全球化和全球一體化
 

在過去的十年,由于越來越多的意識和興趣,對組織行為和文化的深入研究變得越來越受歡迎并受到公眾好評。然而不幸的是,在這些學(xué)科，專門針對像在與稅務(wù)管理一樣重要的崗位上工作的人們，可以獲得的信息或研究材料很少。
 

根據(jù)德詹思徹的《鳥與黑房子》（1992）所說，幾乎沒有研究或案例表明，有考察態(tài)度、思維方式和行為模式的稅務(wù)官員在政府部門工作——特別是在發(fā)展中國家的背景下。像這些通常負(fù)擔(dān)過重的國家政府，幾乎沒有控制日常事務(wù)的稅務(wù)部門及其官員。他們鍛煉監(jiān)管不力和缺乏知識的員工的思維模式和行為模式。他們也沒有方法或資源來獲取這些信息。
 

一些文學(xué)作品(盡管稀缺)可以在稅收員工的態(tài)度中獲得靈感,尤其是重點(diǎn)對他們的承諾和工作系統(tǒng)(Tayib,1998),(Manaf et al .,2004),也有關(guān)于他們的評估和稅收征管流程的認(rèn)知(James et al .,2006)。然而,當(dāng)談到研究組織文化,工作滿意度和員工壓力框架內(nèi)的稅務(wù)管理設(shè)置,這是沒有先例的研究,可以給我們有價值的數(shù)據(jù)和提高效率的見解。
 

Globalisation or global integration

 

Due to increasing awareness and interest, in-depth studies on organisational behavior and culture have become progressively more popular and well received by the general public in the past decade. Unfortunately though, very little information or study material is available on these subjects that are specifically tailored for people working in an area as important as tax administration.

 

According to Bird and Casanegra de Jantscher (1992), there is virtually no research or case study- particularly in the context of developing countries- that examines the attitudes, mindset, approach and behavioural patterns of tax officials working in the government departments. The usually overburdened governments such countries have very little control on the day-to-day affairs of the tax department and its officials. They exercise poor supervision and have scant knowledge about the mindset and behavioral patterns of such employees. Nor do they have the means or resources to obtain such information.

 

Some literature (though scarce) is available on the attitudes of tax employees, focusing in particular about their commitment and work systems (Tayib, 1998), (Manaf et al., 2004); as also about their appraisals and their perceptions of the tax collection process (James et al., 2006). However, when it comes to examining organizational culture, job satisfaction and employee stress within the framework of the tax administration setup, there is there is no precedent study that could give us valuable inputs and efficiency increasing insights.

 

The purpose of this study is to specifically look into the above mentioned facets, namely organizational culture, employee satisfaction and job related stress within the ambit of the indirect tax administration in Malaysia.

 

The ability of any tax system to achieve societal goals and improve on them is largely dependent on the efficiency and success of the tax administrative procedure as also on the people who are responsible for executing it . Mikesell (1974, p. 618), has shed light on the importance of tax employee in the tax administration, and despite the very few precedents that we have it is essential to probe into these matters, simply because the very people who carry on the core tasks of day to day administration play an important and integral role in efficient tax administration.

 

While it may be true that some tax legislations may be too inept to be competently administered, an inept tax administrative system can render all tax legislations incompetent. Schlemenson (1992) is of the opinion that administration of human resources is a fundamental pillar of tax administration, having a great impact on its success and competency. By indicating that overlooking personnel aspects of management in deference to technical matters may handicap tax administration reforms, Silvani and Baer (1997) have also highlighted the necessity of paying attention to motivational and behavioral side of employees in tax administration reform. Jenkins (2000) too has suggested that the recruitment, training and retention of human resources play a most important role in efficient tax administration.

 

The following section elaborates on the literature available pertaining to organisational culture and employees attitudes.

 

Present Work Scenarios

 

Change is the only constant in the highly competitive markets as we have them today, and organizations are increasingly interested in streamlining their efficiencies, improving delivery modules or decision making processes, and value-adding to their internal and external functions (Caetano, 1999). Today’s market dynamics have forced organizations to develop competencies that can stimulate strategic development and add the right capabilities to deal with the diverse and complex challenges that dominate the environments where they function (Ulrich, 1998).

 

Organizational change poses a huge though not insurmountable challenge for organizations. It represents a path whereby they can build up a structured approach to efficiency (Robbins, 1999). It is just as important to identify the reasons for developing a change process as it is to adapt to the change and evaluate it. Managing organizational change involves important issues that need to be understood and controlled, in particular, the issues that are a perceived consequence of a change process. It is also equally important to analyse and understand how the change affects the relationship between the employees and the organization.

 

If we go by this line of reasoning, it is perhaps right to consider that any organizational change, its intentions not withstanding, will have a telling impact on the perceived efficacy of the process-i.e. the process as perceived by the workers. This perceptional impact is often clearly felt in behavior indicators such as commitment and job satisfaction. This study aims to analyse the relationship between the perceived efficacy of a change process and its impact on employee commitment and job satisfaction.#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#

 

Understanding organizational change

 

Given the range of diverse and liberal meanings that have been assigned to it, defining organizational change can turn out to be a complex task. However from a broad perspective, we may define organizational change as a transformation in any strategic, structural, cultural, human element of the business, which is capable of creating a perceptible impact within the organization and its people.(Wood, 2000). We may also define organizational change as a set of scientific theories, values, strategies and techniques that are aimed at changing the work mileu so that organizational growth and development can result. (Porras & Robertson, 1992). As mentioned earlier, there are many definitions that seek to define organizational change in all its hues, but as to put it in simple terms, organizational change can be broadly classified as a process that is initiated by an organization to react to the challenges of the environment and respond to a strong need for development.

 

Given that current economies and markets are characterized as being competitive and turbulent, the prospective ranges of actions and demands for change that organizations face are very wide. Managing organizational change is still a challenge for many managers, despite being an area of research that has generated significant amount of knowledge over the years (eg. Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1994; Palmer & Dunford, 1996; Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). This fact is directly related with the need for efficacy in all steps of a change process, when dealing with all the emerging complexity and demands involved in it.

 

This embraces a clear need for having a mind-set of understanding what type of organizational changes may exist and how they can be best understood. A simple way of clearing some of these doubts is to understand that not all changes have the same degree of deepness or nature. It is in this perspective that the literature fluently mentions a first and second degree of organizational changes, as well as planned and unplanned changes (eg. Van de Ven, & Poole, 1995; Weick, 2000). While a first degree organizational change is superficial and incremental, a second degree organizational change is a deeper one. We can define a first degree change as being linear and continuous, involving adjustments in the characteristics of the organization’s systems that can occur on a day-to-day basis (Weick & Quinn, 1999). A second degree change is a multidimensional one, as it can be multileveled, and have radical characteristics, which clearly aims at ending an existing organizational paradigm, while giving place to a new one (Porras & Robertson, 1992).

 

This construct can be defined as a psychological attachment between an individual and an organization (Kuehn & Al-Busaidi, 2002). It can also be defined as the existing strength of identification between an individual and an organization (Schappe, 1998). Several theoretical debates have occurred in the literature on the subject of the sense of organizational commitment, has it has been conceptualized as an attitude (e.g. O′Reilly & Chatman, 1986), and also as a behavior (e.g., Hullin, 1990). The attitudinal view of organizational commitment gained a significant amount of followers throughout the time. Meyer and Allen’s Organizational Commitment Model (1997) follows the attitudinal view of this construct, and is regarded has a highly influential model in this area of research (e.g. Tavares, 2000; Gomes, 2006). The model proposes three components of commitment: affective (willingness to maintain in an organization due to an existing affection); continuance (willingness to maintain in an organization due to a belief that it is advisable to do so); normative (willingness to maintain in an organization as it is the moral and ethical option).

 

Affective organizational commitment is described by the literature as the most important component for the purpose of understanding organizational behavior, as most research efforts have been made in order to clarify its mains predictors and consequents (Tavares, 2000). This component is clearly defined as the emotional attachment of identification and involvement, established between workers and an organization (Meyer & Allen 1997). Workers who are affectively committed to an organization, maintain in it because they like the organization and have the willingness of continuing in the organization. This type of commitment is highly characterized with a great understanding and match of values between the individual goals and the organizational goals. Affectively committed workers are in the disposition of exerting considerable efforts for benefiting the organization, as well as having strong intention of maintaining in it (Lillian, Freeman, Rush & Lance, 1999). According to Meyer and Allen (1997), affectively committed workers are expected to have a set of positive reactions and behaviours in workplaces, as well as willingness to contribute for the organization purposes. The effects of affective organizational commitment have been a clear focus of literature, especially regarding its consequences on workers performances. Following this line of reasoning, the literature has been relating affective organizational commitment with absenteeism (eg. Hackett, Bycio, & Hausdorf, 1994), turnover intentions (eg. Somers, 1995), organizational citizenship behaviours (Meyer e Allen, 1997), organizational perception of justice (eg. Randall & Mueller, 1995; Viswesvaran & Ones, 2002), and job satisfaction (eg. Rue & Byars, 2005; Chen, 2007).

 

Literature Review

 

Organizational Culture

 

Organizational culture is defined as a complex et of values, beliefs, assumptions and symbols that define the ways in which an organisation conducts its business (Barney, 1986). Culture can also be broadly understood as a set of basic assumptions about how the world is and ought to be that a group of people share and that determines their perceptions, thoughts, feelings, and to some degree, their overt behaviour (Schein, 1996).

 

According to Peterson and Smith (2000), organisational culture reflects individuals’ interpretations of events and situations in organisations. Organisational culture also refers to a system of shared meaning of values held by members of an organisation that distinguishes the organisation from other organisations (Robbins, 2001). In light of this definition, different organisations can be regarded as having their own cultures, which affect or influence the attitudes and the behaviours of their employees (Flamholtz, 2001).

 

Zammuto and Krakower (1991) proposed a comprehensive model for evaluating organisational culture called the competing values framework of organisational culture. The competing values framework (CVF) has been utilised in a number of studies in order to examine organisational culture (for example, Parker and Bradley, 2000; Moynihan and Pandey, 2004; Moynihan and Pandey, 2007). The CVF explores the competing demands within organisations between their internal and external environments, on the one hand, and between control and flexibility, on the other (Denison and Spreitzer, 1991#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#

 

In the framework, the conflicting demands within organisations constitute the two of the competing values model. Organisations with an internal focus emphasise integration, information management and communication whereas organisation with an external focus emphasise growth, resource acquisition and interaction with the external environment. On the second dimension of conflicting demands, organisations with a focus on control emphasise stability and cohesion while organisations with a focus on flexibility emphasise adaptability and spontaneity (Zammuto et al., 1999). Combined, these two dimensions of competing values map out four major types of organisational culture as reflected in Figure 1. The internal process model involves a control/internal focus in which information management and communication are utilised in order to achieve stability and control. This model has also been referred to as a ‘hierarchical culture’ because it involves the enforcement of rules, conformity and attention to technical matters (Denison and Spreitzer, 1991). In this model, individual conformity and compliance are achieved through the enforcement of a formally stated rules and procedures (Zammuto and Krakower, 1991). The open systems model involves a flexibility/external focus in which readiness and adaptability are utilised in order to achieve growth, resource acquisition and external support.

 

Human relations model involves a flexibility/internal focus in which training and the broader development of human resources are utilised to achieve cohesion and employee morale. This model of organisational culture has also been referred to as ‘group culture’ because it is associated with trust and participation through teamwork. Managers in organisations of this type tend to encourage and mentor employees. Goals are achieved through consensus building rather than control (Zammuto and Krakower, 1991). The rational goal model involves a control/external focus in which planning and goal setting are utilised to achieve productivity and efficiency. This model is also referred to as a ‘rational culture’ because of its emphasis on outcomes and goal fulfilment (Denison and Spreitzer, 1991). Organisations of this type are production oriented, and managers organise employees in the pursuit of designated goals and objectives and rewards are linked to outcomes. Productivity and efficiency are major goals of this organisational model (Zammuto and Krakower, 1991). Research has suggested that the different models of culture described above can and do coexist in the same organisation (Parker and Bradley, 2000) and a balance of the four culture types is regarded as desirable.

 

Employee Attitudes

 

Researchers have examined the fit or match between a person and an organisation extensively in the literature. Overall findings have supported the existence of a positive relation between the congruence of organizational values/culture with employee attitudes toward the organisation (Amos and Weathington, 2008) . The Person-Environment (P-E) Fit Theory assumes that individuals prefer an environment that possesses characteristics (e.g.values, beliefs) that are similar to their own (Kroeger, 1995). In the context of an organisation, this theory isreferred to as person-organisation (P-O) fit. The concept of P-O fit is important to organisations because it suggests that if people fit well with anorganisation, they are likely to exhibit more positive attitudes and behaviours. This relation is supported by the literature, and many studies have found relations between P-O fit and work-related attitudes and behaviours(Ugboro, 1993; Saks and Ashforth, 1997; Sekiguchi, 2004). An important aspect of employee attitude is employee job satisfaction. Job satisfaction has been identified as the most intensely studied variable in organisational research (Rainey, 1991). Job satisfaction is a general attitude that employees have towards their jobs, and is directly tied to individual needs including challenging work, equitablerewards and a supportive work environment and colleagues (Ostroff, 1992). According to Quarstein et al. (1992), overall satisfaction is a function of a combination of situational characteristics and situational occurrences.

 

The situational characteristics commonly proposed as key factors in job satisfaction are the work itself, pay, promotion, supervision and co-workers (Smith et al., 1969), although other variables such as mployee involvement and organisational commitment may impact also. Lee and Chang (2008) examined the relationship between organisational culture and employee attitudes, particularly employee job satisfaction in the wire and cable manufacturing companies. They found significant correlations between two aspects of organisational culture and two aspects of job satisfaction as shown e

 

Their results suggested that an organisation needs an innovative and group-oriented culture which promotes employee job satisfaction.

 

Relationship between Organisational Culture and Job Satisfaction

 

Given the importance of performance capacity to the public sector organisations and the numerous models that have attempted to identify determinants of work-related satisfaction, it is surprising that there have been only ahandful of studies examining the motivational basis of public sector professionals related to job satisfaction (McCue and Gianakis, 1997). Among the studies examining job satisfaction of public sector professionals were conducted by Emmert and Taher (1992) and de Leon and Taher (1996). Another important factor concerning employee attitude is occupationally-induced stress. Stress at work is a major problem for both individuals within an organisation and for the organisation itself (Leong et al., 1996). Since the pioneering research of Kahn et al. (1964) on organisation role theory, many studies have inquired into the relationship between work role stressors and a variety of consequences. Work role stressors such as role conflict and role ambiguity are job-related source of organisational stress (Chang, 2008). The stress is seen as an undesirable phenomenon which is brought about by inadequate coping with environmental sources of stressors associated with a particular job (e.g. work overload, role conflict/ambiguity, poor working conditions), and which results in negative mental and physical ill health consequences (Cooper and Payne, 1988). Stress at work is a well known factor for low motivation and morale, decrease in performance, high turnover and sick-leave, accidents, low job satisfaction, low quality products and services, poor internal communication and conflicts (McHugh, 1993; Murphy, 1995; Schabracq and Cooper, 2000). Chusmir and Franks (1988) argued that all the above problems are related, directly or indirectly, to stress and they have an effect on overall organisational efficiency and effectiveness.Montgomery et al. (1996) see severe job stress as dysfunctional and decreasing commitment and productivity; while Williams et al. (2001) found out that short-term outcomes of job stress have both physiological and behavioural effects leading to poor job performance.#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#

 

Leadership personality traits

 

Researchers and scholars present a number of leadership personality traits (see Atwater and Yammarino, 1993; Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991). In this study, however, seven leadership factors were chosen to measure the subordinates’ performance outcomes. Based mostly on Dubrin et al. (2006) work, the traits seem to be relevant to subordinates’ performance. Dubrin et al. (2006) indicated that it is important for the leader to be realistically self-confident. A leader must project his/her self-confidence to the group. Self-confidence is not only personality characteristic; it also refers to the personality trait a person exhibits in a number of situations. It is akin to being cool under pressure. A person is a self-confident leader when he or she retains composure during a crisis (Dubrin et al., 2006).

 

Emotional stability refers to the ability to control emotions to the point that one’s emotional responses are appropriate to the occasion (Dubrin et al., 2006). Emotional stability is an important leadership trait because group members expect and need consistency in the way they are treated. The effective leaders are generally calm, confident, and predictable during a crisis (Goleman, 1995). Initiative or being a self-starter refers to taking action without support and stimulation from others, and it also related to problem-finding ability (Dubrin et. A leader is also someone who facilitates change it therefore follows that a leader must be flexible and adaptable enough to cope with change (Dubrin et al., 2006). Corporate leader must be able to adapt to changes. Flexibility, or able to adjust to different situations, has long been recognized as an important leadership characteristic. Almost for all followers, it is desirable for the leader to be enthusiastic (Dubrin et al., 2006). Group members tend to respond positively to enthusiasm, partly because enthusiasm may be perceived as a reward for constructive personality trait.

 

Dubrin et al. (2006) also indicated that leaders displayed their sensitivity and empathy to influence others and to show that the leaders understand their group members. This type of sensitivity to others means understanding whom the group members and what their position on issues is, and how to best communicate with and influence them (Dubrin et al., 2006). Communication skill is another essential leadership requirement. However, managers spent at least 80 percent of every working day in direct communication with others people. In other words, 48 minutes of every hour in spent in meeting, on the telephone, or talking informally while waling around.