay and communicate it to the employees so that they can link their reward to their performance which ultimately leads to employee’s job satisfaction. Some other researchers studied in the relationship between rewards and another form of outcome-creativity. Byron and Khazanchi (2010) conducted a meta-analysis and found that rewards increase creativity, particularly when individuals understand that rewards are contingent on creative performance. Based on these studies, the link between extrinsic motivation and job outcomes are posited to be positive in our study. CONCEPTUAL MODEL The literature utilized various organizational culture variables as antecedents of job outcome variables. However, less attention was given to organizational culture’s moderating effect between antecedent factors and the job outcome dimensions. The unique part of this conceptual model is that it attempts to explore the moderating effect of four distinct organizational cultures; competitive, bureaucratic, entrepreneurial, consensual. Based on the differentiation of organizational culture in the extant literature (Deshpande & Farley, 1999; Ezirim et al. 2010), the variations in cultural spheres of the organizations might create supportive environment for the members of the organization so that the motivational factors are stimulated leading to improved outcomes. Thus, the direct relationships between motivational factors might be supported or devalued by what organizational culture possesses and how the individual interacts with them; including but not limited to the norms, values, structure, size, work-environment, ceremonies, myths etc. Figure: Conceptual model showing the correlational links. Job outcomes are contingent upon many factors that include job engagement, job involvement, value congruence, perceived organizational support and motivational factors (Rich, Lepine & Crawfor, 2010). In our model, we propose that the summation of the extrinsic and intrinsic motivation will determine the job outcome dimensions. Based on the extant literature (Eisenberger, Haskins & Gambleton, 1999; Farr, 1976; Flynn, 1998; Huber, 1985; Mahaney & Lederer, 2006; O’Driscoll & Randall, 1999; Rich, Lepine & Crawfor, 2010), the motivational factors either of intrinsic or extrinsic, positively impact the productivity, effectiveness, efficiency and performance as well as satisfaction. Nonetheless, we keep the linkage between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation confirming to the meta- analysis that revealed a negative relationship for this particular association (Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 1999). All extrinsic rewards significantly undermined the intrinsic motivation. Thus; we consider the individual impacts of two motivations on the job satisfaction and performance. Therefore: P1: Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation will be positively associated with the organizational outcomes. P2: The extrinsic motivation will undermine the intrinsic motivation. In a competitive and bureaucratic culture, organizations emphasize on values relating to demanding goals, competitive advantage, marketing superiority, and profits, therefore employees bear more incentive come from their superiors that stimulate their motivation resulting in leveraged organizational outcomes. Similarly, in these types of cultures values such as formalization, rules, standard operating procedures, and hierarchical coordination are emphasized. Employees, therefore, are restricted by the rules and regulations, formal procedures (Deshpande & Farley, 1999). Thus: P3: Competitive and bureaucratic culture will strengthen the relationship between extrinsic motivation and organizational outcomes whereas weaken the relationship between intrinsic and organizational outcomes. In the entrepreneurial culture, the emphasis is primarily on innovation, risk taking, high levels of dynamism and creativity ascertaining the individuals self-interest in the job and stimulating the intrinsic motivation. Similarly in the consensual culture, elements of tradition, loyalty, personal commitment, extensive socialization, teamwork, self-management, and social influence are important in the organizational values. Therefore: P4: Entrepreneurial and consensual culture will strengthen the relationship between intrinsic motivation and organizational outcomes whereas weaken the relationship between extrinsic motivation and organizational outcomes. DISCUSSION In this study, we are looking at the moderating effect of organizational culture on the relationships between the motivational antecedents and organizational outcomes. Various organizational cultures create different work environments and ways of thinking for members of the organization. What lies underneath the work climate and artifacts of work settings as manifestations of organizational values and assumptions is a simple question to expand the understanding the culture in a complex system; organization. Therefore, perception towards organizational culture as a prime determinant of individual behavior has increasing importance in the research agendas of many. At this junction, our study attempts to fill the gap of the interactive impacts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on job outcome variables considering organizational culture as a moderator variable. Operationalization of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation variables can be done by using multiple survey items followed by factor analysis as well as reliability and validity tests. Therefore, a possible set of questionnaire items are provided in the appendix for variables for both motivation and organizational culture. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTION We have developed testable propositions following the discussion of the conceptual model. The propositions are posed with respect to the relationship between motivational antecedents and job outcomes. These relationships are moderated by four organizational cultures. This cultural typology among many other cultural classifications is used due to its broad categorization that captures the generic distinctions observable across different organizations. In addition, this typology allows easily implementation of the operationalization and moderating role of the culture in our conceptual model. Therefore, large-scale quantitative analyses of organizational culture can follow our conceptual model expanding the literature in this field. The cross-cultural implementation of this model is contingent upon other validations and incorporating country-specific variables such as language and national culture. APPENDIX - Questionnaire Items 1- Items for Intrinsic Motivation Adapted from Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, Tighe (1994). I enjoy tackling problems that are completely new to me. I enjoy trying to solve complex problems. The more difficult the problem, the more I enjoy trying to solve it. I want my work to provide me with opportunities for increasing my knowledge and skills. Curiosity is the driving force behind much of what I do. I want to find out how good I really can be at my work. I prefer to figure things out for myself. What matters most to me is enjoying what I do. It is important for me to have an outlet for self-expression. I prefer work I know I can do well over work that stretches my abilities. No matter what the outcome of a project, I am satisfied if I feel I gained a new experience. I'm more comfortable when I can set my own goals. I enjoy doing work that is so absorbing that I forget about everything else. It is important for me to be able to do what I most enjoy. I enjoy relatively simple, straightforward tasks. 2- Items for Extrinsic Motivation Adapted from Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, Tighe (1994) I am strongly motivated by the [grades] [money] I can earn. I am keenly aware of the [GPA (grade point average)] [promotion] goals I have for myself. I am strongly motivated by the recognition I can earn from other people. I want other people to find out how good I really can be at my work. I seldom think about [grades and awards.] [salary and promotions.] I am keenly aware of the [goals I have for getting good grades.] [income goals I have for myself.] To me, success means doing better than other people. I have to feel that I'm earning something for what I do. As long as I can do what I enjoy, I'm not that concerned about exactly [what grades or awards I can earn.] [what I'm paid.] I believe that there is no point in doing a good job if nobody else knows about it. I'm concerned about how other people are going to react to my ideas. I prefer working on projects with clearly specified procedures. I'm less concerned with what work I do than what I get for it. I am not that concerned about what other people think of my work. I prefer having someone set clear goals for me in my work 3- Organizational Culture (Adapted from Deshpande & Farley; 1999) Questions below related to what your organization is like. Each of these items contains four descriptions of organizations. Please distribute 100 points among the four descriptions depending on how similar the description is to your business. None of the descriptions is any better than any other; they are just different. For each question, please use all 100 points. You may divide the points in any way you wish. Most businesses will be some mixture of those described. Kind of Organization (Please distribute 100 points) A. My organization is very personal place. It is like an extended family. People seem to share a lot of themselves. B. My organization is a very dynamic and entrepreneurial place. People are willing to stick their necks out and take risks. C. My organization is very formalized and structural place. Established procedures generally govern what people do. D. My organization is very productive oriented. A major concern is with getting the job done, without much personal involvement. Leadership (Please distribute 100 points) A. The head of my organization is generally considered to be a mentor, sage, or a father or mother figure. B. The head of my organization is generally considered to be an entrepreneur, and innovator or a risk taker. C. The head of my organization is generally considered to be coordinator, an organizer, or an administrator. D. The head of my organization is generally considered to be a producer, a technician, or a hard-driver. What Holds the Organization Together (Please distribute 100 points) A. The glue that holds my organization together is loyalty and tradition. Commitment to this firm runs high. B. The glue that holds my organization together is a commitment to innovation and development. These are an emphasis on being first. C. The glue that holds my organization together is formal rules and policies. Maintaining a smooth-running institution is important here. D. The glue that holds my organization together is the emphasis on tasks and goal accomplishment. A production orientation is commonly shared. What is Important (Please distribute 100 points) A. My organization emphasizes human resources. High cohesion and morale in the firm are important. B. My organization emphasizes growth and acquiring new resources. Readiness to meet new challenges is important. C. My organization emphasizes permanence and stability. Efficient, smooth operations are important. D. My organization emphasizes competitive actions and achievement. Measurable goals are important. Four organizational culture scores are computed by adding all four values of the A items for consensual, the B items for entrepreneurial, the C items for bureaucratic, and the D items for competitive. If total values from a given respondent do not add up to 400, they are normalized to do so. REFERENCES Amabile, M., T. (1997). Motivating Creativity in Organizations: On Doing What You Love and Loving What You Do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39-58. Amabile, T., M.; Hill, K., G.; Hennessey, B., A. & Tighe, E., M. (1994). The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivational Orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 950-967. Barley, S., R.; Meyer, G., W. & Gash, D., C. (1988). Cultures of Culture: Academics, Practitioners and the Pragmatics of Normative Control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(1), 24-60. Byron, K. & Khazanchi, S. (2010). When and How Rewards Increase Creativity Performance: A Theoretically Derived Meta-Analysis. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1-6. Cooke, R., A. & Rousseau, D., M. (1988). Behavioral Norms and Expectations: A Quantitative Approach to the Assessment of Organizational Culture. Group & Organization Studies, 13(3), 245-273. Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic Motivation. London: Plennum Press. Deci, E., L.; Koestner, R. & Ryan, R., M. (1999). A Meta-Analytic Review of Experiments Examining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668. Deci, E., L. & Ryan, R., M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plennum Press. Denison, D. (1984). Bringing Corporate Culture to the Bottom Line. Organizational Dynamics, 13(2), 5-22. Deshpande, R., & Farley, J. (1999). Executive Insights: Corporate Culture and Market Orientation: Comparing Indian and Japanese Firms. Journal of International Marketing, 7(4), 111-27. Eisenberger, R.; Haskins, F. & Gambleton, P. (1999). . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(3), 308–325. Ezirim, C., B.; Nwibere, B., M.; Emecheta, B. C. (2010). Organizational Culture and Performance: The Nigerian experience. International Journal of Business & Public Administration, 7(1), 40-56. Farr, J. L., (1976). Task Characteristics, Reward Contingency and Intrinsic Motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 294-307. Flynn, G. (1998). Is Your Recognition Program Understood? Workforce, 77(7), 30-35. Huber, V., L. (1985). Effects of Task Difficulty, Goal Setting, and Strategy on Performance of a Heuristic Task. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 492-504. Kotter, J., P. & Heskett, J., L. (1992). Corporate Culture and Performance. New York: Free Press. Liu, S. (2009). Organizational Culture and New Service Development Performance: Insights from Knowledge Intensive Business Service. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13(3), 371-392. Mahal, P., K. (2009). Organizational Culture and Organizational Climate as Determinant of Motivation. IUP Journal of Management Research, 8(10), 38-51. Mahaney, R., C.; Lederer, A., L. (2006). The Effect of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Rewards for Developers on Information System Project Success, Project Management Journal, 37(4), 42- 54. Marcoulides, G. and Heck, R. (1993). Organizational Culture and Performance: Proposing and Testing a Model. Organization Science, 4(2), 209-225. Markus, M., L.; Manville, B. & Agres, C. E. (2000). What Makes a Virtual Organization Work? MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(1), 13-26. Mowen, J., C; Middlemist, R., D. & Luther, D. (1981). Joint Effects of Assigned Goal Level and Incentive Structure on Task Performance: A Laboratory Study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(5), 598-603. O’Driscoll, M. P., & Randall, D. M. (1999). Perceived Organisational Support, Satisfaction With Rewards, and Employee Job Involvement and Organisational Commitment. Applied Psychology, 48(2), 197–209. Ogbonna, E & Harris, L. (2002). Managing Organizational Culture: Insights from the Hospitality Industry. Human Resource Management Journal, 12(1), 22-53. O'Reilly, C. (1989). Corporations, Culture, and Commitment: Motivation and Social Control in Organizations. California Management Review, 31(4), 9-25. O’Reilly, C., A. III; Chatman, J. & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and Organizational Culture: A Profile Comparison Approach to Assessing Person-Organization Fit. Academy of Management, 34(3), 487-516. Rich, B., L., Lepine, J., A. & Crawford, E., R. (2010). Job Engagement: Antecedents and Effects on Job Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617-635. Sagie, A., Elizur, D. & Koslowsky, M. (1996). Work Values: A Theoretical Overview and a Model of their Effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(7): 503-514. Schein, E., H. (1990). Organizational Culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109-119. Schein, E., H. (1996). Culture: The Missing Concept in Organizational Studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2), 229-240. Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3), 339-358. AUTHORS Aziz Bakay is currently a Ph.D. student in International Business at Texas A&M International University. He has MS degree in Finance from University of North Texas and BS degree in Management from Bilkent University, Turkey. His research interests are strategic groups, cross-cultural studies, human resources. Jun Huang is currently a Ph.D. student in International Business at Texas A&M International University. He has MSc degree in International Management from Oxford Brookes University.