Moderating effect of Leader-member exchange of job demands and
resources on well-being and burnout
Master assignment
Master in business studies
Specialization: Human Resource Management University of Amsterdam
Date of submission: 13 May 2014 Version: Final
Author: Jelle Kaptein
Student ID 10053549
Supervisor: mw. dr. C.T. (Corine) Boon
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ... 4
INTRODUCTION ... 5
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES ... 7
Effect of job demands on burnout ... 7
Well-being and the effect of Job Resources ... 9
Effect of leader behavior on the effects of demands and recourses to well-being and burnout ... 15
The moderating effect of LMX on the effect between the independent variables on the dependent variable... 16
METHODOLOGY ... 21
Sample and data collection ... 21
Measurement of variables ... 21 Procedures ... 21 RESULTS ... 25 Descriptive statistics ... 24 Correlations ... 24 Regression analysis ... 26
DISSCUSION AND CONCLUSION ... 30
LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ... 33
REFERENCES ... 34
ABSTRACT
This study of 123 employees in a Dutch insurance company aims to enhance the job demands and resources model (Demerouti et al, 2001) with a moderating role of LMX. I expect LMX to dampen the effect between role overload and burnout and strengthen the effect between
resources (autonomy and social support from colleagues) and employee well-being
(commitment, job satisfaction and work life conflict). This data is retrieved from self report questionnaires, is cross sectional and is tested by hierarchical regression. Based on social exchange theory and conservation of resources (COR) the effect between role overload and exhaustion is strengthened by LMX, workers want to keep the LMX (COR) and will try to repay the received support. There is no direct effect of role overload on cynicism, but the combination of role overload and LMX lowers cynicism. Employees with high LMX relationship see role overload as an indicator that they are valuable to the organization.
LMX has a direct effect on commitment and job satisfaction and autonomy has a direct effect job satisfaction. The theory behind these connections is that it helps people get their work done and being recognized by the organization. LMX does not have the expected strengthening effect between de (chosen) resources and (operationalization of) well-being. The theory behind this is that we expect the perceived organizational support (POS) so high that people do not value the support from colleagues that high. LMX is important for POS, because the leader is often the distributor of organizational support.
INTRODUCTION
Endured job strain experienced by the employee leads to burnout (Maslach, 1993). People who suffer from burnout do not contribute or at least contribute less to organizational performance; therefore it is important to prevent employees from burning out. Besides the performance, burnout has a fast negative effect for the social life of employees, therefore it is not ethical for a company to put such high demands on employees that they burnout. Kraybill (2003) describes that healthy employees are critical for an organization to survive. To enhance performance and further develop the organization it is important to emphasize on employee well-being. Without well-being people will not be motivated to help the organization (Currie, 2001). This results in higher costs via less efficient working, less effort put into the job and more absence through sickness.
Several researches have researched the antecedents of burnout. The outcome is that a balance between stressors and distresses’ need to be found. Karasek (1979, 1998) introduced the
demand-control model (DCM) and Siegrist (1996) developed the effort-reward imbalance (ERI) model. Both models claim that balance is the key for employee well-being there should be something in return for the high job demands. Karasek (1979, 1998) states that when personnel can choose individually how to meet the job demands (autonomy), they experience less job strain where Siegrist (1996) puts the emphasis on rewards like salary, job security and opportunities. Both models emphasize the balance. The strength of the models is the simplicity, and it is easy to understand and to use in practice. The simplicity is also their weakness. It is not only autonomy or employee benefits that balance for job demands and it is not only work pressure that causes stress (Bakker and Demerouti, 2006). Therefore the job demands-resources (JD-R) model (Demerouti et al, 2001) is introduced. This model recognizes that job demands can be more than
work overload. Job demands it can be mental, physical, emotional and more. Job resources in this model are more than autonomy or financial benefits; it can also be recognition from colleagues, leaders or job skills and abilities. Job demands increases job strain which has a negative impact on organizational performance; job resources increase motivation and have a positive effect on organizational performance. When the job demands are perceived higher than the resources, the resources decrease in value. When the job resources are perceived higher than the job demands the strain from the job demands become less. In line with this researchers found that job resources buffer the effect of job strain on burnout (Bakker and Demerouti, 2006;
Bakker et al, 2005). Therefore job demands and resources can become vicious circles that can work positive or negative (Hakanen et al, 2008). Now that we know job demands en recourses influence each other and the employee well-being (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Bakker et al, 2005; Bakker et al, 2007; Hakanen et al, 2008) the next question is how to influence the
resources in such a way that we can improve productivity without harming employee well-being. In the Job demands and resources literature the way the leader acts, operationalised as coaching by supervisor and (performance) feedback is a job resource (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004;
Xanthopoulou et al, 2007). With a high score on coaching and feedback respondents experience lower workload and emotional demands and this has a positive effect on social support
(Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). This is the same for supervisory coaching and job autonomy (Xanthopoulou et al, 2007). With coaching and feedback leaders use their competences and experience to help the employee perform better (enhances knowledge, skills and abilities). A way to measure this is the Leader Member Exchange (LMX) theory. With a high quality LMX leaders exchange their resources with the employee. Therefore an employee with a high LMX relationship has more job resources. On the other hand low LMX relationships state that leaders
are not exchanging their resources. The relationship is based on the employment contract, stating the job demands (Graen & Cashman, 1975; Graen & Scandura, 1987).
This research is a further development on the job demands and resources theory (Demerouti et al, 2001). Job demands and resources theory use leader behavior as a resource (feedback,
performance appraisal). I expect that the leader is not a normal resource. I predict that LMX moderates the role between job demands and burnout as well as the effect between job resources and well-being. LMX theory claims that leaders can choose to share their resources or not to do that. First I will test the l hypotheses that job demands (role overload) are positively related to burnout (exhaustion, cynicism and efficacy) and job resources (job autonomy, social support from colleagues) are positively related to well-being (affective commitment, job satisfaction and Work-family conflict). Then I will test the effect of LMX on the effects between job demands and burnout (dampening) and the effect of LMX on the effects between job resources and well-being (strengthening). In the theoretical framework and hypotheses section I will explain how I operationalise the constructs, and give a further explanation on which effects I expect.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES
Effect of job demands on burnout
Job demands are the demands that the job puts on the employee. This can be physical; like lifting heavy articles, climbing stairs and mental; answering complaining customers, working under strict time limits. Several studies have shown that high job demands lead to health and sleeping problems which are often caused by job strain (Doi, 2005; Halsleben and Buckley, 2004). Earlier studies have resulted in a long list of unfavorable job characteristics that lead to job stress and burnout. Linkages between these characteristics and job strain have been found in; lack of autonomy, low social support, role ambiguity, emotional demands and work overload (Lee & Ashforth, 1996; Schaufeli & Enzeman, 1998). Burnout is the ultimate consequence of a too long period of job strain; this can come from the job itself and also from management practices
(Maslach, 1993; Maslach et al, 2001). Burnout consists of the following components; exhaustion that makes employees physical impossible to function; cynicism that makes people detach themselves emotionally from the job and lack of professional efficacy (Maslach et al, 2001). Hockey (1993, 1997) explains in his compensatory control model what the links between job demands and burnout are. When confronted with high job demands, which means extra effort is asked, employees can use two coping strategies. One is keeping performance on the same level. This requires extra energy which when endured leads to depleted energy resources (active coping strategy) and the other is an strategy where employees put the same effort in and deliver less performance. This can be less quality, accuracy or speed (passive coping strategy). Endured passive coping strategy can lead to total disengagement of the work and the goals. In the model the three aspects of burnout are prevalent. In the active coping strategy it is exhaustion via
putting too much effort in the job. In the passive coping strategy it is reduced efficacy via downsizing performance and cynicism via disengagement. In both coping strategies on the long term the efficacy is reduced. In essence higher job demands ask for extra effort. When the effort is too high the energy reserves of an employee are used up which lead to health problems (health impairment process) (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Bakker et al, 2005). The job demands - burnout relationship is tested and found many times (Bakker et al, 2003; Bakker et al, 2005; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Role overload is one of the three role stressors; the other two are role conflict and role ambiguity (Kahn & Byosiere, 1990). This study will use role overload, this is one of the strongest and most used predictors of burnout (Lee and Ashford, 1996; Schaufeli and Enzmann, 1998). Role overload is the perception of the employee that the job demands asked surpasses the employee’s resources (Peterson et al, 2005). In several studies role overload is found as one of the most serious problems in work environments in Western countries, USA and Europe (World Health organization, 2000; Murphy and Sauter, 2003; Paoli and Merllié, 2001). In the table below I present other results that show this:
Work (over)load Exhaustion Cynicism Professional efficacy
Bakker et all (2005) .39** .07* .08**
Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) .28** .14** .03**
Bakker et al (2003) .36** .41** not tested
* p<.05 **p<.01
Work (over)load in these tests lead to little higher feelings of professional efficacy. There is evidence that exhaustion and cynicism is the core of burnout (Maslach et al, 2001; Shirom, 1989). Therefore some researchers test only exhaustion and cynicism (e.g. Bakker et al, 2003). These researchers claim that reduced professional efficacy is a consequence of burnout (Koeske and Koeske, 1989; Shirom, 1989). The burnout model of Maslach has proven itself this many
times (for review see Lee and Ashford, 1996), therefore I choose to test all three the burnout indicators.
As we have seen, role overload leads to more (psychological) effort in performing the job which leads to depletion of resources which leads to exhaustion. Role overload leads to exhausted people, they have to use coping strategies which are to lower their input (take distance from the job), or try to keep up performance which leads to job strain. Both coping mechanisms lead to cynicism (Hockey, 1993, 1997). Exhausted people take distance from their job (lower
performance) or keep trying to keep up performance but just don’t succeed (because their exhausted) this leads to reduced efficacy (it is not possible to perform). Based on the mentioned above I expect role overload to have a positive relationship with burnout.
Hypothesis: Role overload is positively related to exhaustion (H1), cynicism (H2) and negative related to efficacy (H3).
Well-being and the effect of Job Resources
Besides burnout we will look at a positive side of working, well-being and how job resources can affect well-being. Warr (2002) describes that well-being is a perception of how people cognitive experience their quality of life (Currie 2001). We can look at well-being at the individual and organizational level. Currie (2001) describes this as the psychical and mental health of the workforce. The more stress free and physically safe the organization is, the higher the well-being is perceived. Another important item is to which proportion is the employee encouraged and enabled to achieve their own en organization goals (Tehrani et al. 2007). Robertson and Flint Taylor (2009) underline this; they argue that emotional well-being is depends on a positive emotion and achieving goals (feeling of purpose). Employee well-being can be operationalised in
different ways. The first is that health and well-being are operationalised with physical measures the second way is the mental way (Danna and Griffin, 1999). The current research is done in the Netherlands at an insurance company. With the health regulation (ARBO) and the absence of hard physical work, this research focuses on the mental aspects of well-being. Well-being consists of “pleasure” and “arousal” (Warr, 1987). Workers spend two third of their time at work. When they go home, it is hard to leave work behind and the same is when they go to work it is hard to leave home issues behind (Caudron, 1997; Zedeck and Mosier, 1990). I will use three measures: Employee commitment (arousal), job satisfaction (pleasure) and Work-family conflict. The first two factors were already recognized by Warr (1987), these were the positive measures of well-being and are more used in well-being research for example Baptiste (2007).
Employee commitment: Meyer and Allen (1984) and Allan and Meyer (1990) introduce three
components of commitment: affective, normative and continuance commitment. Affective is how much the employee is attached to the organization, involvement with the organization and how much the employee identifies with it. Normative commitment is a perceived obligation to stay with the organization. Continuance commitment has the least to do with employee well-being, this is the commitment because of lack of alternatives. This is when the cost of leaving the organization is too high, this reveres more to the height of salary and other primary working conditions. In this research affective commitment is used. Affective commitment has the strongest negative relationship with turnover intentions and positive relationships with positive behavior and well-being (Meyer et al. 2002). Organizational commitment is seen as a stress reducing (Begley and Cazjka, 1993). The underlying theory is that committed employees have positive attitudes toward the organization and therefore are less distressed by occupational stressors and therefore perceive less stress.
Job satisfaction: This is the satisfaction an employee has with its work and with the organization
it performs its work (Jernigan et al. 2002). Locke and Latham (1990) describe it as the emotional state that an employee has when appraising its job ore job experiences. Job satisfaction is
dependent on working conditions like safety, salary, job security and “soft” HRM, how is the relation with pears and their colleagues (Currie, 2001).
Work-family conflict: In the last decades there have been changes that caused that men as well
as women needed to work (Daniels and French, 2006). People have to find a balance between work, social life and activities like taking care of their family when needed (Platt, 1997). When the work-life balance is outbalanced in a way that employees put too much effort in the job this can have effect on the job (absenteeism, higher turnover, reduced commitment) at home (higher divorce rate, decreased life satisfaction) and for the individual (higher stress, reduced physical and mental health) (Thompson and Prottas, 2005). Daniels (2006) describes that people seek employers who take the employee needs in account. Baptiste (2007) found that companies who take employee well-being in account have employees with more commitment, satisfaction and work life balance. Because these workers are more committed these companies have better performance. In this research we will measure the opposite; work-family conflict. Low scores on work-family conflict indicate a good balance.
Job resources are the traits or circumstances at work that help the employee to perform the job. The traits can be physical or psychological. The circumstances can be social or organizational. The help in performing the job can be functional in achieving goals and stimulating personal growth, learning and personal development (Bakker et al, 2003). Job resources can motivate employees intrinsic an extrinsic. Job resources can help employees grow as a person, they can
use it to develop new skills (learning, growth and development) and for achieving goals. Job resources can be personal or located at the company level. The resources at the company level are the positive job characteristics described by Oldham (1976). These are things like career opportunities, job security, supervisor and coworker support, role clarity, autonomy and
performance feedback. When these characteristics are performed well, these characteristics have a motivational potential, they help making work meaningful for employees and gives them responsibility for the way the work is performed and how it is done, and give them feedback about the results of their actions (Hackman & Oldham, 1980).
Previous research used job autonomy, social support, feedback and/or relationship with the supervisor to operationalise the job resources (Bakker and Demerouti, 2006; Bakker et al, 2005; Xanthopulou et al, 2007; Bakker et al, 2003). In line with the goal of this study the relationship with the supervisor will be set apart as a moderator. This research will operationalise job
resources with job autonomy and social support from colleagues. As I explain in the next section, job autonomy and social support help employees achieving work goals, reduces job demands and stimulate personal growth (Bakker and Demerouti, 2006).
Job autonomy is the degree of freedom the worker has to decide how, where and when the job is
done. The employee has the freedom to decide how the work is done and how the goals are attained. Job control can give people the feeling of self-determination (Deci and Ryan, 1985). More autonomy gives employees the flexibility in how to define their role (Fried et al, 1999; Troyer et al, 2000). In line with work design theory job autonomy increases ownership of problems and employees with high ownership develop more skills and knowledge to perform their job (Parker, 1998; Parker et al, 1997). This is because control over the job encourages employees to try out new tasks or new ways to perform the existing tasks (Fried and Ferris,
1987; Morgeson and Campion, 2003). Job autonomy is seen by employees as organizational support. The granted job autonomy is seen as a indication that the company values their input and respect the individual (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002) Social exchange theory states that the employee feels an obligation to reciprocate this organizational support and try his best to help the company achieve its goals (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). Job autonomy improves
commitment via social exchange relationship with the organization (Park and Searcy (2011). Several researchers found correlation between job autonomy and employee well-being.
Employees who have high job autonomy are more satisfied with their jobs (Clarc, 2001; Dodd an Ganster, 1996; Hackman and Oldham, 1976; Schulz et al, 1995) experience less stress
(Parasuraman and Alutto, 1984) have a high commitment (Bakker et al, 2003; Ahuja et al, 2007) and have a better work life balance (Grzywacz and Marks, 2000; Voydanoff, 2004). Thompson and Prottas (2006) had similar result; autonomy has a positive relationship with job satisfaction (.34 p<.001), negative relationships with stress (-.18 p<.001) and work to family conflict (-.14 p<.001). Job autonomy helps employees achieve their goals via the freedom to try new ways to perform the tasks. The extra efficiency will help employees to get their work done in time. Autonomy also gives people a certain freedom in scheduling working hours in a way that fits with the personal situation. This will reduce work-family conflict. Job autonomy enhances commitment via the feeling of being valued by the organization. Therefore I hypothesized the following: Job autonomy is positively related to employee commitment (H4), job satisfaction (H5) and negatively related to work-family conflict (H6)
Social support from colleagues is the way colleagues support the worker; helping with job
related problems, helping with time problems (changing shifts). Companies can have formal policies to reduce work-family conflict (like flexible working hours) but the formal policies are
less important than a supportive culture in the organization (Allen, 2001). Without the supportive culture employees will fear for low career opportunities (Thompson et al, 1999). The well-being of people depends on their relationships with others, these relations has to be set and maintained (Zineldin, 2006). Social exchange theory tells that received social support is seen as recognition of the employee and the employee will try to reciprocate this, this enhances commitment
(Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). Social support is a resource because it helps employees achieve their working goals (Bakker and Demenrouti, 2006). Support from colleagues helps people to get the work done and therefore relieves the employee from the impact of the job demands (Van de Doef and Maes, 1999). This is in line with Loscocco and Spitze (1990) who found that support from colleagues lowers stress. Thompson and Prottas (2005) hypothesized en found evidence that when social support was used for helping with family issues (like taking over tasks so the colleague can go the doctor with a sick child or visit the graduation of a child) it helps with finding a good work life balance. They found that social support has a negative effect on stress (-.25 p<.001), work family conflict (-.33 p<.001) and has a positive effect on job satisfaction (.53 p<.001). Bakker et al (2003) found an effect of .28 (p<.01) for colleague support on commitment.
Social support enhances commitment via social exchange, helps people achieve their goals via helping and supportive culture helps avoiding work-family conflict via the use of flexible hours or changing shifts when needed. Therefore I hypothesize the following: Social support from colleagues is positively related to employee commitment (H7), job satisfaction (H8) and negatively related to work-family conflict (H9)
Effect of leader behavior on the effects of demands and recourses to well-being and burnout
The object of this research is to find out how leadership behavior influences the job demands and resources model to predict burnout and well-being. A lot of the variance of health, strain and well-being can be explained by Leadership. Leaders have the means to influence several sources of stress, which influences well-being (Kelloway et al, 2004; Nyberg et al, 2005).They can put a strain on their employees by putting excessive demands on their workers on the other hand effective leadership (balance between stressors and des-stressors) is key for having a healthy workforce (Tordera et al, 2008). Leaders influence their followers, their behaviors and their attitudes. In the last decades a lot of research has been conducted to find out how this works. In the ’60 of the past century researchers like Homans (1961) and Blau (1964) started with the social exchange theory. This in the base means if someone does something for you, you return the favor. A further development of the exchange theory for how leaders influence their followers is the LMX theory. Leaders engage relationships with their subordinates which are affected by the experiences they have with each other (Graen and Cashman, 1975; Graen and Scandura, 1987). Leaders engage different and unique relationships with their employees (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995). The quality of the relationship and therefore the exchange has numerous effects. A high quality relationship (high score on LMX) is a relationship where the leader shares resources, confidence and support, and with that empowers the employee to retrieve their goals (Liden et al. 2006). Because LMX can tell to which size the leader shares his or her resources with the employee en therefore can strengthen or diminish demands and resources I will
operationalise leadership behavior in this research with LMX. There is a lot of research on LMX; a high quality of LMX has positive outcomes. Job satisfaction, involvement, in role performance, commitment, organizational citizenship behavior and reduced intent to search for other jobs
(Epitopraki and Martin, 1999; Gerstner and Day, 1997; Graen and Uhl-Bean, 1995; Ilies et al, 2007; Vecchio, 1982).
The moderating effect of LMX on the effect between the independent variables on the dependent variable
I have hypothesized a positive effect of autonomy and social support from colleagues on the three factors of well-being and I have hypothesized a positive effect of role overload on burnout. The more autonomy or social support, the higher the well-being. The more role overload, the higher the scores on burnout. I expect LMX to influence these effects. There are two reasons why I expect this to happen. First: Trait activation theory; contextual characteristics (like autonomy, social support from colleagues or role overload) and traits (personal characteristics) define how people behave a react (Tett and Gutermann, 2000). Behavior is triggered by trait relevant cues. Autonomy and social support can be seen as trait relevant cues. The traits of the people decide in which size they use the cues for their success. Xanthopoulou et al. (2007) found that personal resources as organizational self-efficacy, self-efficacy and optimism had profound effect on the relationship between job demands and exhaustion and between job resources and engagement. Second: Cor theory describes that people value their resources and will try to maintain them (Hobfoll, 2001). Resources strengthen each other (resources generate other resources). Hobfoll (2002) calls this resource caravans, this can result in better outcomes like well-being and coping. The effect of job autonomy on well-being is strengthen by LMX. High LMX with high autonomy activates the traits which help to achieve goals (like trying new procedures) more than with high autonomy only. This is because employees with high LMX relationship can perform challenging and difficult tasks more focused and because they
experience more task-related recognition and appreciation, they dare to take more risk in performing their tasks (Liden et al., 1997; Tierney et al., 1999). This theory is in line with Volmer et al. (2012) who found that employees with a combination of high job autonomy and high LMX had higher creative work involvement than when one of the dependent variables was low. The same for feeling valued by the organization and being comfortable with using the opportunities of the freedom in scheduling working hours. High LMX strengthen the effect of job autonomy on commitment by valuing the employee higher and granting the employee the esteem to use the benefits of job autonomy to achieve working goals. For the effect on work life balance with high LMX the employee is more encouraged to use the freedom in scheduling to avoid work-family conflict. For overall job satisfaction, with high LMX the employee will use the freedom of job autonomy more and will meet the goals better and therefore will have a higher job satisfaction than without high LMX.
Hypothesis: LMX moderates the relationship between job autonomy and employee commitment (H10) and job satisfaction (H11), such that the relationship between job autonomy and the measures of employee well-being is stronger with a high level of LMX than when LMX is low. For the relationship with work-family conflict (H12) I expect the negative relationship with job autonomy to be weaker with high LMX.
Social support from colleagues as I described earlier is a resource because it helps employees achieve their working goals (Bakker and Demerouti, 2006). Support from colleagues helps employees to get the work done and therefore relieves the employee from the impact of the job demands (Van de Doef and Maes, 1999). With high LMX I expect the employee to benefit from the resource caravans. The size in which an employee shares and receives organizational support can be dependent on their traits (openness, being social) and on the size in which they can
exchange recourses. With high LMX the leaders shares his or her resources (Liden et al. 2006), these resources can be used to exchange resources with the colleagues. As I explained earlier the construct I use for well-being is affected by achieving goals, being valued by the organization and by being able to balance working hours and private hours. By being able to share resources the employee has higher recognition, is able to ask the right support of colleagues which helps the employee achieve their goals or changing the right shifts. This enhances commitment by being recognized and achieving work goals, work life balance by being able to adjust working life to meet the demands of the social life and job satisfaction by being able to achieve goals. I expect that with high LMX the employee has a wider range of social support to choose from and therefore can choose the support that is most effective.
Hypothesis: LMX moderates the relationship between social support from colleagues and employee commitment (H13), job satisfaction (H14) and work-family conflict (H15), such that the relationship between job resources and the measures of employee well-being is stronger with a high level of LMX than when LMX is low. For the relationship with work-family conflict (H16) I expect the negative relationship with social support from collegues to be weaker with high LMX.
For role overload the demands can become so high that the employee can’t recuperate in time, I expect that with a high quality LMX relationship the shared resources of the leader can help the employee buffer the impact of role overload. Bakker et al (2005) found this effect in their study on this subject. I expect that with a high quality LMX relationship the employee will be enabled to use his or her resources better (resource caravans) to achieve the set goals. This results in less effort to be put in the job. Therefore I expect that a high quality LMX relationship reduces the effects of role overload on exhaustion.
Sensitivity to stress from role overload can also been seen as a trait, support from the supervisor can help not to activate this trait but activate self-reliance or stress resistance. A high quality LMX relationship makes an employee feel recognized, social exchange theory states that the employee feels obliged to return this. I expect that recognition and attention makes it harder for an employee to detach him- or herself from the job, therefore I expect a LMX to dampen the relationship between role overload and cynicism. With good communication between supervisor and the employee, the employee knows what he or she does well and where improvement is needed. The employee can be coached in their way to improvement (Bakker et al, 2005). Appraising employees when they deliver good results will also help the employee in coping, it increases their motivation (Hackman and Oldham, 1980) and will help them to maintain efficacy. Therefore I expect LXM to dampen the effect between role overload and low efficacy.
Hypothesis: LMX moderates the relationship between role overload and exhaustion (H16), cynicism (H17) and efficacy (H18), such that the relationship between role overload and exhaustion, cynicism and efficacy, is weaker with a high level of LMX than when LMX is low.
METHODOLOGY
Sample and data collection
A questionnaire was presented at 296 members of an insurance company in the Netherlands. All employees of that insurance company were asked to answer questions and propositions. I visited a meeting from each department to explain and ask them to fill in the questionnaire. After two week I sent a reminder to all line managers and asked them to remind their team to fill the questionnaire. The answers were given in several scales mostly ranging from 1 to 5 was the size of the matter was given. The questionnaire is based on self-reports. The questionnaires were introduced by the researcher or by the first line managers. The anonymity was assured by using paper which could be deboned in a box on the working unit or by filling the questionnaire in survey monkey. Of these questionnaires 123 were returned (41,5%). The sample includes 58 male (47,2%), 57 female (46,3%%) and 7 (5,7%) did not answer this question. The mean age is 42 (SD 9,4) ranging from 23 to 63 and the mean tenure is 14 (SD 11,6) ranging from 0 to 44 years. The education is divided secondary school 9,8% , secondary vocational 25,2%, higher professional 38,2%, University 20,3% , other 0,8%
Measurement of variables
Role overload was assessed with a three question questionnaire (translated to Dutch) based on the quantitative job demands (Bolino and Turnley, 2005 JAP). One of the items is “It seems that I never have enough time to complete my tasks.” The internal consistency was high with a cronbach’s alpha of .907. All items were measured on a 5 point scale measuring from 1: “completely disagree” to 5: “completely agree”. High scores on the items are indicative for a high level of Role overload.
Burnout: Exhaustion, cynicism and efficacy was measured with a validated Dutch (Schaufeli and Van Dierendonck, 1994) version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach and Jackson, 1981). All items were measured on a 5 point scale measuring from 1: “completely disagree” to 5: “completely agree”. Exhaustion was measured with 8 questions. One of the items is “I feel used up at the end of my workday”. High scores on the items are indicative for a high level of
exhaustion. Cronbach’s alpha was .854. Cynicism was measured with 5 questions. One of the questions was “I doubt the significance of my work”. High scores on the items are indicative for a high level of cynicism. Cronbach’s alpha was .690. Efficacy was measured with 7 items one of the items was: “I can effectively solve the problems that arise in my work”. High scores on the items are indicative for a high level of efficacy and a low level of burnout. Cronbach’s alpha was.558.
Job autonomy was assessed using the Van den Bossche SNJ, Hupkens, CLH, Smulders PG (2007) Nationale enquete arbeidsomstandigheden 2006: Methodologie en globale resultaten. Which is a Dutch questionnaire with five items like: “Can you decide how to perform your job?”. Cronbach’s alpha was .810. All items were measured on a 5 point shale measuring from 1: “completely disagree” to 5: “completely agree”. High scores on the items are indicative for a high level of job autonomy.
Social support from colleagues was assessed using a Dutch version of the eight item index Bacharach et al., 2010 JAP adopted from Anderson and Williams (1996) to assess perceived social support. The participants were asked to answer - how many times in the last month colleagues….. One of the questions was: “Discussed work problems with you to help solve this problem?” The items were measured on a 6 point scale measuring from 0: “never” to 5: “several
times a day”. High scores on the items are indicative for a high level of social support. Cronbach’s alpha was.882.
Employee well-being: Employee commitment is measured with a 5 item Dutch questionnaire based on Meyer, Allen & Smith (1993). The items were validated in Dutch by Ellemers et al. (1998). All items were measured on a 5 point scale measuring from 1: “completely disagree” to 5: “completely agree”. High scores on the items are indicative for a high level of affective organizational commitment. One of the items is: “I feel emotionally attached towards the organization”. Cronbach’s alpha was .769. Job satisfaction is measured with one item. This is based Scarpello and Campbell (1983); Wanous, Reichers, and Hudy, (1997). The question is: “In general, what is the size of your job satisfaction?”. The respondents can answer from 1: highly unsatisfied to 5: highly satisfied. High score on the item is indicative for a high level of job satisfaction. With only one item, the internal consistency between questions is not relevant. Work-family conflict is a 5 item questionnaire based on Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian (1996) translated in Dutch. All items were measured on a 5 point scale measuring from 1: “completely disagree” to 5: “completely agree”. High scores on the items are indicative for a high level of work-family conflict. One of the items is: “My job causes tension which makes it hard to fulfill my family responsibilities”. Cronbach’s alpha was .882. The moderator LMX was measured with a Dutch 7 item questionnaire based on Scandura, T. A., and Graen, G. B. (1984). The items were measured with a 4 point scale, ranging from 1 to 4 where 1 states a bad relationship with the leader and 4 states a good relationship. One of the items is: “How would you describe your working situation with your direct supervisor?”. Cronbach’s alpha was .903.
The control questions were age (in years), gender (coded 1. Male, 2. Female), highest education (1. secondary school, 2. secondary vocational, 3. higher professional, 4. University, 5. Other) and tenure with the organization in years.
PROCEDURES
First the data were brought manually in SPSS. Questions that were not filled were left open. Then a reliability analysis was performed to check the internal validity. Constructs with a cronbach’s alpha of .8 or higher are suitable for use (Carmines and Zeller 1979). Other
researchers find lower cronbach’s alpha useful like Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) debate that .7 is also reasonable especially for new developed scales. Therefore I decided to use Employee commitment (.769) and Cynicism (.690). For efficacy the internal consistency was too low with .558, with excluding one or more questions the consistency couldn’t be raised. Therefore I excluded this construct from further analyses. I standardized the constructs to rule differences between 4, 5 of 6 scale answers out and made three items for the interaction effect (Z score independent variable * Z score moderator).
Then a correlation analysis was performed to see how the items correlated (table 1). A
hierarchical regression was performed to check the hypothesis with the data. In the hierarchical regression the outcome variable was in model one tested with the control questions. First I check whether the control variables add information. When the control variables do not have a
significant effect on the outcome variable I will leave them out. After controlling for age, gender, education and tenure with the organization I respectively add the standardized independent variable and standardized moderator. For the last model the standardized independent
variable*standardized moderator was added. In this way for each model the R2 and F change is
visible and the analyses reveals whether or not the model and the variables are significant (p<.05). The figures are round off to two decimals, when rounding the numbers I looked at the third decimal with 5 or higher I rounded the second decimal one higher.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics
First we look at the descriptive statistics of the used constructs. Job autonomy, Commitment, job satisfaction and LMX are perceived high with at the minimum a score of 71% of the maximum item score. Cynicism and Social support from colleagues are low with a maximum score of 35% of the maximum item score.
Table 1. Descriptives
Mean Std. Dev. Range
1. Role overload 2,85 1,03 1-5
2. Exhaustion 2,24 0,84 1-5
3. Cynisism 1,76 0,61 1-5
4. Job autonomy 3,86 0,74 1-5
5. Social support from collegues 1,83 0,82 0-5
6. Committment 3,55 0,77 1-5
7. Job satisfaction 3,89 0,86 1-5
8. Work-life conflict 2,06 0,82 1-5
9. LMX 3,24 0,59 1-4
Correlations
When we look at the parsons correlations (figure 1), we see that role overload has a correlation with exhaustion (r.33 p<.01) and no significant correlation with cynicism and LMX (p>.05). Job autonomy has a correlation with job satisfaction (r .34 p<.01), work-family conflict (r -.15 p<.05) and LMX (r .19 p<.05) but no significant relationship to commitment (p>.05). Social support from colleagues has correlation only with LMX (r .21 p<.01), and no significant relationship towards commitment, satisfaction and work-family conflict. The control variables sometimes
have correlation with the other variables; we especiallysee that tenure and age sometimes have correlation with different items or constructs.
Table 2. N, Mean, Standard deviations and parsons correlation
N Mean Std. Deviation 1 2 3 4 5 1. Role overload 123 2,85 1,03 2. Exhaustion 123 2,24 0,84 .33** 3. Cynisism 123 1,76 0,61 .00 .58** 4. Job autonomy 123 3,86 0,74 -.17* -.32** -.09
5. Social support from collegues 123 1,83 0,82 -.02 -.12 -.00 -.10
6. Committment 123 3,55 0,77 .03 -.23** -.26** .10 .08 7. Job satisfaction 123 3,89 0,86 -.04 -.41** -.41** .34** .06 8. Work-life conflict 123 2,06 0,82 .25** .49** .31** -.15* .00 9. LMX 122 3,24 0,59 .06 -.03 -.16* .19* .21** 13. Age 115 42,30 9,42 -.21* -.12 -.21* .11 -.11 14. Gender 116 1,48 0,52 .15 -.09 -.11 -.17* .03 15. Education 116 2,76 0,94 .03 .09 .12 .11 .05 16. Tenure 115 14,42 11,66 -.22** -.09 -.13 .12 -.09 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1. Role overload 2. Exhaustion 3. Cynisism 4. Job autonomy
5. Social support from collegues 6. Committment 7. Job satisfaction .52** 8. Work-life conflict -.01 -.14 9. LMX .27* .33** -.12 10. Age .29** .14 -.15 .22** 11. Gender -.03 -.05 .12 -.14 -.27** 12. Education -.16* .03 .20* -.01 -.41** .01 13. Tenure .30** .19* -.15 .20* .78** -.27** -.48**
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
Regression analysis
In figure 2 I test whether the control variables add information. Only the models of commitment and cynicism are statistical significant (p≤.05). With the single measures the only effect which is significant is the effect of education on work-life conflict. We see that for none of the models a lot of the variance is explained by the model (adjusted R square ≤.07) therefore I excluded them from further analysis.
Table 3. Testing for control variables
ß Sig. adj. R² ß Sig. adj. R² ß Sig. adj. R² ß Sig. adj. R² ß Sig. adj. R²
Model Control variables .02 .07 .22 .02 .11 .03 .30 .01 .05 .05
Age .01 .28 -.00 .96 -.01 .50 -.01 .30 -.02 .06
Gender .11 .46 .05 .76 .15 .31 -.30 .07 -.21 .06
Tenure .01 .21 .02 .09 .01 .59 .00 .85 .00 .78
Education -.01 .95 .13 .19 .19 .04 .03 .76 .02 .75
Exhaustion Cynicism Commitment Job Satisfaction Work-life conflict
In the theory the hypotheses were ordered first by the main effect between de different
independent and dependent variables and then the moderated effect. In this section the analysis are sorted on the outcome effect. Therefore they will be presented in a different order.
Exhaustion: The effect of role overload on exhaustion is significant is explains almost 10% of the variance on exhaustion (β 0.27 STD error .80 p<.001; and for the model adjusted F change is significant p<.01). H1 role overload has a positive effect on exhaustion is confirmed. For the moderating effect of LMX, there is a moderating effect but at the opposite effect as I expected, LMX strengthen the effect of role overload on exhaustion (β.15 STD error .08 and the F change of the model is significant p<.05). Therefore H16 is rejected.
Table 4 and figure, 5 and 6. Regression and moderating effect on exhaustion and cynicism
ß Std. Error adj. R² F change ß Std. Error adj. R² F change Model 1 .80 .09** 13.250** .06 -.01 .00 Role overload .27** .07 -.00 .06
Model 2 .81 .08** .00 .06 .10 3.232 Role overload .27** .07 -.00 .06
Leader member exchange .00 .07 -.10 .06
Model 3 .80 .11** 4.176* .05 .20 28.648** Role overload .26** .07 .02 .05
Leader member exchange .00 .07 -.05 .05
Role overload*LMX .15** .08 -.20** .04 * p<.05 ** p≤.001 Exhaustion Cynicism 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2 2,2 2,4 2,6 2,8
Low Role overload High Role overload
E xh au st ion Low LMX High LMX 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2 2,2
Low Role overload High Role overload
C y n ic is m Low LMX High LMX
Cynicism: There is no correlation between role overload and cynicism (R .00). When we put them in a regression there is also no significant relationship. H2 is rejected. When we look at the interacting effect of LMX, there is a significant moderating effect (β -.20 STD error .04 and the F change of the model is significant p<.001). H17 is confirmed.
For H3 and H18, efficacy did not have enough internal consistency to be tested. Therefore we cannot tell anything about these hypotheses.
Table 7. Regression and moderating effect autonomy, and LMX and social support and LMX on commitment, job satisfaction and work life conflict
ß Std. Error adj. R² F change ß Std. Error adj. R² F change ß Std. Error adj. R² F change
Model 1 .77 .00 1.307 .77 .09 15.993** .81 .01 2.576
Job autonomy .08 .70 .30** .07 -.12 .07
Model 2 .75 .06 8.159 .75 .08 10.740** .81 .01 1.177
Job autonomy .04 .07 .25** .07 -.10 .07
Leader member exchange .20* .07 .24** .07 -.08 .07
Model 3 .75 .06 .824 .74 .11 1.757 .80 .03 2.256
Job autonomy .04 .07 .24** .07 -.09 .07
Leader member exchange .19* .07 .23** .07 -.06 .08
Job autonomy*LMX -.05 .06 -.08 .06 .10 .06
Model 1 .77 -.00 .779 .86 -.00 .471 .82 -.01 .01
Social support from collegues .06 .07 .05 .08 .01 .07
Model 2 .75 .06 8.396* .81 .09 14.099** .82 .00 1.995
Social support from collegues .02 .07 -.07 .08 .03 .08
Leader member exchange .20* .07 .29* .08 -.11 .08
Model 3 .74 .07 2.906 .81 .11 2.512 .81 -.03 .593
Social support from collegues .02 .07 -.05 .08 .03 .08
Leader member exchange .17* .07 .25* .08 -.09 .08
Soc. Supp. collegues*LMX -.12 .07 -.12 .08 .06 .07
* p<.05 ** p≤.001
Commitment Job Satisfaction Work life conflict
The positive effect of job autonomy on commitment is not significant (β .08 P>.05) and the negative effect on work-family conflict (β -.12 p>.05), the effect on job satisfaction is significant (β .30 p≤.001 F change 15.993 p≤.001). Therefore H4 and H6 are rejected, H5 (positive effect job autonomy on job satisfaction) is confirmed. For the moderating effect of LMX on the relationships between autonomy on commitment, job satisfaction or work-family conflict no significant evidence is found (the F changes are not significant). H10, 11 and 12 are rejected. LMX has a direct effect on commitment and job satisfaction. Direct regression gives for commitment β .35 R2 .71 p<.05 and for job satisfaction β .48 R2 .11 p<.001.
The positive effect of social support from colleagues on commitment , job satisfaction and negative effect on work-family conflict are not significant. H7, H8 and H9 are rejected. There is no main effect and no moderating effect. Regression shows no useful information. Therefore H13, H14 and 15 are rejected.
DISSCUSION AND CONCLUSION
The aim of this study is to find out how LMX influences the effect between job demands and burnout and job resources and employee well-being. Based on the job demands and resources model (Demerouti et al, 2001). I predicted that LMX had a damping effect on the effects between job demands and burnout and had a strengthening effect on de relationship between job resources and well-being.
The hypothesis that role overload leads to exhaustion and was confirmed. This is in line with Bakker et al (2003). In their conclusion describe that they expect job demands to have effect on exhaustion via the “health impairment process”. The process that employees do not have the time to recuperate from their hard work. For the effect of role overload on exhaustion I expected that a high LMX lead to dampen this effect. The data reveals that this effect is strengthen by LMX. High LMX strengthen the relationship between role overload and exhaustion significant. This is in line with the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), when somebody does something for you, you want to return this. LMX is a resource and a gift from the leader towards the employee, the leader in most situations is the distributor of discretionary rewards the employee receives from the organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986). The employee will work harder because they want to obtain the resource and return the favor. Therefore they will put more effort in the job and be more exhausted with high LMX. Cropanzano et al. (2003) found that when employees are exhausted, they lower job performance (the in role performance and the operational citizenship behavior, OCB, towards the organization) only the OCB directed at the supervisor is not
lowered. This phenomenon can be explained with COR theory (Hobfoll, 2001) people will try to
protect things that they value. Employees are so concerned about avoiding loss, that with high job demands the resource turns into a demand.
In this study the main effect of role overload on cynicism is very small and not significant and the moderating effect of LMX is significant. Demerouti et al. 2001 found that cynicism is caused by lack of motivational forces. Recourses help against cynicism and demands are associated with exhaustion. High job demands do not directly lead to cynicism, this is a process via exhaustion which diminishes job resource and these low job resources lead to cynicism towards the job (Demerouti et al, 2001). The relationship with the leader and sharing of the resources motivates the employee and give them the feeling of being seen by the organization, therefore the
employee has less cynicism towards the organization. With low role overload the employee can feel that he or she is not very useful for the organization. With high role overload and high LMX the employee feels that he or she is very important to the organization and therefore feels less cynicism. In combination with high LMX, job demands in relation to cynicism can turn from a demand into a resource. With high LMX the job demands can be seen as a recognition that the employee matters and their work is valued.
A surprising outcome was that efficacy did not have enough internal validity to use as a construct (cronbach’s alpha of .558). Researchers found that people who are exhausted rate themselves different from how their supervisors rate them (Keijzers et al. 1995, Parker and Kulik, 1995). They rate themselves lower on performance than their peers rate them. I tested this construct in the half year evaluation period. The human resource cycle starts with a goal setting period where employees set the performance goals for the new year. This is done in the months January – March, then in May-July the performance is evaluated and in October – December is the performance approval period. An explanation for the non validity of the answers could be that
employees get confused about their performance when they have just discussed it with their peer and therefore answer questions about their performance differently.
For job autonomy and social support from colleagues only the predicted effect of job autonomy on job satisfaction is significant. Job autonomy helps employee to get their work done in time and get the recognition for this and therefore enhances job satisfaction. I expect that the reason that this population does not show other significant relationships between job autonomy and social support of colleagues with well-being is the fact that people work quite solitaire with high job autonomy (mean 3,86, sd 0,74) and low social support from colleagues (mean 1,83, sd 0,82). People seem to be able to perform the tasks themselves and there is little need for social
relationships for performing the tasks. Employees are more dependent on themselves for achieving their tasks and therefore for their own well-being. Another explanation can be the interpretation of social relationships with others can be a resource as explained in the theoretical framework but it can also be a stressor. There are social cognitive processes that when a
employee experiences an injustice like being treated less than a colleague (a less LMX relationship or receiving less salary) that causes stress. This is impact that social comparison information can have on burnout and have a negative relationship with well-being (Halsleben and Buckley, 2004). Buunk an Schaufeli (1993) also found that unfair divided social exchange has impact on the well-being of employees and can lead to burnout. I expect that social support in this company does not lead to job satisfaction because it does not help them get their job done and get the recognition therefore and it can even frustrate employees diminishing the positive effect of social support.
Fort the path between autonomy and social support from colleagues and commitment and work life conflict are not significant can be because of perceived organizational support (POS). POS
and LMX are both based on social exchange but they have different outcomes (Wayne et al, 1997). Wayne et al (1997) found that POS leads to commitment and lowers intentions to quit where LMX leads to favor doing and organizational citizenship behaviors. This evidence shows that POS leads to commitment. I expect that in this case autonomy and social support are not seen as ways of the organization to tell that the employee is relevant to the organization. LMX has a positive direct effect on commitment and job satisfaction . LMX enhances POS more than contrariwise. This is because the leader often is the distributor of POS (higher salary, autonomy, bonuses) (Eisenberger et al. 1986). And POS enhances commitment. Also in a high LMX
relationship the leader shares resources which helps to get the work done and get the recognition, therefore LMX enhances job satisfaction.
For work life conflict, none of the paths are significant. The company I researched is a company that works from Monday to Friday, working hours are flexible, starting from 7.30 working until 18.00. There are possibilities for working at home. The formal company and the culture offers a lot of flexibility (POS). This explains why the predicted effects are not prevalent. The tenure (mean, 14 years) and age (mean 42 years) is not an explanation for the independency of
colleagues, this is in line with other researches (Bakker et al. 2003; Bakker et al, 2005; Bakker et al, 2007) which ranges between 41 - 46 for the mean age and 10 – 15 years for the tenure.
This study expands the demands an resources model (Demerouti et al, 2001) with the knowledge that demands in specific situations can turn into resources and vice versa. LMX which is a resource turns into a demand when combined with role overload; it enhances exhaustion. Role overload turns into a resource when there is a high quality LMX relationship; it protect against cynicism. For a leader this study shows that high LMX (social exchange) can work two ways
when the work load is raised. The good relationship can turn employees into highly motivated but exhausted people.
It also gives insights that for employee well being LMX and therewith POS can be more important than autonomy and social support from colleagues. The question here is whether in less organized organizations where POS is lower other job resources become more important.
LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
This study is based on cross sectional, self report questionnaire both for the dependent as for the independent variables. Self report is a generally used mean to measure variables, to improve reliability I used general used and ratified questionnaires. For employees perceptions of their work a questionnaire is a valid method another way could be observation, but this has biases too. Expert bias could be stronger halo and stereotyping effects (De Jonge et al, 1999). Because the study is cross sectional therefore the causality of the effects is not clear. Hence longitudinal studies on the relationships between job characteristics have shown that the health and well-being changed after job characteristics changed rather than vice versa (Buunk et al, 1998). This study is performed in an insurance company in the Netherlands, therefore we cannot state these specific effects are present in other populations . However the basic assumptions of the job demands and resource are tested many times in different organizations (Bakker et al. 2003) therefore the could be more general.
This study has shown that the basic assumptions of the job demands and resources are not as clear as they seem. Some effects were not found and especially LMX can be seen as a job resource as well as a demand via social exchange. For the understanding how leaders affect job
demands further research is needed. Also further research can be conducted on the replacement between POS and autonomy and social support.
REFERENCES
Ahuja, M. K., Chudoba, K. M., Kacmar, C. J., McKnight, D. H., & George, J. F. (2007). IT road warriors: Balancing work-family conflict, job autonomy, and work overload to mitigate turnover intentions. Mis Quarterly, 31(1), 1-17.
Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of vocational behavior, 58(3), 414-435.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of occupational psychology, 63(1), 1-18.
Anderson, S. E., & Williams, L. J. (1996). Interpersonal, job, and individual factors related to helping processes at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 282.
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P. A., & Biron, M. (2010). “Alcohol consumption and workplace absenteeism: The moderating effect of social support”: Correction.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti E. (2006), The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol 22, no 3, pp 309-328.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., De Boer, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Job demands and job resources as predictors predictors of absence duration and frequency. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 341–356.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., Hakanen, J.J., Xanthopoulou, D. (2007.) ‘Job Resources Boost Work Engagement, Particularly When Job Demands Are High, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol99, No. 2, 274-284. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Dual processes at work in a call centre: An application of
the job demands–resources model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, 393– 417.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., Taris, T., Schaufeli, W. B., & Schreurs, P. (2003). A multi-group analysis of the job demands–resources model in four home care organizations. International Journal of Stress Management, 10, 16–38.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Euwema, M.C. (2005. Job resources Buffer the Impact of Job demands on Burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 10, No 2, 170-180.
Baptiste N.R. (2007). ‘Tightening the link between employee wellbeing at work and performance, A new dimension for HRM’. Management Decision, Vol 46, No 2, 284-309
Begley, T.M., & Cazjka, J.M. (1993). Panel analysis of the moderating effects of commitment on job satisfaction, intent to quit, and health following organizational change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 552–556. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Transaction Publishers.
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: the relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 740.
Bossche, van den S.N.J., Hupkens, C.L.H., Smulders, P.G. (2007) Nationale enquete arbeidsomstandigheden 2006: Methodologie en globale resultaten
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Caudron, S. (1997). The Search for Meaning at Work. Training and Development, 51(9), 24-27.
Clark, B. (2001). The entrepreneurial university: new foundations for collegiality, autonomy, and achievement. Higher Education Management, 13(2).
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. S. (2003). The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 160. Currie, D. (2001), Managing Employee Well-Being, Chandos Publishing (Oxford) Limited, Oxford.
Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of management, 25(3), 357-384.
Daniels, G. and French, S. (2006), Regulating Work-Life Balance, Centre for Industrial Relations, Keele University, Keele.
Daniels, K. (2006), Employee Relations in an Organisational Context, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Self‐Determination. John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001). ‘The job demands-resources model of buronout’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499-512.
Dodd, N. G., & Ganster, D. C. (1996). The interactive effects of variety, autonomy, and feedback on attitudes and performance. Journal of organizational behavior, 17(4), 329-347.
Doy, Y. (2005), ‘An epidemiologic review on occupational sleep research among Japanese workers’. Industrial Health, Vol. 43, pp 3-1
Eisenberger, R., & Adornetto, M. (1986). Generalized self-control of delay and effort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(5), 1020.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa,D. (1986); Perceived organizational support, Journal of applied psychology, 71: 500-507.
Ellemers, N., Gilder de, H., Heuvel Van den, H., (1998); Career-oriented versus team-oriented commitment and behavior at work, The Journal of Applied Psychology, 5 (1998), pp. 717–730
Epitropaki, O. and Martin, R. (1999), “The impact of relational demography on the quality of leader-member exchanges and employees’ work attitudes and well-being”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72, pp. 237-40.
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40(2), 287-322.
Fried, Y., Hollenbeck, J. R., Slowik, L. H., Tiegs, R. B., & Ben-David, H. A. (1999). Changes in job decision
latitude: The influence of personality and interpersonal satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(2), 233-243.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–844.
Graen, G., & Cashman, J. (1975). A role making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership Frontiers (pp. 143-165). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.
Graen, G.B., and Scandura, T.A. (1987). ‘Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L.L. Cummings &B. Staw (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior, vol. 9: 175-208. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Graen, G.B. and Un Bin, M. (1995). Relationship-basedapproach to leadership: development of leader member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi level multi domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of occupational health psychology, 5(1), 111.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational behavior and human performance, 16(2), 250-279.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign.Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Hakanen, J.J., Perhoniemi, R. and Toppinen-Tanner, S. (2008). ‘Positive gain spirals at work: From job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit innovativeness.’ Journal of Vocational behavior, 7, 78-91.
Halsleben, J.R.B. and Buckley, M.R. (2004). ‘Burnout in the organisational life’, Journal of Management, Vol. 30, pp 859-879.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology: An international review, 50, 337-370.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2002).Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6, 307-324.
Hockey, G.R.J. (1993), ‘Cognitive-energetical control meganisms in the management of work demands and psychological health’, in Baddely, A. and Weiskrantz L. (Eds), Attention: Selection, Awareness and Control, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 328-345.
Hockey, G. J. (1997). Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under stress and high workload: A cognitive-energetical framework. Biological Psychology, 45, 73 – 93.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms.
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 92(1), 269.
Jernigan, I.E. III, Beggs, J.M. and Kohut, G.F. (2002), “Dimensions of work satisfaction as predictors of commitment type”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 564-79.
Kahn, R.L. and Byosiere, P, (1990). ‘Stress in oranisations. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (1990). Handbook of industrialand organisational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 571-650). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Karasek, R.A. (1979), “Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job design”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24, pp. 285-308.
Karasek, R.A. (1998), “Demand/Control Model: a social, emotional, and physiological approach to stress risk and active behaviour development”, in Stellman, J.M. (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health And Safety, ILO, Geneva, pp. 34.06-34.14.
Kelloway, E.K., Sivanathan, N., Francis, L. and Barling, J.( 2004), Poor leadership. In J. Barling, E.K. Kelloway &M.R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 89-112). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Koeske, G. F., & Koeske, R. D. (1989). Construct validity of the Maslach Burnout Inventory: A critical review and reconceptualization. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 25(2), 131-144.
Kraybill, K. (2003), ‘Creating and maintaining a Healthy Work Enviroment: A Resource Guide for Staff Retreats’,
available at: www.nhchc.org/Clinicians/ResourceGuideForStaffRetreats.pdf (accessed 19 July 2007).
Lee, R.T. and Ashforth, B.E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 123-133.
Lepak, D.P., Kathryn, M.B., & Erhardt, N.L. (2005). ‘A contingency framework for the delivery of HR practices’. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 139-159.
Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2006). Leader‐member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: implications for individual and group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(6), 723-746.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management journal, 40(1), 82-111.
Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (1990), A Theory of Goal-Setting and Task Performance, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Loscocco, K. A., & Spitze, G. (1990). Working conditions, social support, and the well-being of female and male factory workers. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 313-327.
Maslach, C. (1993), “Burnout: a multidimensional perspective”, in Schaufeli, W.B., Maslach, C.and Marck, T. (Eds), Professional Burnout: Recent Developments in Theory and Research, Taylor & Francis, Washington, DC, pp. 1-16.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2(2), 99-113.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P. (2001), “Job burnout”, Annual Review of Psychology,Vol. 52, pp. 397-422.
Mathews, B.P. and Shepherd, J.L. (2002), “Dimensionality of Cook and Wall’s (1980) British Organisational Commitment Scale revisited”, Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 369-75.
Meyer, J. P. and N. J. Allen. 1984. “Testing the “Side-bet Theory” of Organizational Commitment: Some Methodological Considerations.” Journal ofApplied Psychology 69: 372-378.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of applied psychology, 78(4), 538.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of vocational behavior, 61(1), 20-52.
Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2003). Work design. Handbook of psychology.
