The effect of flexible work arrangements on self-efficacy and the moderating effect of leadership

(1)

The effect of flexible work arrangements on

self-efficacy and the moderating effect of leadership

Name: Michelle van Doorn Studentnumber: 10196196 Master thesis

Graduate School of Communication

Master’s programme Corporate Communication Supervisor: Ward van Zoonen

(2)

Abstract

Flexible work designs, where employees can choose when and where to work facilitated by communication technology, have been studied multiple times but with contradicting results. It seems that it is still unknown how a flexible work design influences the employees’ ability to do their work. In this research, the effect of a flexible work design on self-efficacy is examined and whether self-efficacy mediates the relationship between flexible work design and well-being (vigor and exhaustion). Also the moderating effect of transactional or transformational leadership on the relationship between flexible work design and self-efficacy is investigated. Using an online survey, results indicate that there is a significant effect of flexible work design on self-efficacy. Self-efficacy has been found to mediate the effect of flexible work design on vigor, but this effect was not found for exhaustion. There is also a direct effect found between flexible work design and vigor and exhaustion. There was no moderating effect found for leadership. Therefore, it might be interesting to investigate how other leaderships influence this relationships. This research implicates that the employee and consequently the organisation can benefit from implementing a flexible work design.

(3)

Introduction

According to numbers from CBS (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2016), in 2016 three million employees in the Netherlands worked from home or another location different than their office. Their job design allows them (in a certain degree) to choose when they work and where they work. These flexible work arrangements are characterized by flexibility in time and place, all facilitated by communication technologies (Ten Brummelhuis, Bakker, Hetland & Keulemans, 2012).

When these job designs were introduced, it was expected that these flexible work arrangements would benefit the employee in multiple ways. The employee would have the chance to better balance their work and life demands, stimulate a higher productivity, it could decrease their stress and enhance their overall well-being (Hayman, 2010; Nicklin, Mayfield, Caputo, Lee, Sackett, Roch, Arboleda, Cosentino, Melinsky & Rosman, 2009). But it would also benefit the organisation, by reducing costs on travel expenses and housing and keeping the organization attractive for new talent. It seemed that this flexible job design would be beneficial for both parties involved.

But recently, organisations that pioneered and first implemented flexible work designs, are now retracting those flexible job designs. Companies like IBM and Yahoo state that motivation and productivity declines over time among their employees that work in a flexible job design (Algemeen Dagblad, 2017). Research shows that employees who adopt these flexible job designs experience isolation and lack of social support (Allen, Renn, Griffeth; 2003; Mann & Holdsworth; 2003; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Demerouti, Derks, Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker; 2014). On the other hand, research has also shown that a flexible job design enhanced efficiency which led to more energy and less exhaustion (Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012). So it seems that there is limited understanding of how flexible work influences the employees’ ability to do their work.

(4)

A flexible job design is different than a traditional job design. In a flexible job design, the employee is required to work more independently and needs to manage its own work load (Demouriti et al., 2014). The employee is distanced from co-workers and it is therefore important that the employee believes he can master certain tasks since a supervisor or co-worker is not just one office door away. This belief in own mastery is called self-efficacy. Self-efficacy refers to one’s belief about his or her ability and capacity to accomplish a task or overcome challenges (Bandura, 1977). People with a high level of self-efficacy have the confidence they can exercise control over these tasks (Raghuram, Wiesenfeld & Garud, 2003). The fact that the employee gets the freedom to work wherever and whenever could signal that the employer trusts the employee to be capable of completing certain tasks, which could actually enhance their self-efficacy. And this improved self-efficacy could lead to an improved well-being of the employee. Research shows that when people believe in their own mastery, this enhances their engagement and diminishes their exhaustion (Hayman, 2010; Maddux, 2009; Salanova, Peiró & Shaufeli, 2002).

Blok, Groenestijn, van den Berg and Vink (2011) state that the success of flexible work arrangements depends on the implementation of such a design and that the management style is of great importance of the success of the job design. It is therefore important to find out which leadership style fits best with a flexible job design. Two distinct leadership styles that are widely known are transactional leadership and transformational leadership. The first one focuses on outcomes and accomplishments, the latter focuses on the development of employees and their needs (Jung & Avolio, 2000). It has been found that transactional leadership had a positive effect in distanced conditions contrary to transformational leadership that had negative effects under distanced conditions (Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999). Transactional leaders expect a certain outcome and give employees the freedom to perform these tasks in their own way. It fits the autonomy and freedom that characterizes the flexible

(5)

work design and signals trust. This may have a better fit with a flexible job design than transformational leadership.

In this research, the effect of a flexible job design on self-efficacy is examined. The moderating effect of leadership on this relationship is also studied. There seems to be a lack of understanding of how flexible job design affects the ability of the employee to do his work which is important to investigate. Also the mediating effect of self-efficacy between flexible job design and well-being will be investigated. This leads to the following research question:

RQ: What is the mediating effect of self-efficacy between the relationship of job design and well-being? And what is the moderating effect of leadership on this relationship between job design and self-efficacy?

Theoretical framework

Flexible job design

A flexible job design can be described using three key characteristics. The first one is that the timing of work has become more flexible and employees can decide when they start and stop working. The second characteristic is the place of work, for example working from home or another location convenient for the employee. And third, this is all facilitated by new information and communication technologies, like smartphone use and e-mail (Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012). These digital technologies make it possible for employees to work in different places but perform activities simultaneously (Herschel & Andrews, 1997). Another concept similar to flexible work design is telecommuting. That has been defined as ‘an alternative work arrangement in which employees perform tasks elsewhere that are normally done in a primary or central workplace, for at least a portion of their work schedule, using electronic media to interact with others inside and outside the organisation’ (Bailey & Kurland, 2002). This work arrangement can be performed part-time (next to conventional

(6)

work arrangements) or full-time (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). Telecommuting and flexible job design are similar concepts and therefore literature about both concepts may be applicable. Throughout this research, flexible job design will be used.

Flexible job design and self-efficacy

A flexible job design is thus characterized by flexibility in time and place, facilitated by communication technology. Employers may expect their employees to work more independently and adopt this flexible work policy. This means that the employee has to rely more on its own abilities since a co-worker or supervisor is not just one office door away. It is therefore important that employees actually believe that they have the abilities and capacities to perform certain tasks. This belief in one’s own mastery is called self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy is the personal judgements of one’s own capabilities to organize and execute courses of action to attain designated goals. Ideally an organisation would like to enhance the self-efficacy of their employees. The amount of self-efficacy defines how much effort one will put in a certain action and how long people will persist to overcome obstacles and deal with stressful situations. People with high self-efficacy will also put a greater effort into fulfilling a task that might be challenging at first, whereas people with a low level of self-efficacy will be more likely to forfeit their attempt. Organisation would therefore want to implement a job design that enhances this self-efficacy. Self-efficacy does not actually affect one’s capabilities or skills but it does affect the way an employee perceives oneself. It gives him or her the idea that he or she can successfully perform a task. It affects the sense of mastery and control (Bandura, 1997).

A flexible job design could be capable of enhancing these feelings of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is determined by the interaction between the individual and the environment (Bandura, 1997). A flexible job design means that the employee receives more freedom to perform his task. This freedom implies that the organisation trusts their employees to

(7)

successfully fulfil their tasks without direct supervision (Saragih, 2011). In a case study by Warne and Holland (1999), employees indicated that the fact that they had the freedom to decide where and when to work, made them feel trusted. A flexible job design thus give employees the feeling that they are trusted to perform their job successfully without much supervision, which may strengthen their self-efficacy.

It was found that the greater the freedom that one experiences at his or her job, the greater the self-efficacy of the employee (Kohn, 1997). It was also found that when an employee experienced little autonomy, this actually had a negative effect on self-efficacy (Bandura & Wood, 1989). Mortimer and Lorence (1979) and Mortimer, Lorence & Kumka (1986) found that working more autonomously had a positive effect on the self-perceived competence of the respondent. They argue, based on Rosenberg (1979), that when someone sees his own decisions turn into great outcome, this has a greater effect on their perceived competence than when these decisions are made by someone else. The sense of competence is determined by their experienced autonomy in the work environment. Similar results were found in more recent research, where autonomy had a positive effect on self-efficacy (Wang & Netemeyer, 2002; Saragih, 2011). A flexible work design can thus have a positive effect on self-efficacy.

This leads to the following hypothesis:

H1: A flexible work design has a positive effect on self-efficacy

Self-efficacy and well-being

When an employee perceives itself as confident and capable of certain tasks, their well-being may increase. Self-efficacy has been proven to have effect on the positive and negative concepts of well-being.

(8)

Self-efficacy has been proven to have a negative effect on the construct exhaustion. For example, self-efficacy has been found to have a negative effect on burn-out and anxiety. It has been found that anxiety and burn-out are a result of low levels of self-efficacy and a low confidence in one’s own competences (Maddux, 2009; Salanova, Peiró & Shaufeli, 2002). Whereas high levels of self-efficacy are related to the regulation of stress processes and a negative effect on exhaustion (Hayman, 2010; Staples, Hulland & Higgins, 1998). But self-efficacy is also important for an individual’s happiness (Maddux, 2009). It was found that self-efficacy had a positive effect on happiness and positive thinking (Caprara, Steca, Gebrino, Paciello, Vecchio, 2006). Self-efficacy was also shown to have a positive effect on positive emotions like enthusiasm (Salanova, Llorens, Cifre, Martínez and Schaufeli, 2003) and employees with high levels of self-efficacy show more engagement and more vigor. Vigor refers to high levels of energy and resilience and the willingness to invest effort in one’s job and the persistence in the face of difficulties (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). When employers have a high level of self-efficacy they feel positive emotions, feel more engaged and show more resilience and vigor on the workfloor (Salanova, Llorens & Shaufeli, 2011).

These results were also found in the research of Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti and Shaufeli (2007). In their research, they explain the Job Demands Resource model. Job resources are physical, social and organizational aspects of the job. Job demands are aspects of the job that require sustained effort and are associated with costs. These demands and resources are perceived and experienced by the employee (Xanthopoulou, et al., 2007). The model assumes that when job demands are high, this may cause exhaustion whereas when job resources are high, this enhances engagement and vigor. Specific job resources related to flexible work design are autonomy and social support (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007; ter Hoeven & van Zoonen, 2015). In their research, they found that personal resources like self-efficacy

(9)

had a mediating effect between job resources and work engagement and vigor. Among those job resources were autonomy and social support. In a flexible work design, autonomy is one of the job resources and one might argue that social support can be perceived through the trust they experience when getting the freedom to work wherever and whenever. They also found that self-efficacy had a negative effect on exhaustion. Xanthopoulou et al. (2007) argued that people who work in an environment with a lot of job resources, may feel more capable of completing tasks with minimum efforts and will not experience anxiety.

Therefore, in a flexible job design, self-efficacy has a positive mediating effect on well-being.

H2a: The effect of a flexible work design on vigor is mediated by self-efficacy

H2b: The effect of a flexible work design on exhaustion is mediated by self-efficacy

The moderating effect of leadership

For the organization to fully reap the benefits of a flexible work design, it is important to look at the leadership styles that can enhance the relationship between flexible work arrangements and the feelings of self-efficacy. Different management styles may be best suited for different job designs. According to congruence theory, the fit between the different organizational components, like job design and leadership for example, is important for effective organizational behaviour. Regulatory fit theory states that people experience value from the way a certain goal is obtained. When regulatory fit is high, people are more inclined to put more effort toward completing goals and are more motivated to complete certain tasks (Benjamin & Flynn, 2006). So when the leadership style matches the best with the job design, this will enhance organizational behaviour and the effort that people will put in finishing a goal. To enhance self-efficacy, it may be important to use a leadership style that matches best with the flexible work design.

(10)

In the literature there are two distinct leadership styles, transformational leadership and transactional leadership. Although a lot more leadership styles have emerged over time, these two have been compared often (Bass, 1985). A transformational leader values the development of the employee and want them to achieve their goals. Transformational leaders are characterized by emotional and social support and want to share a vision with their subordinates (Gong, Huang & Farh, 2009; Walumbwa & Hartnell, 2011). The second leadership style is the transactional leadership style. This leadership style puts little effort into personal values. They determine the expectation of the performance of the employee and provide a reward when these performances are met, also called the contingent reward leadership (Jung & Avolio, 2000).

In a flexible work arrangement, employees and their leaders are often at distanced locations rather than close locations. It has been found that transactional leadership had a positive effect under distanced conditions versus close conditions (Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999). This is contrary to transformational leadership, which had a negative effect under distanced conditions. Employees may decide to work from other locations than their offices because they want to balance their work and life demands or may value the freedom they get by choosing when and where to work. As said before, the freedom they get from supervisors signals that they trust their employees to bring their tasks towards a good end without direct supervision. A leadership style that constantly interferes by trying to guide their employees a certain way may give contradicting signals towards the employee which makes him actually doubt his own competences. Such a leadership style does not match the job design that values freedom and autonomy. Transformational leaders want to guide and help their employees but these attempts from a transformational leader may feel too controlling and the attempts to guide may be experienced negatively (Howell, Neufeld, Avolio, 2005). Path goal theory states that when the task is clear, attempts to closely monitor their goals may be perceived as

(11)

negative (House & Mitchell, 1975). A contingent reward leadership style that clearly defines tasks, stimulates freedom by giving them the opportunity to achieve desired results in their own way as long as the goal is achieved. This can give them the boost in confidence in the sense that the employer trusts the employee to bring the task towards a good end and deliver the requested output in his own way. In this way, a transactional leadership style fits better with the job design than a transformational leadership style. This leads to the following hypotheses:

H3a: Transactional leadership has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between flexible job design and self-efficacy

H3b: Transformational leadership has a negative moderating effect on the relationship between flexible job design and self-efficacy

The conceptual model is shown in figure 1.

Method Procedure

To test the hypotheses an online survey study was conducted. Participants were recruited through a convenience sample with a snowball technique. The participants were approached via e-mail, Facebook and LinkedIn in which they received a link that lead them to the online

Leadership (Transactional or transformational) Job design – New

ways of working

Well-being Self-efficacy

(12)

survey and were encouraged to share this with their colleagues. Participants were also asked to participate face-to-face in cafés, where people were working alone on their laptop since they were probably working using a flexible work design. Before participating, the participants received a short explanation about the research and a letter of consent which informed them about the anonymity of the research and that they could retract their participation at any moment of the research. The respondents were collected from 8th of November until 19th of December. The respondents were first asked to fill in questions about their job design, self-efficacy, perceived leadership and well-being. After that they were asked to fill in some demographics and other basic questions about their job (amount of workhours per week, industry etc.). At the end, they were thanked for their participation. They did not receive any compensation for filling in the survey.

Design and sample

The survey was in Dutch, so participants needed to master the Dutch language. The respondents also had to be older than 18 years. A total of 141 respondents started the survey and those who did not complete the survey were excluded from the analysis (n = 37). Eventually 105 participants filled in the survey completely. Of those respondents, 44.8% was male (n = 47) and 55.2% was female (n = 58). The youngest participant was 22 years old and the oldest was 63 years old. The average age was 38 (SD = 13.26) years old. The largest percentage of the sample had completed a master degree (41.9%). Respondents worked an average of 36.6 hours (SD = 10.27). The largest group of people worked in the public administration sector, 15.2% (n = 16), the second largest group worked in communications, 14.3% (n = 15). Other frequently answered sectors were financial services (n = 12), health services (n = 11), cultural sector (n = 10), and education (n = 10).

(13)

Job design Job design was measured with 9 items using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1) strongly disagree through 7) strongly agree. Examples of questions were ‘’I can decide the timeslots I work in’’ and ‘’I can choose at which location I work’’. A flexible job design consists of three components, ’time’, ‘place’ and ‘communication technology’. These three components create the overall construct ‘job design’. Therefore, a factor analysis was performed with a fixed numbers of factors, in this case 1. It was found that all factors loaded above 0.65 expect for one question, ‘’I work at locations that are convenient for me’’. The question was however retained, because the scale would not significantly improve when removing the item. Reliability analysis showed a reliable scale, (Cronbach’s a = 0.89, M = 5.52; SD = 0.98). Based on these analysis, a scale was made that measured ‘flexible work design’ as one variable.

Self-efficacy Self-efficacy was measured using the scale developed by Chen, Gully and Eden (2001). This was measured by 8 items using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1) strongly disagree through 7) strongly agree. Examples of questions were ‘’When facing difficult tasks, I am certain that I will accomplish them’’ and ‘’I am confident that I can perform effectively on many different tasks’’. A factor analysis was performed, where one factor was found (EV = 5.29). The sample was factorable, KMO = 0.91. After this, a scale variable for self-efficacy was created (Cronbach’s a = 0.93; M = 5.29; SD = 0.84).

Leadership Leadership was measured using 15 adapted items from Bass and Avolio’s (1990) multifactor leadership questionnaire. This was measured using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1) strongly disagree through 7) strongly agree. The first 10 items considered transformational leadership with questions as ‘’my supervisor views me as having different needs, abilities and aspirations’’. The other 5 items considered transactional leadership with questions as ‘’my supervisor tells us standards to carry out work’’. A factor analysis was performed where two factors were found. One for transformational leadership (EV = 6.2) and

(14)

one for transactional leadership (EV = 4.0). The sample was factorable, KMO = 0.87. This lead to conducting two separate scales, one for transformational leadership (Cronbach’s a = 0.92; M = 4.52; SD = 1.00) and one for transactional leadership (Cronbach’s a = 0.91; M = 4.56; SD = 1.23).

Well-being Well-being was measured using the scale of Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter (2001). This was measured by 10 items on a 7 point scale ranging from 1) never, 2) sporadic, 3) occasionally, 4) regularly, 5) often, 6) very often and 7) always. Examples of questions were ‘’When I get up in the morning, I look forward to starting the workday’’ and ‘’I feel mentally drained by my work’’. A factor analysis was performed where two factors were found. One for vigor (EV = 5.17) and one for exhaustion (EV = 2.4). The sample was factorable, KMO = 0.87. This lead to conducting two separate scales, one for vigor (Cronbach’s a = 0.88; M = 4.49; SD = 0.86) and one for exhaustion (Cronbach’s a = 0.94; M = 2.57; SD = 1.06).

Analysis

Before testing the hypotheses using PROCESS model 9 by Hayes (2013), the assumptions that have to be met to perform a linear regression were checked.

First, linearity between the independent and dependent variables was tested using curve estimation. The relationship between ‘job design’ and ‘self-efficacy’ was found to be more quadratic than linear. However the linearity was found to be significant, F(1,103) = 7.68, p = 0.007. The relationship between ‘self-efficacy’ and ‘vigor’ was found to be linear, F(1,103) = 19.91, p = 0.000. The relationship between ‘self-efficacy and ‘exhaustion was not found to be significantly linear, F(1,103) = 3.41, p = 0.07. However, all other relationships were linear and all the other assumptions were met. To check for a normal distribution, skewness and kurtosis were calculated for the variables ‘self-efficacy’, ‘transformational leadership’,

(15)

‘transactional leadership’, ‘vigor’, ‘exhaustion’, ‘job design’, ‘gender’, ‘age’ and ‘education’. Most values were close to zero except for exhaustion which had a high kurtosis value of 2.4. Overall, it is concluded that the variables were normally distributed. At last, multicollinearity was tested. A multiple regression was performed to calculate collinearity statistics. All tolerance levels were greater than 0.1 which indicates no multicollinearity. The variance inflation factors were all below 10, which indicates no multicollinearity.

To test the hypotheses, PROCESS model 9 was run with ‘vigor’ and ‘exhaustion’ as dependent variable, ‘flexible work design’ as independent variable, ‘self-efficacy’ as mediating variable and ‘transformational leadership’ or ‘transactional leadership’ as moderators. The control variables that were added were ‘gender’, ‘age’, ‘education’ and ‘overtime’.

The whole survey can be found in appendix A.

Results

To test the hypotheses, model 9 in the processes macro for SPSS is used two times (Hayes, 2013). The first model is run with the dependent variable ‘vigor’. The second model is run with the dependent variable ‘exhaustion’.

Self-efficacy

The relationship between ‘flexible work-design’ and ‘self-efficacy’ was statistically significant, b* = 0.21, t = 2.28, p = 0.03, 95% [0.027; 0.401]. This indicates that flexible working arrangements have a positive effect on self-efficacy. Therefore, H1 is accepted.

Vigor

There was a significant effect found between self-efficacy and vigor, b* = 0.35, t = 3.94, p < 0.001, 95% [0.176; 0.532]. This means that self-efficacy has a positive effect on

(16)

vigor. A direct effect between ‘flexible workdesign’ and ‘vigor’ was also found, b* = 0.30, t = 3.78, p = 0.000, 95% [0.140; 0.450]. This means the more flexible the work design, the more vigor the employee experiences. This effect was a weak effect. There was also an indirect effect found, self-efficacy did mediate the effect between a flexible work design and vigor, b* = 0.08, 95% [-0.090; 0.196], p = 0.049. The moderated mediation using ‘transformational leadership’ as moderator, was insignificant, b* = 0.04, 95% [-0.023; 0.127]. The moderated mediation using ‘transactional leadership’ as moderator was also insignificant, b* = 0.14, 95% [-0.039; 0.075]. The explained variance of the regression with ‘vigor’ as dependent variable was significant, R2 = 0.33, F (6, 98) = 8.03, p = 0.000. Based on these results, H2a was accepted. Self-efficacy did mediate the relationship between a flexible work design and vigor, but no moderated mediation was found.

Exhaustion

There was a significant relationship found between flexible work design and exhaustion, b* = -0.40, t = -3.76; p = 0.000, 95% [-0.618; -0.191]. This was a moderate effect. The more flexible the work design, the less exhausted the employee. There was however no significant relationship between self-efficacy and exhaustion found, b* = -0.14, t = -1.12, p = 0.267. This means that there was no mediating effect found for self-efficacy on the relationship between a flexible work design and exhaustion. The moderated mediation using ‘transformational leadership’ as moderator, was insignificant, b* = -0.016, 95% [-0.077; 0.010]. The moderated mediation using ‘transactional leadership’ as moderator was also insignificant, b* = -0.006, 95% [-0.052; 0.013]. Based on these results H2b is rejected, self-efficacy did not mediate the effect between a flexible work design and well-being. The explained variance of the regression with ‘exhaustion’ as dependent variable was however significant, R2 = 0.17, F (6, 98) = 3.35, p = 0.005.

(17)

There was no moderating effect found of transformational leadership on the relationship between flexible work design and self-efficacy, b* = 0.11, t = 1.07, p = 0.288. There was also no moderating effect found of transactional leadership on the relationship between flexible work design and self-efficacy, b* = 0.04, t = 0.55, p = 0.583. Based on these results, H3a and H3b were rejected. The control variables ‘gender’, ‘age’, ‘education’ and ‘overtime’ had no significant effect on all above relationships. The two way interaction plots are shown in figure 2 and figure 3.

Figure 2: Two-way interaction plot transactional leadership

3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 Low Flexible workarrangements High Flexible workarrangements S elf -e ff icac y Low_{Transactional} leadership High Transactional leadership

(18)

Figure 3: Two-way interaction plot transformational leadership

All the macro’s can be found in the Appendix.

Discussion

Summary of findings

In this research an online survey was used to analyse the possible effects of flexible work arrangements on the self-efficacy of the employee and whether this self-efficacy has a mediating effect on well-being. The possible moderating effect of leadership style on the relationship between flexible work arrangements and self-efficacy is examined.

As expected, the results showed that there is a significant positive effect between flexible work design and self-efficacy. This means that when a job design consists of flexible work arrangements, the self-efficacy of the employee will increase. The job design that gives freedom to work wherever and whenever, may signal that the organisation trusts the employee that he or she can fulfil the task with little supervision because he has the competences to do

3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 Low Flexible workarrangements High Flexible workarrangements S elf -e ff icac y Low Transformational leadership High Transformational leadership

(19)

so. It was also expected that self-efficacy would mediate the relationship between a flexible work design and well-being. When an employee has the belief that he or she can perform certain tasks successfully, this will have a positive effect on vigor and a negative effect on exhaustion. Self-efficacy did mediate the relationship between flexible job design and vigor. This was also expected according to previous research. According to the study of Xantopoulou et al. (2007), job resources like autonomy had a positive effect on vigor through self-efficacy. In the case of exhaustion, it was found that a flexible work design has a significant negative effect on exhaustion. When an employee works in flexible job design, the exhaustion of the employee will decrease. In the research of Kattenbach, Demouriti and Nachreiner (2009) similar results regarding flexible work arrangements were found. They found that when employees could choose their own work times, their exhaustion declined whereas when there were time restrictions this increased their exhaustion. Self-efficacy did not mediate the relationship between flexible work design and exhaustion. This finding might indicate that even if an employee has the feeling they can master certain tasks, actually performing these tasks may still be exhausting. An employee still has to put effort into fulfilling a task and this will cost energy regardless of their own perceived competences.

The type of leadership did not have a significant moderating effect on the relationship between flexible work design and self-efficacy. It was expected that transactional leadership would have a positive effect on the relationship whereas transformational leadership would have a negative effect on the relationship. None of the moderating effects that were expected were significant. Following the results, a flexible work design has a positive effect on self-efficacy regardless of the leadership style that is used. This is interesting because this might indicate that a flexible job design on its own may give the employee enough confidence through perceived trust and flexibility to enhance their self-efficacy regardless of which way this is managed.

(20)

It was expected that transformational leadership would have a negative effect on the relationship between a flexible job design and self-efficacy because it would not match the best with the characteristics of the flexible job design. Transformational leaders may interfere too much by trying to guide their employees whilst the flexible job design encourages flexibility and autonomy. A transactional leadership that gives the employee the freedom to choose the way certain tasks are performed, as long as the goal is obtained, may have a better fit with a flexible job design. The results in this research indicate however that transactional and transformational both work better in a high flexible work context than in a low flexible work context. It is possible that classical leadership styles like transactional and transformational leadership are not relevant in flexible job designs. These leadership styles were developed almost 30 years ago and might not perfectly match the new job designs that are known today. It might therefore be interesting to look at other emerged leadership styles in this relationship which may be better suited with the job design.

Limitations and further research

This study comes with its own limitations. It was found that a lot of the times respondents scored their supervisor as transactional and transformational at the same time, which was not expected. Although a validated scale was used (Bass & Avolio, 1990), a better distinction between leadership styles may be made to test leadership styles. It is also possible that transactional leadership and transformational leadership are outdated and that organisations do not use these styles anymore. Or better yet, they might use a combination of these styles. According to complexity leadership theory ‘’organisations cannot be designed with simple, rationalized structures that underestimate the complexity of the context in which the organization must function and adapt’’ (Uhl-Bien, Marion & McKelvey, 2008). They state that in a rapidly changing job environment, complex leadership style embraces complex adaptive systems, but also wants to enable structures that coordinate the organisation to

(21)

produce the desired outcome. Leadership styles like transformational or transactional leadership may not be viable in new job designs because these simple structures do not meet the complexity of new job designs. Complexity leadership theory proposes a combination of different styles. On the one hand, it focusses on the administrative approach which looks at the more bureaucratic structure of the organisation. But on the other hand, the adaptive leadership style wants to acknowledge the fact that an organisation is a complex system where adaptive leaders should try to improve the flexibility of the organisation. A complexity leadership style may better suitable for new job designs and it might be interesting to investigate in further research if this kind of leadership could benefit flexible work designs.

But there are more leadership styles that might be interesting to investigate in a flexible job design, shared leadership for example. Shared leadership is a leadership style that distributes responsibility and where colleagues lead each other (Avolio, Walumbwa & Weber, 2009). One might argue that shared leadership may enhance self-efficacy because the employee is trusted with a certain responsibility. The fact that the employee gets a certain responsibility may signal trust. Also, shared leadership has been found to diminish isolation and increase engagement (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008) and might therefore interesting to investigate in a flexible job design context.

Self-efficacy did mediate the relationship between flexible job design and vigor but not exhaustion. In further research, it might be interesting to closely look at the different job resources that are found in a flexible job design and in which way these different job resources impact self-efficacy. Xanthopoulou et al. (2007) found that social support, autonomy, supervisory coaching and development were job resources that had a positive effect on self-efficacy. It might be interesting to investigate in which way these job resources have an impact on self-efficacy in a flexible job design. Supervisory coaching, for example,

(22)

may have a different impact on self-efficacy in a flexible job design than in a traditional one. In the sense, that supervisory coaching may be perceived as too controlling, as argued before.

Practical implications

Our findings suggest that flexible work arrangements can benefit the organisation and the employee. By implementing such a flexible work design, organisation could increase the well-being of their employees by enhancing their vigor and decreasing their exhaustion directly. This study has shown that a flexible work design is also capable of increasing the self-efficacy of the employee. It seems that a flexible work design can increase the perceived competence an employee experiences which ultimately increases the vigor of the employee. One would argue that a happy employee is a productive employee and that implementing a flexible job design benefits the employee on a psychological level and ultimately, the organisation.

It is however still unclear how organisations can manage this job design through leadership. Results however indicate that there is an effect from flexible work design on self-efficacy regardless of the type of leadership. This may indicate that it does not matter how this job design is managed, the perceived autonomy and freedom and perceived trust alone may increase self-efficacy. However, it has been shown that social support as a job demand does have an effect on personal resources like self-efficacy (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Organisations should keep in mind that social support is still a job resource that might be important to enhance self-efficacy. Therefore, organisations should try to find a balance between autonomy and social support, since both are important to enhance self-efficacy (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007).

(23)

References

Allen, D. G., Renn, R. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The impact of telecommuting design on social systems, self-regulation, and role boundaries. Research in personnel and human resources management (pp. 125-163). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual review of psychology, 60, 421-449.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan

Bailey, D. E., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of organizational behavior, 23(4), 383-400.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Collier Macmillan.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Consulting Psychologists Press.

Benjamin, L., & Flynn, F. J. (2006). Leadership style and regulatory mode: Value from fit? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(2), 216-230.

Blok, M., Groenesteijn, L., Van Den Berg, C., & Vink, P. (2011). New ways of working: a proposed framework and literature review. Ergonomics and Health Aspects of Work with Computers, 3-12.

(24)

Caprara, G. V., Steca, P., Gerbino, M., Paciello, M., & Vecchio, G. M. (2006). Looking for adolescents' well-being: Self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of positive thinking and happiness. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 15(1), 30-43.

Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2017, January 25). Thuiswerken door werkenden en zelfstandigen. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. Retrieved from:

https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/achtergrond/2017/04/thuiswerken-door-werknemers-en-zelfstandigen

Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational research methods, 4(1), 62-83

De Groot, N. (2017, April 11). ‘Thuiswerken is over z’n hoogtepunt heen’. Algemeen Dagblad. Retrieved from

https://www.ad.nl/economie/thuiswerken-is-over-zenrsquo-n-hoogtepunt-heen~aedd891b/

Demerouti, E., Derks, D., Lieke, L., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). New ways of working: Impact on working conditions, work–family balance, and well-being. In The impact of ICT on quality of working life (pp. 123-141). Springer Netherlands.

Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524-1541.

Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of management Journal, 52(4), 765-778.

(25)

Hayman, J. (2009). Flexible work arrangements: exploring the linkages between perceived usability of flexible work schedules and work/life balance. Community, Work & Family, 12(3), 327-338.

Hayman, J. (2010). Flexible work schedules and employee well-being. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (Online), 35(2), 76.

Herschel, R. T., & Andrews, P. H. (1997). Ethical implications of technological advances on business communication. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 34(2), 160-170.

House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1975). Path-goal theory of leadership (No. TR-75-67). Washington Unveristy Seattle Department of Psychology.

Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader-member exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of applied psychology, 84(5), 680.

Howell, J. M., Neufeld, D. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2005). Examining the relationship of leadership and physical distance with business unit performance. The Leadership

Quarterly, 16(2), 273-285.

Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of organizational Behavior, 949-964.

Kattenbach, R., Demerouti, E., & Nachreiner, F. (2010). Flexible working times: Effects on employees' exhaustion, work-nonwork conflict and job performance. Career Development International, 15(3), 279-295.

(26)

Maddux, J. E. (2005). Self-Efficacy: The power of believing you can. Handbook of positive psychology, 277-287.

Mann, S., & Holdsworth, L. (2003). The psychological impact of teleworking: stress, emotions and health. New Technology, Work and Employment, 18(3), 196-211.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual review of psychology, 52(1), 397-422.

Mortimer, J. T., & Lorence, J. (1979). Occupational experience and the self-concept: A longitudinal study. Social Psychology Quarterly, 307-323.

Mortimer, J. T., Lorence, J., & Kumka, D. S. (1986). Work, family, and personality:

Transition to adulthood. Ablex Publishing.

Nicklin, J. M., Mayfield, C. O., Caputo, P. M., Arboleda, M. A., Cosentino, R. E., Lee, M. & Roch, S. G. (2009). Telecommuting and organizational attitudes and outcomes: a meta-analysis. Pravara Manag Rev, 8, 2-16.

Raghuram, S., Wiesenfeld, B., & Garud, R. (2003). Technology enabled work: The role of self-efficacy in determining telecommuter adjustment and structuring behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(2), 180-198.

Rosenberg, M (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic

Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., Martínez, I. M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Perceived collective efficacy, subjective well-being and task performance among electronic work groups: An experimental study. Small Group Research, 34(1), 43-73.

Salanova, M., Llorens, S., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2011). “Yes, I can, I feel good, and I just do it!” On gain cycles and spirals of efficacy beliefs, affect, and engagement. Applied Psychology, 60(2), 255-285.

(27)

Salanova, M., Peiró, J. M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2002). Self-efficacy specificity and burnout among information technology workers: An extension of the job demand-control model. European Journal of work and organizational psychology, 11(1), 1-25

Saragih, S. (2011). The effects of job autonomy on work outcomes: Self efficacy as an intervening variable. International Research Journal of Business Studies, 4(3).

Ten Brummelhuis, L. L., Bakker, A. B., Hetland, J., & Keulemans, L. (2012). Do new ways of working foster work engagement?. Psicothema, 24(1).

Hoeven, C. L., & Zoonen, W. (2015). Flexible work designs and employee well‐being: examining the effects of resources and demands. New Technology, Work and Employment, 30(3), 237-255.

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2008). Complexity leadership theory. Complexity leadership: part, 1, 185-224.

Walumbwa, F. O., & Hartnell, C. A. (2011). Understanding transformational leadership– employee performance links: The role of relational identification and self‐efficacy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(1), 153-172.

Wang, G., & Netemyer, R. G. (2002). The effects of job autonomy, customer demandingness, and trait competitiveness on salesperson learning, self-efficacy

Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of management Review, 14(3), 361-384.

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International journal of stress management, 14(2), 121.

(28)

Appendix A Survey

Q3 Bedankt voor uw deelname aan dit onderzoek. Deze online vragenlijst neemt ongeveer 10 minuten in beslag. Er zijn geen goede of foute antwoorden. De resultaten zullen gebruikt worden voor het schrijven van mijn master these.

Dit onderzoek gaat over 'het nieuwe werken'. Mochten er vragen zijn, kunt u mij contacteren via michellevandoorn3@gmail.com.

Q2

Ik verklaar hierbij dat ik op een duidelijke manier geïnformeerd ben over de aard en de methode van het onderzoek, zoals beschreven in de e-mailuitnodiging voor deze studie.

Ik ga volledig en vrijwillig akkoord met deelname aan dit onderzoek. Hiermee behoud ik het recht mijn toestemming in te trekken, zonder dat ik daarvoor een reden hoef te geven. Ik ben me ervan bewust dat ik mijn deelname aan het experiment op elk moment mag stopzetten.

Als mijn onderzoeksresultaten worden gebruikt in wetenschappelijke publicaties of op een andere manier openbaar worden gemaakt, zal dit op zo'n manier gebeuren dat mijn anonimiteit volledig wordt gewaarborgd. Mijn persoonlijke gegevens worden niet doorgegeven aan derden zonder mijn

uitdrukkelijke toestemming.

Als ik meer informatie over het onderzoek wil ontvangen, nu of in de toekomst, kan ik contact opnemen met Michelle van Doorn via michellevandoorn3@gmail.com. Mocht ik klachten hebben over dit onderzoek, dan kan ik contact opnemen met het aangewezen lid van de ethische commissie die de ASCoR vertegenwoordigt, op het volgende adres: ASCoR-secretariaat, ethische commissie, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020-525 3680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl.

(29)

Q4 De volgende vragen gaan over afspraken omtrent flexibel werken: 1. Ik kan zelf bepalen op welke tijdstippen ik werk

Geheel niet mee eens (1) Niet mee eens (2) Enigszins mee oneens (3)

Niet mee eens noch mee eens

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

Mee eens (6) Geheel mee eens (7)

2. Ik kan zelf bepalen wanneer de werkdag begint

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

3. Ik kan zelf mijn eigen tijdsschema bepalen

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

4. Ik kan bepalen waar ik werk

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

5. Ik werk op locaties die gunstig zijn voor mij

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

(30)

6. Ik kan bepalen wanneer ik e-mails stuur

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

7. Ik kan bepalen wanneer ik reageer op e-mails

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

8. Ik heb het gevoel dat ik controle heb over de communicatie die ik gebruik voor mijn werk

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

9. Ik kan mijn eigen werk-gerelateerde smartphone gebruik bepalen

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

Q5 De volgende vragen gaan over uw eigen perceptie van uzelf 1. Ik geloof dat ik de doelen die ik voor mijzelf stel kan behalen

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

(31)

2. Wanneer ik een moeilijke taak krijg ben ik er zeker van dat ik deze zal afronden

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

3. In het algemeen denk ik dat ik de resultaten kan behalen die belangrijk zijn voor mij

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

4. Ik geloof dat ik succesvol kan zijn, bij bijna elke poging die ik probeer

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

5. Ik zal in staat zijn om vele uitdagingen succesvol te overwinnen

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

6. Ik ben er van overtuigd dat ik effectief verschillende taken kan uitvoeren

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

7. In vergelijking met andere mensen, kan ik de meeste taken heel goed uitvoeren

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

8. Zelfs als het moeilijk is, kan ik redelijk presenteren.

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

(32)

Q6 De volgende vragen gaan over uw perceptie van uw leidinggevende. Mijn leidinggevende:

1. Wekt trots bij mij op

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

2. Besteedt tijd aan lesgeven en coachen

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

3. Houdt rekening met morele en ethische consequenties

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

4. Ziet mij als een persoon met verschillend behoeften, capaciteiten en ambities

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

5. Luistert naar mijn zorgen

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

6. Moedigt mij aan om te presenteren

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

7. Verhoogt mijn motivatie

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

(33)

8. Moedigt mij aan om creatiever te denken

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

9. Stelt uitdagende normen

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

10. Zet mij er toe aan om nooit-ondervraagde ideeen te heroverwegen

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

11. Maakt duidelijke verwachtingen

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

12. Zal actie ondernemen voordat problemen structureel worden

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

13. Vertelt ons bepaalde standaarden voor het uitvoeren van onze werkzaamheden

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

14. Bewaakt mijn presentaties en houdt fouten bij

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

(34)

15. Maakt afspraken samen met mij

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

Q7 De volgende vragen gaan over hoe u zich voelt

1. Terwijl ik aan het werk ben, barst ik van de energie

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

2. Terwijl ik aan het werk ben, voel ik me fit en sterk

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

3. Als ik ’s morgens opsta, kijk ik uit naar het begin van de dag

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

4. Als ik aan het werk ben, ben ik een lange tijd productief

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

5. Op het werk bezit ik een grote mentale veerkracht

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

(35)

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

7. Een volledige dag werken is een zware last voor mij

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

8. Ik voel me uitgeput door mijn werk

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

9. Aan het einde van de werkdag voel ik mij leeg

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

10. Ik voel me moe als ik ’s ochtends opsta met een volle werkdag voor me

(4)

Enigszins mee eens

(5)

Q8 U bent bijna klaar. Hier volgen nog enkele demografische vragen.

Q9 Wat is uw geslacht? 1. Man

2. Vrouw 3. Anders

(36)

Q10 Wat is uw leeftijd? …. (Open ended question)

Q11 Wat is uw hoogst behaalde opleiding? 1. Minder dan een middelbaar schooldiploma 2. Middelbare school

3. HBO 4. Bachelor 5. Master

6. Anders, namelijk …

Q12 Kunt u aangeven hoeveel u gemiddeld per week werkt? Ga uit van een gemiddelde week zonder vakantie.

________________________________________________________________

Q13 Kunt u aangeven hoeveel uur er in uw contract vermeld staat?

Q14 In welke sector werkt u? 1. Bouwindustrie 2. Communicatie 3. Cultuursector 4. Mijnbouw 5. Financiele instelling 6. Gezondheidszorg

7. Handel en commerciele diensten 8. Voedselservice industrie

9. Landbouw, bosbouw, visserij 10. Energie 11. Onderwijs en wetenschap 12. Openbare voorzieningen 13. Publieke administratie 14. Vervoer 15. Bedrijfsdiensten 16. Anders, namelijk …

(37)

Q16 Bedankt voor uw deelname! Mocht u nog vragen hebben, kunt u mij bereiken via

michellevandoorn3@gmail.com. Klik nog eenmaal op het onderstaande pijltje om uw deelname te versturen.

Q17 U kunt hieronder opmerkingen of reacties omtrent dit onderzoek achterlaten: ________________________________________________________________

(38)

Appendix B.

Macro’s PROCESS

************* PROCESS Procedure for SPSS Release 2.16.3 ****************** Written by Andrew F. Hayes, Ph.D. www.afhayes.com

Documentation available in Hayes (2013). www.guilford.com/p/hayes3 ************************************************************************** Model = 9 Y = SCALEexh X = SCALEfle M = SCALEsel W = Transfor Z = Trans Statistical Controls:

CONTROL= Geslacht Leeftijd Opleidin Overwerk Sample size 105 ************************************************************************** Outcome: SCALEsel Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p .3808 .1450 .6548 1.7904 9.0000 95.0000 .0800 Model

coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 5.4024 .5194 10.4018 .0000 4.3713 6.4335 SCALEfle .2141 .0941 2.2752 .0251 .0273 .4009 Transfor -.0500 .0904 -.5531 .5815 -.2294 .1294 int_1 .1133 .1059 1.0695 .2875 -.0970 .3235 Trans .0994 .0732 1.3582 .1776 -.0459 .2446 int_2 .0400 .0727 .5504 .5833 -.1043 .1844 Geslacht .0393 .1670 .2352 .8146 -.2923 .3708 Leeftijd -.0091 .0069 -1.3214 .1895 -.0228 .0046 Opleidin .0303 .0644 .4698 .6396 -.0976 .1581 Overwerk .0017 .0077 .2143 .8307 -.0137 .0170 Product terms key:

int_1 SCALEfle X Transfor int_2 SCALEfle X Trans

************************************************************************** Outcome: SCALEexh Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p .4125 .1702 .9979 3.3501 6.0000 98.0000 .0048 Model

(39)

constant 2.9853 .9316 3.2044 .0018 1.1365 4.8341 SCALEsel -.1379 .1234 -1.1171 .2667 -.3829 .1071 SCALEfle -.4043 .1075 -3.7621 .0003 -.6176 -.1910 Geslacht .0341 .1992 .1709 .8646 -.3613 .4294 Leeftijd -.0021 .0084 -.2544 .7997 -.0188 .0145 Opleidin .0660 .0778 .8487 .3981 -.0883 .2203 Overwerk .0178 .0094 1.9042 .0598 -.0008 .0364 ******************** DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS ************************* Direct effect of X on Y

Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI -.4043 .1075 -3.7621 .0003 -.6176 -.1910 Conditional indirect effect(s) of X on Y at values of the moderator(s): Mediator

Transfor Trans Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI SCALEsel -.9961 -1.2834 -.0069 .0323 -.1347 .0283 SCALEsel -.9961 .0000 -.0140 .0255 -.0982 .0132 SCALEsel -.9961 1.2834 -.0210 .0316 -.1124 .0182 SCALEsel .0000 -1.2834 -.0224 .0368 -.1427 .0200 SCALEsel .0000 .0000 -.0295 .0315 -.1147 .0146 SCALEsel .0000 1.2834 -.0366 .0369 -.1327 .0169 SCALEsel .9961 -1.2834 -.0380 .0498 -.1859 .0250 SCALEsel .9961 .0000 -.0451 .0463 -.1672 .0225 SCALEsel .9961 1.2834 -.0522 .0504 -.1814 .0260 Values for quantitative moderators are the mean and plus/minus one SD from mean.

Values for dichotomous moderators are the two values of the moderator. ***************** INDEX OF PARTIAL MODERATED MEDIATION ******************* Moderator:

Transfor Mediator

Index SE(Boot) BootLLCI BootULCI SCALEsel -.0156 .0202 -.0774 .0100 Moderator:

Trans Mediator

Index SE(Boot) BootLLCI BootULCI SCALEsel -.0055 .0150 -.0522 .0130

******************** ANALYSIS NOTES AND WARNINGS ************************* Number of bootstrap samples for bias corrected bootstrap confidence

intervals: 5000

Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output: 95.00

NOTE: The following variables were mean centered prior to analysis: SCALEfle Transfor Trans

(40)

************* PROCESS Procedure for SPSS Release 2.16.3 ****************** Written by Andrew F. Hayes, Ph.D. www.afhayes.com

Documentation available in Hayes (2013). www.guilford.com/p/hayes3 ************************************************************************** Model = 9 Y = SCALEVig X = SCALEfle M = SCALEsel W = Transfor Z = Trans Statistical Controls:

CONTROL= Geslacht Leeftijd Opleidin Overwerk Sample size 105 ************************************************************************** Outcome: SCALEsel Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p .3808 .1450 .6548 1.7904 9.0000 95.0000 .0800 Model

coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 5.4024 .5194 10.4018 .0000 4.3713 6.4335 SCALEfle .2141 .0941 2.2752 .0251 .0273 .4009 Transfor -.0500 .0904 -.5531 .5815 -.2294 .1294 int_1 .1133 .1059 1.0695 .2875 -.0970 .3235 Trans .0994 .0732 1.3582 .1776 -.0459 .2446 int_2 .0400 .0727 .5504 .5833 -.1043 .1844 Geslacht .0393 .1670 .2352 .8146 -.2923 .3708 Leeftijd -.0091 .0069 -1.3214 .1895 -.0228 .0046 Opleidin .0303 .0644 .4698 .6396 -.0976 .1581 Overwerk .0017 .0077 .2143 .8307 -.0137 .0170 Product terms key:

int_1 SCALEfle X Transfor int_2 SCALEfle X Trans

************************************************************************** Outcome: SCALEVig Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p .5741 .3296 .5270 8.0301 6.0000 98.0000 .0000 Model

coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 2.0510 .6770 3.0294 .0031 .7074 3.3945 SCALEsel .3541 .0897 3.9468 .0001 .1760 .5321 SCALEfle .2951 .0781 3.7787 .0003 .1401 .4501