The Influence of P-O Fit, P-J Fit and P-S Fit on the Relation
Between Perceived HRM Practices and Individual Task
Performance.
Thesis Seminar Business Studies Supervisor: dr. C.T. Boon Student: Joyce Derksen Student number: 10047794 June, 2014
Foreword.
This thesis was written in order to get my Bachelor degree in Business Studies at the
Amsterdam Business School. First, I would like to thank my supervisor dr. C.T. Boon for her help and feedback. The suggestions that she made, gave me a whole new perspective on the study of Human Resource Management. Next, I would like to thank every participant that was willing to fill out the survey that made this study possible. Finally, special thanks to my family and friends for the support and encouragement.
Table of Contents 0. Abstract 1. Introduction
2. Literature and Propositions
2.1. Perceived HRM practices and individual task performance 2.2. P-E fit defined
2.3. Proposed effects of P-O, P-S and P-J fit 2.3.1. Person-Organization fit
2.3.2. Person-Supervisor fit 2.3.3. Person-Job fit
3. Methodology
3.1. Design and Sample 3.2. Measurements 3.3. Procedure
3.4. Analyses and Predictions 4. Results
4.1. Reliabilities and Correlations 4.2. Results from Regression Analysis
4.2.1. Main Effect (Model 1) 4.2.2. Interaction Effect (Model 2) 5. Discussion 5.1. Summary 5.2. Unpredicted Results 5.3. Discussion Points 5.3.1. Points of Critique 5.3.2. Future research
5.3.3. Link to Theory and Contributions 6. Concluding Thoughts
References
Appendix A: Manager Survey Appendix B: Employee Survey
0. Abstract.
In this study the relationship between perceived HRM practices and individual task performance is addressed. It is supposed that environment fit, divided in person-organization fit, person-job fit and person-supervisor fit, moderates this proposed relationship. Data for this study were conducted by four students of the Amsterdam Business School by means of online surveys. These online surveys were sent to dyads of one manager and two coupled employees. The final sample consisted of 60 managers and 110 employees. Results of regression analyses showed that the proposed relationship between perceived HRM practices and individual task performance only appeared in combination with person-job fit. Furthermore, results showed that person-job fit indeed moderates this relationship, whereas person-organization fit and person-supervisor fit do not. This study aims to contribute to the existing strategic HRM literature and motivate other researchers to further investigate the proposed relationships.
1. Introduction.
Nowadays, Human Resource Management (HRM) practices are being discussed immensely. In order to get attention for HRM from middle and line managers, the focus lies on influencing overall organizational performance. According to Huselid (1995) improvement of organizational performance can be achieved through high-performance work practices. These practices have a positive effect on motivating employees to use their knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) in favor of the organization. However, these practices have been investigated mostly on organizational levels in the past years. For example, Appelbaum et al. (2000) use firm performance as a result in their conceptual model. Furthermore, Paauwe and Boselie (2005) enumerate some relevant articles on HRM and performance, none of which concluded in specific individual performance. The interesting part of this study is the focus on the effects of HRM practices on an individual level of performance rather than an organizational level, because as mentioned before, previous research was primarily focused on overall organizational performance. Furthermore, it seems interesting to see what effect the perceptions of employees have on their own performance, as every individual perceives differently and performs differently as well.
Several recent articles suppose a distinction between intended HRM practices and the perception of those practices by employees (Wright & Nishii, 2007). They argue based on theories of social cognition, that not every subordinate has similar perceptions and therefore does not react in the same way to intended HRM practices. The distinction between intended and perceived HRM practices can be of great importance for managers and supervisors when implementing HRM practices. This study therefore uses the subordinate’s perception to create valuable information for managers and future research. Although many researchers propose a strong relationship between perceived HRM practices and individual performance, few of them tested this association properly. Van den Berg et al (1999) stated that the intended HRM practices do not matter until employees perceive them to be important to their organizational well-being, hence the individual perspective in this research.
Previous research suggests that it is important to investigate different moderators on the relationship between HRM practices and performance in organizations (Combs et al., 2006). As it is difficult to estimate the overall effect of HRM practices on performance, the use of moderators could be extremely useful to create a better understanding of the unpredictable strategic HRM theory. Furthermore, the effect size of HRM practices can be influenced by multiple variables, hence the moderation that will be tested on the relationship.
As stated by Boon et al. (2011) whether a person fits with the organizational environment is assumed an important factor when it comes to the perception of HRM practices by subordinates. They intended to focus on the relationship between perceived HRM practices and several employee outcomes, which did not include individual task performance, and the influence of fit. In addition to this, the underlying characteristics of the organization are communicated through HRM practices (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). A high fit within the organization could provide a better understanding of these underlying characteristics. Because these articles state the importance of the connection between perceived HRM practices, task performance and fit, person-environment (P-E) fit is included in this study as a moderator. In order to get a clearer perspective on the concept P-E fit, it is divided into three other types of fit. According to Kristof (1996) person-organization (P-O) fit describes the match of a person’s characteristics with those of the organization whereas person-job (P-J) fit can be defined by the congruence of a person’s characteristics and those of the job or performed tasks in their workplace. The third type of fit that is used in this study is person-supervisor (P-S) fit, which is the match between a person’s characteristics and those of their supervisor (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Kristof (1996) asked for an increase in literature on simultaneously investigating different types of fit, which is why this study focuses on the three different types.
Sufficient recent research was done on the relationship between intended HRM practices and organizational performance, though little has been focused on the combination of the perception of HRM practices, individual performance and these three types of fit. Therefore, this study aims to answer the following question: Do subordinate person-organization fit, person-job fit and person-supervisor fit enhance the relationship between the by the subordinate perceived HRM practices and individual task performance of the subordinate?
2. Literature and Propositions.
According to Combs et al. (2006) high presence of well executed HRM practices has a positive effect on the overall organizational performance. In this section the expected relationship between perceived HRM practices and individual task performance is further clarified. Followed by the propositions for the moderating effects of different components of person-environment fit.
2.1. Perceived HRM practices and individual task performance.
HRM practices are mostly viewed at as employee management activities (Boselie et al., 2005). HRM activities include amongst others: recruitment, selection, planning, training, coaching and rewards. The intention of HRM practices is to increase employee outcomes such as employee satisfaction and motivation, which in their turn influence performance. HRM practices can encourage the employees to live up to their potential and use their knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) to full extent. As previously mentioned, Van den Berg et al (1999) stated that the intended HRM practices do not matter until employees perceive them to be important to their organizational well-being. Furthermore, it was proposed that well perceived HRM practices cause an increase in a subordinate’s KSAs (Nishii & Wright, 2008). One could therefore argue that high quality of perceived HRM practices enhances not only organizational performance, but individual task performance as well. Also, it seems logical that HRM practices have a more direct influence on individual performance than overall organizational performance, because HRM practices are perceived by employees individually. Eisenberger et al. (1986) state that a caring role from the organization positively influences an employee’s work attitude and thereby increases the motivation for individual performance. This argument is in line with the social exchange theory, which is based on employees wanting to give back to an organization when that organization treats them well (Gould-Williams & Davies, 2005). Thus, when subordinates perceive HRM practices as positive, they want to reciprocate something to the organization and in general tend to be more productive and perform better. Gould-Williams and Davies (2005) also state in their article that it is important to use an employee’s view on HRM practices rather that the intended strategy because of individual differences. From these arguments follows the first proposition:
Proposition 1: Perceived HRM practices are positively related to the individual task performance of the subordinate.
2.2. P-E Fit defined.
Person-organization (P-O) fit, person-job (P-J) fit and person-supervisor (P-S) fit are all components of person-environment (P-E) fit or as it is also called, P-E congruence (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Previous P-E literature shows that the different types of fit can be used to guide the development of strategic HRM and that defining fit in an organizational and individual perspective is critical to achieve goals (Werbel & DeMarie, 2005).
In previous articles, P-E fit has been defined as consisting of two different types of fit (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987). The distinction is between supplementary and complementary congruence, where supplementary fit concerns the match of characteristics of the individual with the characteristics of other individuals in the same environment. The complementary component of P-E fit focuses on to what extent individual characteristics complement the characteristics of the environment. Accordingly, a complementary fit occurs when there is a demands-abilities (D-A) fit or needs-supplies (N-S) fit (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987; Kristof, 1996). D-A fit concerns the abilities or skills of an individual meeting the demands of the environment, whereas N-S fit matches an individual’s desires to the environmental attributes or supplies.
In P-E literature, P-J fit is mostly conceptualized as a complementary fit and therefore consists of the two different components D-A fit and N-S fit (Kristof, 1996). In the context of P-J fit, a D-A fit occurs when an employee’s KSAs meet the job requirements and a N-S fit when all the desires and needs of the employee are met by their job. P-J fit can also be defined as the match between a person’s KSAs (knowledge, skills and abilities) and the job requirements (Edwards, 1991).
The other types of P-E fit, like in this study P-O and P-S fit, are seen as supplementary fits (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). This supplementary fit can be represented as a relationship between characteristics of a person and the environment, which commonly includes values, goals, needs and personality (Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). In other words, P-O fit matches the employee’s interests, values and needs to the organizational culture and P-S fit matches the characteristics of the employee to those of their supervisor.
Because value congruence is most commonly used and proven to be the effective approach to different types of fit, this study will follow the previous literature in this decision. In this study P-O fit, P-J fit and P-S fit are proposed to moderate the relationship between perceived HRM practices and individual task performance. Because in this study perceived HRM practices are used, it seems logical to use perceived fit as well, rather than actual fit. Perceived P-E fit is the most subjective and direct and allows the most cognitive
manipulation. It means that observations come directly from the individuals, so the Person aspect as well as the Environment aspect (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Furthermore, it seems almost impossible to create a completely objective environment to collect the P and E aspects separately. Also, direct perceived fit is proven to have a slightly stronger association with performance, than the more indirect actual fit (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005).
2.3. Proposed effects of P-O, P-J and P-S fit.
As stated by Shin (2004), a good personal fit within an organization influences individual performance. Thus, in this study the challenge is to see if the three types of fit also moderate the relationship between perceived HRM practices and individual task performance.
2.3.1. Person-Organization fit.
A high P-O fit means that there is a relevant match between an employee’s needs and those of the organization, which means that there is a better understanding of what the organization wants and needs. When employees have a better understanding of what the organization desires, they are more likely to understand and support the HRM practices executed by the organization (Boon et al., 2011). Hereby, intended HRM practices are likely to be perceived as positive and can result better task performance. Therefore is expected that a high P-O fit has an enhancing effect on the relationship between HRM practices and individual task performance. For a low P-O fit the argument is in a contrasting direction, namely when the understanding of an organization’s desires is low, this will result in a less supporting attitude of the employee towards HRM practices and therefore might result in lower performance.
Proposition 2: High person-organization fit of the subordinate positively moderates the relationship between perceived HRM practices and individual task performance of the subordinate.
2.3.2. Person-Job fit.
When P-J fit is high it means that the match between what the subordinate can do and what the job requires is high and/or the match between what the subordinate wants and what the job supplies is high (Werbel & DeMarie, 2005). This positive job fulfillment most likely has a positive effect on how HRM practices are perceived by the employee. As with P-O fit, positive perception of HRM practices is likely to result in better individual performance. It is therefore proposed that high P-J fit has an enhancing effect on the relationship between
perceived HRM practices and individual task performance. For a low P-J fit it is thus expected that the influence will be negative on the same relationship.
Proposition 3: High person-job fit of the subordinate positively moderates the relationship between perceived HRM practices and individual task performance of the subordinate.
2.3.3. Person-Supervisor fit.
A high score on P-S fit insinuates a good match between the employee’s values, goals and personality and the values, goals and personality of their manager. When there is a good match, employees tend to understand their manager better and therefore the communication of their manager through HRM practices is likely to be more valued. The expectation for high P-S fit is that it will have an enhancing effect on the proposed relationship between perceived HRM practices and individual task performance. As the employee better understands what the manager’s intentions are, which are communicated through HRM practices, support for the HRM practices may be higher and therefore might result in higher performance of the employee. For a low P-S fit is expected that less understanding, may lead to less support of HRM practices and therefore may result in lower task performance.
Proposition 4: High person-supervisor fit of the subordinate positively moderates the relationship between perceived HRM practices and individual task performance of the subordinate.
Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) also mention that task performance is all about skill-based job proficiency. As P-J fit is supposed to be dependent on a subordinate’s KSAs, the moderating effect of P-J fit is expected to be the highest on the relationship between perceived HRM practices and task performance compared to the other two types of fit. Furthermore, as P-O fit and P-S fit are both conceptualized as supplementary fits and therefore based on the same type of congruence, the expectation is that these two types of fit will relate more to each other than with P-J fit
3. Methodology.
3.1. Design and Sample.
Data were collected by means of online surveys. These surveys were sent by e-mail to one manager and two employees in each dyad, for a total of 100 dyads, which would lead to a sample size of 300 participants. All participants were Dutch-speaking residents from the Netherlands and were sampled from personal contacts of four bachelor students from the Amsterdam Business School. Only dyads with fully completed surveys were included in the sample. The data were checked for extreme and impossible values and adjusted where necessary. The final sample consisted of 110 employees and 60 managers.
Of the managers, 70% was male and 30% female. The average age was 42 years (SD = 12.2) and the average tenure was 9.6 years (SD = 8.7). The highest achieved education was HBO for 53%, University with a Masters degree for 26%, 10% completed MBO, 6% completed University with a Bachelors degree, 3% finished high-school and 2% did something else. The sample of employees consisted of 55% male and 45% female, with an average age of 33 years (SD =12.3) and an average tenure of 7.3 years (SD = 8.2). Of the employees 41% completed HBO, 18% percent finished high-school, 17% completed a University Masters program, 16% did MBO, 5% completed a University Bachelors program and 3% did something else.
3.2. Measurements of the different variables.
Individual task performance of the subordinate as dependent variable was measured with a 4 item scale and developed by Van Dyne and LePine (1998). For this variable the scales were arranged from (1) to (7) on Likert scale. This means that the respondent had 7 options to choose from, where (1) means totally disagree with this statement and (7) means totally agree with this statement. A high score on this scale means that the individual task performance was rated high by the manager. In order to get managers to compare employee A and employee B, all statements were presented for both employees at the same time. An example from this scale is: “Employee A/B: performs the tasks associated with his/her job”. No items were counterbalanced for the dependent variable and the value of Cronbach’s alpha was (.90).
Perceived HRM practices were measured on a 15 item scale rated by employees. This HRM practices scale was designed by Kehoe and Wright (2013). Because these practices were rated by employees the outcome can be used as perceived HRM practices. The scales for this independent variable were also rated on a 7 point Likert scale from (1) totally disagree to (7) totally agree. An example would be: “There is a reasonable and honest process for
employee complaints”. Scoring a (7) for this statement means that the subordinate perceives this particular practice as highly positive. For this variable no items were counterbalanced and Cronbach’s alpha was (.84).
Person-organization fit and Person-supervisor fit were both measured on a 3 item scale developed by Cable and DeRue (2002). Since these moderators are defined in this study as the fit between an employee and the organization and the fit with their supervisor, the scales were both rated by subordinates. Again a 7 point Likert scale was used to determine the fit from an employee’s perspective. An example from these scales is: “My norms and values fit well to the norms and values (and culture) of the organization/my supervisor”. In this case a score of (1) means that there is absolutely no fit and (7) that there is a perfect fit. Again no items were counterbalanced. Cronbach’s alpha for P-O fit was (.86) and for P-S fit (.94).
Person-job fit was measured by a 6 item scale developed by Cable and DeRue (2002). This scale is a combination of 3 items of needs-supplies fit and 3 items of demands-abilities fit. An example of person-job fit is: “My skills and education fit well with the requirements for my current job”. Subordinates were asked to answer using again a Likert scale from (1) to (7). Where a high score (7) means that there is an excellent fit between the employee and his or her job. No items where counterbalanced and Cronbach’s alpha was found at (.90).
3.3. Procedure.
Four students of the Amsterdam Business School collected data from personal contacts through online surveys. Two different surveys were developed by the supervisor using the scales mentioned above, one for managers and one for employees. Contact was made by mail with all participants. The first mail was informative of nature, followed by a second e-mail which contained the link to the right survey and the personal code. These unique codes were used in order to connect the supervisor and the employees and after matching the data these codes were removed for anonymity. Exactly one week after the second e-mail the reminders were sent to those who did not yet fill in the questionnaire.
3.4. Analyses and Predictions.
Before analyzing the dataset, the data must be structured and checked for inconsistencies. Next, there will be a reliability test of all items. With a correlation test will be investigated if variables relate to each other. If there is a degree of linear dependence between the variables, a regression analysis can be used to test the relationships. The regression for this study will consist of 2 different steps, where the first step concerns the main independent effect of the 12
independent variable perceived HRM practices on the dependent variable individual task performance (Model 1). After this linear regression, all variables will be mean-centered. The second step is to test for an interaction effect of both the independent variable perceived HRM practices and the three moderators P-O fit, P-J fit and P-S fit on the dependent variable individual task performance (Model 2). In this study all moderators will be tested in one model in order to be able to compare values. The following analyses and predictions can be done:
Analysis 1. The independent main influence of the independent variable perceived HRM practices on the dependent variable individual task performance.
Prediction 1. There is one main effect to predict for this regression model. The prediction is a positive effect of perceived HRM practices on the dependent variable individual task performance.
Analysis 2. The second analysis is an interaction test of both the independent variable perceived HRM practices and the three moderators P-O fit, P-J fit and P-S fit on the dependent variable individual task performance.
Prediction 2. The prediction of the second analysis is that there is a positive interaction effect of both the independent variable perceived HRM practices and the three moderating variables P-O fit, P-J fit and P-S fit on the dependent variable individual task performance.
4. Results.
4.1. Reliabilities and Correlations.
This section of the study provides the information about the reliability of the variables and their correlations. Table 1 shows the mean, standard deviation and correlations between variables. The Cronbach’s alphas are shown between brackets in the diagonal of the table. All the variables have a high Cronbach’s alpha, which means they are all reliable. The highest value is (.94) for P-S fit, which means this variable has the highest reliability. The Cronbach’s alphas for individual task performance (.90), perceived HRM practices (.84), P-O fit (.86) and P-J fit (.90) are also considered high, so no items were deleted.
Table 1 shows that there is a positive correlation between perceived HRM practices and all types of fit. With P-O fit the correlation is r (110)=.29, p<.01, with P-J fit r (110)=.43, p<.01 and with P-S fit the correlation is r (110)=.25, p<0.01. In words, this means that perceived HRM practices and the three types of fit can predict one another. When for example perceived HRM practices changes with the value of (1), P-J fit positively changes with (.43). Furthermore, P-S fit shows a correlation with all other variables, namely r (110)=.31, p<.01 with dependent variable individual task performance, r (110)=.39, p<.01 and r (110)=.25, p<.01 with the other types of fit. In addition, P-J fit shows correlation with all other variables as well. The correlation between P-J fit and individual task performance is r (110)=.28, p<.01 and r (110)=.21, p<.05 with P-O fit. Unexpectedly, dependent variable individual task performance and independent variable perceived HRM practices do not correlate according to our analysis (r (110)=-.02, ns.).
Table 1. Descriptives and correlations between dependent variable Individual Task Performance, independent variable Perceived HRM Practices and moderating variables P-O fit, P-J fit and P-S fit. (Cronbach's alphas on diagonal).
M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1 Individual Task Performance MR 5.87 .89 (.90)
2 Perceived HRM Practices ER 4.16 .90 -.02 (.84)
3 P-O fit ER 4.81 1.09 .13 .29** (.86)
4 P-J fit ER 5.05 1.13 .28** .43** .21* (.90)
5 P-S fit ER 5.14 1.22 .31** .25** .39** .25** (.94)
Note. N=110. *p<.05. **p<.01. MR = Manager Rated, ER = Employee Rated.
4.2. Results from Regression Analysis. 4.2.1. Main Effect (Model 1).
The results of the first regression analysis show the main independent effect of the independent variable perceived HRM practices on the dependent variable individual task performance (Table 2a). In the table can be seen that there was no significant result found (β=-.018, ns., R²=.00). Therefore, there is no proven relationship between the perception of HRM practices and task performance of the subordinate.
The values of the moderators are included in table 2b, because several effects were found when including the three types of fit in the regression. The main independent effect of perceived HRM practices was nonexistent on task performance, however by including the types of fit an effect was found of perceived HRM practices on individual task performance (β=-.23, p<.05, R²=.18). This effect indicates that perceived HRM practices negatively influence individual task performance, when combined with high P-J fit. Therefore, when high P-J fit occurs and the more positive HRM practices are perceived, the lower the individual task performance.
The significant effects of P-J fit and P-S fit are positive and higher than the previously discussed effect of perceived HRM practices. The effect of P-J fit on de dependent variable is shown to be β=.31, p<.01, R²=.18 and the effect of P-S fit β=.29, p<.01, R²=.18. From these unexpected results can be concluded that the higher the match of the individual with their job and/or supervisor, the higher the individual’s task performance.
Table 2a. Results from main regression (Model 1). Main effect of Perceived HRM Practices (PHP) on Individual Task Performance (ITP).
ITP (DV) Coeffient SE Beta
Constant 5.943*** .405
PHP -.018 .095 -.018
R² .000
Note. Dependent variable is Individual Task Performance, N=110. *p<.05 , **p<.01 , ***p<.001 .
4.2.2. Interaction Effect (Model 2).
A regression analysis was used to indicate whether there is a moderating effect of the three types of fit on the dependent variable individual task performance. To test for an interaction effect, P-O fit, P-J fit and P-S fit were all multiplied with perceived HRM practices. All interaction variables were tested in the same regression and one out of three came out significant. As shown in table 2c, the interaction effect of P-J fit with perceived HRM practices on individual task performance is β=.26, p<.01, R²=.24. This proves that P-J fit indeed has a moderating effect on the relationship between perceived HRM practices and individual task performance. Thus, the higher the congruence between a person’s job characteristics and his or her characteristics, the higher the effect of perceived HRM practices on task performance.
Table 2b. Results of all variables in one regression. Effects of Perceived HRM Practices (PHP ) and moderating variables P-O fit, P-J fit and P-S fit on Individual Task Performance (ITP).
ITP (DV) Coeffient SE Beta
Constant 4.453*** .508 PHP -.222* .099 -.225* P-O fit .014 .080 .017 P-J fit .239** .078 .305** P-S fit .208** .071 .286** R² .182
Note. Dependent variable is Individual Task Performance, N=110. *p<.05 , **p<.01 , ***p<.001 .
Table 2c. Results of Regression (Model 2) . The interaction effect of Perceived HRM Practices (PHP) and P-O fit, P-J fit and P-S fit on Individual Task Performance (ITP) .
ITP (DV) Coeffient SE Beta
Constant -.075 .084 PHP -.219* .099 -.221* P-O fit .015 .081 .019 P-J fit .315*** .081 .402*** P-S fit .183* .076 .251* PHP*P-O fit -.016 .099 -.016 PHP*P-J fit .203** .076 .263** PHP*P-S fit -.029 .082 -.036 R² .239
Note. Dependent variable is Individual Task Performance, N=110. *p<.05 , **p<.01 , ***p<.001 .
5. Discussion. 5.1. Summary.
The main goal of this study was to investigate the potentially moderating effect of P-O fit, P-J fit and P-S fit on the relationship between perceived HRM practices and individual task performance. Enough research was done on the relationship between intended HRM practices and organizational performance, however few or even none of the recently written articles were focused on the combination of perceived HRM practices, individual task performance and these three types of fit.
The first conclusion that can be drawn from the results of this study, is that there is in fact not a relationship between perceived HRM practices and individual task performance. There was however, definitely an influence of perceived HRM practices on individual task performance when high P-J fit was included. Unexpectedly, the effect that was found between the two variables was negatively related. Thus, the results of this study prove that in combination with high P-J fit, the more positive the perception of HRM practices, the more negative individual task performance will be. In other words, when an employee fits with his or her job and experiences the HRM practices as positive, this has a negative influence on their individual performance. This result does not match the expectations based on previous literature.
Another outcome of this study was the definitely positively moderating effect of person-job fit on the relationship between perceived HRM practices and individual task performance. This means that, when an employee matches well with his or her job, this enhances the relationship between perceived HRM practices and individual task performance. In this case, it enhances the negative effect on individual task performance.
Nevertheless, no support was found for the hypotheses on moderating effects of person-organization fit and person-supervisor fit on the relationship between perceived HRM practices and individual task performance. Though P-J fit positively moderates the relationship, P-O fit and P-S fit evidently do not. Previously was stated that P-J fit was expected to have the highest moderating effect on the relationship between perceived HRM practices and individual task performance. As Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) mention, task performance is all about skill-based job proficiency. Furthermore, P-J fit is suppose to depend on a subordinate’s KSAs, so it was expected that the moderating effect of P-J fit would be the highest of the three types of fit. However, there was no proof of any moderating effect of P-O fit and P-S fit, which is why no answer can be given to this prediction. The fact that there was no moderating effect of P-S fit and P-O fit on the relationship between perceived HRM
practices and individual task performance, could be because P-O and P-S fit are supposed to be more related to contextual performance instead of task performance (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005).
Besides the hypotheses that were stated in the beginning of this article, another prediction was made about the relation between the three types of fit. As P-J fit is conceptualized as a complementary fit and P-O fit and P-S fit as supplementary fits, the expectation was that the latter two would relate more to each other than to P-J fit. This appeared to be a right prediction in the results. For P-S fit and P-O fit was a stronger relationship found than either one with P-J fit. Moreover, apparently complementary fit (P-J fit) moderated the relationship between the independent and dependent variable, whereas the supplementary fits (P-O fit and P-S fit) did not.
5.2. Unpredicted Results.
In the attempt to prove the four stated propositions, some unexpected outcomes occurred in the analyses. When testing for direct effects on individual task performance, results showed that P-J fit and P-S fit have a positive influence on this variable. This indicates that the better an individual fits to their job and/or supervisor, the better they perform. It might be due to the fact that P-J fit and P-S fit are concerned with the subordinate’s own job and colleagues, whereas P-O is concerned with the organization’s culture. Employees might be more influenced by their direct surroundings than the organization as a whole.
5.3. Discussion Points. 5.3.1. Points of Critique.
Data for this study was collected by means of online surveys from personal contacts of four different students. In this scenario could be argued that personal contacts can be biased because they want to help out rather than participate in a scientific study. Furthermore, when conducting surveys online and not in person, people tend to not fill in the complete survey and quit before finishing it. However, this shortcoming was ruled out because only fully completed questionnaires were added to the final sample. Another bias could be peoples bias, because in general when asked for their opinion people have their own interpretation of the questions. Also, the final sample consisted of 110 employees and 60 managers so a larger sample is always better and could give other results. Furthermore, no causal relationships could be tested because of the cross-sectional nature of this study.
5.3.2. Future Research.
In this study one out of three types of fit was proven to moderate the proposed relationship between perceived HRM practices and individual task performance. This indicates that it might be interesting to see whether this is because perceived HRM practices were tested rather than intended practices in combination with the perception of fit. In the first section of this study was explained that this was why this study is interesting, however finding a moderating effect of the other two types of fit (P-O and P-S fit) on a slightly different relationship, would be even more interesting. It might be achievable in a study based on a relationship between perceived HRM practices and maybe context performance, as this type of performance is supposed to have relations with supplementary fit, but has not yet been investigated sufficiently.
5.3.3. Link to Theory and Contributions.
The intention of this study was to compare the different types of fit in combination with the relationship between perceived HRM practices and individual task performance. Kristof (1996) called for more research on person-environment fit and especially studies with different types of fit to compare. Unfortunately, the absence of the moderating effects of P-O fit and P-S fit made it impossible to compare the interaction effects of fit with each other. However, the results showed that perceived HRM practices did have an effect on individual task performance when P-J fit was involved and it might be interesting to see if other types of fit have an influence in some form of combination. Furthermore, from the results follows that P-O fit and P-S fit are stronger related to each other than either to P-J fit, which confirms previous theories. Also, there was definitely a moderating effect found of P-J fit on the relationship between perceived HRM practices and individual task performance. This contributes to the strategic HRM literature and could be a motivation for other researchers to further investigate this relationship, maybe in another context.
6. Concluding Thoughts.
In summation, this study was conducted in order to see if and how person-environment fit influences the relationship between perceived HRM practices and individual task performance. The three types of fit, organization fit, job fit and person-supervisor fit were used to further clarify the concept of P-E fit. In answer to the research question created in the introduction, P-J fit indeed enhances the relationship between perceived HRM practices and individual task performance. However, P-O fit and P-S fit do
not moderate the relationship between the two variables. The results of this study insinuate that the better the match between what an employee can do and what the job requires, as well as the match between what the employee wants and what the job supplies, the bigger the effect of perceived HRM practices on individual task performance. In other words, when a person has a good fit his or her job, this leads to an enhancing effect of the perception of HRM practices on that person’s performance. As mentioned before, the fact that the perception of HRM practices was used in combination with the perception of fits, might be a gap for future research. Moreover, only the variable task performance was rated by managers and changing this perspective could perhaps create different results.
References.
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. (2000). Manufacturing Advantage: Why High-Performance Work Systems Pay Off. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Boon, C., Den Hartog, D. N., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2011). The relationship between perceptions of HR practices and employee outcomes: examining the role of person-organisation and person-job fit. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(1), 138-162.
Boselie, P., Dietz, G., Boon, C. (2005). Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance research. Human Resource Management Journal, 15(3), 67-94.
Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875-884.
Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. (2006). How much do high-performance work practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 501-528.
Den Hartog, D. N., Boon, C., Verburg, R. M., & Croon, M. A. (2013). HRM, Communication, Satisfaction, and Perceived Performance A Cross-Level Test. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1637-1665.
Edwards, J.R. (1991). Person-Job Fit: A Conceptual Integration, Literature Review, and Methodological Critique. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6, 283-357.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S. and Sowa, D. (1986) Perceived Organizational Support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507.
Gould-Williams, J., & Davies, F. (2005). Using social exchange theory to predict the effects of HRM practice on employee outcomes. An analysis of public sector workers. Public Management Review, 7(1), 1-24.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635-672.
Kehoe, R. R., & Wright, P. M. (2013). The Impact of High-Performance Human Resource Practices on Employees’ Attitudes and Behaviors. Journal of Management, 39(2), 366-391. doi:10.1177/0149206310365901.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: a meta-analysis of job, organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281-342.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Jansen, K. J., & Colbert, A. E. (2002). A Policy-Capturing Study of the Simultaneous Effects of Fit With Jobs, Groups, and Organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 985-993.
Morley, M. J. (2007). Person-organization fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(2), 109-117.
Muchinsky, P.M., & Monahan, C.J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 268-277.
Nishii, L. H., & Wright, P. M. (2008). Variability Within Organizations: Implications for Strategic Human Resource Management. In The People Make the Place: Dynamic Linkages Between Individuals and Organizations. New York: Taylor and Francis Group.
Paauwe, J., & Boselie, P. (2005). HRM and performance: what next? Human Resource Management Journal, 15(4), 68-83.
Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., & Goldstein, H.W. (1992). Attraction-selection-attrition: Toward a person-environment psychology of organizations. In W. B.Walsh, K. H. Craik & R.H. Price (Eds.), Person-environment psychology: New directions and perspectives (2nd ed.), 61-85. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shin, Y. (2004). A Person-Environment Fit Model for Virtual Organizations. Journal of Management, 30(5), 725-743.
Van den Berg, R. J., Richardson, H. A., & Eastman, L. J. (1999). The impact of high involvement work processes on organizational effectiveness. Group and Organisation Management, 24(3), 300-339.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108-119. Werbel, J. D., & DeMarie, S. M. (2005). Aligning strategic human resource management and
person-environment fit. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 247-262.
Wright, P.M., & Nishii, L.H. (2007), ‘Strategic HRM and Organizational Behavior: Integrating Multiple Levels of Analysis,’ Technical Report 07-03, CAHRS at Cornell University.
Appendix A: Manager Survey.
Geachte leidinggevende,
Welkom en hartelijk dank voor uw deelname aan dit onderzoek. Dit onderzoek wordt uitgevoerd door studenten in samenwerking met dr. Corine Boon van de Amsterdam Business School. Dit project beoogt ons meer inzicht te geven in de invloed die personeelsmanagement, uw baan en uw directe werkomgeving hebben op medewerkers. Wij stellen u vragen over uzelf, en over 2 van uw medewerkers.
Uw hulp en bereidheid om de vragen te beantwoorden wordt ontzettend gewaardeerd. U heeft een code ontvangen en wij vragen u vriendelijk om deze in te vullen op de volgende pagina. Deze code gebruiken wij om vragenlijsten aan elkaar te verbinden. Na het koppelen verwijderen we de code en zullen uw antwoorden volledig anoniem zijn. Wij zijn alleen geïnteresseerd in gemiddelden en niet in specifieke antwoorden. Uw antwoorden worden vertrouwelijk behandeld.
Alvast hartelijk bedankt voor uw deelname! Het onderzoeksteam: Joyce Derksen Dylan Veerman Robin Carmiggelt Martijn Savenije Corine Boon
Amsterdam Business School
Voor vragen kunt u contact opnemen met Corine Boon (c.t.boon@uva.nl)
1. Geef aan wat uw geslacht is. 2. Wat is uw leeftijd in jaren?
3. Wat is uw hoogst behaalde opleiding? • Middelbare school • MBO • HBO • Universiteit (bachelor) • Universiteit (master) • PhD • Anders
4. Hoe lang werkt u voor deze organisatie? HRM practices
(Kehoe & Wright, 2013)
1. Werknemers moeten een formele test (schriftelijke test of een gerelateerde werkoefening) afleggen voordat ze worden aangenomen.
2. Werknemers ondergaan een gestructureerd interview (werkgerelateerde vragen die aan elke sollicitant worden gesteld) voordat ze worden aangenomen.
3. Werknemers zijn betrokken bij het formele participatieproces zoals kwaliteitsverbetergroepen, oplossingsgroepen of discussies in een groep. 4. Er is een redelijk en eerlijk proces voor klachten voor werknemers.
5. Werknemers hebben de kans om groepsbonussen te krijgen voor productiviteit, prestaties of andere uitkomsten gerelateerd aan groepsprestaties.
6. Werknemers hebben de kans om individuele bonussen (of commissies) te krijgen voor productiviteit, prestaties of andere uitkomsten gerelateerd aan individuele prestaties. 7. Ten minste één keer per jaar krijgen werknemers een formele evaluatie over hun
prestaties.
8. Er is regelmatig formele communicatie naar werknemers over bedrijfsdoelen en doelstellingen.
9. Op basis van een suggestie van een werknemer, of groep werknemers, heeft het bedrijf in de afgelopen 4 maanden een verandering doorgevoerd/ondergaan in de manier waarop het werk wordt uitgevoerd.
10. Loonsverhogingen voor werknemers zijn gebaseerd op werkprestaties.
11. Gekwalificeerde werknemers krijgen de kans om door te stromen naar posities binnen het bedrijf met meer loon en/of verantwoordelijkheden.
12. Het is toegestaan voor werknemers om belangrijke werkgerelateerde beslissingen te nemen, bijvoorbeeld over hoe het werk wordt gedaan of hoe nieuwe ideeën worden geïmplementeerd.
13. Mijn organisatie neemt alleen de allerbeste mensen aan.
14. Het totale salaris van de werknemers is het hoogste voor dit type werk. 15. Werknemers krijgen elk jaar formele training.
Person-Organization fit (Cable & DeRue, 2002)
1. Wat ik belangrijk vind in het leven is vergelijkbaar met wat binnen de organisatie belangrijk wordt gevonden
2. Mijn waarden en normen passen bij de waarden, normen en cultuur van de organisatie 3. De waarden en cultuur van de organisatie sluiten goed aan bij de dingen die ik
belangrijk vind in het leven
Big 5
(Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, & Lucas, 2006) 1. Ik ben een gangmaker op feesten.
2. Ik voel mee met de gevoelens van anderen. 3. Ik klaar klusjes meteen.
4. Ik heb vaak stemmingswisselingen. 5. Ik heb een levendige fantasie. 6. Ik praat veel.
7. Ik ben geïnteresseerd in andermans problemen. 8. Ik zet dingen op de juiste plek terug.
9. Ik ben meestal gestresst.
10. Ik ben geïnteresseerd in abstracte ideeën.
11. Ik praat met veel verschillende mensen op feestjes. 12. Ik voel andermans emoties.
13. Ik houd van geordendheid. 14. Ik raak snel van slag.
15. Ik vind het makkelijk om abstracte ideeën te begrijpen. 16. Ik treed op de voorgrond.
17. Ik ben echt geïnteresseerd in anderen. 18. Ik houd dingen netjes.
19. Ik voel mij vaak treurig.
20. Ik heb een goede verbeeldingskracht. Proactive personality
6-item adaptation of Bateman and Crant’s (1993) Proactive Personality Scale (Claes, Beheydt, & Lemmens, 2005; Parker, 1998)
1. Als ik iets zie wat mij niet zint, maak ik het in orde
2. Ongeacht wat de verwachtingen zijn, als ik in iets geloof dan laat ik het gebeuren. 3. Ik houd ervan om op te komen voor mijn ideeën, ook als anderen tegen zijn. 4. Ik blink uit in het herkennen van kansen en mogelijkheden.
5. Ik ben altijd op zoek naar betere manieren om dingen te doen.
6. Als ik in een idee geloof, zal niets me tegenhouden om dit idee werkelijkheid te laten worden.
Ratings of 2 employees: Task performance
(Van Dyne & LePine, 1998) Deze medewerker…
1. Maakt de verantwoordelijkheden waar die in zijn/haar taakomschrijving staan 2. Voert de taken uit die bij zijn/haar baan horen
3. Voldoet aan de prestatienormen 4. Levert prima werk af
Human capital
(Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005) Deze medewerker…
1. Is zeer vakkundig
2. Wordt door veel mensen gezien als de beste op zijn/haar gebied 3. Is creatief en slim
4. Is expert in zijn/haar specifieke functie 5. Ontwikkelt nieuwe kennis en ideeën
Social capital
(Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005) Deze medewerker…
1. is goed in samenwerken met anderen om problemen vast te stellen en op te lossen 2. deelt informatie en leert van anderen
3. wisselt ideeën uit met collega’s uit verschillende delen van de organisatie 4. werkt samen met klanten, leveranciers, partners, enz. om oplossingen te vinden 5. past kennis vanuit een deel van de organisatie toe bij problemen en kansen die ergens
anders in de organisatie voorkomen
Pro‐self, prosocial, and pro‐organizational proactive behavior (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010)
At work, your subordinate personally takes the initiative to: [organizational]
1. Suggest ideas for solutions for company problems 2. Acquire new knowledge that will help the company
3. Optimize the organization of work to further organizational goals [interpersonal]
1. Share knowledge with colleagues
2. Take over colleagues' tasks when needed even though she/he is not obliged to 3. Help orient new colleagues
4. Help colleagues with developing or implementing new ideas [personal]
1. Find new approaches to execute his/her tasks so that she/he can be more successful 2. Acquire new knowledge that will help his/her career
3. Realize his/her personal goals at work 4. Take on tasks that will further his/her career
Person-supervisor fit (Cable & DeRue, 2002)
1. Wat ik belangrijk vind in het leven is vergelijkbaar met wat deze medewerker belangrijk vindt
2. Mijn waarden en normen passen bij de waarden en normen van deze medewerker 3. De waarden van deze medewerker sluiten goed aan bij de dingen die ik belangrijk
vind in het leven
Appendix B: Employee Survey.
Geachte deelnemer,
Welkom en hartelijk dank voor uw deelname aan dit onderzoek. Dit onderzoek wordt uitgevoerd door studenten in samenwerking met dr. Corine Boon van de Amsterdam Business School. Dit project beoogt ons meer inzicht te geven in de invloed die personeelsmanagement, uw baan en uw directe werkomgeving hebben op u.
Uw hulp en bereidheid om de vragen te beantwoorden wordt ontzettend gewaardeerd. U heeft een code ontvangen en wij vragen u vriendelijk om deze in te vullen op de volgende pagina. Deze code gebruiken wij om vragenlijsten aan elkaar te verbinden. Na het koppelen verwijderen we de code en zullen uw antwoorden volledig anoniem zijn. Wij zijn alleen geïnteresseerd in gemiddelden en niet in specifieke antwoorden. Uw antwoorden worden vertrouwelijk behandeld.
Alvast hartelijk bedankt voor uw deelname! Het onderzoeksteam: Joyce Derksen Dylan Veerman Robin Carmiggelt Martijn Savenije Corine Boon
Amsterdam Business School
Voor vragen kunt u contact opnemen met Corine Boon (c.t.boon@uva.nl)
1. Geef aan wat uw geslacht is. 2. Wat is uw leeftijd in jaren?
3. Wat is uw hoogst behaalde opleiding? Middelbare school MBO HBO Universiteit (bachelor) Universiteit (master) PhD Anders
4. Hoe lang werkt u voor deze organisatie?
5. Hoe lang werkt u met uw huidige leidinggevende samen? 6. Hoeveel uur werkt u gemiddeld per week?
Person-Organization fit (Cable & DeRue, 2002)
1. Wat ik belangrijk vind in het leven is vergelijkbaar met wat binnen mijn organisatie belangrijk wordt gevonden
2. Mijn waarden en normen passen bij de waarden, normen en cultuur van mijn organisatie
3. De waarden en cultuur van mijn organisatie sluiten goed aan bij de dingen die ik belangrijk vind in het leven
Person-supervisor fit (Cable & DeRue, 2002)
1. Wat ik belangrijk vind in het leven is vergelijkbaar met wat mijn leidinggevende belangrijk vindt
2. Mijn waarden en normen passen bij de waarden en normen van mijn leidinggevende 3. De waarden van mijn leidinggevende sluiten goed aan bij de dingen die ik belangrijk
vind in het leven Person-Team fit
(Cable & DeRue, 2002; DeRue & Morgeson, 2007)
1. Wat ik belangrijk vind in het leven is vergelijkbaar met wat mijn collega’s belangrijk vinden
2. Mijn waarden en normen passen bij de waarden en normen van mijn collega’s
3. De waarden van mijn collega’s sluiten goed aan bij de dingen die ik belangrijk vind in het leven
Person-Job fit (DA fit & NS fit) (Cable & DeRue, 2002)
1. Er is een goede ‘match’ tussen de eisen van mijn baan en mijn persoonlijke vaardigheden
2. Mijn vaardigheden en opleiding passen goed bij de eisen voor mijn huidige baan 3. Mijn persoonlijke vaardigheden en opleiding passen goed bij wat er van mij verwacht
wordt in mijn huidige baan
4. Wat mijn baan me biedt komt overeen met wat ik in een baan zoek 5. De dingen die ik zoek in een baan worden in mijn huidige baan vervuld 6. Mijn huidige baan biedt mij alles wat ik verwacht van een baan
Big 5
(Donnellan et al., 2006)
1. Ik ben een gangmaker op feesten.
2. Ik voel mee met de gevoelens van anderen. 3. Ik klaar klusjes meteen.
4. Ik heb vaak stemmingswisselingen. 5. Ik heb een levendige fantasie. 6. Ik praat veel.
7. Ik ben geïnteresseerd in andermans problemen. 8. Ik zet dingen op de juiste plek terug.
9. Ik ben meestal gestresst.
10. Ik ben geïnteresseerd in abstracte ideeën.
11. Ik praat met veel verschillende mensen op feestjes. 12. Ik voel andermans emoties.
13. Ik houd van geordendheid. 14. Ik raak snel van slag.
15. Ik vind het makkelijk om abstracte ideeën te begrijpen. 16. Ik treed op de voorgrond.
17. Ik ben echt geïnteresseerd in anderen. 18. Ik houd dingen netjes.
19. Ik voel mij vaak treurig.
20. Ik heb een goede verbeeldingskracht. Proactive personality
6-item adaptation of Bateman and Crant’s (1993) Proactive Personality Scale (Claes, Beheydt, & Lemmens, 2005; Parker, 1998)
7. Als ik iets zie wat mij niet zint, maak ik het in orde
8. Ongeacht wat de verwachtingen zijn, als ik in iets geloof dan laat ik het gebeuren. 9. Ik houd ervan om op te komen voor mijn ideeën, ook als anderen tegen zijn. 10. Ik blink uit in het herkennen van kansen en mogelijkheden.
11. Ik ben altijd op zoek naar betere manieren om dingen te doen.
12. Als ik in een idee geloof, zal niets me tegenhouden om dit idee werkelijkheid te laten worden.
HRM practices
(Kehoe & Wright, 2013)
1. Werknemers moeten een formele test (schriftelijke test of een gerelateerde werkoefening) afleggen voordat ze worden aangenomen.
2. Werknemers ondergaan een gestructureerd interview (werkgerelateerde vragen die aan elke sollicitant worden gesteld) voordat ze worden aangenomen.
3. Werknemers zijn betrokken bij het formele participatieproces zoals kwaliteitsverbetergroepen, oplossingsgroepen of discussies in een groep. 4. Er is een redelijk en eerlijk proces voor klachten voor werknemers.
5. Werknemers hebben de kans om groepsbonussen te krijgen voor productiviteit, prestaties of andere uitkomsten gerelateerd aan groepsprestaties.
6. Werknemers hebben de kans om individuele bonussen (of commissies) te krijgen voor productiviteit, prestaties of andere uitkomsten gerelateerd aan individuele prestaties. 7. Ten minste één keer per jaar krijgen werknemers een formele evaluatie over hun
prestaties.
8. Er is regelmatig formele communicatie naar werknemers over bedrijfsdoelen en doelstellingen.
9. Op basis van een suggestie van een werknemer, of groep werknemers, heeft het bedrijf in de afgelopen 4 maanden een verandering doorgevoerd/ondergaan in de manier waarop het werk wordt uitgevoerd.
10. Loonsverhogingen voor werknemers zijn gebaseerd op werkprestaties.
11. Gekwalificeerde werknemers krijgen de kans om door te stromen naar posities binnen het bedrijf met meer loon en/of verantwoordelijkheden.
12. Het is toegestaan voor werknemers om belangrijke werkgerelateerde beslissingen te nemen, bijvoorbeeld over hoe het werk wordt gedaan of hoe nieuwe ideeën worden geïmplementeerd.
13. Mijn organisatie neemt alleen de allerbeste mensen aan.
14. Het totale salaris van de werknemers is het hoogste voor dit type werk. 15. Werknemers krijgen elk jaar formele training.
Job crafting
(Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2012)
Nooit Soms Regelm
atig
Vaak Heel
vaak
1 2 3 4 5
1. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik mijn capaciteiten optimaal benut
2. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik niet teveel hoef om te gaan met personen wier problemen mij emotioneel raken
3. Ik vraag collega's om advies 4. Ik probeer mezelf bij te scholen
5. Als er nieuwe ontwikkelingen zijn, sta ik vooraan om ze te horen en uit te proberen 6. Ik vraag of mijn leidinggevende tevreden is over mijn werk
7. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik zelf kan beslissen hoe ik iets doe
8. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik minder moeilijke beslissingen in mijn werk hoef te nemen 9. Ik probeer nieuwe dingen te leren op mijn werk
10. Ik vraag anderen om feedback over mijn functioneren
11. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik minder emotioneel inspannend werk moet verrichten 12. Ik zoek inspiratie bij mijn leidinggevende
13. Ik neem geregeld extra taken op me hoewel ik daar geen extra salaris voor ontvang 14. Ik probeer mezelf te ontwikkelen
15. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik niet teveel hoef om te gaan met mensen die onrealistische verwachtingen hebben
16. Als het rustig is op mijn werk, zie ik dat als een kans om nieuwe projecten op te starten
17. Ik vraag mijn leidinggevende om mij te coachen
18. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik minder geestelijk inspannend werk hoef te verrichten
19. Ik probeer mijn werk wat zwaarder te maken door de onderliggende verbanden van mijn werkzaamheden in kaart te brengen
20. Als er een interessant project voorbij komt, bied ik mezelf proactief aan als projectmedewerker
21. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik me niet lange tijd achter elkaar hoef te concentreren Psychological empowerment
(Spreitzer, 1995) Meaning:
1. Het werk dat ik doe, is belangrijk voor mij. 2. Mijn werkzaamheden zijn belangrijk voor mij. 3. Het werk dat ik doe, is zinvol voor mij.
Competence:
4. Ik ben overtuigd van mijn vermogen om mijn werk goed te doen.
5. Ik ben zelfverzekerd over mijn mogelijkheden om mijn werkzaamheden uit te voeren. 6. Ik beheers de vaardigheden die nodig zijn voor mijn werk.
Self-determination:
7. Ik heb een grote mate van zelfstandigheid bij het bepalen hoe ik mijn werk doe. 8. Ik kan zelf beslissen hoe ik omga met mijn werkzaamheden.
9. Ik heb veel ruimte voor zelfstandigheid en vrijheid in de manier waarop ik mijn werk doe.
Impact:
10. Mijn invloed op wat er gebeurt op mijn afdeling, is groot. 11. Ik heb veel controle over wat er gebeurt op mijn afdeling. 12. Ik heb belangrijke invloed op wat er gebeurt op mijn afdeling.
Social support (colleague support & supervisor support)
(Schreurs, Van Emmerik, Günter, & Germeys, 2012), based on (Peeters, Buunk, & Schaufeli, 1995)
1. Mijn collega’s laten merken dat ze me aardig vinden
2. Mijn collega’s laten zien dat ze de manier waarop ik mijn werk doe waarderen 3. Mijn collega’s geven me advies over hoe ik dingen moet aanpakken
4. Mijn collega’s helpen me als het nodig is
1. Mijn leidinggevende laat merken dat hij/zij me aardig vinden
2. Mijn leidinggevende laat zien dat hij/zij de manier waarop ik mijn werk doe waardeert 3. Mijn leidinggevende geeft me advies over hoe ik dingen moet aanpakken
4. Mijn leidinggevende helpt me als het nodig is Transformational leadership
(De Hoogh, Den Hartog, & Koopman, 2004)
1. Mijn manager praat met medewerkers over wat voor hen belangrijk is.
2. Mijn manager stimuleert medewerkers om op nieuwe manieren over problemen na te denken.
3. Mijn manager heeft een visie en een helder beeld van de toekomst. 4. Mijn manager moedigt medewerkers aan om onafhankelijk te denken.
5. Mijn manager is in staat anderen enthousiast te maken voor zijn/haar plannen. 6. Mijn manager betrekt medewerkers bij besluiten die van belang zijn voor hun werk. 7. Mijn manager stimuleert medewerkers hun talenten zo goed mogelijk te ontwikkelen. 8. Mijn manager geeft medewerkers het gevoel aan een belangrijk en gemeenschappelijk
doel te werken.
9. Mijn manager laat zien overtuigd te zijn van zijn/haar idealen, opvattingen en waarden.
10. Mijn manager is altijd op zoek naar nieuwe mogelijkheden voor de afdeling van de organisatie.
11. Mijn manager delegeert uitdagende verantwoordelijkheden aan medewerkers.
Communication frequency
(Sosa, Eppinger, Pich, McKendrick, & Stout, 2002)
1. Met mijn manager communiceer ik ... in een face-to-face gesprek. 2. Met mijn manager communiceer ik ... door middel van mail. 3. Met mijn manager communiceer ik ... over de telefoon.
Communication quality
(Parker, Axtell, & Turner, 2001)
1. Mijn manager geeft mij genoeg informatie om mijn werk goed uit te kunnen voeren 2. Mijn manager legt uit wat de redenen zijn voor veranderingen die invloed hebben op
mijn werk
3. Ik kan gerust zeggen wat ik vind tegen mijn manager
4. Mijn manager zorgt ervoor dat ik alles wat ik moet weten te horen krijg Intrinsic motivation
(Grant, 2008)
Waarom bent u gemotiveerd om uw werk te doen? 1. Omdat ik het werk zelf leuk vind
2. Omdat ik er plezier in heb 3. Omdat het werk plezierig is 4. Omdat ik ervan geniet
Prosocial motivation (Grant, 2008)10
Waarom bent u gemotiveerd om uw werk te doen?
1. Omdat ik het belangrijk vind dat anderen nut hebben van mijn werk 2. Omdat ik het belangrijk vind om anderen te helpen in mijn werk 3. Omdat ik graag een positieve invloed wil hebben op anderen
4. Omdat het belangrijk voor me is om nuttig te zijn voor anderen door middel van mijn werk.
Well-being
(Warr, 1990) – wordt ook gebruikt voor positive/negative affect
Hoe vaak heeft u zich in de afgelopen paar weken in uw werk als volgt gevoeld: Schaal: Nooit- voortdurend
1. Gespannen 2. Onbehaaglijk 3. Bezorgd 4. Rustig 5. Voldaan 6. Ontspannen 7. Gedeprimeerd 8. Somber 9. Ellendig 10. Opgewekt 11. Enthousiast Work engagement
9-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006), based on (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002)
De volgende uitspraken hebben betrekking op hoe u uw werk beleeft en hoe u zich daarbij voelt. Wilt u aangeven hoe vaak iedere uitspraak op u van toepassing is door steeds het best passende cijfer (van 0 tot 6) in te vullen?
1. Als ik ’s morgens opsta heb ik zin om aan het werk te gaan. 2. Ik ben enthousiast over mijn baan.
3. Mijn werk inspireert mij.
4. Op mijn werk bruis ik van energie.
5. Wanneer ik heel intensief aan het werk ben, voel ik mij gelukkig. 6. Als ik werk voel ik me fit en sterk.
7. Ik ga helemaal op in mijn werk. 8. Mijn werk brengt mij in vervoering. 9. Ik ben trots op het werk dat ik doe.
Stress
(Motowidlo, Packard, & Manning, 1986) 1. Mijn werk is erg stressvol.
2. Er gebeuren zeer weinig stressvolle dingen op mijn werk. 3. Ik ben erg gestresst door mijn werk.
4. Ik voel me bijna nooit gestresst als gevolg van mijn werk. Org commitment
(Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993)
1. Ik heb echt het gevoel dat de problemen van mijn organisatie ook mijn problemen zijn. 2. Ik heb een sterk gevoel van "erbij horen" bij mijn organisatie.
3. Ik voel me "emotioneel gehecht" aan deze organisatie. 4. Ik voel me als "deel van de familie" in mijn organisatie. 5. Deze organisatie betekent persoonlijk veel voor mij.
Job satisfaction
(Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1979) 1. Al met al ben ik tevreden met mijn werk. 2. In het algemeen houd ik niet van mijn werk. 3. In het algemeen houd ik ervan om hier te werken.
