DSpace at VNU: Psychological Capital, Quality of Work Life, and Quality of Life of Marketers: Evidence from Vietnam

Nguyen Psychological Capital, Quality of Work Life, and Quality of Life of Marketers : Evidence from Vietnam Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: Macromarketing So

Journal of Macromarketing

http://jmk.sagepub.com/content/32/1/87

The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0276146711422065

2012 32: 87 originally published online 22 September 2011

Journal of Macromarketing

Tho D Nguyen and Trang T M Nguyen

Psychological Capital, Quality of Work Life, and Quality of Life of Marketers : Evidence from Vietnam

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Macromarketing Society

can be found at:

Journal of Macromarketing

Additional services and information for

http://jmk.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Email Alerts:

http://jmk.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Permissions:

http://jmk.sagepub.com/content/32/1/87.refs.html

Citations:

What is This?

- Sep 22, 2011

OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Apr 9, 2012

Version of Record

>>

Psychological Capital, Quality of Work Life,

and Quality of Life of Marketers: Evidence

from Vietnam

Tho D Nguyen1 and Trang T M Nguyen2

Abstract

This study examines the roles of psychological capital (PsyCap) in job performance and quality of work life (QWL) of marketers in

a transitioning market, Vietnam It also investigates the impacts of marketers’ QWL on their job performance and quality of life (QoL) A test based upon a sample of 364 marketers in Ho Chi Minh (HCM) City reveals that PsyCap has positive impacts on both job performance and QWL of marketers In addition, QWL underlies both job performance and QoL of marketers These findings confirm the importance of PsyCap in marketers’ work and lives in a transitioning market

Keywords

quality of work life, quality of life, psychological capital, job performance, Vietnam

Introduction

People play a key role in economic productivity (Gavin and

Mason 2004) and the ‘‘flat world’’ competition has allowed

or forced people around the world to cooperate and to compete

with each other (Friedman 2007) Such a new business

environ-ment requires firms to have a new approach to human resource

management in order to survive and to create sustainable

growth and development (Luthans et al 2008) Regarding

people in the workplace, there are two areas, among others, that

have received much attention by researchers in the last few

years The first is the positive organizational behavior and its

derivative psychological capital, which is defined as an

indi-vidual’s psychological state of development (PsyCap; Luthans

et al 2005; Luthans et al 2008) The second is quality of work

life (QWL; Sirgy 2006; Wright and Cropanzano 2004) and the

relationship between work and life (Harrington and Ladge

2009) Research shows that there is a relationship between

PsyCap and job performance (Luthans et al 2005; Luthans

et al 2008), and a relationship between QWL and job

per-formance (Koonmee et al 2010) However, little empirical

evi-dence exists on the nature of or relationships among PsyCap,

QWL and quality of life (QoL), especially in transitioning

markets Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, little

atten-tion has been paid to the role of PsyCap in QWL and QoL of

marketers in transitioning markets such as Vietnam Thus, the

purpose of this study is to investigate the roles of PsyCap in job

performance and QWL, and subsequently, in QoL of marketers

in Vietnam

Vietnam provides a good case for the study of PsyCap and

QWL of marketers In 1986, the Vietnamese government

initiated a new economic reform program, aiming to transform from a centrally planned economy to a market-oriented econ-omy under socialist guidance Under the centrally planned system, business activities of Vietnamese firms focused pri-marily on production These firms lacked knowledge about market economics and marketing management (Nguyen and Nguyen 2010) The movement toward a market economy, together with entry to the World Trade Organization (WTO), has forced Vietnamese firms to change business practices Instead of focusing on production and relying primarily on the government planning system for distribution and other func-tions typically associated with marketing management, firms now are required to make products, to develop brands, and to find markets for their products/brands They are also required

to produce higher quality and more competitive brands and are required to effectively market their brands to compete success-fully with international brands in their home markets, and, when possible, in export markets In so doing, they are con-fronted with several difficulties, one of which is a shortage of qualified marketers (Nguyen and Nguyen 2011) Thus, research in the area will assist firms in understanding the role

of PsyCap in QWL of marketers in order to stimulate them to

1 University of Economics, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam 2

University of Economics and Law, Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Corresponding Author:

Tho D Nguyen, University of Economics, HCM City, 17 Pham Ngoc Thach, District 3, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Email: ndtho@ueh.edu.vn

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0276146711422065 http://jmk.sagepub.com

effectively and efficiently work for firms, which in turn may

enhance worker well-being and Vietnam’s socioeconomic

development Below, the authors provide a literature review

and hypotheses; articulate the research method, data analysis,

and results; offer a discussion and implications; and conclude

with limitations and directions for future research

Literature Review and Hypotheses

Conceptual Model

Figure 1 depicts a conceptual model explaining the role of

PsyCap in QWL and subsequently in job performance and QoL

of marketers Specifically, the model proposes that PsyCap of

marketers will have positive impacts on both marketers’ QWL

and job performance Further, QWL of marketers underlies

their job performance and QoL

QoL and QWL

Employees’ work–life integration is a critical issue for several

organizations because it is associated with employees’

well-being (Harrington and Ladge 2009) Gavin and Mason (2004)

observe that work is an important source of the QoL for people

and that people’s general happiness in life is closely related to

their happiness at work However, there is a lack of empirical

evidence for this relationship in Vietnam In this study, the

authors propose a positive relationship between marketers’

QWL and QoL

QWL is about the well-being of employees (Sirgy et al

2001) and there are several different definitions of QWL

(Martel and Dupuis 2006) In the context of this study,

follow-ing Sirgy et al (2001), the authors define QWL as marketers’

satisfaction with a set of human needs when participating in the

workplace The set of human needs includes health and safety

needs, economic and family needs, social needs, esteem needs,

actualization needs, knowledge needs and aesthetics needs

Similar to QWL, QoL is complex and the concept has

been measured in a variety of ways (Lee et al 2002; Vaez,

Kristenson, and Laflamme 2004) It can be defined as the

over-all satisfaction with life (Vaez, Kristenson, and Laflamme

2004) Based on the satisfaction approach to QoL, there is a

link between job satisfaction and life satisfaction because life

satisfaction is influenced by satisfaction with life domains,

including work (Sirgy 2006) Thus, QoL is affected by QWL

In addition, QWL is important for firms because it relates to

employee performance productivity and loyalty (Korunka, Hoonakker, and Carayon 2008; Rego and Cunha 2008) To reiterate, marketers’ QWL is expected to have a positive impact on their performance Therefore, the authors propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: QWL has a positive impact on QoL Hypothesis 2: QWL has a positive impact on job performance

Psychological Capital

Concern about trait-like personality and state-like psychologi-cal capacities of employees has received little attention by organizational behavior researchers (Luthans et al 2005) Trait-like personality is not specific to any task or situation and tends to be stable over time, whereas state-like psychological capacities are more specific to certain situations or tasks and tend to be more malleable over time (Chen et al 2000) Several related concepts that describe state-like psychological capaci-ties of employees can be found in the literature on positive organizational behavior such as psychological ownership (Avey et al 2009), PsyCap (Luthans et al 2005; Luthans

et al 2008) This study focuses on PsyCap of marketers Luthans, Youssef, and Avolio (2007) propose four compo-nents of PsyCap: self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resiliency They define PsyCap as:

an individual’s positive psychological state of development that

is characterized by: (1) having confidence (self-efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about suc-ceeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order

to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sus-taining and bouncing back and even beyond (resiliency) to attain success (Luthans, Youssef, and Avolio 2007, 3) Luthans et al (2008) note that PsyCap has both conceptual and empirical support

Self-efficacy refers to ‘‘people judgments about their capa-bility to perform particular tasks’’ (Parker 1998, 835) Applied

to the marketing professional level, self-efficacy helps market-ers to be confident about their knowledge and skills in perform-ing their assigned marketperform-ing tasks Optimism is broadly defined

as ‘‘the tendency to maintain a positive outlook’’ (Schneider

2001, 253) Positive organizational behavior focuses on realistic optimism, which ‘‘involves enhancing and focusing on the favorable aspects of our experiences’’ (Schneider 2001, 253) Applied to the marketing professional, optimistic marketers are characterized by having positive expectations of outcomes in a changing work environment (Luthans et al 2008) Hope reflects

‘‘the belief that one can find pathways to desired goals and become motivated to use those pathways’’ (Snyder, Rand, and Sigmon 2002, 257) Hope comprises two dimensions: pathways (way power) and agency (will power) Pathways refer to one’s

H2 H3

Quality of Work Life

Psychological

Capital

Job Performance

Quality of Life

H1 H4

Figure 1 Conceptual model

capability of generating workable routes to the desired goal

and agency relates to one’s perceived capacity to use the

path-ways to reach the desired goal (Snyder et al 1996; Snyder,

Rand, and Sigmon 2002) Applying hope to the marketing

professional level in a firm, pathways facilitate marketers

to recognize the goals set by the firm and to translate those

goals into their own actions to achieve the goals Agency

assists marketers in controlling their actions to achieve the

desired goals and especially, in applying the requisite

motiva-tion to the best alternative pathway (Luthans et al 2008; Snyder,

Rand, and Sigmon 2002) Finally, resiliency refers to ‘‘positive

adaptation in the context of significant adversity or risk’’

(Masten and Reed 2002, 75) Applying resiliency to the

market-ing professional, resiliency can be characterized by copmarket-ing

responses to both adverse and extreme positive events (Luthans

2002; Luthans et al 2008)

Research shows that these four components (self-efficacy,

optimism, hope, and resiliency) of PsyCap have positive

rela-tionships with performance, happiness, well-being, and

satis-faction of workers For example, self-efficacy has been found

to have a positive impact on performance (Stajkovic and

Luthans 1998; Legal and Meyer 2009) Employees’ optimism

is related to their performance, satisfaction, and happiness

(Youssef and Luthans 2007) Hope is related to employees’

performance, satisfaction, happiness, and retention (Youssef

and Luthans 2007) Resiliency has a positive relationship with

employee performance (Luthans et al 2005) and happiness and

satisfaction (Youssef and Luthans 2007) In sum, self-efficacy,

optimism, hope and resiliency are related to the performance

and QWL of employees

Luthans, Youssef, and Avolio (2007) found that PsyCap

overall is a better predictor of employee performance than are

its individual components For that reason, in this study, the

authors focus on the predictive power of overall PsyCap rather

than its individual components And, the authors propose that

overall PsyCap will have positive impacts on both QWL and

performance of marketers Thus,

Hypothesis 3: PsyCap has a positive impact on QWL

Hypothesis 4: PsyCap has a positive impact on job

performance

Method

Design and Sample

Two phases comprised the research, a pilot and a main survey,

and was undertaken in Ho Chi Minh (HCM) City, the principal

business center of Vietnam Respondents were marketers

work-ing for firms in HCM City The pilot study consisted of two

steps: qualitative and quantitative First, the authors conducted

a series of in-depth interviews with eighteen marketers in HCM

City to modify the measures by examining how consumers

described their PsyCap and QWL Although most of the

mea-sures of constructs were available in the literature, this step is

important to make them appropriate for the context of this

study (a transitioning market) The quantitative pilot study was undertaken by face-to-face interviews with 125 marketers to refine the scales Cronbach’s alpha reliability and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were used to preliminarily assess the scales The main survey was also undertaken by using face-to-face interviews A convenience sample of 364 marketers working for various types of firms in HCM City was inter-viewed in this survey The purpose of this main survey was

to validate the measures and to test the structural model Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was utilized to assess the measures and structural equation modeling (SEM) were employed to test the theoretical model and hypotheses

Measurement

Constructs examined included PsyCap, QWL, and job perfor-mance QoL, PsyCap, and QWL were second-order constructs and job performance and QoL were first-order constructs PsyCap was comprised of four components: hope, optimism, resiliency, and self-efficacy Hope was measured by 4 items borrowed from Snyder, Rand, and Sigmon (2002) Note that hope used in this study is state hope (Snyder, Rand, and Sigmon 2002) Optimism was measured by 3 items adopted from Carver and Scheier (2002) Resiliency was measured by

4 items, adopted from Block and Kremen (1996) Self-efficacy was measured by 4 items, borrowed from Parker (1998) QWL was measured by 9 items addressing need satis-faction of marketers (Sirgy et al 2001) Job performance was measured based on marketers’ self-assessment Although self-assessment has been criticized for being less accurate com-pared to objective criterion measures, it is valuable when anon-ymity is guaranteed and/or individuals perceive no need to present themselves favorably for career, performance apprai-sal, and/social acceptance purposes (van der Heijden and Nijhof 2004; Rego and Cunha 2008) as in the case of this study The scale included 4 items, adopted from Staples, Hulland, and Higgins (1999) and Rego and Cunha (2008) Finally, QoL was measured by 3 items, adopted from Peterson, Ekici, and Hunt (2010)

Seven-point Likert-type scale, anchored by 1 (strongly dis-agree) and 7 (strongly dis-agree) was used for all items in this study The questionnaire was initially prepared in English and then translated into Vietnamese by an academic fluent in both languages This procedure was undertaken because English is not well understood by all marketers in Vietnam Back transla-tion was undertaken to ensure the equivalence of meanings

Measurement Refinement

The measures were refined via Cronbach’s alpha reliability and EFA, using the data collected from 125 marketers in the pilot study Specifically, EFA (principal components with varimax rotation) extracted four factors from the items measuring Psy-Cap with 66.38 percent of variance extracted: self-efficacy (Eigenvalue¼ 4.38); optimism (Eigenvalue ¼ 1.62); resiliency (Eigenvalue ¼ 1.34); and hope (Eigenvalue ¼ 1.18) The

Cronbach’s alphas for these scales were 66 (hope), 72

(optimism), 68 (resiliency), and 87 (self-efficacy) Note that

1 item measuring optimism (I’m always optimistic about my

future) and 1 item measuring hope (At this time, I am meeting

the goals that I have set for myself) were deleted due to their

low item-total correlations (<.30) in the reliability analysis

EFA extracted three factors from 9 items measuring QWL

with 70.44 percent of variance extracted The first factor

(eigenvalue¼ 4.04) covered items measuring marketer’s

satis-faction with health and pay, termed survival needs The second

factor (eigenvalue ¼ 1.27) included items measuring

market-er’s satisfaction with social and esteem needs, termed

belong-ing needs, and the third factor (eigenvalue¼ 1.03) comprised

items measuring marketer’s satisfaction with actualization,

knowledge, and aesthetics needs, termed knowledge needs

The Cronbach’s alpha scores for these scales were 75 (survival

needs), 70 (belonging needs), and 84 (knowledge needs)

Finally, for the items measuring the two first-order constructs,

EFA attracted two factors with 71.31 percent variance

extracted: job performance (eigenvalue ¼ 3.38) and QoL

(eigen-value ¼ 1.82) The Cronbach’s alpha for job

perfor-mance was 86; for QoL it was 85 In addition, all factor

load-ings were high (.50) In sum, the results of the preliminary

assessment indicated that all scales satisfied the requirement

for reliability Accordingly, these measures were used in the

main survey

Sample Characteristics

The sample included 167 (45.9%) male and 197 (54.1%)

female marketers There were 181 (49.7%) marketers working

in the service industry and 183 (50.3%) working in the

manu-facturing industry In terms of firm ownership, 46 (12.6%)

marketers worked for state-owned companies, 165 (45.3%)

worked for stock companies, 15(4.1%) worked for

joint-venture companies, 96 (26.4%) worked for limited proprietary

companies, and 42 (11.6%) worked for private firms In terms

of firm size, 148 (40.6%) marketers worked for firms that had

less than or equal to 100 employees, 85 (23.4%) worked for

firms that had 100 to 300 employees, and 131 (36.0%) worked

for firms that had more than 300 employees

Data Analysis and Results

As discussed previously, CFA was used to validate the scales,

and then SEM followed to test the theoretical model and

hypotheses The screening process shows that the data

exhib-ited slight deviations from normal Nonetheless, most of the

univariate kurtoses and skewnesses were within the range of

[1, 1] Therefore, maximum likelihood estimation was used

(Muthen and Kaplan 1985)

Measurement Validation

Four constructs were investigated: PsyCap, QWL, job

perfor-mance, and QoL The scales measuring these constructs were

refined via Cronbach’s alpha and EFA using the data set (n¼ 125) collected in the pilot study These scales were then assessed via CFA using the data set (n¼ 364) collected in the main survey The authors used two steps in validating mea-sures First, the authors used two CFA models to assess the two second-order constructs: PsyCap and QWL We then incorporated the two first-order constructs (job performance and QoL) into the first two CFA models to form a saturated model (final measurement model)

Psychological Capital

PsyCap was comprised of four components: hope, optimism, resiliency, and, self-efficacy The CFA results indicate that the measurement model of PsyCap received an acceptable fit to the data: w2(62) ¼ 166.28 (p ¼ 000); Goodness-of-fit Index (GFI)¼ 936; CFI ¼ 935; and root mean square error

of approximation (RMSEA) ¼ 068 In addition, all factor loadings were high (l  53) and significant (p < 001; Table 1) These findings indicate that the scales measuring the components of PsyCap were unidimensional and the within-method convergent validity was achieved (Steenkamp and van Trijp 1991)

Quality of Work Life

QWL consisted of three components: satisfaction with sur-vival needs, satisfaction with belonging needs, and satisfaction with knowledge needs The CFA results indicate that the mea-surement model of QWL received an acceptable fit to the data:

w2(23)¼ 63.78 (p ¼ 000); GFI ¼ 963; CFI ¼ 967; and RMSEA

¼ 070 In addition, all factor loadings were high (l  52) and significant (p < 001; Table 1) These findings indicate that the scales measuring the components of QWL were unidimen-sional and the within-method convergent validity was achieved (Steenkamp and van Trijp 1991)

Saturated Model

The saturated model (final measurement model) was formed by incorporating the CFA model of the two first-order constructs (job performance and QoL) into the two CFA models of the two second-order constructs (PsyCap and QWL) Because the mea-sures of the components of PsyCap and QWL were unidimen-sional, summates were used to test the structural models The use of summates helps decrease the number of free parameters considerably, which makes the estimation more reliable with-out increasing the sample size (Bagozzi and Edwards 1998) Consequently, four summates (indicators) were formed for PsyCap (hope, optimism, resiliency, and self-efficacy), and three summates were formed for QWL (survival needs, belong-ing needs, and knowledge needs)

The final CFA model received an acceptable fit to the data:

w2(71) ¼ 167.41 (p ¼ 000); GFI ¼ 938; CFI ¼ 957; and RMSEA¼ 061 The factor loadings of all items measuring the two first-order constructs (job performance and QoL) were

high ( 61) and significant (p <.001) These findings indicate

that the scales measuring these two first-order constructs used

in this study were unidimensional and the within-method

convergent validity was achieved The correlations between

constructs, together with their standard errors (Table 2),

indi-cate that they were significantly different from unity, thus

sup-porting the construct discriminant validity (Steenkamp and van

Trijp 1991) The CFA loadings of items, composite reliability

(rc), and average variances extracted (rvc) of all scales are

shown in Table 1

Structural Results

SEM was used to test the theoretical model and hypotheses

The proposed model received an acceptable fit to the data:

w2(73) ¼ 168.24 (p ¼ 000); GFI ¼ 937; CFI ¼ 957; and RMSEA ¼ 060 Note that no improper solution was found

in any model: Heywood cases were absent; all error-term var-iances were significant; and all standardized residuals were less

Table 2 Correlations between Constructs Correlations r (SE) 1 r t(1 r)

QWL$ Job performance 69 (.094) 31 3.24 PsyCap$ Job performance 73 (.087) 27 3.14 QWL$ PsyCap 39 (.070) 61 8.62 PsyCap$ QoL 68 (.096) 32 3.34 Job performance$ QoL 45 (.070) 55 7.93

Note r(SE) ¼ correlation with standard error.

Table 1 Standardized CFA Loadings of Items

Psychological capital: Self-efficacy: rc¼ 87; rvc¼ 62

I feel confident of analyzing a long-term problem to find a solution 5.06 1.220 0.75 —

I feel confident of presenting my work area in meetings

with senior management

I feel confident of contacting people outside the company 5.36 1.261 0.81 15.77

I feel confident of presenting information to a group of colleagues 5.55 1.195 0.70 15.92 Psychological capital: Optimism: rc¼ 72; rvc¼ 47

In uncertain times, I usually expect the best 4.91 1.529 0.71 9.97

Overall, I expect more good things to happen to me than bad 5.10 1.430 0.70 — Psychological capital: Hope: Composite reliability rc¼ 67; Average variance extracted rvc¼ 41

At the present time, I am energetically pursuing my goals 5.47 1.363 0.53 — There are a lot of ways around any problem that I am facing now 5.10 1.315 0.67 7.92

I can think many ways to reach my current goals 5.00 1.423 0.70 8.02 Psychological capital: Resiliency: rc¼ 60; rvc¼ 33

I quickly get over and recover from being startled 4.91 1.329 60 8.19

I get over my anger at someone reasonably quickly 4.66 1.414 57 — Quality of work life: Survival needs: rc¼ 77; rvc¼ 54

I am satisfied with what I’m getting paid for my work 4.29 1.596 0.85 9.20

Quality of work life: Belonging needs: rc¼ 72; rvc¼ 47

I have enough time away from work to enjoy other things in life 4.83 1.457 0.61 9.40

Quality of work life: Knowledge needs: rc¼ 84; rvc¼ 63

I feel that my job allows me to realize my full potential 4.83 1.375 0.74 –

My job allows me to sharpen my professional skills 4.82 1.454 0.83 14.26

Job performance: rc¼ 87; rvc¼ 62

I am happy with the quality of my work output 4.96 1.230 0.78 14.69

My manager believes I am an efficient worker 4.97 1.176 0.81 15.03

My colleagues believe I am a very productive employee 5.05 1.209 0.80 15.28 Quality of life: rc¼ 85; rvc¼ 65

I have gotten the important things I want in life 4.14 1.471 0.78 15.47

than |2.58| Table 3 shows the unstandardized estimates of the

structural paths and Figure 2 presents the standardized ones

Table 4 shows the standardized direct, indirect, and total effects

between constructs in the model

Hypothesis Testing

Consistent with Hypothesis 1, a positive relationship between

QWL and QoL was found (b¼.63, p < 001) Hypothesis 2

proposes a positive relationship between QWL and job

performance The estimated structural path between QWL and job performance was significant (b ¼.38, p < 001), thus Hypothesis 2 was supported Finally, Hypotheses

3 and 4 propose that PsyCap has positive impacts on both QWL and job performance The results reveal that these two hypotheses also received support from the data (Hypothesis 3: g ¼ 67, p < 001 and Hypothesis 4: g ¼ 47, p < 001; Figure 2)

The results also indicate that PsyCap was a key factor predicting the QWL (gtotal¼ 67) and job performance (gtotal

¼ 73; Table 4) of marketers PsyCap explained 45 percent

of the variance of quality work life and, together with QWL, explained 61 percent of the variance of marketers’ job perfor-mance (Figure 2)

Discussion and Implications

Realizing the role of PsyCap in the QWL and QoL for market-ers, this study examines the impacts of PsyCap on both QWL and job performance, and subsequently, on QoL of marketers

in a transitioning market, Vietnam The results of this study offer a number of implications for theory and practice First, QWL has positive impacts on both QoL and job per-formance of marketers These findings confirm the benefit of work–life integration, which is one of the most important

Table 3 Unstandardized Structural Paths in the Model

Note Est (SE) ¼ Estimate (standard error).

.67 a

.47 a

.38 a

.63 a Quality of Life

Psychological Capital

Quality of Work Life

.39 b

.66*

.45 b

χ 2 [73] = 168.24 (p = 000); GFI = 937 CFI = 957; RMSEA = 060 (a) p < 001; (b) squared multiple correlations

.70 72 62

.78 80 84

.76 78 81 80

Job Performance

.64 58 75

Figure 2 Structural results (standardized estimates)

Table 4 Standardized Direct, Indirect and Total Effects between

Constructs

Effect Type PsyCap QWL

Indirect 0.00

Job performance Direct 0.47 0.38

business issues in the twenty-first century (Harrington and

Ladge 2009) in a transitioning market Gavin and Mason

(2004, 381) argue:

[w]hen a workplace is designed and managed to create meaning

for its workers they tend to be more healthy and happy Healthy

and happy employees tend to be more productive over the long

run, generating better goods and more fulfilling services for their

customers and the others with whom they interact and do business

Firms establishing an appropriate human resources

manage-ment system that enhances QWL for marketers will benefit

from their performance In so doing, firms not only attend to

pay and promotions but also create a working environment that

enhance marketers’ satisfaction with their needs, including

sur-vival, belonging and knowledge needs, as found in this study

Improving QWL for marketers will also make their lives more

meaningful and thus may be a motive for qualified marketers to

continue working for the firms (Rego and Cunha 2008)

Further, the results show that PsyCap underlies QWL and

job performance of marketers The findings of this study signal

firms to recruit, develop, and manage marketers who are

gen-erally higher in PsyCap Research shows that PsyCap is a more

state-like factor than personality traits, that is, it is more open to

be developed and managed (Luthans et al 2008) Therefore,

recruiting marketers with high levels of PsyCap and

establish-ing appropriate human resource policies and practice to further

develop marketers’ PsyCap (i.e., self-efficacy, optimism, hope,

and resilience) are desirable for Vietnamese firms And, in so

doing, Vietnamese firms could enhance the performance of

their marketers, leading to an increase in firm performance

This also improves marketers’ QWL, which is a critical factor

for productivity (Wright and Cropanzano 2004)

Finally, research has explored the role of marketing in the

well-being or QoL of consumers (Peterson and Ekici 2007) and

of nations (Pan, Zinkhan, and Sheng 2007) However, little

attention has been paid to the QoL of marketers, who contribute

in part to the QoL of consumers and nations at large An

indi-rect relationship between PsyCap and QoL of marketers found

in this study indicates that PsyCap also plays an indirect role in

improving QoL of marketers Therefore, employing marketers

with higher levels of PsyCap will not only benefit firms but also

play a part in enhancing the well-being of nations

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This study has a number of limitations First, the model was

tested with a convenience sample of marketers working for

companies in HCM City, Vietnam The model should be tested

with marketers in other cities and provinces in Vietnam, such

as Can Tho, Da Nang, and Hanoi with a probability sample

to enhance the generalizability of the results In addition, the

model needs further replication, extension, and critical

evalua-tion in other transievalua-tioning markets, such as China, to provide

useful insights Second, the model only examined the roles of

human resources at the marketing professional level Testing

the model with other business functions within firms, such as accounting, finance, and so on, will enhance our understanding

of the relationships between PsyCap, QWL, and QoL of employees This is another direction for future research Finally, the authors focus on the state-like components of psy-chological factors of people, that is, PsyCap of marketers Incorporating trait-like components such as psychological hardiness, personality of marketers will provide further insights into the role of psychological aspects of people in their work and lives This is also an appropriate area for future research Acknowledgment

The authors thank the UEH International School of Business for funding the field research and Clifford Shultz, the special issue editor, and three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article

Funding The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by a grant from the UEH International School of Business, University of Economics, HCM City, Grant No UEH.ISB.11.001 References

Avey, James B., Bruce J Avolio, Craig D Crossley, and Fred Luthans (2009), ‘‘Psychological Ownership: Theoretical Extensions, Mea-surement and Relation to Work Outcomes,’’ Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 30 (2), 173-191

Bagozzi, Richard P and Jeffrey R Edwards (1998), ‘‘A General Approach for Representing Constructs in Organizational Research,’’ Organizational Research Methods, 1 (1), 45-87

Block, Jack and Adam M Kremen (1996), ‘‘IQ and Ego-Resiliency: Conceptual and Empirical Connections and Sepa-rateness,’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (2), 349-361

Carver, Charles S and Michael F Scheier (2002), ‘‘Optimism,’’ in Handbook of Positive Psychology, C R Snyder and Shane J Lopez, eds Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 231-243

Chen, Gilad, Stanley M Gully, Jon-Andrew Whiteman, and Robert N Kilcullen (2000), ‘‘Examination of Relationships among Trait-Like Individual Differences, State-Trait-Like Individual Differences, and Learning Performance,’’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (6), 835-847

Friedman, Thomas L (2007), The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux Gavin, Joanne H and Richard O Mason (2004), ‘‘The Virtuous Orga-nization: The Value of Happiness in the Workplace,’’ Organiza-tional Dynamics, 33 (4), 379-392

Harrington, Brad and Jamie J Ladge (2009), ‘‘Work-Life Integration: Present Dynamics and Future Directions for Organizations,’’ Organizational Dynamics, 38 (2), 148-157

Koonmee, Kalayanee, Anusorn Singhapakdi, Busaya Virakul, and Dong-Jin Lee (2010), ‘‘Ethics Institutionalization, Quality of Work

Life, and Employee Job-Related Outcomes: A Survey of Human

Resource Managers in Thailand,’’ Journal of Business Research,

63 (1), 20-26

Korunka, Christian, Peter Hoonakker, and Pascale Carayon (2008),

‘‘Quality of Working Life and Turnover Intention in Information

Technology Work,’’ Human Factors and Ergonomics in

Manufac-turing, 18 (4), 409-423

Lee, Dong-Jin, M Joseph Sirgy, Val Larsen, and Newell D Wright

(2002), ‘‘Developing a Subjective Measure of Consumer

Well-Being,’’ Journal of Macromarketing, 22 (2), 158-169

Legal, Jean-Baptiste and Thierry Meyer (2009), ‘‘Goal Priming and

Self-Efficacy: Independent Contributions to Motor Performance,’’

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 108 (2), 383-391

Luthans, Fred, Steven M Norman, Bruce J Avolio, and James B

Avey (2008), ‘‘The Mediating Role of Psychological Capital

in the Supportive Organizational Climate: Employee

Perfor-mance Relationship,’’ Journal of Organizational Behavior,

29(2), 214-238

———, C M Youssef, and Bruce J Avolio (2007), Psychological

Capital: Developing the Human Competitive Edge Oxford, UK:

Oxford University Press

———, Bruce J Avolio, Fred O Walumbwa, and Weixing Li (2005),

‘‘The Psychological Capital of Chinese Workers: Exploring the

Relationship with Performance,’’ Management and Organization

Review, 1 (2), 249-271

——— (2002), ‘‘The Need for and Meaning of Positive

Organiza-tional Behavior,’’ Journal of OrganizaOrganiza-tional Behavior, 23 (6),

695-706

Martel, Jean-Pierre and Gilles Dupuis (2006), ‘‘Quality of Work Life:

Theoretical and Methodological Problems, and Presentation of a

New Model and Measuring Instrument,’’ Social Indicators

Research, 77 (2), 333-368

Masten Ann S and Marie-Gabrielle J Reed (2002), ‘‘Resilience in

Development,’’ in Handbook of Positive Psychology, C R Snyder

and Shane J Lopez, eds Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press,

74-88

Muthen, Bengt and David Kaplan (1985), ‘‘A Comparison of Some

Methodologies for the Factor Analysis of Non-Normal Likert

Vari-ables,’’ British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical

Psychol-ogy, 38(2), 171-189

Nguyen, Trang T M and Tho D Nguyen (2010), ‘‘Determinants of

Learning Performance of Business Students in a Transitional

Market,’’ Quality Assurance in Education, 18 (4), 304-316

Nguyen, Tho D and Trang T M Nguyen (2011), ‘‘Firm-Specific

Marketing Capital and Job Satisfaction of Marketers: Evidence

from Vietnam,’’ The Learning Organization, 18 (3), 251-263

Pan, Yue, George M Zinkhan, and Shibing Sheng (2007), ‘‘The

Sub-jective Well-Being of Nations: A Role of Marketing?’’ Journal of

Macromarketing, 27 (4), 360-369

Parker, Sharon K (1998), ‘‘Enhancing Role Breadth Self-Efficacy:

The Roles of Job Enrichment and Other Organizational

Interven-tions,’’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 (6), 835-852

Peterson, Mark, Ahmet Ekici, and David M Hunt (2010), ‘‘How the

Poor in a Developing Country View Business’ Contribution to

Quality-of-Life 5 Years After a National Economic Crisis,’’ Journal of Business Research, 63(6), 548-58

——— and Ahmet Ekici (2007), ‘‘Consumer Attitude toward Marketing and Subjective Quality of Life in the Context of a Developing Country,’’ Journal of Macromarketing, 27 (4), 350-359

Rego, Armenio and Miguel P Cunha (2008), ‘‘Authentizotic Climates and Employee Happiness: Pathways to Individual Performance?’’ Journal of Business Research, 61 (7), 739-752

Schneider, Sandra L (2001), ‘‘In Search of Realistic Optimism Mean-ing, Knowledge, and Warm Fuzziness,’’ American Psychologist,

56 (3), 250-263

Sirgy, M Joseph (2006), ‘‘Developing a Conceptual Framework of Employee Well-Being (EWB) by Applying Goal Concepts and Findings From Personality-Social Psychology,’’ Applied Research

in Quality of Life, 1 (1), 7-38

———, David Efraty, Phillip Siegel, and Dong-Jin Lee (2001), ‘‘A New Measure of Quality of Work Life (QWL) Based on Need Satisfaction and Spillover Theories,’’ Social Indicators Research,

55 (3), 241-302

Snyder, C R., Kevin L Rand, and David R Sigmon (2002), ‘‘Hope Theory: A Member of the Positive Psychology Family,’’ in Hand-book of Positive Psychology, C R Snyder and Shane J Lopez, eds Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 257-276

———, Susie C Sympson, Florence C., Ybasco, Tyrone F Borders, Michael A Babyak, and Raymond L Higgins (1996), ‘‘Develop-ment and Validation of the State Hope Scale,’’ Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 70 (2), 321-335

Stajkovic, Alexander D and Fred Luthans (1998), ‘‘Self-Efficacy and Work-Related Performance: A Meta Analysis,’’ Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240-261

Staples, D Sandy, John S Hulland, and Christopher A Higgins (1999), ‘‘A Self-Efficacy Theory Explanation for the Management

of Remote Workers in Virtual Organizations,’’ Organization Sci-ence, 10 (6), 758-776

Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E M and Han C M van Trijp (1991), ‘‘The Use of LISREL in Validating Marketing Constructs,’’ Interna-tional Journal of Research in Marketing, 8 (4), 283-299 Van der Heijden, Beatrice I J M and Andre H J Nijhof (2004), ‘‘The Value of Subjectivity: Problems and Prospects for 360-Degree Appraisal Systems,’’ International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15 (3), 493-511

Vaez, Marjan, Margareta Kristenson, and Lucie Laflamme (2004),

‘‘Perceived Quality of Life and Self-Rated Health among First-Year University Students: A Comparison with Their Working Peers,’’ Social Indicators Research, 68 (2), 221-234

Wright, Thomas A and Russell Cropanzano (2004), ‘‘The Role of Psychological Well-Being in Job Performance: A Fresh Look

at an Age-Old Quest,’’ Organizational Dynamics, 33 (4), 338-351

Youssef, Carolyn M and Fred Luthans (2007), ‘‘Positive Organi-zational Behavior in the Workplace: The Impact of Hope, Optimism, and Resiliency,’’ Journal of Management 33 (5), 774-800

Tho D Nguyen is a business faculty member of the University of

Eco-nomics, HCM City, Vietnam, and an adjunct professor at the

Univer-sity of Western Sydney, Australia He has published in International

Business Review, Journal of International Marketing, Journal of

Macromarketing, among others He received a PhD in Marketing from

the University of Technology, Sydney

Trang T M Nguyen is a lecturer in Marketing at the University of Economics and Law, VNU-HCM, Vietnam She has published in Advances in International Marketing, Management Research Review, The Learning Organization, among others She received a PhD in Marketing from the University of Technology, Sydney