Factors affect taking charge at Vingroup Corporation

RESEARCH PROJECT
(BMBR5103)
FACTORS AFFECT TAKING CHARGE
AT VINGROUP CORPORATION
STUDENT’S FULL NAME : NGUYEN DINH NHU HA
STUDENT ID : CGS00018247
INTAKE : MAY 2014
ADVISOR’S NAME & TITLE : NGUYEN THE KHAI (DBA)
August, 2015

Research Project - Student: Nguyễn Đình NhưHà 1
ADVISOR’S ASSESSMENT
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
ADVISOR’S SIGNATURE
NGUYEN THE KHAI (DBA)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Truthfully speaking, I would like to acknowledge the assistance of individuals who
guide and help me for completing this research. Firstly of all, I am very grateful to
professor Dr. Khai Nguyen. I would like to send truthful thanks to Dr. Khai Nguyen for
the patience, time, comments and support me during the research.
Besides, I would like to thank to the board of managers and all employees of Vingroup
Corporation for their precious comments and helps to collect data for this thesis.
I also wish to give my sincerest and deepest gratitude to my family and all of my
sweet friends for their encouragement, and great support.
With best regards
Ho Chi Minh City, August 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ............................................................................................................... page 5
Chapter 1: Introduction
1. Company Brief introduction ............................................................................ page 6
2. Organizational Structure of Vingroup ............................................................ page 10
3. Corporate Culture of Vingroup ...................................................................... page 11
4. Motivation of The Research ........................................................................... page 12
5. Research Problem Statement .......................................................................... page 13
6. Purpose of The Research ................................................................................ page 13
7. Scope of The Research ................................................................................... page 14
8. Significance of The Research ......................................................................... page 14
9. Limitation of The Research ............................................................................ page 14
Chapter II: Literature Review
1. Job Demand and Decision Latitude ............................................................... page 15
2. Supervisory Support ....................................................................................... page 16
3. Distributive and Procedural Justice ................................................................ page 17
4. Organizational Commitment .......................................................................... page 20
5. Taking Charge ................................................................................................ page 21
Chapter III: Research model and hypotheses
1. Research Model .............................................................................................. page 23
2. Hypotheses ...................................................................................................... page 24
2.1. Job characteristics .................................................................................... page 24

2.2. Organizational Commitment .................................................................... page 26
2.3. Organizational Justice .............................................................................. page 28
2.4. Workplace Behaviors ............................................................................... page 31
3. Research Participants ..................................................................................... page 34
4. Data Collection Procedure ............................................................................. page 34
Chapter IV: Analysis and results
1. Cronbach’s Alpha ........................................................................................... page 35
2. Descriptive Statistic ....................................................................................... page 36
3. Hypothesis Testing
3.1. Hypothesis 1 Testing Results ................................................................... page 36
Chapter V: Conclusion
1. Summary of The Results ................................................................................ page 40
2. Discussion and Recommendation .................................................................. page 40
3. Limitation ....................................................................................................... page 42
References ......................................................................................................... page 43
Appendix
Appendix 1: Survey Questionnaire ..................................................................... page 46
Appendix 2: Presentation Slides ......................................................................... page 51

FIGURES AND TABLES
Figures
Figure 1: Vingroup’s Corporate Structure ......................................................... page 11
Figure 2: Hypothesized Research Model ........................................................... page 24
Tables
Table 1: Vingroup’s Profile ................................................................................. page 9
Table 2: Data Collection Process ....................................................................... page 35
Table 3: Cronbach’s Alpha – Internal Consistency ........................................... page 36
Table 4: Cronbach’s Alpha of all Variables ....................................................... page 36
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................ page 37
Table 6: Model Summary (H1) .......................................................................... page 37
Table 7: Coefficients (H1) ................................................................................. page 38
Table 8: Model Summary (H2) .......................................................................... page 38
Table 9: Coefficients (H2) ................................................................................. page 38
Table 10: Model Summary (H3) ........................................................................ page 39
Table 11: Coefficients (H3) ............................................................................... page 39
Table 12: Model Summary (H4) ........................................................................ page 40
Table 13: Coefficients (H4) ............................................................................... page 40
Table 14: Summary of Hypothesis Testing Results ........................................... page 40

ABSTRACT
Factors impacting on the willingness of employees’ taking charge are considered to be
very important and vital for the improvement and success of any organizations. In this
study, I suppose that Job Demand and Decision Latitude, Supervisory Support,
Distributive and Procedural Justice, and Organizational Commitment are significant
factors that affect Vingroup’s employees’ Taking Charge. The results based on the data
collected from 250 employees at Vingroup largely supported the proposed theoretical
framework. The findings in this study are expected to assist Vingroup managers to have
more sharpened and effective strategies for the process of developing the Group as well
as improving the management of human resource.
Key words: Job Demand and Decision Latitude, Supervisory Support, Distributive and
Procedural Justice, Organizational Commitment, Taking Charge.

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
1. Company Brief Introduction
Vingroup Joint Stock Company
(“Vingroup”) is a leading private economic
corporation in Vietnam, engaging in the fields of
tourism and high-end real estate with two
strategic brands, Vinpearl and Vincom.
Joining in the market in 2002, Vincom spared no efforts to become Vietnam’s
premier upmarket real estate brand with a number of shopping mall, office and apartment
complexes, and large-scale modern mixed-use townships, spearheading the trend of
high-end ecological urban zones in Vietnam. In the current downturn economy,
Vingroup’s projects still stand out from the market thanks to the Group’s commitment
to progress and quality, which has established its strong brand and excellent reputation.
After joining the market in 2001, Vingroup’s hospitality brand, Vinpearl, soon
became the flagship of the Vietnamese tourism sector, featuring five-star and five-star
plus hotel and resorts, as well as beachfront villas, amusement parks and golf courses
under the Vinpearl Resort, Vinpearl Luxury and Vinpearl Villas brands. Vingroup also
aims to develop ten hotel, resort and recreation complexes at the most popular tourist
destinations in Vietnam over the next half-decade.
In addition to the two above-mentioned strengths, Vingroup has recently begun
operating top quality healthcare, and fitness and beauty care facilities under two new
strategic brands, Vinmec and Vincharm. The first Vinmec International Hospital in
Hanoi, featuring 600 single in-patient rooms and clinics, was officially inaugurated in
January 2012.
Vingroup has always played the role of the pioneer and driver of consumer trends
in all its business sectors through offering top quality and five-star international standard
products.

In January 2012, Vinpearl JSC was merged into Vincom JSC, marking the official
operation of Vingroup Joint Stock Company, ranking among the top major companies
on Vietnam’s stock market in terms of market capitalization. The new structure ensures
sustained development and allows Vingroup to focus on developing its strategic brands:
• Vinhomes (Luxury serviced apartments and villas)
• Vincom (Premium shopping malls)
• Vinpearl (Hotels & Resorts)
• Vinpearl Land (Entertainment)
• Vinmec (Healthcare services)
• Vinschool (Education)
• VinEcom (E-commerce)
• Vincom Office (Offices for lease)
• Vinmart (Supermarket)
• Vinfashion (Fashion)
• Vincharm (Fitness and beauty care)
• Almaz (The International Cuisine & Convention Center)
• VinPro
Vingroup is also known on the international capital market as the first Vietnamese
enterprise to have successfully issued international convertible bonds listed on the
Singapore Exchange (SGX). By 2012, the Group had raised a total of US $400 million.
Operating with four strategic brand names: Vincom, Vinpearl, Vinmec and Vincharm,
owing and controlling interest in numerous high-end real estate and tourism projects,
Vingroup has become one of the leading private economic groups in Vietnam, boasting

dynamic and sustainable growth as well as significant potential for integration into Asia
and the world.
CORPORATION’S PROFILE
Corporate’s English name Vingroup Joint Stock Company
Head office
No.7, Bang Lang Street, Viet Hung Ward, Long
Bien District, Hanoi
Phone – Website +84 4 39749999 – www.vingroup.net
Table 1: Vingroup’s profile
Vision
Guided by its pioneering aspirations as well as a sustainable investment - development
strategy, Vingroup has been striving to become Vietnam’s and the regions’ leading
multisectoral business group, which aims to become a Group of international stature and
standards.
Vingroup aspires to establish its Vietnamese brand, demonstrating Vietnamese
intellectual prominence and pride in the international arena.
Missions
For the market: To provide premium products and services of international standards
that are original, highly creative and embedded with local identities. In addition to its
outstanding quality, each product - service contains a cultural message with a view to
best cater for customers’ legitimate needs.
For shareholders and partners: To enhance the collaborative spirit for mutual
development; to strive to become “The Number 1 companion” of partners and
shareholders; to generate attractive and sustainable investment values for shareholders
and partners.

For employees: To develop a professional, dynamic, creative and humane working
environment, enabling high income and equal development opportunities for all
employees.
For society: To harmonize the company’s and society’s benefits; to make active
contributions to community-oriented activities, and to demonstrate citizens’ sense of
responsibilities and national pride.
Core values
“Trust – Responsibility – Knowledge – Speed – Quality – Humanity”
 Trust: to put a premium on Trust and protect Trust as protecting its pride, always be
well-prepared for execution and spare no effort for honoring its commitments.
 Responsibility: to take Responsibility as a foundation, to strictly observe the law and
maintain ethics, to be committed to a customer-centric policy.
 Knowledge: to highly value creativity as vitality and development leverage, to
appreciate courage and determination, to advocate the building of a “learning
business”.
 Speed: to set the principle “Speed and efficiency in every activity”, to practice “quick
decision – quick investment – quick execution – quick sale and quick adaptation”.
 Quality: to pursue the goal of “Quality personnel, quality products/services, and
quality life and quality society”.
 Humanity: to develop relationships based on the spirit of humanity and treating staff
as the most treasured asset, to build “mildness” based on fairness, honesty and
solidarity.

2. Organizational Structure of Vingroup
Figure 1: Vingroup’s corporate structure

3. Corporate Culture of Vingroup
Vingroup brings together the most capable Vietnamese and international
professionals who possess intellect and discipline, talent and determination, patriotism
and ethnic pride, charity, good intentions and intense work ethics.
Each Vingroup employee must be proactive, eager to learn, constantly strive for
self-improvement and internalize the Group’s culture and its six core values as a
guideline for his or her actions.
Innovation must be constant and continuous to accomplish the goals of "Best
People - Best Products & Services - Best Life - Best Society". With each passing day,
all across Vietnam, day and night, rain or shine, projects bearing the Vingroup brand
continue to rise. This non-stop effort is to ensure sustained development of the Group
and bring future generations a better life.
With the utmost respect for discipline, Vingroup's corporate culture - a culture of
professionalism and trust is built on the six core values: "Credibility - Integrity -
Creativity - Speed - Quality - Humanity". The emphasis on speed, efficiency and
adherence to company policies is imbued in all employee actions, creating a collective
force that ensures strong success and development in all sectors in which the Group
participates.
The Group applies its determination and passion not only in the workplace, but
also in its cultural and community activities. To promote the "Healthy Body - Happy
Spirit – Nimble Mind" campaign, each Friday afternoon the company organizes a
“Healthy Living Festival” where employees participate in active entertainment activities
such as Flash mob dancing and intramural sports such as volleyball, soccer and tennis.
To instil and reinforce the six core values, the Group holds award contests and
training campaigns such as "Good People, Good Deeds", "Efficiency, Profitability" and

"12-Hour Transformation for Success". These campaigns entertain, boost morale and
reinforce the core values while helping employees to change their thinking and work
more efficiently with better results.
For timely dissemination of corporate information as well as activities taking
place across the country, an internal magazine called "The House of Vingroup" provides
common space for employees to exchange ideas and to learn about and gain pride in the
history of the Group.
At Vingroup, each employee considers the Group a second home, a place to
engage and spend the majority of each day to live and work. In any role and any position,
we are proud to be a member of the Vingroup family.
4. Motivation of The Research
As it is known, Vietnam is a developing country with a potential variety of
businesses as well as potential competition of domestic and foreign firms. As a fact of
increasing living standard, more and more organizations are taking part in the service
sector. This type of sector has been merging in Vietnam recently and as it is said by
World Bank that Vietnam’s service sector has emerged as the largest sector in the
economy and the biggest contributor to the overall growth rate. Vingroup is one of the
largest firms in Vietnam taking advantages of people’s increasing needs to expand and
develop its business sectors.
The success of Vingroup in service sector has been confirmed by successful
projects in retailing, tourism, real estate and health care services. Without a doubt, with
the fast and stable development, Vingroup can be proud to say that it has a dedicated and
professional staffs. However, to effectively survive on the aggressive market, Vingroup
needs to consolidate and sharpen its employees for the process of conquering the market.
More specifically Vingroup needs to pay attention to factors affecting the employee’s

taking charge at work. As it is said men and woman want to do a good job, and if they
are provided with proper environment, they will do so (Bill Hewlett, 2001).
5. Research Problem Statement
With the stable development of Vingroup, human resources are regarded to be a
valuable assets. Therefore, retaining and developing the staff is the first priority that
Vingroup needs to pay attention to and try its best for the process of conquering the
Vietnamese market.
In the aggressive market, Vingroup is competing with large competitors not only
domestic firms but also foreign competitors who have power and prestige on the market
like Lotte Group, Maximark, Big C, Satramart and so on.
As the result of aggressive competition in the industry, Vingroup needs a skilled
and dedicated staff who are willing to adopt changes and do their bests without the orders
from the Board of Directors. However, there is a fact that a number of employees
working at Vingroup are tending to reject changes and not willing to complete their
responsibilities for the following reasons:
- They are afraid of changing their traditional working habits.
- They are afraid of learning and adopting new procedures at work.
- They don’t receive thoughtful cares from the Board of Directors.
- Even though they work in an active and professional working environment, they are
sometime unfairly treated.
- Some employees aren’t willing to dedicate their skills, knowledge and physical health
to the development of the Group.
6. Purpose of The Research
The purpose of the study is to examine the factors like Job Demand and Decision
Latitude, Supervisory Support, Distributive and Procedural Justice, and Organizational
Commitment related to the willingness of employees’ Taking Charge at work.

With the findings from the study, it is expected to give empirical evidences in the
aspects of how these factors impacting on the taking charge of employees and in what
way the Board of Directors can help to improve these factors. Last but not least, it is
expected from the study that the findings and results will help to improve policies so that
employees can have more professional working environment.
7. Scope of The Research
The research was conducted on 250 employees who are currently working at the
Group. The questionnaires were sent to the employee in 25 days to fill in.
8. Significance of The Research
The research is conducted to give the Board of Directors a deep understanding of
factors impacting on the employee’s taking charge. In addition, as it is mentioned above,
the research will help the Board of Directors have a clearer view of problems that are
causing the employees not willing to adopt changes and dedicate to the work.
9. Limitations of The Research
Conducted in three days at Vingroup with just 250 employees, the research cannot
have overall and specific views of most of employees. Besides that Vingroup is operating
with lots of branches all over Vietnam. Properly speaking, working condition in some
areas can cause employees have different viewpoints.
Unexpected limitations can cause the problems for the findings to be correct and
more meaningful. These ones can be time, physical condition of employees. However,
with the hope to find out the viewpoints of employees to help the Group to develop much
more in the future.

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Job Demand and Decision Latitude
Well-known organizational case studies have indirectly referred to the important
interactive effects of job demands and job decision latitude. Whyte’s restaurant workers
(1948) experienced the severest strain symptoms when they faced heavy customer
demands which they were not able to control. Gouldner (1954) notes that personal and
organizational tensions increase when close supervision is applied to miners under heavy
workloads; and Crozier (1964) and Drabek and Hass (1969) discuss organizational strain
which arises among groups of workers simultaneously facing heavy workloads and rigid
rule structures of limited decision alternatives. Unfortunately, these case studies and their
consistent findings have had little influence on survey analyses of mental strain among
large group of working individuals.
Research traditions have emerged to deal with the psychosocial effects of work
environments. One tradition focuses on job decision latitude (decision authority or skill
level), the other treats “stressors” on the job. Most of the vast literature on job satisfaction
and mental strain focuses primarily on job decision latitude (for example, Kornhauser,
1965; even Hackman and Lawler, see p.290), while the “life stress” tradition of
epidemiological studies of mental health (for example, Holmes and Rahe, 1967;
Dohrenwend and Dohrenwend, 1974) focuses on the illnesses induced by environmental
stressors or job stressors along (for example, Sundbom, 1971; Caplan et al., 1976;
Theorell, 1976). Unfortunately, job decision latitude research rarely includes systematic
discussion of job demand and the job demand literature rarely includes systematic
discussion of decision latitude (Karasek, 1978a).
Karasek (1979) defined “decision latitude” as “the working individual’s potential
control over his tasks and his conduct during the working day” (pp.289-290). This factor
has frequently been shown to influence aspects of employee well-being and physical
health; for example, reviews by Ganster and Fusilier (1989). Parkes (1989), and Warr

(1987), Karasek also drew attention to the importance of job demands, these being
defined as “psychological stressors involved in accomplishing the work load” (p.291).
He demonstrated through secondary analyses of data from the USA and Sweden that
variables such as job satisfaction, exhaustion, and depression could be predicted from
the combination of these two job characteristics. Specifically, he found that employee in
jobs perceived to have both low decision latitude and high job demands were particularly
likely to report low well-being.
2. Supervisory Support
Supervisory support is often defined as the extent to which supervisors encourage
employees to attend training and apply the training on the job (Facteau et al., 1995;
Switzer, Nagy & Mullins, 2005). The burgeoning literature suggests that support
emanating from the supervisors play an important function in promoting transfer of
training (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Elangovan & Karakowsky, 1999; Nikandrou, Brinia &
Bereri, 2009).
Colquitt et al. (2000), in their quantitative review on factors affecting training
motivation and transfer outcomes based upon 106 articles published since 1975, found
similar result. They posited that the extent to which supervisors provided sufficient
support had robustly correlated with the employees’ ability to transfer what they learned
on the job. The meta-analytic study was fully supported by other comprehensive reviews
of training transfer literature (e.g., Elangovan & Karakowsky, 1999; Cheng & Ho, 2001;
Merriam & Leahy, 2005; Burke & Hutchins, 2007).
Many researches have scrutinized the importance of supervisor support and found
that employees also expect supervisors to be caring and supportive (Eisenberger et al.,
2002; Kottke and Sharafinski, 1988). Griffton et al., (2001) found that supervisor’s
support have strong relationship with job satisfaction and Ogilvie (1986) confirmed that
supervisors’ actions directly impact the commitment of employees. Armstrong-Stassen
(1998) proved that organizational support has more impact on organizational

commitment. Hutchison, (1997) concluded that although both organizational support and
supervisor support have positive effect on organizational commitment, organizational
support will help employees more.
Also, Xiao (1996) conducted a quantitative study on transfer of training based on
a sample of 1023 women employees working in four electronic manufacturing
companies located at Shenzhen, China. Through the analysis of survey results, the
researcher discovered that support from supervisors was the most influential factor that
correlated with transfer of training.
Janssen (2003) found evidence that employees responded more innovatively to
higher levels of job demands when they perceived that their efforts were fairly rewarded
by their supervisor. Oldham and Cummings (1996) found that supportive, non-
controlling supervisors created a work environment that fostered creativity. Open
interactions with supervisors and the receipt of encouragement and support lead to
enhanced employee creativity (Tierney, Farmer, and Graen 1999).
3. Distributive and Procedural Justice
Distributive justice was found to be a more important predictor of two personal
outcomes, pay satisfaction and job satisfaction, than procedural justice, whereas the
reverse was true for two organizational outcomes-organizational commitment and
subordinate’s evaluation of supervisor. However, procedural and distributive justice also
interacted in predicting organizational outcomes. We discuss limitations of this study
and directions for future research.
Folger and Konovsky captured the key distinction regarding justice in work
organizations, noting that “distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of the
amounts of compensation employees receive; procedural justice refers to the perceived
fairness of the means used to determine those amounts” (1989: 115). However, few
studies have examined how both distributive and procedural justice affect outcomes
(e.g., Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Greenberg, 1987a; Konovsky, Folger, & Cropanzano,

1987). In addition, most research has focused on legal rather than work-related issues.
For example, Greenberg and Folger (1983) showed that defendants viewed trial verdicts
(distributions) positively if they were seen as the result of fair procedures, an effect called
the “fair process effect” (cf. Musante, Gilbert, & Thibaut, 1983). Folger and Konovsky
pointed out that this research has suggested different predictive roles for procedural and
distributive justice. In particular, studies have found distributive justice to predict
satisfaction with specific, personal outcomes, like case verdicts, better than procedural
justice. The reverse is true, however, when people make more general evaluations of, for
instance, legal institutions or their representatives (Lind & Tyler, 1988).
In fact, the few studies that have been done in organizational settings have tended
to support the notion that the predictive roles of procedural and distributive justice
depend, at least in part, on the nature of the outcome in question. For example, Alexander
and Ruderman (1987) found procedural justice accounted for more variance in
management evaluations, job satisfaction, and perceived conflict than distributive
justice. Konovsky and colleagues (1987) found that procedural justice predicted
organizational commitment, but not pay satisfaction, whereas the reverse was true for
distributive justice. Similarly, Folger and Konovsky (1989) found that procedural justice
accounted for more variance in organizational commitment and trust in a supervisor than
distributive justice, whereas the reverse was true for satisfaction with a pay raise.
An allocation process consists of a distribution (an outcome) and a procedure, i.e.,
a set of rules that the allocator may apply when deciding the manner in which the
outcome should be accomplished (Thibaut and Walker, 1975). The introduction of
procedural fairness initiated a considerable amount of research in which the combined
effects of distributive and procedural fairness were investigated. The main question was
how distributive and procedural justice interacted to form justice judgments. It was
assumed that people are motivated to attain fair outcomes, and some research was
directed towards answering the question how procedural fairness might increase or

decrease the perceived fairness of outcomes. Folger and associates (e.g., Folger,
Rosenfield and Robinson, 1983) investigated the beneficial effects of justifications on
resentment caused by relative deprivation. Greenberg (1993) showed that employee theft
as a response to underpayment inequity decreased if employees were treated fairly. It
was assumed that procedural fairness had a mitigating effect on perceived distributive
unfairness.
Another line of research investigated the moderating role of procedural fairness
on outcome favorability (Brockner and Wiesenfeld, 2005). Brockner and Wiesenfeld
found that procedural fairness reduced the influence of outcome favorability when
people evaluated others, while it increased its influence when people evaluated
themselves. In other types of studies the attention shifted from the moderating role of
procedural fairness toward the main role of procedural fairness. Van den Bos and
associates (e.g., Van den Bos, Vermunt and Wilke, 1997) showed not only that
procedural fairness had a beneficial effect on distributive unfairness, but that distributive
fairness had a beneficial effect on procedural unfairness, as well, emphasizing the
moderating role of distributive fairness. Still another avenue of thinking was followed
by Törnblom and Vermunt (1999). They emphasized that not only should the moderating
role of distributive fairness and procedural fairness separately be taken into account but
also the fairness of the entire allocation process. Törnblom and Vermunt started from the
assumption that an allocation process can be conceived as a Gestalt consisting of several
components, and that people form fairness evaluations of the whole process and not only
on the basis of parts of it. The inclusion of all components of the allocation process
(notably the outcome, the procedure, the type and valence of the allocated social
resource, and the allocator-recipient relationship) will result in more precise predictions
about the impact of justice evaluations on subsequent attitudes and behavior. In most
social psychological research one or more of these aspects of the allocation process were
neglected, resulting in less precise predictions of attitudes and behavior.

4. Organization Commitment
The concept of organizational commitment refers to a person's affective reactions
to characteristics of his employing organization. It is concerned with feelings of
attachment to the goals and values of the organization, one's role in relation to this, and
attachment to the organization for its own sake rather than for its strictly instrumental
value.
Organizational commitment is a widely researched construct in the Management
Literature (Meyer and Allen 1991; Mowday, Porter and Steers 1982; Swailes 2002;
Argyle 1989; Etzioni 1975) describes the involvement and faithfulness of employee
towards the company.
Meyer and Herscovitch (2001, p. 301) propose that commitment is “a force that
binds an individual to a course of action of relevance to one or more targets”. Employees
are theorized to experience this force in the form of three bases, or mindsets: affective,
normative, and continuance, which reflect emotional ties, perceived obligation, and
perceived sunk costs in relation to a target, respectively (Allen and Meyer, 1990). Thus,
any scale that purports to measure organizational commitment should tap one of these
mindsets and should reference the target, what the employee is committed to, be it the
organization, a team, a change initiative, or a goal.
According to Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1979) organizational
commitment is a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization’s goals and values;
a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization; and a strong
desire to maintain membership in the organization.
Allen & Meyer (1990) is of the view that organizational commitment has been
defined as a psychological state that binds an employee to an organization, thereby
reducing the incidence of turnover.
Batemen & Strasser (1984) believe that the aim of studying organizational
commitment are related to:

- Employees’ behaviors and performance effectiveness
- Attitudinal, affective and cognitive constructs such as job satisfaction
- Characteristics of the employees’ job and role, such as responsibility
- Personal characteristics of the employee such as age and job tenure
Meyer & Herscovitch (2001) state that commitment is a force that binds an
individual to a course of action of relevance to one or more targets.
O’Reilly (1989) defined organizational commitment as an individual's
psychological bond to the organization, including a sense of job involvement, loyalty
and belief in the values of the organization.
Schwartz & Tessler (1972) see that personal norms are introduced as a responsible
factor for what Wiener referred to as an incorporated normative pressure, which makes
organizational commitment a moral obligation because an employee feels he or she must
do so. According to Wiener & Verdi (1980), this feeling of moral obligation measured
by the extent to which an employee feels that she or he should be faithful to organization,
make an employee sacrifice to help it out and not disapprove it.
Based in the multifaceted nature of organizational commitment, (Akintayo, 2006;
Dunham et al., 1994; Meyer and Allen, 1991, 1993) posit that the construct has three
main components: affective, continuance and normative, each with its own underpinning
implications for an employee’s participation in an organization. According to the
authors, affective commitment refers to an employee’s emotional attachment to,
identification with and involvement in, the organization based on positive feelings or
emotions toward the organization. Continuance commitment, on the other hand, is based
on the high cost that an employee associates with leaving the organization. Lastly,
normative commitment has to do with an employee’s feeling of obligation to remain
with an organization based on the fact that he / she has internalized the values and goals
of the organization and feels responsible and devoted to the organization. Hence, an

employee with a high level of normative commitment feels that he/she ought to remain
with the organization (Bentein et al., 2005; Jaros et al., 1993).
5. Taking Charge
Taking charge occurs when frontline workers go one step further, informing
managers of how they actually attempted to resolve problems (Morrison and Phelps
1999). Taking charge leverages frontline workers’ firsthand knowledge of the details—
and often the root causes—of problems, which enables them to offer particularly well-
informed ideas about how to resolve them (Tucker 2007). Compared to voicing concerns,
taking charge is a more constructive form of speaking up because it can mitigate
consequences and prevent recurrences (Morrison and Phelps 1999).
Moon, Van Dyne, and Wrobel (2005) described it as an often-overlooked aspect
of innovative behavior that is also volitional in nature. Taking charge entails voluntary
and constructive efforts, by individual employees, to effect organizationally functional
change with respect to how employees work within the context of their jobs, work units
or organisations (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). Therefore, taking charge is extra-role
behavior (Moon, et al., 2008; Morrison &Phelps, 1999; Onyishi, 2007). This implies that
that it is not mandatory and organisations do not formally require it.
When they take charge at work, employees tend to initiate or create new
procedures that they consider appropriate, irrespective of existing rules. It is similar to
other forms of extra-role behaviors because it is a discretionary attempt (not formally
required) to initiate and effect positive change (inherently change-orientated). It aims to
improve and benefit organisations instead of being rooted in personal gain (Moon, et al.,
2008).

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES
1. Research Model
From theories and previous research results, I propose the relationship between
independent constructs (Job Demands and Decision Latitude, Supervisory Support,
Distributive and Procedural Justice, Organizational Commitment) and dependent construct
(Taking Charge) in the following Hypothesized Research Model
Figure 2: Hypothesized Research Model
Job Characteristics
Job demands and Decision
Latitude
Supervisory Support
Organizational
Commitment
Taking
Charge
H1 +
H2 +
H3 +
Distributive and
Procedural Justice
Organization Justice
H4 +

2. Hypotheses
2.1. Job Characteristics (Job Demands and Decision Latitude; Supervisory
Support)
a. Definition
The demand for valid measures of job characteristic is driven by continuing
efforts in organizations to determine the features of jobs that induce employees to work
harder and perform better. One of the most widely used perspectives of how aspects of
jobs affect employee willingness to consistently perform better is the job characteristics
model (JMC) developed by Hackman and Oldham (1980). This model predicts that if
only a job is well designed, it leads to higher levels of three critical psychological states.
These are experienced meaningfulness of the work, such as results from the job that are
meaningful within the employee’s system of values; experienced responsibility for the
outcomes of the work, or belief that the employee has personal accountability for the
outcomes; and knowledge of the results of the work activities, including judgments of
others about the quality or quantity of the work performed (Hackman & Oldham, 1980).
The JCM predicts that jobs that are well designed have live key characteristics:
1. Skill variety, which is the extent to which a job requires the use of different skills and
talents,
2. Task identity, which describes the extent to which a job involves completing a whole
identifiable outcome,
3. Task significance, which is the degree to which a job has impact on the lives of people
in an organization or society in general,
4. Autonomy, which describes the extent to which a job provides the employee with
discretion to choose how the work is done and to set the schedule for completing the
work activities,
5. Job feedback, which indicates the extent to which carrying out the work activities
provides the employee with clear information about his or her performance.

Jobs with these characteristics create higher levels of the critical Psychological
states, which in turn leads to higher levels of internal work motivation (Hackman &
Oldham, 1980). Research on the JCM has generally found that employees in jobs that
etc. may affect the relationship between job dimensions, the psychological states, and
internal motivation (Spector, Jex, & Chen, 1995).
The JCM has provided the framework from which to view the effects that job
characteristics have on employee outcomes such as satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and intention to remain with an organization (Hochwarter, Zellars, et al.,
1999). Other approaches to describing and assessing job characteristics have been
developed that provide an expanded view of jobs including engineering and biological
perspectives (Campion, 1988). Many studies have attempted to isolate particular aspects
of jobs, such as control, interdependence, and complexity that may have significant
effects on workers (Dean & Snell, 1991; Karasek, 1979). An increasing amount of
attention has been paid to the role that contextual variables play in the perceptions that
employees form about their jobs. For example, perceptions of the extent to which
employees believe they are empowered in their jobs and the extent to which employees
believe the organization appreciates their efforts may affect the way that employees view
I he identity, significance, variety, autonomy, and feedback in their jobs (Eisenberger,
Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986; Gagne. Senecal, & Koestner, 1997;
Spreitzer.1995).
Hypothesis 1: Job Demands and Decision Latitude is positively related to Taking Charge
Hypothesis 2: Supervisory Support is positively related to Taking Charge
b. Measures of construct of Job Demands and Decision Latitude
This measure was developed by Karasek (1979) to assess the effects of stressful
jobs on the physical health of employees. A job demand subscale that uses seven items
describes psychological stressors such as workload and time pressures. Eight items
describe job decision latitude. Four of these items relate to an employee’s discretion in

applying skills to do the job. Four items described an employee’s authority to make job-
related decisions. Job demands and decision latitude are constructs that can vary
independently in a work environment (Fortunato, Jex, & Heinish, 1999; Xie, 1996). The
coefficient alpha values for job demands ranged from .79 to .88, and the alpha value for
job control or decision latitude ranged from .77 to .85 (Chay, 1993; Fortunato et al.,
1999; Moyle & Parkes, 1999; Parkes 1990; Westman, 1992; Xie, 1996; Zohar, 1995).
Responses are obtained using a 5-point Likert-type scale where 1 = never, and 5 =
extremely often.
c. Measures of construct of Supervisory Support
This measure was developed by Greenhaus, Parasuraman and Wormley (1990) to
assess employee perceptions of the extent to which they receive supervisory support in
their job. In general, supervisory support may include career guidance, performance
feedback, challenging work assignments and work opportunities that promote employee
development and visibility. The average reliability for this scale was .93 (Greenhaus et
al., 1990). Responses are obtained using a 5-Likert-type scale where 5 = strongly
disagree, 4 = disagree to some extent, 3 = uncertain, 2 = agree to some extent, and 1 =
strongly agree
2.2. Organization Commitment (Organizational Commitment)
a. Definition
Employee commitment to an organization has been defined in a variety of ways
included an attitude or an orientation that links the identity of the person to the
organization, a process by which the goals of the organization and those of the individual
become congruent, an involvement with a particular organization, the perceived rewards
associated with continued participation in an organization, the costs associated with
leaving, and normative pressures to act in a way that meets organizational goals (Meyer
& Allen,1997). Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982), who did much of the original
research about organizational commitment, characterized it as a strong belief in and

acceptance of the organization’s goals and values, a willingness to exert considerable
effort on behalf on the organization, and a strong desire to maintain membership in an
organization. The various definitions reflect three broad themes: commitment reflecting
an affective orientation toward the organization, recognition of costs associated with
leaving the organization and moral obligation to remain with an organization (Meyer &
Allen, 1997).
An employee’s liking for an organization is termed affective commitment and
includes identification with and involvement in the organization. Employees with a
strong affective commitment continue employment with the organization because they
want to do so (Cohen, 1993). Continuance commitment refers to an awareness of the
costs associated with leaving the organization. Employees whose primary link to the
organization is based on continuance commitment remain with their employer because
they need to do so. Finally, normative commitment reflects a feeling of obligation to
continue employment. Employees with a high level of normative commitment feel that
they ought to remain with the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997).
Others have argued that commitment reflects the psychological bond that ties the
employee to the organization but that the nature of the bond can take three forms, labeled
compliance, identification, and internationalization (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986).
Compliance occurs when attitudes and behaviors are adopted not because of shared
beliefs but simply to gain specific rewards. In this case, public and private attitudes may
differ. Identification occurs when an individual accepts influence to establish and
maintain a relationship; that is, an individual may respect a group’s values without
adopting them. On the other hand, internationalization occurs when influence is accepted
because the induced attitude and beliefs are congruent with one’s own value (Caldwell,
Chatman & O’Reilly, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1997; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986; O’Reilly,
Chatman & Caldwell, 1991).

Clearly, not all of these views are in agreement. For example, some researchers
have questioned whether compliance should be viewed as a component of commitment
because it is distinct form other common definitions and can be viewed as the antithesis
of commitment. That is, compliance has been found to correlate positively with
employee turnover (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986), whereas commitment generally
reduces turnover (Mowday et al., 1982). The studies I reviewed from the 1990s suggest
there is a growing consensus that commitment is a multidimensional construct that
certainly includes an effective dimension and many include components that reflect
normative pressures as well as practical considerations such as the costs of leaving an
organization and locating another job with similar pay and benefits.
Hypothesis 3: Organizational Commitment is positively related to Taking Charge
b. Measures of construct of Organizational Commitment
This measure, developed by Cook and Wall (1980), describe an employee’s
overall organizational commitment. The measure uses nine items. The items can be
grouped to form subscales for organizational identification, organizational involvement,
and organizational loyalty. Each subscale contains three items. The reliability for this
scale ranged from .71 to .87 (Furnham, Brewin, & O’Kelly, 1994; Oliver, 1990; Sanchez
& Brock, 1996). Responses are obtained using a 7-point Likert-type scale where 1 =
strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree.
2.3. Organization Justice (Distributive and Procedural Justice)
a. Definition
Organizational justice research starts from the premise that employees focus on
the fairness in organizational systems in determining their commitment, satisfaction, and
intent to turn over. One view is that employees determine their perception of fairness in
the workplace by comparing the equity of the ratio of their inputs to their outcomes in
comparison to those of their co-workers. This results in a judgment about distributive
justice. It is a summary judgment about the fairness of managerial decisions concerning

the distribution of outcomes such as pay and promotions (Dailey & Kirk, 1992). Another
aspect of organizational fairness is procedural justice that focuses on how such decisions
are made. The process for making organizational decisions may be just as-important to
the employees as their perception of outcome fairness. These two types of justice have
different effects on the perception of organizational fairness. For example, Folger and
Konovsky (1989) found that distributive justice has a much greater impact on pay
satisfaction than procedural justice, whereas procedural justice tends to affect an
employee’s organizational commitment and trust in his or her supervisor or boss (Dailey
& Kirk, 1992). Generally, fair distributions - those in which input-output ratios are
perceived to be equal to those of a comparison other - result in positive psychological
and behavioral outcomes (Ball, Trevino, & Sims, 1994). For example, an employee who
works 80 hours of overtime during the holiday season to complete a project on time and
then receives no bonus and an unfavorable performance evaluation for that period is
likely to perceive the organization as unfair. The perception of injustice would be
particularly strong if the employee knew that another employee in the work unit was
asked to but did not work the overtime and subsequently received a bonus and more
favorable performance rating (Joy &Witt, 1992).
Procedural justice examines the impact of the process of decision making on the
quality of exchange relationships. Individuals may value just procedures because they
provide a means of indirect control over a decision when direct control is not possible.
Thus, even when a particular decision has adverse outcomes for an individual,
just procedures assure the individual that, over time, he or she will receive what is due
from the exchange relationship (Sapienza & Korsgaard, 1996). The basic premise of
justice theories is that fair treatment is central to people and a major determinant of their
reactions to decisions. In fact, people are affected by the perceived fairness of such
procedures regardless of the perceived fairness of a decision itself (Folger & Konovsky,
1989; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992).

Three principles may affect employee perceptions of procedural justice: (a)
Procedures should increase employee inputs into the decision process or “voice,” (b)
procedures should enhance the accuracy of information used in the decision process, and
(c) procedures should discourage supervisor motivations to be biased in their decisions
(Joy & Witt, 1992). In addition, three other factors in the organization-person
relationship - standing, neutrality, and trust - may be determinants of perceptions of
fairness, information about individuals’ standing may be conveyed by their interpersonal
treatment during social interactions. Rude treatment conveys a message that the group
or authority regards the individual as being of low status. Neutrality concerns the
authority or institution’s tendency to create a neutral playing field on which all affected
parties will benefit fairly from the application of fair decision processes. Finally, trust is
the individual’s belief that the authority or institution intends to treat people in a fair and
reasonable way (Taylor et al., 1995).
Hypothesis 4: Organization Justice is positively related to Taking Charge
b. Measures of construct of Distributive and Procedural Justice
These measures were developed by Sweeney and McFarlin (1997). The
procedural justice subscale uses 13 items to assess the fairness of procedures within an
organization, including procedures relevant to assessing and communicating
performance feedback, solving work-related problems, and promotion processes. Eleven
items describe employee perceptions of an organization’s fairness in distributing rewards
such as raises, promotions, performance ratings and general recognition. The reliability
for this scale was .84 Alpha for distributive justice was .81 (Sweeney & McFarlin, 1997).
Responses are obtained a 5-point Likert-type scale where 1 = strongly disagree, and 5 =
strongly agree.

2.4. Workplace Behaviors (Taking Charge)
a. Definition
The utility of job satisfaction and other measures of employee attitudes as a
predictor of variables such as turnover and employee performance varies considerably
across situations. As a result, Hodson (1991) advocates examination of the effects of the
characteristics of jobs and work environments on employee work behaviors. Employee
behavior at work generally can be characterized as either contributing to organizational
goals or contributing to an employee’s occupational control. Employee behaviors can be
described as following patterns of “good soldiers”, “smooth operators”, and “saboteurs”
(Hodson, 1991). Good soldiers take the organization’s goals as their own, are highly
committed and don’t question organization decisions but strive to implement these
decisions efficiently. Smooth operators give first priority to their own occupational goals
and may inadvertently advance organizational goals. Saboteurs are employees who
neither adopt organizational goals nor achieve their own occupational goals. Therefore,
they undertake such behaviors as passively resisting authority, carelessly violating work
rules, or intentionally destroying property to get even with their boss or organization.
The distinctions among these categories may be subtle; for example, some good soldiers
may work diligently at preventing their boss from understanding how quickly work
actually could be completed (Hodson, 1991).
A good deal of attention has been devoted to work behavior that is beyond the
reach of traditional measures of job performance because these organizational
citizenship behaviors may contribute to organizational innovation, flexibility, and
responsiveness to changing external conditions (Sagie, 1998). These have been two
approaches to describing these behaviors. The first approach proposes that
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and traditional conceptualizations of job
performance are separate constructs. Thus, OCB is viewed as extra role behavior that is
separate from in-role job performance. This approach requires determining what is in-

role and what is extra role, a distinction that may vary across jobs, organizations, and
circumstances.
Much of the theoretical and empirical work on OCB creates the impression that
the boundary between in role and extra role behavior is agreed upon and clearly defined
and that OCB is the same for all employees (Taber & Alliger, 1995). However, roles in
organizations are rarely fixed, and role perceptions evolve as employees and supervisors
negotiate the scope of work activities. Furthermore, psychological contracts perceived
by employees may result in a different understanding of employment obligations from
that of their employers. Social information processing theory predicts that jobs are
cognitive constructions created when employees (and employers) make sense of social
and behavioral cues. For example, an employee who comes to work earlier than required
is defined as engaging in OCB regardless of how the employee sees this behavior. In
terms of understanding OCB, it makes a difference whether an employee helps a co-
worker because he or she wishes to engage in extra effort on behalf of the organization,
or alternative, because he or she simply sees the behavior as part of his or her job. For
example, if an employee defines helping co-workers as an in-role behavior, he or she
will conceptualize the behavior very differently than an extra role behavior and will
perceive a different set of incentives surrounding the helping behavior (Taber & Alliger,
1995).
A second approach to OCB is based on the theoretical heritage of civic
citizenship. Civic citizenship is viewed as including all positive community – relevant
behaviors of individual citizens. From this perspective, organizational citizenship can be
conceptualized as a global concept that includes all positive organizationally relevant
behaviors of employees including traditional in-role job performance behaviors,
organizationally functional extra role behaviors, and political behaviors, such as full and
responsible organizational participation. (Sagie, 1998) There are three categories of civic
citizen responsibilities that also apply within work organizations. First, organizational

obedience reflects acceptance of the necessity and desirability of rational rules and
regulations governing organizational structure, job descriptions, and personnel policies.
Obedience can be demonstrated by respect for rules and instructions, punctuality in
attendance and task completion, and stewardship of organizational resources. Second,
organizational loyalty is identification with and allegiance to an organization’s leaders
and the organization as a whole, transcending the parochial interests of individuals, work
groups, and departments. Representative behaviors include defending the organization
against threats, contributing to its good reputation, and cooperating with others to serve
the interests of the whole. Third, organizational participation is interest in organizational
affairs guided by ideal standards of virtue, validated by an individual’s keeping
informed, and expressed through full and responsible involvement in organizational
governance. Representative activities include attending nonrequired meetings, sharing
informed opinions and new ideas with others, and being willing to deliver bad news or
support an unpopular view to combat “groupthink” (Sagie, 19998).
b. Measures of construct of Taking Charge
This measure, developed by Morrison and Phelps (1999), uses 10 items to
describe the behavior of “taking charge”. Taking charge entails voluntary constructive
efforts to bring out functional changes in an organization. These may include changes in
how work is performed. It is discretionary behavior that is inherently changed oriented,
aimed at improvement in the organization. The items in this measure are generally
completed by coworkers do describe a focal employee. Coefficient alpha values ranged
from .93 to .95. Exploratory factor analysis showed that the 10 items loaded on a single
factor. In this cases where there were multiple co-workers’ ratings of an employee, the
median intraclass correlation of these ratings was .36 (Morrion & Phelps, 1999).
Responses are obtained using a 5-point Likert-type scale where 1 = very infrequently
and 5 = very frequently.

3. Research Participants
The sample of this study consists of employees who are currently working at
Vingroup. The questionnaires were delivered to 250 Vingroup’s employees in 25 days
in July 2015. The questionnaires were directly sent to the employees. Only completed
questionnaires are collected and used to analyze.
4. Data Collection Procedure
With expected 250 samples from the study, the result is hoped to receive a
voluntary of most of employees who take part in the survey. By the voluntary of
employees and careful assistance of the researcher, and the amount of time for each
participant in 15 minutes, the result will be exactly useful and confidential. Besides the
usage of SPSS software is utilized to analyze the data.
Date Data collection process
01 July – 03 July Prepare questionnaire
4 July – 6 July Send questionnaire via email
7 July – 24 July Directly survey at the company
24 July – 25 July Collect and check the questionnaire
25 July – 10 August Run SPSS software to analyze the data
Table 2: Data collection process

CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
1. Cronbach’s Alpha
Cronbach’s Alpha is the measurement tool to check the reliability of variables in the
questionnaire. According to George and Mallery (2003), Cronbach’s Alpha from 0.7 to
above shows the variables reliable and good for further research.
Cronbach’s alpha Internal consistency
α ≥ 0.9 Excellent
0.8 ≤ α < 0.9 Good
0.7 ≤ α < 0.8 Acceptable
0.6 ≤ α < 0.7 Questionable
0.5 ≤ α < 0.6 Poor
α < 0.5 Unacceptable
Table 3: Cronbach’s Alpha – Internal Consistency
In the table 3, after using SPSS to check the reliability of variables in the research
model, the Cronbach’s Alphas are above 0.7. Properly speaking, these variables are
reliable to continue the research.
Variables
No. of
items
Cronbach’s
Alpha
Evaluation
JD Job Demands and Decision Latitude 15 .925 Excellent
SS Supervisory Support 9 .848 Good
DP Distributive and Procedural Justice 8 .741 Acceptable
OC Organizational Commitment 9 .860 Good
TC Taking Charge 10 .867 Good
Table 4: Cronbach’s Alpha of all Variables

2. Descriptive Statistic
The descriptive statistic is used to determine measures of mean, range, standard
deviation, variance, minimum and maximum. In table 5, all means of variables are above
the medium, although they are not high.
Table 5: Descriptive statistics
3. Hypothesis Testing
In the Hypothesized Research Model, four independent factors are positively related
to taking charge. In this part, we are going to test where each hypothesis is supported or not.
3.1. Hypothesis 1 Testing Result
Hypothesis 1: Job Demand and Decision Latitude (JD) is positively related to Taking
Charge (TC).
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
1 .276a
.076 .072 .45689
a. Predictors: (Constant), JD
Table 6: Model summary (H1)
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
JD 250 1.40 5.00 3.7411 .52987
SS 250 1.44 4.89 3.6218 .54252
DP 250 1.88 4.75 3.7255 .44610
OC 250 2.22 5.00 3.9929 .40651
TC 250 1.70 5.00 3.8032 .47439
Valid N
(listwise)
250

Coefficientsa
(H1)
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1
(Constant) 2.879 .206 13.944 .000
JD .247 .055 .276 4.522 .000
a. Dependent Variable: TC
Table 7: Coefficients (H1)
To test where there is a relationship between Job Demands and Decision Latitude (JD)
and Taking Charge (TC), we consider in three requirements:
- R Square = .076 > 0
- Coefficient β = .247 => the same direction with the hypothesized model
- Sig = .000 < 0.05
 We can conclude that the hypothesis H1 is supported.
Hypothesis 2: Supervisory Support (SS) is positively related to Taking Charge (TC).
Model Summary
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
1 .244a
.060 .056 .46096
a. Predictors: (Constant), SS
Table 8: Model Summary (H2)
Coefficientsa
(H2)
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1
(Constant) 3.030 .197 15.366 .000
SS .214 .054 .244 3.965 .000

To test where there is a relationship between Supervisory Support (SS) and Taking
Charge (TC), we consider in three requirements:
- R Square = .060 > 0
- Sig = .000 < 0.05
Hypothesis 3: Distributive and Procedural Justice (DP) is positively related to Taking
Charge (TC).
Model Summary
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
1 .483a
.234 .231 .41614
a. Predictors: (Constant), DP
Coefficientsa
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1
(Constant) 1.888 .222 8.514 .000
DP .514 .059 .483 8.695 .000
To test where there is a relationship between Distributive and Procedural Justice (DP)
- R Square = .234 > 0
- Sig = .000 < 0.05

Hypothesis 4: Organization Commitment (OC) is positively related to Taking Charge
(TC).
Model Summary
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
1 .673a
.453 .451 .35149
a. Predictors: (Constant), OC
Coefficientsa
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1
(Constant) .666 .220 3.029 .003
OC .786 .055 .673 14.338 .000
To test where there is a relationship between Distributive and Procedural Justice (DP)
- R Square = .453 > 0
- Sig = .000 < 0.05
Summary of Hypothesis Testing Results
Variable’s name R Square Beta Sig. Result
1. Job Demands and Decision Latitude JD .076 .247 .000 Supported
2. Supervisory Support SS .060 .214 .000 Supported
3. Distributive and Procedural Justice DP .234 .514 .000 Supported
4. Organizational Commitment OC .453 .786 .000 Supported
Table 14: Summary of Hypothesis Testing Results

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION
1. Summary of The Results
The research was conducted to analyze whether there are significant relations
between Job Demands and Decision Latitude, Supervisory Support, Distributive and
Procedural Justice, and Organizational Commitment and Taking Charge at Vingroup
Corporation.
Happily, the results that were obtained from the research completely supported
hypothesized models:
 Job Demands and Decision Latitude is positively related to Taking Charge
 Supervisory Support is positively related to Taking Charge
 Distributive and Procedural Justice is positively related to Taking Charge
 Organizational Commitment is positively related to Taking Charge
2. Discussion and Recommendation
First of all, it is quite obvious that Job Demands and Decision Latitude is
positively related to Taking Charge. It’s completely true that the employees’ willingness
to taking charge depends on how the working environment is, how satisfied they are with
the job and real needs and especially how their manager or supervisor contact with them
every day. Confidently speaking, Vingroup has a professional working environment and
corporate culture. Thanks to these advantages, the findings proved that all employees are
willing to take charge at work whether they are forced to work or how overloaded their
work is. In addition, for the reason of the survival and development of the Group, I think
Vingroup should maintain corporate culture and especially the Board of Director needs
to pay much more attention to employees’ demand and meet appropriate requirements
from the employees constantly.
Secondly, the results from the research prove that there is an available and
positive relation between Supervisory Support and Taking Charge. To some extent,
supervisory support is very important and necessary for both employees and company.

Most of the employees at Vingroup feel confident and satisfied with the support from
their directors, supervisors and managers. Properly speaking, Vingroup is one of the
biggest leading company in Vietnam, it has been building a professional and supportive
working environment. Therefore, interactive and supportive working environment helps
employees finish the work on time and effectively. It’s the duty of the Board of Director
to maintain this environment because lack of supervisory support can cause employees
problems at work. Supervisors’ activities like guidance, organizing training sessions,
directly working and helping with employees and step by step giving assignments for
employee to get acquainted with work are strongly necessary.
Thirdly, the research proves that Distributive and Procedural Justice is positively
related to Taking Charge. Without a doubt, the findings give very clear evidences of the
relation between these two variables. The fairness within an organization completely
impact on employee’s taking charge. In a fair working environment, when the employees
feel to be fairly treated from assessing their performance, promotions, feedback and etc.,
they are willing to contribute their capabilities to the development of the company. At
Vingroup, most of the employees realize the fairness at work and it is the reason why the
findings meet the researcher’s expectation. In my point of views, I think maintaining the
justice is one of the priorities that the Board of Directors needs to pay attention to.
Besides using simple solutions at work like: constantly give feedback to employees, give
praises instead of complaints, build up promotion policies for excellent individuals and
especially let employee involve in the operation process and so on are essential and vital
for the Group.
Finally, with Organizational Commitment is positively related to Taking Charge,
the findings support the hypothesis again. These two variables are strongly related
together. Because the commitment of employees will drive their willingness of taking
charge at work. Commitment is expressed in small activities of employees like being
willing to do work in any circumstances, feeling to be a part of company, feeling

comfortable and confident to contribute to work. When the need to be a part of the
company is supported, employees are willing to taking charge at work. They don’t care
for the difficulties and obstacles at work, they are dedicated to their knowledge, health
and experience to the development of the Group. Properly speaking, the role of Board of
Directors at Vingroup is very important, because they need to encourage and promote
employees’ commitment and willingness. The Board of Directors need to build
professional corporate culture and working environment in order that employees can
show their commitment and are willing to dedicate to the Group.
3. Limitation
As being mentioned above, the research was carried on with many difficulties. In
summary, these are some limitations as following:
 The sample is small (n=250) and conducted at Vingroup itself, thus the findings
can’t generalize the real estate industry and give meaningful contributions to other
researches.
 The research is conducted in a short time. This can cause the results not be quite
correct or meaningful.
 Another limitation is English competency levels of researcher and employees at
Vingroup. There are some English phrases and sentences cause
misunderstanding.

REFERENCES
1. Dail L. Fields, 2002. Taking the Measure of Work. A Guide to Validated Scales for
Organizational Research and Diagnosis. Sage Publications, Inc.
2. Khai Nguyen (2012). Examining the Impacts of Attitudinal and contextual Factors on
Proactive Personality – Proactive Behaviors and Organization Commitment
Relationships.
3. Maureen F. Dollard, Heren R. Winefield, Anthony H. Winefield & Jan de Jongge,
2000. Psychosocial Job Strain and Productivity in Human Service Workers: A Test of
the Demand-Control-Support Model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology.
4. Robert H. Friis, Ph.D., 2015. Occupational Health and Safety for the 21st Century.
Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
5. Aamir Ali Chughtai & Sohai Zafar, 2006. Antecedents and consequences of
organizational commitment among Pakistani University teachers. Applied H.R.M.
Research, 2006, Volume 11, Number 1, pages 39-64.
6. Ali Abbaas Albdour and Ikhlas I. Altarawneh, 2004. Employee Engagement and
Organizational Commitment: Evidence from Jordan. International Journal of Business,
19 (2), 2014.
7. Lisa M. Moynihan, Wendy R.Boswell & John W. Boudreau (2000). The Influence of
Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment on Executive Withdrawal and
Performance. Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies.
8. Negin Memari, Omid Mahdie & Ahmad Barati Marnani (2013). The Impact of
Organizational Commitment on Employee Job Performance. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Contemporary Research in Business, Vol.5, No. 5.
9. Allan P.O. Williams, Sally Woodward & Paul Dobson (2002). Managing Change
Successfully: Using Theory and Experience to Implement Change. Cengage Learning
EMEA.

10. Natasja Van Veghel, Jan De Jonge & Paul A. Landsbergis (2005). Occupational
Stress in (inter)action: The Interplay between Job Demands and Job Resources. Journal
of Organizational Behavior.
11. Theresa M. Wellbourne (1994). The Role of Distributive and Procedural Justice in
Predicting Gainsharing Satisfaction. Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies.
12. Riël Vermunt & Kjell Y. Törnblom. Introduction: Distributive and Procedural
Justice.
13. Brockner, J. and Wiesenfeld, B. (2005). “How, When and Why does Outcome
Favorability Interact with Procedural Fairness?” in Handbook of Organizational
Justice. Greenberg, J. and Colquitt, J. (eds) (NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), 525−553.
14. Shumaila Latif & Amir Gulzar (2011). The Impact of Organizational and
Supervisory Support on Survivors’ Organizational Commitment after Downsizing in
Telecom Sector of Pakistan. International Journal of Economics and Management
Sciences Vol. 1, No. 5, 2011, pp. 55-61.
15. Ivan L. Sucharski and Linda Rhoades (2002). Perceived Supervisor Support:
Contributions to Perceived Organizational Support and Employee Retention. Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, No. 3, 565–573.
16. Vipra Arora & T. J. Kamalanabhan. Linking Supervisor and Coworker Support to
Employee Innovative Behavior at Work: Role of Psychological Conditions.
17. Tonya M. Westbrook & Josie Crolley-Simic. Perceptions of Administrative and
Supervisory Support in Public Child Welfare. Advances in Social Work Vol. 13 No. 3
(Fall 2012), 603-617.
18. Elizabeth Wolfe Morrison & Corey C. Phelps (1999). Taking Charge at Work:
Extrarole Efforts to Initiate Workplace Change. Academy of Management Journal.
19. Seyed Rahim Benrazavi & Abu Daud Silong (2013). Employees’ Job Satisfaction
and Its Influence on Willingness to Work in Teams. Journal of Management Policy and
Practice vol. 14.

20. Faryal Siddiqui (2011). Impact of Employee’s Willingness on Organizational
Change. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, Vol.2, No.4.
21. Kwasi Dartey – Baah (2014). Organizational Antecedents and Perceptions of
Factors in Policy Implementation among Employees in Banking Sector of Ghana.
African Journal of Business Management, Vol.8, pp. 816-831.
22. Elizabeth Wolfe Morrison and Corey C. Phelps (1999). Taking Charge at Work:
Extrarole Efforts to Initiate Workplace Change. The Academy of Management Journal
Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 403-419
23. Elizabeth Wolfe Morrison and Corey c. Phelps (1999). Taking Charge at Work:
Extrarole Efforts to Initiate Workplace Change. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.
42, No. 4, pp. 403-419.
24. Julia Adler-Milstein, Sara J. Singer Michael and W. Toffel (2011). Managerial
practices that promote voice and taking charge among frontline workers. Harvard
Business School.
25. Julie Pallant (2011). SPSS Survival Manual. Open University Press, Buckingham.
26. Do Thi Thanh Truc. Guidance on SPSS Usage. For Internal Use of Hutech.
26. Tam Nhi (2015). Vingroup Ranked The Top 100 of The Best Working Environment
In Vietnam. Retrieved from:
http://tinnhanhdiaoc.vn/tin-tuc/vingroup-nam-trong-top-100-noi-lam-viec-tot-nhat-viet-
nam
25. Vingroup Overview. Vingroup History and Development, Vision, Mission, Core
Values, Corporate Culture. Retrieved from:
http://www.vingroup.net/en-us/introduction/overview/vingroup-overview/vingroup-
jsc-2482.aspx

APPENDIX
Appendix 1: Survey questionnaire
Dear Mr. / Mrs.
I am Nguyen Dinh Nhu Ha. As part of the research thesis of Master Business
Administration Collaboration Program between Open University Malaysia and HCM
University of Technology. I’m currently conducting a survey to investigate the factors
affecting taking charge of employees at Vingroup.
This survey is designed to get some information from all employees. Thanks to
the findings, it’s expected to help the Board of Directors at Vingroup improve strategies
and policies for the management and supporting human resources, and stable developing
process. Your answers are preciously meaningful to my research. Please spend your
precious time to choose the choices.
In case you have any questions about the below statements, please don’ hesitate
to contact me at:
Nguyen Dinh Nhu Ha
Email: nguyenhahitc@gmail.com
Phone number: 0932 786 156
I’m really thankful to your cooperation.
All personal information will be secretly kept.

I. Contents
Part 1: Job demands and Decision Latitude
Responses for items 1 – 15 are obtained using a 5-point Likert-type scale where 1 =
never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often and 5 = extremely often
No. Questions 5-point Likert-type scale
Job demand items:
11. To what extent does your job require your working fast? 1 2 3 4 5
22. To what extent does your job require your working hard? 1 2 3 4 5
33. To what extent does your job require a great deal of work to be done? 1 2 3 4 5
44. To what extent is there not enough time for you to do your job? 1 2 3 4 5
55. To what extent is there excessive work in your job? 1 2 3 4 5
6
6. To what extent do you feel there is not enough time for you to finish
your work?
1 2 3 4 5
7 To what extent are you faced with conflicting demands on your job? 1 2 3 4 5
Skill discretion items:
81. To what extent is high skill level required? 1 2 3 4 5
92. To what extent are you required to learn new things? 1 2 3 4 5
103. To what extent is your work non-repetitious? 1 2 3 4 5
114. To what extent does your job require creativity? 1 2 3 4 5
Decision authority items:
12 To what extent do you have the freedom to decide how to organize
your work?
1 2 3 4 5
13 To what extent do you have control over what happens on your job? 1 2 3 4 5
14 To what extent does your job allow you to make a lot of your own
decisions?
1 2 3 4 5
15 To what extent are you assisted in making your own decisions? 1 2 3 4 5
Part 2: Supervisory support
strongly disagree, 4 = disagree to some extent, 3 = uncertain, 2 = agree to some extent
and 1 = strongly agree

No. Statements 5-point Likert-type scale
16 My supervisor takes the time to learn about my career goals and
aspirations
1 2 3 4 5
17 My supervisor care s about whether or not I achieve my goals 1 2 3 4 5
18 My supervisor keeps me informed about different career
opportunities for me in the organization
1 2 3 4 5
19 My supervisor makes sure I get the credit when I accomplish
something substantial on the job
1 2 3 4 5
20 My supervisor gives me helpful feedback about my performance 1 2 3 4 5
21 My supervisor gives me helpful advice about improving my
performance when I need it
1 2 3 4 5
22 My supervisor supports my attempts to acquire additional training on
education to further my career
1 2 3 4 5
23 My supervisor provides assignments that give me the opportunity to
develop and strengthen new skills
1 2 3 4 5
24 My supervisor assigns me special projects that increase my visibility
in the organization
1 2 3 4 5
Part 3: Distributive and procedural justice
25 I’m not sure what determines how I can get a promotion in this
organization
1 2 3 4 5
26 I am told promptly when there is a change in policy, rules, or
regulations that affects me
1 2 3 4 5
27 It’s really not possible to change things around here 1 2 3 4 5

28 There are adequate procedures to get my performance rating
reconsidered if necessary
1 2 3 4 5
29 I understand the performance appraisal system being used in this
organization
1 2 3 4 5
30 When changes are made in this organization, the employees usually
lose out in the end
1 2 3 4 5
31 Affirmative action policies have helped advance the employment
opportunities in this organization
1 2 3 4 5
32 In general, disciplinary actions taken in this organization are fair and
justified
1 2 3 4 5
Part 4: Organization commitment
33 I am quite proud to be able to tell people who it is that I work for 1 2 3 4 5
34 I never feel like leaving this employment for good 1 2 3 4 5
35 I am willing to put myself out just to help the organization 1 2 3 4 5
36
Even if the firm were not doing too well financially, I would be
reluctant to change to another employer
1 2 3 4 5
37 I feel myself to be part of the organization 1 2 3 4 5
38
In my work I like to feel I am making some effort, not just for myself,
but for the organization as well
1 2 3 4 5
39
The offer of a bit more money with another employer would not
seriously make me think of changing my job
1 2 3 4 5
40 I would not recommend a close friend to join our staff 1 2 3 4 5
41
To know what my own work had made a contribution to the good of
the organization would please me
1 2 3 4 5

Part 5: Taking charge
Responses are obtained using a 5-point Likert-type scale where 1 = very infrequently and
5 = very frequently
42
This person often tries to adopt improved procedures for doing his or
her job
1 2 3 4 5
43
This person often tries to change how his or her job is executed in
order to be more effective
1 2 3 4 5
44
This person tries to bring about improved procedures for the work
unit or department
1 2 3 4 5
45
This person often tries to institute new work methods that are more
effective for the company
1 2 3 4 5
46
This person tries to change organizational rules or policies that are
non-productive or counterproductive
1 2 3 4 5
47
This person often makes constructive suggestions for improving how
things operate within the organization
1 2 3 4 5
48 This person often tries to correct a faulty procedure or practice 1 2 3 4 5
49
this person often tries to implement solutions to pressing
organizational problems
1 2 3 4 5
50
This person often tries to introduce new structures, technologies, or
approaches to improve efficiency
1 2 3 4 5
51 This person tries to eliminate redundant or unnecessary procedures 1 2 3 4 5
II. General information
Gender Male Female
Working seniority Under 5 years From 5 to 10 years
From 11 to 20 years Above 20 years
Job position Staff Manager
Education
High school College Others
Master PhD
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND COOPERATION!

Appendix 2: Presentation Slides

Factors affect taking charge at Vingroup Corporation

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Factors affect taking charge at Vingroup Corporation

Ähnlich wie Factors affect taking charge at Vingroup Corporation (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Factors affect taking charge at Vingroup Corporation